The Smiley Smile Message Board

Recent events aside, a good listen.

http://talkradio.co.uk/funny/late-nights-iain-lee-bonus-podcast-mike-love-wednesday-september-7-1609083850

Does Iain mention us?

I couldn't make it through the first couple of minutes...maybe a braver soul could do a transcript.

I dropped off when he started in with his rubber stamp statement about the Wilsons and their drug and lifestyle issues. What an insidious bore. ::)

I'm still alive.   :thud

Maybe this Iain guy isn't so bad-ass after all.  :spin

I mean I was EVER-so worried there...   :old

I guess we're safe.   ;D

Unless we listen to his 'outerview'.  :lol

What a weinie!!!   :banana

If I wanted to catch an infomercial I'll watch this guy instead:

(http://www.talkstandards.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/mike-levey-300x225.jpg)

It took Mike about 6 words to shift "Forever" from Dennis to John Stamos' version.

I listened. It seemed to be very much the same as the other interviews ML has done the last few years. Maybe the mods can take the 24 pages from a thread about one of them and paste it in here? Save us all some time and aggravation.

I had forgotten all about Amazing Discoveries!
 :love :love :love

I'm listening now while working on other stuff (and waiting for the chicken parm to get done in the oven...).

I wish it didn't feel as "canned" as it does. When Mike talks about his own family and about the lost sax, it feels like a real interview. I wish there were more of that, instead of the usual - for lack of a better term - stock replies and almost canned responses. I wish he'd go off script more and converse.

"Brian had a bad experience with LSD and decided he didn't want to finish it" - Mike on Smile.

Decent interview. Didn't cover a lot of new ground but Lee kept it moving along and there were a couple of interesting tidbits.

The whole thing was extremely scripted on both sides.

Airmail me some chicken parm, dudesy. (http://rs1190.pbsrc.com/albums/z460/mbarteski/37.gif~c200)

Yeah, when you got someone basically questioning your every move, it's hard to finish, LSD or not.

If I could overnight some, I would! Chicken parm, over tri-color rotini. My stomach had been growling since 5pm, just getting around to eating it now as usual.

The "interview" minus a few things like the lost sax, felt too canned, I have to say it again. Every time I tune into one of these, it feels like stock answers and canned replies to much the same topics. And if the topic is different, it usually takes about one line to get back on point, as in the case of a question about making Sunflower veering from Dennis' "Forever" to John Stamos and the mention of the name "Uncle Jesse". Similar things with the phrase "lifestyle choices", and the like. It's been done and heard and repeated often enough that we know it.

Quick point; Juice - What stood out as the interesting tidbits to you?

It was NEVER a good idea to 'do' acid with nincompoops.  It guaranteed a BAD 'trip'.  "You know I hate to be a downer"...  Too late Mike.  Brian should never have gotten high with Mike around.  Not even once.  Bad for a 'head'.  Bad for the head.  Good gawd!!!

Mike is not comfortable when it comes to public speaking or with interviews.  He is NOT at ease if there isn't a scripted foundation to what it is that he's presenting.  The ever-so-famous 'front man' just has NEVER had that certain 'ingredient' he has always needed.  He is not endowed with what is commonly known as 'the gift of the gab'.  Words roll off of his tongue like jagged stones.  Never good for a 'lyricist'.

Well, two things that I can recall offhand. One was Iain's mentioning the unique vocal blend of the band and how it might be tied in to the fact that the band was made up of relatives...interesting to me because I had just watched a YouTube interview with Brian from 76 where he was talking about that same premise. Secondly Mike talking about Dennis being his introduction to TM and later Dennis asking Mike to meditate with him. A little deeper than the surface Q&A we get normally.

In that case I'll give it another shot. ..I was really getting annoyed the first time

Mike often seems to need to hit the same talking points even when the question doesn't match. Reminds me of high school and college when someone would get asked a question they clearly didn't have the answer to, so they would instead start taking about something they *did* know about as quickly as possible.

"Talk about feminism or lack thereof in The Scarlet Letter"

"Well, that's a complicated question. I think a book that *does* delve deep into the issue of feminism is " Twilight"......

Mike did this awhile back in a radio/phone interview when asked about the C50 band. He wasn't asked about the controversy. It was literally like a "wasn't the reunion band great?" sort of question, and within a sentence or two he was taking about his current touring band even though that wasn't the question

He definitely has that move down...shifts 'Only With You' comment to 'All I Wanna Do'

I started to listen but couldn't bear it. Now I'm glad I didn't bother. How can an interviewer just let a comment like this one go unchallenged? - and I'm assuming he didn't challenge it. Iain Lee was full of scorn for those who post here but the majority of us have more integrity than that (especially now now that some of the Love apologists have departed for other MBs).

Edited to add that this shows Mike trying to cop out of any personal responsibility for what went wrong with SMiLE whilst YET AGAIN reminding us that Brian did drugs.

Lee goofed leaving the best question to close out. Any releases in the future, waffles, then cuts him off mid flow.

Fail.

Mike doesn't give compelling interviews. If only I could think of another Beach Boy who isn't a great interview subject.

Nope. None come to mind.

Good old Mike... his mind is always on the music. A born artist.

There seem to be only a relatively small group of journalists and interviewers that can get a good interview out of any of the guys. I don't know how much of it is that the members are difficult interviews, how much is the members going on interview autopilot (like McCartney does with his same five stories), and how much of it is the interviewers either not doing their homework or asking those same questions that will get the same canned responses, and so on.

Howie Edelson gets good and substantive interviews out of these guys. A couple Rolling Stone guys writing longer pieces have gotten good stuff. It is possible.

Mike tours all year, and if you do a Google news search, you'll find a TON of articles from local papers in many of the towns his tour goes through, and nearly all of the articles look and feel exactly the same. They usually use the same stock photo of the Mike's band (currently the skeevy one with all of the guys at some train station trying to look like modern day mobsters or something), and the same questions (and answers) follow. Sometimes the questions are a little different and Mike still brings it back to the same answers. As I've often said, I'll cut Mike *some* slack, because similar to others of his status, he often gets asked the same super generic questions. He's not used to being asked who played the drums on "Solar System"; he's not used to being asked what he thinks of "Angel Come Home", etc.

So when the same questions are asked, I blame the interviewer too. But it's true, Mike will kind of dodge new/different questions and hit his same talking points. Sometimes maybe he has an agenda, other times he's just on autopilot I'm guessing.

From everything I've heard, if you can sit these guys down and do a substantive interview, almost all of them can give a good one. The most inconsistent and minefield-laden interview stories I've heard often come from stories of trying to interview Bruce.

I just had a strange and very unwelcome experience. I had clicked on a link that had nothing to do with Mike Love and ended up listening to the Iain Lee interview. Lee said 'There seems to be a strand of people who are angry with you..'

A strand? Mike could make a whole series of wigs with the strands who are angry with him.

The thing is, if the idea is to get a good, non-formulaic interview, then feeding Mike a question about how he's vilified is a bad idea, even if you agree that he's unfairly pegged as a villain. You *know* he's going to go into his same talking points, *especially* since he has the book coming out. He's going to sell the book as the answer to his critics. If you want the thing to be a puff piece for Mike to promote his book and his tour, then an interview is easy.

But there are ways to pose questions that at least get closer to forcing Mike out of that interview comfort zone. You can bring up the topic of Mike being perceived as a villain without simply saying "So, some people don't like you. What do you make of that?"

