The Smiley Smile Message Board

I am only 32, and got really into the Beach Boys in 1998 when I saw Endless Harmony doc. Shortly there after I discovered the hostility that much of the media and fans have toward Mike. And I understand it, to a degree. Thankfully this message board is more fair to him. Other message boards are constantly F*** Mike Love, I hate Mike Love, etc.    >:D

Anyway, my question is, how far back does this hostility toward Mike go. We're people thinking that way back in the 70s? 60s? Was there some event (HOF speach / article written / Celebration album   :lol ) that really got this going? Or was it just a series of events? Or the fact that the Wilsons were the 'cool' Beach Boys and they disliked Mike?

Anyone have ideas of when and why?

Well I think some of the Pet Sounds / Smile sessions / post-Smile fall-apart era articles have pretty firmly laid groundwork that says "Brian Wilson: super genius," including plenty by the band's own publicist, Derek Taylor (although by others as well). Even if that isn't overtly anti-Mike, it certainly hints at it. And in the mid-70s, David Leaf wrote his book which pretty firmly divided the Beach Boys into camps: artists (Wilsons) and businessmen/hacks (others). And the truth is, the story gets so easy to tell, I think many people prefer believing it to being reasonable about the complexities of human nature and interaction.

I understand the point of your post, but I have to state some opinions first.

I think the overwhelming majority of fans like Mike Love. Since almost all of his recorded work has been excellent; I'm assuming most fans dig that. I know from seeing The Beach Boys in concert several times that the fans like and appreciate what Mike does live. For many fans, he was/is the highlight of the show. I see their reactions in the stands; I hear what they're saying on the way back to their cars.

Mike does several interviews a year. For the most part, they're pretty good, at least they've gotten better. I would think that the journalists appreciate that, too. Mike's the same way on TV; he appears friendly and accomodating.

So, who doesn't like Mike Love. Yeah, there's a small percentage of fans and journalists and musicians out there who can't stand him. Those are obviously Brian Wilson fans and their feelings are based on Mike's musical differences with Brian Wilson. If Brian is a genius and Mike doesn't see eye to eye with Brian, what does that make Mike? I personally don't think Mike's lawsuits have damaged his reputation that much; a little, but not much, basically because he won most of them.

To answer your question, Magic Transistor Radio, I think the hostility started with David Leaf's book. David pleaded his case quite effectively.

I believe Luther has it right as far as the chronology goes. The vilification of Mr. Love seems to be an organic entity, dying and being reborn. Brian's shift from fun 'n sun topics to "ego music" was the end of goofy, corny Mike, and the maturity of what he really is. A bitter, insecure and petty man who got hell of a ride out of his cousins and when that wasn't enough he imploded the group and called in the legal teams. Rieley and Leaf both threw him under the bus, or told the truth - it's subjective to your interpretation. I'd take their words before those of a phony spiritualist-slash-wifebeater control freak any day. And the ego.........

The Beach Boys would have succeeded without Mike.  And flourished.

Mike would be pumping gas and croaking for a top forty band if kismet hadn't blessed him.

Mike is a tool. Greedy, self obsessed - ad nauseum.

The Beach Boys wouldn't be the same without Mike.

Mike must never make another solo album again.

I like Mike, warts and all.

:h5

"A bitter, insecure and petty man who got hell of a ride out of his cousins and when that wasn't enough he imploded the group and called in the legal teams"

I'd say Carl and Dennis certainly benifitted much in the same way by being so blessed as to be born the younger siblings of Brian. And Al was certainly blessed to have gone to the same high shool, played football with (and broke the leg of) Brian. David was blessed to have lived across the street. Blah Blah!

Didn't Mike also write a bunch of pretty damn great and defining lyrics and also sing a mean bass vocal but could also sing lead and provide a unique counterpoint to Brian's soaring falsetto? I seem to recall something like that... Wasn't Mike also more of an outgoing person than Brian, Carl, or Al? A bit more of a forceful personality? Aren't those the things that usually make up a person who is willing to be a frontman for a band?

So, was Brian also lucky to have a cousin with some ambition other than punping gas and who was clever with all the above things? And wasn't he lucky to have a Chuck Berry obsessed little brother who played guitar and who also had an angelic voice? Wasn't he lucky to have a middle brother who was a surfer and who suggested writing a song about surfing, and who was also willing to take on learning the drums and playing them for Brian at the drop of a hat? (trust me, as a drummer, you can either play drums or you simply can't. It's not all that easy, or easy at all) Wasn't Brian also lucky to have Al as a friend? Another guy with ambition as a musician who posessed a great voice that fit in and melded with the Wilson's own voices perfectly? Oh, and Al also played guitar!!!!!

See? A single genius pounding away alone at a piano doesn't make a band!!!!

Yep. Being the most talented member of the group--which I think pretty much everyone would say Brian was--doesn't invalidate the other members' contributions, which were substantial in the case of this band. And of course, let's not forget David Marks' integral contributions early on. Or Blondie's and Ricky's contributions. Or Bruce's. Or the touring musicians'. Or the studio musicians'. I think Brian Wilson ranks among the best half dozen or so popular musicians of the past 100 years, but that doesn't mean there weren't plenty of people around him doing great things to his music, as well as making their own.

  Gee, Mike....er Erik. Touch a nerve ?.

  The exclamation point store called, they're running out.  Take a pill. Only a solitary opinion
  expressed. I suspect there are many others that won't come forth in fear of your wrath.
  Oh no, I'll be quoted in red text. I don't want that as my legacy on a
 forum based largely on speculation.


By the bye, you forgot to give the turbaned one his props for the sax playing.   :lol

Ignorance and his f****t friend Subjectivity rear their ugly heads again. It's only a matter of time before Bullshit steps in and we have a real war on here. :)

Sure Reggie, you touched something of a nerve! And for a bunch of knuckleheads whittling their time away on a Beach Boys message board, it shouldn't be completely unexpected. It's safe to assume we're all not a bunch of Cocktail soundtrack purchasing casual fans here.

And I know your dreaded red letter quote wasn't so much a quote from YOU but rather a compact paraphrasing of the general Leafian/Priore mode of thought! .... Solitary opinion expressed? Fair enough! But this begs the mention of what a message board is vs. a blog! A solitary opinion expressed in a message board is a solitary expression "walking into a bar" vs.  a solitary expression drinking alone in one's own bedroom, which would resemble a blog, if that makes any sense.... A snarling description of Mike as "A bitter, insecure and petty man who got hell of a ride out of his cousins and when that wasn't enough he imploded the group and called in the legal teams" posted on a message board will most certainly summon the turban-wearing, Kokomo karaoke-ing Mike love-ing few out from under their rocks!

Er.... not that the "imploding the goup/calling in the lagal teams" part isn't..... true!  :P

 

In High School during the eighties I swore that if I ever saw ML walking down the street I'd punch him, and I thought it would be a good deed for the world.
Now, if I saw or met Mike, I'd shake his hand and thank him for all the great songs.

IMO, it was David Leaf's book, more than anything, the was the most significant force trashing Mike's reputation.  Not that Mike, or any other member of the group, for that matter, has a sterling record.  And, Mike himself certainly has earned the wrath of others with some of his actions.

Anybody remember Brian Battles?  He was the creative designer, and later the editor, for the Break Away With Brian Wilson newsletter back in the mid 90's to the early 2000's.  When my wife and I got together with him and his wife shortly after he began this assignment, it was quite apparent that, even though we were close in age, I was a long time fan and he was a relatively recent convert.  As such, Brian Battles had bought into the idea that Brain Wilson was a creative genus (with which I totally and completely agree) whose creative drive had been diminished only because his cousin, brothers, and the other band members had thwarted his desire and ability.  When I tried to explain to Brian (Battles) that the issue was really much more involved and complicated than that, he would have none of it.  I haven't had any contact with Brian Battles (who is a heck of a nice guy) in years, but it would be interesting to see if his opinion still stands, or if he has gained an understanding that no one is perfect and the Beach Boys, as an institution, are a very complicated entity.

And, all that being said, I think ericdavid5000's post accurately and logically reflects that fact that Mike's legacy has taken a definite turn upward in the past couple of years.  (And Reggie Dunbar, if you don't like that statement, calm down!  Break away, do the side step two step (or whaever it's called) and take a chill pill yourself!  Brian's legacy is intact and secure as one of the greatest composers of the 20th century, or any century, for that matter.)

Well folks, you're making me feel guilty for issuing a fairly common, or unoriginal statement.
It's too late to issue a retraction, and it would be disingenuous of me to go that way.
I reckon it goes to show that democracy will always bow to diplomacy. I'm not going to play
the martyr card and follow the flock, but I will bone up on the sensitivity regarding Mr. Love.

You know, it wasn't so long ago that a thread like this would become a field day to tee off on the much deserving Lovester, but evidently the tide has turned in his favor. Why, is the question. I recall chiming in sometime around a year ago when he was trashing Melinda and the consensus was "That's Mike".....By the way, my original post said a few nice things about him, and there's a lot of truth in there. If any of you are related to, or are Mike, I apologize for the manner of my opinion, but stand firm in my beliefs. Sorry.

It is not that bad that this question pops up every now and then. My problems with Mike have boiled down to the following points:

- suing a cousin who clearly, to some 7 billion inhabitants of this planet, was and is mentally challenged and has no real way to defend himself (except taking a passive and 'uninterested' stance);

- stepping in at pivotal points and harming/delaying/stopping projects that all humans minus one want to see becoming reality: SMiLE, Pet Sounds Sessions Box, and most probably a SMiLE 3CD box in 1997;

- if reports are correct: making tiny insults towards Brian, that he full well knew were neglible to 6.999.999.999 humans... except to Brian.

Oh, I forgot: being the worst comedian on the planet.

For the rest, he is a fine man, in whom I take much pleasure.

Really though, I think you have to give Domenic Priore his 'credit' (for lack of a better word) here, also. LLVS! Is pretty much a Pro-Brian, Anti-Mike Love book. As well as the last SMiLE book he wrote a couple of years back. He takes every opportunity to bash the Lovester. When I was first getting into SMiLE, I read LLVS!, and by the time I finished it I hated Mike Love. HATED him. And I think it's because a lot of Domenic's opinions come across as facts. I would blame that book just as much as Leaf's book for contributing to the outpouring of hate towards Mike Love.

From the first time I saw the Boys in concert in 1971 as a 17 year old, my fellow BB fans and I all thought it would be best if Mike toned down the corny jokes.  A lot of them seemed forced ("...Yes- take a load off your feet by elevating your consciousness!!").  But it became clearer the more shows I attended that the live band needed a more forceful frontman- Carl was always very shy at the mic until later in the 1970's; Dennis relied on his looks- never said too much until the heavy alcohol years; Al never said anything; Bruce usually did the announcement type stuff ("Voter registration out front". "Anybody see the Moody Blues last night?".)  So it was always down to Mike.  As the crowds got bigger, Mike did seem to tone it down and become more of a host, and when I have seen them in recent years my cringe reaction has been idle.  I met Mike after a show once- 1972 at Ocean City, MD- he, Al, and Dennis came out to a parking lot area next to the beach and chatted to anyone who wanted to chat.  It was clear that both Dennis and Mike were checking out the female talent but they weren't real obvious or aggressive- Dennis left after a few minutes with friends.  Mike listened attentively to my 18 year old blathering about liking all the new stuff, being a big fan, etc, and never let on that it was tiresome- he seemed happy that we all came out to the show.  So while part of me says he's nothing more than Eddie Haskell all grown up, he's also a decent and friendly guy.  There are plenty of jerks in show business, and if you got rid of them there would be few decent bands.  Hell, Van Dyke Parks is quoted in a recent Ugly Things issue stating that Terry Melcher thought David Crosby was the worst person he ever met in the music business- Manson was second! Ouch!! Mike Love combined hard work and good luck to get where he is- just like most successful people.

Perhaps you are right, but surely that book sold nowhere near the amounts that the Leaf book sold?

He doesn't come out of the Dennis story particularly well either.

Ed, your point, which is true, encapsules my overall take on Mike.

I don't sympathize with Mike Love. He got on that proverbial woodie fifty years ago and rode it all the way to fame, wealth, and I assume overall happiness. As some have stated, there was some luck involved (we could fill up a hundred pages with rock & rollers in the same situation), but also a lot of pain along the way. And that is where I can empathize with Mike.

Mike's role in the SMiLE era is well documented, but I can empathize with him, or his position. I would've objected to the drugs, the hangers-on, and, yes, some of Van Dyke Parks' lyrics. I'm not saying Mike was right or wrong, I'm just sayin' that I probably would've felt the same way.

I can also see myself reacting much like Mike when Endless Summer/Spirit Of America hit, although I think the other guys felt more like Mike than many are willing to admit. That direction/decision to "go back" to the old-style Beach Boys is largely blamed on Mike Love, but I'd love to read the meeting minutes and see the votes.

And, the lawsuits, or, specifically, THE lawsuit....If I contributed some lyrics to a couple dozen Beach Boys' songs - and go no credit for it - yeah, I'd be pissed. And, if I could contact an attorney, spend a couple of minutes on a witness stand, and gain a couple of million dollars for it, yeah, I'd do that. If I/we are honest, that lawsuit had absolutely nothing to do with Brian Wilson personally. Did Mike get "sue crazy" after that? Yes. But that last SMiLE-related one was the only stupid one.

Now, the "Dennis story"....I know - ABSOLUTELY KNOW - that I would've reacted to Dennis the same way that Mike did. When Dennis asked Mike to help with a lyric or two, I would've been happy to contribute, just like Mike did. But, if Dennis showed up at a concert drunk, stoned, late, not prepared, or Dennis was saying inappropriate things to the audience, I would've been pissed - just like Mike. Yeah, it would've ended up in a physical altercation, I know myself.

That's why I just can't hammer Mike for some of his "problems" with some of his bandmates. I wouldn't know how to deal with them. But, if you look at Brian's and Dennis's track record, not many other guys (or girls) could either.

You cannot blame David Leaf or Dom Priore for Mike's actions.

They are well-documented and easy to assemble in a way that makes him look horrendous.

I agree with anyone who thinks we aren't even close to understanding the group. What is good from a goose is evil from a gander, one collaborating lyricist is a coat-tail riding hack-leach while another, with much less accomplishment, is a co-equal co-creator. My belief is we put too much blame on the actions of some and we dismiss too much the blame of the actions of others but that has corrected a bunch over the past few years.

Not to be overly dramatic...shah....but I don't think anyone comes even close to understanding the love and respect due and within the group.  All heroes, no villians.

My views on Mike have become more nuanced. I can understand some of Mike's behavior, like his exasperation over the behavior of the Wilson brothers. I can even understand him feeling threatened when Brian took on other collaborators for entire albums. I can understand Mike's frustration over the Mike bad/Brian perfect thing. Mike's baseball cap/Hawaiian shirt/stuck-in-the-early-60s-a-la-that-resort-in-Dirty-Dancing thing is irritating, but not really his fault. It's just who he is, although it comes off looking phony, and you end up wondering what he's really like. Unfortunately I think it's adversely affected the Beach Boys' reputation, and that probably contributes to people's resentment of Mike.

Here's what I DON'T get: Mike's insistence on stating things like, "my cousin Brian is brilliant, but he's got a lot of people controlling him," or "My cousin Dennis was great, but he really had a lot of problems with drugs." Uh-uh, Mike. You have every right to feel that way, but don't air your dirty laundry in the press. Not sure if it's true that he used to say things on stage like, "My cousin Brian wrote this music, but now he's sitting at home while we do all the work." Sure it was true, but not very gracious to say, particularly when people are at a concert to be entertained, not exposed to your family problems. Also, his willingness to put out crappy music contributes to his reputation as the commerciality-over-art guy (and yes, you could say that about all the BBs to some extent). What also annoys me is his tendency to not step up to the plate at crucial junctions that might have helped his reputation. He lacks a certain graciousness. He could have commented on BWPS, if only to say it's amazing that Brian was able to put it out. Instead he just said he hadn't had time to listen. That makes him seem petty. He could have congratulated Brian on his solo touring, which any way you look at it is a huge triumph. (I mean, Brian was in really rough shape earlier in his life, and Mike knows this more than most.) He could have done this while at the same time promoting the idea of a BB reunion. But advocating only a BB reunion just makes him seem self-serving. And I understand him wanting credit for lyrics, but his contributions to some of those songs was so minuscule that again, he seems petty. People help each other with a few lyrics here and there all the time, and you don't see lawsuits popping up over these things. Adding a few lyrics is more like editing than co-writing, anyway.

So all in all, I don't think Mike deserves a sterling reputation, although he's not the devil some make him out to be either. The weird thing is that the pendulum seems to be swinging to the opposite of what it was in some circles, meaning Brian-phony good/Mike-really good.

I think Mike himself has done alot to help his legacy the past few yeas as well. I think he has mellowed and is more in touch with his place/their place in in history. He has toned down his inflammatory comments in alot of interviews.  At concerts, he takes a more laid back approach as well. It seemed like the shows after 83 became extremely Mike centric, with a few exceptions. I'm not saying it was his fault for that happening, the set list, Carl's increased passiveness, lack of Dennis all contributed but it didn't help the bands image cause people focused on his poor jokes, and cringe worthy moments as well his nasal voice. Now today, while Mike is still the front man , he is toned down, he doesnt have huge monologues as much and thats a good thing. He seems comfortable and thats a good thing. I appreciate him more as part of the band.

Amy, I agree that Mike could/could've been more gracious with some of his comments, couldn't we all. But, I view it as Mike just trying to give an honest answer to a legitimate question posed to him. I mean, some interviewer asked him the question(s) and deserved an honest answer.

If somebody asked Mike about the drugs that plagued the group, well, Brian and Dennis's names are gonna come up. The only alternative would be for Mike to refuse to answer, or, as you mentioned, be a little less direct. As far as BWPS, I have a feeling Mike isn't impressed by it, so, again, why be dishonest and falsely praise it. Same with Brian's touring. I have mentioned several times on this board (and got hammered for it) that Brian's performance in concert is overrated, with his band being the real stars. Maybe Mike feels the same way.

Yes, Mike can come off as arrogant. But at least he's honest, which is more than I can say for our beloved Brian - and sometimes Al and Bruce (read some of the insanity that comes out of them). I find Mike's honesty refreshing, actually.

It's clear from early stories that there was conflict between the Wilsons and their cousin, as well as a lot of love.  I guess if Mike was a dick in Dennis' eyes, he must have thought the same of Dennis. I don't like a lot of what Love has done - I think he has cheapened the artistic reputation of the band (though he's doing a gteat job in concert these days),  Unfortunately, in a lot of people's eyes (fans and non-fans alike), this has had the effect of diminishing his role as one of the lead singers of a great band and a co-writer of some of the best pop/rock songs out there - and the lack of recognition he gets from critics is shameful. He must have seen things disintegrating around him, especially after 73 with the Wilsons on drugs and drink (particularly Brian and Dennis), Dennis' solo success offering a different route to a major songwriter - it could've been the end of not only his gravy train but the soul of the group, his life's work, if you will, so he w anted to return to the good ol' days and the songs (or songs in the manner of) that they were known for.  In some ways, Landy was doing the same with Brian to help him recharge.

As for his own stuff: if his first solo album had been released, it certainly wouldn't have hurt his reputation; the one that was released smacks of easy listening and his singing is too nasal to bear.  Like a lot of BB work - a bad choice.

To state that it was Leaf or Priore that initiated the anti-Mike sentiment is revisionist. Those authors are only a reflection of something that existed within BB's fandom and rock fandom since the mid '60's. IT wasn't necessarily dominant, and would depend on one's own frame of reference but i can remember a lot of ridicule thrown Mike's way for his lack of hair, his voice, and his stage manner beginning around 1965/66. You'll also find instances in reviews of the band in this era where Mike is singled out as annoying because of the silly between song banter. (Ian Rusten please comment here if you read this as i know you have mined some of these cases). Without going into whether this is warranted criticism or not, Mike was undoubtedly unpopular with a segment of the BB's audience before anyone had ever heard of David Leaf. This solidified into aesthetic criticism in the early '70's, mainly among hardcore Wilson aficionados. Even with the panchos, beard, long hair in the back, and robes...Mike seemed like he was "acting" the part of a hippy to many people. This isn't my opinion I'm stating, but anecdotal remembrances from the dozen or so times Mike was mentioned to me by someone back then. Put it this way, i never heard anyone say, hey that BB's frontman is the coolest guy in the band. Some of us dug his voice on those early records, some of us respected his bass voice too...but there was always some kind of image problem with Mike, and a lot of it centered around a shared perception that he was a phony or a straight. Personally, I gained a new respect for Mike in '75. He seemed to take the frontman thing to a new level, and he was fun to watch. No one else in the band could come close to doing what he did. But again, still pre-Leaf there were a lot of people that described him negatively, even as Mike hit his frontman stride, they ridiculed Mike while still liking the BB's. As SJS stated most concert goers like and appreciate what Mike does, but there has always been a segment that looks at him as the thing that makes the BB's uncool, or hard to stomach. I'm sure that segment doesn't go to many BB's shows now since Mike is the current BB's. Those fans were relieved they had a place to go when Brian started touring...completely ignoring that Brian is far more embarrassing than Mike ever was. We forgive him because he's a genius with a full head of hair.  Back to Leaf...people don't realize that Leaf's book was not perceived or received as a pro-Wilson book. Its an anti-Beach Boys book. It gives Brian all the credit, inflates the role of the Wrecking Crew, diminishes not only Mike, but Carl, Dennis Al and the others. And solidifies the conventional wisdom that the Beach Boys weren't really a good band and that Brian "replaced" them on record. Two of the Wilson brothers hated the book...probably at least as much as Mike did. I will agree that Leaf turned the vilification of Mike into a mini-franchise. Beautiful Dreamer is a good example. Dave Marks was interviewed for the film, he was only asked questions that assumed Mike in a negative light and he continued to correct Leaf, that he was mistaken in his perceptions of Mike. Of course none of his interview was used in the film. In my opinion the anti-Mike vein has been around since Pet Sounds, and probably earlier...it became a widely expressed thing in the mid '70's, and an epidemic in the '90's. I think the pendulum has swung back some in recent years...still has a ways to go i think. BTW...in Billy Hinsche's new '74 tour film Mike comes off as the least sympathetic Beach Boy IMO...Carl and Dennis are clearly engaged with the backing musicians and very affable and accessible, Al is Al-ish, but Mike seems surly, detached, even contemptuous...again this is my perception of how he comes off in the film. In my personal encounters with Mike he has been polite, courteous, slightly guarded, but when he lets his guard down he is very fun to be around...and he's funny and smart. I think he's a private guy, and that he is dealing with inner issues similar to Brian, Dennis and Carl, but he's found a way to keep himself together, and part of that is building a wall around himself.

With all due respect to your books and many other posts, this is my favorite thing you've ever written, Jon. Love it.

Jon's post sums it up the best for me---Mike's neither the devil nor the angel. Middle ground person.

AND just one more thing. The last law suit Mike had against Brian did a lot to damage his reception with me.

Ditto.

I could at least understand the other suits filed by Mike -- emotions surrounding the issues notwithstanding -- but the BWPS fracas was appalling.

