The Smiley Smile Message Board

The events of the past few months have caused me to reflect - what causes fans of the Beach Boys and Brian's music in Particular, and who have studied and loved Brian and his music for years, to change - metamorphose in fact - to become apologists for and advocates for Mike Love and his behavior and his (in their mind) crucial and under appreciated and misrepresented contribution to the Beach Boys' music?

I am not a Mike Love hater by any means, and I don't want this thread to be a Mike bashing session.  But two well known and longtime fans active on message boards for decades have been banned from here, both of whom appeared to have gone to the dark side of interrupting every thread with pro Mike sentiments and endless repeats of the same arguments and rationalizations, and in one case spreading malicious false anti Brian and his camp information.  We all know the three initials I'm talking about here.  In Cam's case, I remember on the Smile board he would take umbrage with the then current viewpoint that Mike gave "resistance" to the Smile project (which I think is almost indisputable, what is not is that Mike's resistance somehow derailed the entire album) - but he also had a lot of insight into the sessions, the history of the album, how things might have been put together, what the party reels were about, and other Beach Boy matters.  But then he became almost a caricature of himself, every post pro Mike to an extreme and even ridiculous degree.  The same arguments over and over and over again.  And then both allegedly went berserk with PMs to other members and the administrators.

What happened to create this change?  Are their personalities by nature contradictarian, delighting in creating controversy and going against the mainstream?  Did something happen with their interactions with the Brian camp to disillusion them with Brian and in spite they decided to throw their hats (baseball caps of course) into the Love ring?

I think this is worth discussing because I find it disturbing that these long time contributors like AGD, Cam, and others like Lee Dempsey, bgas, Ian are now active over at pet sounds, when they could be over here.

Mods if you think this thread is more sandbox material feel free to move it there.

I blame the Peter Bagge piece from several years ago,, which was sort of a precursor to that Observer op-ed as well as Iain Lee's piece.  Plus never underestimate the effect that Mike's lawsuit victory also had on the change in perception. 

Pet sounds board ? What's the url ?

http://www.mbird.com/2012/05/beach-boys-101-peter-bagges-in-defense-of-and-praise-for-mike-love/

The piece begins after the italicized introduction.

I read the article - except for the ragging on Love You which I don't agree with (and Mike has to take responsibility for some of those "retarded" lyrics) I don't really disagree with it.  it's not even close to the extreme defense of Mike and mindless pro Mike arguments which we've seen on this board, at least the author openly acknowledges Mike's many faults and the appropriate criticism he's received for those faults.

Maybe you're right that this started something that developed steamroller like into the radical Pro Mike movement we've had to put up for the last couple of years.  Could these radical Mikists have purposely adopted their idol's more obnoxious personality traits as well?

I was re-reading the Rolling Stone piece on Mike from February, and I think that one is an important piece for several reasons. The writer was able to interview and hang with Mike, so it wasn't a press junket interview or anything, or a phone interview. Also, I think the writer really understands some key points in trying to understand Mike.

One thing the writer gets is the unjustified anger Mike still has over the songwriting credits issue. The writer is one of the only people to point out that Mike *WON* the lawsuit eons ago and everything was rectified. He talks to Love about it, and Love seems to have a "nothing can be done about it, it's out of my hands" attitude about being upset about it. The writer right points out that listening to this attitude from Mike can drive you crazy.

The article is a good example of not taking a fence-walking approach, but at the same time being very open to explanations and reasoning from Mike. When little to none is forthcoming, the author doesn't start trashing Mike. He just points out very reasonably the problems with Mike.

As for recent pockets of writers and fans defending Mike, I don't know where it comes from. Different places I suppose.

I think some *are* at least indirectly "in Mike's pocket" in some way or another, at the very least by hanging with Mike backstage, getting backstage passes, maybe some comped tickets, while at the same time not having a relationship with Brian or Brian's camp of the same nature. Not anything like "being on the payroll", but still pretty far away from even approaching objectivity.

I think a few are just old stalwart defenders that are never going to change their mind.

I also think, as I've alluded to in some other posts, newer fans sometimes tend to be more open to giving Mike the benefit of the doubt. Even fans approaching "hardcore fan" status who are very new fans and have digested everything in a few short months or a few years, they simply haven't been exposed to decades of Mike. Decades of questionable things have been formed into one big ball of "negative aspects of Mike", and I don't think some of these newer fans understand the full gravity of Mike's persona and actions over the years.

I also think at least some of the people putting forth the "Mike is unfairly maligned" line are simply being contrarians, either simply for the sake of being contrarian, or to stir controversy, drive clicks to their articles, etc.

That's why that Rolling Stone piece earlier this year was so good. The writer seemed to go in almost wanting to find some evidence to dispel the reputation that Mike has. What he found was that it was largely founded.

By far the most perplexing aspect of "pro-Mike" fandom is, to me, the fans who seemed to *celebrate* Mike breaking up the reunion in 2012. I still don't fully understand why any fan who loved the reunion would be so gleeful about it. I'm not talking about the "meh, I expected it to happen" attitude (I have separate feelings about that attitude). But there were some fans who said they were glad the reunion ended. Not coincidentally, *some* of the fans with attitudes along those lines also tend to be ardent Mike defenders. I can't help but wonder if their willingness to defend Mike at all costs extends to something that amounts to the break-down of the very band we all profess to love so much.

I don't get that either.

The only line of logic I can think people holding that opinion would have would be that nobody in the band deserves to be unhappy, and putting up with disrespect (as they perceive Mike to have endured). And I, for one, of course want everyone in the band to be happy, and not feeling icky and disgusted being onstage. Including Mike, including Brian. I don't think any fan wants to see bandmates who despise aspects of their specific, particular touring experience, be onstage and going through the motions.

What it comes down to is whether or not one thinks that Brian simply deserves (factoring in all that he has been through) to have a certain level of preferential treatment, and to be the "boss" of a reunited BB band at this stage in the game. And if they think that Mike should simply table his ego, resentment, jealousy, and defer to Brian's wants and needs. I'm sure he did this to a point, but obviously Mike's barometer for how much control he wanted was incongruous with basically everyone else.

Bands aren't by definition "supposed" to be democracies. Some are, but some aren't. I don't see why *every* member of this band couldn't have just let Brian be the guy who they deferred to. Mike couldn't do it. Yet Al did it. Dave did it. I wonder what Mike's reasoning is for why Al was able to step back and let Brian be the boss, while Mike himself couldn't. I'd guess that Mike thinks because he wrote lyrics to many hits that he himself is the sh*t, and that everyone should kiss his own ass until the cows come home.

Again, it comes down to that Rolling Stone article. If Mike has shown to have one of the biggest chips on his shoulder in the industry (maybe 2nd only to Phil Spector, or tied with Billy Corgan), it's not a surprise that he couldn't deal with not being praised on the level that Brian was. Mike still doesn't get why that is, and because he refuses to "get it", he had to get his (relatively speaking) lesser version of the band back in order to become the big kahuna again.

I'm guessing it's an overreaction to the ridiculous, purely hateful YouTube comments, and such. The amount of absolute hate, and people thinking that Mike is completely worthless in the history of the band is a palpable opinion online. Much less so on this board, but just go to the comments section of YouTube or other non BB sites posting BB-related stories, that have comments sections.

I think it's simply a case of the pendulum swinging too far the other way. That, and I would tend to think that people who are incredibly stubborn (and don't like to EVER back down) themselves might be more inclined to empathize with a guy who has shown to be one of the most stubborn people in the industry, who also never backs down. Supporting someone they feel is more their own kind.

I think nuance is key, and it is tragic that people hate Mike the way they do. There is a way to examine the crappy things he has done, but to also acknowledge the good things, and in the end to be of the opinion that he's a flawed human, who simply gets under our skin as fans far too often than he should. Equally tragic (and stupid) are the people who defend **everything** Mike does, because I feel they are enabling crap behavior, which leads to more crap behavior. I'm sure Mike is aware of his defenders (of literally any/all actions), and he must be happy to know they exist.  Yet if *every* fan put their foot down and stopped going to Mike's concerts for doing/saying terrible stuff that harms his own reputation (and the band's), I have a hunch Mike would stop putting his foot in his mouth in a hurry.

Honestly, I haven't a clue what motivates these people.  It has to be pretty complicated.  One, at least, is quite bright and accomplished with, by all indications, a good ear.  I've even asked that person directly about this behind the scenes - never got a clear answer.

Some seem to be on a bizarre mission I'll never understand - but some good points have been made here and I appreciate them. Affinity to his persona - that makes sense.

Perks by one side as opposed to the other surely have some influence - and attention (particularly from celebrities) is like heroin to some people, and Mike knows this.  Brian isn't inclined to "work the room" other than through his music.  Mike is, and I think Brian appreciated that.  I doubt Brian will ever cater to that group of fandom.  It may lose him fanatics who create or a few strange ones who join us and post on message boards. I also doubt that he cares.  Brian knows that his big musical heart will live on.  He learned long ago not to worry about the other stuff.  

Brian just makes the music and enjoys sharing the love and comfort it brings.  He's incredibly honest in his comments and lifestyle, even if he occasionally messes with reporters when he's bored with the questions. At least that's entertaining.  

Maybe those of us who are more inclined to dig deeper and get what was behind the actual music become "Brianistas."  I'm frankly, proud of that title - cheerleader?  WTF - okay fine.  Like I said before, clearly Iain Lee been a cheerleader here for Mike (but he's a guy, so), and his motives are probably questionable at best.  I'm clear that mine aren't.

We'll see what the bios offer us over the next month or so.  I suspect one group will love one certain bio.  Others will like the other.  From what I've seen of the available pages of Brian's, I'm quite comfortable.  From what I've seen of the tabloid headlines from Mike's book, I won't be buying it unless I'm made aware of redeeming factors.  I've read it - and lived a bit of it - all before.

As for recent pockets of writers and fans defending Mike, I don't know where it comes from. Different places I suppose.

I think some *are* at least indirectly "in Mike's pocket" in some way or another, at the very least by hanging with Mike backstage, getting backstage passes, maybe some comped tickets, while at the same time not having a relationship with Brian or Brian's camp of the same nature. Not anything like "being on the payroll", but still pretty far away from even approaching objectivity.