That Rolling Stone guy did it back in February, and by God he *almost* got Mike to actually admit a fault and, more importantly, got Mike to delve into a few things he doesn't in a typical fluff interview. 

It's just another missed opportunity as I think about it a day later. I'll refrain from anything about Iain Lee for the moment, but I will say this interview had a guy asking questions who came off as starstruck if not gushing as a fan interviewing Mike, and i thought there would be some opportunities to open up some new topics.

Or, unless it is truly a lost art, to simply talk and have an actual interaction and conversation. The closest this got was the lost sax, because that was a brand new story and it obviously was a "feel good" story that made Mike happy to tell it, and it was not scripted or canned. *That* is what I like to hear and read - something natural on both sides.

Instead it was more of the same. I agree with "Juice" that it was cool hearing about the Everly Brothers harmony, of course Brian and Mike doing Devoted To You is one of the more sublime and perfect covers the group ever released, mostly due to the blend. And we've heard Brian and Mike used to head out to Brian's car and listen to the radio when they were young, and harmonize with the songs. So, is that new info? No - But it's something positive and personal. I like that.

What I don't like is the deflection and shifting the actual question to a talking point, the Full House shift from a question about making the Sunflower album was just one example. Another was a topic about longevity and still performing in one's 70's on stage, and it turned into what felt like another finger-wag on "lifestyle choices". Whether intentional or not, it felt like another dead-stare aimed at the Wilson brothers. Perhaps because it has been said so many times in past interviews, it's almost like par for the course to raise the point. But why?

Why deflect and shift answers to talking points at all? It feels too canned, whether it's Mike or someone doing a publicity stop for a new comedy film on the late night chat shows.

Having said that, the last minute or so of this interview revealed a lot. I can't help but agree this whole "woe is me, I'm leaving" thing from the get-go was the people here getting punk'd.

If Iain wanted to, he was offered a chance to converse and dialogue here about his Record Collector article. He obviously wasn't here to do that.

This likely ISN'T the thread to do it in but we should consider opening up one where we can ask Mike some REAL questions.  [And...Absolutely NO girls of the sand required....'cause YOUR ship has both sailed and sank.]

Question O N E?

1.  Hey Mike/Eddy...  Have you E V E R considered hiring a PR firm to help you deal with a better future for both YOU, personally, and for the [so-called/BRI endorsed] Beach Boys as a TRUE corporate money maker?

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

Oh...and Iain?  He's just a wannabee.  How could he have blown it so?  Oh wait.  I know.  Mike-Eddy is a persuasive so and so.  [in his own 1/2-assed and obvious style.]

The interview wasn't scripted.  I suggested to Iain he ask Mike about the sax.  Maybe he was going to anyway, but it was nice when he did.  And it was good of Iain to ask some of us for a bit of input before the interview.  It was also a good way to start the interview by playing "Only With You" and "Add Some Music". The idea was to get Mike into talking about Dennis, which he did in a favourable manner, and also about some more 'deep' cuts.  

Also, how many people would ask Mike about cunnilingus?  It got a laugh and also some warmth towards Dennis.

Mike didn't sound condescending towards The Wilson's and drugs at any point like he has in the past.

Also, Brian has said SMiLE didn't come out because, "I was taking a lot of drugs and they messed with my mind".  Mike says it and people get offended.

And I think Mike was a better and more relaxed interview subject than Brian would have been.

I think Iain did a good job with this one.

Oh?   Do You?

 :lol

because Michael always says it in a derogatory way, and never hesitates to bring it up on every occasion/reason, not just with Smile.

Have you had the chance to listen to the interview yet all the way through?

Yip!

I also used to love that picture of you and Mike in happier times which you used to have as your profile picture.  Nice!  :-D

Hey-Zuse!!!  This shyte ain't new?  It's the same old/same old Mike-Eddy diatrab...with a touch of catsup and 'musturd'.

The guy hasn't had a new thought of NOTE since Aruba/Jamaica.  {"sh*t on a stick THAT rhymes!!!  Who knew?  Well...not me.  But...I'm BACK!!!"}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

True...I used THAT pic for awhile.  The current one is of me MC'ing live on stage with Mike's Beach Boys 13 months ago.  I was WILLING to give the guy a  little 'lee'-way/the benefit of the doubt/a chance/reason to make things RIGHT...for a change.  But NOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.  Mike-Eddy prefers to go with the same. tired, 'ye olde' bullshit which has been his ever-so-sorry game plan for over 50 useless and boring years.

May he suffer expensively...and for the rest of his greedy days.  [the almost NO -talent bum.]

Yes, last night (technically early this morning...depends on which way you look at it :lol)

Of course you would if you're in touch with him. Just for the facts, Mike said exactly this:


And that does offend me in a historical and factual sense as it's something he seems to have invented out of thin air. To peg the entire issue of Smile not coming out on Brian having a bad acid trip is not only wrong, it's silly.

Maybe that's why Iain Lee put this board at the top of his wishlist for mass killings, joking of course but still...Maybe the facts become too pesky when they don't agree with what the fact-checkers (who seem to be asleep on the job these days) might try to say.

Fact-check the accuracy of that comment about a bad LSD trip being the reason why Smile never came out in '67 and get back to us with the data, please. I'll wait.

And as far as Dennis, did you miss the half-dozen word sidestep that diverted the topic from making Sunflower to anything that would include the terms "Full House" and "Uncle Jesse"?

I was hoping for an interview - the majority of that was canned answers and an infomercial. That's not as much Iain's fault until it got to the last minute, then it felt like all was explained going back to his jokes about killing members here and his woe-is-me routine. So much for professionalism from a radio host.

What he could have asked Mike about was politics and political views, all things including Iain's recent history considered. That would have been interesting. Especially since Iain himself lost a gig due to the radical, misguided application of media censorship fueled by ideological outrage, while Mike gave seed money to the PMRC who advocated censorship in music and lyrics.

Instead we got same old, same old. Again.

I am amazed and impressed that you had the patience to listen and weed through this creature's "interview."  I feel fairly certain that you weren't expecting professionalism from him.  I never would.  I simply didn't have the stomach for it.  Congrats for your fortitude.

Was Mike's speech auto-tuned?

:D

Has any interviewer ever asked Mike to explain the discrepancy between the omission of mentioning his own attitude contributing to (not *causing*) messing up that album's creative process, contrasted with Brian emotionally calling Mike's attitude out as being a contributing factor (along with drugs, of course) in the Beautiful Dreamer documentary? It could be asked respectfully by the right person, right?

I would just like to know what Mike would say about that, because he would either have to call Brian a liar, or claim that someone in the mid 2000s (not the Landy era) was forcing Brian to say something completely false, at the deep expense of someone else, on camera, against Brian's own will. And I'm not sure Mike would bring himself to actually make that claim. Would the interview just end?

I bet Mike wishes that DVD didn't exist.  I mean, it was and remains a popular documentary - the only official in-depth documentary on one of the most famous albums ever - that many fans of the band have seen. It's not some discredited rag like Brian's original Landy-era "bio".

I would think it's pretty silly to just avoid that discrepancy for a decade, hoping that nobody notices. Honestly... As a fan, am I to just expect to pretend that Brian never said such a thing? Denial's a powerful drug, but I won't take that drug. What's a new fan who sees the documentary, then hears Mike's interview, supposed to think?

