The Smiley Smile Message Board

Pretty harsh article. Seems like this person had already made up their mind before reading the book.

http://pitchfork.com/thepitch/1296-the-people-vs-mike-love/ (http://pitchfork.com/thepitch/1296-the-people-vs-mike-love/)

The hell with the book, myKe luHv is incredibly harsh and deserves every word, sentiment and judgement of that review.

Well  N O.

What it shows is that the reviewer did her homework, understands who the principals are, and that at least SHE KNOWS what principles are.  She applies these specific assets to a review different yet comparable to the assessment issued in the New York Times.

To save time I'll borrow a quote from her analyses.  It pretty much sizes it all up accurately..."But I implore you to examine the evidence presented herein and reach the only logical conclusion: Mike Love is still a dick. "

That's not harsh.  It's true. :hat

Lol I just saw that I've been blocked from commenting on Mike's Facebook page because I said under his Bill O'Reilly interview that it was great that he found someone to look like less of a dick next to in comparison.  The comment has been deleted as well.  It's like the page is moderated so that Mike is only given positive praise.

You can get banned for a lot lot less than that. His social media team are clueless.

Nah, I think the "made their mind up before they read it" and "they haven't even read it!" arguments are kind of the go-to methods for defending Mike and his book.

I think it's particular problematic to say this about someone who actually submitted a review, who presumably actually *did* read the book. I got the opposite impression actually. Like many of us, it sounds like the reviewer went into the book *hoping* Mike would do something to redeem himself and not just reinforce all of the things people already think about him. In trying to counteract his "perception", Mike ended up reinforcing it because, in my opinion, that's what his deal is, that's who he is.

I agree that the writer of this article sounds like they had an axe to grind with Mike on just about everything.  I am about 75% of the way through his book and so far I don't share ANY of the same opinions of this writer.  The book is filled with interesting details I've never heard before from a 1st person account from one who has been there since before the founding of the band which is more credible than the opinions of people who get their info from hearsay.  I now have a greater appreciation of Mike's point of view on things.  This is a fantastic read so far, looking forward to Brian's book soon!

The author actually has some valid and interesting points. There is too much of an anti Mike spin however, which I feel, gives the article less cred then it could have. See, the author is kinda doing what Mike did in his book, lol.

I agree that the author's tone comes out as exaggerated, though almost surely sincere.
One sentence I disagree with: "There was the potential of a better, more thoughtful book here."
No, sadly there was no potential.

Well geez, I think part of the point of the article is to be a humorous spin on the normal "review" format. It's a bit over the top in that sense, and purposely so.

Let's be clear that, in my opinion, while individual anecdotes are based presumably on Mike's personal memories, there is a lot of biographical info in the book that seems straight out of any number of BB bios that have been out for years.

I would also trust Jim Murphy's "Becoming the Beach Boys" more than I would trust the memory of any of these guys. In fact, I think Murphy's book several times gets into how the story and memories of the band's formative years got skewed over time and were not accurate.

If that was the game plan, it's a fail IMO. Too much detail and opinion. If you want to go over the top, the author should have got on here for some reference :king

I would have thought that opinion is what a review is supposed to convey.

Again, I think it is problematic to ask reality for objectivity.

I think the basic point of the article, humor aside, is quite sagacious. It's an important point: Even those who want to give Mike a chance to say his piece find that Mike does a *horrible* job as his own advocate. He defensive nature, and rattling off a litany of things he has to defend himself against, all contribute to making himself look even worse.

If people think you're a dick, and you think you're not, you should hopefully be able to go to some length to indicate why you're not. But Mike is sometimes literally a dick about saying he's not a dick. It's a weird sort of paradox.

I also think it's dismissive to assume everybody goes in wanting to reinforce their preconceived idea that Mike is a dick. I took this article as "Mike has always been known as a dick. I read his book in order to get to the ultimate source who can explain why he isn't a dick, and the end result is that he in fact still comes across as a dick."