[/quote]

The above is an example of why folk who are Brianistas start to come across as Mike defenders.  The above post makes it seem as though people defend Mike because of all the freebies.  But surely, if one was being objective, they might agree that there will be many who get freebies from Brian's camp.  Does this then mean they are on Brian's payroll?  Yes, if you apply the same logic, it must.  No more no less.  So HeyJude, do you think that all of those people who have enjoyed these benefits from Team Brian are all totally objective but those who get benefits from Team Love are not?

I am a Brianista and wouldn't really try to defend Mike and the stuff he says.  I have said many times he should move on and get over it. Stop being so delusional and do what he does well which is tour and put on shows.  Forget about trying to write songs, part 2,3,4,5,6... he wrote in his 20s with cousin Brian.

However, I do get annoyed at inconsistent arguments and flawed logic.  Or being people called out as Brian haters when they are only giving honest opinions.  Honest fans being accused of having agendas because they express a valid opinion.  For me it started to go downhill on this board after the release if NPP.  I love that album but not everyone did.  Those who didn't were called haters and accused of having agendas by a couple of people who many might think were on Brian's payroll (figuratively speaking!).  Since then people have wanted to be seen to take sides.  A lot of 'sucking up' has been going on since, as well as much cheering and backslapping.  A lot of notable historians/collectors and fans have gone and in this last week there has been a further 'purge' (for reasons I can't seem to find out).

Nobody can hold the moral high ground. To accuse some people of being childish when indulging in that very same behaviour is not particularly appealing and reflects badly on this place.  Such a shame that it came to this.  It is not what the music was ever about.

The initial post said *some*, not all. I don't think anybody would (or should) argue the point that all Mike defenders have been comped, and all "Brianistas" have been comped.

Forgive in advance if this is a doublepost...I keep getting a SMF connection error

But that's the point Billy.  HeyJude doesn't say, "some are, at least indirectly on Brian's payroll", and therefore beating the drum for Team Brian.

It's just like politics and it all gets muddled until people lose sight of reality and what it's all about.

I think part of it, for some people, might be a common defensive reaction to learning that your narrative script is wrong. People understand the world, and the things they love, and the things they don't love, based on stories they've put together from the input they've received. Most often when they receive input that counters an already established story, they will dismiss it. But if someone persists with the input, they will often react angrily and make strong, often irrational, efforts to defend their existing story. It's frightening and humiliating to find out that your story is wrong.
Thus, anti-PC anger. Or when you tell a dog-lover how their patronage of dog-racing supports torturing dogs, they are likely to attack you and make irrational assertions of why that's not so.

I think it's a common human reaction.

I am not asserting that that applies to all defenses of Mike Love all the time.

I also think that a defend-the-underdog reaction might be occurring sometimes. Some people, when they perceive someone is being unfairly attacked, will react with over-compensating in defensiveness. And I think sometimes the Mike Love attacking can be over-the-top, so the Mike Love defending is a reaction to that.

Regarding the 'comping' discussion, I think a Brian-comp vs. a Mike-comp is a false equivalence in this context. It would only be applicable if one asserted that there was an issue with people over-defending Brian. Now, I understand that there was once some sort of auto-tune related imbroglio with Brian Wilson, and if people were over-defending him, the comping question might be pertinent. But my perception of the people labeled "Brianistas" is not that they are accused so much of over-defending Brian but more of over-criticizing Mike. Whether they are comped by Brian is not directly relevant. The flip-side of people over-defending Mike due to comps would be people over-criticizing Mike due to NOT being comped by Mike.
If there's an assertion that there's an ongoing issue of people over-defending Brian when he does something that other people find unacceptable, then the question of Brian-comps would be relevant. And maybe that happens, but I haven't perceived that as being an issue, mainly because I don't think he really does much to raise such criticism.

I can understand the confusion, but he was specifically  referring to the allegations concerning the , uh, 'Lovesters' (to use the word in the thread title) in regards to the article mentioned.

As for the last sentence,I agree completely.

Let me clarify a few things that I felt were clear in my previous post, but that I'm happy to try to clarify:

You equate "being on the payroll" with getting freebies. I *specifically* outlined in my previous post that those two things are NOT the same. I've often argued that accusing people of "being on the payroll" of someone is an ineffective argument, because it allows people to obfuscate by simply stating what is almost surely true: That they are not getting an actual paycheck from anyone in exchange for services.

I also think you're exaggerating what I said regarding whom might get these "freebies." I said *SOME*, not all. I posted in *detail* about other scenarios, having nothing to do with even having ever met Mike or even attended one of his shows, might lead to being more sympathetic to Mike.

Are there similar cases regarding Brian? Almost surely.

So what's the difference you might ask?

The difference is that Brian far less often does things that require any defending. Defending Brian against a bad concert review (whether a hit-piece review or a legit negative review) isn't really the same thing as defending Mike against negative reaction due to a malicious or inflammatory interview or other things Mike has said.

It doesn't mean those who defend Brian are never unreasonable.

If you've read my posts in the past, you would also see that I have pointed out numerous times that Brian fans can be overly-defensive and overly-forgiving sometimes. I think on occasion an innocent review of Brian's shows or recordings has been too quickly jumped on. Again, referring back to my own history, I was critical of many elements of the NPP album, and I felt that on a few occasions the defense of Brian against my middling review was excessive.

But it's just not on the same scale or even the same ballpark as issues concerning Mike.

I'm just not a fan of falsely equating two things. Mike and Brian aren't the same. I don't believe, at this stage, they deserve the same benefit of the doubt or empathy. Mike has done and said far more inflammatory and disagreeable things than Brian has. A defense of Mike requires far more stretching of logic, morals, ethics, and common sense. In my opinion.

The reason Mike is criticized far more than Brian is due, largely, to Mike's own words and actions. The reason you see people criticize Mike more, and also criticize defenses of Mike more, is because, again in my opinion, Mike says and does disagreeable things.

It doesn't mean Brian is perfect. It doesn't Mike is 100% wrong about everything. It doesn't mean one can't ever defend Mike.

But people keep looking to the boards or people on the boards to figure out "what went wrong", etc. I think that, while we should all engage in some self-reflection and reflection on the state of the board, and "check" ourselves every so often and look at what we're saying and why we say it, the degree to which people feel things have gone wrong (which is, I think, not even an accurate picture of what has happened, but that's a separate issue) can be traced back largely (though NOT entirely) to an uptick in Mike's rhetoric, a continually fragmented band and "Brand" in disarray, and a small number of people stretching things far too much to defend Mike, or, at best, trying to equate all ills of the band and fans equally.

Sorry, I'm not of the "everybody is equally at fault" opinion at this stage, whether it comes to the band or its fans. That ship sailed long ago. It doesn't mean I don't still dig talking to any fans who want to talk. It also doesn't mean I hate Mike Love, or that I'll refuse to acknowledge his MAJOR contributions *not just* to the band's 60s output, but a lot of it. He was a HUGE player in what made C50 great, and I wish he'd realize that the s**t he got for ending the reunion, for instance, was also an *endorsement* of him and what he brings to the table.

If people hated him and didn't want him on stage, wouldn't they have been more than happy with Brian touring without Mike?

The topic at hand, at least with the first post, seemed to be specifically to try to figure out the motivation behind a specific group in question who go to great lengths to defend Mike.

I don't think anybody was suggesting that there aren't fans who would defend Brian due to freebies, etc.

I was speaking to the incredulity that comes up when the "being on Mike's payroll" references are thrown around, and I was trying to explain both why the actual accusation is usually if not always untrue while also delving into why there are potentially grains of truth to it.

To assume that pointing this out about Mike fans means it can't be true of Brian fans is simply jumping to a conclusion unfairly in my opinion.

Ahh..you put it much better than I did!

Well put as always!

 :) right back atcha!

Thanks Bicyclerider for starting this thread. Last week either this board or the PSF said those that posted here were the Brianistas which p!ssed me off. For 10 years myself and others have praised and been critical of everything Beach Boys. From albums both solo and group, songs, tours, again solo and group. If it's been good...we have said so. If it stinks....again, we have said so. If a group member has stated something in an interview that is in dispute more often not a valid reason for that comment is provided by a poster.

Speaking for most board members who avoid these threads once they turn confrontational I will say this. I am NOT a Brianista. I loved his work on TWGMTR in 2012 and admired his will power over 70 plus shows that year however if he does not sing as well as did last time I heard him in concert I have the right to say so. His solo albums are not for me. I admire Mikes staying power as a front man for 55 years and wish he could be happy with that.....but his songs nowadays don't do it for me.

For those like myself, let's continue to praise and be critical when warranted. Could others forget this 'taking sides' nonsense when we do so.

I'd also caution immediately putting most or all of the blame on fans when the perception is that there are "pro-Brian fans", "pro-Mike fans", and "anti-Mike fans", but almost no "anti-Brian fans." The degree to which an admittedly sweeping generalization might be true, what does such a state of fandom tell us? The first thing I would ask if I were an objective outsider is "What's the deal with Mike Love then?" I wouldn't just assume that fans have arbitrarily decided to have a bigger beef with one member for no particular reason.

Again, I think that Rolling Stone article from February is quite instructive in this regard. The writer gave Mike a sh*t-ton of chances to belie or otherwise contradict the impression the public seems to have about him. The writer literally describes wanting to beat his head against something out of frustration trying to get this guy to not just reinforce all of the stereotypes about him.

Okay.  

I just happily admitted to being a Brianista above.  I am on Team Brian.  I can't speak for anyone else.

I have always paid for my tickets to concerts, ever since I was Brian's "date" in the late 70's/early 80's (and then I had to stand at the side of the stage - behind Mike's girlfriend of the time - a funny story I may have already shared here).

I insist on this payment because it's ethical and fair (I get paid for my work), and to counter such accusations as these.  I don't even like going backstage, so I never ask. Brian never bothered me at work.  I don't bother him there either.

I don't go to Meet & Greets because, well, I've met and greeted before.  So what is it that I'm getting as compensation from Brian?  Even when I'm asking for favors for others, they pay.  I think, if they read this, they'll confirm this.  Brian's people are ethical.  I'm not claiming Mike's aren't.  I have no idea.  I'm not involved.

