The Smiley Smile Message Board

*redacted*......I read a lot of stuff. .....*redacted*





no! :lol

Any true fan of the Beach Boys knows it was the voice on the classic hits that got them hooked to begin with. Anyone who disagrees is kidding themselves.

/thread

Mike is very important on so many levels. I think many (if not all)  of his post '73 decisions were misguided, but until that time he created some wonderful work. If others hadn't sought to bash him I bet that he wouldn't be so overly defensive today. After I learned how many songs he actually wrote, I changed my mind about him quite a bit.

Um. Jason, please don't presume to speak for me. It was not Mike's voice that got me hooked -- it was Brian's. Don't Worry Baby, Surfer Girl. I always found Mike's leads somewhat grating. His bass singing, on the other hand -- that is truly underrated.

Opinions = facts in the minds of those who have them. :)

Serious answer follows.

I do admit to being more than a trifle brusque with the preceding comment but I find it very hard to believe that people with absolutely no interest in the Beach Boys could get into them without the strength of the classic tunes which Michael sang lead on. IMO, of course, it seems like these fans are speaking with the cloudiness of hindsight and one too many reads of a biased book on the topic or Brian's consistently confounded responses to a stupid interviewer's questions which he's been asked a thousand times before.

They all had their places. Mike was the lead singer. Brian had the high voice. Carl was the angel. Dennis was Dennis. Al was the man on the corner.

However, the best singer in the band was not one of them alone, but the combination of all five, or six, or even SEVEN (!) of them. Individually they weren't great, or maybe even good singers for the most part, but together they ruled.

Keep it clean with Al Jardine. :)

My opinion tends to piss people off, but it's an honest opinion therefore I will speak it.

Lots of people who consider themselves hipsters and into edgy weird stuff: when approaching the Beach Boys,   they go searching around for something hip weird and cool in the BBs catalog (to me it's ALL hip weird and cool, but nevermind) and of course they're drawn to the Smile stuff naturally. Then from there they get really into the story of Smile and they read Dominic Piore and David Leaf stuff and suddenly Mike's the Hitler of rock n roll and that's it, end of story.

Yeah, great point, I totally agree. The Today album's full of Lovester bass vocals, Breakaway being good later example of this I reckon.

However, quite a few people I know are are irritated by Brian and Carl's leads and don't mind Mike's.

Perhaps he had a more conventional "pop" vocal range?

Incidentally, for me Mike isn't evil, at some stage would have been a great laugh - but definitely lost the plot at some stage in... lots of ways. Such is rock'n'roll I guess.

Jason: I will say it again. Please don't presume to speak for me. I will say it again, in case I wasn't clear the first time: Mike Love's lead vocals were not what attracted me to the Beach Boys.

Perhaps it was because I liked these songs:

Surfer Girl
In My Room
Don't Worry Baby
Help Me Rhonda
God Only Knows
Wouldn't It Be Nice
Heroes and Villains
Darlin

None of which, you will note, have a "Michael" Love lead vocal on them. Yes, yes, he's on the WIBN bridge. I know.

There is no question, that in general, Mike's distinctive nasal tone was one of the things that set the BBs apart and that made many people like them. However, those songs have always been my least favorite in the catalog, and they were not the ones that led me to explore the band.

And yes, my opinion of Mike Love has been "biased" by witnessing what he has said and done in the last fifteen years. I won't run through the list; folks can reach their own conclusions, as I have reached mine. But this has nothing whatsoever to do with whether I like his voice. Hell, I like Phil Spector records, and he probably shot a woman.

Edit: Admittedly, I have recently listened to the Summer In Paradise album again and enjoyed it. That's right, enjoyed it.

Edit: Admittedly, I have recently listened to the Summer In Paradise album again and enjoyed it. That's right, enjoyed it.

I think actually listening let alone enjoying Summer In Paradise ought to be a special Beach Boys medal of honor. Maybe I'll design one and manufacture em and hand em out! That would be cool.

ditto - except the SIP bit    ;D

and add Surf's Up, I Can Hear Music, most of Pet Sounds - just about anything that has Carl's voice on it.

I was one of those people who was very put off by the Beach Boys sun 'n' surf image as conveyed by Mike Love, and loathed them instinctively until I discovered them through their '70s work.  Then I started working my way back and grew to appreciate the '60s stuff as well....the point is well taken, but it's equally true that there are a lot of people that might be more receptive to the Beach Boys if not for the image that Mike sometimes personifies (and yeah, other members of the band have contributed to this problem at various points too).

I also get tired of the word "bashing," as if anyone who has issues with Mike (or anybody else for that matter) is on some sort of biased delusion.  There's plenty on the public record to criticize, and what I've heard privately from those that knew him has not made me feel he's been treated unfairly.  If the criticism is fair and warranted, it's not bashing.  It's criticism, which is a form of accountability for public figures, who by definition have more power (and lawyers) than us mere mortals.  It's also subject to rebuttal or other perspectives.

So having said that, I'd like to pivot here and second some of the things that were said here in praise of Mike:
* Mike was absolutely crucial in the early days.  As someone else pointed out, you needed that cocky/corny front man to put the music over to the kids.  It sometimes got in the way later, but in the early days Mike ruled as a frontman.
* Bass vocals.  Outstanding work in the '60s.  Very underrated as a bass singer.
* Lyrics.  I think Mike's role as a songwriter has been overstated a little (in my opinion the best lyricist the BBs ever had may have been Roger Christian), but he's written some ace lyrics (again, mostly in the early days when he really knew how to talk to his audience).   Forget "The Warmth of The Sun," "Fun Fun Fun" is real poetry.
* Advocacy of TM.  Yeah, he's been heavy handed in his TM obsession, but it's something the guy believes in and genuinely feels will benefit humanity, and he's pursued it faithfully and in the face of a great deal of derision for 40 years.  That takes balls.
* Punching Out Murry in '63.
* Showing Up For Work.  For better or worse, Mike's been the most devoted (and probably driven) member of the band, at nearly every show since the beginning.  And he clearly loves what he does.