I haven't listened to the whole interview but the comment about SMiLE - it's one thing for Brian to blame himself and quite another for Mike to blame Brian. Brian is generally a non confrontational person and is unlikely to say something that he knows would generate a lot of questions. He will go for the easy option. Mike is well aware of the fact that it's more complicated than JUST the drugs. It's more complicated than JUST Mike too, but he had a part in it. His relationship with Van Dyke Parks wasn't helpful, just for starters. I remember reading an interview with the Beach Boys during the C50. The interviewer wrote that when Mike was making some comments about SMiLE, Brian zoned out, the inference being that Brian was far from happy about what was being said.

I remember an interview during C50 with Brian, Al and Mike on camera and the woman asking them about the influence of drugs. Brian sat up and asked "First of all, who did drugs?" turned to Mike and said "Did you do drugs?" to which Al couldn't hold on and burst out laughing... I have to see if I can find that online somewhere...  ;D

Hilarious!

The thing is would we have had SMiLE without drugs? It isn't just a black and white issue - whatever harm drugs may do, they can make a difference to creative output. I read a recent article about Australian researchers finding clay pipes from Shakespeare's garden and identifying some drugs from them.

Hahahaha. You have to find that. That's why we love Brian.

There you go:

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/14/world/asia/hong-kong-beach-boys-stout/index.html

Second video  :-D

That's a great little collection of interview snips. The interviewer is good and the dynamic among Alan, Brian and Mike is really interesting. Thanks!

Just to be clear.  I'm only in touch with Iain through the public forums.  I still think he did a good job.  He brought up songs, and topics the average interviewer wouldn't know about.

And for all those who criticise the same old Mike answers how many times does Brian not give the same old answers?  A bit of balance is required folks.  At least Mike sounds interested in the interviews.  Brian rarely does which is his prerogative and not a problem with me.

We've gotten to a point here where Mike can do no good anymore. This ended up looking like Mike Wheeler's forum ca. 1997.

Mike gets topical in interviews aimed at newer audiences, yet fans who read every single little interview he gives, post the same fucking comments about them every time. Talk about being repetitive and not being able to let go... The comments about how the interviewer should have posed the questions in order to obtain certain answers are as hilarious as they are pathetic.



The interview was lovely, by the way.

You say that like that's bad.

Well said, Autotune.  Glad there is still some balance around here!  :-D

Yeah. The one difference being that way back then it was Billy who was being chased and bullied for trolling.

Herein lies what I think is a central issue to all this drama (which I have tried very hard to stay out of). I think a lot of anger people feel about this board comes from a position in which "balance" and "objectivity" are treated as ultimate ends. People who believe this do so because of their worldview, in which there is a kind of neutrality at work in the universe. This tends to be accompanied with beliefs like "there are two sides to every issue," etc.

In my view, though, reality doesn't quite work this way. There are things that are objectively true and objectively not true but these things don't slot comfortably into any kind of balance wherein all things eventually land in some sort of so-called comfortable centre. And I think if people really examined their own particular beliefs they would note that they are not quite as centered as they would like them to be, nor should they.

If we are going to talk about things, it is best not to try to aim for a balance or with an embedded assumption that there is an underlying balance to all things. Indeed, we don't get closer any to the truth by having climatologists and a global warming deniers being given equal space to air their views. Our aim, above all else, should be able to engage honestly and try and seek out the truth as best as we can.

This should be stickied to the top of the homepage of this site.

Maybe I used the wrong word, lest I be accused of being confrontational.  Maybe I should have said it is time for less hypocricy.  But then is asking for that the same as wanting balance?

Fair point.  AND Mike DOES do some good...which he always seems to want to undo asap with the next interview.  It's why I have said for the longest time that he needs to hire HIMSELF a PR firm.  He's his own worst enemy.

Lucky for me it's 2016. For you, not so much.

100% agreed. It's why I get so angry as a fan, because he makes it so damn hard to be one at times. That said, I will give him credit for not putting on a front. He's a pompous asshole much of the time, but at least he's open about it.

Is this enough fact checking for you?

“It was just inappropriate music for the Beach Boys. We were taking drugs at the time and we weren't in our right minds. After I came down off the drugs and saw what I had done with Smile, I junked it. I said, that's not us.”

Brian Wilson, Harmonic Convergence by Howard Massey

"Mike Love and Dennis didn't like it at all," Wilson says. " "But that wasn't the reason we shelved it," Wilson says. "I didn't care, because I wanted to do it anyway." "I blame the drugs for it, yeah," Wilson says. "We were on some really bad drugs. Ever since I first took LSD, marijuana and amphetamines, I've been hearing voices in my head, off and on, for 38 years."

Brian Wilson, Daily Breeze, Corey Levitan

"It's not appropriate music."

"After I stopped taking drugs, I realized what I was doing: I was making music on drugs, and it was getting nowhere. Basically that's the reason I didn't want to release the tapes, because I didn't like what I did with drugs."

Brian Wilson, `Pet Sounds' As Symphony By Roger Catlin

Another subject which came up was the infamous "Smile" sessions. It was during this time that "Good Vibrations" was recorded, but the "Smile" album was never completed and all these years the whole thing has been shrouded in mystery. Brian was asked if the "Smile" sessions will ever be released. "No," was his emphatic answer. "I junked it. We junked them. I didn’t like where the music was coming from. I thought it was inappropriate for the Beach Boys and I junked it. We were taking a lot of drugs during that time and got carried away with hardly nothing."

Brian Wilson by Bill Harriman


Ben Yakas: Why was Smile so difficult to complete in the 1960s?

Brian Wilson: “Because we were on drugs and we didn't really know how to finish it.”

Our Ten Minutes With Beach Boys Legend Brian Wilson, Ben Yakas.


Is Brian lying when he gives the above reasons?

Maybe, Mike has read or heard enough of these comments over the years and thought, maybe convinced himself even, that if Brian says that's why it never came out then it must be true.  So he repeats it in interviews.  The truth is, he probably doesn't know for sure. Only Brian does.  Maybe he'll tell us in his book.

In all fairness, Brian also used to say he destroyed the Smile tapes.  He used to have a major beef with Smile in general...I'm glad he seems to have made his peace with it.

Has Brian ever stated that Mike's attitude had NO negative effect whatsoever on Brian's own psyche, or the project? And more importantly, does anyone *really* believe that?  

Just because Brian omits fingering Mike in many interviews, that doesn't mean Brian has ever answered "no" to this question. There is a difference, especially with someone as non-confrontational as Brian is.

And guess what: I'm sure Brian's inaction to fix the crediting issue had an inadvertently deeply negative effect on Mike's psyche. Unfortunately. But you see, these things work both ways.

Mike screwed up Smile, at least to a point, and has never admitted it. Because he always has to be right and justified in anything that he does. And that is why he has become a villain. Mike's sad story in a nutshell. Mike has no idea what it's like to be tripping on drugs and having a bullying family member give him a very, very bad trip with their ongoing attitude problem.  It did not help matters. It hurt them. If Mike has a lack of being able to empathize with a situation he has never been in himself (being high, trying to fully produce and orchestrate a complex project while a family member/bandmate is for months and months giving off very negative vibes with their words/actions/looks), he will never comprehend what he himself is partly responsible for. I feel if Mike had caring people in his inner circle pushing him to just finally apologize, that maybe he'd actually do it. I don't get WTF is so hard about taking a morsel of responsibility. Really baffles me.