Have I hung with old friends at shows recently (before, or during the show - Brian's gone like a flash after the show, so they are as well)?  Yes.  Is that a perk?  I don't know.  I thought it was just seeing an old friend.    I just cheer, applaud and enjoy when Brian performs.

Any other questions about Brianistas?  I'm not on Brian's "perk roll" either.  I can't speak for others.

Oh my, I just saw all the other posts as I was writing.  I'll read them.  

Right.  Forgot to mention, I don't get a paycheck either.

No anti-Brian fans?  Give me a break.

Did anyone read the attacks on NPP, L&M, etc?  Some were sane, personal opinions, but a lot of the accusations were simply ridiculous.  A contributor to that record, Peter Hollens (as I recall), was run off SS after one post because he read the vicious attacks on him.  

There was a whole thread mocking NPP, for no apparent reason.  And honest challenges from some of us with a different opinion were deemed as "attacks?"  Why were they attacks, as opposed to the other comments?

Melinda has been attacked on this board mercilessly, along with the shadowy "wives and managers," "handlers," etc.

That isn't anti-Brian?  Then please explain what is.

The people posting on this thread seem to have balanced opinions on things, even if they are more Brian fans than Mike fans.  They aren't anti Mike, although they may be pro Brian.  They recognize Mike's important role at different times in the band.  Which is the way it should be.

But the thing I'm talking about is the unrelenting defending Mike against any criticism or perceived negative comment, and then usually turning that defense into an attack or sarcastic insult against the person or persons making the comment.  The civility of the discourse on these issues has sadly disappeared, and this has resulted in banning and "purges."

Sometimes I think all message boards like this may have a limited lifespan, because something similar happened to the smile shop board which was the impetus for the creation of this board.  The weird thing is it's not just new board members who may be a little crazy with their own agenda joining the board, trolling and eventually destroying the board, it's long term members who for years appeared able to discuss controversial topics amicably even when representing their viewpoint vociferously.  Does this reflect the general coarsening of our culture and the rising frequency of Internet bullying on Twitter, Facebook and other social media sites?  I don't know but I wish something could happen to reverse this trend, because it obfuscates more than it illuminates the issues.

This is a Beach Boys fan site. Mike Love is an important member of the Beach Boys. In fact, during their 1963-1966 glory years, his importance was second only to Brian.

Why, on a Beach Boys fan site, is it considered remarkable that some people would want to defend a Beach Boy?

Of course it makes sense in a general sense. The question is more that this requires nuance. Just because someone is a member of one's favorite band, that doesn't in and of itself mean that any/all their actions are by definition excusable or defensible, right?

Van Dyke Parks, working surreptitiously behind the scenes, is responsible.

It is funny that we spew venom at Mike for not letting go of the past (song credits, for example) and how he is continually bringing up the same things about the Wilson’s and drug use, his meditation, etc.

Yet when you ask someone why they do not like Mike Love, they will not let go of the past (Rock & Roll Hall of Fame speech) and will continually bring up the same things about Mike “firing” Brian from the C50 tour, the multiple lawsuits, etc.
 
We like Brian. Brian likes Mike. Logically, we should like Mike. I cannot say I was a Brianista, but after listening to everyone put every single thing Mike does under a microscope and examine every word and action - then put a negative spin on things that were  innocuous as if Mike has always had this tremendous agenda – it gets old and I have had enough.

It’s like watching a bunch of bullies beat up some guy you did not like, but it gets carried too far and you start to feel bad for the guy and sympathize with him. It is easy to beat up on Mike and is the “in” thing to do. I don’t think he deserves half the amount of sh*t he gets.

You do realize that this is because he deflects ALL blame and ALL responsibility for these things, right? And that really, really bugs a lot of people. That is not just a Mike thing, I personally know people who do that type of thing, and it very, very much is a personality trait that I find super uncool. It's a reaction to that highly regrettable trait. Which in and of itself is probably a defense mechanism. If another band that I was a huge fan of had someone who acted in a similar fashion, I would be equally critical of that person.And I hope you would think (as I do) that if he actually said that he f*cked up, that he acted in a regrettable way, that ego got in the way etc, that MANY people would actually, really forgive him for these things?

But unfortunately *in addition* to not apologizing or having any kind of acceptance of blame for past events... he newly picks at old wounds with swipes in new interviews. Let's not pretend this is all just some old stuff. It keeps flaring up because he seemingly cannot not say something passive-aggressive about his bandmates.

Yes, it's that old saying that it's not whether you make mistakes (everyone does), it's how you deal with those mistakes. And he never takes responsibility. After all these years, he shows almost no self awareness. That annoys me.

I wish I could answer this.  

I am pro-Brian, not anti-Mike.  But - okay I openly laughed at the production on SIP - and I've complained about the abrasive published comments from Mike - particularly when I knew that they were blatantly not factual.  This seems to earn this title of anti-Mike from some people - while relentless attacks on Brian's work and family are just fine.  It's quite odd to me.

Why it became so extreme, racist and sexist, I can't answer - I guess you'd need to go to the "peaceful" board and ask them, since most of them are there.  This bizarre political year in the US is equally inexplicable.  

In my years on this board, I have attempted to avoid the outright brawls, even while not holding back with posting my own opinions. My opinions of any of the band are based solely on what I observe publicly. I don't know any of them and have never met them, even in a paid for meet-and-greet.

Having said that, I was always a fan of the Beach Boys as a band first, and Brian second (as the creator of the music and the sound).  I have stated that I like Kokomo and that Mike's earthier vocal contrast with Brian's falsetto is key to the Beach Boys sound. I have praised Mike's work ethic and willingness to keep the band afloat during a time when the Wilson's seemed to have burned out on it. I have said that I can understand Mike and the band being hesitant about SMiLE, because Brian was gambling with all of their futures. I made all of these comments here, on this board. Yet, I'm lumped in with the Brianistas.

Why? Because I have also publicly stated that Mike's interviews demonstrate a shocking lack of empathy for the psychological struggles of his cousins. Because I have suggested that someone with Brian's diagnosis might need a strong hand like Melinda's to guide him, and that fact does not make her a "handler," no matter what Mike, or certain board members, say. Because I have stated that prescription medication for a mental illness is not the same as "being medicated" or "controlled" and I've called Mike's public comments to that effect bull crap. And, because most of all, I have made a point that Mike is his own worst enemy. Brian's story is a comeback story. The public loves that and have empathy for Brian because of it. That has elevated Brian's status with the public. Meanwhile, Mike churns out interview after interview making unfeeling, snide comments about the person the public has decided to embrace. He will NOT get the public on his side using this strategy.

Ironically, he almost had them on his side with C50. Why? Because he showed some concern, some empathy, some effort at team work. Then, he blew it. He walked. Any gains he made then were thrown into the dust bin and he's been trying to build his reputation back up by saying all of the wrong things, again. A lot of the dust ups on this board would fade into the past if Mike didn't keep regurgitating the same old points. Every time he goes into an interview with yet another "The Wilson's did drugs, I didn't. I was cheated, etc, etc" it brings it all up for scrutiny again. He needs a PR guy to tell him when to zip it, and how to present his POV without tearing down other band members.

Anyway, I feel that, when I comment on this board, I spell out my points fairly clearly and rationally. Yet, there were those members who would descend on my comments to "correct" my erroneous thinking. Because, you know, they know stuff I don't. This "we know stuff, so your opinion doesn't count" attitude is one of the reasons I backed off my posting. It just wasn't worth the energy.

But, hey! Maybe they do know all about it. I can't speak to any of these people's private lives. But, I do know this about recent events: PUBLICLY, it's been Brian who has taken the high road, rarely saying anything bad about Mike. Mike can't claim the same thing. And, public opinion is determined by public action. Not the behind the scenes whispers of a fan board.

I will say that I think the production style on SIP is laughable (despite a few decent songs buried there). I will also say that I think that while I don't doubt that Brian did work hard and put lots of genuine effort into NPP (probably way more time/effort than Mike put into SIP, which Bruce apparently described as a rush job to meet a release deadline), I nevertheless have a number of issues with NPP.

I'm a HUGE Brian fan, but I'll be totally honest here (I hope nobody faults me for that!) and admit to having the record grow off me in hindsight, despite the fact that I really like some parts of it, and am genuinely moved by One Kind of Love. This is probably because of my major preference to have less guest stars, and my not being much of a fan of Joe Thomas' production style. (Ironically, again I will put some blame on Mike for screwing up the reunion, which I think had it gone on for multiple albums, would have had different BB members shouldering the vocal lead load on these songs, in whatever form they would have taken, instead of guest stars getting those leads).

I will say that, respectfully speaking, I think the mods' decision to have pushback at the comical review of NPP could have rubbed many board members the wrong way. Speaking for myself, I was laughing at the thread, and wasn't offended by it. Yet of course they were in a tough spot, because I'm sure that they don't want people who worked on the record to ditch the board and be made fun of. That said, I totally understand the inclination to defend Brian (and defending what I believe to be genuine, heartfelt intentions on the record) against a thread that seemed mean-spirited, but I took that thread to being more like a Dean Martin comedy roast, where everyone (IMO as I recall, mostly fairly) got their balls busted.  

Beautifully said.  I hope I haven't "soiled' your comments with my approval.  

We'll let those bios speak this year (in addition to Brian's tremendous success on this tour - as you referenced the fan good will).

Mike seems like he'll get more tabloid press (from early indications).  Brian seems to be speaking from the heart so far (with the Google reveal of pages).  I have my preference.  Which will get more sales?  I have no idea. I can be cynical and say that the show Aquarius will get Mike more attention, if that's what it's all about - briefly, anyway.  

I'm just really pleased that Brian finally has a genuine autobiography (yeah, he's not at the keyboard typing, but it's clearly all from him).

Reading another Charles Manson iteration (well, actually an old, unproven one)?  Maybe for new titillation seekers.  I'm too old and informed.

I'm supposedly the primary person - well one of them, anyway - who didn't like the Anti-NPP thread (some others pointed out - not me - for personal reasons, but I also didn't think it was particularly funny).  If you don't like the record, I genuinely am fine with that.  I keep asking people, why would I care? Do you care if I like a particular record in your collection?  I would hope not.  I certainly don't care if you don't like some of my favorite music.  Why would I? 