It's true that you can't have the Beach Boys from '62-65 without Mike.  Brian was the engine but Mike had a key role in making it work for the masses.  I'd argue that Mike never comfortably found his niche in the "new" Beach Boys, and that's why he's tended to pull the band in a direction that he's more comfortable with. 

I know it doesn't sound like it, but I have a certain level of sympathy for Mike.    Being in a band with Brian and Dennis had to be absolutely exasperating for him (and, of course, vice versa).  You're there for 40 years, you do your job and stay clean, and everyone hates you and loves your drugged out cousins from the wrong side of the tracks.  There are solid reasons why that is, starting with matters of artistic quality, attitude and aesthetic, but those are not things Mike really "gets," and absent understanding that, it all must seem very unfair to him.

But there ya go...six real people dealing with difficult situations for 47 years.  I couldn't have dealt with it...

Wonderful post, Adam. No need for me or anyone else to knock or argue with any of it.

I will say, however, that there are a lot of people, myself included who did come to love the Beach Boys through their early hits. I grew up in Hawthorne with my parents blasting Endless Summer, so the Boys were mythic. As I got older I re-approached the BBs through their late 60s and 70s work and fell in love with them all over again. But it will always be the early hits that grabbed a hold of me. Therefore I happen to simply be a fan of Mike's work. How can I not be if I love the early stuff so much? So, naturally I will defend him. And I'm not just an "early hits guy" My top two BBs albums are Holland and All Summer Long. Great examples of both sides of the Beach Boys coin.

And IMHO, Mike contributed GREATLY to the Beach Boys late 60's-70s work. Sure, he didn't sing lead on every other song or duo with Brian, but his voice was extremely prominent and kept the band SOUNDING like the Beach Boys. Which to me, is an important factor. I love when he comes in during the breakdown in "It's About Time".... It's so obviously the same band who cut "Surfin" but it's a completely different thing yet still the same. To me this is glorious.

The guy co-wrote almost all of Wild Honey. And let's not forget he sand lead on the album version of "Let The Wind Blow."

Other great later stuff Mike contributed to heavily or at least has a writing credit on.

Meant For You
All I wanna Do
Add Some Music
Only With You
Sound of Free
POB
All This Is That
He Come Down
Big Sur
Do It Again
Good Vibrations
Let us Go On This Way
Time To Get Alone
It's Ok
Don't Go Near The Water
Cool Cool Water (my all time favorite BBS song)
Goin On
Sumahama
Funky Pretty
Be Here In The Morning

..... And let's not forget the guy did write the lyrics for I'm Waiting For The Day. He's has that credit on Pet Sounds and you and I don't.

Also....

Please Let Me Wonder (some of my favorite lyrics of all-time)

I won't get into the eary early stuff. And so much of it is good.

I'm just trying to point out that it IS possible to be a legitimate fan of Mike's. And if you started as a fan, no matter what you hear or read, you're still at least a fan of his contributions.

And he continued to be a great frontman all through the 70's. His 80's and 90s outfits are horrid and they really did a lot to make the band look cheesier than they had to. His 70s outfits might have been silly, but I for one think he most always looked at least weird if not cool. And weird is just about as good.

And I don't know if it's fair to claim that Mike doesn't get things like artistic quality, attitue and asthetic. If anything, he simply has his own ideas about what constitutes such things. You or I may not agree with his ideas, but to say he doesn't "get" such things is certainly approaching the parameters of "bashing"

Good post, but actually he comes off better with most people I have talked to then his rep. Bruce that's another story.......

Agreed. In My Room and Wouldn't It Be Nice were the songs that really kicked it off for me--Mike's voice annoyed me. Now I like it OK, though.

Very well said. I agree with everything in this post (except I think Tony Asher was the best lyricist and I got into the BBs from Pet Sounds.)

Yes, I got into the Beach Boys through Pet Sounds, where Brian had most leads. Mike's lead on That's Not Me was my least favorite on the album. Knowing nothing about the Beach Boys, I just had a less favorable view of that lead vocal. The bass singer, on the other hand, was great!   :-D

this is kinda silly

i'm sure there are loads of people who got into the beach boys because of kokomo. does this make them lesser fans?

hey, i got into the beatles because my mom used to play me octopus' garden when I was little. it's still one of my top 3 beatles songs. does it matter?

Of course not. I think we were all just responding to the statement that Mike Love's lead vocals are what get fans into the Beach Boys. Not always the case.

and I can agree with that. for me it wasn't any one singer but the way their voices so perfectly fit together. how they all sang with such pure-ness. no affection or showy vibrato, just pure, perfect tone.... the BBs voices are like a singular insturment. So, if I was ever paying attention to any one voice, I qucikly became aware or the other voices swooping under or over the lead.... I admit to loving Carl's voice best of all though.

Gotta admit (again) that is exactly how I became interested in the BB (and still they let me become a moderator...  ;D ). Hey, I'am older and wiser now...

IMO = In my opinion...

Jonas: I understand basic internet jargon. The addition of an IMO does not make Jason's statement any less presumptuous. He was simply restating his point, and I was restating mine. All posts on message boards are, by definition, IMOs anyway (I assume that the almighty does not make it a practice to post regularly).

Wha?

That said, I agree with you in that I got into them through mostly the Mike stuff.