It's also dismissive to assume that everyone reading the book is walking away with the impression that Mike is a dick. Mind you, I haven't finished it yet, but that strikes me as attempt to marginalize anyone who didn't have that reaction. I have two friends, for example ,who are currently reading the book (at my suggestion...and yes, I'm suggesting they read Brian's too) and one thinks Mike comes off poorly while the other thinks it makes him seem like a likeable dude. Neither fella is caught up in Beach-Boy-internet-fandemonium and are more casual fans so the different reactions are interesting.

Hey Jude has not made that assumption whatsoever in the post you are responding to. Even if he did, I'm confused as to who or what is being dismissed with such an assumption.

It might come down to different types of personalities respond to the phenomenon of "Mike Love" in different ways. Hell, that might explain our competing boards, as well.  ;)

I'm referring to the first part, which is about the author of the piece. The idea that Mike is so bad at making himself not look like a dick that he comes off looking like a dick. Obviously you can't assume that. Like I said, two people can have very different reactions to the same material.

Well, some people like BS more than others. :)

I'm still not finished reading it. I have about 100 pages to go. There are certainly some things where I just have to go "ugh!" but it's more to do with Mike's perception of certain events. I don't begrudge him for taking the positions he does however. He's allowed, and it's a more informed position than I or any fan on a message board could ever have because I wasn't there, not involved, not my call, etc.

Would you agree or disagree that some of the comments and statements made in the book could use some kind of clarification or further explanation? In another thread, the issue of attaching autotune devices to mics at C50 was discussed, specifically the exact wording and the charge that Melinda Wilson personally did this with the autotune devices. There seems to be a discrepancy, short of suggesting such a scenario wouldn't be probable. At that point, it's not perception as much as it's making a claim which people reading would say "hold the phone, that doesn't sound right", and that's exactly what is being done in that discussion. Is it a big deal? I'd say, yes - suggesting Brian's wife brought in five autotune devices to attach to the band's mics at C50 is a pretty big claim to publish. Just some clarification would be necessary. That's not perception, that's a reporting of fact as placed in the book.

Of course, there are comments where I go "Hmm, don't know if that's accurate" but further clarification? It's not like he's on trial. Unless you're suggesting he write a sequel or something to specifically address questions from readers, but no one who writes an autobiography does that.   

Ironically, I would say that Mike's book has more of an air of addressing a myriad of individual accusations than most autobiographies I read.

It's far from the first "score settling" autobiography. But at least some autobiographies seem to at least be more grounded in a "I might have an interesting story to tell, so here it is..." vibe, whereas Mike's is *very much* a "I'm pissed about all the stuff people have been saying about me, so here's my side."

Mike doesn't owe anyone any explanations due to his book or anything else (I guess unless lawsuits materialize as a result), but he chose to write a book and people are going to scrutinize what he's writing. Some stuff he says is basic biographical information (some new to the book, a lot as well that has been told in countless other books), some stuff is individual anecdotes, other things are more general impressions and opinions, and so on.

Obviously, a lot of hardcore fans are going to go into this book rather incredulous at the outset. We should keep open minds, but a lot of fan (and press) incredulity has been caused by decades of Mike, well, being Mike. In any event, there are *a lot* of "hrmmmm" moments in this thing. On occasion, it's a literal "I think that might be incorrect" thing. But often, it's more of a "if you stop and think about that, it doesn't make any sense." For instance, in my voluminous notes posted in other book thread, I mention Mike being offended that Al wanted to do a symphonic tour in 1997/98, as if Al was going to replace Mike and Carl. But there's no way Al could have done a Beach Boys tour with zero BRI shareholder support. So the accusation doesn't really hold much water. And *that* is what occurs a lot in the book. A lot of accusations that are presented like "smoking guns" that actually don't really amount to much. Scattered single-shot anecdotes that always reflect negatively on *someone else*, that appear to be an attempt to backup something Mike did or said, but don't seem to actually amount to much of a real reason.

Same thing with C50. Mike says he got the "no more shows" e-mail, and implies it was *at that point* that he began booking his own shows. But he also says at other points it was *always* going to be short run tour. So the "no more shows" email, despite being presented as a reason Mike booked his own shows, isn't *really* actually a reason. He was going to do it anyway.