Yes, but you can be honest and diplomatic. I don't expect Mike to say, "Brian's just on fire in those solo concerts of his," but he could say, "Brian is now touring, something that has always been really hard for him, and that's great for him. That must be difficult, and it's great that he can go out and play his music and see Beach Boys fans." Or, in answer to How do you feel about BWPS, he might say, "You know, I think it would have been better if he had finished it with the Beach Boys, but he didn't. Still, it's good that the music got out there, because it's good music and it's no use keeping it on a shelf." Okay, so maybe that's not Mike's style, but if he wants Brian's people to warm up to him -- and the public to warm up to him-- that would be a start.

Really a series of events beginning in 1969. Many Brian supporters relate to Brian because they too have experimented in drug use, even if it's a matter of just smoking a joint. Mike's very outspoken about that. Regardless, Brian was willing to emotionally let it all hang out in the mid 1960s, and that was unusual for anyone in popular music in those days. That alone is why Pet Sounds is revered by so many of Brian's musical peers. And that has nothing to do with drugs.

Drug use aside, everyone believes that Mike makes it up as he goes along and purposely revises history to fit his take on events. The only truth to that is, Mike shares his thoughts on his views from his perspective.

If there's anyone who really wants to dig deeper into this subject, and take up an entire month out of their life trying to explain the dynamics of the relationship between Brian and Mike -- as well as the other band members -- I say go for it.

Personally, I think Mike is one of the best frontmen in the music business. That, of course, is another subject all together.

Well-written Jon.

When Magic Transistor radio raised the question in his initial post about "hostility" toward Mike Love, I didn't think he was referring to things like Mike's receding hairline, his nasal tone, or his stage attire as things that turned people against Mike. Or, maybe he was. I thought it had to do with Mike's actions and spoken words.

But, if you look at the superficial things - hair style, clothing, and even tone of voice -  I think Mike handled those things quite well. As early as The Beach Boys' Concert, Mike was making jokes ABOUT HIMSELF with comments about attending "hair school". Then, there were those studio exercises like "Our Favorite Recording Sessions" and "Cassius Love Vs. Sonny Wilson" where Mike ALLOWS his vocal style to be made fun of. And, finally, there's the wardrobe. A person has to be secure with himself to wear bed sheets, woolen panchos, overalls with suspenders, turbans, shiny golden vests, Sammy Davis Jr.-like jewelry, and gaudy Hawaiian shirts.

And that's what's ironic. People on this board and other places refer to Mike as insecure, phony, and "acting". I don't know, I think he was just being true to himself, going through phases, and not really caring what everybody thought. If he did care what people thought, he wouldn't have dressed that way.

Again, this kind of thing boils down to perception. My friends and I always thought Mike was making fun of Dennis with that hair school crack, because at that point Dennis was the only one in the band with Beatles style hair...and the only one who didn't graduate from high school. I took it as Mike teasing that some people pay more attention to their hair than their normal education...which was probably true about Dennis.

Couldn't agree more with The Sheriff

Mike's such an easy target being a prematurely balding very very white completely non rock n roll rock star! In a band full of dorks (Dennis being the obvious exception) he was simply the only dork who showed any real self confidence which has always been a big no no with any variation of "too cool for school" hipster! I mean, all these superficial swipes at Mike that Jon mentioned that go way back just reek too much of "Ah, so I'm way cooler than the lead singer of a famous rock band, so I can go pat myself on the back" merda!

Making fun of the guy's hairline, dance moves, and (not-unintentionally) unfunny stage banter is one thing, but also refusing to grant him any credit for all his valuable contributions to everyone's favorite band, is plain out mean! Using the fact that such swipes are longstanding is no excuse to just further promote such mean spirited myth making. I know Jon was just pointing out that Priore and Leaf can't take all the "credit" .... which is absolutely true.... but they could have certainly thought about this before publicly lending credence to such fun making....

Mike is the one person in the band who could truly say: "I'm not a genius, I'm just a hard-working guy." Everyone else, to a lesser or greater extent, betrayed their talent or slacked off (or, in Brian's case, became incapable of functioning on either level). You can never accuse Mike of that. It is possible, as many here have concluded, to look at the group's history and think Mike has been done a great disservice.

I don't personally embrace that viewpoint, but it is certainly possible and defensible to think so. And Mike has done much in the last five years or so to ensure a positive legacy for himself and the touring group.

On a lighter note:

check out this piece of prime Beach Boys Merch:

http://www.wolfgangsvault.com/the-beach-boys/apparel/mens-vintage-jacket/ZZZ003465.html

A very very Mike item of clothing and at a very very Mike-like $895

$895? Kinda like a mini-lawsuit!

See, I can jab at Mike like the best of em!  >:D

You got the wrong Beach Boy. It was Dennis's brother, Brian, who went on record as saying that Dennis was "too stupid to learn". :-D

I don't know about that. I think Carl, Al, and Bruce pretty much did what they could do. None were geniuses, and all worked hard to do what they did without leaving a lot on the table.

I guess if we are looking for something to complain about someone, we will always find something.

I respect Mike a lot, he wrote some amazing songs, sang some great vocals.

But you just have to admit that some decisions he's made in the past have been extremely...eh unwise.

I'm sure Mike regrets them. Donut he say before cotton fields at Knebworth "Blame Al for this song", like come on.

Mike wasn't blaming Al FOR the song, but for wanting TO PERFORM it at that particular time. Of all the great songs in The Beach Boys' catalogue, how many fans in the audience that night were thinking, "Gee, I hope they play "Cottonfields".
Yeah, yeah, I know it charted in England....

How the f*** is his little Cotton Fields intro at Knebworth a "like come on" moment?

I still have a BBFUN news letter for the tour and without dragging it out for a direct quote, the band was surprised to hear that their last song to chart in Europe prior to Lady Linda, had been 'Cotton fields' so the decision had been made, at the insistence from Al perhaps, to do a short version of it in concert with little rehearsal. That is my take on Mikes comment. Light hearted only.

One thing I'll add in a meek, humble voice is that most of the time w/Brian he's so honest it hurts, especially today. Mike is honest too, and usually Dennis didn't BS and went straight to the point.

Does this compute? Are these words really being put together in a thought? The sheer amount of bullshit in that statement most likely would send crappy computers into a blue screen of death and core dump!

Brian is many things, but "so honest it hurts" is NOT one of them.

The voices in Mike's head are different from those in Brian's... Mike's voices say "go ahead, SUE HIS ASS" and "OF COURSE you wrote that song"...

I think that was really, really obviously just joking around, and Al obviously knew it too, going into his little "that's post office box..." thing. Joke. If Mike didn't complain when the band did songs like Surf's Up live, I don't think it was ever going to be Cottonfields that pushed him over the edge.

Oh yes, he may BS's some of the time, but he's brutally honest in a majority of his statements, in my estimation.

I heard Mike being interviewed many times during the period Brian was an addict.  I don't remember Mike saying that Brian was an addict or a coke head or anything like that, even though it would have been true.  I'm sure there were many periods when Mike was bitter at Brian for not being a contributing member to the band and for attempting to sabotage shows when he was on stage during the 70's.  So I don't get the anger towards Mike and at the same time the willingness to overlook or ignore the atrocious things Brian did. 

Back when I first heard The BBs Concert album, I assumed Mike's "hair school" crack (to quote Jon, but I guess the pun is also intended) referred to getting into female pubic hair while in high school.  Yes, seriously!  Of course, with modern grooming, such a comment being made today would be far less likely to lend itself to my interpretation back in the mid-sixties.  It would be interesting to know exactly what Mike was referring to. 

I agree with you and Clay...my opinions on Mike have certainly mellowed over the years (which I suppose is the case with many of us, as we delve deeper into the ever-so-complex world of the Beach Boys), but that lawsuit is evidence to me that Mike really does have a petty side.  It seemed quite clear that Mike was envious of the success that Brian was having with Smile, all on his own, and somehow felt the need to disrupt that.  It was completely uncalled for, and was certainly a much more personal type of attack on Brian than the 1993 lawsuit (which I have no problem with at all). 

The fact that Mike could actually file a lawsuit like that makes me question his overall character and feelings towards Brian.  It reeks of jealousy and bitterness.  Brian is indeed no saint, and has probably caused Mike's hairline to recede a bit faster than it should have, but there comes a point where criticism borne of valid concern for your cousin crosses a line and just becomes spiteful. 

Wow! I got a lot more then I bargained for. I was mainly aiming at learning when the Mike bashing took off, which some have stated. I wasn't trying to start an argument between the two sides, but it has been a fun read!

Anyways, this is my understanding.

1. By 1965, many BB fans thought Mike came off kind of corny as a front man.
2. Mikes voicing his issues with Pet Sounds and Smile.
 3. 1968-74 he came off as a phony hippy
4. Books by David Leaf and Dominique Priore in the 1970s.
5. Adult contemparary cheese.
6. Hall of fame speach.
7. Lawsuits. Especially against BWPS, even toward Al.

My guess is that this really took off in the mid 70s? Would it be accurate to say that the interest in BBs were bigger celbraties as individuals in the mid 70s then in their golden years?

Let me also say, that I don't take anyones side. I think there are things to like and dislike about all the BBs. Plus I have never met any of them. I gained a lot of respect for Mike in a recent interview (by Jon Stebbons?) when asked if he missed Brian, he began to show tears of emotion and stated that the Brian he knows is in his heart. He had a similar reaction in 1991 when Brian was seperated from him by Dr Landy. I think that Mike feels the way most BB fans feel. The real Brian may have dissappeared in the early 70s. Every once in a while we get a glimpse of him.

Late joining this thread but I agree a lot with what SJS says.

With regards to the Pet Sounds period, I think Mike's feelings were completely understandable. Brian already had a history of dropping collaborators when they had served their purpose but the difference with Mike was that he was obviously very much a part of the band and so couldn't be omitted in the same way. In Mike's position I certainly would have felt hurt that I'd been cut out of things like that after so much success. I think it was fair enough as well that Mike was concerned not to lose the BBs fanbase and the fact that Pet Sounds and the other experimental stuff that Brian was releasing wasn't selling very well showed his fears were justified.

Again, if I'd been Mike then there's no way that I would have backed Smile. Firstly because it went even further down the experimental route which hadn't proved particularly popular, but more importantly due to Brian's drug use and mental problems. The music was obviously massively influenced by Brian's problems at the time and him asking the group to get stoned can't have helped matters.

Fastforwarding on to the 70s and 80s, obviously as a diehard fan it's regrettable that the band resorted to playing greatest hits shows and releasing inferior albums. I don't see any reason to hate Mike for that though. By playing the hits, Mike was giving the audience members what they wanted and it obviously proved hugely successful. The recording of nostalgic retreads obviously scored with the public too with Do It Again, It's OK and Almost Summer doing well. So again, it was completely understandable that Mike continued to follow that path of trying to please the public even if the quality wasn't always there.

As for the lawsuits, I would agree with the verdicts. Mike was right to sue for writing credits and Brian's management should have ensured that it never went to court. Banning Al from using the name was also inevitable as Al wanted something for nothing. The BWPS lawsuit was frivolous and unneccessary and was rightly dismissed. I can understand it though as The BBs wanted to release Smile for a long time, I think I'm right in saying, but didn't or couldn't force Brian into it. So it must have been galling for Mike for Brian's management to have encouraged/pushed him into releasing it, especially with The BBs' image being used in the publicity. Mike has obviously always wanted success for the band and so (over)reacted.

Good call, this. Led me to ponder: are there may acts at all that persevere in producing new and challenging material throughout a lengthy career, not even to mention a 50-year career? As many others, I regretted the career U-turn in the mid-70s, and the embracing of the oldies-act thing. But hey, the Beatles were history for 5 years or so then already, and the Stones had stopped being innovative for this listener. One can say: hmmm, what about U2, R.E.M., and so on? Well, I stopped listening to U2 a long time ago, for me their ideas had dried up and they'd become just another stadium act. It's almost the same with R.E.M.... they almost seem to vanish from center stage without anybody noticing it, in fact.

Exceptions? Zappa, Tom Waits, Robert Fripp, David Byrne... not many, not for me at any rate.

(sigh... I wish I were a Zappa fan... then I'd have a library of music to study intensely...)

God, you don't wanna know...Zappa was my introduction to the wonderful world of credit card debt when I was in college. Others who still release somewhat interesting material after long careers are Lou Reed (something of a resurgence in the late 80s and I'd argue again in 2000 with Ecstasy), Bob Dylan (OK, not challenging material, but new and very strong material) and Elvis Costello (still all over the map, hitting and missing). But for the most part, forget it: pop careers are short ones, and Mike did a smart thing by capitalizing on the existing sure thing.

Stebbins pretty much covered my take on this, but I'll add a few stray opinions:

History gets streamlined and subjectively re-worked by all sides with a focus on the other guy's bias that knows no sense of irony. Here's my digital simulation, based on years of following this board, and you could reverse the sides just as easily:

Mr. New Poster: Did Mike undermine SMiLE and cause it to be shelved?

The Old Pros: Certainly not! It was a very complicated situation!  Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah-blah-blah?...Capitol Records, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, drugs, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, BLAH!, blah, Dennis, blah, blah, ...blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,  blah, (blah-blah-blah) blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, Priore, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, Beatles, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, BLAH-BLAH!, blah, blah, blah, blah, bluh-blobbity-blah-blah, blah,...

....[eighteen months, seventy five pages, four hundred thousand words, two suicides, three vows of revenge, twelve AGD citations of factual error, eleven Lords A-Leaping, and endless profanity, death threats, and bannings later]:

Mr. New Poster, minus his BB virginity: Wow. Not as simple as I 'd heard. So why does Mike get the blame?

Old Pros: Because of that bastard David Leaf!

The fact- no wait, my opinion-  is that no one is more responsible for who Mike is and how he's perceived than Mike. Mike is a pretty straight shooter and has apparently been pretty content with who he is for fifty years as a public figure. It's the fans who aren't o.k. with that and try to remake him in their own image, from both directions.

I think maybe the infamous "Bad Vibrations" "Dr. Love" interview in Goldmine or whatever it was made him a little uncomfortable for a while- for a few years after that it seemed he was a very reluctant and suspicious interview subject. But even that was a pretty honest portrait (again, in my opinion), like it or not. That's who he is.  No big conspiracy or frame-up.

It wasn't one simple thing- the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame speech, the Leaf book, Pet Sounds or SMiLE resistance, "Kokomo", the politics, this or that lawsuit, this or that comment- it wasn't four or five things or even eight or nine things. It's all part of who he is, as far as we're able to know him, over the course of fifty years, along with (of course) the many, many positive contributions.  Some people like that guy, and some don't. Some people see him entirely one way, some people see him entirely another way. Big revelation here: neither group is right. Nor are they entirely wrong.

Sorry to use up all the italics, but ED5 didn't leave me any exclamation points! <---(except that one).

well you all have stated all the pro"s + con"s about the lovester..The only thing i can add is..1st time he pissed me off was suing BW for songs..2nd time was kicking Al out of group + still calling it the BB. ..Beyond that if you look at  the 77 footage in maryland Dennis + Mike are at the microphones singin + Dennis leans back on electric piano ..Well piano starts to move + luckily Dennis catches himself..Good for Dennis cause you can see the lovester moving the other way not about to catch him if he falls..I respect Mikes contributions + he is a force in the group that is needed..No one can do what he does.. I love all the guys warts and all.

Is Mike Love responsible for the decline of te Beach Boys?  No, aside from changing audience tastes, Brian Wilson is the major cause of the decline.  Did Mike Love somehow impair and impede Brian Wilson's development as a musical artist?  No.  Brian was free to pick a collaborator/song writer other than Mike and did on many occasions.   

Hmmm. For the most part I'd agree. But one thing: I'd say it was not Brian as a person, but the illness that wrecked Brian for a long long time. In psychiatry one has to be very careful not to imply that the patient is one and the same as the illness. Even very tragic cases sometimes have their good moments with the real person shining through. If there is one case history in pop where a person's drug abuse is a textbook example of self-medication, it's Brian's, for me that is.

That's why I'd argue that Brian is not always as responsible for his own behavior as Mike is. I'm not saying Brian is blameless,  but i think his illness has to be taken into account. Whereas with Mike, people look at some of the things he's done and there's no explanation for it, other than, "he was acting like a jerk that day."

Most rock stars are jerks. Its part of the job description.
Its just that Mikes talent doesnt quite seem to live up to his jerkiness, that is all.

Yes, this seems to be the train of thought when it comes to Brian: Damn Murry, damn Loren Schwarz, damn Capitol Records, damn Beatles for getting "there" first, damn radio DJ who didn't want to play "Heroes And Villains", damn Danny Hutton, damn Tandyn Almer, damn Eugene Landy, damn Joe Thomas, damn Mike Love, and damn God (or god?) for giving Brian an illness.

But poor Mike....he only missed a couple of days one time because he was having some problems. Nope, no excuses for you!

Mike has always seemed like a pretty ill person himself, just not as talented as his cousins...

SJS -- Do you believe that Brian is not mentally ill?

Do you believe that mental illness exists?

1. I believe Brian Wilson is mentally ill.

2. I work with mentally ill people.

3. Reversing the order of your questions would've made more sense. :police:

Actually Mike had left in early 90"s to play Japan  With Endless Summer Beach Band.. Wasnt Gerry Beckly brought in to replace Mike for a couple weeks.. Anyway i have the video for the TV show + BB were on tour in America.. I allways wondered how that took place..Poor planning,,??

Yep- everybody who disagrees with you is just oversimplifying the case, and lacks insight, information, or any sense of fairness.  See my earlier post. People who see Mike in a positive light are thinking/reasoning sorts, enlightened, balanced, and well-informed; those who criticize him are knee-jerk "Brianistas" blinded by their own biases, to be dispatched easily with a zinger.  You could reverse this for the other side and it'd be just as true.

Question for those on either side: has the other guy- even though you disagree with him/her- ever made his/her points in such a well-reasoned fashion that you could respect the other side and find it reasonable? Or are those who view Mike differently than you always deluded fools?

SJS, not meaning to get on you personally- just making a point that could have just as easily been in response to many thousands of posts over the years. And of course I'm guilty of this kind of rhetoric all the time- everybody is.

Probably talking into the wind here...

I'll make it a New Year's resolution to do a better job, to be less disrespectful, more reasonable, and less dilusional. Maybe I can work my way up to your standards.

Just a note that I really liked Surfer Joe's posts in this thread, very enjoyable and actually close to the truth. ONE THING that everyone must keep in mind is a there is a certain subjectivity involved, there's nothing wrong and nothing infactual about the statement "I believe Mike contributed to the downfall of the Beach Boys," you can argue it but it's just one opinion. Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with the statement "Mike contributed negatively to the Beach Boys and Brian," you can disagree with it but it's just an opinion. There are things to support and to argue those statements. Ff there are two people debating Mike's merits and not making statements that dispute facts, no one person is more right than the other. One man's poison is the other man's...well however that saying goes.

There's a statement Adam made quoting Black Francis that I believe should be engraved on the walls of every music fan: "Nobody owns the pleasure of tones."

BTW, just to add Mike missed shows in 1970 and 1990 and that was about it. Funny that Alan, Mike and Carl all missed shows in 1990.

1930!!! What are you trying to do,blow my mind?!! Also, isn't this thread about the history of Mike's reputation, generally, through the years? Seems like at one time, say 75-95 (or -05) it was agreed Mike was a dick. Now most fans agree Mike's no worse than any other guy, more or less. I mean, he's still a dick, but no more so than any of the Wilsons, or you or me, right?

Not meant to be taken that way at all, SJS.  Apologies if I was too blunt.  Sarcasm aside, do you think I have a point at all? If not, fair enough.

I do think that some of the comments regarding Mike's talent or lack of it are bizarre sometimes. Some seem to think that because Mike doesn't play an instrument on stage that he is less talented than all of the other members. I've yet to hear fans of The Smiths claim that Morrissey was less talented than Andy Rourke for the same reasons... In any other band if one of the members had co-written the likes of Fun, Fun, Fun, Good Vibrations, Warmth of the Sun and California Girls alone then I can't imagine them being disregarded in the same way. Obviously the quality slipped over time as it did for some of the other guys. How much good work did Carl do in the last 25 years of his life?

I've also read people say that being denied the credits for writing songs wasn't that big a deal. Try telling that to Matthew Fisher. Although he was only denied the credit for one song (A Whiter Shade of Pale) that was enough for him to suffer depression for many years.

"Yep- everybody who disagrees with you is just oversimplifying the case, and lacks insight, information, or any sense of fairness.  See my earlier post. People who see Mike in a positive light are thinking/reasoning sorts, enlightened, balanced, and well-informed; those who criticize him are knee-jerk "Brianistas" blinded by their own biases, to be dispatched easily with a zinger.  You could reverse this for the other side and it'd be just as true."

I believe this is true because the reverse has been in effect for several previous years [I've seen it get quite ugly, lots, this is a cotillion by comparison] but recently I think we all/most have crept to a more middling balance. Kudos to us.

TdHabib, I think you and I are on the same page here.  How you react to a guy- it's a highly subjective thing, we're never going to arrive at an agreement and all see Brian or Mike the same way. And there's no correct answer, and one thing being true (or reasonable) doesn't make another thing untrue (or unreasonable).  

Did Mike contribute to the "downfall" of the Beach Boys? Sure. Here's a mild statement for debate: all six of the original Beach Boys contributed to the rise, and the "downfall" of the Beach Boys.  But to what degree? In what way?Back to subjectivity.

Mike did this, so he's a bad guy.  But Brian did this other thing, so Mike's a good guy. Mike and Brian are not functions of each other. Brian's issues are not a rebuttal to Mike's, or vice-versa. I think they're too different to even compare- totally different stresses, different talents, different challenges, different responsibilities. Life placed them in different situations.  They were both raised by a dominant and troubled Wilson parent, but they responded differently. They had very different ambitions that harmonized for a while, until they didn't.

One guy led the Beach Boys in the studio, and one led them on the stage. Brian wrote and produced a lot of brilliant songs that will live forever, and Mike contributed a lot to them as one of his better lyricists, and kept those songs in front of a lot of people for a lot of years, and did a great job with that. Along the way they've screwed each other over a few times and said  a lot of snarky things and pulled in different directions. Choose which one you like and put on your blinders...

I'm a member on another Beach Boys-related message board, and lurk on another couple. Honestly, the posts/posters on this board aren't that bad. I mean, we're rarely edited or moderated, and I can't remember the last person who was banned. The tone is usually civil; yeah, it can get a little heated, but that's the nature of any message board. I'll probably get into trouble for this, but it's the Honored Guests who bother me the most. They take too much exception to being questioned, even if it's done respectfully. Sometimes they are (shudder) not accurate with what they report on here, and, if you try to have some give and take with them, they have a tendency to become frustrated, above the fray, and take their ball and go home. Anyway....