It's true that Mike DOES NOT need to be crucified or vilified for having said/done things in a regretful manner that might have been better handled with anger management classes.  The past can't be changed. But the refusal to take *any* responsibility for this for decades adds insult to injury, continually in 2016 interviews he reopens old wounds with his denials, and his denial about this subject is literally THE biggest white elephant in the room for why many people have issues with him.

Either Brian's a liar in the Beautiful Dreamer doc, or Mike is too chickensh*t to admit that Brian's saying the truth. One of those scenarios is true.

I wish someone would ask Mike what he thinks about Brian being able to finish Smile in 2004 with the absence of taking illegal drugs PLUS having fully supportive bandmates. All a reporter has to say to him is that Mike needs to take *some* responsibility for certain things, EVEN THINGS WHICH MIKE DOES NOT WISH TO TAKE PARTIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR... to just do it anyway, and see what happens.  That's part of being a friggin' adult. It's not like saying he's sorry is going to hurt his reputation. Maybe a bunch of people won't believe him after all this time. But it certainly won't hurt. His reputation can't get worse than it is now.  No fans are gonna say "wow, now I don't like you anymore Mike because you admitted to hurting Brian's feelings and helping to derail a project. I'm unliking your Facebook page and never seeing another one of your shows again".

Mike's only chance at redemption is taking responsibility for some things, and get off this RIDICULOUS too-proud-to-say-sorry kick he is on. He must have LOVED when The Fonz would stutter and not say he was sorry on Happy Days. Maybe Mike has a Fonz poster on the wall in his den to pay tribute to the guy who never says he is sorry.

Everyone likes a comeback story. Even the comeback story of Mike taking SOME responsibility for some very hard stuff, and becoming a more caring (and more LOVED) person in the process. It could be one of the most amazing moments of its kind with two public figures.

Please Mike - don't make your relationship with Brian go down the Olivia de Havilland/Joan Fontaine route.   They were siblings who never repaired their relationship for decades while they were both on this earth. It pains me deeply to think that this will happen with Mike and Brian due to Mike's misplaced pride. And I don't want to hear any BS about spouses being the reason. Mike needs to publicly cop some responsibility for stuff. That alone would be the ONLY hope for a step towards reconciliation (not to mention helping his reputation). 

No, it's not the same thing and I would agree that opposing hypocrisy is a good thing. I don't, however, believe that this is a particularly good example to bring up to demonstrate a case of hypocrisy. I think the issue with Smile and drugs is part of a larger conversation about how Mike frequently brings up Wilson drug use to the extent that his stated biggest regret in life is the fact that the Wilsons did drugs. In that case, the conversation about Smile and drugs comes with a whole different set of baggage when Mike is talking about it because of this habit and to eliminate this history (and also eliminate Brian's own complicated history of answering Smile questions), start from scratch and say here's both parties saying the same thing about Smile and drugs, is to miss the nuance of the conversation and despite having the appearance of balance is in fact a non-balanced view of things.

Furthermore, it's also worth noting that if one's standard is to appreciate it when people take personal responsibility over their own personal actions, then there is no hypocrisy in appreciating Brian's owning up to that part of what he feels to be Smile's demise and finding fault with Mike's similar perception of the event. There are multiple variables that go into assessing the validity of certain statements.

Agreed on all points, CSM. The thing for me is , why doesn't Mike *ever* take responsibility for him bullying Brian and treating him like sh*t, which certainly didn't help Brian avoid the temptation to self-medicate?

Right. I want to know why people, such as Mike, think that other people self-medicate? Honestly, do they think that they just do it out of boredom? I mean, the guy who self-medicates with TM should know all about the concept that some things/people are factors leading to self-medication.

Plus...Mike drinks! So what's the reason why he would look down on someone smoking marijuana (which had medicinal benefits) but drinking is okay (when beer and such has no medical benefits and is proven to be more harmful)?

And he conveniently leaves out his own period smoking weed, as well. It's always those wascally Wilsons! ::)

Quod Est Veritas - Pilate

Now it's to the point where there is some sort of 'Reverse Onus' to prove Mike wasn't responsible for SMiLe's demise??

Contributing factor, or "didn't exactly help matters with his attitude" are different than saying he is "responsible" for its demise. It's a very, very important distinction.  In fact, I think that when people do wag their finger and point to Mike as being THE reason for being responsible for its demise, that's a huge problem and a big reason why Mike has become such a fervent denier. We mustn't forget nuance.

Good point. At the end of the day, the decision to shelve Smile was Brian's, but it was based on many, many things. Mike's resistance was a HUGE contributing factor, but wasn't the only one. I'm of the believer that it was everything added up together that did it. If it had just been Mike, I think Brian would've been able to overcome it.

Iain also brought up the weed smoking of Mike and the others.  Mike didn't take offence to it.  Brian wasn't self-medicating when he started taking drugs.  He wanted to open his mind, experience new things, be more creative.  A lot of people were doing it.  I think that's why he did it, not because of Mike Love.  History may have turned out the same even if Mike Love had never been anywhere near the group.  A lot of Brian's insecurities came from within.  Drugs created paranoia which never helps someone suffering from mental health issue.  The triggers vary.  As an illness it can happen to anyone at any time.  I've always felt Brian would have thought of Mike as a jerk who he could handle and did over they years and during C50.  But throw in paranoia and triggers and that 'jerk' can become a major downer, as could other people.  As Mike has said, he sang all that stuff and there's not many disagreements on the tapes.  Was Carl a bully for not recording the stuff with Brian and Don Was?  I read David Leaf's book when I was in my teens and blamed Mike for everything but over the years that opinion has softened.

How many people here have met Mike?  How was he? I met him once and he was very nice, as were Brian and Bruce when I met them.  Has anyone here got a negative story about meeting Mike.  There are loads about Bruce, and Al not always being great to meet.  Brian is Brian, Carl was a gentleman as is David.  Dennis by all accounts was usually cool with fans.

I just find it hard to understand people having an opinion, to the point where it's proclaimed as fact, about situations they were never in, conversations they were never part of.  Those who were there are not always the best eyewitnesses.

The thing is, at this point, after all this time has passed, Mike can just own up to having perhaps helped contribute to a negative mindset in his cousin's head. This is obvious to anyone, regardless if we were there or not.

He can say that he did not have bad intentions of putting a person (with undiagnosed mental health problems) in any kind of bad emotional state. I mean, I personally have absolutely no problem in saying I'm sorry for inadvertently contributing to something bad happening, even if I feel that it may have been some sort of misunderstanding in part. I cannot fathom a situation where I would be so deathly afraid of apologizing or taking a tiny bit of responsibility. It makes absolutely no sense to me. I am wired for being able to say I'm sorry, and to be sincere about it. I guess I'm lucky to have been raised that way.

It's not as though Mike is an auto company who faces millions in fines if he cops to having approved a faulty engine switch. I don't know what the boogie man is that makes Mike so afraid to say he's sorry, and I say that even if thinks he doesn't have anything to say he's sorry for, he should just friggin' be an adult and do it anyway. Many people just do it. It's not that hard. Unless Mike is literally incapable of apologizing due some sort of mental problem, which I empathize with *if* that's the case here. And yes, I'm serious and not trying to be a jerk. I'm sure there are diagnosable medical conditions that might apply to someone incapable of taking even partial responsibility for basically anything. Please don't anyone jump on me for wondering about Mike's mental health, any more than you'd jump on outsiders who FORTUNATELY hypothesized about Brian having undiagnosed mental health issues - which he eventually overcame.