The first record I bought by the BeachBoys was Fun, Fun, Fun.  I was a kid.  This was a new record on the radio and I saved my allowance to by 45's.  Yup.  Thats how foda OLD I am.  And I didn't know Mike Love from Brian Wilson at the time ...although I came to notice that these BeachBoys songs were credited to a writing team of (Wilson-Love).  The flip side of FFF was Why Do Fools Fall In Love? with Brian on lead.  I thought this was a great flip side and played it often.  For all I knew it was an original song, having not been old enough to listen when it first made the air with Frankie Lymon.

What drew me to the band was the overall sound; The  lead vocal, the bands vocal chorus, and I loved the lead guitar intro and the heavy use of organ in the middle of FFF.    I had heard the lovely falsetto on other songs but didn't know it was Brian.   Much later, I heard Carls vocals on songs such as I Can Hear Music, but still knew this as the lovely falsetto voice and harmonies of the band.  Just LOVED that sound.    The sound.   Not Mike, Not Brian, Not Carl, but the sound.

Point of all of this, and I think it has been said already, is that the sound of all of those people, in combination, was what made the Beachboys great.   And Mike Love was, and is,  a key part of the BeachBoys.

If he's adding in his two cents, which are his opinion, how is he presumably speaking for you? Get off your high horse.

It's just an opinion. It's just as credible as anyone else's. Everyone's entitled to their opinion. And the fact that you take my opinion as a personal attack is a bit unnerving because I was not out to attack anyone. You've given your two cents and I've given mine. I apologise for any mistaken impressions my posts in this thread may have given you. But I will not retract my opinion. I'm entitled to mine as you are to yours.

Edit

If I can jump in here-

Stating an opinion is always fine- no one has questioned anyone's right to do that.  But if you suggest the following-


You can pretty well expect to go on the defensive. Your rights have not been challenged, but your statement has.  When you add:


...you may be seen as suggesting that your opinions (which followed) are the result of clear thinking and balance, and others' are not, regardless of the IMO, which (as someone pointed out) is always implicit anyway.  That's going to offend someone in advance every time.  Just another friendly opinion on opinions...

And to the general topic, here's my opinion, which you can print out for ten percent off a leisure suit at your local Woolworth's:

(1)  I like Mike, and I have great respect  for his contributions.

(2)  I went from staunch Mike defender, to really irritated with him following a series of public comments, etc., to a balanced view.  He is who he is, and that includes some great personal qualities and some very frustrating ones.  I think the good stuff far outweighs the other stuff.

(3)  I have always liked "Kokomo"- to a point.

(4)  I have always believed that it was the melodies and arrangements and overall sound of the Beach Boys' records that first drew me to them when I was a kid.  Maybe I'm kidding myself.

Point understood and taken.

Very graciously said, and same to you- your points are taken as well.

Interestingly, my brother- who's a fan on a limited basis, through me- formed a great dislike of Mike from watching a couple of documentaries with me, but really likes Mike's voice from listening, without knowing whose voice it was.

I should have added above- though I came to be at peace with some of Mike's more abrasive public qualities, I've always thought that the bad rap he gets is something he absolutely brings on himself.  On the other hand, he could easily choose to say the right things, and he often doesn't, so call it integrity if you will.  And having seen them numerous times in the eighties- found a bunch of old ticket stubs yesterday, believe it or not- he is as good a front man on stage as there ever was.

Right back atcha, Erik...can't argue with the post above this one either.  But I do want to quibble with what you wrote here just a little bit.  You're right that Mike has his own ideas about artistic quality, attitude and aesthetic...and he's very committed to them; it's based on a commercial viewpoint, which is valid, although I'd argue he's cut himself off at the knees both in taking that road and also the WAY he's taken that road.  But I don't think it's bashing to say that he doesn't really get the opposite viewpoint.  I think it's true; he's just not a hipster kind of guy in any way; he's more of a businessman type of entertainer.  If that was all there was to the Beach Boys' appeal, then I wouldn't have a problem with it, but taking that commercial approach has sabotaged the Beach Boys' artistic credibility AND limited their long-term commercial prospects in so doing.  And I would argue that Mike doesn't "get" that, partly because he can't see it from the other perspective.  It's just not who he is; I think the argument can be made (as it just was) that it's a form of integrity.  I also think, though, that there's a certain wilfullness in Mike's positions in the face of contrary facts involved too, and only seeing the parts of reality that reinforce what you already believe is not as cool to me.  I don't think, though, that's "bashing."

I also agree that Mike's done good work post 1966, but I would argue that it's been less frequent as the years have gone on.  Before '66 though, you couldn't have the Beach Boys without him.

I think there are two distinct ways to look at it, and it may not be all art vs. commerce.

Granted the premise that Mike is not all that high on the '66/'67 direction (which some of his enthusiasts do not grant, though Mike himself has made no real effort to dispute it): where was Mike's role in the band going at that time? 

After "California Girls", there were several singles where Mike was not the lead or not the main lead.  Then on Pet Sounds, you get through side one and he's almost absent as a lead singer.  By my quick, sloppy count: he has the bridge on the first song (and for a short time in the late nineties, the standard radio version became the stereo release without him), one good lead on song three, and then he's not really heard from again until the second verse (only) of the last song, plus one more line.  Brian has clearly become the primary lead vocalist (lead or main lead on five of six vocal songs). On side two, we get a true Mike lead, a shared lead (first line of each verse Mike, balance plus chorus Brian), a lead from Carl, and two full leads from Brian. Is it any wonder this isn't his favorite album? Sounds more like the worst trip he'd ever been on.

He's prominent again on "Good Vibrations", of course, as a vocalist (chorus) and lyricist (verses).