Yeah, you have a point, but, again, that's a message board. People have a tendency to see things in black and white (I don't mean racially), and have a hard time budging or admitting that there might be another side. And, yeah, I'm guilty of this. It - meaning the debating - can be done respectfully. I think sometimes, because we're not "professional writers", things don't come out right, points aren't made accurately, and you can come off looking like a jerk. And, of course, emotions get in the way....There's almost an art to posting, I think. It's like walking a fine line, walking on egg shells, not wanting to appear delusional, stubborn, or disrespectful, but, at the same time time, you wanna get your point across. You only have so much time, so many words, a real life to live, so you have to get RIGHT TO THE POINT sometimes.

This I do feel strongly about - If people are gonna come on this or any message board and state their opinion, and I don't mean which song or album they like, but topics like Mike Love or SMiLE or the state of the band, they better be prepared to defend their point. I mean, there is a difference in expressing an opinion and telling untruths. I'm not as concerned as some about accuracy when it comes to recording dates or which musicians played on this or when that concert was, but, if somebody makes a statement (or opinion) about the behavior of a band member, well, that's open for debate. Don't you think so? I guess I do take that very seriously. It's like, the truth hurts sometimes, and, people don't want to hear/read the truth, especially about Brian Wilson. The funny thing is, we can debate and argue and write and talk and read and....we'll probably never agree on "the truth". But it's fun trying, isn't it? :police:

Kudos to good conversation, Cam- that's how I finally made it to the middle. Too many good points on all sides, over the years.  And anyone who disagrees with me on that lacks insight, information, or any sense of fairness, and is a product of bias, ignorance, and a broken home.

(Agree that this is a cotillion, too!)

Thanks, SJS- great post, agreed on all points. Glad we're square. I swear I wasn't trying to get off any big crusher or anything.  As you say, there's an art to posting and I sort of failed it on that one.  Too pompous on my part, even if I had a decent point, which was simply that we all have to go carefully in characterizing each other's arguments. Message boards catch a lot of hell, and rightfully so, to some degree- but a few years on this board is a better education on the Beach Boys than anything in print.

I think the truth is that Mike positively contributed the BBs in their first few years. Brian, by all accounts, just wanted to make songs that all of the teenagers would like, and Mike's lyrics and attitude helped him to achieve that. You can't argue with that. It's a shame that when Brian's artistic interests changed in the mid-60s, Mike had to oppose it. By that point, he had great interest in the BBs as a commercial entity and he wanted to protect those interests. It was his livelihood. He had doubts about Pet Sounds, but Brian talked him into giving the material a chance. For whatever reason, it didn't even go gold at the time, and on top of that, it was embarrassing at points for the band to try and recreate such incredibly complex music live. It probably helped to put Mike on edge. He had to deal with that challenge all year long, recreating that strange music, every year.

Then, Brian confronts him with even weirder, more esoteric music that would be even more difficult to perform accurately live. Mike doesn't know what to do. He freaks out. His formerly dependable world is crashing down. In such a state, he argues with Brian and Van Dyke Parks vehemently about their new direction. It's a shame, but it happened. The band then watches Brian crash and burn, canceling Smile. They try to be supportive of Brian at this point, but with their commercial prospects diminishing to a fraction of what it was before, people are understandably distressed. It must be hard, during this times, to see Brian completely out of his mind on drugs, oblivious to commercial concerns. Occasionally, people do things they regret later but are ashamed to admit. Was it fair to put that pressure on Brian, just one person? No, but it happened. Afterwords, after reality has had more time to set in, the band tries to make amends and find an inner harmony. Sometimes, they find a relative balance, and other times, there is chaos. Eventually, the roller coaster becomes too much (some time in the mid to late-70's), and the relationships between some of the bandmates disintegrates beyond repair.

That's their story, by God, and I'm sticking to it.

Just one thing I'm going to say as just a fact, you can add the spin: Carrie Marks posted this on Shut Down (I hope she doesn't mind me just bringing it over here)

I can understand both sides. I can understand Mike feeling threatened over Brian's changing direction. What would that do to the live act? And would the music sell?
On the other hand, I can understand Brian's yearning to change and grow, drugs or not. He was just too brilliant not to grow artistically, and too brilliant not to outgrow the type of music that a pop band could reasonably perform on stage. As a music fan, I feel it would have been a crime if Brian had spent his whole career doing car/surfing/girls songs, great as those songs are.

And in the end, Mike may have supported the changes, but the newly complex music made him (Mike) seem LESS than Brian in the talent department, because he was left behind.So as he goes on and creates the traveling jukebox and makes some bitter statements over the years, he kind of looks like a chump. Maybe the solution would have been for the BBs to break up in 1967, Brian to create his music and Mike to be a lyricist for someone more traditional and less "out there." (In fact, I don't understand why Mike DIDN'T work with other people, if only to write songs, particularly after Brian drifted away.) But then, Brian needed the BBs harmonies. Anyway, Brian, being the artist with mental illness, got romanticized, while Mike, being the ordinary guy with talent, ... didn't. There. More musing.

Was it really Mike who worried about whether the group would be able to play the stuff on stage? I know he was obviously worried about how the fans would react but I would have thought that Carl (and the other guys who played instruments) would have had the bigger issue with how it was to be performed.

Wasn't one of the reasons Carl quit (briefly) because they weren't rehearsing properly?

I admire this post. Perhaps I even contradict myself in some spots, but... I do have the benefiet of hindsight. Hey, I do have only the benefit of hindsight. I learned about the beautiful music when I was 14 or so, in 1973. Which means it was a backwards exploratory route. First I fell in love with the hits, California Girls and such. Then I heard 'Surf's Up' on a Warner Bros. 4 LP collection of their stars ('Superstars Of The 70's'). I did not think much of SU then (and now it is my all time favourite pop song). I then read that Pet Sounds was the greatest pop album ever. Bought it. Thought: mmm... not bad, but where are the singalong hits?

I now have the weird feeling that Mike might have thought exactly the same in 1966. He experienced it all in real time. I did not. That's all the difference. But our reaction might have been the same after all.

Moreover, I can't expect Mike at age 25 to have been an expert in psychiatry. I wasn't, at any rate. So I might have been quickly wary of my ueber-cousin being stoned more each passing day, and handing over much more weirder music after the only moderately successful Pet Sounds to me, to work with.

It's a bit of the irony of history. I might, after all, have reacted exactly the way Mike did in the mid-60s.

But I stick to the three points of criticism I wrote on the first page here.

Mike did worry if the albums and singles would keep selling or not. And in the end of the day, Brian did too, and each one of us do as well...

It's not Mike Love's fault that Pet Sounds was a commercial failure.

They may have wanted the same thing, but they wanted the same thing for very different reasons (the big flaw in the "Brian was just as much of a sellout asshole as Mike" argument).

Mike wanted to sell records for one reason: he was always afraid that he was one flop away from losing everything and having to get a real job.

Brian wanted to sell records because that meant that he could finally please his father and a way of boosting his own self-esteem.  This is the guy who told Earl Leaf in an interview that he never wrote his hits because he thought they would make money. He also said that hearing someone else's great record made him "feel insignificant" which  llead to him wanting to improve his stuff.  Gary Usher in his diaries points out that while Mike went for commerciality when  he wrote and Brian wrote from a more pure place. Usher correctly points out that while one isn't neccesarily better than the other, music that is more pure and organic will have a longer shelf life than something born out of commerciality.

No one said it was.

I think Mike did love music and did care about the musical quality of their records. He just was too much of a Mike Love to admit it. I guess one of his self appointed roles in the band was being the one who cared about practical stuff, which he progressively carried on to cartoonish proportions. Anderle spoke a little about that. Not that he was good at it, as the Maharishi tour shows.

When it comes to Mike's reputation, it's as simple as this:

*we won't justify any poor performance of his

*we won't forgive or justify any embarrassing public appearance

*we will not excuse him for choosing inappropriate acquaintance

*we wouldn't forgive him had he snorted his talent away

*we wouldn't forgive him for purposefully ruining his voice

*we wouldn’t forgive him in a thousand years had he (mentally ill or not) tried to give drugs to his children

Once again, Mike is apparently just a function of Brian. Any alleged shortcomings of Mike are directly rebutted by the shortcomings of Brian. If Brian screws up one more thing, Mike might achieve sainthood.

Again, I just don't see the comparison of a very seriously and chronically mentally ill person to one who isn't.

Point of order: while Pet Sounds was thought at the time to be a commercial failure, by comparison with Party!, we now know that, for various reasons, Capitol underreported sales.  So while this remark was assumed to be true then, we now know it is false.  And of course Pet Sounds killed in the UK.  So neither Mike nor Brian was "responsible."

Besides, I thought the topic was Mike's reputation going up and down over the years, not whether he deserves to be thought a righteous dude vs. a finger-lickin-chicken-bittfvcker.

I was waiting for someone to raise that. Complicated story, hashed out here in good detail several times.


Good point, and absolutely correct.  But the other topic always beckons to this board, like the tar baby that it is.

Comparisons arise because the "Mike Love is evil" assertion was the other side of the "it's Brian and four morons" coin.

I agree completely. Apples and bell peppers.

People should be held responsible for their actions.  But when that one person has severe and chronic mental illness, then to deny them anything resembling understanding, let alone compassion, is just cruel and mean spirited.

 

I think they arise because people divide into two rival teams and try to promote their own team by throwing dirt on the other and calling each other hypocrites for seeing the two men differently.  "Brian Rules, so Mike Sucks!" "No, Mike Rules, because Brian Sucks more!" Either way, it's ignorance for ignorance. Much better to argue with the best points the other side has to offer (and each side has far better points than the dirt-throwing) instead of the catcalls from the cheap seats, which will always be plentiful- though this is a very intelligent board.

It actually demeans Mike to make him a pure function of Brian.

Mike and Brian are two vastly separate people with vastly separate issues. Different achievements, different problems.  I respect them both, and try to keep them both in perspective. To view them differently and apply different standards to them, though, is not hypocritical.  It's discerning.

Good thread it gets us all thinking.
Brian is a sympathetic figure as far as how much pain he has suffered, but he did make some choices that helped  him go the way he went.  Sometimes people that are ill still can deliberately make wrong or hurtful choices. That doesn't make Brian a "bad" man just human. I think he deserves a lot of admiration for giving us songs that have changed our lives for the better, but that doesn't mean I have to kiss the ground he walks on. I guess what makes me feel worst for Brian is that he was put on display so often when he shouldn't have been. That extends to now.

Mike had to deal with his own problems and he does deserve some understanding as well. He too made some piss poor choices over the years that I am sure he is not proud of. He has been a real jerk sometimes, downright nastyYes Mike may have had the benefit of rational thinking most of the, but Marty hit on something here. We forget Mike has had periods where he was seriously ill mentally. In fact due to Brian not full declining as of yet, there may have been a certain period in 1970 where he was doing better then Mike. It's not simple is it?

My view of Brian and Mike is about the same. They both gave the Beach Boys some of their finest moments and some of their most horrid. They both have very many things to admire and both have many things to scorn. Brian Wilson is a one of a kind talent but Mike at his best was no hack. I'm glad that we have so many good songs from their partership and hope they can achieve some sort of personal peace with each other.

Sure, sure, but could Mike ever come up with the melody and chords of a hit song? Don't say "Kokomo", he had very little to do with the writing of that song musically. Can he arrange 5 part harmonies? Yeah, he's not talentless, but I still think people try to give him too much credit in reaction to all of the Brian favoritism that ruled the roost for years.

Here, here.

[/quote]

Comparisons arise because the "Mike Love is evil" assertion was the other side of the "it's Brian and four morons" coin.
[/quote]I think those two points of view generally exist on the SAME side of the coin, the other side of the coin would be Brian is a mess and can't do anything without his hand being held (preferably by Mike).

What's your point?

I've yet to read anywhere on these boards that Mike was just as talented as Brian or that he had the same production and vocal arranging skills. Nobody believes that and Mike himself has talked about Brian's genius for hearing all of the vocal parts in his head. Mike is primarily a lyricist so of course you wouldn't expect him to be writing hit songs on his own. How many hit songs does any lyricist write on their own? But just because Mike's talent didn't compare with Brian's, doesn't mean that he shouldn't have been given more credit (the fact that he wasn't given any credit for the likes of California Girls shows that he clearly should have been).

Now to have co-written so many great songs was a great achievement and Mike deserves some respect for it. Some people seem to think that if you praise Mike that you are somehow belittling Brian which isn't the case at all. It's not a competition and, to me, it beggars belief that people persist in the Dennis was more talented than Carl, Carl was more talented than Mike arguments.

Brian was a genius and to say that Mike wrote a lot of good hooks and good lyrics and helped the band to have hits in the early years doesn't challenge that.

I simply think he could write a fine lyric and that vocally he was an asset in the harmonies. I'm no fan of "Kokomo", but "Big Sur" you bet.

Only two Beach Boys ever wrote a hit song: Brian and Bruce.

So Brian has only written 2 or 3 hits in his entire career??? Bizarre logic.

Maybe I've missed these posts but I generally see people trying to give Mike only the credit he deserves, I would say recognizing the credit he [and the other non-Brian Boys] deserves is still at the too little status but that is just me. I also agree with those that feel fully crediting one does not discredit another.

I see. Rephrasing... Only Brian and Bruce, in the Beach Boys, have written most of the music for any hit songs.

We're pretty sure that The Wood (and I do not mean Ronnie) co-wrote "You Are So Beautiful" which got to #5.

Didn't Al write the incredibly lame but still a hit (in Britain) Lady Linda?

We don't know the extent of his co-write, do we? Maybe he wrote the bulk of it, maybe only a section as extensive as Mike's 'round round get around' hook for I Get Around. Sure, I'd love to know what he contrinuted to YASB.

I think the internet forums had a lot to do with the improvement of Mike's reputation over the last decade or so. The internet has allowed discussion among fans and nearly direct contact with BB scholars. I remember the level of hostility -in 1996 - 97-- towards anyone who praised a contribution by ML, or believed Love’s songwriting claims.

In the 80s, with Carl still alive and fully active, and Brian joining the stage occasionally, Mike was blamed for destroying the "legacy" of Brian's music with the live shows.

In the 2000s, the novelty o Brian’s live shows and the Love-Jardine feud still fresh, there were countless harsh comments on Mike’s live BBs. Those comments are not majority now. They were pretty loud for a while.

How many times have you read “he could have gathered four singers and teach them the parts… he didn’t need the BBs”? Those voices are quieter now.

Another important character in the ML bashing campaign was Van Dyke Parks, whose bitterness towards the Lovester was for a while accepted as gospel.

Let us not forget the Capitol 2-fers liner notes, the "autobiography", still bought as true by many. Oh, and the extremely aggressive tone of Beach Boys Australia around the time of the songwriting lawsuit.

Some of the brianista faction has toned down into a “clinical / analytical” mode. I.e. Mike wanted a #1 because he was greedy or afraid of losing his job, whereas Brian wanted a #1 to please his father. You can’t lose with that one. Except that you get into a mental-analysis, intention-guessing thing that you really cannot know for sure. 

With help from Bach.

Bach is a fool for not taking Al to litigation...

I believe Al listed him though in the credits.

So we're back to square one: the history of Mike's reputation or image is simply the history of misinformation, disinformation, lies, and a vast conspiracy against him.  But recently, the newly revealed facts have repudiated all negative responses to Mike's (falsely portrayed) words and actions, and a new age of enlightenment has come upon the land. 

Mike himself has nothing to do with any of this; it all happens completely outside of him. When I was reading that Goldmine "Bad Vibrations" interview back in '93 or so, purportedly with Mike himself, and thinking Mike was being sort of an ass, it was actually just David Leaf and Van Dyke Parks in my head like a couple of mindworms, getting me all confused.  Or maybe it was mind gangsters. 

We've all been the victims of some cunning and devious opinion-makers.  Until now, of course, when we've all been set straight. Mike is actually outtasite.

Yeah, I know- that's me doing what I complained about earlier in this same thread- oversimplifying other peoples' views.

All kidding aside, I like Mike and always have, and have always said so.  I admire and respect his contributions.  But I also think who Mike is perceived to be is pretty much who he is, and I'll go out on a limb to say that he'd probably agree.  He's a blunt, outspoken guy with his own priorities, who- given many chances-  has never really tried to spin things any other way. Others try to do that for him.  If you ask his fans why he had problems with this or that aspect of SMiLE, some of them will say "That's a lie!" Ask Mike and he'll say "Here's why..."  And I respect that.

I think Beach Boys fans are well-informed and yet- maddeningly to some- they still arrive at their own informed opinions and responses, and see things differently.  I don't think Mike's rep, for better or worse, ever really came from David Leaf or Derek Taylor or the evil "Brianistas" or anywhere else nearly as much as it came from Mike, and his own words and actions.

When Brian pops off and says his new band is better than the Beach Boys people get mad at him, and rightfully so.  When Mike pops off about something or says he didn't even give a listen to BWPS, people get mad about that. When he gives a good interview people like him more.  What's so hard to get?

Very well said Joe.

No, Surfer Joe. It's like saying that we only have Leaf to blame for Mike's reputation.

I think you've been reading a different thread to me. I've yet to read anyone say that Mike didn't have a problem with Smile. I've yet to read anyone say he hasn't made mistakes either.

Are you out of your mind?

Good Vibrations (B.Wilson M.Love)
Fun Fun Fun (B.Wilson M.Love)
Kokomo (T.Melcher S.Mckenzie j.Phillips.M.Love)
California Girls (B.Wilson M. Love)
Do It Again (B.Wilson M.Love)

to name but a few....

See: we can go round and round with the "Mike/Brian/Mike: asashole?No, Mike OK discussion and we can all be reasonable and fair and make some headway, then someone comes along with a "statement" like this and we're back to square one!

Wonderful!

I've been pretty critical of Mike, but I think it's perfectly possible to (a) be heavily critical of somebody while not being unfair and (b) to not be a partisan in so doing.

From my perspective, I think there's been a lot of demagoguery in how Mike chooses to spin his contribution to the group which has really undermined his own goal, which is to take credit for what he rightfully DID do.  One of the biggest problems is that Mike, from what I can tell, did play a fairly large role in adjusting Brian's music so that it would resonate with their audience.  He also had the right attitude and image for what they were doing at the time.  The problem is, his sense of the marketplace, and his ability to relate to it, got less and less after around 1965.  So adding the Mike Love touch to a Brian song in, say, 1963, may have been just what was needed at the time, but in 1978, it was perceived by many as embarassing, and a lot of Mike Love's later lyrics are very close to self-parody.  I mean, some of them are just plain bad.  And bad is not good...but Mike Love still thinks of his lyrical role and talent as being the same as it was back in the sixties, and it ain't.  His instincts as a lyricist are often horrible...he thinks he's being commercial, but he just sounds contrived.  It doesn't work on either an artistic or a marketplace level.

The other thing is the assumption, as Jon points out, that Brian needs Mike to make great (or commercial) music.  The record doesn't show that.  The record shows that Brian needs SOMEBODY to make great, commercial music, but he's written amazing songs not just with Mike, but with Van Dyke Parks, Gary Usher, Roger Christian, Carl, Tony Asher, etc.  True, he's had the most commercial success with Mike Love's cowrites, but at the same time, if you made a list of Brian songs with howlingly bad lyrics, you'd have a high proportion of Mike Love lyrics in there too.  There's also the evidence given by some of Brian's cowriters that Mike has taken outsized credit for some of the songwriting contributions he claimed in his successful 1993 lawsuit ("California Girls" notwithstanding).

Basically, Mike was the main of the hour for the band's early, and most successful period.  As a frontman and as a sometime lyricist, as well as a consummate bass singer, he was outstanding.  You cannot take that away from him.  He's also the most recognizable voice of the band.  He deserves full credit for all these things.  A lot of peoples' problems with Mike comes from the sense that Mike still wants to be acknowledged as someone with the same level of talent, achievement and sense of the marketplace as he had in the early '60s, and the record simply doesn't show that.  Yes, he cowrote "Kokomo" with four other people, but even with that leg up the Mike-led band couldn't muster any follow up hits.

I guess what I'm sayin' is you don't have to be a "Brianista" to have perfectly valid criticisms of Mike Love....the gentleman has brought some of the problems on himself with his own public spin and with his recorded songwriting output over the years.  And in the end, the guy don't care!  He's doing what he loves, playing music, performing and making bank at nearly 70.  And I've been impressed by the changes in the set list and in the band in recent years, FWIW.  Credit where credit is due, blame = same.  (And yeah, the other guys in the band have had their share of bad lyrics, too...the difference being none of them claim to be talented in that area, as Mike does.  For my money, the best lyricist in the Beach Boys was Al Jardine).

I agree with an awful lot of that. Mike obviously was a great collaborator for Brian in the early years and continued to write consistently good lyrics up until 1973 I would say (with some exceptions obviously). After that he certainly did try to rewrite the fun in the sun stuff far too much. That's understandable as the biggest original hits that the band (and Celebration) had through the wilderness period were all in the retro style, but it's still disappointing as the quality dipped so often. Also I would say that the stuff Mike wrote for his outside projects was generally much better than the songs he was contributing to BBs albums so he obviously still had some ability. The only thing I would question is how much Mike's belief in his own abilities attracts criticism. For most fans it doesn't seem to be that big a thing.

As for Al being the best lyricist in the band, I like a lot of songs with Al writing credits but I can't think of any with particularly good lyrics. Certainly nothing as strong as those for Warmth of the Sun or as smart as those for Fun, Fun, Fun. And the lyrics to California Calling...the less said the better.

To add my tuppence I will simply say that as people I am not really sure that I like the Beach Boys. Any of 'em. What I hear about them is often contradictory, but on a bad day, they can all be made to appear like a real bunch of spoilt brats. Does that make me Murry? However, this is part of the parcel of loving their music, part of the package, this discrepancy between all-too-normal people and music which often sounds ripped from the cosmos.

In terms of Mike, he carries the can for some laughably idiotic behavior, but so should all of them, even if they were off their heads. So yes, I think he has been unfairly treated, as the Beach Boys were a band that unfairly treated others and themselves.  I'd also add that Mike is possibly the one most likely to string a coherent sentence together, so him doing the talking was probably a given.  His later monologues became a pain... but then why didn't someone give him a kick up the arse? In the band of the bland (and for me, after 82, the BB were just another boring show-band) the one-eyed man is king. Long live the King of Love.

"As for Al being the best lyricist in the band, I like a lot of songs with Al writing credits but I can't think of any with particularly good lyrics. Certainly nothing as strong as those for Warmth of the Sun or as smart as those for Fun, Fun, Fun. And the lyrics to California Calling...the less said the better."

Fair statement, but I'm thinking in terms of the instinct of what makes a good, interesting lyric, even if you come up short on the execution.  Mike could turn a clever phrase but he relied on the same tricks over and over again and traded heavily on cliches and moon/June types of rhymes.  If you look at songs where we know Al contributed lyrics and reason outwards, he's the one guy in the band that will reach for a different kind of imagery or a sense of a poetry, even if he's writing about something dorky.  The touches of California history or little bits of specific detail that you get in lyrics that he's involved with that widen the lyrical picture -- e.g. "The California gray whale once was there/does anybody care?" vs. "The other night/they were playing our song/hadn't heard it in oh so long".  Neither one of those lines is Keats, but there's more imagination to Al's line.  Maybe it's hard for me to quite put it into words but it's like someone said about Bernie Taupin vs. Gary Osborne (Elton John's two main lyricists) where Bernie Taupin often wrote bad lyrics, but they were always bad in an interesting way.