Or when Mike mentions the multiple times he threatened to quit in the middle of C50. He then mentions he (obviously) comes back, but he doesn't ever really go into the likely *obvious* reason that contributed to that decision: avoiding being sued into oblivion.

Bottom line: Most people won't have their mind changed by this book. If you have already felt Mike hasn't done anything particularly heinous, the book won't make you think otherwise.

For me, I went into it as a Beach Boys fan. I know the story and the timeline of events backwards and forwards so if Mike can add some missing pieces to the puzzle, I'm all for it. I expect the same from Brian's book. Incidentally, I interviewed Mike 2 weeks ago for my radio show (a longer version will air this weekend) but, sadly, I didn't have the book at that point.

That guys does not know what the heck he is talking about just like most media sources!

I disagree.

Worth noting, if we're going to play the "you didn't even read the whole thing" game with the book itself, is that the author of this article is not a "he", but actually a "she." She could rightly point out some critics of her article aren't quite reading the entire article if the author's name is being ignored.

This same author doesn't appear to be anything approaching a hardcore "Brianista" either, as she has also written rather middling reviews of both "Becoming the Beach Boys" (the CD set, not the book) and "No Pier Pressure."

Isn't Stacey a unisex name?

Edit: Sorry HeyJude. Clicked on the name and the resulting page stated that the author is a "she", indeed. By the way, she seems to have good credentials too. :)

Edit again: I read the NPP review. It's middling, as you say, but I don't mind middling reviews as long as they are so well written. In fact, I re-evaluated her review of the Mike book, as its exaggerated style is obviously voluntary, and probably modeled after the book itself, as it has been suggested.

Great review! The reviewer correctly pins Mike on his lies, distortions, spins and exaggerations.

Lies, I can attest to. The reviewer writes, " he disparages ex-wives yet excuses himself handily of his many infidelities (“I was still too young, too impulsive, to make lifelong decisions”).

Youthful infidelities?  What about his adult? If you haven't heard my Mike C50 story, do PM me.

Speaking of people vs. myKe luHv, the following are sites that have sprung up due to his persona and behavior:

Mike Love Is Kind Of An Asshole

The Biggest Assholes In Rock

I Hate Mike Love

F%ck You Mike Love

Man vs. Clown-Why I Hate Mike Love

The Mike Love Is A Douchebag Page

"      "             "  "       "       Tumbler

Top 22 Pictures Of Mike Love Looking Like A Douchbag

Mike Love Is A Douche

F#ck Mike Love Facebook

Mike Love Is A Dick

 :lol :lol :lol :lol Who needs a book? Not to mention the hundreds of heartwarming comments on You Tube. I did look for some anti Brian, Carl, Dennis and Al sites but none there. What does that tell you? Is there anyone in a group who has this kind blessing bestowed upon them? No? I didn't think so. What a sad legacy. Doubt if he ever gives it a passing thought., being as deranged as he obviously is.  

How is she wrong?  Can you name specific instances?

Keep those requests coming. Creep warning to those that inquire!

Of course I'm not suggesting a sequel. But maybe an interview where he gets asked a follow up question or a request to clarify something would be in order, if not expected unless true journalism and interviewing skills have been replaced by canned fluff and infomercial-style PR.

Your other post, you said you went into it as a Beach Boys fan. So did I. So did Hey Jude. I think most if not all of us who have read and commented on the book would say the same thing. If we weren't fans, we wouldn't care enough to read the book, and surely not to comment on it.

If anything, going into a book like this as Beach Boys fans offers us more opportunity to see something that doesn't sit right, and challenge it. Like the autotune devices comment. Like some of the Smile comments. Like the charges made against David Anderle. Like the claims made surrounding C50. Like the way the history was told. Like what was said versus what wasn't even mentioned.

2005 lawsuit? PMRC? Al Jardine in many situations in the book where he's all but persona non grata?

I, for one, thought some deeper fact-checking would have gone into it. Alas, that doesn't seem to be the case if a charge is made that Melinda Wilson attached five autotune devices to the C50 vocal mics. That's bogus as it was written. So we call it out as readers who know the background, know the facts and history, and know the technology in this case.

