The Smiley Smile Message Board

What a nice tribute to the Beach Boys by highlighting the Hall of Fame nonsense, right along with a nice photo of the Lovester. I needed to be more brought up to date on what actually happened that night. Time has not been kind over this sour note in their history and perhaps Carl was right saying what he did afterwards.

The speech (cut & paste job from online):

"And I think it's wonderful to be here tonight, but I also think it's sad that there are other people who aren't here tonight. And, uh, those are the people who have passed away, those are the obvious ones. But the other not-so-obvious ones are people like Paul McCartney, who couldn't be here tonight because he's in a lawsuit with Ringo and Yoko. That's what he sent a telegram to some, uh, high priced attorney in this room, you know."

"And that's a bummer, because we're talking about harmony, right, and the world. If we can't get it together in America and in England, and harmony within our groups. I mean, believe it, you can believe it. The Beach Boys have their own 'interstescene' (not sure what Mike is trying to say here, and neither does Mike) or whatever you call it, squabbles. But that's a bummer when Ms. Ross can't make it, you know?" (referring to Diana Ross, who was having legal battles with the other 2 members of The Supremes.)

"The Beach Boys have continued to do, about, we did about 180 performances last year. I'd like to see the Mop-Tops match that! I'd like to see Mick Jagger get out on this stage and do I Get Around versus Jumpin' Jack Flash, any day now. And I'd like to see some people kick out the jams, and I challenge the Boss to get up on stage and jam." (during Mike's pause, someone in the house band plays the theremin line of "Good Vibrations" during the crowd's tepid response.)

"I wanna see Billy Joel, see if he can still tickle ivories, lemmee see. I know Mick Jagger won't be here tonight, he's gonna have to stay in England. But I'd like to see us in the Coliseum and he at Wembley Stadium because he's always been chickenshit to get on stage with the Beach Boys."

http://www.areuonsomething.com/love_comments.html (http://www.areuonsomething.com/love_comments.html)

I for one would love to see video of this.

Trust me, it is not pretty. If Carl's looks could kill, Mike would have been in a pile. And Paul Shaffer, talk about starting up the band real quick!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIV7uaTqOYs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIV7uaTqOYs)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCOomdm24hU&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCOomdm24hU&feature=related)

eeeeeooouch  :lol

Have to say I absolutely love it.

Think he meant 'internecine', meaning of or involving conflict within a group or organization.

Oh, and 180 performances in 1987 ?  Not quite... but 140+ is still impressive.

Didn't he also challenge the MC5 to a fight ("Let's kick out the jams!")? And Elton John was pissed that Love didn't mention him!!

Ya know, it was lame that all those lawsuits were going around at that time and those certain individuals decided not to show up, and it DID put a damper on the harmony aspect of the whole event. On that, Mike did have a point. He's Mike, sure, so it came out whacked, but at least someone had the nerve to say something.

I think Mike had an interesting idea for a speech, but it was poorly worded, causing an extremely awkward moment. So much so, that we're still discussing it all these years later. Sorry, Mike.  :lol

But if he was to have gotten up there and made a proper, fawning, tactful speech, he wouldn't be Mike and we'd probably dislike him even more!!! Mike being nice seems to be taken with even more cynicism than him being a bastard!

His delivery both in text and manner was a bomb much like his solo recording career. And if anyone had any doubts about  this guy whether it be the serious or the casual observer, they were fairly put to rest with yet another episode of the Lovester's inane view of the state of rock and roll-Mr. Positivity for sure. :wall

I've said it once and i'll say it again.....


 if you want to call out a band for being terrible showmen, you couldn't pick worse targets then Bruce Springsteen and the Rolling fucking Stones....  :P

An award show was the least appropriate arena for that outburst. I read the sidebar in Rolling Stone which has quotes from Jeff Foskett who  was with the BB that night. If anyone thinks that Mike's rant was "no big deal", let me relate an incident that Foskett told RS. Carl gave Foskett his award after the ceremony and said "our career's over."   You don't spend your entire career kissing the elite's ass and then piss them off. This was Mike being a petty ass, not the Sex Pistols refusing their awards and not showing up.

That's what I meant about Carl being right saying what he did after the fiasco.