But then, my vote for best Beach Boys lyricist ever is neither Van Dyke Parks nor Tony Asher, it's Roger Christian.  I think he was a f**king brilliant lyricist, AND he was firmly rooted in the cars/girls/California thing.  You CAN do both.  "Shut Down"?  THAT is pure poetry.

It's a good point about Mike doing better work outside the band.  I like it when Mike writes what he really cares about -- though often that's TM, which I and a lot of other people don't really care about, so that's a problem -- but I dug "Cool Head, Warm Heart."  It wasn't an earth shattering lyric, but it expressed its sentiments simply and sincerely and that counts for a lot, and I think it resonates with more people than "Fun Fun Fun Part V" or "Kokomo Part X."  But then, who knows.  Mike also has a point in terms of trying to reach the maximum number of heads in the crowd.  It's not going to produce the kind of music I want to hear, but the obvious snarky response to that is, in this instance, also totally relevant:  he's rich and famous and I'm not.

I think Mr. Bear was responding to this:
 
 
So, I took Mr. Bear's response to mean that only Brian and Bruce have written both the music and the lyrics to hit songs (Brian with "Surfer Girl", for example, and Bruce with "I Write The Songs").


And I agree wholeheartedly with Adam...I couldn't have said it any better.   

AGD made a point awhile back that Mike isn't really a songwriter, a darn good lyricist though, and I agree: he really has the basis to write a catchy if dumb chorus very well ("round, round get around)"("Aruba, Jamaica") but never really a good full song by himself.

And great posts, Adam, as usual batting clean-up...

Has anyone else read Jim Fusilli's book on Pet Sounds? I think this may be the most recent example of Mike Bashing published in a book. Without going back and listening to my audiobook to get an exact quote, Fusilli says something to the fact that while The Beatles carefully crafted their legend, The Beach Boys ran theirs into the ground with Mike's oldies act and he goes on to belittle the current Love/Johnston incarnation of the BBs. The only place I've seen any love for the Lovester is on this board.

Personally, I think his voice is just a plain embarrassment in too many songs where he sings lead. It's hard to convince a casual BBs listener to get past that nasaly voice to hear the complexity beneath. I wish I didn't have to do that. Why couldn't he more often sound like he does on "All I Wanna Do" or at least "All I want to Do?". Even Bruce points this out in the Warmth of the Sun podcast series when he's talking about Mike's lead on "It's OK".

How isn't Mike really a songwriter? You may think that he never really wrote a good full song by himself - I think most of the fans like Big Sur at least, but it's irrelevant - but he's as much of a songwriter as any other Beach Boy. And I think Carl is barely a better songwriter than Mike. Basically one 'Long Promised Road' of advantage.

The first time I saw a beach boys live DVD (I think it was the lost concert) I was terribly embarrassed by Mike Love chicken dance, then I saw older concerts and was even more appalled by his sub Mick Jagger strut and corny presentation and the jokes! Good grief why does that man speak (his claim that he loves the silence following his jokes doesn't ring true)?  In short I can't watch him live at all without either laughing or being shocked.

Then I went to interviews and was taken aback by how angry he seems even right back in the 60's, he seems to have some sort of personality problem, then I read about him not liking Pet Sounds and SMILE which baffled me- in short, he is everything that is bad about the beach boys- I don't really value his bass singing that much (I think any of the beach boys could have done it I mean it's not exactly a booming bass) and his lead vocal quality can easily grate. The songs where he has contributed lyrics do not match songs where Brian has written with other people, it's embarrassing for a man even in his 20's to be singing about school and I wish he'd shut up about "having the idea" for back in the USSR.

I agree with other posts that The Beach Boys could have been just as good without him, although whether they would have actually got anywhere without him is a point that can never be solved.

 I can understand him being concerned with Brain's drug use and use of other song writing partners, but ultimately he just didn't seem to understand that an artist has to change and grow and not stick to a formula.

He also used the following opening line to Sean O' Hagan from the High Lamas who was going to produce the Beach Boys in the 90's, I paraphrase-
"so when are you limeys going to stop fuckin each other in the ass and make some good music?"
 It's not the best opening gambit even if it is a joke.

He may have mellowed and he may be more tolerable these days but that still leaves an embarrassing man.

Everyone is going to judge the BBs and their music based on their personal tastes, no problem.

I question some of the info on which we base some of our conclusions about their actions, AGD routinely knocks down some presumed "truth" with some unexpected facts. Stuff like the '93 lawsuit: I don't think we understand what happened there.  I'm not sure we even know what the complaint was and who it was against let alone the testimony and evidence. Some lawyer-type needs to get to work on that, hint, hint. Anyway, one example of how we accept some information, which is probably just a lot of PSML fantasy, as proof of something. Or maybe it is...or isn't..aw, forget it.

All seems quite straightforward to me - Brian won something like $10 million from Irving/Almo, whereupon Mike decided to sue for label credits and back royalties. He was willing to settle out of court (reportedly for a one-off payment of $750,000, label credit and back royalties) but Brian's management decided they'd fight in court... and of course, lost (well, when your #1 witness is Brian Douglas Wilson, that's pretty much a given) not only the case but just about all of the award. Said it before, will keep on saying it -  Brian's management probably qualifies for a federal disaster grant.

And just to clarify things, I don't think Melinda was in the picture on Brian's management team yet. Am I right, AGD?

"so when are you limeys going to stop fuckin each other in the ass and make some good music?"
  I wonder if he said something similar to Curt Becher.  Probably not, though maybe only because he's not English.

Much as I'd normally defend Al, I actually find his lyrics a little awkward in their ambition.  I know what you mean, but I prefer Mike until he seems to lose his muse in the mid-70s.  I hate clunky stuff like It's Okay and his vocals, in a different fashion, obviously, are as off as Brian's and Dennis'.  Of course, he wasn't the only BB to lose his way at that time...  In defence of Carl, I think he has three or four good songs, but that AOR stuff he gets into in the eighties could be anybody, frankly.

Didn't Brian agree with Mike when it went to court?

They weren't married yet - the case was heard starting on 12/12/94, decision was handed down 12/20 - but the wedding date (2/6/95) had certainly been set. I'm pretty sure she was Brian's conservator by then.

Brian wasn't in good shape and hated being in the witness box. In that situation, he basically agreed with whatever was said to him.

This will interest you: go here - http://www.cabinessence.net/ (http://www.cabinessence.net/), click on 'writings' then scroll down almost to the bottom of the left hand column, and click on "Love vs Wilson". Fascinating stuff.

OK fair enough re Al...I may just be giving him undue credit because I don't think anyone's ever called attention to the fact that Al had more of a poet in him than he's ever given credit for (a much more creative lyricist than music writer IMHO), but it's fair to say that he doesn't always make it work.  I've always wished he did a whole album of folk music about California history.  Maybe nobody would buy it but I bet it would be an interesting record.

You could make an argument I suppose that DENNIS was the best lyricist in the band...not artful but forceful...but even I'm not clear of how much of the lyrics to his own songs he wrote.  I'm given to understand quite a lot but given the number of collaborators he's had it's impossible to tell.  In interviews, up until about 1977, he was one of the most articulate guys in the band, so it's not as counterintuitive as it might seen.

I think that Mike's character is best summed up by the character Charlie Prince played by Ben Foster in the 2007 remake 3:10 to Yuma. Most obviously, they look uncannily similar (http://images.allmoviephoto.com/2007_3:10_to_Yuma/2007_3_10_to_yuma_003.jpg). Their cocky attitudes seem about the same. Both do whatever it takes to get the job done. Prince, in the beginning, has a near religious devotion to the ambitions of the outlaw star of the movie, Ben Wade, and the moneymaking ways of their band of thieves. At the same time, Prince still maintains a hidden sort of independence from Wade. Then, when Wade decides to fight for something he believes in as opposed to just making money, Prince turns on Wade to uphold the principles of their band, eventually commanding to the whole band to surround and kill Wade. A strange and unintentional allegory, I'm sure. But it's there, in a wild west movie set in a world full of heroes and villains.

Andrew is right that the Cabinessence article is the only comprehensive write-up of the 1993 Love v. Wilson suit I know of, written by an eyewitness.  The only way to learn more about the machinations would be to go to the court clerks' archives, rabbit through the court files (probably discarded by now), and pick out the juicier pleadings.  Which sounds easy enough (it isn't) but then you'd have to pay for them, then scan them, then post them.  eeccch.   Too much time/work for too little reward.   Besides the pertinent historic facts have all been hashed out here in various threads over the years, and on the Shut Down/Cabinessence board too.

I think Dennis wrote relatively few lyrics - even "Forever" was co-authored with Greg Jakobsen - and, oddly, Mike handed in some great words for him: "Only With You" and "Pacific Ocean Blues" spring readily to mind. As ever, I stand to be corrected in this.

From what I've gathered Dennis did write a significant amount of the lyrics on the songs co-authored by Gregg, especially the POB and Bambu stuff. Kalinich is a different story, as might be the case with Mike, and Its About Time is practically no DW lyrics. However there are some of DW's best songs like Slip On Through, Cuddle Up, Thoughts of You, He's a Bum and many others on which he is the primary lyricist.

No idea how reliable it is but in that Daryl Dragon interview from Dan Addington's Denny site he says:

"You know, I'd think of one word - it was like Gregg Jakobson, he'd think of a single word and then Dennis would give him part of the writer's [credit]. A joke."

I prefer the lyrics on Pacific Ocean Blue to almost any other Beach Boys-related album, with the exception of Pet Sounds of course. They were/are very adult-like and mature, but also adult-childish (in a good way). I loved Dennis sense of humor ("open up my wallet and dust falls out but that's alright with me"), his directness ("I'm the kind of guy who loves to mess around...know a lot of women, but they don't fill my heart...), his pain ("said you love me now, in another way, oh in another way..."), and, maybe the best ("loneliness is a very special place, to forget is something that I've never done...silently, silently you touch my face...).

Sorry, I went a little off topic there. I don't know who specifically wrote which lyrics on POB, but I love 'em.

I doubt it old friend but maybe.

There's the rub, the trouble and expense.

Without the aforementioned documents, can we know if it is pertinent historic facts? It feels more like historic hearsay to me.

Right on it's so well writen. People who dislike the Beach Boys may well love that album. Brilliant.

Re: Al"I've always wished he did a whole album of folk music about California history."  Agreed.

The "historic hearsay", to use that term, gives you a decent picture of the squabbling and the personalities (lawyers and litigants), the only better record would be an actual transcript, which I doubt anyone got.  And even that wold not catch the sniping at counsel table before and after.  The pleadings might also shed some light as far as what was demanded but would not give you the flavor of what happened in court.  Incomplete as it is, the Shut Down essay is really quite informative in that respect.  The rulings of course were reported and we know what those were.

Here's additional thoughts on the lawsuit from an interview with Tony Asher that some of you have probably seen before: http://surfermoon.com/interviews/asher.html  He says that he wrote all the lyrics for "Wouldn't It Be Nice" and Mike had no input into it.

When you read that Asher interview, you get yet another viewpoint that suggests that Mike is not a nice person, particularly the part about "I pray he does not have my phone number." If these views of Mike are exaggerated, I wonder where they came from among people who have met the guy. Maybe he just rubs people the wrong way, or maybe Brian said things to both Tony and VDP to skew their view of Mike. Or maybe Mike DID resent them for taking his place, let them know it (remember the VDP chartered plane story?), and their public words over the years have influenced Mike's reputation.

Wow, the trial story on Cabinessence was riveting, and definitely paints Mike in a better light. Did Brian actually end up suing his own lawyers though? And I'm also curious about Mike's lawyer saying Mike and Brian wrote some new songs during that time period. Maybe that was the album they abandoned for Stars and Stripes?

One of the books written about Pet Sounds, I think the one written by Charles L. Granata, paints a slightly different picture of events to the one that Tony Asher mentions in his interview. In that book it states that Mike only claimed to have written the 'goodnight baby, sleep tight baby' ending to the song. From the tone of the book, it sounded like that wasn't really disputed in court but that Brian's lawyers argued that it didn't constitute enough to be given a songwriting credit. It was only then that Mike's lawyer started talking nonsense about Mike maybe talking to Brian over the phone.

I don't think it's any surprise that Tony Asher would have negative things to say about Mike as Mike obviously wasn't happy that Brian had replaced him as a lyricist and probably wasn't best pleased if, as Marilyn has claimed, TA was a negative influence on Brian.

Hey, man! If I wrote the "goodnight baby, sleep tight, baby" part on Wouldn't It Be Nice: I'm pretty sure I'd want credit! I mean, if Brian can contribute one word or two to Deirdre or whatever, and get a credit, sh*t! I'd want credit too!!!

The whole Mike/Brian thing bugs me deeply. Maybe I'm a moronic naif or simply the kind of Luddite that the market research groups pushed Kokomo on, but I happen to like EVERYTHING the Beach Boys ever did! I'm a segment of the fans that I hardly ever hear mentioned. It IS possible to love MIU Album JUST has much as Pet Sounds. I mean, the earth aint even round, ya know? It's more of an oval! Weirder phenomena is out there! I love all 5 Beach Boys! I love each guy's voice/personality/quirks/songs, and what they all brought to the table as a whole. AND I think they are ALL geniuses in their own rights! See? And if you love The Beach Boys as a unified, complicated, yet singular entity..... there really is no Brian vs Mike vs the other no-talents... there is only The Beach Boys! Bands fight like dogs! It's nothing new, nothing unusual, but when you brand one guy as the genius, (which Brian IS) you have trouble! I mean, how many bands are there with 5 freaking writers and lead singers? YOU try holding that together for more than a week or two. Most bands fizzle within a few days in the garage due to egos and direction and who's songs are being used, etc.... The Beach Boys were a kick ass unit who did the business in a big way! They all rule and could kick all our asses back into last week. I don't even think Brian likes being singled out as having done everything. He really is a fair minded and good guy, from what I can tell. And if Mike's an asshole: he wrote the lyrics to Warmth Of The Sun and you didn't!

One interesting thing from the Tony Asher interview is that you would think that if anyone was going to be angry about the other band members disliking Pet Sounds, you would think it would be him. His response however was,

'The group was less than enthusiastic about the material. They, along with many others, were hoping and expecting more of what had been hits for them all along. I don't think that's so unreasonable. At that point in the music business, the conventional wisdom was that you keep doing what's selling. They had just returned from a very successful tour. So they didn't see the wisdom in changing the "formula". In a way, of course, they were shown to be right. Sort of. The album, after all, was nothing like the economic success of their immediately previous releases.'

It's sad that some finds just brand the band members as idiots for that reaction when one of the guys most affected can look upon it in this way.

The other thing is that Mike did come around on Pet Sounds pretty fast. He's made it known that he dislikes some of Smile but he has always talked about the album very positively. The facts are that he did some great vocals on the album and the little he wrote was good.

I don't want to come off like Mike is a saint. Just recently it seems he treated David Marks crappy but creatively he did some worthy things and that's all I'm trying to point out.

Where any of Tony Asher's lyrics left in 'Good Vibrations'?  If so shouldn't he have received credit - especially since Mike got credit for his WIBN contribution?

Totally different situation - Bruce willingly gave Brian half the song. Mike was claiming significant artistic input based on his appending five words to the tag. Not the melody, not the verse or chorus lyric, nor the middle-eight. The fade. And for this, he gets a substantial slice of the royalties. Mike has recently seen the pendulumn swing back his way, but in this instance, he was flat-out wrong: he made no significant compositional contribution to the song.

I wonder though Andrew, does anybody know exactly what percentage of the songwriting credit Mike receieved?  Even if he's now listed as a co-writer with Tony and Brian, he doesn't necessarily get 1/3.  Perhaps they adjusted the percentages to reflect his minimal contribution, i.e. given Mike 5% and split the other 95% per Brian and Tony's original agreement (which I believe was a 75/25 split in favor of Brian). 

I'll have to check my sources, but I recall that he got a lot more than 5%, closer to a third.

Interesting subject. I'd also like to know the percentages that were arrived at.  Fun fact: every time Frank Sinatra added the word "Jack" to a song, he was added to the credits.  "Something in the way she moves- Jack!"= Harrison/Sinatra.  (Of course, Sinatra always attributed the song to Lennon/McCartney).  I think Aretha Franklin may have some royalties coming now, too- she did a lot of improvising over tags.

One I can break down for you- seriously- is "Layla". (Not the confusion over Jim Gordon's piano section, that's another story). When Eric Clapton invited Duane Allman to play on the song, he played him the low part of the opening riff, as you hear on the record. Allman responded with the high, wailing part over Clapton's, exactly as you hear on the record" Clapton low, and then Allman high.  If I asked you to hum the riff from "Layla" for me, you'd hum Allman's part.  It amounts to only the last five notes being different, but it defines the song.  (Allman also plays the beautiful slide guitar over Gordon's piano in the second section, and closes it all out with his signature "bird chirps"). For this, Allman got a 2% royalty (never paid until his daughter sued about five years ago), but no composer's credit.

On the other hand, McCartney has always said that  people threw things in to his songs with Lennon, and they considered that below the radar of significance.  They were freely offered, and either taken or not taken at the composer's discretion. The song was still by Lennon and McCartney.  And in that spirit, they apparently threw a lot of ideas to other people uncredited.  The big known example of an uncredited  toss-in, obviously, is Donovan's "sky of blue, sea of green" from "Yellow Submarine". 

I think McCartney also commissioned the French lyrics to "Michelle", and while he didn't give credit ("it's almost a co-write", he said) he has continued to pay a woman for that.  Somebody correct me if I'm misremembering.

Good post, Erik. I do agree with most of what you wrote; you lost me with the part about them ALL being geniuses. :-D Seriously, I believe it was MBE who made a similar observation a few weeks back (and I don't want to put words in his mouth) about, if you like the Beach Boys' music, he couldn't see why fans couldn't like or appreciate all of the guys' contributions, or why a fan would like this member but not that member. I like ALL of the Beach Boys' albums (actually, almost every song, too) and I like all of the Beach Boys' members. I agreed with his point. The only reason I go out of my way to defend Mike Love or not defend Brian Wilson is because too much hypocrisy goes on. I'm glad to see the tide is turning. So, along those lines...

Again, when it comes to the songwriting royalties, I can empathize with Mike. If you are going to court, and you hire a high-priced attorney, and you feel that you've been cheated for about 30 years - in both credit and dollars - then I can see why one/Mike would go more on the side of trying to take more credit than less. Why short change yourself now. Who was thinking about you for the last 30 years? Murry? Brian? Melinda? I would tell my attorney about every syllable I ever contributed to any song. That is not the time to be humble and say, "Well, I wrote a couple of words for one of the greatest songs in the history of popular music, but, nah, you don't have to mention it in court...." Are you nuts!? Of course I'm gonna mention it. And, the bigger question for all Mike Love haters....Wouldn't you? Of course you would. And, then, it's up to a judge. Not Mike. Not his attorney. Hey, send your complaints to the judge. Or Brian's management.

Of course Brian Wilson wouldn't take credit for things he didn't do. I mean, we all know how accurate his solo credits have been the last ten years in the areas of songwriting, production, and arranging. ::)

Mike was only asking for 750,000 in total though and the report on the trial stated that Mike wasn't asking for specific percentages. He just wanted his name on those songs. So again, I would say that comes down to Brian's management's decision not to settle out of court.

As another poster said, if I'd been Mike then I would have mentioned writing those words too (there may only be 5 of them but I think that they are pretty important to the song and improve it). It was up to the court to make a decision on whether they were sufficient for a credit and they went with Mike.

Paul says in the Barry Miles book he gave  the line "these are words that go together well" to a friend who translated it into French for him.  He indeed calls it "almost a co-write" and says he guilted himself into eventually sending her a check, for how much he doesn't say.

"Are you nuts!? Of course I'm gonna mention it. And, the bigger question for all Mike Love haters....Wouldn't you? Of course you would."

I wouldn't do it, myself.  But I'm coming from another perspective; I AM a songwriter, and I've had the experience of band members coming in, changing something very minimal to the song when it's already basically finished, and then demanding a co-composer credit based on their own perception of their contribution.  Given the amount of work that goes into writing a song and sweating blood to get it into shape, to have someone add something that is not all that key to the song and demand equal credit/royalties when I did 99% of the work, it's just not cool.

This works both ways too.  I wrote more of Baby Lemonade's "Pop Tarte" than Mike Love did of "Wouldn't It Be Nice" and my name isn't on the songwriting credits.  Which is fine by me, because my contribution to the song was very minimal and really didn't have much impact on how it came out.  I didn't expect a credit and would have been embarrassed to claim it.  If you're a songwriter by trade, this kind of thing is a big deal.

There's a great scene in the Dixie Chicks' doc SHUT UP AND SING where Red Hot Chilli Peppers' drummer Chad Smith is telling the Chicks about how the Peppers share all of the songwriting credits regardless of who wrote the song. Emily Robison sheepishly says, "you know if I am the drummer in the band, I wouldn't feel right asking for a writing credit even if I played on the song." I immediaitely thought of how greedy Mike Love was during the lawsuit. 

Was and still is-the lifestyle, the absurd touring to support that lifestyle, the rings, hats, lawyers, ex-wives, coattails-The Greedster-what a man! :whatever

If Mike really ended up with anywhere near 1/3, Brian's lawyers were even more incompetent than I thought (which is a pretty big hurdle to climb).  No way in hell that 5 words entitle anyone to such a significant share of a songwriting credit, regardless of how "important" the contribution may be in retrospect.  Moreover, I don't believe anybody but Mike has ever admitted that he wrote the words in question - it is well documented that Tony wrote the words to that song alone.  Mike must have argued that he came up with them in the studio during the vocal sessions.  But regardless...

I agree with adamghost - throwing in a few words or a little idea into a song doesn't entitle you to a credit.  If that were the case, shouldn't members of the Wrecking Crew get credits on the songs where they may have made up a riff here or there?  I can understand if you made a significant contribution to the lyrics, which I'm sure Mike did on most of the songs that were the subject of the lawsuit.  But awarding Mike anything more than a small percentage of the songwriting credit on "Wouldn't It Be Nice" is asinine.

Coming up with the words during the recording sessions vs coming up with them during a formal writing session makes no difference. And if we want to go counting words, there are what, 6 sentences in Wouldn't It Be Nice and then the 3 sentence bridge? I'd count a 5 word coda as being just about as important as the rest of the song. I mean, this has nothing to do with how well we like the person in question or not. And in a court of law Mike Love being a merdahole or not, has no bearing.

And I agree about the wrecking crew! If they were to pursue arranging/writing credits on some of those song, they might have a leg to stand on. Maybe they should have. Who knows! Songwriting credits in popular music, particularly in rock and roll are a tricky thing. So, one guy has the gall to ask for credit? Big deal!

I think that's the whole point. Mike DIDN'T ask for equal credit or royalties according to that article. He just wanted a percentage and, like another poster said, if he did get a third share then it is entirely down to the incompetence of Brian's lawyers and management.

Again, Mike wanted to settle out of court for 750,000. As he obviously was cheated out of the writing credits to some massively important songs including California Girls which, as that article states, is worth a fortune on its own. Certainly not an unreasonable sum.