Then look at SMiLE.  We know "Heroes and Villains" was once intended or considered as a Mike lead, but it didn't end up that way.  What Mike leads were intended for that album?  We know "Cabinessence" wasn't . Don't think "Worms" was.  "Wonderful" wasn't. "Great Shape" doesn't sound like it was headed his way- "Barnyard", "Old Master Painter", maybe (but no evidence).  "You Are My Sunshine", no.  "Elements", no. "Vegetables", no. "Child Is Father Of The Man"- doesn't sound like a Mike showcase. "Surf's Up", no. Mike's role as co-lead singer was being greatly reduced.

Add to that: Brian had taken on first one, and then another, permanent lyricist.  In fairness, I can't really expect Mike to be an enthusiastic supporter of that direction, no matter how wonderful it was.  And about seventy percent of the deathless Mike controversy relates to that period (1966/67).  Just a different way of looking at it.  (His alleged comments on "Til I Die" and any later stuff is another matter).

And- granting the premise again- the great chicken (dance) or the egg question is: which came first, Mike being marginalized or Mike being disgruntled? We know from Mike that he balked at singing "Hang On To Your Ego" in its original form.  Maybe his role was cut down each time there was a clash.  Or maybe he came in enthusiastic and fully gruntled, but then they gave him nothing much to do. Or maybe I'm completely off and he just didn't like the stuff, period, and wasn't inclined to be a good soldier.

But like I said, give him credit for not playing any politics with it or revising or denying.  He says what he thinks and has stuck to it.

POST OF THE YEAR.

Wow.  Great point; that had never occurred to me.

Point well taken......

Ok, one specific Mike comment that had be scratching my head and asking "WTF" was in some interview Mike was asked about Al. I think the interviewer complimented his voice. And Mike said something to the effect of "Yeah, but Al has another voice: a COMMERCIAL voice that he doesn't often use" blah blah. I was wondering if Mike's ever even heard Al sing. To my ears Al has one of the best, smoothest, most tonaly perfect voices I've ever heard. Dare I say he has the most spot on timbre of all the Beach Boys. Pretty commercial qualities for a singer to possess, I'd dare assume.

In the context of the interview Mike was describing the different styles of vocalizing each member did. It didn't seem like an insult to me. He had nice things to say about Matt in another interview so I assume Al's voice was not the problem with them.
Again I must stress Mike has praised Pet Sounds pretty frequently if not Smile. Though he did like the Heroes record according to his Endless Harmony interview. I think that's were he said that.

In the documentary, Mike says that "Heroes" was the last example of Brian's old "dynamism". Always an awkward word, but I know what he means.  Then there's the whole debate about the Wally Heider (I think) recording with Mike's voice-over.

I remember reading somewhere, years ago, that Mike had grown to appreciate Pet Sounds over time and had become proud of his role in it.  I think there's no doubt that that's the case. What will be debated forever is his attitude towards it at the time of production, with only little bits of hard evidence, such as the "Hang On To Your Ego" incident.  Did he really call it "ego music" or say "don't f___with the formula", as often reported?  I don't know, I don't keep up with the latest views on all that.

GREAT thread... I need to point something out,though.


Actually, most of the lyrics were actually Brian's, and the song was written (but not recorded) a couple of years previously.

This is a subject that has always sort of bothered me.

Even if Mike said this and that about Smile or Pet Sounds or said "don't @&^$%&$ with the formula!".....

this is what HAPPENS in bands. People disagree all the time. Sometimes to the point of violence (Kinks/The Who/Mike/Dennis) If Mike had issues with Smile or anything else the band he co-founded was up to, it was perfectly within his right to speak them. I also think Mike had a more forcefull personality than the other guys in terms of stating his opinion and standing behind it. In addition, being closer in age and position to Brian, having written so many lyrics to hits ect, Mike was probably less enamored and intimidated and awestruck by Brian than the other guy and all the interlopers who were coming around at this time. And interlopers are always a problem when a band gets very succesful. Normally bands present a tighter more unified front and keep it at bay. But the Beach Boys had a unique division that must have hurt all the guys, but Mike especially.

So, I can understand how he might have been feeling. Him being a pretty straight edge guy didn't help either. Perhaps he overdid it or was insensitive, but I can understand and sympathize with his motivations.

Ok, well than why was he even credited? And why even state this? Do you know exactly what words were Brian's/what were Mikes? Why is it necessary?

He was credited because he did in fact help with the lyrics. No, I don't know which words were Mike's and which were Brian's... perhaps Andrew or c-man can chime in at this point. I've actually wondered myself because I've always thought they lyrics on the song were 100% Mike until a few years ago. Don't get offended... I was just pointing it out because a lot of people aren't aware of that. Hell, I'm one of Mike's biggest defenders!

I know, it's just like.....

do people sit there and slam Paul because he only contributed a single line or couple of words to a John song but got half the credit?

...... Well, they probably actually do. :(

Yeah, they do, which is completely anal and stupid.

  Maybe it's because I'm a songwriter myself, but to me writing (and recording!) a song is the most wonderful thing, next only to true love and parenthood.   The act of collaborating with someone musically to me is nirvana. So , I take it pretty seriously. I try not to criticize someone for only writing "one or two" lines, as those can make or break a song. When you try to break down who should get what as far as credit goes, though, that can cause some drama, 'cause artists  can get real hostile over their work. And you never can be 100% sure anyway, as only the writers/performers really know who did what, and even then it's not always certain! Stories change, memories change.

I've also learned that established history doesn't always equal truth. I'm waiting for the Day" is just one example. "Let the Wind Blow" is another. The Wilson/Love credit leads one to believe that Brian wrote the music, Mike the words. The song's actually mostly Mike. I  think Anna Lee the Healer is another one that's mostly Mike, despite the shared credit.

Another fascinating story is the genesis of "All This is that".

"Another fascinating story is the genesis of "All This is that".