If anything, Beach Boys fans who know the history front to back are the ones who would be expected to raise questions and ask for clarifications. Unless "real fans" just keep quiet and let things pass by which don't pass muster?

I would expect "real fans" to do what's happening now i.e. discuss it on fan centric message boards and Facebook groups. I would also expect fans to accept that there are other fans who read stuff like what you've cited from Mike's book and not be outraged or upset about it. Having followed these guys since the 70's I've heard them say all sorts of stuff. It doesn't bother me and, as I've already stated, I don't accept everything I read as gospel truth. I'm glad for the opportunity to read it. Doesn't mean I'm on board 100%.

As for PR puff pieces and wanting follow-ups, your best bet would be to hope Mike does a live call-in show and then hope that the call screener finds a question about "Melinda putting autotune on the mics" interesting enough to put through....but you and I both know that ain't gonna happen. Not because Mike would refuse to answe the question, but because ther would be a hundred calls about Charlie Manson waiting in the wings. We've all seen how that lurid story has captured the imagination of listeners, readers, the media, etc. Mike's recent appearance in the Opie and Jimmy show was almost exclusively about Manson.

I can't speak for other radio show hosts, but a guest on my show is a guest in my house, and naturally everyone is therefore treated with courtesy and respect. If you hear the recent interview I did with Mike you'll notice that, unsolicited, he mentions Charlie Manson in passing. I could've followed up on that but I didn't. Why? Because it's not that kind of show. My audience is families either going to or on their way home from church on a Sunday morning, so we will not be discussing serial killers. I'm not suggesting that when you said "PR puff pieces" that you meant me (some would argue that I barely qualify as media) but I think you'll find that unless there's widespread outrage over a particular aspect of Mike's or anyone's book, the media is not going to be terribly interested. If Melinda sued over that comment, then you might see some traction, but a handful of fans calling out inaccuracies in a biography isn't going to generate much interest. That's what message boards are for actually.

That's the thing, that's what they (boards) are there for. Among other things. So why are people doing exactly that, who have read the book, being lumped into this "Mike bashing" nonsense and charged with trying to torpedo Mike and the book? We read it, we know the history of the band...why can't we as fans also raise specific, factual questions without being grouped into these hate categories or accused of trashing it without reading it? It's fans critiquing a book they read, concerning a band member.

It's difficult to believe you don't care when you read something that isn't accurate, or even doesn't feel right. It's either right or wrong, when it's a fact and not an opinion being offered. When something you read is wrong, don't you wonder first how did it slip by considering there were people fact-checking this to ensure accuracy, then further ask why did it show up in the book at all?

My issue is, I'm guessing a majority of readers, the casual fans or not even fans who want some scoop on Manson and buy the book, they DON'T know the background like we do. So Mike's book had researchers and fact-checkers on the job, to get things right, yet some things jump off the page as not right. In fact, a few are absurd and outright wrong. Yet, people reading will take it as face value, as "truth", and people challenging those points are called haters. That's not right, but again consider the source as in those doing it. There is also "guilt by omission", or as a former member used to say, it's not what he said but what he left out. Plenty of that in this book as pointed out.

I've been a fan since the 70's. First BB's I remember was some TV appearance where my parents commented on Brian Wilson. I had to be 4 or 5. And funny thing is, for all the world, I think Bruce was who they thought was Brian! Then it was the 8-track tape of "Greatest Hits vol 2" I used to play, along with the quarters to play the jukeboxes at the shore to hear I Get Around at the diners. None of that mattered then because I had no clue who the guys even were, I was a little kid who dug the sound of the records. So yeah, I've been listening since the 70's too, before I knew the difference between Al and Mike and Dennis and the rest...very young, but loved the sounds of the music without knowing exactly who it was. Then I got into the history of the group, and did study it. And as such, I can observe that the fact checkers missed a few points in this book.

I just think Mike would have been better served by having more careful checking of those things, even the minor ones. People do care. And if there are some things that are not adding up, he could be asked and address it. I agree, it won't happen on the assembly line press junkets like he's been doing. They won't stray from the script to allow it. Such is TV.