What I had a problem with were the accusations against the record that weren't accurate. 

*That* is a balanced and well-thought post

Just for the record (no pun intended), I wouldn't say I don't like the record; I'm just not that crazy about parts of it. And that's ok, as I'm sure Brian and all the Boys would say that about some of their past work too :)  I put some of the fault on my preference of which  guest stars were chosen, some of whose voices grate on me. However, I really love Zoey's vocal, and her song, for one. 

Yeah, that's cool of course! I happen to love NPP, although I would've reduced the running length (and saved the left over tracks for the followup) but that's a minor quibble.

Of course! We all have our preferences.  I don't begrudge yours.  It never crossed my mind to be upset about them.  

Obviously I'm protective of Brian and his work.  No denials here. He's done some things I don't listen to, as well.  I'm a bit picky myself.

It was just the Mike claims about "autotune" (vocal processing) when he seemed to be the primary recipient on the C50 work, were what I found hypocritical. I've heard the recent YouTube "live" videos of his shows.  Give me a break!  Thank heavens Steve Desper confirmed my opinion, so that I didn't have to wonder if it was delusional on my part, or the work of the person posting the video.   It was a recording of the show.

Here's the thing.  If you're going to accuse Brian of being too rough in his performance, how can you also accuse him of using autotune when he performs? People need to pick.

Once again, it's the hypocrisy and lies that get to me.

I know exactly what you mean...and I know Brian had a few dates where tuning was audible on the c50 tour as well. For what it's worth, though, it seems like that ended in mid to late May 2012. May have been a default plug-in on the mixing board*, because I didn't hear tuning at all on *anybody* after that period.

*- I've heard of some promoters and/or venues that actually *insist*  on it being on by default...and it could've been present on others besides Brian and Mike.

I don't find Mike Love interesting. I can't understand why some people devote so much thought to him, pro or con.

What I realize that is how we feel. Because we think he messed up and acted in a regrettable way does not mean he feels that he messed up and acted in a regrettable way. If you listen to the Howard Stern interview Mike said something like Paul Shaffer cut him off by playing music before he was finished. This is paraphrased, of course as I do not recall the exact wording. But this means he had more to say. LOL. Whether it would have made things better or worse may never be known, but it does not sound like the words of a guy who felt he acted in a regrettable way.

We all know people who have a hard time saying they are wrong or that they are sorry. They do what they do and move on without giving it a second thought as to how others feel. Is there a lack of empathy with Mike? Of course. Is there a lack of class. I think so. Maybe Mike has a bit of a mental illness himself where he is incapable of what we consider norms? There is something called Empathy Deficit Disorder (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-new-resilience/201004/are-you-suffering-empathy-deficit-disorder). It is a made-up name for a real condition. This quote is taken out of context, so keep that in mind:

"Most people are socially conditioned into believing that acquiring and achieving things are "normal" - even "healthy" - ways to live. Empathy Deficit Disorder grows when people focus too much on acquiring power, status, and money for themselves."

I understand how you feel about Mike's actions, I really do. I am old enough to have lived most of them first-hand and cringed along with the rest of the world when they happened. How do you deal with people in your life that have this type of trait? Do you hang with them less? Avoid them altogether? I am willing to bet you do not go on the internet and anonymously rip them a new one every time they do something you do not like. We can do this because Mike is a public figure and it is easy when we are supported by a mob mentality.

The funny thing is that I am not a Lovester, but the Mike-bashing about every single thing gets old and it ruins nearly every thread in which his name is mentioned. I love the Beach Boys and nearly everything they have put out musically, and I want more. I love to read new facts and ideas about them - all of them - but more and more discussions take the same path lately is all I am saying. It takes the fun out of reading the material here, and this is the best Beach Boys resource on the net as far as I am concerned. People who try to push the anti-Mike agenda so hard are the ones who made me feel bad for him and lean toward a somewhat opposite stance. He did some shitty things. He still does. I get it.

We all draw our lines about what is acceptable or unacceptable and some lines are more lenient than others. But there are so many lines drawn here, it is like a big block of blackness.

I wasn't aware of those C50 shows.  Thanks for the info.  It helps.  All the times I've heard Brian perform he wasn't "tuned," so this is new info for me.  It seems, when he's performing as Brian Wilson and band, this isn't the case.  Obviously, I haven't attended every show, but I've not heard of it.  Those YouTube videos of Mike's band, frankly shocked me.  I can't imagine why anyone would process Foskett's or Ike's vocals.  They were spot on when I heard them with Brian (or the Four Freshmen) in the past nearly all the time.  Maybe they had an off night?

I wouldn't expect things to get better over the next month with the two bios coming out.  Sorry, but people react to those things.  I doubt many people will hold back when they read various assertions in those books.  I'm prepared for a lot of it.  I can probably never be prepared for some of the things that will be said here and elsewhere, so I'll be avoiding certain MB's (well I already avoid them anyway).

Rick 5150 wrote: "I understand how you feel about Mike's actions, I really do. I am old enough to have lived most of them first-hand and cringed along with the rest of the world when they happened. How do you deal with people in your life that have this type of trait? Do you hang with them less? Avoid them altogether? I am willing to bet you do not go on the internet and anonymously rip them a new one every time they do something you do not like. We can do this because Mike is a public figure and it is easy when we are supported by a mob mentality."

Agreed but Mike makes public statements about his various grudges on the internet, radio, TV and in the Press (admittedly not anonymously but with Mike's ego, one wouldn't expect that). So the fans respond in kind - and not all of them do so anonymously. I use my own name in every one of the posts I have made criticising Mike. But undoubtedly the 'mob mentality' does sometimes take over and it's there to be seen when Mike's apologists get to work too. Like the guy who said he wanted to kill everyone who posted here. Of course he didn't mean it, it was a joke, but he was playing to an audience and some of them are prepared to indulge him. By all means criticise those who are just mindlessly going along with what others say or write but I've read dozens of posts here and elsewhere that have made sensible and well argued criticisms of Mike. To defend Mike with empty threats shows the weakness of one's own position surely?

I have to say, nobody but an initially lazy press and Mike himself have referenced Mike "firing" Brian. The former was of course, well, lazy. Mike has on occasion used the accusations of having fired Brian as an example of being vilified, and of an incorrect accusation being made. The thing is, fans on a board like this knew from the outset that the "firing" reports were incorrect. If for some reason anyone didn't, Brian's response letter to the LA Times specifically said he had not been fired. "Feels like fired" maybe, but nobody was fired. So I don't think it's fair, if we're talking about *this* board, to characterize anyone as saying that Mike fired Brian. We all know it's not true.


I'm not sure how much Brian likes Mike. Brian clearly respects Mike's work with the Beach Boys, has fondness for his history with Mike, and rarely if ever says a negative word about Mike. But I'm not sure how much he actually *likes* Mike, nor am I sure why how Brian feels about Mike should impact how *I* feel about, say, an interview Mike gives. Brian doesn't go negative on Mike. But Brian has also admitted he hasn't talked to Mike in four years, since the end of the reunion. I'm not sure how much that indicates a deep current fondness for Mike.

As for "negative spin", I think the keyword is "innocuous", and at least as far as *I'm* concerned, I don't criticize innocuous words or deeds of Mike. Now, what constitutes innocuous is quite subjective. I've had those small number of ardent Mike defenders characterize certain things as innocuous where I find those same things anything but.

I *will* say that Mike has been so negative and inflammatory in so many interviews and other arenas that it *is* easy to quickly jump on him for essentially repeating those same negative comments or actions (e.g. another "the Wilsons did drugs and I didn't" interview). I don't think most of the criticism of Mike on *this* board is "spin" or filled with an "agenda." Usually, at worst it's repetitive and circular. But it's all driven by his actions. To put it bluntly, if he'd stop saying cringe-worthy things in interviews, if he'd stop insulting most of the other members of the band and reflecting poorly on himself and the band and the brand, the critics wouldn't have any current things to criticize. But the stuff driving present-day criticism of Mike, especially on this board, is mainly his current statements and actions. I don't see a bunch of people still beating the "Mike didn't like Smile" issue to death, and other ancient issues. Ironically, the person beating *HALF-CENTURY OLD ISSUES* to death is Mike.


Everyone is of course entitled to their own viewpoint on this. While the occasional troll takes it too far (and that mainly occurs in other areas of the internet like YouTube and Facebook comments rather than here), I don't think Mike is being unfairly taken to task. He is the one giving interview after interview. He's the one who *chose* to write a book. He's the one who *still* won't admit to a personal failing or mistake that doesn't invoke the name of someone else.

I also think implying that people "beat up" on Mike because it's the "in" thing to do is unfair. Again, especially concerning this board, it's Mike's continual stream of objectionable comments and actions that drive this stuff. Again, the Rolling Stone article earlier this year acknowledged Mike's reputation that has been a running issue for decades and decades. The author even tried to delve into it and figure out if decades of negative impressions were unwarranted, and even in the best, most forgiving of circumstances still *proved* those very stereotypes were largely true.

I think the negativity can become overwhelming and can bog any online community down. But if we're going to try to stray from that negativity, it will have to be by ignoring what Mike does and says in some cases. What are we supposed to do? If Mike makes an a-hole comment in an interview and someone posts it here, I guess we can just ignore it. But then what happens? What happens when someone says "Great interview!" Or, what happens when things like that David Beard "interview" appear? What happens when both Mike and his "interviewer" seem to actually have an obvious, cutting, negative agenda? Sorry, some fans are going to call them on it.

I think there's something to be said for taking the high road and being compassionate even in situations where the compassion and empathy have no reward. If Mike has some sort of actual condition causing his lack of empathy and some of his other inflammatory traits, I think a tact can be taken that is compassionate and more zen or whatever we want to call it.

But I think picking apart statements and actions of Mike doesn't preclude one from still having compassion and empathy. I don't wish anything bad on Mike. I've never called for karma to "get him" or anything like that. I simply look at what he says and comment on it.