Actually, there's an interview online from 1995 where Brian completely tears into the whole thing. I do know there was a lot of bitterness from Brian towards Carl, but I personally do not know if they had patched things up before Carl passed, and to what extent. At some point Carl was vetoing much of what Brian wanted to do, and it is also mentioned in Peter Carlin's book.

Best damn avatar you've ever had, Billy!!! Please don't change it.  :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot

That's how I feel. Just own up to it and admit you could've been nicer, Michael

:D

I didn't read such stories - many people said Al was very nice to them. Where'd you get these stories?

In a weird way, when he admitted to the anger management problem (which I give him much credit for), he almost indirectly did just that.

But somehow he cannot connect the two issues together. That's what baffles me. Somebody who has emotionally gotten to the point where they know - AND ADMIT - they have anger issues - enough to try to tackle them, and to cop to them in a major magazine article - must know they are doing damage to those around them. Because otherwise, there'd be no reason to try to "fix" themselves.

I honestly think he won't bring himself to do it because the potential weight of feeling in any way responsible (even a little) for what eventually spiraled into something much, much larger and awful, may be too much for him to bear. It's so sad because I truly Brian would forgive him (and publicly, too) for it.

I have been assured that when Carl passed, he and Brian were in a very good, loving place with each other, and this was by more than one person who was "there" (I wasn't, just to be clear).  I did see Brian within the year (I think) and he absolutely glowed at the mention of Carl.  That doesn't strike me as losing a brother with any bad feelings between them.  I hope that makes some people feel better.

Maybe Brian should apologise to Mike for knowingly 'screwing' him out of songwriting credits.  Maybe that's a reason why Mike has his own possible mental health issues and can't let it go.  How do you know Mike and Brian haven't privately apologised to each other?  I think people here hate Mike more than Brian does.  Why is that?  Maybe Mike and Brian got over 'it' a long time ago.

You keep saying Mike needs to do this and that.  Does he really, maybe he has.  Does it need to be public.  Do the majority of the public care?  Look at Mike's Facebook page and all those who gush over him.  Do they want a public apology over the way Mike treated Brian?  Again, you don't know these people personally so you can't know what has gone down.  Mike has faults like everyone else but maybe everyone should move on.  I'll bet Brian doesn't spend as much time agonising over it.  That's to his credit and a big reason why I love him!  With that, I'll move on from this thread. :)

Good..I wasn't sure as that period isn't discussed much.

The difference is that Brian isn't publicly vilified for this action (due in large part to people feeling more sympathy for him having struggled with emotional issues so much, and being bullied by the mastermind of the crediting screwjob, Murry), not to mention Brian may possibly have been advised by lawyers to not say something in public admitting further guilt to an issue that had/has monetary lawsuit ramifications, even after the initial suit was done.

However, if many interviewers were to continually ask Brian about the suit, and if there were no potential legal ramifications at play (not saying there even are, it's just a remote possibility in my mind), I imagine at some point Brian would have publicly said that he was sorry that Mike was hurt, especially if prodded about that specific subject.

Mike's actions are tantamount to Brian being asked about if the crediting issue may have hurt Mike and messed him up for years, and Brian REPEATEDLY saying in interview after interview, "that's 110% Murry's fault, I had ZERO to do with any of that".  And then adding "and by the way, I wrote the choruses to California Girls, contrary to Mike stating that he wrote all the lyrics to it".  ;D

Mike, on the other hand, KNOWS FOR DECADES that many, many people, both fans and interviewers, want him to publicly take *some* responsibility for this one thing, but stubbornly won't budge AN INCH. Even after Brian said on camera that Mike was part of the problem in the Beautiful Dreamer doc. Mike pretends that never happened! That's absurd. Mike has no remote potential for legal problems by admitting to having been a factor in a project's demise. Nothing bad will happen to him (quite the opposite); it's all about stupid pride. You must know this is true.


The only real reason this subject is being discussed at this point is because Mike does two things: continually deny he had anything whatsoever to do with Smile's demise, and publicly ask why he's being vilified. So OF COURSE any accepting of responsibility by definition specifically HAS to be a public thing that is done transparently, because he is obviously preoccupied with why the public vilification is happening. If the public thinks you are a jerk for not accepting responsibility for something, you have to do something that publicly proves to them you aren't... either that or stop whining.

Do you really think Mike would have a privately pologized to Brian, and then kept that apology a big secret, when it's the key to at least helping make him look better to many people? That makes no sense.

Mike is still taking swipes at Brian publicly though. ..Brian rarely if ever takes swipes at anyone

I've never understood the notion that Brian "screwed" Mike with regard to Sea of Tunes. It seems that Brian and Mike had equal standing in their relationship to Sea of Tunes and were both screwed over by Murry. What did Brian do to Mike?

Wow, lots of food for thought there.  I really appreciate it.

I don't know anything about the man's deepest psychology obviously, but in an empathetic way, I've seen that my stupidest mistakes have given me real nightmares until I finally accepted what I'd done and found some way to address it/them.  We do terrible, stupid things as humans in the heat of the moment.  

I'm trying to even imagine what it must have been like to have been at a very pivotal point in a deeply sensitive Brian's "creative curve" (my best stab at describing the situation succinctly), and to not have the slightest clue what he was trying to accomplish.  Beyond that, it's pretty obvious that he (and at least some other band members) felt personally threatened.  The curse of human ego - for all of us.  As depressed as this makes me, I can empathize.

But now, Mike appears to want credit for the work that so terrified him, since it's stamped (to some degree at least legally) with the BBs name and has received massive kudos. I guess, because of this (and maybe a little greed?) he just can't help himself and feels the need to re-write the history to not look so bad.  If so, that has to be an awful way to live, even with two elevators in the house overlooking Lake Tahoe.  I don't think there's enough "stuff" to bring joy, in the end if that's the reality of your life.  

Just speculating here obviously.  Even if the man sells more books since he seems to have focused more on the tabloid/click-bait stuff, can it bring any satisfaction in reality?

I haven't a clue, but it's an interesting philosophical question.

Debbie, I truly believe that Mike is unfortunately and tragically so bitter and cannot find happiness, even with all the TM (as the very empathetic Rolling Stone interviewer pointed out), and even with loving immediate family members (excepting Steve) + all the material possessions, because this stuff is eating at him inside, perhaps completely subconsciously, and he hasn't dealt with these issues. At least if he's dealing with his anger management issues, that's a good start, and I commend him for doing it AND for talking about it publicly.  

But... deflecting blame forever and ever has to take its toll. So easy to just "blame the internet" and say crap like people think Brian walks on water, etc. What a giant load of BS.

Yes, there ARE people who are ridiculous and hate Mike in a way that is completely unwarranted.  Doesn't negate the fact that many other people exist with nuanced opinions, and who are willing to have LOTS of empathy for Mike, and it doesn't mean they are out of line with their thinking that Mike needs to just take responsibility for stuff in order to ever find peace in his life. If Mike ever gets on the right page on this, I'll go out of my way to make sure to tell every Mike "hater" I know that Mike is starting to turn over a new leaf, and that it's time to perhaps give him another chance. Not saying it's in any way likely, but I'm rooting for Mike to change while he's still with us.

I think the Carlin book states that Brian and Melinda visited Carl and watched the Super Bowl game together on TV in 1998, just a few days before Carl passed away, and patched things up. Brian was very emotional at the funeral.

This, to me, is an example of what I was saying above, where a desire for objectivity or balance results in us getting further away from the truth and reality of things.