While I'm sure many wish Mike would be made to answer for some of the more egregious things he's done or said, it's just never going to happen. I think the Rolling Stone piece earlier this year is as hard-hitting and substantive and pointed as it's ever going to get.

Local radio and daytime talk shows are never going to do it, whether they want to or not. There isn't the time, the hosts or presenters usually don't have the breadth of knowledge to ask the tough questions, and when they do, there still isn't the time and the likely audience doesn't want to hear a nuanced back and forth on the intricacies of a now four-year-old reunion tour (or a myriad of other topics that Mike is attached to negatively).

Even a lot of print media don't get around to it; they get bogged down in giving background/history and often are only given a few minutes (if that) to talk to Mike as well.

The Rolling Stone piece earlier this year is one of the only times a journalist has actually *confronted* Mike with uncomfortable questions (e.g. why Mike espouses the calming virtues of TM while maintaining such a bitter, aggravated personality), and even then he was really only able to ask more broad confrontational questions rather than pulling quotes and statements and asking Mike to explain how they don't make sense or contradict something else he has said, etc.

It is true that when Mike or anyone comes in for an interview, there has to be some respect and even restraint. It really would take a very disciplined person with a very strongly calm temperament to ask Mike hard-hitting questions without coming across as an "ambush-style" journalist. I think it could be done. I think someone could take Mike to task for a lot of issues but do it with a calm, respectful voice and tone. But it would take the perfect storm of an interviewer with that temperament, coupled with a bunch of other factors falling into place including having the time and venue to ask the questions and the proper time to prepare, and not have Mike cut the interview short, etc.

Well, as a scholar, though not a BB scholar, and as an author of peer reviewed work and commissioned book reviews for academic journals, I have to say that this pitchfork article is completely without craft and without critical value. It's conceit grows old after one paragraph, and it's simply one more piece of snarky internet hatred. It is not a book review but rather using the book (the tone and spirit of which are ignored) as an occasion to spew hatred. It holds no value except for those with the same feelings who want to hear hate trumpeted.

Just terrible from the perspective of genuine critical thought and an indication of how the current generation of critics and writers profane the important literary art of book reviews.

Best wishes to all; I have no personal beef with any of you, as I believe we all love the BB, and I respect our differences here.

Update: I see that the author writes for the Guardian. . . .no surprise, as he/she (?) appears to be channeling standard issue intolerance for Mike who is perceived as right wing in the absurd Manichean paradigm favored by the radical Left.

I think the thing is that Pitchfork, and book reviews (or music or movie reviews, etc.) in general are not peer-reviewed journals. It's in some ways the exact opposite of that. It's opinion-based.

I suppose I would argue this slightly snarky piece is more an op-ed or general opinion piece than a straightforward book review.

But Pitchfork isn't peer-reviewed nor any sort of academic journal, and I wouldn't want a subjective book review to be peer-reviewed anyway, it would defeat the purpose of someone giving us their opinion.

Presumably/hopefully, any review or op-ed gets run through some sort of editor to check or egregious problems, but beyond that, it's not analogous to anything academic or peer-reviewed.

Peer reviewed opinions? Isn't there something in the US Constitution against that?

I would like to remind everyone of the shellacking many of us withstood at the outset of C50, when we alleged there was some sort of vocal processing going on and were quickly beaten within an inch of our lives by other posters. Here it is, clear as day-- the early gigs used some sort of autotuney vocal processing thing (although they weren't attached directly to the microphones, of course ;D)

TL;DR I was right, dammit!

I recall it being painfully obvious that someone was sticking autotune on Brian's vocal on very early shows on the tour. Was there really a large contingent of people denying it, even after recordings surfaced?

I always thought the fact that it disappeared pretty quickly was pretty strong evidence that it had been used and quickly dropped.

Yes!  :lol  It seems that way, in any case.

I think many of us have had to write in both a scholarly fashion and in a format with style guidelines for popular publications.  It takes a different mindset.  They are two very different things - and the US is pop culture at heart, whether we like it or not. 