The idea of being compassionate about the mere possibility that Mike's ticks are due to some sort of actual clinical condition is rather ironic, because it has been Mike for decades now and especially recently who seems to display a jaw-dropping lack of empathy and understanding for Brian and Brian's *known*, *diagnosed*, and *publicly-discussed* conditions. Note that in the Rolling Stone piece earlier this year that Mike *still* incorrectly characterizes Brian as "paranoid schizophrenic." The author, a guy who I don't even know has ever met Brian, has to correct the guy who has known Brian for over 70 years and who played with Brian and wrote with Brian and interacted with at least some of Brian's doctors and family over the years.

It reminds me of that interview where William Shatner was still mispronouncing George Takei's name after like 30 or 40 years of having known and worked with the guy. It's almost starts to transcend embarrassing and turns to comical.

I think the problem runs very deep, and sadly there is no mending it. Mike and Brian embody two opposite types of human being, and people will naturally gravitate around their respective planets. One would think that having composed 90% of the BB music would offset this on self-proclaimed BB fans. Sadly again, it does not. Tends to be "forgotten".

I appreciate the response, Rick5150. I agree that Mike probably is afflicted with some issue like that, which I feel is tragic. Because it's probably related to trauma of some sort. I don't think anyone *chooses* to have traits like that. As to what I do when I encounter people with similar personality traits in my own life? I either make a conscious effort to associate with them as little as possible... of when that is impossible, and interaction happens, then if we have mutual friends/family members, I might vent to those members about the preposterousness of that person's actions. Venting about people doing actions that are baffling and contradictory can perhaps go too far when taken to the extreme. At least, speaking for myself, I try to bring a reasoned and nuanced discussion to whatever venting I might do.

And yeah... I get that Mike is doing venting of his own. I *get* that. It's just that it seems so tragically misguided that we often cannot help but to shake our heads in disbelief. Fans venting on a message board are not trying to win "fan of the year" awards, while Mike is literally trying to get awards or accolades amongst his peers despite not having a filter to not repeatedly say all the wrong things.

I, for one, actually desire to see Mike get more respect in the industry, and for things to go better for his reputation. Not sure that sitting back and saying nothing when he shoots himself in the foot is helping to achieve that goal, any more than venting about why I think he's saying something misguided that will inadvertently hurt his reputation will help either. Actually, we are probably helpless to do anything. Only the guy himself can choose his own destiny.

I try to have as much empathy as I possibly can, but it wears thin. I agree the negative discussion about Mike can get absurd at times, and I'll call myself out as being guilty of that sometimes, although I suppose the alternative is just a bunch of reasoned fans, a great many of which are truly willing to give Mike the benefit of the doubt, who are continually frustrated (and re-frustrated, not a word, I know) with each new interview, just sitting back and keeping their thoughts to themselves. I truly don't want threads ruined. But if the answer is for us to keep our thoughts to themselves, I hope the flipside of that is that people such as yourself will get equally frustrated at all of the fans who go out of their way to praise each new interview, regardless of how inflammatory the interviews may be. I don't see how they are helping matters either.

I just don't like the idea of anyone muzzling themselves. And frankly, that includes the IMO crazy Mike Love defenders. If they actually in their hearts feel like saying a bunch of stuff they believe, let them say it. There will be a group of logical people on the flipside to refute their (usually) flawed logic.

I wasn't here through C50 or the release of NPP, so I've only seen the back-and-forth since then, in real time. I think the impression of "people push[ing] the anti-Mike agenda so hard" is a bit of a false impression, but an easy impression to get.

The dynamic I've seen is:
I. A new Mike Love interview is posted
II. Someone criticizes something in it.
III. Someone defends what was criticized.
IV. 24 pages of argument ensue.

I don't think it starts out as an intention to go on for 24 pages criticizing Mike Love, or 24 pages defending Mike Love. I think the really tiresome threads (which I agree are really tiresome) are tiresome less because of an anti-Mike agenda being pushed hard, but because no resolution can be found between II and III once the topic is raised. I don't think anyone is enjoying themselves in those threads. The II people are frustrated by what the III people are saying. The III people are frustrated by what the II people are saying. The readers are frustrated. But the dynamic is not one-sided. I'm sure there are people who perceive the "pro-Mike agenda" is the problem, as well as people perceiving the "anti-Mike agenda" is the problem, because everyone perceives the other side of an argument is the problem. But the problem is the argument - the problem is that both sides engage and persist.

In some arguments, the differing opinions are equally reasonable and in some they are not. But in all arguments, either side can end the argument by stopping. But many people occasionally find themselves in an argument that they feel committed enough to that they will continue for quite a while, given the opportunity. There are also people who just avoid any argument and find observing any argument very unpleasant. For those latter, I think a message board with liberal rules must inevitably be a very uncomfortable place.

I think another thing is that the more arguments ensue, the less patience either side has in subsequent arguments. There seems to be a cumulative effect.

And yet, as you indicated, this is a MB.  I have no idea how the mods cope, or sort through all of it.  It must be a tough job to find any equilibrium.

Sure is!

Oh, and expect the cycle to continue since Mike Love is appearing on our 'good buddy' Iain Lee's radio 'show' today :lol

Oh wow, what a setup... ::)

Like Ted Nugent being interviewed by Rush Limbaugh ::)

It should be a great interview!  I think Ian might get the best out of Mike.

Hopefully all the folks here at Smiley will get to hear it. :)

Maybe that's why he likes him  ;D

Hilarious.  So happy I missed it.

Almost half tempted to check it out just to see of he brings us up, but if I wanted to hear someone with the personality of a dry erase marker and the intelligence of Ricky Gervais,( or do I have it backwards?), I'd. ..actually, no I wouldnt.

Just listened to a great interview!

Iain started it by playing "Only With You" and "Add Some Music" acapella and took it from there, asking Mike about writing with Dennis and the Sunflower album.  He gave Mike his due and kept the interview moving along, trying to cover a lot in a short time.  Mike didn't sound bitter and even praised Brian for wanting to correct the song writing credits without going to court (which could be construed as a dig at others!).

A pity it wasn't a longer interview.

Well done Iain!

So how often does Mike *not* mention the songwriting credit issue/lawsuit in interviews at this stage? Maybe he was asked (though he's probably asked because he brings it up all the time), but it's not like Al brings up the "Family & Friends" lawsuit in every interview. It's not like Brian brings up the frivolous 2005 "Smile" lawsuit all the time.

As for praising Brian for wanting to settle back circa 1994, it appears it just depends on which day you catch Mike as far as how much he blames Brian in addition to Murry.

Exactly! Can you imagine if he did though? How would we respond (both sides and those in the middle, for that matter) if Brian went on the offensive for once?

I think we would be stunned into silence (if that's possible).  The excerpts from his book seem to be gracious, not inflammatory.  I like Brian the way he is, but it would be fun for a change, just to see everyone in shock.

I think our collective heads would explode!

I love Brian as he is but I must admit I'd like it. It would be like that moment in Daphne du Maurier's Rebecca, when, having put up with Mrs Danvers snotty behaviour for ages, the unnamed heroine finally says "I'M Mrs de Winter now." Maybe there is a touch of that in Brian's book title. Brian has confidence in who he is - he doesn't need to be constantly trying to make himself more important.

Ian Lee is a great human being and I agree with everything he tends to say.  Kind of hilarious the thread on him is locked and then within a matter or hours, he has Mike on his show.  Nice one, Iain.  The interview was a triumph.

Setting aside the post count, out of the blue appearance, and the odd idea that one would agree with *everything* that someone would tend to say (really? absolutely everything? I don't even agree with *myself* on everything), one thing that I think *is* probably true is that Mr. Lee's article and subsequent departure from this board most likely *are* related to his scoring an interview for his show.

If anyone ever wondered how closely this board is watched, this might just be another indicator.

Two guys that both believe Mike has been victimized and unfairly criticized; I'd be shocked if it *didn't* make for a supremely agreeable interview.

I dunno, when Brian gets feisty an in interview, it gets a little weird. There's this Uncut interview from 1995:

http://www.uncut.co.uk/blog/beach-boys-trying-destroy-77465

It's almost like Brian is so unfamiliar with just ranting and raving about something or someone, his personality is so far away from being that disgruntled, grudge-bearing type of person (at least publicly), that he doesn't really know how to even do it or put a voice to it, so it just ends up, well, weird and awkward.  :lol

Are you saying that Mike wasn't victimized?

I suppose it depends on how we define the word. I think all of the guys in the band have about one thing or another. That kind of goes for most anybody, especially public figures.

Has Mike ever been unfairly attacked? Sure, absolutely. So has just about every public figure, especially in the internet age of the last 20 years, including Mike and Brian.

The issue, and this goes back to another post I just made in the "Mike's Book Discussion Thread", is that some (for instance potentially Mr. Lee and certainly Mike Love) believe highlighting the sliver of truly unfair accusations and attacks (such as "Mike fired Brian", or vile internet trolls on Facebook and the like) is more important than discussing more fundamental issues of why so many seem to take issue with Mike. Indeed, as I mentioned in that post, defending himself against the small amount of truly incorrect statements about himself allows Mike to deflect and avoid answering accusations and questions that aren't unfair or incorrect factually.

Avoiding that pitfall is something the Rolling Stone article from February did quite well. It didn't let Mike get away with dismissing criticism by correctly pointing out that he didn't literally say "don't f**k with the formula" or that he didn't actually literally fire Brian. It didn't let him get away with rightly pointing out the good work he has done, or that he has friends and is nice to plenty of people. That article pointed out where criticisms and attacks were more specious and where they were more valid and in fact reinforced by Mike's own actions and comments while interacting with the author of the article.

Hey Jude - ascribing a corporate narrative to a band member is false.  "Don't F- with the formula" was from Capitol and is continuously being ascribed to a certain band member.  It was not Mike's.  It was the outright rejection of Pet Sounds where IIRC, Mike went with Brian to Capitol to lobby the album.  Capitol threw the Beach Boys under the bus after The Beatles signed with them.  

It was the corporate narrative of Capitol to look at their life-cycle and wind-them-down by offering the Best of Vol I - almost contemporaneous to Pet Sounds.  They were regarded as having an expiration date and outlived-their-usefulness.

Hence the organization of Brother Records.  It was the BB backlash to the corporate narrative of surf-cars-girls. For BRI to get off the ground, required unanimous cooperation from all the members and appears that it was done for creative control.  It was Capitol who were "f-ing" with the new evolving Beach Boys formula.  