Ian Lee has a little radio show now?  An Internet one? I know the BBC sacked him but my, how the mighty have fallen!

Given a number of the links I go to, it appears I could have an internet radio show, as well, like, in a minute.  I actually know some pretty goofy people with internet shows, along with some great ones.  Ah, the wheat from the chaff. 

The handful of times I have met Mike he was always pretty genuine. Friendly, not out of the way friendly like Bruce, but pretty cool.

Maybe we should do a Smiley Smile podcast....

I absolutely agree, particularly with your last sentence.  Why would any of us who actually want a sweet, peaceful life - now, and in the end - spend our time hating Mike Love?  It's just stupid. 

As someone who hates lies - not someone named Mike Love, I have my issues with what goes on about the things discussed here.  And there's the fact that an obviously flawed, tragic human being (essentially like all of us. but wealthier than most) publicly appears to incessantly misrepresent things when convenient - well, I get frustrated.  I don't think that's hatred.  I think it's simply demanding the truth in a world that doesn't seem that interested. I do take pride in the fact that I'm not a liar.  That keeps things simple in my world.  I have a much smaller lake and no elevators, but it works for me.

Please someone.  I would really like to know that there is something in the ML book that offers me any semblance of a positive truth.  Maybe a sentence?  Anything?

Brian let record after record be released with (B. Wilson) as the sole writing credit, knowing that he was depriving Mike not only of the royalties, but also of the glory. Yes it was Murry's doing, but Brian at the time was one of the most powerful people in the music industry. Did he fight to give Mike songwriting credit, or did he passively allow for an injustice to continue? This aspect of the group's history is still unclear. I hope Mike's book will tell us.

And yes Mike did get songwriting credit 30 years later. But it was too late. Mike wanted the glory, the respect, the acknowledgment of the public and his peers when, for instance, 'I Get Around' was #1, and not decades after it was on the charts, when no one but a few die hards would care who wrote what.

Mike is bitter. His bitterness does not reflect well on him, or on his decades of meditation. For his sake, I would hope he would find it within himself to move beyond it, to be at peace with the past. But his bitterness is understandable. It is human.

Hate Mike?  Not a chance.  Why bother.  I don't hate STUPID.  I just don't respect it.  And mean-spirited, low-class stupid?  Well... ... ... 

I expect when Mike-Eddy went to the beach as a skinny little waif...that he used to bury himself in the sand...every time.  [and then tried to blame others for doing it.]

The guy's pretty much just a dink.

I'd like to know more about the procedure of registering songwriting credits.  Brian writes a song with some lyrics, records a track, Mike hears the track and writes the rest of the lyrics.  They record the vocals finish the track mix it and put it on the record.  When do songwriting credits come up?  I think at the time of recording the track some documentation of the songwriter must happen.  Could it be that the song when the track is recorded was noted as being solely B. WIlson because at that time the lyrics weren't finished, and that credit was carried over when the vocals and lyrics were recorded, and Brian, who really didn't concern himself with such practical matters, just never thought to later correct the credits?

This is not to give Brian a pass, he should have made sure Mike was added to the credits, but I doubt credits were at the top of his priority list during this time.  Now for the songs cowritten with Mike before the track was recorded, there's really no justification.  He certainly seemed to manage proper credits for songs with Asher, Usher and Christian.  With Van Dyke he supposedly stiffed him on the Wind Chimes credits which he corrected at the time of BWPS.

Billy, your new animated gif profile pic  is doe-pe!

I aim to please!

Mike does have a right to be bitter. He got screwed. But he did get something back and the guy's had a great career. I wish for him he could let go of stuff that bothers him even at 75 yrs old.  For someone who claims himself to be Mr. Positivity, he has a hard time finding it in his own career.

Yes, bitter. But why at Brian? It was Murry doing the registering. It was Murry's company. Why should it be Brian's responsibility to make sure Murry isn't screwing Mike over? That's the leap I don't understand.
If you are saying that Brian registered the songs without Mike's name, that would make sense. But that's not how I understood it went down. It seems from what I've read that Murry ran the publishing, not Brian.
It would be nice for Brian to look out for Mike's interests but I don't understand why it's his responsibility and why it's reasonable for Mike to be bitter at him for something his father did.

It really doesn't make sense to blame Brian. It also doesn't make sense or add up, when one considers Brian's track record with being overtly generous with percentages with his OTHER non-Mike collaborators during that era and beyond.  There are many stories of Brian's extremely selfless crediting generosity with others. Rocky himself told such a story on this board, but he's far from the only example.

That contradiction with Mike's unfortunate plight makes me think that either:

- Brian felt really bad about how Mike got screwed, didn't know how to stand up to his dad and get the problem fixed, and wanted to go out of his way to do better for other people perhaps inspired by a guilty conscience about Mike's (believed to be unfixable) plight...

- Or Brian was always going to be generous with all crediting in general due to Brian just simply being that way, and the Mike matter was felt by Brian to be an anomaly that was totally out of Brian's hands.

- Or... the doubtful scenario (yet still perhaps feasible?) that Brian possibly had some reason (resentment over Mike's pushy attitude, or bad blood stuff going back to childhood?) for intentionally treating Mike badly in a crediting aspect, singling Mike out, in complete contrast with Brian's crediting generosity to others. I don't really think this is the case, but not convinced it's impossible either.

Because if Brian wanted to do a passive-aggressive move to perhaps deincentivize Mike from wanting to continue collaborating, repeatedly not crediting a collaborator could conceivably make that collaborator walk. Kinda like Van walking when pushed about lyrical meanings too many times. And at a certain point, I believe Brian wished Mike would have taken a hike and not worm his way into cowriting songs. Unlikely, but who knows.  While I wouldn't say that would have been an appropriate way to have acted (if that is what actually happened), I'd empathetically see it as more of a desperate act to sabotage a souring working relationship by a guy who was unable to stand up and communicate his feelings in a traditional sense.

This is all just speculation on my part, but I'm not sure how there are any other scenarios than the ones I've stated above. I'm not sure I am aware of any other examples of Brian being "greedy" and screwing over other collaborators when left to his own devices. It really doesn't make sense outside of these possibilities, IMO.

Does Mike really think Brian did it out of greed? Why then did Brian act differently with others? And is Mike mad at just the situation (understandable, but unhealthy after all this time), or actually resentful towards Brian? It seems petty and futile to be mad at a man with mental illness/emotional issues who deserves empathy about bad business decisions/inability to stand up to his dad.

Regardless...the situation that Mike faced seems very out of character for Brian, and that's not a negligible thing to consider in my eyes.  That means something.

My question with the whole writing credits thing is this: What was keeping MIKE from standing up to Uncle Murry to get the credits he deserved? Why is it Brian's fault that Mike didn't do anything?

Because most bullies are basically cowards

Yes, Brian is not known for being greedy about songwriting credits. Remember this quote from Van Dyke:
"My allegiance has always been to Brian Wilson, who hired me years ago and told me he’d give me 50 percent of anything we wrote together. He said that speaking from his throne at a time when I was nobody. Isn’t that the sign of a marvelous person?"

And also, Brian contributed the bridge (and possibly snippets from CIFTTM) to Little Bird but would not take any of the credit.

I think the blame needs to go to Murry.
But you know, the lawsuit is done. After all these years, Mike needs to move on and get over it.