Thus, Mike's book was written for pop culture from the large number of excerpts I've seen (and I can't imagine it being anything else, frankly), intended to sell to the masses, as was this review.  If I'm in the mood for academic papers, this works - https://www.academia.edu/  I don't think you'll be finding either Mike's or Brian's books.  ;-) in this location.

In some cases it bothers me (such as Mike claiming "It's OK" was written in 1976) but I'm also open to the possibility that some of the facts as know them may be incorrect. Case in point, look at what happened with Mark Lewisohn's book "Tune In". For 45 years the story went that The Beatles went into Abbey Road to audition for George Martin. He didn't think much of their material (particularly "Love Me Do") but after George Harrison made a crack about Martin's tie he realized that their personal charm alone would make them stars so he signed them to a recording contract anyway. That fact was printed in countless books by Beatle scholars for decades and George Martin and all four Beatles agreed upon the story. With 5 eyewitness, who would doubt it? And yet Lewisohn uncovered documents that proved George Martin signed them to a contract before that event ever happened. Lewisohn gently confronted Martin with this evidence and he was flabbergasted. "Why would I have done this?" he gasped. Lewisohn had the answer as provided by other documentation......then the earth shifted. Now every book written prior to this revelation was in question. Every prior Beatle scholar had to wipe the slate clean and rethink the timeline.  Of course, George Martin and the four Beatles weren't purposely lying for 45 years, the event did happen, George Martin just had the timeline all wrong.

One can really only pin their hopes on documentation. This is one of the reasons Jim Murphy's book "Becoming The Beach Boys" was a game changer in many ways, because he found the documentation to back it up. The Beach Boys as an entity need someone to do a "Mark Lewisohn" on their history. I've always hoped Murphy would be the guy to do it.

The big problems start when you get into areas where there is no documentation....  

That brings us into the issue of confabulation, every researcher's worst nightmare. As they say "every one is the hero of their own story" and over time memories change based on time having passed, other factors, etc. It's more common than not. It's happened to me. Back in the 1990's I bought a VHS tape called "Brady Home Movies". If ever I was asked about it later (which, admittedly, didn't happen often) I always maintained that one of the most moving moments in the whole production was when a tearful Maureen McCormick  expressed guilt over not visiting Robert Reed one last time before he died. I remembered her face, the lighting, the way the shot looked, everything. About 5 years ago, I found that old VHS tape and decided to watch it and there was the scene....except it wasn't Maureen McCormick, it was Christopher Knight. How could I have misremembered something so drastically?  I even subconsciously changed the sex of the individual onscreen in my memory! This has happened with other people in my life too. A friend keeps insisting that he once saw an Emitt Rhodes album called "Branches". I looked into it and it didn't exist. He went nuclear on me. He remembered holding the album in his hands, the color of the sleeve, etc. I even went so far as to contact Rhodes himself who said he never made any album like that and had no idea what I was talking about.  

These are things I keep in mind when reading these kind of books. Yes, there are inaccuracies in Mike's book, as I'm sure there will be in Brian's. I hope Al writes a book..Bruce too. The more accounts we get from people who were there firsthand and the more documentation researchers turn up to back it up or either disprove it, the better we'll all be for it.    

As for me, I got into the Beach Boys through my Mom's "Endless Summer" 8-track tape. I was oblivious to the fact that these were old songs. I just assumed some new group hit the scene in 1974 and blew the doors off everything. lol  
  

  ;D As an academic, I know exactly what you're saying. I would guess in Musicology (not my field), Brian's work has been examined extensively by scholars and will  continue to be so. The Pitchfork writer probably had an editor and it looks like she has some credible work behind her. But, yeah. The bios sure aren't aimed toward the academic audience. I think the Pitchfork article, amidst its maybe a little belabored conceit 9although it's hilarious given the BBs unending lawsuits), has a strong point to give.

I'd say that the professor might have missed a fact or two while considering his learned response to what I would refer too as an educated evaluation of the subject matter and of the self-serving agenda being pushed as factual.

That she knows of whom she critiques is obvious and, as such, the analyses is beyond being merely valid.  The 'author' has been demanding this kind of response for decades.  It is both earned and deserved.  It won't be the last.