Watch the Gaumont Palace interview for support of that fact. Al, Mike, Carl and Dennis were in unison about what happened.  

So once again it appears you didn't actually read my posts, where I asserted numerous times that ascribing "don't f**k with the formula" to Mike is not correct.

While the rest of what you say has nothing much to do with the conversation at hand, I don't agree that the group situation in 1966-67 was some sort of unified, artistic front from *all* of the band against the evil Capitol Records.

There was apprehension within the band as to the material Brian was producing. It doesn't mean they rejected outright what Brian was doing. But they were not all 100% on board without any misgivings; even members of the band including Mike himself have admitted as much.

Capitol Records probably wanted "Smile" completed and able to be released as much if not MORE than anyone in the band. Maybe they didn't "get" it, and clearly others including Mike didn't either, but both Mike and Capitol were ready to make the album happen.

But again, I think the idea that all of the Beach Boys equally and with a united front were rejecting the "formula" in the face of a Capitol Records that "didn't get it" is silly and way too much of a generalization and oversimplification.

Hey Jude -  please stick to the point.  Don't F with the formula originated with Capitol.  You don't know if you were not there but we all know from that Gaumont Palace and it is confirmed when they  outed Capitol during that interview.  That was circa 1971.  So, 40+ years later the same b.s is spinning out there. 

When a business model changes, there is always apprehension.  Apple dropped the headphone port.  There is and was apprehension.  No one knows how it will work out.  Pet Sounds was much the same.  No one knew.  Capitol had no faith in them.  They only had enough faith for The Beatles and not for the home team.

First of all, I *DIRECTLY* addressed your point (by disagreeing with it), even though your point had nothing to do with the issues raised in previous posts.

If anything, you've helped to prove the point I was making that Mike defends himself by deflecting from the issue of what he admittedly *didn't* like about what Brian was writing at that time and instead attacking the literal factual veracity of whether he specifically can be proved to have uttered the specific phrase "don't f**k with the formula."

I suggest reading the posts in the thread will help you stick to the point.

Your suggestion that the band was always a 100% united artistic front is laughable; and is proved wrong by statements from the band member themselves, including Mike Love. They formed a company; they were arguably a united business front (though plenty of stories about how their business operation was run would suggest they weren't really even united there either).

Hey Jude - Gaumont Palace is the official credible statement as far as I am concerned.  It is straight out of their mouths and full of frustration at the record company.  Laughable?  Each one weighed in.  And it was concerning more artistic and creative control.  Are you saying that they were lying? All four of them in 1971?

There was confrontation between the record company and the band.  Why would they release Best of Vol I, only 8 weeks post? The time-line says it all.  No confidence.  And really no bona fide promotion.   

Against all those odds the singles mined from Pet Sounds did extraordinarily well, but that was no thanks to Capitol.  After all, GOK was a Side B release. 

What are you talking about? Are you reading and responding to a different thread?

All of the band having a beef with Capitol (e.g. a common enemy) is not at all the same thing as having a united artistic front where everybody in the band has the same level of interest and engagement and ability to relate to the material Brian was writing.

All of the band agreeing that they're pissed at Capitol Records has nothing to do with what Mike thought of the lyrics to "Hang on to Your Ego" or the lyrics of Van Dyke Parks.

Hey Jude - we are not talking about Parks. This is just band members.  And yes, Capitol was an enemy and it seems that Murry played ball with them (certainly with the SOT sale.)  So, these "kids" were screwed.  I consider those in their 20's "kids" for purposes of dealing with the sharks they dealt with.

You have another position about the time-line.  I subscribe to the Gaumont Palace interview.  I find that they were swimming upstream and struggling to stay afloat. 

Perhaps there is further evidence that HJ is bang on.  I offer the release of an album called 'Smiley Smile' as proof.  And to not include "Parks" when he was so connected to exactly what is being discussed is also more than just a wee bit odd.  There was one member who offered direction.  There was one other who wanted to build a wall between the past and the future.  The only thing he didn't try was to encourage Mexicans to pay for it.

Further proof?

'Do It Again'.  [and again...and again...and again.]

I'm not sure what else to add.  You've created your own topic, debate, and conclusion.

To answer responses to your off-topic, non-sequitur posts, responses that despite their better judgment still *try* to speak to whatever it is you're talking about, with "we're not talking about Parks" is insulting, to be honest.

It's unfair to sidetrack a thread with nothing *but* things we're "not talking about", but then when someone tries to decipher what you're talking about by bringing other points and examples in, then claim that it's "not what we're talking about."

Nobody was talking about the Gaumont either, or Capitol Records. Wtf?

Hey Jude - you don't agree.  You don't need to attack the content of what I wrote but somehow feel entitled to "stalk" what I post.   

It is my opinion based on 50+ years as a BB fan, seeing the ups and downs for myself, not reading it in some book in a music course.  It is not for you do decide what added info is "sidetracking." That is censorship. 

This board has lost some very valuable posters due to the bullying of long-time posters who choose not to disparage individual band members or their opinions.   I am sorry to see them leave, because I have appreciated their input.  If this board is to survive it needs to become more tolerant of all opinions. 

You are not a mod. If you can't understand Gaumont Palace, and the intent of the speakers, at the time it was recorded, and their very clear feelings against Capitol, you might not be looking at the bona fide positions clearly. 

http://youtu.be/uehyh57k2_E   part 1

http://youtu.be/so7lsV6i4V4   part 2

Hope they copy.

Why is what everybody else is doing "attacking" and "bullying" and "stalking", but your posts aren't?

No, I don't agree with some things and will state why and how when applicable.

You also have, at numerous junctures, either ignored or mischaracterized things I (and others) have posted here. You sometimes mischaracterize it even when you can scroll up a few posts to verify what was actually said.

I admit that asking someone "have you even read the other posts in this thread?" is a somewhat pointed question (though it's not attacking or bullying or stalking), but when you continually ignore what everybody else is posting and offer non-sequitur responses over and over and over, I strongly sense the other posts *aren't* being read.
 
I'm not a Mod, never claimed to be and don't post anything that indicates I am. What I do take issue with is your accusations of "stalking" and "attacking" and "bullying", I take those accusations (whether against me or others on this board) very seriously, and I would humbly suggest that YOUR accusations tread far closer to breaking the rules of this board.

I also suggest this whole thing be dropped and we get back on topic. I again have to opine that I worry that there are people who *want* threads that include comments critical of Mike to be derailed and sidetracked and to descend into chaos.

Hey Jude - yes, you just responded to a post to urbanite. (you prefaced your remark.) 

Getting a handle on why people are leaving this board might be a good place to start. 

It is a series and a pattern of insult,

then disparage, collectively (as a "clique" for lack of a better term)

and predictable who hops in to pile up on the poster.  Rinse, and repeat.  At least a half-dozen have left in a week.  Think there is nothing wrong? 

Is it surprising that the go-to board has caused another forum to arise?  I think not. 

Yes, there is a pattern of attack towards people who are considered "apologists" or who support all the band.  Maybe it is generational that I have a position that  this group of "incorporated musicians" are still The Beach Boys - and just not all working in the same venues.

And, I am not alone in the opinion.  A new board was formed to respond to the inability to be able to post without being jumped on and attacked. Why did that need to take place?  Intolerance - one word.

You are not a mod to tell a fellow poster (according to the rules of this forum to build people up and not tear them down) what they should post. 

 
 

People who jump into threads and troll without answering questions, and others' subsequent severe annoyance over that behavior (and them calling it out, but the troll's non-answers get subsequently defended by the troll's other non-answers) leads to threadcrapping. That's not an insignificant factor in why people have been on this board less.  At least if I have derailed a thread or two in the past, I have owned up to it. Trolls don't up own to things (much like their "hero").

The comments in bold are a complete load of crap, and I'd usually not use that kind of direct language unless comments were aimed at me, but in this case...those comments are absurd.

When you find out why that board was formed, and when you know the truth as to why and how it was formed, then perhaps make those statements as fact. Until then, how about dialing back on the rhetoric and not trying to paint a scenario that isn't accurate?

The hypocrisy is off the charts with this "other forum" BS. The exact scenario you pegged to this board's "problems" have been going on for quite some time, and based on lies and distortions used to attack other people and silence them, if not drive them away entirely.

Now suddenly it's an issue that is driving people away from here after many of the most vocal critics of this board did the exact same behavior, and you were OK with it when it was applied in another direction?

So, I guess David Anderle was talking out of his ass when he said 1. the attitude was "don't f*** with the formula" and 2. the band member who expressed the sentiment (if not the exact verbiage) was Mike.

Hey Jude - others are looking at what has transpired here and have opined elsewhere.  Some who don't even post. The web is pretty much an open book.  Look at those who left recently voluntarily. 

Don't put other's stuff on me. 

Hypocrisy is a a value judgment. 

Most come here to discuss BB music and discover quickly that they need to pick a "team" and it was never that way.  There was more tolerance.  I think the conversation needs to happen.  JMHO. 

And that's precisely why we just need to make sure to point out that that was Mike's attitude rather than the precise verbiage, because we continually get a "I never said that!" defense that ignores the actual contend of the issue.

Not to stoke the flames, but I'm not 100% convinced he *didn't* ever make that remark, but I understand how someone a half century ago could have been paraphrasing and then the whole thing took on a life of its own. If Mike hadn't had a history of questioning some of the lyrics written by outside writers, and hadn't expressed apprehension about changing the band's sound, then the "don't f**k with the formula" thing would never have taken off in the first place. That doesn't excuse lazy reporting and research in terms of not trying to verify the precise quote, but it's worth keeping in mind.

You're responding to guitarfool's post and comments, not mine, so I'm not sure why you're addressing me.

Where were the calls for tolerance from you when Brian fans were being bullied? Where were the calls for respect from you when an actual friend of Brian's was brutally insulted by a waste of sperm and egg? This respect thing? Works both ways, FDP.

The comments were mine, not HeyJude. And the statement or opinion that "it was never that way" isn't true, as any search of the archives especially since Fall 2012 will prove - not to mention the blowups that used to happen on any number of BB boards that have since imploded or stalled entirely.