Please tell!!!!!

I LOVE ATIT

I think there's a post here somewhere on this site. I'll search for it and post the link here. Mainly it's just over who wrote what on it. It's fascinating to me because I dig this kind of thing.

edit

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,5818.0.html


I wonder what the original song by Al would've sounded like. We'll never know.

yeah. I wish they'd cut it so it would be floating around in boot-land

however, I think my favorite Mike vocals are on that song.

I want to tell a little story from my own experiences that relates a little to the discussion of songwriting credits and the like.

When my old band first got signed, it was me and the bass player, and the drummer was sort of a junior partner.  My bass player saw the band as very much a partnership between me and him even though I wrote all the songs, managed the band, booked all the shows, promoted us, etc.  It's not that he didn't contribute, it's that he tended to contribute what he thought was needed without really having to look at the big picture.  He didn't help me running the band so much as pick out things he wanted to do and do them instead.  There was a bit of ego involved in that; he wanted to feel the band was just as much about him as it was me but he didn't want to have as much skin in the game as I did.

He was always complaining that I wrote all the songs, and that he wanted songwriting credits too.  So I would always tell him, great, let's sit down and come up with something, but he was always really reluctant to do that...it only happened maybe three times.  After a while it became obvious that what he REALLY wanted was for me to get the song 90% done, and then bring it in to the band, have him make a couple changes to it, and get his name on the credits.  He couldn't write a song by himself, and didn't have the patience to sit down with me and get it together, but he wanted to be able to take credit for the songwriting. 

Anybody that's ever written a song knows what a lot of work it is to come up with something good, so i wasn't really amused by that idea, and in fact a while after that I replaced him...he had just become too much of a prima donna.  He immediately tried to get me dropped from the label and threatened to sue me, but that's another story.

Point being, notwithstanding all of the actual work Mike as actually done (and he's written head to head with Brian and occasionally solo, so he's ahead of my old bass player), there's some evidence that a lot of Mike's songwriting credits came out of this kind of "revision" scenario.  I'll cite three separate sources:  (a) Al in a Goldmine interview in 1992; (b) Tony Asher discussing Mike's contribution to WIBM ("Ba Ba Ba Ba Bee Do Be"); (c) Brian Wilson's autobiography, which admittedly is suspect, refers to Mike demanding a rewrite of "Male Ego," and indeed that song is credited to Wilson-Love-Landy.  And we all know how highly Mike values his own changes to "Kokomo," which was a free-standing song prior to the Beach Boys' involvement (per John Phillips' biography which came out pre-1988).

Again, you have to understand I'm coming from the perspective of being the leader of a band and having had to deal with various different types of musician personalities in a band dynamic, so I probably look at the Mike Love psychology a little differently, and maybe read more into it, than an average listener would.  I'm not amused by Mike Love claiming or getting equal credit for WIBN on the basis of one line of nonsense syllables with Brian Wilson and Tony Asher, especially since they used Asher's first line in "Good Vibrations" -- a more key contribution -- but GV is credited to Wilson-Love.

Totally agree Adam regarding songwriting. I'm both a drummer and a singer/songwriter, so I've seen it from pretty much all ends of the spectrum. And this is why I've always seen it as the person who writes the song does and should get the songwriting credit fair and square. If you write the lyrics and the chords, you wrote the song. Plain and simple.

.... However, I tend to feel that with most (or a lot/some) bands, a seperate "arrangments by" or songs "arranged" by credit: should be given to the band. Obviously not in all cases. But the arrangement of the insturments and the individual parts the players play and often come up with by themselves, deserve public credit, not just a prercentage on royalty statements. An obvious example would be Pink Floyd. Sure Waters wrote 95% of the lyrics and most of the basic chords, but a major selling point for the Floyd was most certainly Gilmour's guitar/voice and the atmosphere and feel of the band as a whole and the sonic adventures they would take the song on. There are endless examples of this. Roger rightly deserved the credit as "written by" but I just feel there should have been something else. I mean, people actually think he sat there and wrote Gilmour's parts and solos note for note. Same with Rick Wright.

An example of why I feel this way would be how say, Paul Mccartney can go out on tour and play old Beatles songs and the drummer will more than often play Ringo's drum parts lick for lick. Shouldn't this at least be considered intellectual property for Ringo, lol?

It's a slippery and touchy issue, I know. But when you look back at say, a lot of old-school pop, pre-Brill Building stuff, things were broken down. You had an arranger who would chart out the insturments, a songwriter, a producer, session musicians, lead singer, back-up singers, ect.

What this has to do with Mike?

Nothing really, but your last post just got me thinking.

It's pretty interesting to look at how differently the Beatles treated songwriting credits.  John gave the famous interview to Playboy in which he went through a large number of songs, mostly saying "mine" or "Paul's", occasionally "Paul's garbage, not mine", and occasionally offering an interesting insight or comment, such as that "Here, There, And Everywhere" was one of his favorite songs of all the Beatles' work, or likening "Mother Nature's Son" to John Denver (intended as an insult, I assume). But mostly he considered whoever had the initiative to have written the song.

Then Paul wrote his book (more or less) and went through the songs in much greater detail. He disputed John basically on only two, but gave John a lot of specific credit for things John hadn't claimed.  He affirmed that he (Paul) hadn't touched "Strawberry Fields", but corrected John's non-claim on "Penny Lane", saying (I think) that Lennon had written the third verse after Paul got stuck.  He spelled out how John had conceived the lyric and story for "Drive My Car" when it was bogged down.  So Paul was very specific in remembering what came from who. He described where people were sitting, at times, when things were written.