It's only rock and roll folks and I remember being as angry as Mike when Paul didn't show. Should Mike have said something? Well he was the only one being real. He explained later that he felt the industry had the wrong values and that the no shows pissed him off. The problem was that Mike went on way too long and said Mick Jagger wouldn't show up when he was standing a few feet away. If he hadn't been fasting maybe he could have done something that would have goten his point across without making him look foolish.
Today it's just good comedy and no one was really hurt by it for long.

Although I understand the anger towards Mike for this incident, I can kind of see where he's coming from. I was only about four or five when it happened, so I don't remember it as it happened. But as a twenty four year old today, it pisses me off that Paul McCartney let petty lawsuits and fighting get in the way of things. He had a chance to bask in the glory of what was "The Beatles" with his surviving bandmates and "friends". He blew it. If anything, he should have done it for John, but that's another can of worms. What pisses me off is that he could have played with George and Ringo one last time. But he didn't, and George died before they could have reunited. Not that they would have, but you know what I mean. John Fogerty did the same with snubbing his bandmates, and a member of CCR died before they could stop fighting like two year olds, and play a kick ass concert. Thank God Led Zeppelin had the presence of mind to go out on a high note, so to speak.

Um -- they did play together one last time. A few last times, actually. Only it was in the studio, not in front of people. And it was George who walked out that time.

It's very easy to rag on folks for things like this, but for goodness' sake -- rock stars are people too. Irritable, short-sighted and human. And it's human to carry grudges and do things that others might not like. Why does John Fogerty or Paul McCartney -- or Brian Wilson, for that matter -- owe us some sort of reunion? They were who they were, they are who they are now.

If it's just for one night, etc., etc., why not do it, right? Well, if it's for just one night, then why bother?

Nobody owes us a thing, and lord knows Mike (and Brian) have been petty but that night as a 11 year old Beatlemainic I was very let down by McCartney's actions. His actions really were a turn off to me.

Well, they had a #1 hit the next year. Carl wasn't that right.  :)

I really doubt this single ocurrence was, is or will be relevant for anyone to make them like or dislike the band.

Re: the Macca thing, I found it very surprising watching the events on  the new (great!) DVD that George made a point to say "we all love Paul." It would've been very shocking to have Paul, George and Ringo all in the same room. Sadly the only time that happened was Linda's funeral.

I always really winced at Mike's speech and disliked him for it, but I don't think it really caused that much damage. Robmac, is it really true that the post-"Kokomo" singles were not successfull because of the Love speech. Personally, with the exception of "Japan," I though it was due to lack of quality.

Bit of a problem with the chronology, there. Thus:

HoF induction - January 20th 1988

"Kokomo" released - July 18th 1988

"Kokomo" charts - September 3th 1988

"Kokomo" hits #1 - November 5th 1988

"Still Cruisin''" released - August 7th 1989

"Somewhere Near Japan" released - September 1989

Sorry, but it doesn't fly, Wilbur.

Take that up with David Beard and ESQ, because that's where I read it, Wilbur.

Well... in that case, they're as wrong as you are. Facts is facts - the first BB single post HoF rant went to #1, and the 'followup' didn't happen for over a year, by which point pretty much everyone had forgotten. "Still Cruisin'" tanked because it flat out wasn't a good song - the wonder is it charted at all.

Hey, it's always a good idea to google a bit when posting about facts, isn't it?  :)

Facts are great. Very useful. I love 'em... and iffn I can't find the ones I want, hey, I just make 'em up.  :woot

Saw Mike and Bruce perform Still Cruisin' last year and was thankful that they reminded me how much I always liked this song.
"Party All Summer Long!"

The magazine was challenged on that by a reader who dished out the exact same chart stats as you. ESQ responded by stating that what I posted came from, as ESQ put it, "in the know".  Yes, it doesn't make chronilogical sense and on paper looks unlikely.  But this is the world of the Beach Boys - how many other things that have happened make sense. 

BTW, Kokomo was issued on Elecktra. SC and SNJ were on Capitol. Might it be possible that someone at Capitol might have buried those releases in retaliation?  Hell, the BB for the rest of their existence couldn't get a record deal without Brian.  Even after they scored the biggest hit of their career (and did so without any BW involvement), the labels wouldn't touch them without Brian.  Most acts when they achieve sucess are rewarded. The BB should have been rewarded for Kokomo but were (IMHO) ppunished by being forced to deliver something that they couldn't guarentee: Brian Wilson.