It's a case of being silent or complacent when the shoe is on the other foot. There are examples too numerous to list, but this whole notion of camps and the like ganging up on people and trying to shut them down played out long before Lee Dempsey decided to bail out here after Andrew Doe was banned. And it was the exact same scenario only applied to the other "camp", which I guess must have been OK judging by the complacency and lack of concern as people here were getting attacked and driven off the board based on their opinions and expressing it, not their behavior.

The facts are there in the archives, maybe a revisit would be in order before pointing fingers at the reasons why this board went to sh*t which have little or no relationship to what had actually been happening.

This is more true of what *you* do when someone criticizes Mike, or even just criticizes topics tangential to Mike (John Stamos, etc.).


In several cases, people have had to be banned rather than have chosen to leave. I think those, both that were forced to leave due to their actions, and those that *want* to leave, should probably make things better.

A question perhaps worth asking both rhetorically and to yourself is, why would someone who doesn't like it here continue to be here?

When it reaches the point where you're only here to say why "here" sucks so much, what's the point then?

As long as this board is going, you're probably never going to get away with continually and systematically defending Mike against any and all criticisms and never once admitting a fault. And if someone wants to take that tact, even *that* is usually fine. But people are going to disagree with you, and those disagreements may include pointing out potential flaws in logic, inconsistent statements, changing the subject and deflecting, and so on.

GF - there are a multitude of reasons.  Some were banned and others were bullied or watched bullying and got fed up as it took the joy out of discussing this music that is joyful.

It is the elephant in the room.  Yes, since C50's end there has been a problem.  Some could not get beyond that event and polarization happened since that time.  

If I could count on nothing else in my life, it is that people who liked and gravitated toward this music were reallly nice people. (who had great taste in music.)

And I get that some crossed-the-line...

But others who just tried to give all band members the benefit-of-the-doubt get insulted, shut down and silenced. I happen to think that everyone makes mistakes, but that everyone deserves the benefit-of-the-doubt.  Innocent until proven guilty.  I am not blaming mods who donate their time and expertise (but more those who "think" they are mods and chill any opinions that they don't hold.) And who gang-up in unison like a high school clique.  

And that is my opinion.  

The problem is that, based on your posts, I don't honestly think you believe this applies to Mike. Of course it's good to say innocent until proven guilty, but at some point, some people are simply guilty of certain things.

I don't believe you could ever say he is guilty of doing something crappy (an action by him and him alone). And that's anything but objectivity.

And if you don't want to say something bad about a guy in your favorite band, fine. Just admit that, and let's just not pretend that there's objectivity here. I can respect it if you can admit it.

"Benefit of the doubt" is *definitely* a key phrase in this discussion.

I've said many times that Mike has simply used up his benefit of the doubt with me and many fans. Burned way too many times.

I still look at what he does and says and don't attack truly good or innocuous comments. When Mike says "Oh, that song, that was a good one", I'm not jumping up and saying "What an a**hole!"

But when Mike is blatantly inflammatory in an interview, he no longer deserves, in my opinion, the benefit of a "well, maybe what he really meant was...." sort of defense. I'm open to hearing one, and in a few rare cases I've found some points compelling. Someone once got into the psychology of Mike and how being thrown out of his home at a young age deeply affected him and how he carried himself in life after that. Those types of insights are valuable.

But when he implies Brian is controlled, beats the Wilson drug use issue to death, and so on, there's no room to justify that stuff at this stage.

If ever there was proof of Brian's strength and fortitude, it's that he doesn't take the bait from Mike and still takes the high road in interviews and so on.

You're telling me of all people about getting bullied and having the joy taken out of the music, as you've watched those with grudges try to have me removed as a mod on multiple forums and platforms? Then when that failed in light of the truth coming out, they then tried to insult me personally, name-calling, a "campaign" involving several now-banned members, up to and including dragging other moderators into the muck by insulting them too as recent as last week after the attempts to bullshit the facts failed again...and add in all the fake accounts, all the lies, all the personal insults, and it's still continuing?

I'll discuss the facts but don't try to sell me snake oil.

And if you want to mention bullying and chasing people off, consider what happened to Peter Hollens.

Whose "side" did that, FDP?

GF - yes, that is exactly what I am saying. That, some, who are just plain old fans who signed up for discussion because they love the Beach Boys got more than they bargained for.  And, yes, from where I sit, that is what I see, now, after around 10 years or so here, including lurking before I signed up.

And, I am not defending someone else's bad actions or bad behavior but position-based issues where the poster is lambasted needlessly.  Those opinions that are not endorsed by some here.  That is not tolerance.  Not everyone is going to agree on everything. That is life.

Yes, I feel that some left because they observed exactly this treatment. I am giving my observation.  I am not selling snake oil. I have no fake account so please don't lump me into that group.  Those who do that, own it. 

And, I am unfamiliar with the Hollens situation, so I cannot comment. 

You know having more than one account is against the rules, right?

Hell yes they are related. It was set up like this from day one.

Best book and best movie.

-a bit hyperbolic, but still...

The line I put in bold:

You feel some left because they observed exactly this treatment.

How would you feel after knowing that some of those most vocal in leaving were guilty of exactly the same "treatment" you mention directed at other posters, not just recently but for years and across multiple forums?

Because that's exactly what happened.

Nobody is bullying anybody, although it does seem like an argument is being made for the sake of creating an argument for its own sake by you for whatever reason.

So if you prefer that other board, go there and stay there. Be aware that things may not always be as warm and fuzzy as they seem, as a certain ex-friend of mine there used to refer to you as a (and I quote) PITA pseudo-intellectual, just like Cam Mott. Unquote.

So FdP comes in, creates a straw man for HeyJude, then criticizes him for not “sticking to the point” of her straw man. Then, when he responds to her straw man, says his completely relevant point is not what “we’re…talking about” because apparently what “we’re talking about” is a single interview in the early 70’s. Then when Hey Jude says “wtf?” at this bizarrity, she starts accusing him of “stalking” (when the interaction began with HER responding to HIM), and bullying and “you’re not a mod” and that (hilariously after she accused him of side-tracking by not responding directly to her side-tracking with her straw man and favorite interview that is the only evidence of anything anyone is allowed to consider) that it’s not for him to “decide what added info is side-tracking”.  And then, again after insisting that he stay on the topic of her straw man, says “that’s censorship.”

It’s a derailment and I think THIS is a big part of what’s been wrong with this board.

+1 to the nth degree

It's exactly what's wrong, Emily. And it's funny how we're accused of bullying when the forum everybody runs to when banned is modden by someone who was known for bullying others and had been suspended a time or two for that.

Billy - I am calling it as I see it.  In the last year, I think things have gotten worse.  And I do agree that things are not as warm-and-fuzzy as they were.  I am not connected to Cam Mott. Never even an email between us and you can check that because you have access to that information.  

Is there a rule against posting in both places?  Pseudo-intellectual? I don't consider myself an intellectual but do have a doctorate.  And considerable post-grad work.

So, someone called me a name?  Seriously.  Ever hear of sticks-and-stones? Who cares?  

The perception from the outside world is bullying. And intolerance for different points of view.  Let's not forget that I was accused of writing Mike's book - and there was a gang-up.  Guilty until proven innocent?    

And, so what if I did help Mike? Is that bannable? I would expect that some (not me) who are real experts (from working with the band members) would be asked to contribute. Is that a sin? I am just a fan for 50 years.  After that amount of time, you do amass a good deal of information if you are paying attention.  

*I* didn't compare you to Cam Mott (although...) or call you a 'pseudo-intellectual', but the 'Mega-Mod' over there sure used to, and was constantly in trouble here due to bullying. So for us to be negatively compared to a forum  modded by a bully because of us supposedly bullying, well, do you see the disconnect there?

Or, to put it another way...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdKI1wj-JpI

That is a total lack of respect, right there, considering what you know. It is also a lie.

If you are accusing *me* of saying you wrote Mike's book, for about the fourth time only this time publicly:

SHOW ME WHERE this charge was made. Show everyone this "proof".

Otherwise, you're lying. You were not accused of writing Mike's book, on this board, by me - Harsh words, but I won't tolerate having misinformation spread like this, on this board where the actual posts are still up and available.

Emily - I took the time to find the youtube - and hope you have taken the time to view it before you opine.  It is the viewpoint of 4 principals of the Beach Boys. (Were they lying?)  

The perception of bullying and intolerance is pretty much common knowledge.  Unfortunately, this forum has been considered until fairly recently to be the go-to board.  

You can be insulting and call it derailment or anything else you choose.  That straw-man attack is inappropriate and against board rules, whether by the spirit or the letter.  

That youtube is evidence that is un-spinnable as to the relationship between the band and the record company. Those are the Beach Boys and not and editorial opinion.  First person narratives - both as principals and corporate members.  

Look at those posters whose longevity is longer than mine, (and yours) and ask yourself why they are leaving.  They articulated why.  They feel there is intolerance for a divergence of opinion.  Is that appropriate?  I don't think so.  

I won't tolerate it either.

A majority of them left after Andrew was banned for bullying and libel. Nothing to do with divergence of opinion. Cam Mott was banned because we finally had enough of his trolling. You're coming dangerously close to that as well.

Name one person...ONE PERSON...who was banned for "divergence of opinion".

And still the topic of THIS thread remains sidetracked by an OBVIOUSLY silly and side-show strewn argument which has a factor of about 999,999 parts per million of bullshit mixed into it as almost all of 'these' attempts to take the conversation away from the podium and instead detour them to some Punch and Judy theatre hidden just over there down Lack of Memory Lane do.

Surely it would save us all time, effort and the certain sense of frustration which accompanies every single one of these stolen threads if we just could agree that fdp disagrees...allow her to cut and paste and then post the same old/same old whine and then carry on with the subject matter at hand.

Perhaps THAT might demonstrate a united front far more sensible and certainly completely more believable than the 'pretend' one she tossed onto this specific pile of fly attractant late this morning. ::)

 

GF - I don't think it is disrespect and I am not lying.  In reply #105 - 106, etc., in this thread.  It related to plagiarism from "posters on this board" and I was lumped into this group.  And in reply #139 - there was something about "a similar ring" - and frankly there was nothing that I saw that was unique and not common knowledge if you lived through those eras when the band was up-and-down.   Within that post I am quoted from 2014 and cannot imagine why.  I still have not seen the book. But will tell you I am eager to read it.  