Totally. This tells me that Brian isn't a greedy guy at all. Plus the Rocky story, and numerous others. Yet I am sure that if Mike was aware at the time of this arrangement that Brian told VDP about credits, that Mike would probably understandably have felt even more hurt at the time, considering his own situation.

Again, I believe that either Brian really felt it was out of his control/didn't feel he had the emotional capacity to deal with Murry, or possibly wanted to send Mike an indirect message to stop trying to inject himself into the songwriting process when Brian truly desired to work with other people. If that is the case, it may not have been right, but I could understand the mindset of that dysfunctional way of communicating, considering how messed-up these guys were from learning from their parents to communicate.

After all, if (and it remains an *if*) Brian wanted Mike to stop trying to push himself into the role of being the main collaborator, and Brian was afraid to actually say those words to Mike, what options did Brian have at his disposal to try and get Mike to take a hint? Would giving Mike the short end of the stick (or allowing a pre-existing crappy past situation with credits to continue) not be something that someone in Brian's shoes *might* have considered doing? As much as I feel that Mike may have intentionally tried to make the atmosphere for VDP as uncomfortable as possible in order for VDP to quit (or at least to diminish VDP's role), I feel it's conceivable that Brian could *possibly* have taken the same tack against Mike. And much in the way that I don't think Mike lost much sleep with sadness when VDP quit, so do I think that Brian wouldn't have lost much sleep if Mike had quit (or backed the f*ck off) around that time.

Again, not trying to "blame" Brian, because I feel that Mike made Brian feel trapped and guilt-tripped, and I feel that however dysfunctional a response that Brian might conceivably have had could be considered warranted by a man with mental health issues, if that was indeed the logic of why it was allowed to happen for so long. Not saying it would have been fair or right, but I could understand it. Fully willing to concede this is just a theory, and I certainly don't feel confident it's true, but I also see how it *could* potentially have some truth to it.

Yeah, does everyone forget good 'ole Chuck Berry getting screwed when it came to credit on Surfin' USA?  Or the lengthy discussion on this forum about some songwriter who was paid off by the group, but basically shafted, when it came to credit for writing a song.  Was it Sweet and Bitter?  I can't remember. 

I hardly think the songwriter who was paid off by the group was some master plan initiated by Brian Wilson. It was also during a period when the band was desperate, and hurting in a big way financially (doesn't make it right), but I tend to think that was a group decision coming from the era in which it occurred.

Regarding Chuck Berry, that was a one-off cover in the very early days of the band, when Murry was calling the shots. In both cases, this is not some regular collaborator with whom Brian had a close, ongoing connection with.

I'm trying to see a situation where Brian made an intentional Mike-screwjob decision based on greed (the only potential viewpoint I could consider why Mike would have ongoing anger towards Brian about to this day), when we have the case study of Brian going out of his way to be extremely generous to people like VDP... and I'm just not seeing it. It doesn't quite add up. I think either Brian felt emotionally unable to take actions to correct the issue (with which his dad was also entangled with) and that Brian can't really be held accountable for that... or that there were possibly some intentional passive-aggressive motives at play, which wouldn't have happened without a reason (not greed).

Just as a matter of interest, has the subject ever been raised about Mike getting a credit for 'Back In The USSR'? He's gone on often enough about the song. Has Mike realised that Paul McCartney is a harder target than Brian?

Mike was asked about Back In The USSR after describing how McCartney had the song but no bridge in India, in the Facebook interview he did with John Stamos recently.

JS: "Now you knew about publishing at that point, why didn't you ask for ten percent then?"
ML: "Because I was meditating too much (laughs)"

And that was about all he said.

Just imagine... Upon returning to the US, Paul asks Mike to join the band, and Mike quits The BBs to become the fifth Beatle.

And the Beatles would still be touring! ;)

Too 'chicken sh*t' to take on the mop tops huh?

He's never taken on Chuck Berry either, even though I believe Berry was in jail when the song he got credited for was actually made.

One issue that relates to this too is the Christmas song, as others noticed and brought up, Ron Altbach co-wrote the song and Mike on his own website promoting the song around Christmas time and the Bill Murray show said Altbach co-wrote it, yet the releases only had Mike credited as the writer. No mention of Altbach.

This is a different topic but what accounted for authorship of a song back in the 60s was a lot murkier than it is today, and it is murky enough today. To be honest, I think it should be murky because it produces a lot of great music as a result. Indeed, I think a lot of people would be shocked to learn just how much, say, a universally acclaimed album like Freewheelin' Bob Dylan uses other uncredited sources. I think it was less a case of screwing other artists than it was a different understanding of how cultural exchange worked.

Regarding credits-

The question why, or how it came to be that Mike Love was uncredited on certain songs is not necessarily that interesting. There's no indication that the Beach Boys really supported or backed one another up (compare to other bands of the time); it was dog-eat-dog, every man for himself, so it makes sense that Mike would get the short end on certain songs, just as it makes sense that Brian Wilson had to go outside the group to the likes of Tony Asher and Van Dyke Parks to get the collaborative support he needed in order to create certain music.  There are tons of examples of the group members undercutting and sabotaging one another in various ways; that was how they went about things. 

What's more curious is that (a) Mike was in fact originally credited on certain songs - "Little Honda," "Warmth of the Sun," "Fun Fun Fun," etc. Why? How come they didn't rip him off on those too? Anybody have any explanation? (b) Post-Smile, Mike is suddenly, and apparently without threat of litigation, being credited again - certain songs on Smiley Smile, and all of the originals on Wild Honey.  The last tunes (in chronological terms) on Mike's lawsuit list are "Wouldn't It Be Nice" and "I Know There's An Answer." After that, it was apparently all good, no need for lawsuits because he began to receive credit. So what happened to precipitate that turnabout? Explanations or theories?

That is a VERY good question.

Thank you Cyncie, for intelligibly saying what I was incoherently trying to say.

I have no answer but it's a very interesting question. I hope people with ideas regarding this will chime in.

I theorize at least with regards to the songs post-Smile, that Mike took it upon himself to REALLY make a big deal to make sure nothing ever happened to him again like that. Maybe he had a talk with Brian and really put his foot down, and/or made some arrangement with someone working for the BBs organization to have his back, and to make sure that everything was very strictly accounted for credit-wise. Probably California Girls was the final straw, in that a major song which was a huge hit (that he cowrote) was missing his credit. That must have been the big kahuna, because no big hits (and very few songs at all) after that point were missing Mike's name.

I think with Pet Sounds, Brian was very much intentionally trying to keep Mike at bay, and to NOT have Mike be the main lyricist on the album (despite the fact that Mike had earlier collaborated on some certainly solid 1964 lyrics on I'm Waiting For the Day). If Mike's name was omitted on I Know There's An Answer... that song, of all songs, had a very contentious creation process, with Mike finally getting his way with scrapping the "ego" lyrics in the end. Do I think that Brian was upset about that (regardless of how solidly the song turned out in the end)? Yes, and I could understand if not crediting Mike on that song - in particular - was an intentional passive-aggressive move. I'd say that's a possibility for that song. Feasible.

Doesn't make it right, but again, maybe there was no other way for Brian to try and get Mike to take a hint to keep away from the songwriting process, which Brian frankly deserved to have control over without Mike's two cents. I think Brian should have had a "Mike Love not allowed" sign in the lyric writing room if Brian wanted to be free of Mike's unsolicited (yet nevertheless, often good) advice.

Let's just get it out of the way and say that WIBN is kind of a straw-grab for a handful of scatting words, and more of an anomaly.