All of which happened after the BB were inducted into the RRHOF.

Well, aren't the RRHOF shows broadcast some months after the actual event?

I think so. 

Everytime a retrospective on the RRHOF ceromonies are done, the Mike rant is always shown.  Just once, I'd like to see it not mentioned.

Still Cruisin' (the album) was the band's biggest LP success since 15 Big Ones - #46, quickly going gold (and Brian was on it, albeit marginally). I don't think there's any conspiracy here - Capitol even sprung for videos for the 1989 singles. "Kokomo" was on Elektra purely because the soundtrack album was - the Capitol album deal came in the wake of "Kokomo"'s success. I don't see a major company signing someone just to bury them. Why ? Not impossible... but hugely unlikely.

Then how come crap like "My Humps" and "Soulja Boy" chart so high (in the US, anyway), and all the good acts (save for the old farts-Dylan, BW, U2, Springsteen, Macca, etc.) are relegated to "indie" or "underground" status??

Nobody is relegated to indie status. Indie refers to the type of label an act is on--independent labels. (Admittedly, plenty of indie labels are owned by majors, or have major label distribution.) But as for explaining away what you perceive as lack of quality of hits ... ignore it. That's life. Old people hate young people's music. People A hate People B's music. (People A then appropriate People B's music, which is another thing altogether.) But taste is taste. Labels try to guess, based on research and sales facts. Nobody--NOBODY--would claim that (if there is any such thing) objectively superior art is supported and does well. So forget it. Crap like "My Humps" charts high because people like it. "Still Cruisin" didn't because they didn't. (Hmm, young, attractive woman ... old, seemingly lecherous men ... go figure.)

Because these days, it's not about music, but image and looks. I heard Lady GaGa's new single the other day, and couldn't stop laughing - absolute and complete sh*t. Granted, she doesn't make it in the looks department either, but her image manipulation is exemplary.

'Just Dance' was pretty good :)

Following up on AGD's note, what does happen (and did happen in the 80s and 90s too) is that a band would be signed, then the A&R rep who signed them got fired.  So the person who would go to bat for the act would be gone and whoever took the account over would dither 'cos it wasn't their signing.   So the act, and the account, would wither and die, with the band's records locked in the company vault forever unless you could find your own $$ and buy it back.  Those stories are legion, easily verifiable, even legendary (Johnny Cash on Mercury).  And even if you had a certified hit you could get shat upon at follow-up time, ask Incubus, Joan Osborne, or Fiona Apple. On the indie front, see bands like the Ass Ponys.

Exactly. I'd be willing to bet that happened to the BB when they returned to Capitol.

Quite possible, I'll agree. But that's not the same as the post-"Kokomo" singles bombing due to Mike's HoF rant, which was your original premise. Nor is it even close to your revised premise that someone at Capitol buried said singles "in retaliation". Can we have a little consistency here, please ?  :laugh:

Uh, the Beach Boys had a fluke hit, and Capitol was smart and quick enough to sign them to release an album built around Kokomo. Simple as that. I think it was good business for the band and the label. Now, Capitol (quite rightfully) considered that was good enough. I think it has more to do with their knowledge that there wasn't another Kokomo waiting to happen than HoF rant consequences or a change of staff.

Come on, Andrew: it has always been about image and looks. Sure, television (and then MTV and the like) upped that angle, but let's not suggest The Good Ol' Days were all that different.

OK... but back in the day, musical ability also counted for a lot. Not now.

RobMac--good memory. That reader was yours truly, and I did point to essentially the same timeline as AGD.  Howver, there are couple of bullet points missing. Add in that the BB's were not even signed to Capitol until the spring of 1989,  nearly a year and a half after Love's speech.  Therefore, in order for the Capitol conspiracy theory to have merit, they would have had to sign the Boys to a new deal, then decided that in spite of the money they were putting into the project, they would assure that  the first single wopuld tank.  Oh, and then they would put out a second single (SNJ) and then try to tank that one too.   Didn't make sense then, doesn't make sense now.

Not in 1988, no broadcast at all ion those days.  The only place one could see any clips of the event was a two minute clip on Entertainment Tonight and the like.