You could certainly argue that the greed (if that's the right word) came earlier when Murry cheated him, and Brian (though obviously it's partly understandable) didn't ensure that Mike got the credits he deserved.

I can understand people debating the merits of including certain songs in the suit. But even if Mike had only been cheated out of California Girls, he would have been right to sue after Brian's management gave him little choice. I certainly would have done the same.

It's interesting that in the case of Matthew Fisher, the general sympathy seemed to be with him as he had been cheated out of the credit for one song for and it had caused him suffering for several decades. Nobody seriously questioned whether he was right to sue or claimed that he was greedy. Mike was obviously treated even worse and just because Brian was involved doesn't mean he should have had to accept being shat upon from a great height.

Nicko and I agree.

One thing I'm interested in is who was actually sued and was there more than one suit?  I've seen documentation of a suit with Mike v. Irving Music et al with some subsidiaries of Irving and some lawyers and Brian as the et al. If that is the only suit, who actually paid? Several years ago it was claimed that Brian had never paid anything to Mike, have no idea if that was true or is still true.

So we can blame Mike for asking for credit for something  he contributed but the jury and judge can be blamed for the extent of credit, Mike tried to collect next to nothing for all of the credit he felt, and a jury and judge who actually heard the evidence felt, due him.  Nitpicking about WIBN seems a little .......well...nitpicky.

Yes, by the logic of Mike (or his lawyers), Ringo should have demanded a credit for A Hard Day's Night because supposedly he came up with that phrase. And that makes the song. "Good night oh baby, sleep tight oh baby" sounds like a singer riffing at the end of a song, like Sinatra or Ella might have done. It does not make that person a writer on that song.

Why don't we nitpick about those Brian/Carl/Dennis/Al credits in Friends? I bet one of those four contributed as much as Mike did to WIBN. Yeah, I know: But then, Brian was the main songwriter and wanted so in 1968. Ok.

Mike's credits for WIBN are less revolting than having him uncredited for almost 30 years for California Girls alone. But that's just MHO.

Brian got a writing credit on No Wrong Notes in Heaven for exactly that reason didn't he? Anyway, if Ringo had been cheated out of the credit for 29 other songs then, who knows, maybe he would have later claimed a credit for Hard Days Night. Even if it's not a great comparison with Mike's claimed contribution on WIBN.

I have no idea what Brian's contributions to No Wrong Notes in Heaven were. I assume the title? If that's the case, then no, I don't think he should have gotten credit. If he arranged the harmonies, then he should have gotten an arranger's credit, like he has (I guess) for other people's songs-- not a co-writing credit. As for Ringo, the same principle applies: If he made a legitimate contribution to 29 songs, then he would have a right to go to court for them (my opinion about the pettiness of litigation, particularly where close friends and family are involved, notwithstanding), but A Hard Day's Night would not be a legitimate claim.

I think what rubs most fans up the wrong way is the timing - "California Girls" excepted, for some 30 years Mike never said word one about his contributions to the songs named in the suit... then right after Brian wins a $10 million settlement with Irving/Almo, boom !, suddenly he remembers. Sorry, but that's just not how Mike's wired. Can you say, 'opportunism' ?

BTW, in more than one interview during this time, Mike was claiming he contributed to something like 80 songs he wasn't credited on, including "Surfin' USA" - I'm guessing it was whittled down to 30-odd by his lawyers.

There's a bit that sounds awfully like the "Shortenin' Bread" riff - I'm thinking that was Brian's contribution.  ;D

I assume that Mike was just picking a random number out of thin air to stress how much he had been taken advantage of. Obviously he couldn't have actually calculated that there were 80 specific songs that he hadn't been credited with as that would be physically impossible. Certainly if you just confine it to BBs stuff anyway. Impossible to say how much he contributed to Surfin USA as Brian seems slightly confused about the writing of that song too.

Mike stated at the time that it was only when the twofers were released that he realised how bad it was and decided to take action. I can understand people not really believing that and obviously there was some financial motivation behind Mike's action but it's equally clear that it can't just have been about that.

Anyway, if this had happened in any other band then Mike would be seen as having been wronged rather than the other way around. The people in the wrong were clearly Murry (and to a lesser extent Brian) and Brian's management for allowing it to go to court.

As I remember Mike has said that he became aware that he could press for his rights because he testified for Brian in Brian's suit against Irving. So to those fans who feel Mike's suit was opportunistic, how long should one wait after they discover they have a shot at correcting a 30+ years old injustice? Brian believes Mike has always deserved it [so he said]. Brian sued Irving et al for an injustice he felt happened 24 years earlier, Mike sued Irving et al for what he and Brian agree was an injustice beginning 30+ years earlier. Would it have been better to press for their rights at some other time? Would they have been less screwed over or less deserving at some later or earlier date?

Scott said that Brian said the title in a conversation...

Bingo! My thoughts exactly.

Cam, ol' pal, my point is that in those intervening decades, Mike never once (to my knowledge - corrections welcomed, embraced and given a sloppy kiss) said he'd been denied credit except on "California Girls", something Brian has admitted for many years. A whinge now and then might have been expected. Further, in one of the first interviews when he claimed the denied credits, one of the titles he mentioned was "Good Vibrations", a song which he's been properly credited with since October 1966. Say it again - Mike isn't one to let something fester in silence, like Alan. He's not wired that way.

But as the article states, David Marks testified in court to say that Mike was denied credits on early songs. That was well before California Girls.

Mike also said in interviews that Al was a witness to the fact that he'd co-written I Get Around.

Brian has spoken about Mike coming up with the start of 409.

Carl's testimony was also read out in court.

So are you saying that they are all mistaken?

We're at a very special turning point on this board when AGD -- AGD! -- is accused, however pleasantly, of carrying water for Brian.

Give it up, guys. Part of accepting Mike is accepting that he's an unpleasant, flawed person, who has often tried to bend circumstances to his own ends. That doesn't necessarily make him evil, just a person. We don't have to deify him to move beyond villification.

Ludicrous post.

I don't know if you are including me but I think an earlier post of mine shows I in no way see Andrew as carrying anyone's water, quite the opposite. I just don't happen to agree that because Mike hadn't publically complained, before he knew he had the rights to do something about it, that it means he didn't have something to do about.

Thanks for dismissing us but pointing out the vagaries of arguments against someone is not deifying them.

Nope... not at all (although Mike claiming Alan was a witness isn't the same as Alan saying the same)... but for someone as assertive as MEL to say nothing for literally decades goes against character. That's all.

I don't disagree but that's obviously what he did.

GREAT post. 

What I've been trying to say all along.

Oh, what the heck... let's vilify him!!!

I agree with this statement 100%

Hasn't Mike said that he brought it up to Brian back in the day and Brian said - something like don't worry about it or he'll take care of it or blamed his dad or something? Or was it Murry he said he brought it up to?

Brian admits he knew about it  and that Mike deserved it so I'm not seeing how Mike's not going public is a disqualifier for some fans. Can you imagine what would be said by some fans if Mike had just complained about it, without having to prove anything, for the decades prior to the suit?

It's not a question of that, Cam- and I'm not directing this at you or anyone, but over the course of time you will see any criticism of anything Mike has ever said or done bitterly contested and disputed to a point that becomes comical.  ("Oh YEAH? Well, What about BRIAN?", shriek the offended.  Can't speak for others, but I have always accepted that Brian is a flawed human, as were Dennis and Carl, and would have no trouble believing or accepting- for example- that Brian shouldn't have been credited for "Deirdre". It just wouldn't be a devastating reversal of my world view).

A couple years ago Brian's much-vilified wife supposedly quoted Mike as making a somewhat snarky joke to her on the roof of the Capitol building. Personally, I found the remark completely harmless.  Mike's vilifiers, of course, didn't like it at all, and Mike's Guardian Angels, to coin a phrase, angrily decided it was all a lie, another part of the great David Leaf conspiracy against Mike, and they based this accusation on...well, nothing.  They weren't there, had no information beyond the quote itself, but since it was quoted by Mrs. Brian, and she's an evil strumpet from Hell, and Mike is this misunderstood guy with no flaws whatsoever, with no history of saying blunt things or making jokes some find tacky, well, let's call the lady a liar. It's laughable, but you have to admire the dedication.

The irony I've pointed out often is that Mike, from what I've seen, mans up about these things, and I'll bet if you asked him, even now, if he made the silly little joke on the Capitol roof (which no one ever did or would, because it wasn't significant enough to bother) he'd probably say something like "Oh, hell, I don't know. Probably.  Sounds like me."  Say it ain't so, Mike!

Oh God. I knew it would come the day when the former-Brianistas-now-kind-of-sympathetic-to-Mike-what-the-hell would lose it. Guys, walk toward the light. Mike is the real Beach Boy.

So it's...

Brian Wilson: Untouchably gifted and incapable of malice vs. manipulative and washed up
Melinda Wilson: Guardian angel and love of Brian's life vs. evil shrew who is trying to profit off Brian
Mike Love: Misunderstood and severely underestimated lyric genius vs. phony, bitter and talentless

Can we get some nuance in here?

Yet another person says it better in fifty words than I did in two hundred.

I like Mike a lot.  I respect Mike a lot. I recognize his many achievements.  He also says snarky things sometimes and that annoys some people.  Brian has  his shortcomings, too.  So did Dennis.  So do I. So do you.

SJ, I believe much of it IS that. It definitely is for me. At the risk of sounding like Holden Caulfield, it is the continued hypocrisy that is sparking this debate, and the Mike Love criticism in general. I'll speak for myself, but I wouldn't doubt if this hypocrisy is also what is bugging the posters who are defending Mike Love. This is it in a nutshell, and Nicko hinted at it in an above, excellent post:

We are debating songwriting royalties, and Mike Love is being SINGLED out and name called as greedy, selfish, money-hungry, dishonest, and a few more. But, after almost 200 replies on this thread, HOW MANY OF THEM MENTIONED BRIAN WILSON AS THE VILLAIN? There's something definitely wrong with this picture.

Mike Love worked on a number of songs with Brian Wilson. On a couple dozen of them, Mike came up with the CONCEPT for the song, either partially or in full. On those songs, Mike wrote a large portion if not all of the LYRICS. Milke also contributed some VOCAL ARRANGEMENTS, a melody line here or there, and an occasional phrase/hook. When the single or album came out, there was no label credit for Mike. He got none of the publishing, no public recognition, and no money for his contributions.

Who was to blame for that? Mike? No, it was allegedly Murry Wilson, the group's manager. OK, assume that's true; Murry screwed Mike, and gave ALL of the credit to his son, Brian. But, the bigger question is, where was Brian in all of this? I'll ask all of the Mike Love bashers again - where was Brian in all of this?

Did Brian confront his dad and insist that the credits be given fairly? Did Brian contact the publishing company on his own? The record company? That Brian, a prince of a guy...

Now, after three decades of Mike continually praising his cousin Brian as a musical genius, the sage of the age, and the best songwriter in the business, Mike has the opportunity to get what is rightfully due to him. So, now, Mike asks Brian for some compensation - financial and label credit - and Brian basically tells Mike to go fu-- himself. This was the perfect opportunity for Brian Wilson to make things right, but Brian basically said, "Sue me...." Again, Brian Wilson, what a helluva guy. And this was Brian's cousin we're talking about. Brian knew Mike was due compensation, but did he care? Eventually, on the witness stand, Brian told the truth, but, it had to take hauling his ass into a courtroom and sitting him in a witness chair to get him to settle this issue.

Re: Al's testimony about Mike's songwriting contributions:  Al has also said in a GOLDMINE interview that Mike would go out of his way to change things in the studio that Brian had written that he thought were already working.  So, you know, it cuts both ways.

Guys, look...the point isn't WHERE the change took place.  The point is what warrants a songwriting contribution and what doesn't.  Yes, we like listening to Led Zeppelin records for Bonham's contribution, but whether you like it or not, that's not songwriting.  That's playing, that's arranging.  It doesn't mean it's less important to the appeal of the band but it's not the same thing.  Now, if Scott Bennett or Bruce Johnston WANT to give Brian Wilson credit for minimal songwriting contributions that otherwise wouldn't warrant one, as songwriters, to me that's their choice, it's generosity.  It seems likely that they had their own reasons for doing that.

The reason this has always been such a sore point, besides the basic fundamental tension between non-songwriter musicians and songwriters, is money.  Here's why:  federal law mandates that songwriters have to be paid a certain amount for use of their work, so songwriting royalties have been uniquely difficult for music industry types to whittle down, unlike for recording artists and musicians, who only make money off of royalties from record sales (which are almost always nonexistent because of standard record company practices), and revenue from live shows.  I'm not saying this is right, I'm saying this is just the way it is, and that's where a lot of the tension lies, because musicians generally work harder than songwriters and get paid a lot less.

Look, I'm both a working musician AND a songwriter.  As a songwriter, I know how difficult the process is to conceive and flesh out a song.  As a musician, it's my JOB to come up with little things that improve the song, or else I might as well be a sequencer.   It's also my job to back the game of the songwriter or the band or whatever dynamic I'm in, and to serve the song.  If I'm going to claim a songwriter credit, it needs to be more than a riff or a beat or one line in the song.  Yes, you can stand on principle and say "I wrote that tiny little bit, I deserve a credit," but in my opinion, you're being petty at that point.  Now if you're talking about a riff that becomes a hook and defines the song, that becomes more of a grey area, I agree.  But that's a special situation and even that's open to debate.

Having said that, I'll admit that my own personal history makes me sensitive on this subject:  I had a band member who always wanted to cowrite songs but never actually wanted to sit down with me and do the work, just come in at the end, change something and claim credit.  He was also sensitive about the money issue, so I started kicking down my songwriter's royalties to him, which, when he left the band, he tried to use as a justification for suing me for a share in all future royalties and getting the band dropped from the label because he was a key member.  So yeah, this is a topic I'm a little sensitive about.  But the bottom line is money; federal law protects songwriters, but not musicians, and it creates a natural tension that makes it real tempting to blur the lines about what's songwriting and what isn't.

Interesting... And this, I guess, is why bands like R.E.M. decided early on that all songs would be credited to all members of the band, no matter what. That really only works if all members are roughly equal in terms of what they contribute. But I think agreements like that are made to avoid problems like this.

The Brian Wilson Is A Selfish Dick argument.. SJS's trademark.

If you read the letter draft from Murry in thge other thread, you'll know why Brian was reluctant to cross Murry.  he had too much on his plate trying to keep his own sh*t together let alone trying to watch out for someone else.  

Plus, you are talking about someone who, in his prime, didnt care about money.

The Doors' policy was that all songs would be credited to "The Doors" and it worked well for them. They made an exception, on The Soft Parade album, and it didn't work out too well. They eventually went back to the group credit.

Just as an aside I was listening to a Pet Sounds sessions bootleg today where Brian first directs Mike and then Al through the leads "Hang Onto Your Ego/I know There's an Answer," it may even be seperate sessions...but the way the acts speaks volumes...Brian makes Al go through probably twenty or more takes of just one line ("they isolate their heads..." or "they trip through the day") and Al is so humble, Brian is totally in charge and Al is very willing to do exactly what Bri tells him...to the point of even questioning Brian accepting one of the takes ("are you sure is wasn't shitty?"). Mike on the other hand is much harder to convince and complains at Brian's suggestions sometimes. Therein lies the difference.

Continue with the swordfights, laddies.

Sheriff, this is a pretty outrageous example of hysterical one-sided spin that just makes my point yet again. 


Raise your hand, anyone else, if you really think Brian Wilson told Mike, basically or otherwise,  to "go fu-- himself." 

It's not even a question of character, it's a question of the guy's mental state.  He had been drugged silly for years and was (by even Mike's account) not making his own decisions.  So which is it?  Whichever's convenient?


My guess would be sitting home watching reruns of "Flipper", while being severely mentally ill, brain-damaged, drug-addled by an irresponsible professional care-giver who was eventually brought to account, or waiting for his handler of the moment to tell him what to do or what to sign next.  Or maybe he was in Hawaii with his nurse.  Or passed out in an airport and missing from a flight he walked off.  Or maybe he was in a San Diego gay bar playing piano for beers.  There are some books on Brian- you should check 'em out. 

Then again, his masterful performance in court belies the whole mental illness/incompetence theory. Maybe Brian is actually this evil mastermind who evilly went to court with Mike rather than settle, thereby basically telling him to "go f___ himself", and then agreed with everything Mike's lawyers said, thus weaving a plot so dense and insidious that we still haven't unraveled it.


That is a truly wonderful mini-biography of Mike. He's kind of made it his life's work, hasn't he?

Adam, great stuff- I have gotten a lot of insight from all your posts.

Cam, this is just my read on it, but I think the only thing really in serious question here is the issue of over-claiming.  I can't imagine anyone thinks Mike was out of line to sue, but the question over something like the "Wouldn't It Be Nice" claims is a reasonable discussion from either side.

I don't think you're being fair to Brian. I really don't detect any malicious intent on his part. We know it was hard for him to stand up to Murry. Murry also screwed over Tony Asher, who only got, what, 25% to Brian's 75% ? I believe that was Murry's doing, and Brian didn't stand up for Tony. Then, with Smile, Brian apparently put his foot down and insisted that VDP get 50%. Which VDP evidently thought was too much for a lyricist to get (witness his shock at, in his words, Brian's "generosity"). So with California Girls, I don't think it was Brian saying, "Screw you, Mike." I think it was Brian saying, "I can't deal with this, so I won't." The guy had just had a breakdown the previous year, so it makes sense that he would avoid situations like that. As for the court case, I don't think it was Brian daring Mike to sue him. I think it was him just following his lawyers' advice. And as others have said, he wasn't exactly in his right mind 100 percent of the time. To be clear, I'm not saying Brian is above blame. You could argue that his failure to stand up to Murry and stand up to his lawyers is a terrible flaw that cost his cousin Mike dearly. Or you could argue that Mike should have let the issue go out of respect for Brian's condition. Either way, I think you're making a valid case.

Interesting side point: "too much on his plate"/"trying to keep his own ____together" would normally be a mixed metaphor. But in this case it's not, because we know that at this time, Brian, in relation to Murry, did indeed have his own ____ on his plate.

Me neither, Amy.


Agreed.  Good post.

REM is a great example. Buck, Mills and Berry are multi-intrumentalists who compose and Stipe wrote the melodies and lyrics, so your point about all members being equal is spot on.

I can accept that and I can forgive that. I think is Mike was more mature, he might have too.

Rob, Genesis during the Gabriel era is another example of this, and if you listen to tapes that are circulating of them composing the songs for Selling England By The Pound, the validity of those credits (including the drummer!) is verified. You can hear different things being thrown out, and Gabriel is humming and scat-singing things that would become the lyrics, and sometimes adding to the main melodies.  But everybody is in there and the songs are resulting from that chemistry.

No, he didn't - his management team did. I seriously doubt Brian knew anything of the whole farrago until someone told him he'd have to take the witness stand. Brian could care less about this stuff. Unfortunately.

Bingo, Andrew.

Aw, come on, I thought that was one of my better posts. And, with the weekend board usually being slow.... :police:

Hey, I was being serious, though. I guess I give/gave Brian more credit than others do. You asked what Brian was doing around that time? Oh, getting married, sleeping in, getting fat, writing Pet Sounds, nothing too insane...yet. Hey, hammer me if you want, but I'm not excusing Brian in this. If I do, I have to admit that he was even more pathetic a human being than Tony Asher said he was.

And, regarding Brian's mental state during the lawsuit years in the 1990's....Yeah, he was mentally ill, but do you think he knew right from wrong? Did a judge think that Brian knew right from wrong, allowing him to testify?

And, Amy B., I'm gonna take a page out of David Leaf's book (see, Surfer Joe, I did read some books!)....I think that sometimes Brian liked to play the meek, helpless victim. You obviously think that this was one of those cases, him not standing up to Murry. You can excuse Brian for not being fair with Mike, I just choose not to.

I thought it was a good thing for a rock artist to not care about the business side.

It's a good thing that didn't get out, because, for an attorney to not disclose certain facts to his client - like he is being sued, why he is being sued, and how he could prevent the lawsuit - well, those are grounds for an attorney to be disbarred. And, if the attorney's argument is that the client didn't need to be told because he was too ill, well, the fact that Brian was found competent enough to testifiy would disprove that.

But, most are. Well, not above it, just not accountable.

You misunderstand me - Brian did not, himself, tell Mike to go jump and sue him: Mike's lawyers contacted Brian's lawyers and so on, and so on. At some point they would have told Brian and I'm willing to bet his response was along the lines of "whatever", just as I'm sure his people presented the situation to be a win-win proposition. Those lawyers and 'managers' cost Brian $10,000,000. They damn well should have been disbarred.

SJS, fair enough.


Not a question of distinguishing right and wrong- that's actually the definition of criminal insanity.  Brian's views were acquired by compulsion on the witness stand. Was he competent to testify? Some would say "no"; I honestly don't have an opinion.  But he sure made no attempt to screw Mike once he was finally heard from in a meaningful venue. The right question would not be about his ability to distinguish right from wrong, but about his ability to manage his own business and legal affairs, which I would liken to those of a very average ten year old. That's why other people do that stuff for him.

I think Brian's great failing here was in 1963-66, when he was responsible and an adult mentally, and that was a failure to confront his abusive father.  He confronted him about three times that we know of- a studio meltdown when he fired him, a minor meltdown caught on tape during the "Rhonda" vocal session, and of course through the press with the Rolling Stone interview.  I'm sure there were others.  But it wasn't the norm in their relationship.  I think if he was still mentally healthy and functional he'd probably still have that avoidance of conflict, a personality trait common to many people I know. In the state he's been in for four decades, though, he avoids nearly everything.

On the other point, when a guy has a court-appointed conservator- because he is regarded as legally incompetent or irresponsible on some level, I would guess- wouldn't someone else have his power of attorney?  I don't think they'd be disbarred for exercising it.  But that sounds like a Dr. Tim question.

Agreed- not accountable after some point between about 1970-75. He hasn't even been trusted with many important decisions since then, and was often drugged almost into a stupor during business meetings, etc. during many periods, well covered in court testimony. If you think Mike has been taken advantage of and exploited...

You know, Andrew, I can see that situation playing out the way you describe it. But...

You've seen and heard those interviews with Brian, and his propensity for profanity. And, the way that Brian will blurt out things in that high, loud voice of his. Seriously, I can envision Brian's attorneys meeting with him, and telling Brian that Mike wants $750,000 to settle, and Brian screaming, "What the fu--, is Mike crazy? He wants what?"

Or... he could have said "yeah, give it to him", whereupon said legal eagles, seeing a fat paycheck vanishing, would persuade Brian that he would win in court. "Sure, OK, whatever... what's for lunch ?"

And Surfer Joe, AGD, and Amy B., I'm gonna leave it there - for now. ;D

That's basically all I wished for, was that Brian would've said - in 1964 and 1994 - "yeah, just give it to him...."

Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. I personally don't think he did. But if he would've, well, all this debate about Mike's lawsuit would've been a mute point. Then we could argue Mike's OTHER lawsuits!