But when it came to things outside the L/M structure- like Donovan writing "sky of blue, sea of green" for "Yellow Submarine", or the woman who wrote the French lyrics for "Michelle" ("almost a co-write", Paul says, and I think he pays her to this day) they wouldn't have dreamed of adding the name.  Those were invited "toss-ins", or- in the singular case of "Michelle- a specifically directed piece of work- and the whole substance was already in place. They were non-essential, in a sense. Kind of like a master painter letting one of his assistants fill in some background elements.

Then in 1988 George started giving some interviews, and mentioned that he'd been left off of a few, like "I Feel Fine", which he says was a three-way collaboration amongst Lennon, McCartney, and himself, while riding in the back of a cab, I think. He gave an idea of what it started from, and I can't remember.  George was probably right.  But McCartney kind of sniffed in response and said "my memory is that 'I Feel Fine' was John's song."

By way of balance, John supposedly contributed to "Taxman" and Lennon and McCartney may both have contributed a little to "Something", but considered those George's songs all the way. They clearly liked the rigidity of the way their credits were handled.

And speaking of George, Duane Allman contributed to the "Layla" lick- he contributed exactly what he played.  As you hear on the record, Clapton plays first- he said it needed something- and then when he played it for Allman, Duane came in over the top with the high part on slide that made it- exactly as on the record. If you hummed the lick, you would hum what Duane added.  He was given 2% as a result, but no credit. (The 2% was never paid, of course, until his daughter Galadrielle sued for it recently).

So..."Good night, baby...sleep tight, baby..."...?

Please.

I dunno, man. Mike was a founding member of the group. He SUNG those words! However silly or simple they are, they're still words-lyrics with a melody to them that goes around-over-and above the basic chords to the song. Therefore adding a "part" in both words and a melody that was not there when Brian and Tony wrote it. I don't know what the royalty (post lawsuit) breakdown is, but I doubt Mike's claiming to have WRITTEN the song. I can certainly tell ya that if I'd been Mike, I'd have asked for a credit and I would have deserved it too.

If someone were to say that Mike WROTE Wouldn't It be Nice, that would be beyond silly. But he certainly contributed beyond simply singing his lines and bass vocals. Big deal!!!!! Let him have his name on the credits. It doesn't make Brian any less of a genius.

Also, when I watch Brian on the 40th anniversary DVD to Pet Sounds and they show him playing the end of Wouldn't It Be Nice and he's singing "Goodnight baby. Sleep tight baby" with a lovely amount of joy and a big smile..... I mean it's PART of the song!!!!!!!! WTF?

A very insightful post Adam (thanks so much for contributing to this board). But I'm wondering if the opening line of "Good Vibrations" is, in fact, Tony Asher's lyric. The impression I got is that Brian and company took the BWPS "Good Vibrations" lyrics from the demo tape itself (and not from a filed away copy of Asher's original lyrics). Since the opening line is missing from the demo (the lead vocal "punched in" too late on the rough mix?), I assumed they simply used Mike's opening line as a replacement. Is there other evidence to suggest that "I-I love the colorful clothes she wears..." was originally Asher's line?

I assumed they punched in Mike's first line because the demo doesn't have one. Further to that, it rhymes with the second line of Mike's lyric.

Mike's been saying he loved Pet Sounds since at least the early seventies. I kinda wish they'd've used his vocal on "I'm Waiting For The Day", since he does need more airtime on the record.

As far as songwriting goes, my band's rule of thumb is/was: Writing the chords and lyrics, that's the credit. If someone else writes ANY lyrics, that's a co-credit. If someone comes up with an instrumental idea that turns the song around, like a drumbeat or a riff which doesn't just follow the logical pattern suggested by the chords, that's a co-credit. Anything else though, no way.

I'm not a songwriter, but I'm a writer and editor, and to me, in many instances, the Mike Love thing seems egotistical and petty.  My sister is a magazine writer who sometimes calls me when she's stuck for a turn of phrase or wants feedback on something she's written already. If I suggest something and she uses it, I don't expect my name to go on that article. And as an editor, sometimes I will completely re-write a writer's work, but that writer still gets credit...that's an extreme example, but it's just to say that in songwriting, I don't understand why adding one line merits a writer's credit.

Maybe the thing to do is to stay out of the courts and mention anecdotally that you contributed such-and-such, and oh, wasn't it fun. Then your contribution goes into the annals of music history, and you look like a generous friend rather than an asshole.

What got me started liking + listening to BB was BW falsetto

To my mind, you have to look at the credits thing in context.

Mike's basic concern, and a valid one, is that he co-wrote one of the Beach Boys' biggest hits. "California Girls" is the band's friggin' anthem. If he had written nothing else, the lyrics to that song are still a big contribution to the band's legacy.

Now, I may quarrel with his methods, I may not care for his public persona, but Mike deserves to have his name on that song. And he did what he thought he needed to do to right that wrong. In the process, he obviously listened to the band's back catalog and listed songs to which he contributed things. Thus the lengthy new list of co-writes.

I don't think all of them are defensible (the WIBN and DWB additional co-writes seem a tad opportunistic), but many of them are simply Mike asserting his place. If he got carried away, I can sympathize.

That being said, I think in the history of the band, it's clear that Brian was the major creative force. Mike was nothing close to his equal (as arguably Lennon and McCartney were to one another). But that doesn't diminish the fact that Mike played a role in defining the band's sound and lyrical voice during those years.

Yeah, I always figured that the first line was Mike's.

I was quoting (from memory, admittedly) Tony Asher's gripe about the WIBN issue, and I don't blame him...you wrestled with the lyrics to the whole song and then some guy comes in and adds two lines at the recording session.  But he made the same point that if Mike deserves credit for one line in WIBN then he should get credit for his one line in GV.