I highly doubt the R&RHOF speech was the reason those singles that followed Kokomo tanked. Highly. The Beach Boys weren't able to do much of anything right commercially between 1977 and 1988, so it's hardly possible that a few acidic words from Michael did anything to ruin their already unenviable reputation. Keep in mind, during the aforementioned years, the Beach Boys were in more tabloids than music magazines. Kokomo was a fluke. After that, no one cared. We just have to deal with that. The Beach Boys collectively did far more to destroy their reputation than Michael did when he spoke for a minute at the R&RHOF, since, as we all know, they still managed to have one more #1 after that speech.

Well I don't want to give it away as I have some info on this I am saving for my book, but Andrew and Robmac are both half right. I don't remember which interview Mike said it in exactly , but he gave the probable reason SNJ tanked. I did a little more digging on his comment and it seems to pan out. Again sorry to be mysterious but I just want you both to know that neither of you are 100 percent wrong.

You tease! When can we expect the book to be released?

Luker here, so my post won't have any authority, but Luther is right here.
Pop music is the result of mass media and image and looks have always been factors in the success story of bands.
It's true that the degree of musicianship that is needed for a good pop song can fluctuate through time. But in my book Lady Gaga writes better songs  than "Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polka Dot Bikini" and that was a big hit in 1960. And I can name lot's of other hits in the 'great' sixties and seventies that are just novelty hits.

Lady Gaga is a very talented singer pianoplayer too, btw,
Try this link, it's better than Smart Girls:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogdCvvqsyDE
 

Because God has left us. A long time ago. And market fragmentation.

Gosh I hope for next years holiday season. It depends how much freelance assignments I get. I do a lot of things for the company I work for but have been taking advantage of some time off. If I have little else to do I can finish it by summer. In 2008 and most of this year I was swamped. Don't get me wrong I love what I do, but I am excited to have my own project. BTW I want to correct myself in that the interview about the record was a BBA one with Melcher. I checked some facts and they seem to pan out. I can't prove 100 percent either way but I think I will have some interesting evidence. On issues like this I present all sides and let the reader judge for themselves as a rule.

Al wouldn't promote it because it was about drug use. And he seemingly didn't understand that during the recording, but afterward he didn't want anything to do with it.

At this point Mike's "rant" is nothing but grand entertainment. Mike certainly wasn't the only one to "ruin" the Beach Boys career over the years. Brian, in fact, made some choice attempts of his own.

This is one thing about Mike-hating that has always bugged me. At that HOF ceremony, there was a huge elephant in the room, and is it fair to endlessly slam the guy who happened to mention the elephant, while unquestioningly worshipping those who dragged the elephant in there in the first place?

Was it cool for Fogerty to get up there and play Creedence songs while his former bandmates had to sit there with their wives and watch? (different ceremony/year/I know) Can you imagine for a moment how that must have felt for those guys? But Fogerty's a God, right? He can do things like that, right? But Mike simply makes mention of the bad vibes and he's a merdahole??

It's not what his intention was, it's the utterly boneheaded way he chose to express it.

Ok, well there's boneheaded (Mike) and simply mean (Fogerty) .... I'll take boneheaded any day because at least boneheaded can be funny, while mean is just..... mean.

I've said it before: Mike pays for the sins of all the bastards in rock. It's "ok" to hate the guy. Hell, it's even cool!

As far as Michael bashing goes, this is relatively light - I've seen people compare him to Adolf Hitler. Now let's see who the f***ed up ones are.

Fogerty had his right too. Those are all persnal issues and none of us walked in their shoes so we can't really know what went on and why

Absolutely! And same goes for Mike. But for presentation/ceremonial purposes, it was awful for Fogerty to do that.

Not that I'm letting Mike off the hook. His speech was absolutely stupifying. But at least he was attempting to make an arguably relevent point.

That's the worst when you read things look that.

I think the HOF speech is Mike at his best, totally unaware of what an ass he is making of himself.

"Al wouldn't promote it because it was about drug use. And he seemingly didn't understand that during the recording, but afterward he didn't want anything to do with it."

There was an interview with Al two or three years ago in which  insisted this wasn't the case.

Truth.

Where did you see this? I only heard about that comparison in a Bruce-interview. Never really did read or hear about this from another source.

I don't remember anything like that. But the usual cheering for Dennis having punched Mike is vomit inducing.