And then we'd have World Peace. :smokin

Points taken and understood. I'm also going to give the board a well-deserved break from my verbosity.

"My woody's outside, covered in snow!"

What was Brian doing while Mike was being cheated: writing, arranging,  producing some of the best Pop music so far and managing an international act, co-running a corporation, co-running a publishing company, unilaterally deciding he would quit touring, and firing his dad. I don't know how things get so twisted up.

If some want Mike to be guilty of over-credit, even though we know he didn't set his own credit for WIBN, then have away if you must.  This does not change the circumstances or discredit the rest of the claims.

Once again, I think we are overlooking the point that Brian agreed that Mike deserved the credit he got in the suit. This does not deify or vilify either one of them. This does not take away from Brian and it does not take away from Mike, it is to both their credit.

Mike would sue his own kids - of course, that presumes that Mike knows which kids are his...

Two things: I remember Larry King asked Brian if there were any lawsuits after Landy left, and Brian said "no." After that Melinda told him there were no less than 10 lawsuits going around at one time, and then Brian added "oh, I forgot about that."

Also, it's significant that Melinda said Brian could care less about lawsuits, right after the Love lawsuit Brian was back writing new songs with him...

Excellent post. Nobody should deify Mike and nobody has in this thread that I've seen.

To simply say that, 'Mike is unpleasant. Period.' contributes nothing intelligent though.

If somebody says, 'Mike is unpleasant due to x, y and z' then it might actually contribute to the debate.

When we bring up band like The Doors REM and U2 we have to realize that we're talking about the exceptions and not the norm. With most bands, whoever comes in with the basic 4 chords and words gets the credit. No matter how much work the entire band puts in in order to make the song go someplace and be worthy of recording/performing live. And Adam is right, the law protects songwriters and not musicians. But this shouldn't be used as an excuse. And who determines who is a songwriter and who is simply a musician??? Not the law! It's usually the "songwriter" of the band who decides this. Like I said, it's all in how each team plays it. In U2s case, most of the songs are workshopped and Adam, Larry, Edge beat out sections and musical landscapes that create a mood and Bono tunes into that mood and that mood informs what the song is ultimately about. But this is not the case every time with them, but THAT is the working edict and it.... works. Think about it, in U2's case..... hum one of their songs, chances are you're humming the bassline. This is true though for a lot of bands, but it just doesn't read that way on paper. Songwriters have a good talent for coming to the game feeling sorry for themselves that they have to bring their gold in only to have other people get their hands on it and make is somehow less... theirs. This creates an awful tension that doesn't have to be there, but too often is. My personal experience is a bit weird. I've been  both a working drummer and a working singer/guitarist/songwriter. I've seen it from all sides. I was with a band where we were recording an album and part way through, I realized we were going to end up with 10 songs that were all in the same time signature/tempo. Not necessarily a fatal thing, but in this case, the material was just not making it. So, I tore apart each song and decided that "this one needs a bridge" this one needs a breakdown and another chorus that extends for more measures and builds, etc... etc... I even went and wrote bridges and chorus, etc.... BUT since the songs were all "previously written" before my contributions, it was not seen as necessary that I receive any credit for songwriting. But, the whole band was granted an "all songs arranged by" credit, which was fair and just and put out a lot of fires.... Ya see, bands are capable of creating a situation to where the Law as it is, will protect the entire band, musician AND songwriters, but too many people just ignore this possibility. And let's not forget money. I happen to know that Weezer, in their heyday were stuck in an awful situation where Rivers got like 99% songwriting and the rest of the band had to share 1% and were forbidden to form/join any side projects that might bring their additional "songwriting" talents into the light. It was hideous and all designed to keep the other guys as subservient employees. The funny thing is, other bands can do it the complete opposite way and no one will stop them.... Do we wonder why U2 and REM and still together? Of course there's the Stones where it's all Mick and Keith songwriting-wise, but in their case, Bill Wyman/Charlie Watts/Mick Taylor/Ron Wood all receive high accolades especially from Mick and Keith who seem to worship the ground they walk on, which goes a long way!..... Like I said, it's all in how each team plays it.... Mike "riffing" at the end of WIBN: is that songwriting??? Perhaps. Is it contributing? Most certainly! But who determines is this contribution qualifies as "songwriting? Well, in this case is was Murray and Mike. So, MIke disagrees and a jury agrees with him! We're talking about the law protecting songwriters, right? Well, here's a prime example :) :)

Mike is unpleasant because:

1. He spent an awful lot of time inflating his influence on the Beach Boys.  Dare we forget this gem:

http://earcandy_mag.tripod.com/mikelovebio.htm

The most offending lines:
" In 1974 Mike Love's concept album Endless Summer ignited a second generation of Beach Boys fans and stirred a comeback that rocked the music world."

and

" Love's role as the band's front man sometimes overshadows his stature as one of rock's foremost songwriters. "Surfin'," The Beach Boys' first hit came from his pen. With his cousin, Brian Wilson, Love wrote the classics "Fun, Fun, Fun," "I Get Around," "Help Me Rhonda," "California Girls" and "Good Vibrations." Years later, he showed he still had the lyrical chops by co-writing the irresistible and chart-topping "Kokomo."
2. "Brian is Back" - This just seems to have Mike's fingerprints all over it.  This hurt both Brian and the Beach Boys.  From 1976-1978 whatever creative critical cachet the Beach Boys had was shattered.  The Beach Boys were a better band without Brian on stage and after he creatively stepped away they made better music by relying on the other members of the band for the bulk of material with Brian contributing one or two killer tracks.  To me 'Surf's Up' is the ideal post Brian record.  'Til I Die' is worth 100 'MIU's', '15 Big Ones" and "Love You's"  
3. Mike believes he knows what is commercial and not commercial, however, save "Kokomo" (which I chalk up to the "even I blind Squirrel will occasionally find a nut" therom), he has been wrong for the 40 + years since GV.  He never understood that it is creepy for a man over 35 to write lyrics that sound like they were written by a 17 year old.
4. He brags about his impact on the Beach Boys and yet for the songs that he sang lead and and/or wrote lyrics the lead vocals and lyrics are typically the least interesting parts of the song (think 'California Girls').  I am of the view that the only memorable lead by Mike was 'All I Wanna Do'.

And the Dr. Tim answer:
It depends.

Seriously, the order appointing the conservator would say how much power s/he would have, and for how long.  As for power of attorney, they can be general or limited, can cover everything or just specific items, or have a fixed duration.  No one is liable for exercising a valid power of attorney badly - a lot of leeway is given so long as the person is acting in good faith.  Mistakes are allowed.  The food fight begins when the principal or those around him think the person with the POA is acting for themselves, or recklessly.  For a modern example, see the Britney Spears situation right now.  

You're half-right - it was a Love concept... but that Love was Steve, not Mike. Of late, he's conceded it wasn't such a great idea.

 I am sure he was scared to death of all this new style of music the band was gravitating towards.  I actually don't blame him for being concerned and wanting to keep the band on its formula; he had house payments, alimony, child support, paternity suits, cars, and a lifestyle that he had to pay for.  Pumping gas was not going to pay for all this, and that was pretty much the extent of his work experience before the fame.

My problem I have with him is his obsession with lawsuits, power and divide and conquer attitude.  And his RR Hall of Fame Speech.  And Student Demonstration Time.  And the turban and the shiny gold suit period.  And his solo albums. And bringing Steve into the band's circle.   

I saw the Mike and Bruce BB's a couple of summers ago in NM, and they did a wonderful job, Mike was vintage frontman, just didn't dance around like he used to   :p   but they did a great job with the music.

It makes all the difference in the world, because if everyone's sharing in the songwriting royalties but there are one or two members that aren't contributing to the songwriting on a near-equal basis, it's going to cause just as much tension as doing it any other way.  R.E.M. and the Doors -- correct me if I'm wrong -- are both bands that did a lot of songwriting in the rehearsal room, where it can be hard to tease out who did what.  In cases like that, yeah, a group credit can be the best way to go.  But if I was a primary songwriter in a band and had to share credit with three other guys that weren't contributing nearly as much as I was, unless that was something I did voluntarily, it would piss me off.

Re:  Erik's post, just a couple of things.  True, what constitutes songwriting and not arranging is a grey area, but there are some guidelines that people generally adhere to.  For the sake of argument, let's say it's more than one line of verse, and more than a riff or a suggestion of a chord.  The part I contributed to "Pop Tarte" was a chord sequence that only happened once in the song.  You could argue that warrants a credit, but since Mike Randle wrote 99.5% percent of the song and he didn't HAVE to use my little bit -- it wasn't really key to the song -- I don't think it does.

The example you bring up, Erik, is an interesting point:  OK, if you took the songs and changed them around, added a bridge, I can see how that would warrant a songwriting credit...however, you also took a completed song that someone else wrote, made a bunch of changes unilaterally based on your own personal perception of what was needed, then presented it to the band.  If I was the songwriter, I might be miffed because I never asked you to do it, even if your changes were artistically right.  So yeah, on the one hand perhaps it's unfair if the songwriter "chooses" who writes the song and who doesn't, but on the other, you made a unilateral choice to change the song on your own based on your own artistic perceptions that may or not have been necessary.  He/she brought it in with the expectation that it was their song that the band was going to work on, and you took it and ran with it in another direction.  So we're clear, I'm not saying you were right or wrong; I think you may well have been artistically right.  I'm saying there's more than one way to look at that scenario.  At that point who gets a credit really does come down to a lot of factors that may have nothing to do with artistic merit.

I do think that if a songwriter brings in a song that's essentially complete and a bandmember makes a change or two to make the song scan better, that shouldn't necessarily constitute a songwriter credit, if for nothing else than a matter of courtesy to the songwriter, who's come in to the session with a song that they think works, brought it to the musicians for help, and there's a certain expectation (at least in my opinion) that the musicians are there not just to execute parts but to offer musical ideas without an expectation that they're automatically going to be cut in to the songwriting.  I've worked with other artists and made changes to their songs that definitely could have warranted a songwriting credit, but I didn't ask for one, because they were changes I made based on my own idea of what would make the song better.  I did it voluntarily and as a team player.  Under those circumstances I would have considered it rude to ask for a credit.  Now, if someone had brought in half a song and asked me to finish it up for them, that would be a totally different ball of wax. 

Yeah, I do think it should be the songwriter's call in that case, because the songwriter is the one who brings in the song and he/she doesn't HAVE to have this or that musician on the track (e.g., if I'm going to bring a musician to play in on one of my songs, I would hope they're not going to demand a credit for any incidental change they might make -- or else that's going to make me not want to bring in outside players at all, or allow outside input).  If the same bandmember was in at the inception and had a particular riff or idea that then became the basis of the song, then I think in most cases that would warrant a credit, though to me just suggesting a song title does not clear the bar, i.e. Jon Braun suggested I write a song on my new album called "A.M. Gold," which I immediately did, words and lyrics, but I didn't give Jon credit, nor do I think he expected one, because all he contributed was the title.

LMAO, Maybe he sat down and watched the concert footage  ;D

Spot on Adam, And thank you for responding in a mature way to a post, that reading again, comes off as a bit bitchey to me! :( My fault!

In my case: the example I brought up, the whole situation was chaos and something needed to be done. My input on the songs was enouraged accepted and embraced, and I wasn't even asking for or expecting a songwriting credit! Therefore, I was pleased and suprised when the full band recieved an arragement credit.

Looking at and discussing such a gray area can quickly become a maze upon a maze upon mazes. Its itreresting to see (in the case of Mike and WIBN) how a jury breaks it all down in a court of law.

This is the part that interests me. Oh to have been a fly on the wall in the deliberation room!
 I'd like to know how the jury decided that 5 words were worth a writing credit.
maybe  somebody could trace the jurors and get some memories from them.
Oh, if only I was rich, with nothing better to do, and lived in LA....

Maybe this doesn't make a difference but I vaugely remember reading that  Mike might came up with the prominent "bow ba ba bow" back up on "Wouldn't It Be Nice". I'm not sure if I am misremembering or not. Even if Mike didn't do much on the song it still seems that he did have a lot to do with the majority of tracks he got credit for. It was Brian's sound and vocal arrangments that made the Beach Boys excell, but Mike did add to their commercial appeal. I've even heard Dennis in a radio interview (I think it's the one where he's getting a haircut) speak of how Mike was the bands lyrics man. In fact he explains that as being the reason Mike didn't understand Smile.

Look I think basically every other lawsuit Mike has had with his bandmates (the Smile one particularly) were petty, but he deserves those co-credits and place in Beach Boys history. Frankly I don't care if he's kind or if he's a jerk, it doesn't make me like his creative input any more or less. I like Phil Spector's music, I love Ike Turner's music, it just doesn't matter that much to me when I play music what the people were really like off stage or outside the studio. I mean with the Beach Boys the crazyness spilled onto stage and into the studio, but still I'm able to divorce myself from that and either like or dislike any given piece of music they did. Sure their lives are interesting but that doesn't really make a difference when it comes down to how good they were in their prime.

I think Mike can be an a-hole a lot of the time, but I have to side more with him on the songwriting issue. If I were Mike, the thing that would really bother me was that whenever anyone else wrote with Brian (Usher, Christian, Asher, Parks), they got credited, but Mike didn't. And if he did write lyrics to Dance, Dance, Dance, it had to be particularly hard to see Carl get credit for the guitar riff but Mike not get credit for the lyrics.

I also think (maybe I'm underestimating Mike's greed) that if he had gotten the credit he deserved on a lot of the songs, he wouldn't have pushed for it for his five words on WIBN. There should be been a system, where some songs, like California Girls, would be "Music by Brian Wllson, lyrics by Mike Love"  and a 50-50 split. A lot of the songs in dispute should have been "Music by Brian Wllson, lyrics by Brian Wilson and Mike Love" for a 75-25 split.

Brian was the one who first admitted to an audience in 1986 that Brian wrote the lyrics to California Girls. Yet in the seven years until Mike got him into the courtroom, he never gave him credit/money.

Yes, and don't forget Reily, Almer, and Roger McGuinn - ding, dang, dingin' a ding-dong!  Reggie Dunbar anyone?  :police:

While we are hashing it out, and I may be way off base and totally wrong, but something else that bothers me about the credit affair is:

1. The fan notion that Brian couldn't stand up for himself, yet we want to believe he had all of these people and suits doing his bidding and I don't mean that in bad ways but in one-of-the-most-capable-and-extraordinary-young-men-in-America ways. [In the 1962-66 period covered by this suit, I should have added] Even that 8 page draft shows that Murry didn't have any real control over Brian or the rest doesn't it?

2. Who would profit from this supposed songwriting credit tampering? Wouldn't the publisher's cut be separate from the songwriter's cut and remain the same regardless of who, or how many, was credited with the songwriting? In other words, there would be no economic advantage to the publisher for adding or subtracting the numbers of songwriters on the paperwork but there would be an advantage/disadvantage for the songwriters. Or do I have that wrong? I'd be interested to hear from those who actually know about this sort thing.

Prepared to be humiliated, humble pie baking.

Shouldn't we be more bothered by those who continually perpetuate these 'facts' about Mike, then who actually started them? Because there are a fair share of people out there who still bash Mike at every turn.

I think that's a fair statement, but it also calls to mind something Tony Asher said:  "If Mike deserves a credit for 'Wouldn't It Be Nice' then I deserve a credit for the [retained] first two lines of 'Good Vibrations'."  Which to me is spot on. The "bow bow bow" part if I recall correctly is just a repetition of a melody line that was already on the track.

I hope everybody registers that I think the fact that Mike Love did not get credit on "California Girls" (and, if it's true he wrote the lyrics, "Dance Dance Dance") is indefensible.  It just shouldn't justify claiming credit for every song he ever contributed one line to.  That's just how I feel.  I do understand, though, the logic behind claiming every last thing you can in a lawsuit.  That's just how it's done when you go into a court case.

Part of the issue of credits is, in my opinion, that there isn't really a clearly and universally understood rulebook. Writer, arranger, producer, musician ... the words seem to have obvious meanings, but in real-world applications...when things are going well, nobody cares or has issues one way or the other, but when it goes wrong, it goes wrong.

Excellent point, adamghost, in mentioning the LOGIC behind the lawsuit. I am glad that you made that observation, because most people on this board tend to agree with what you say.

In my opinion, "claiming every last thing you can in a lawsuit" is THE major issue in this debate, and I mentioned that issue in a prior post. When one employs the services of a high-priced attorney in a multi-million dollar lawsuit, one should expect that attorney to do every thing within the law to represent that client. I would EXPECT that attorney to ask his client, in this case Mike Love, to "tell me every contribution you made to every song you worked on with Brian Wilson." I do not think it is unreasonable or illegal to then mention (in testimony or deposition) the attorney's findings to a judge or jury. It is then up to the judge or jury to rule, not Mike Love. And, obviously, they ruled in Mike's favor on "Wouldn't It Be Nice".

As I have already mentioned ad nauseum, I wonder how many Mike Love bashers would've done the same thing if faced with the same circumstances. From reading your previous posts, adamghost, you would not have.

Nope, I wouldn't.  In fact, if it was me, I would consider that trying to claim credit for songs I had very marginal contributions to might weaken my overall case...and if you think about it, if Brian hadn't admitted Mike had co-written "California Girls," it's possible that's exactly what would have happened.

I keep coming back to this, but we're all here admitting it's a gray area and that the law protects songwriters and not musicans, but this is a case where someone (Mike) was asked to specify his contributions to numerous songs, and he did so in a court of law and the jury involved decided in his favor. That fact alone should speak a volume or two.

In this specific case, when you take a look at Mike, he had a bit more clout than your average "non-contributing-songwriting-wise", drummer or bass player. He was a founding member of the band, had admittedly written the lyrics to several songs, so there was never any question of his ability TO write lyrics. And if you can write lyrics, chances are, you're coming up with a vocal melody or two. So, maybe Mike's a bastard, but I'll bet if more "lower down the food chain" musicians, singers etc.... were to pursue their cases in court.... it would be interesting to see the results. Just because it hasn't happened often, doesn't mean that in each and every case the process of songwriting should be confined to the basic chords and lyrics. I mean, it used to be all based around the marketed sheet music right? How many situations these days is that an even viable part of the package? We're also talking about records here, not simply songs. There are the chords and lyrics and that someone writes, and then there is the actual record that is produced. And in many many cases, by the time the songs becomes a record, lyrics and chords are changed, as are vocal melodies. But yes, the law protects the songwriter BUT only if the law isn't challenged.... I can say all this, but I still understand that in probably most cases, someone challenging this situation for a songwriting credit wouldn't have a leg to stand on, but this is not every case.... Ron Wood has talked about how if one wants to pursue a songwriting credit in The Stones, they have to do so while the song is being worked on, they have to stand up and ask for credit, and in his case, it has been granted several times. Like I keep saying, it's all in how each team plays it.

Just to add something here, I feel just as Mike has received a lot of ill-feelings, he's also spent a good deal of time in the last few decades exalting himself and depreciating those around him.

Take the Beach Boys bio-pic "An American Family" that Mike supervised the writing of, for example. Every 20 minutes it depicts Mike as not only being the ambitious man in the group, but also as the constant "savior" of the group, as if every good idea they ever had somehow links to him, he takes credit for coming up with so much stuff that it almost becomes a comical element... "well, why not call it Endless Summer?"  "I like that!"  it focuses heavily on the problems of Brian and Dennis and pushes Carl and Al into the background. It makes Brian look gifted but totally incompetent (even at his prime), diminishes the legacy of the songs that Mike's not taking credit for, makes Van Dyke Parks look like a bumbling fool, and totally trashes the recording of Smile without the faintest glimmer of respect given. It's actually a rather sad spectacle.

And then with his opportunistic flip-flopping. After making such a big stink about not doing the "spiritual" kind of thing with the Hang On To Your Ego, and the "acid alliteration" lyrics in '67... just 6 years later he's co-writing songs like "Funky Pretty" and not putting up a stink over Carl's "Feel Flows" and such... included in those songs are even more direct spiritualism and obtuse lyrics than Brian had ever tried to shoot for. All of this combined just makes Mike look like a commercial opportunist who will bend to almost any musical direction so long as it has already proven profitable...which automatically renders the feeling behind it flimsy and fake.

The thing is, two members are dead, and Brian isn't in his right mind to contest this revisionism at this point, so Mike gets away with it. Dennis always seemed like the only member of the group with the guts to stand up to Mike, and in his lifetime was not shy about his own feelings towards him just as Mike continues to be likewise. It's sad that now Mike more than any other controls how their legacy is promoted, but the way things turned out just gives him more ability to say "See, I'm not dead or messed up in the head. I was right all along. This is what the Beach Boys are."

And to add, just because Donovan claims he came up with the "sea of green" line in Yellow Submarine, you don't see him going to court for ownership of the song.

A lot of subjective speculation taking place on this subject.

I'm amazed at the level of attention it has brought, which basically points to one truth: Mike Love continues to be a significant contributor to the Beach Boys history. How else would you explain 13 pages on the subject? I'll go on record and say that I think Mike is a great performer and brings a positive fun-seeking attitude to the current shows. Considering all that he's been through in the group (along with all the others) he could be a lot more jilted than he is.

Or, it could be said that Mike continues to be a significant detractor from/to their history and legacy. Obviously we don't all agree on Mike's place, hence the pages.
Personally, I like him as the performer he is; He did co-write a lot of great songs, no doubt; but he belittles himself by claiming credit for every tiny bit.
 Not certain what you meant by Jilted( to cast aside a lover), unless perhaps you think of the other members of the BBs as his lovers ;D

The reason why it is thirteen pages is because Mike has proclaimed himself the savoir of the Beach Boys at the expense of the other members.

If any member were to be credited with saving the Beach Boys (following Brian's late 60's withdrawal) it would have to be Carl.  Under his leadership the band remained somewhat commercially viable, critically viable and they became one of the best performing bands in existence. 

It could be argued that the band members (excluding Brian even though "'Til I Die is unbelievably good) did their best work while Carl was at the helm. 

If Carl did not fill the leadership vacuum left by Brian when he did the Beach Boys would have ended in 1970.  If Carl did not lead the touring band there is no way they could have capitalized on the success of "Endless Summer".

Under Mike's leadership the Beach Boys commercial and critical appeal evaporated (although I could point out that from 1976 through 1998 if you take the top 10 recordings six of them were Carl Wilson compositions) and the excellence of the live shows was replaced by spotty quality.

Well said, BillA and Meade.

What interview or press release are you referring to where Mike "proclaimed himself the savior of the Beach Boys"?

yeah, good question! it kills me how, no matter how reasoned about this topic we can all be, it always goes back to "oh yeah, well Mike's a butthole"!

When did Mike make this proclamation?

The inference was there in the miniseries.

"Proclamation" might be a poor word choice but we need go no further than "The Beach Boys: An American Family" or the quote from the Capital bio: "In 1974 Mike Love’s concept album Endless Summer ignited a second generation of Beach Boys fans and stirred a tempest that rocked the music world."

Has anyone ever argued that the success of Endless Summer brought the Beach Boys legions of new fans/renewed interest and $$$? Was it Mike's entire idea and did he hold a gun to the other Beach Boys heads and demand they release it? If anyone's to blame for this, it should be Brian, right, for writing all those amazing songs in the first place?