As for the earlier songs which some had Mike's credit and some didn't - that's much more baffling, and perhaps a nuanced answer will one day emerge. I can only think that maybe Brian was actually afraid of putting Mike's name down every time because he didn't want to "hear it" from Murry, and perhaps thought that if he could occasionally omit Mike's name, and keep down the percentage of cowrites, that his dad wouldn't make as big a deal out of things. That is, if Brian was indeed the person who would have had any kind of control submitting the crediting names.  I'm really unclear as to how that submission process worked, and where the chain-of-command started and ended.

My issue with the "songwriting credits" saga and the resulting lawsuits is that it *shouldn't* be much of an issue anymore.

Little is in dispute about it. While some fans and scholars and participants question a few of the credits (WIBN being the most common), nobody from fans on down to Brian deny that Mike wrote lyrics to songs and didn't get the credit.

Mike had a legit gripe. Maybe he should have pursued it more over the years (and his *not* pursuing it, his *non-action*, is ironically perhaps akin to Brian's *non-action* on the issue vis-à-vis Murry back in the 60s), but he was wronged.

If the story ended there, Mike should *totally* still be complaining. But that's not where the story ends.

Brian agreed Mike should get the credit, has never claimed Mike didn't contribute to those songs, and nobody else has suggested otherwise. Further, Mike then WON THE LAWSUIT concerning the issue. He got a monetary settlement, got his name on the songs, and thus all future royalties that he would be entitled to.

So it's a frustrating story with a *full resolution* in favor of Mike.

Why is he STILL pissed about it? He's complaining about stuff nobody disagrees with him on.

The answer in part, as told in the Rolling Stone piece from February is, in my mind, essentially that Mike *can't get over it.* The guy who complained back in the 90s to Goldmine about Al Jardine getting hung up on old stuff, the guy who said he *doesn't* do that but instead looks towards the future, is now the guy who *WILL NOT EVER LET THE ISSUE GO* despite a resounding court victory where *every possible* wrong that could be righted was in fact righted.

THAT is the problem, and THAT is why Mike comes across poorly by still beating the issue to death.

  :lol

Post of the month :lol

Jim Murphy pointed out in his book BECOMING THE BEACH BOYS that Mike was looking for songwriting credit from the very beginning, and that he was very aggressive about it. So his behavior in this area seems to go back to the dawn of the band's career and is, as everyone but the most egregious Mike apologist would acknowledge, clearly something that created a rift with Brian early on--a rift that has been in play, in one form or another, for more than 50 years.

What we've been seeing is nothing more or less than a continuation of this dynamic, one that ebbs and flows and is dependent on other forces in terms of how it becomes more or less toxic in the overall scheme of things. My sense is that Mike has sealed his doom with the new book (the reviews are coming in, and they are mostly negative) by deciding to double down on the media sound bites he's generated over the years as a result of the developing tensions that produced the bitter denouement to the C50 tour.

The sad thing is that there is a good side to Mike, and he has in many ways gotten himself into a much better place thanks to his marriage to Jacqui...we see fatherly and familial fealties in him that have grown over the years that reveal someone capable of genuine, positive emotion and empathy. But he just can't bring himself to give any of this to the Wilson side of his family, and it is going to cement his reputation as the "biggest a*hole in the history of pop music" even when there is evidence to suggest otherwise.

Iain Lee is just one of several interviewers who've found a way into this side of Mike, but the problem is that this side will just "go away for awhile" (usually a good long while...)  in favor of the cocky smart-ass high-school jock-clique persona that he feels compelled to cram down everyone's throat.

Agreed.  Hilarious.

Interesting take on how long this has been going on.  And in my eyes, how utterly ridiculous it's become. Brian can actually write music to this day (of course) - he doesn't need someone else to do that for him. Mike always had the capacity to challenge uncle Murry about his credits.  Given the psychology we now know, he probably had more ability to do that than Brian at the time.

As far as his personal life - I know nothing.

Also, when it comes to Iain Lee, I find his empathy for Mike disturbing, at best.  I don't find them to be a good "pair."

Mike gravitates towards interviewers like Mr. Lee for the same reason he gravitates towards, say, Bill O'Reilly. They're sympathetic to Mike. It's going to be, in part, a "Hey Mike, let's talk about how *other* people are a bunch of a**holes." 

Look at that O'Reilly interview with Mike from back around the mid-2000s "Smile" lawsuit. Similar thing to what would now be a "So Mike, I think you're unfairly criticized by some fans."

Hardly anyone in the media, and sadly not a great deal even within music critic/writer circles, is well-versed enough on the history of the BBs to both *get* an interview with Mike *and* ask the important questions. So what you get is mostly local paper fluff pieces that just advertise Mike's upcoming show (and most any artist on a big tour gets such coverage, including Brian, though Mike often gets some inflammatory stuff in on even some of those otherwise-innocuous pieces), and then occasionally Mike seeks out an opportunity that will be comfortable to him to go into more detail. Thus, the Wink Martindale thing from last year (is *that* guy really the guy anyone wants to see interview a major musical figure?), the John Stamos Q&A on Facebook, that "Love Lounge" thing or whatever it was called that never went anywhere, and so on.

On rare occasion, somehow an interviewer/writer gets down to something more noteworthy and something that gets to the core of Mike a bit more. Not hit pieces, but rather just writers that know their s**t and will be fair to Mike but not suck up to him or write a puff piece. These pieces are pretty rare. Howie Edelson got some good coverage during C50 on Mike. A few book authors have gotten some tidbits from Mike. Jason Fine's 2012 Rolling Stone article on C50 also was quite good, as was this year's February Rolling Stone piece.

Even when it has nothing to do with a "pro-Mike" agenda, the mainstream media stuff is a losing battle from the outset. They don't know and/or don't care about much but either the common told-a-million-times BB story, or something recent and controversial (C50 "firing" headlines, the Manson stuff from Mike's book).

LOL !!!

I suspect some of Mr. Lee's time here was effectively an audition for the interview.

Well, you tell me:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XieaQc6jQ8



 :-D

Well, Elvis didn't waste any time sticking around, did he?

I'll go one further and say all of it was!

Between the three of you, it was said perfectly.  We are posting at one of the few places where anyone actually cares enough to have an attention span beyond 3-second about this subject.

I'm guessing Mike thinks that he'll tap into the interest in the show "Aquarius."  We'll see if he succeeds beyond a few book sales.  In any case, I’m sure he can afford his new darling, Iain Lee.

Emily and Billy - It was hard to miss that Iain Lee was likely buying his way into some weird deal with Mike to promote him.  Thanks so much for reminding us of the rather obvious manipulation of this place by this person.

Lee appears to be just another guy out on the market for a gig.  They're everywhere.  It's as sad as it is annoying in a number of cases, especially when it involves exploiting people (like us, for instance), and it almost never has anything to do with the truth - any integrity.  The magical part that we experienced was when the perpetrator whined about being wounded – by us!  He only said he wanted to kill us publicly.  But we were apparently "mean to him."  The usual spin.  I guess he learned something at BBC before they canned him.

Like I said, it doesn’t add to my confidence on the “GV” project…

We were played to Mike's "persecution" fiddle.... ::)

His relentless "talking point."  Beware, please!

I've done my best to avoid it, but it's easy to have anything one might say to be interpreted as an attack on Mike with enough spin.

I've seen it all before.  I have a Presidential campaign in front of my eyes everyday in the media.  It's the same crap.