And yeah, to me, I wouldn't assert writer's credit for one line or just a short passage...I came up with a brief riff that was used in "Pop Tarte" by Baby Lemonade and they didn't credit me.  And I don't think they should have, honestly...they wrote 99% of it and my riff didn't make or break the song (in fact, I don't think they should have used it).

Oh the GOLDMINE date for the Al interview was wrong in my post...it was '99 or '00 I think.

And I really enjoy contributing here and I'm happy if people find value in what I post.

So Asher says he wrote the first line?  "...Colorful clothes...?  Wow, I had never heard that one. I've always thought that the most substantial contributor to the lyrics of that song- and I love Mike's verses-  is Brian, for coming up with the title/concept, and the line "I'm pickin' up Good Vibrations".  That, and the melody and arrangement, sold the song and made it indelible.  You could have used any number of verse lyrics, and I doubt you could have found any better than Mike's, but I don't think they really would have altered the song materially (unless they were awful or inappropriate, or just astonishingly great).  Didn't like the half-hearted Asher lyric used in '04, but would that have affected response in 1967?  I'd have to say definitely no- as a personal opinion. Great as it all is, that song is ultimately about the chorus, at least as far as being a huge number one hit. 

Same goes for "California Girls", exactly.  That has tremendous lyrics, but whoever gave it that title- Mike, I presume- gave it the lyrics' part in its immortality. I should say the title line- "I wish they all could be California Girls".  That's the immortal idea, lyrically.

Whoever came up with "Help Me Rhonda, Help, Help Me Rhonda" sent that song to number one (along with the brilliant arrangement, of course).

This is the source of Mike's disgruntlement, there's no doubt.  The early days Mike was the lead singer (or co lead singer with Brian) on the singles and the hits - Brian's ballads would be on the albums or Bsides.  He was the frontman.  As Brian's music grew more complex and away from the Chuck Berry rock and roll style, Brian starting singing the songs and got Carl and Al involved as lead vocalists.  If they had taken Pet Sounds or Smile on the road, Mike would be reduced to singing all backing parts (of course he would have insisted on singing some old hits).  On the SOT box Mike clearly states he could sing all of Hang On to Your Ego, rather than share the verses with Al.  He clearly wants to.  He's a singer, not a musician, he needs songs to sing.

Where was Mike earning the most money?  From touring?  No, from songwriting royalties/publishing.  That was where the money was, and the unequal monies paid to the songwriter versus the players broke up many a band, and caused friction in those that didn't break up.  And after Brian's "ego" album, which he promised was just for one LP (Pet Sounds) with Tony Asher, now Brian was getting even more far out with a different collaborator and Mike was out again - and out of the money!  Good Vibrations' success at this time of course helped, but probably rankled Mike even more - I just wrote a huge hit with you and now you're pushing me out for this "airy fairy" stuff?  Mike was jealous and not nice to ANY of Brian's songwriting partners, as Gary Usher or Roger Christian or Tony or Van Dyke would tell you - because they were taking money out of mike's pocket!  And I can understand him feeling that way, even though of course I understand Brian needed to pursue his artistic vision with the collaborators of his choice.  But if I saw my future income drying up, I would be concerned just like Mike.  Why didn't Mike pursue writing credits for California Girls at the time?  Because that was just one song, he was expecting to write many more songs and hits with Brian, one song wouldn't matter.  But when Brian turned to other collaborators, and Mike began to see he was never going to be the cowriting partner he once was, suddenly those missing songwriting credits became important and a source of resentment and anger towards Brian.  

After Smile folded, Brian made amends with Mike by collaborating with him on a Brian & Mike credited single and letting him rewrite a Van Dyke Parks song on Smiley Smile.  But look what happened after - suddenly CARL becomes the Beach Boys lead singer on Wild Honey and the subsequent singles like Darlin' and Friends.  Mike came up with Do It Again to try and get back in on things, but his leads on 20/20 and Sunflower and Surf's Up are minimal.  This is the time Mike tried to get David back in the group (and Bruce out) to try and shift the artistic/power balance in the group more in his favor.

I don't mean any of this to be critical of Mike - aren't we all guided by self interest, ultimately?  And Mike felt the more commercial approach which he espoused was the correct one for the group.  But when it was no longer Mike and Brian coming up with the songs, but Brian and Carl and Dennis and Bruce, Mike's role was definitely minimized.

I don't know, if you take everything through this kind of focus, then Brian could be cutting Mike off the creative process for personal reasons as well. About David, I think he just wanted to give an old friend a hand.

Surfer Joe: Given that Brian's original title for CG was "Yeah, I Dig the Girls" (and is what they're singing the background on the fade), my assumption has always been that Mike took that line and revised it to "I wish they all could be..."

Bicyclerider, excellent post. Well written, well thought out. I agree with most of it, but I disagree - indirectly - with one point. I don't think Mike Love wanted to be Brian's co-songwriter as much for the credit/royalties/publishing, but more for the direction of the music and the group, which in turn resulted in more/less money.

While Mike maybe never said, "Don't fu-- with the formula", he probably felt that way. And fought for it. Mike supports Pet Sounds now, but I don't think as much in 1966. It probably scared him. Same with "Good Vibrations". And we know about SMiLE.
And I don't blame Mike; I would've felt the same way. I think Mike wanted back into the picture TO ASSURE that things didn't go totally to hell. And the only way he could accomplish that was to be the lyricist, singer, leader on stage, etc. And, that, Bicyclerider, is where I'm disagreeing - indirectly. Had, in Mike's view anyway, they could've kept those good vibrations a-happening, THAT would've led to the constant flow of money that he desired. I think Mike would've been content with that.