I'd rather listen to the above-mentioned novelty song, "Monster Mash," or "Winchester Cathedral" than any of the toxic sludge Gaga puts out. It makes me sick to my stomach.  I consider the glut of shitty music to be somewhat equivalent to the preponderance of reality shows nowadays: these songs make me realize that the bubblegum pop of the 1980s, 70s, 60s, etc. was not nearly as bad as I though it was, and I'd rather watch an entire season of dreck like "Perfect Strangers" than a single episode of "Pregnant at 16 and loving it!"

And as we are all aware, my opinions are the correct ones. I guess that's the end of this thread!

Hey, I started this thread and I'll decide when it ends!!
Just keeding of course.
What I really want to say is that I totally agree.
All those hot 45's that came out in the 60's were actually based on some semblance of  knowledge as to how music is put together. That along with the catchy lyrics is what sold to the masses. The pure pisswater product that has come out in the last several years is merely an attempt to mimic the success of a "new" kind of music that everyone surely has to be atrracted to because the newbies are just so intelligent. With that said, I fear not the current batch of wanna-be's as it will be shocking to them how soon they become irrelevant.   :lol

Lady Gaga is exceptionally irritating because she's obviously an intelligent/interesting person who's been around the block and who has really great influences, yet she goes and puts out this crappy ultra-generic manufatured dance sludge. It seems like she's specifically trying to put out the least distinct product imaginable as if her actual music matters little or not at all. Being famous and parading odd fashion seems to be what she's in it for....

I am not a fan of Lady Gaga, but I did read the Rolling Stone article on her. Despite that I don't enjoy her music, I can't help but think how much Andy Warhol would have loved her. I think she plays the role of a Warhol super star well.

I can take a lot, but this, sir, I cannot take. Thou Shalt Not Insult the Magic that Was Mark Linn Baker and Bronson Pinchot. I'm kidding, of course. Right?  :shrug

Wow, you know Lady Gaga is famous when she ends up on a Beach Boys board  :lol

I don't mind her. I actually think she's talented. Definitely a Andy Warhol/Yoko Ono type. My sister is much more crazier about her however then I am. I think when she does her stuff acoustically it's much better!

I love that show no joke.

The shrug hopefully demonstrated that my "kidding" remark was, in itself, kidding. I've said it before and will again: that sitcom had some of the finest physical comedy that you can find in recent decades, as performed by the aforementioned duo. And no, I am not kidding. As for the debate over whether modern pop is better/worse/sinful/shocking/pathetic/blahblah, I don't care. It makes me sad to see people grow so old as to bother with those arguments.

Mark's manic and sudden change of moods always made me laugh and still do.

Anyhow bad novelty records have been around since music began. If they are self knowing then I dig them but if they have an attitude no thanks.  I am not a huge fan of anything modern myself, but if people like it I don't care.  I only get pissed when people put me down for not liking their stuff and don't respec mine. Truth be told (I'm 33 now) the older I get the more people seem to be open to individual tastes.

33, a fine age shared by most--if not all--brilliant people ... says the guy born in July '76. ;D

Right on! The Bicentennial was my very first major holiday. I was born May 22nd.
Sorry please indulge us ;D

Unfortunately, I am not as mature as you guys; I suppose that I'm an elitist. I have actually never seen Perfect Strangers in my life, so using it in my comparison was pretty disingenuous. I figured it was a cheesy 80s sitcom that I could rag on with impunity, and now I find myself in an awkward position.

However, when I hear Lady GaGa, I reflexively reach for the nearest sharp object and attempt to puncture my ear drums. It's better than cutting of the nose to spite the face, at least..  I'll leave someone else to make a related joke about her physical appearance, which I am quite above.

excellent responses AGD!

Record execs are not adverse to that type of bad behavior - They send a limo out for it!

It is far more likely that the Love RRHOF incident helped put the backing in place that made it possible for Kokomo to become a hit - than the opposite.    

wow - that was actually fairly amazing...

i'm surprised no one has mentioned it, but judging by mike's tone wouldn't you say at least some of his comments were kind of (albeit drunkely) tongue in cheek?


even more worthy of discussion, the amazing colour coordination going on with mike's bow tie & hat



and finally, only a few years till brian's hope for re-induction comes around..