  

What in hell are you talking about?

Post 105.


Post 106 is your post

Post 107
Where are the plagiarism claims? There's not even a reply #139 in here.

Succinct and to the point as always. I will acknowledge, as I've often pondered both on the board and to myself, perhaps my mistake was engaging the straw man argument to begin with.

But yes, the person most loudly complaining about how this board has gone downhill, etc. is the one who has thrown the thread into disarray.

And I once again maintain that there are parties, whether on this thread or elsewhere, who want threads that take Mike to task to devolve into chaos. That chaos helps fuel the school of thought that leads some people to end up on a stage saying they hate an online community so much that they (jokingly, haha!) want to kill everyone on it.

I think the board has unfortunately been both knowingly and unknowingly "punk'd", and those doing the punk'ing have thankfully almost all moved on either voluntarily or involuntarily. Why someone who does largely nothing but cause threads to erupt and professes to think the board is going downhill would still continue to be here, I do not know.

And if you're talking about the mike book thread, well...

post 105


No plagiarism comment,
Post 106


I am the one who used the word for the first time, and then edited it and said  that was 'a bit  harsh' . Later on I clarified it on post #163 and admitted I said it sarcastically, because of what Craig said and what I agree with, that in many cases it's the exact same view point that people like you and Cam have been making (and almost nobody else).

Billy - there was enough written for people to come away with the impression that a few people were singled out (including me)  as "contributors" and the joke is that there was a  single copy on eBay that I was high bidder for and went out to a show and lost the chance to get a copy.  I can tell you as a collector of anything BB I could get my hands on, since 1965, both good-and-bad, I have a lot to draw upon for my opinions.     

And, as I said earlier sticks-and-stones - I could not care less. That says more about the speaker than the one spoken about.       

On that we can agree on...same guy I defended for years and made excuses for even after his banning; same guy who began talking sh*t about me and insinuating that there were other reasons for my financial situation than I have made public; which is bullshit as he well knows...I've been on intermittent medical leave and am having issues with my heart (among other things).  But that's what he does...once you get on his bad side, he talks to people and insinuates he knows 'secrets' and 'insider info'. Whether it's me or anybody affiliated with the Wilsons, or even people he appears to be on good terms with publicly like you, Cam, and David Beard....time and time again, history repeats itself.

So yeah, I 100% agree with what it saying more about the speaker...speaks volumes, in fact.

I am sorry to hear that, Billy. Just when I thought my respect for him couldn't plummet any deeper...

No worries. ..better to know for sure.

How 'bout them Beach Boys...pretty good band eh?

I hear they are writing some books! :lol

What's a beach boy? :lol

All I know is, typing in "beach boys" without "the" beforehand leads to some very scary places.  :o

:lol

I made that mistake once when my dad was in the room. What followed was a really weird and awkward conversation.

Ha ha ha ha

Yes. And...


Yes.

It's interesting how troll-dom and derailing threads is an art-form. 

I think it's been kindly tolerated here for awhile.  I didn't object.  I took it for what it was.

But we Brianistas tend to have "tolerance" in spite of the characterization on these recent threads.

There are certain things I don't understand.  Why do Lovesters always say, "I love them all equally," "I'm really a Brian fan, but...", etc.  I have no problem saying that I back Brian and his music.  Why is their preference so difficult for Lovesters?  Seriously.  We could then have a conversation.  But instead, I keep seeing all of these invisible "attacks" as excuses.  Just frikkin' be honest for once.

If claims are going to be made, back them up with facts or evidence. If I'm going to be called out for accusing James Hirsch of plagiarism, back it up. Find me the quotes. If I am going to be accused to saying this person or that person "wrote Mike's book", back it up. Show me the quotes. If I'm going to be accused of anything, back it up. Show me the proof.

This M.O. of making sh*t up as people go along and using it to hammer others they have a grudge against or would like to see gone or silenced is chickenshit. But it does speak to those doing it - It's who they are and what they do. As simple as that.

HeyJude: Nailed it. The part about deliberately disrupting threads. Very perceptive and spot-on.

And yet, who is being blamed for bullying, disrupting, diverting, etc.? Psychological projection, I believe is one of the terms. See, my Psych classes paid off.  :)

With some of them (the specific ones I like to refer to as 'Love Stains') it's akin to the 'Not to be racist, but...' where the followup line inevitably ends up being racist.

Love Stains?!  :lol

Yup :lol

In all honesty, I must point out I'm only referring to a small segment of the 'Love Crew', the ones who could watch him piss and proclaim 'oh boy, lemonade'

Its a love stain thang....

You can't be a Beach Boy fan and hate Brian. You can't be a Beach Boy fan and hate Mike.

Are there any Beach Boys fans still left on this board?

I don't agree with that at all. Do Yankees HAVE to love Derek Jeter? Do Penguins fans HAVE to love Sidney Crosby?  As a Monkees fan, I'm am a part of that fan world and I can definitely say that when he was alive, many Monkees fans considered Davy Jones an embarrassment for a variety of reasons.

I can see what clack's driving at. I'm utterly non-plussed by this crazy Brian--Mike polarity. I love The Beach Boys. Who gives a **** about "interstecine" squabbles and intrigues? All part of it, I'd say. It's a cut-throat business at heart.

I like a lot of what the (early) Stones did, and love some of it, but I can't stand Mick Jagger! Same with Pink Floyd and Roger Waters. I'd say that stops me from being a true fan of either band.

Just my jaded opinion, folks...

I respect your opinion but I suppose I am more on the Botwin side of things. To me, The Beach Boys are the music and fandom comes down to how much I like the music rather than the personalities involved in making it. I wouldn't stop myself from being a fan of an artistic work on the grounds that I don't like some of the people involved in the making of it. And the sports analogy is perfect - I can be a fan of the Toronto Blue Jays and the Montreal Canadiens without having to always like everybody who plays on the team.

It's stuff like this from the 2005 lawsuit that really annoys me:

"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."

There is no real fairness in these comments. Brian's "performance' has been enough to sell out many concerts and get him invited to Party at the Palace. SMiLE may have obtained 'secondary meaning' as a Beach Boys property but it was the brainchild of Brian and Van Dyke Parks and at the time Mike wasn't exactly its best fan.

So, are you saying that you can be a Beach Boys fan and still hate Brian? I don't see it. Maybe you might find him annoying sometimes, or disagree with some of his opinions or his actions -- but actual hate?

I love the Monkees but don't follow their fandom -- some Monkees fans hate Davy Jones? That strikes me as such an odd thing.

But you absolutely cannot be a Toronto Maple Leafs fan AND be a Montreal Canadiens fan. ;)

 :lol

Exactly

My answer to that would be yes but I can imagine that that would be a rare occurrence. Nevertheless, I would accept it.

Theoretically, I suppose. But I was actually referring to disliking Mike.

And yeah, Davy was not that popular among some fans. A lot of the songs he sang are considered the worst of their canon. The fact that he was a shoo-in when the TV show was cast (because Davy was already a Columbia Pictures contract performer) didn't endear him to some. Personally, I was not cool with the fact that he sided with Don Kirschner in the battle between Donnie and Michael Nesmith and Raybert Productions. The cheesy infomercials and TV appearances in the 80's and 90's that make ML's FULL HOUSE appearances look like MAD MEN.  And every reunion ended with Davy being an entitled diva.

Bullshit. Sorry, but that statement is as wacked as myKe luHv's thinking he's somewhere close to Brian in the talent department. Hating a member of a band has nothing to do with liking the band and it's other members.

Ok, I guess it comes down to how you define "fan".

I mean, if for some reason a person hates John, Paul, George, and Ringo (anti-British, maybe?), but loves their records, I would not call that person a Beatles fan.

IMO, "fan" and "hate" are opposing terms.

I disagree with that completely. I may not care for Mike as a person, but I would *never* denigrate his abilities, and I do feel like he was a vital part of the band. I can separate the person from the artist. I'm a fan of him as a musical artist.

I can see where you're coming from, but thankfully for myself that doesn't affect how I view the music. Actually, the only person I can think of where my dislike for them makes me not want to hear their music is Ted Nugent.

I have come across Beatles fans who are John partisans who hate McCartney.

Indeed? I find that rather sad. But that's why I'm not a major Beatles fan. ;D

A lot of it is the nature of John's murder. He was still relatively young when he was shot. Another part is the perception that John's work was more "deep" than Paul's.  Paul during the 80's also did himself no favors with classic rock fans with the Michael Jackson duets (despite "Say Say Say" being one of Paul's best post-Beatles singles). The business stuff with Paul wanting to remove John's name for "Yesterday " also  factors into that perception.

Yes. This!

Hate the Nuge!

And perception is just that.  Here's what I heard, which may be worth something or not:  McCartney had wanted to donate the residuals from "Yesterday" to a cause, and Yoko blocked it.  If there's one thing that's pretty obvious, "Yesterday" was a Paul song.  It's probably one of the most (I'm pretty much assuming, THE most) lucrative songs in the catalog.  Clearly, both Paul and John contributed to all the success.  But if what I heard was true, it certainly doesn't make Paul out to be a bad guy.  It sounds like trading for an all John song wasn't in the cards - once again, if this is true.  I think it's safe to say, none of us has any idea.

That's what's so funny.  We all love speculating.  We  - more likely than not - will never know the real story.  Life is usually pretty nuanced and complicated.

Enjoy the music.  Understand that with either band, you likely don't have the whole story. 

Some things are pretty obvious - "Yesterday" is very Paul.

Brian's musical accomplishments and abilities are difficult to deny, nor is it easy to give credit to others for the most amazing BBs musical contributions, if one has much of an ear.  As far as people coming up with a phrase or something, who knows?  How that contributes to the success of a song is REALLY debatable at best.  We can argue it forever, but it won't matter.  I guess the problem is, Brian pretty much gave Mike everything he wanted in that suit, and it isn't Brian, but Mike who still can't let it go.  No wonder we all get "reactivated" all the time.  Maybe that's the point of Mike's incessant complaining?  I don't know.