As you correctly pointed out, Bicyclerider, Mike's role was lessened after "Good Vibrations". But, think how things must've looked - in Mike's eyes - during that period. The group was dropped by their record company. Singles weren't charting as high, or at all. Albums weren't only sinking on the charts, they were being rejected by the new record company. The live audiences were dwindling. And the group was near bankruptcy. This is probably what Mike feared; it was all unfolding right in front of him.

Now, I am not saying that if Brian and the guys continued to churn out more Beach Boys Today and Summer Days (And Summer Nights) albums, the same things wouldn't have happened, but I'll bet Mike was saying it. Or at least thinking it. And, I think those down times were a big influence on Mike's thinking after Endless Summer. He saw it happen before; he wasn't gonna let it happen again. Of course, it did...

Thanks, claymcc- I think that's more than I knew on that, definitely more than I had retained.  Just thinking of that line in place before anything else gives a good insight into how it came together.

Bicyclerider- interesting comments. I'll respond in a bit, if I can think up anything substantive to say! Bottom line is, I've always seen those two factors as the STONE OBVIOUS underlying cause of most of the tension during that time. If they weren't stated. it was because I thought they were just taken for granted.  I actually ranked them the other way in my head- (A) Mike standing to one side of the stage, shaking a tambourine like Davy on most all of the new stuff. (B) Royalties/ personal input diverted. And there's actually a third, much smaller one that I zero in on, even more obvious, but seldom stated, which I'll expound upon when I come back after these messages.

This has been the most thoughtful, balanced, and civil of all the thousands of painful Mike threads I've read over the years. Nobody seems to have gone to one corner or another to champion just one side.  Maybe enough time has passed to add perspective, I don't know.  It has for me.

Punctuation and spelling's been unusually good, too, but we need to work on our margins.

Really? That's interesting.


Was this supposed to get Bruce out though? I know Bruce was wanted out in 1969 - and replaced by Billy Hinsche, but I didn't know he supposed to leave when Dave came in - I thought the (somewhat ridiculous) plan was for Dave to be bass and Bruce to go to keyboards.

Just for the record, I much prefer Mike's lyrics to GV to Asher's, and would have much preferred them on BWPS. It slightly smacked of pettiness in not using them, frankly.

I was having the same thought, while you were typing that.  Money aside, and that's substantial, co-writing is also a heavy dose of band leadership.

I'm sorry, I forgot to add something to my last post, as if it wasn't long enough... :police:

In some ways, I feel that I can relate to how Mike Love was feeling when the music was changing. I was a product of Endless Summer/Spirit Of America, back in 1975. Those were the albums that hooked me. The most "un-Beach Boys" song on both of those albums might've been "Breakaway". So I got a heavy dose of surf & turf, Mike Love's kinda music.

At that time, there were few Beach Boys' books available, so most fans learned about the music (and the group) by listening to it first. Also at that time, Reprise released these 2-fer albums; I believe it was Smiley Smile & 20/20 and Wild Honey & Friends. Well, I found these albums in a bargain bin (remember how thay used to cut the corners off of 'em), and bought them both. Now, again, remember, all I knew was the material from basically 1963-66, and I wanted more of the same. I still remember dropping the needle on Smiley Smile, and thinking that they put the wrong record inside the album jacket. This couldn't be The Beach Boys! I thought it was crap. Not now, but then I did. How could The Beach Boys go from "Please Let Me Wonder" to "She's Goin' Bald"? What the hell was this? Who fu--ed with the formula? That was 35 years ago. I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now. But it also helped me understand Mike Love.

John and Rider -- AWESOME posts, and I think you hit the nail on the head, Rider.

When I was making my "Good Things About Mike Love" list I left out a big one which John reminded me of -- how he treated David Marks.  I was very impressed with Mike reading "The Lost Beach Boy" -- doing good works when nobody's looking is the mark of true character, and I can see how that particular type of good deed would resonate well with Mike's particular morality and personality.

I used to find Mike as a person very difficult to deal with. But he's done a few things recently that have softened my views a bit.

One, he actually rose to the challenge presented by Brian's shows. Some folks here won't remember what a big deal it was in 99 to just look at Brian's first setlists. They were awe-inspiring. And at the time, you could predict Mike's setlists from show to show pretty easily. But guess what? As the years passed and Brian gained notice, Mike has changed the shows. They play "All This is That" now, for God's sake! And this makes me like Mike simply because he isn't content to stay in place when challenged -- he actually will adapt. And there's something admirable in that.

Two, he actually recorded some good songs recently. "Cool Head, Warm Heart" has some icky bits, but it's also a better song than I would have ever expected from him at this stage in the game. And he deserves real respect for that -- especially given that there's not real demand for Mike Love solo material.

With all that said, I still don't especially like him, or his lead vocals. I came into the music through Brian, and that's why I'm still following it. But Mike's with us, for better or worse.

I'm sorry guys, I still don't like the guy. Something about his attitude that his stuff doesn't stink. He comes across that on stage to me--like he thinks he's God's gift to women. I still swear he stuffs a sock in his pants!!

I like the way he sings, perhaps what he sings is another matter from time to time. I have met him twice, and he is interesting, yeah a little corny, but funny too and was cool enough to go along to India with The Beatles to meet the Maharishi in '68. He wasn't thinking when he started Club Kokomo though  :lol http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3190/is_n19_v31/ai_19402272

All in all, he is a rad singer...some of the coolest BB parts are sung by him, and he is the only one who consistently got his own mic so his parts sounded right. THat must mean he plays an integral role in the sound. I personally have always LOVED the things he sings in Cool Cool Water

It was my understanding that Mike got his own microphone because he's not a "real" bass singer -- that is, he can't really project his bass notes with any power. He needed the separate microphone simply so the notes wouldn't be drowned out by the other singers. His natural range is obviously somewhat higher.