As for An American Family? So what? Mike's been slammed enough in print over the years. So, he got to have input in a stupid TV movie! Big deal!

Everyone knows that Endles Summer is a compilation of Brian Wilson tunes, with several lyricists.

Does it also bother you when it's said that Mike wrote the lyrics to teh Beach Boys' biggest single? People will still know that Brian wrote the tune.

This might be an odd question, but exactly how is Endless Summer a "concept album"?

The concept would be a loose one, the title itself, the Beach Boys' image of an endless summer. Not a narrative or anything.

The band wasn't even with the Capitol label at the time. Mike has said before that Capitol put together Endless Summer without any input from any of the group, when it was presented to the band as Capitol's  next release Mike suggested the title Endless Summer instead of some generic title.  I don't know who wrote this blurb but I think they give Mike undue credit; we're cool with undue credit right?  That album didn't work out anyway and the band slipped into obscurity and was never heard from again after its release.

Speaking of undue credit, the author of American Family was Kirk Ellis.

Also, can none of you songwriters help me out with this previous inquiry?

"2. Who would profit from this supposed songwriting credit tampering? Wouldn't the publisher's cut be separate from the songwriter's cut and remain the same regardless of who, or how many, was credited with the songwriting? In other words, there would be no economic advantage to the publisher for adding or subtracting the numbers of songwriters on the paperwork but there would be an advantage/disadvantage for the songwriters. Or do I have that wrong? I'd be interested to hear from those who actually know about this sort thing."

Thanks.

Not a songwriter; but as to the credits, I'd venture the whole thing leads back to Murry.
While he didn't necessarily "like" Brian's non-mike Love cowriters, he definitely had "problems" with Mike and his father. the whole one-upmanship family deal.
So it would be a natural thing for him to Take from Mike and Give to Brian, as much as he could. Keep the $$ flowing back to the son of a genius. 

It only bothers me that it was called a Mike Love concept album.  

Everyone does not know that Endless Summer is a compilation of Brian Wilson tunes.  It was released 36 years ago.

One of the reasons Endless Summer sold so well (in addtion to the general quality of the music and the nostalgia of that era) is that the Beach Boys were a great live band.  If you were to give credit to one Beach Boy for the quality of the live show at that time who would ithat be?  Without Carl's leadership it is likely the band would have ended in 1969.  How successful would "Endless Summer" have been if there were no band to tour behind it?

For proof of this, refer to The Murry letter where (if I remember correctly) Murry stated that he wanted to kick Mike out of the BB.

To answer Cam's question, I would think that you are correct in most pubishing situations. The way that Sea of Tunes was set up was different and cannot be compared to the average publishing situation.  

Murry wanted to get rid of Al too, didn't he?

"Thanks Uncle Murry" indeed!  :P

Brian had exactly nothing to do with any aspect of "the Beach Boys biggest single"... and Mike wrote very little of the lyric.

"Kokomo" actually outsold "Good Vibrations"?  That's a statement in itself.

The world population increased much between 1967 and 1989. Also, the amount of the planet's inhabitants being able to watch bad movies also went up by 9000%. I think that explains it.

Possibly the same.

Wasn't the famous Wembley show (w. Elton John headlining to promote his 'Cap'n Fantastic' album, and the Eagles, instrumental in the success of Endless Summer? I seem to recall that reports of it were a big boost worldwide. That would support the 'touring band' theory.

In June 1975?

Yes.

It may have boosted the sales of 20 Golden Greats from 1976. Endless Summer already peaked. Spirit Of America and Good Vibrations Best Of The Beach Boys  probably sold more because of the Chicago joint tour.

Cheers for clarifying. Another ultra-deep BBs mystery solved... ;)

We are down to blaming Mike for other people's words and blaming Murry for Brian's credit and the band [or Capitol?] for its own success which was somehow not success, sssssssssoooooooooooooo....that's a pretty good 14 pages work.

So just to be clear [giggle],  the theory is that Murry was in control of who Brian credited with the songwriting. Brian signed these papers and had double responsibility as both co-publisher and co-author to get this right. Murry didn't profit from fiddling the credit for songwriting but Brian did. Re. the Murry's letter draft: I should read this agian but too lazy, I don't remember Murry wanting anyone out of the band for publishing reasons.

Also, as I mentioned earlier, Brian pushed around Capitol Records, managed high power musicians by the car load, managed an international touring act, had a whole 8 page letter drafted about how not under his father's control he was but some how we are thinking Brian can credit strangers for songwriting but he can't manage to credit his cousin.

Of course as always we don't know what credit was claimed or how much was granted or for what and we assume Tony Asher was right in whatever it was  and Mike was over-credited for one song out of 30+ after 30 years.

"That's where we used to go"… to, "That's where we want to go." I think he also tweaked a few location names.

My earlier reply was a bit over-critical of Mike, and frankly I also think Brian deserves some criticism too, "mental illness" or not. I think Brian does, as has been stated earlier, a tendency to play the victim. Sure Mike didn't like Smile and didn't think it was a good direction to go in... I doubt even he wanted the entire project to just collapse, that's a bit extremist. I'm sure all Mike wanted was a bit of compromise... "do your songs Brian but let's change these lyrics so it doesn't freak out the fans." Fact is, Brian didn't have to collapse the project and then go into creative hibernation just because, in his own words "Mike didn't like it" (although I seriously doubt that's the main reason). He could have just released the finished tracks as the band was probably expecting him to do, let it sink or swim however history would have it, and then gone in a new direction. I've heard Brian contradict himself in interview, someone asked him if he blamed anyone for the collapse of Smile and he said "no, I blame myself, and drugs." And then like 30 seconds later he's blaming Mike.. "Reasons I didn't finish Smile... 1. Mike didn't like it." And I'm not too keen on his whole "giving drugs to the kids" episode either. So frankly, Brian annoys me sometimes as well.

At least when Mike makes wrong decisions he usually is doing it for genuine reasons... he genuinely wants the band to prosper--whether or not that happens is another story. Brian on the other hand seems to have actually tried to sabotage the band multiple times either out of personal problems or just out of spite. Some of his later antics and songwriting almost seem to be trying to do that. Unless he honestly thinks recording, re-recording, and re-re-recording various versions of "Shortnin' Bread" in the late 70's was going to be the splash they needed. I think he holds back a lot of good material just because he's not confident enough to be successful and doesn't want to do anything totally mind-blowing because he doesn't want any more worshipers. In that, he lets the personal issues get in the way of making good music... despite the fact that I think "Love You" and "Adult Child" still have quite a bit of charm.

Don't get me wrong, I'm nestled firmly in the so-called "Brian camp" for his awkward and interesting musical ideas and his sweeping personal statements that I think anyone with a pulse could relate with, but I'm no worshiper.

This is, of course, entirely my opinion.

Well, this is what seperates you from what is referred to as a "Brianista" .... Though, I dislike that term, because you almost can't be a Beach Boys fan without being a Brianista to a certain extent. I mean, the man is simply awesome!

But, in my mind at least, the term "Brianista" refers to that segment of Beach Boys fans who aren't really Beach Boys fans but worship the concept of Brian Wilson as the genius who singlehandedly created/produced/wrote/sang everything that they consider great/good in their selective compartmentalizing of the Beach Boys catalog. They don't like or appreciate the fact that the story is a lot more complicated and that the blood sweat and tears of others were involved to a great extent in why we love The Beach Boys. And Mike Love happens to be the great big pink elephant in the Beach Boys universe. He's the great satan who defines what the Brianistas try and deny. People simply don't like the man and all he represents and will hang onto that opinion no matter how many pages of well rounded discussion might be wasted.

Granted, I absolutely do not think that this type of Brianista is anywhere to be found on this board.  ;D

Not that simple. It is possible to dislike the man while still appreciating his contribution as a lyricist and front man in the glory days. I've made my personal feelings about Mike clear -- but that doesn't mean I deny what he's contributed to the group.

But no, he's not the cause of Brian Wilson's problems. No person is the cause of Brian Wilson's problems (well, dad is dead, so make that no living person).

But, But, maybe Murry wasn't the cause; maybe Audree was the cause. It's her fault after all that Murry "brutalized" her sons. If she had stood up and made certain Murry didn't do any of the rotten, low-down disgusting things he did,to his own sons for crying out loud, they might have all grown to be well adjusted adults.
Talent-less hacks, probably; but well adjusted.
So let's not be putting all of the blame on Murry. 

It depends.  In theory, you've got it about right.  But the BBs controlled their own publishing, so if Brian was suing to regain his publishing rights (as a opposed to his songwriting rights) then there's probably a legal theory that allows Mike to claim part of the publishing too.  It all depends on how this stuff was handled and I just don't know enough to say.  But basically, any time you create a song, you own the songwriting and publishing.  It was commonplace in those days to sell the publishing and keep the songwriting, but the BBs were unusual in that they kept the publishing (or, more accurately, Murry did).

Adam, do you know to what extent Murry's sale of Sea Of Tunes damaged the BBs $-wise at the time?

I hope you don't mind me replying to the question for Adam. In 1969 the Beach Boys catalog was not selling much in the USA. Europe was a different story. I would think that (if it was under the Sea Of Tunes umbrella) what they lost most in 1969-70 was the publishing money from their overseas record sales. In 1970 they had a UK hits collection that did very well.

That's awful :(

Brian Wilson is the cause of Brian Wilson's problems.

Totally agree.  All this stuff about mental illness, abuse, and manipulation was just cooked up to make Mike look bad. He should have just rubbed some dirt on it and kept playing. :lol

No, it's easier to blame Brian Wilson (or Mike) for Brian Wilson's problems than acknowledging that mental illness is cruel and (at least in the 60s-70s) not especially treatable. We don't like to think the world can be fundamentally unfair. How many of us blame the poor or homeless for their troubles, for example? We know in general that bad things happen to good people. But when it comes to specific people, we have a hard time accepting it. They must have done something wrong. They deserve it. That means that bad things can't happen to us.

So it's Brian's fault that his dad abused him right? It's Brian's fault that he became mentally ill (dumbass me, I thought depression was caused by  a chemical imbalance in your brain, right?)

Jason, < censored >.  I am amazed people take you seriously.

I think he's just trying to say that Brian Wilson is the cause of Brian Wilson's problems when it comes to the Beach Boys!

Which is certainly true to a large extent.

You know who else is kind of a bitch?  Helen Keller.  I'm sick and tired of people making excuses for her early years.

And Marlee Matlin, too.  She totally did not deserve her Oscar.  Especially when William Hurt did ALL of the acting work in Children of a Lesser God and got jack sh*t in regards to recognition.

Agree.  Can't hear, Marlee?  Or won't hear? 

Hey, Mike spent some time in a padded room himself! Can we include his name on your sympathy cards too?

The drug use I would say yes, but everything else no. I don't think anyone asks for mental illness.

LOL

Ok, we can close the thread now.  :lol

Better answer than I would have given, actually.

Of course, once ENDLESS SUMMER hit, it became obvious that it was a DISASTROUS decision.  IIRC Murry sold SOT for $700,000.  Now consider the value of those copyrights in commercials, repackages, movie and TV placements, cover versions...mind boggling.

Mike chose to fast.

Brian chose to take drugs...... by the boatload

Guess what? Drug use doesn't cause mental illness.

I think we have a problem with the notion of 'Brian knowing what he's doing' after '67. Because very often this notion changes according to who we want him to be and our agenda about the band's saga.

Mentally ill folks do take all kinds of drugs for "self-medication". Very common.

17 days and 15 pages later I’m going to throw my two bobs worth into the mix:

Firstly, for many years, I’ve had little respect for Mike but about a year ago I started to reassess my opinion, primarily because of a number of posts on this board. I dug deep, acknowledged within myself that Mike did make some worthwhile contributions to the Beach Boy’s artistic legacy, but, no matter how I tried, I could no rationalise many of Mike’s actions over the years.

Mike is the sum of his parts and his catalogue of ill advised comments and actions (if he ever took any independent advice) backed with a canon of some truly awful recordings, while championing his own credentials makes it very difficult to have any empathy or sympathy for the man. Without that empathy or sympathy it’s very difficult to cut him any slack when he steps over the line that aggravates many fans of the band. For every All This Is That, Let The Wind Blow or Big Sur there is a catalogue of misdemeanours and truly atrocious songs and recordings.

I’ve sat down, weighed the good and the bad of Mike and Brian and I reason that Mike is at best, at the very best, 5% the talent of Brian and frankly that’s just not enough to sing his attributes from the roof top.

What worries me about this thread and many of the previous Mike threads is that they cross the line and try to rewrite the band’s history and credit Mike with more than he deserves, it almost feels like I’m in some sort of zealous, extreme right, conservative Christian, flat earth, creationist, revival meeting that counters ever value and iota of knowledge I posses.  (My apologies to 99% of the global Christian faith who I do not count in that assessment).

Simple: Brian’s a screw up, Mike’s a screw up and in my own way I am the same. I can live with it.

Thank you, Tony.  Honestly, I feel and have felt exactly the way you do.  I always felt it odd that a site that was originally devoted to the lore of SMiLE that Mike would generate more sympathy than Brian.  Totally baffling to me, but then again George W. Bush got to serve 2 terms as US president.

Thank you very much for telling the truth once in a while. I'm extremely glad that we have someone like you as a moderator. I love this Message Board.

Funny how people who say the Brianista POV is "simplistic" offer up simplistic bullshit like "Brian Wilson is the cause of Brian Wilson's problems". 

I'm assuming he's joking.

Nailed it Tony, Rob as well.

Tell that to my friend Keith's family. He rode home on a bike from a Grateful Dead concert in 90 degree weather, saw some cops and decided to hide his sheets of acid between his sock and his bare leg...... He's been in a mental ward ever since.

I don't think he is.

Well, then, all I can say is no one is responsible for his problems but him! ::)

This "Mike Love-rs" rewriting The Beach Boys history" argument makes me laugh considering how "unbiased" the "official" Beach Boys history has been for the past 40+ years!

Ok, so, being one of the guilty myself, can we please come up with an official term for us Love Lovers, Lovers Of Love, Lovesters, Make Mike-Not-Love-ers, Mike Love-Not-Brian-ers? :p

erik, do you subscribe to this entertaining new theory that Brian caused his own mental illness? Also, what is the official Beach Boys history?  Where can I find it?

Victims of Love?

Baseball Cap Martyrs.

I've got it:

Kokomites.

Victims Of Love is great, but Don Henley might sue!

I don't subscribe to any theory other than what I can discern by examining The Beach Boys recorded and live work. David Leaf, Dominic Priore, and others have ammased lovely tomes that worship (correctly) at the feet of Brian but at the expense of the others who have greatly contributed to the wonder that is The Beach Boys. Now, I'm an odd case perhaps because I love EVERTYTHING The Beach Boys have ever done (or everything not entitled "Problem Child") ... Puts me in a weird camp, I know. But I almost innocently can't understand and the bile spewed in Mike's direction. I love the guy and his talent, his voice, his lyrics, him as a frontman. Even his awful fashion. He's about 40% of why The Beach Boys are my favorite band. Brian is the other 40%. Carl, Dennis, Al and (yes) Bruce share the remaining 20%. Carl gets more love as simply being my favorite singer of all time.

This is all just one fan's perspective! But this board is for all of us!  :p

Ok, Kokomites is grand!!!!!!!!!!! Done deal!  ;D

You know this has been one of the most often discussed topics on these message boards and it may be simplistic but to me Brians situation is a unfortunate childhood, immense pressure as a young musician, drug use, more pressure to create, come backs etc. Throw into the mix a probable mental condition (about the only thing he or others couldn't predict or control within reason) and he was bound to crack.

Blaming Mike, Landy, drugs or whatever individually is too easy IMO when a combination of all of the above is the cause.    

yea I am, but not exactly at the expense of our beloved Global Moderator.  :-D

Cool!

I have them for breakfast most days myself.

I suggest 'Love Campers'.

Koko-mo-fos?

'Guardians of the Correct Perspective' would be too long, I'm afraid...

The Lovemongers! :police:

erik, that's all totally reasonable- about as reasonable as it gets, actually.  All I could really say in response is that while I also don't have any bile for Mike, I disagree with the theory that sometimes crops up that all criticism of Mike is the result of lies, spin, or a conspiracy; that every possible critical word about him has been discredited or debunked.  Mike is who he is, and he's brought some criticism on himself over the years- as did Dennis, as did Carl, etc.  Brian is so damaged I can't evaluate him on the same basis at all. (Let the tooth-gnashing begin).

The Kokomites have their view and are absolutely entitled to it; but the Mike opposition are not the mass victims of some big campaign, conspiracy, or self-deception. They have their view, presumably honestly arrived at, based on a wealth of data, and it's as valid as yours or mine...fair enough?

Man, "correct perspective"???

In my caveman opinion, there is enough (pun warning) Love to go around!

To me it's all just one big Beach Boys concert from the 70's: everyone loves the merda out of the music, the harmonies are killer, we all love Dennis! Carl sings like an angel. Al is Al, Bruce is Bruce. The crowd loves Mike. He has them in the palm of his hand. They worship Brian through the music. And if Brian happens to be there, the crowd goes insane!!!!!

erik, I hereby proclaim you KokoMoses.

(http://jeremyberg.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/moses1.jpg)

I think every Beach Boy deserves to be treated like a victim, even Mike. That's in our BBs fandom dna, isn't it?

Surfer Joe: you bring a tear of joy to my eye!

Yup: it's time the other Beach Boys get tossed into the fire:

AL!!!!!???? What the hell can explain him? Who's fault is it? Are all the drugs he DIDN'T take to blame?

Al is a victim of his mother smoking while pregnant:

(http://mog.com/images/users/7124/1158676497.jpeg)

TonyW, I think if you're going to write things like that you should have to disclose your real, full name. :-D

No, seriously, good stuff. I highlighted just two points I wanted to comment on and question. First, and, yes, I'm saying it again, I CAN empathize with Mike because he was in a rock and roll band with the Wilsons - Brian, Dennis, Carl AND Murry. That's enough to make anybody do or say some questionable things. Can you just imagine having to deal with those people on a day-to-day basis? Well, frankly, not many people could.

And, second, you had me scrambling back to some previous posts to see how we might be re-writing the band's history. Could you list any of the points that you found to be attempts at re-writing history?

Al is in reality Caesar, the son of Cornelius and Zira. he's a victim of bad, bad movie sequels.

Surname's not Wilson, its Wales ... I have no fear!

I've worked with people far worse than the wilsons' I've worked with one narcisist that made Murry look like a saint and I've worked with people with smack habits that made Brian's drug taking look like M&M's.

And if Mike get's one more percentage point than 5% its rewriting the history .. okay interesting point .. it should not be history, it should be the "credit he deserves". I stand corrected but unrepentant.

You wanna give Mike 5% - fine. I don't have a problem with that. At least you're GIVING him SOME credit instead of none at all or totally dismissing him. I'm not gonna argue percentages; that is a debate that will never be settled.

I don't think a number is important anyway. Instead of putting a number on it, or using overall talent as a criteria for Mike's worthiness, I would rather focus on his various accomplishments, things that are more tangible and concrete, things that ARE part of history. That's not ignoring the bad, it's recognizing that Mike did a lot of good things.

Here's Al as a victim of his tailor, and possibly Carl:

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/179/428079751_43bf6058fe.jpg?v=0)
Sing "Sexy Rhonda", Al!

Look can't we all be a little less extreme. It's like politics in here where the other side is wrong and your side is always right. Life doesn't work that way.

Brian did suffer a lot but Brian did make things worse then they had to be. What's more important is that Brian was a one of a kind talent and if he wasn't this all wouldn't concern us.

Mike did try to help but Mike did act like a jerk. What's more important is that Mike was a major part of a great band and his lyrics were sometimes the perfect compliment to Brian's music.

There is no black and white in life especially with the Beach Boys. No one is a total hero and no one is a total villain. I have made it clear that I feel it's stupid to say one person alone made the Beach Boys great. Brian was again unique  but he had talented band mates. Every last Beach Boy including Dave, Ricky, and Blondie were part of what made the band special.  While it's interesting to a point I want to say once again that the Beach Boys lives behind the scene doesn't matter a tenth as much as the music they created.

Is that picture photoshopped? It has to be.  :lol

Perhaps the writers on this board can answer this question:

Multiple books have been written about Brian, a couple about Dennis, one about David Marks, so why never a book about Mike? He's certainly not shy about talking to the media when it comes to newspapers and TV, so why no Mike book?

Don't think so - Alan is pretty short. I'd say 5-3 tops, and Brian's 6-2, 6-2.

That's a book I'd love to read. Sadly, not going to happen for the following reasons:

1 - Mike's not interested: he was there, he knows what happened and concerning what anyone else (i.e. us) thinks, he just doesn't care. He's well aware of his perceived persona - doesn't give a flying one.

2 - Can you imagine the storm of litigation that would ensue from an unauthorised biography ?

So

re' Point 1. In the Harvard context is that a (Love pers. comm.) or dose he think his fans aren't interested in the real Mike Love story?

re Point 2.  ;D

He just doesn't care, is what I've been told by sources i regard as entirely reliable. He's seen that no amount of interviews make any difference, so he's not bothering any more. Although... I've a sneaking feeling that sometimes he plays along with the perception.  ::)

I loved Tony's post -- really put this whole bias nonsense to rest, and strangely enough, I also find myself in rare total agreement with Sheriff John Stone on the above quote.  I've always had a great deal of sympathy for Mike on this point.  It must have been a very trying situation indeed...and hardly one that would lead him to question his own actions too deeply, either.

I also like what was said about them all being victims.  I get crabby sometimes when we all forget these are real people, not toy dolls.  They all had a really rough time, and throwing the dysfunctional family dynamic in the mix, where you could never really separate from the crazy -- pure hell.  I'm amazed at what a strong and loving family the Wilsons -- at least the ones I have met -- are, given all they've been through.

This photo kinda reminds me of the cover photo for Blood Sweat & Tears' 1968 debut album. The band members are all sitting or standing with small versions of themselves.  The title of the album? "Child is Father to the Man."  Hmmm...where have we heard that title before?

(http://www.musicdirect.com/shared/images/products/large/blood.jpg)

I'd like to put this post up for nomination as best post on any BB message board for this year. Well done ! :h5 :h5

Just as a point of information on "Child is Father of the Man," from Wikipedia:  The title is a quotation from a similarly titled poem by Gerard Manley Hopkins, slightly misquoting a poem by William Wordsworth called "My Heart Leaps Up When I Behold".

No one's mind was changed. Hoorah for us!

But the Love Rehabilitation Movement still marches on, inch by inch. It's not hard, when you start from scratch. :) Like Al Jardine once said, it's not the story of one genius, but a bunch of them.

After 18 pages of posts, I think it must be asserted that judgment on Mike has softened in the last years. Haters are a minority, and most of them have grown up. At least he's seen as a human being and not as a villain of rock and roll that screwed up the careers and lives of his cousins, depriving the world of some great music.

And please. We all know what a valuable bass singer he is (singing lines that include heavy chromaticism and usual leaping from tenor lead to bass), and the stage persona and so on... But do not overlook his leads. No one in the band or from outside could match the ease and excitement of Mike's vocals on the 60s rockers. And he's still got it. Even as disposable an album like NASCAR (I know it's ten years old, but he still sounds good onstage) includes a lead on Little Honda that makes you wish for at least one last brand new rocker written by Brian and sung by Mike.

I'm sure it's been noted before, but Brian wrote those great early tunes with Mike's voice in mind -and immortalized and took full advantage of his cousin's voice with his genius craft for songwriting and arranging-, but it also seems that newer songs are conceived for a Love-type lead (a cocky, mid-range delivery)... "Desert Drive" with its flow from lead to bass or "Morning Beat" with its quasi-stomper quality come to mind.

Good points.

I don't know about that.

It is my opinion that in the songs were Mike was assigned the lead vocal,  his part is typically the least interesting thing in the song.  I believe that the vast majority of Mike's lead vocals could have been given to Dennis or Al and they wouldn't be any worse (although the BV's would be hurt by Al's absence and the songs would rock little more with a Dennis vocal. 

It is no accident that the most memorable Beach Boy lead vocals are by Brian or Carl or that they sang the songs that had the most emotional content.

Ahh, Susan, That would be true, except that Hopkins poem was "Child is the Father TO the man", just as in the BST title. Brian's ( Van Dyke's?) lyric uses "Child is the father OF the man", and would seem to come more directly  from Wordsworth's. Which by the way ( also via Wiki) came from the longer ode referenced here: 

"Ode: Intimations of Immortality From Recollections of Early Childhood" is a long ode in eleven sections by the English Romantic poet William Wordsworth. It is a deeply philosophical work, with themes ranging from the Platonic belief in pre-existence, to Wordsworth's belief that children have an instinctive wisdom that adults lack. Composed at Grasmere, in the English Lake District, between 1802 and 1804, "Intimations of Immortality" was first published in Poems, in Two Volumes (1807).[1] Arranged in eleven stanzas of anywhere from eight to forty lines each, the poem is written in anisometric verse, with lines of varied iambic stresses.
Wordsworth applies memories of his early childhood to his adult philosophy of life. According to the author's prose introduction, "Intimations of Immortality" was inspired in part by Platonic philosophy. Plato taught pre-existence, meaning that the soul dwelled in an ideal alternate state prior to its present occupation of the body, and the soul will return to that ideal previous state after the body's death. The immortality the title refers to is the immortality of the soul, which Wordsworth maintains is felt or intimated during early childhood.[2] Hence Wordsworth's famous line: "The Child is Father of the Man."
"Intimations of Immortality" begins with the speaker recalling how nature and "every common sight" once seemed divine to him. In Stanza II, he reminds himself that rainbows and the like are still "beautiful and fair" to him, but nevertheless he feels "there hath past [passed] away a glory from the earth." In Stanza III, he feels that no private grief can diminish the joyous quality of nature. He feels nature's joy in the fourth stanza, but the feeling quickly fades.
In Stanza V, Wordsworth begins to philosophize in earnest. "Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting," he says, for our souls originate in a purer, more glorious realm: heaven itself. Small children retain some memory of paradise, which glorifies their experiences on earth, but youths begin to lose it, and adults, distracted by earthly concerns,[3] entirely forget it (Stanza VI).
Next, the speaker observes a six-year-old boy mimicking adult behavior in his play, "as if his whole vocation / Were endless imitation." In Stanza VIII, the speaker addresses the child, wondering why he, "thou best Philosopher" and "Mighty Prophet," imitates adult behavior as though he were eager to hasten "the inevitable yoke" of earthly cares and customs ("freight").
In the ninth stanza, the speaker rejoices that his memories of childhood ("those shadowy recollections" that "are yet a master light of all our seeing") remain to inspire him. In the tenth stanza, he calls on the birds to sing and the lambs to bound, to share his joy. Instead of mourning the loss of childhood innocence and wisdom, the speaker vows to "find / Strength in what remains behind" and to develop a mature "philosophic mind", 'which stems from a consciousness of mortality, as opposed to the child's feeling of immortality.' [4]
Wordsworth sums up his philosophy in the final stanza (XI). His mature mind, he says, 'enables him to love nature and natural beauty all the more, for each of nature's objects can stir him to thought, and even the simplest flower blowing in the wind can raise in him "thoughts that do often lie too deep for tears."' [5]
Stirringly written with 'linguistic strategies [that] are extraordinarily sophisticated and complex', "Intimations of Immortality" is Wordsworth's 'mature masterpiece' reflecting his belief that 'life on earth is a dim shadow of an earlier, purer existence, dimly recalled in childhood and then forgotten in the process of growing up.' [6]

I actually consider that a compliment to Mike. This isn't a knock against Brian, Dennis, or David, but the fact that Mike's "story" isn't filled with as much drama, tragedy, and heartbreak - after 50 years of being in THAT band - speaks well for Mike.

Come on, BillA. Seriously. I know it is your opinion, and I don't usually argue opinions, but I think you're dead wrong.

First, even though Brian was the producer, Mike's leads weren't "assigned" to him. The songs which feature Mike Love lead vocals were usually written by Mike (the lyrics, that is), are faster, rock & roll tunes which suited him, were concepts that Mike sometimes/many times came up with, and were sung by Mike - in his California nasal tone - better than just about anybody else out there. Mike's voice is "the voice" of the Beach Boys for many fans; it was instantly identifiable. His voice separated many of the contenders and pretenders (in the surf & turf genre) out there in those early years.

And, with all due respect to Al and Dennis, they would NOT have been able to sing those songs with the same effectiveness as Mike. In those days, they simply weren't as good a rock and roll singer as Mike. Look, if you wanna come on and call Mike a bunch of names to make your case, go for it. But, talk about trying to re-write history or being innacurate with credit, jeez....

Sincerely,
Sheriff John Stone, Lovemonger :police:

SJS - Yes, that is my opinion.  Al's voice, BTW says California every bit as Mike's

My central point, though, is that in the vast majority of the songs that he sang lead on the lead vocal was the least interesting part of the song.  He was part of the sound but not the key element. 

I would also dispute that he was the voice of the Beach Boys.  The thing that set the Beach Boys apart in the early days were the harmonies and the quality of the tune.  As Brian progressed as producer the arrangements also set the songs apart.

Mike was/is a good singer (although not as good as pre 1974 Brian, Carl or Al) but his voice is not what made the Beach Boys the Beach Boys.

There is a reason that Mike did not sing lead on Brian's more emotional songs - he didn't have the voice for it.  To prove my point think about this question: Let's say that Carl and Mike switched leads on the following songs - "California Girls" & "God Only Knows", "Good Vibrations" & "I Get Around", and "Fun, Fun, Fun" and "Girl Don't Tell Me - Which songs lose the most with the switch in lead singer?  In each case it is the song sung by Carl.

This came to me after listening to "Live at the Roxy".  On the "Mike" songs I did not is his voice even a scintilla as much as I missed Carl's voice on his songs.

The general public knows who Brian Wilson is-they also know(albiet not as well) who Dennis is. Most people don't know who Mike Love is anymore. I guess a phamplet or brochure would suffice with the most interesting paragraphs being devoted to hat selection, turbans, robes, jewelery, wives and a word about legal affairs. :3d

Where do I start....First, nobody said that Mike's voice is what "made" the Beach Boys the Beach Boys. I just said that Mike's voice was identifiable with The Beach Boys - still is, actually - and that his tone and quality were hard to duplicate - and it was.

Second, nobody said that Mike had as "emotional" a voice as Brian, Carl, or Al, or Dennis, for that matter (see Pacific Ocean Blue). So why bring it up to take away from Mike? Neither Mike's supporters or Mike himself never claimed that he could hit those notes or sing those types of songs as well. What's the point? I'm sure you've attended a Beach Boys' concert or two, though. Well, Mike put his own type of emotion into his leads. Listen to Mike sing the car or surf medleys, or how he gets into the closing "Fun, Fun, Fun" encore. Yes, the music's rocking, but don't tell me Mike's vocals aren't moving people.

Finally, you will never convince me - your opinion or not - that Mike's voice isn't missing when Brian performs those songs singing Mike's leads. Frankly, I think Brian does a poor job at singing Mike's leads. Brian's just trying to get the words out, hitting the notes, and shows little of the tone or inflection that Mike does. I've sat through Brian Wilson concerts thinking, "I'm sitting here listening to a bunch of Beach Boys' songs with a guy singing Mike Love's parts - and not as good..." You can't possibly hear Brian singing those early rockers and think that he is as good as Mike.

Depends on what one considers "having a voice for emotional songs" to be!

I think Mike's finest lead is on That's Not Me. It's a very emotional lead. Who better could portray a cocky adolescent/young adult striking out on their own and missing the comforts fo home better than Mike? He nails it! Some of his distinct "parts" on songs are very emotional too. His reading of "waited for you girl" on Let Him Run Wild, is the emotional anchor of the song, in my opinion. Uh, Kiss Me Baby! All I Wanna Do! Sumahama! His part on In My Room! Meant For You! Everyone's In Love With You! to name a mere few.... all emotional vocals!


Oh yeah, and please thank Surfer Joe for my re-christening!!  ;D

No, they don't.

Btw, each time I've seen Brian singing Fun Fun Fun, he's come off like a guy at a karaoke bar who's not quite drunk enough! Mike simply owns that song!!!!!!

The Sheriff is right. Only Brian can be considered a well known household name. I mean, non Beach Boys fans even know who he is and worship him  :p

Dennis and the other guys are strictly cult material!

Having read this article over the course of a few weeks, I don’t recall if this has been mentioned yet or not, but…

While I have tried to see Mike in a light other than being an outright “villain”, it’s pretty hard to think of the man as essentially a gigantic tool at the core of his character, when one considers his actions (at least as far as I’ve read about online and such) regarding his refusal to acknowledge Shawn Love as his daughter. It smacks of Mike doing so out of fear of losing any kind of money.

Even on her deathbed, didn’t Mike refuse to acknowledge her or help her in any way? (I would see this as an obvious action by Mike, because “help” of any kind would be an acknowledgment of some sort). I think these are just 2 of many examples of rather low and reprehensible actions from a person.

Just rolled off my chair laughing, erik!

People definetly know who Mike Love is. Almost as much as Brian. "He's the asshole who killed Smile, who hated Pet Sounds, who ruined Brian Wilson's ambitions". This is rock'n'roll common knowledge. You only have the Brian myth of unrealised potential if you add Mike Love to the tale.

A book about him would sell quite well, IMO.

Ok, who's gonna have the balls to write it?

You think David Leaf and Priore get vilified: just wait and see what happens to the sucker who writes "Mike Love And The California Myth" or "Look, Listen, Vibrate, Love"

See the Stebbins thread. It would be a great book as long as it wasn't a P.R. / puff piece.

yes they do

Is the appropriate follow-up here "no they don't"? And then--you guessed it--a "yes they do"? Because that would make for a great thread.

The notion that Dennis Wilson is more known than Mike Love is.... well..... laughable. Who was talking about history rewriting?  :)

This "known" thing is interesting. I think Mike might be nearly as known as Brian if we are talking everyone... including the average low information man on the street. If we are just talking music fans with at least some knowledge then Brian is the most well known, with Mike second. Dennis would be third partly because his notoriety for non-musical things (Manson, drowning) has penetrated many avenues of popular culture. And as a musical artist Dennis has moved beyond cult status. His 2008 release outsold Brian's 2008 release worldwide...and charted higher in many places. Cult artists do not sell 125,000 units in this day and age...no way. Reissue of the year in Rolling Stone, Mojo, Uncut does not equal a "cult" artist. A primetime BBC television documentary next month as well. So, DW is not Lady Gaga...but he's not a cult artist either. With that said, Brian is the most known, Mike is a close second, Dennis a gaining third. Now, the question is, what percentage of all the people who "know" each of those three individuals considers them something positive? What percentage of everyone who knows those three individuals are fans of one or more of them?

Well, I should have said "cult material (in Dennis' case)" BEFORE all the good work of you, John, Jim Guercio, The BBC, and others!  :)

I personally have long known a lot of "friend's Moms" who love love love Dennis but couldn't care less about the Beach Boys, btw.  :p

I did not write that Mike's voice was not missed, just that it was not missed as much as Carl's (or Brian's old voice for that matter).  I did not write that Brian did a good or even adequate job on the songs.  My point is that on the "Mike" songs the absence of Mike's vocals does not impact my enjoyment of the song as much as the absence of Carl because on the "Mike" songs the other elements of the song (backgrounds, harmonies, arrangement, etc.) are more important than the lead vocal.  In the songs that Carl sings the lead vocal much more important to the song.

It is just my opinion.

Now there are some songs where Mike's lead is a would be missed.  Off the top of my head I can think of "Meant for You", "All I Wanna Do" and of course Kokomo (although for different reasons).

Interestingly (if only to me), I think I miss Mike's voice more in Brian's concerts than I do Carl's. Maybe it's that Brian has that familial similarity, decayed though it may be. Maybe I infer Brian giving more effort or emotion to Carl's songs. I don't know. But I'm with--brace yourselves--SJS on this. I'd rather hear a more accurate Mike-style voice than a more accurate Carl-style voice in Brian's modern shows.

I am a fan of the pre 1976 Mike Love.  Post 1976 not so much. 

I am a fan of Brian Wilson.  I just don't think he should have been shoved back into the limelight in 1976.  He was not ready and as a result the band suffered for it.  It is sad to say but the shows were better without Brian.  I do think that Brian's post 1975 Beach Boys (as opposed to his solo work) had a negative impact on the Band and his legacy.

I am a fan of Dennis, however, his personal issues in the late 70's had a negative impact on the Beach Boys.  Having  to keep a second percussionist on the payroll because your drummer might not show up is never a good thing.

I think the point is that the songs that feature Mike's voice are sung by Mike because Brian, their producer, chose to have Mike sing them. Furthermore, the voice Mike uses [that people are dissing] on those songs  is voiced that way because Brian, their producer, chose for Mike to use that voice out of the various voices Mike was/is capable of singing in [with which Brian was very aware of]. If you have a beef with who sings and how they sing on those Brian produced songs I think you need to take it up with Brian.

Does that make sense?

I don't know how that's "simplistic bullshit". It's pretty obvious. Unless you think Michael drove Brian to take drugs. Of course, a sociopath who has known problems will do his or her damnedest to take the blame off of themselves for their own problems.

Completely. And listening to those early songs, I can't remember ever really thinking that Brian made the wrong decision. I don't think Dennis's and Al's voices would have worked as well and the demo of Brian singing Little Deuce Coupe just sounds wrong to me without Mike.

SONOFAFUCKINGBITCH. Mike Love donated (albeit a paltry-for-him $5k) to the PMRC? 8:30 ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTDJfrfZdWg&feature=fvw

"it almost feels like I’m in some sort of zealous, extreme right, conservative Christian, flat earth, creationist, revival meeting that counters ever value and iota of knowledge I posses.  (My apologies to 99% of the global Christian faith who I do not count in that assessment)."

Leave out the zealous, extremist,  flat earth (I was a geography major at Berkeley after all) parts and you're talking about me, thank you.  But that's OK. We're used to these kinds of ridiculous comments even when they have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand and serve only as another opportunity to attack people's beliefs.  Sorry, usually let this garbage go by for what it is, but really not in the mood for it tonight.

If you leave out "zealous", "extremist",  and "flat earth", there's nothing left but "conservative Christian" and "creationist", and he graciously apologizes to the "99% of the global Christian faith" which he is not criticizing, so I'm not sure I see the offense.

I should say as well that the argument that Mike has been overpraised because he only has 5% of Brian's talent is bizarre imo. Let's face it, almost no people working in the music business have a percentage of the talent that Brian had in the 60s. So by that logic, none of them should ever be praised because they don't compare to Brian. Furthermore, I guess a pleasant ballad should never be praised if it is nowhere near as good as God Only Knows...Again I think this comes down to the fact that people believe that if you give Mike any credit that you are taking away from Brian and that if you criticise Mike that it turns Brian into a martyr. Neither of these is true.

Mike should be criticised for the mistakes that he's made and praised for his plus points. But to claim that he's been praised too much because he's not Brian is oafish.

 < censored >  What do you have against showing some compassion for someone who is ill? Why do you have to be so friggin' heartless and cynical when it comes to the guy?

 < censored >  . Probably not.

Okay, this is it.

Rob, you're not alone. Dr. UNH, Jason,  < censored >   and has definitely not treated me (and I think some other board members as well) with decency in private exchanges. I have not always kept my temper here, but I have not screwed people over.

His serving as a moderator is unacceptable. I'm out until he's no longer in that role.

Have some compassion, people- he's a known sociopath! He'll do anything to shift blame off himself and onto Brian Wilson!


 :lol

(http://fundraisinggoodtimes.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/edmcmahon2.jpg)

"Hey Yo!!!!  You are correct sir!"

From knowing someone who grew up in a dysfunctional family (like my dad's) you come out of it in different ways. My father was somewhat affected, but he never lets it show. Two of my dad's brothers moved far away, never to really speak to each other. One of them got actually banished from my family. My aunt who is the only one I still have a relationship with is my aunt and she basically lives in the past and is so bitter. To say something like "a sociopath who has known problems will do his or her damnedest to take the blame off of themselves for their own problems," flies completely in the face of the truth. Let me ask you this. Did Brian ask to be born in an abusive household? Did Brian ask for mental illness? No he didn't. As much as I am all for rewriting history to include those whose voices never got heard, I am not for at all those who wish to smack Brian here like this. What makes it right NOW to make him a villain when he did barely anything to make him one? I am sure some of you will mention things like giving drugs to Carnie  etc. but in the end, the man was human and made mistakes like all of us.

Well said, Katie.

Hey, I like being part of a Beach Boys Message Board where Brian Wilson may be called a sociopath and life goes on. Big friggin' deal.  < censored >  he hates Mike Love's guts and it's his right to write what he believes in.

Cue "Spirit of America"  :p

Let Dr. UNH say whatever he wants. Let's not be too bitchy about it. God bless him.

To be fair, I have seen very few people in this thread try to make Brian out to be a villain. It's sad that one person seemingly wanted to do that and made such a sweeping statement which contributed nothing of intelligence before scuttling off again.

\

Thanks,  < censored >  

It's sad that said person is a moderator.

Looks like we have a more violent psychopathology this time. Show us on the doll, DB, where Rob touched you.

Said Global Moderator has just the same right to his opinion as anyone else.

Yes, Brian has mental issues. But it seems he's conveniently either: too crazy to be held accountable for his actions, when it suits some people, or completely on top of his game mentally (or at least crazy but not stupid), when it suits some people.

Brian doesn't own the copyright on mental illness. There was a bit of it going around in The Beach Boys camp, from all accounts.

This ponderous argument isn't even about Brian or his mental condition. It's about those who've chosen to paint Mike Love as the central boogeyman in his life.

You Brian worshipping guys are too sensitive. Love and merci for you all.  :-D

You're welcome.  :'(

Wow some of you totally missed my point. Did I state anywhere that he wasn't allowed to have an opinion? No I don't think I did. However I can question the reasoning. Painting everyone who disagrees like this because they have something against mike I don't agree with either. I have tried my best to hear everyones story and if this thread was titled something else would people get this personal about this? There has been mention in the past of Brian being a villain of sorts. Hence why I bought it up.








Last Login:  12/30/2009

I'm with Clay.  I'm gone too.  I have better things to do than to engage in pissing matches.

I did get your point, SurferGirl.  I was just kidding around.

Hate to see the board undergoing yet another destructive meltdown, but I think it was fairly inevitable.

Why does defending Mike still cause such compu-violence? We ALL love Brian! I think the sociopath comments are intended to be humorous though provoking, but I doubt anyone here actually considers Brian a villian! I mean, "villian" is something of a serious word. Stating that Brian made some bad decisions that had consequences is, at worst, accusing him of being a mere human! All bets are off with Mike, of course. He's free to be accused of everything under the sun, but Brian? We all love him!

Does this happen on Beatles boards with John worshippers vs. Paul worshippers? (I'll bet it does) And the comparison IS intended!

I wasn't signaling anyone out. There always seems to be that backlash everytime someone supports brian they are hating mike, which is not always true.   

you're right, but it certainly goes both ways. though historically speaking has usually gone just one way!

we really are into uncharted territories here. but we'll all find our feet!  ;D

Hey, I changed my opinion with this thread. Now I count more brianistas in this message board than before. Whooray!  :)

Jesus, went a bit over the line there.

And I must admit I am on very friendly terms with Rob McCabe and Clay and am distressed that they are gone. VERY distressed. I myself will not leave, but my heart and support is with them. I don't want to think of a BB message board without RobMac, Claymacc and Mikie, yet we're getting closer and closer and closer.

Hang onto your ego.

Jeez, if 2 posters have left the board because of then it must be the biggest overreaction of the century. As other posters have mentioned, accusing Mike (or anybody else for that matter) of any heinous action is absolutely fine but apparently one mention of Brian and the toys come out of the pram.

Maybe that's not the issue, Nicko.

Oh my. TdHabib:

I and Rob live in DIFFERENT CONTINENTS. I'll probably never set foot in North America again. The chances of actually meeting him in a BB related concert and  < censored >   are the same as Brian pulling a '67 finished master of Smile from his jukebox.

It's funny that in a message board and fandom where there's so much bile against certain members of the group - ok, Dr. UNH singlehandely has just made it a bit more more democratic in the last months - that you are taking exception with a silly comment like the one I did.

I did not take your comment literally and I know you would never  < censored >  . It's just that I think on this forum and, for that matter, all internet forums peoples comments should be respectful and there is a right way to say "I disagree" and a wrong way to say it. I don't think anyone would disagree that you have a right to state your opinion. However, I believe the way that you did stepped over a line of decency. You are not the only one to step over that line in my opinion.

Just an addendum that my last post had NOTHING to do with my opinions on Mike Love or Brian Wilson. NOTHING.

I disagree. I think it was fairly obvious that it wasn't meant to be taken seriously.

I thought the vibes in the few pages before my comment were bad enough that my comment would be seen in context. Well, you're offended but not leaving, so... we don't have to dissect this one endlessly.

I think we should all go to the Wilson School of Conflict Resolution.

When Murry read in ROLLING STONE that Brian had said that he was deaf in one ear because of beatings inflicted by him, and forced him to defecate on a platem as a child, he was furious.  He called Brian up and demanded an explanation.

Brian, laughing, supposedly said, "I'll tell you what, dad.  Let's tell them that I sh*t in your ear, and you hit me on the head with a plate."



[with apologies to David Leaf]

RobMac: "It's sad that said person is a moderator."

Some of you long timers will see the irony in this. Love you Rob.

Anyways, let's take a deep breath. Our Mod has expressed like two sentences and there are two pages of condemnation. Maybe our moderator could give us a little more detail about his thinking on this before we all get too carried away. Just a suggestion.

I do intend on keeping my promise but I could not let what I'm about to post slide.  For the record it is not differences of opinion that upset me.  It is the way that some people choose to make their disagreement known as well as the fact that there have been some in this thread who are defending how those people are behaving.  I want to point out that for the few of you who have defended the Mike Love perspective without resorting to sarcasm, childishness, and viciousness, this is not directed toward you.  I should also point out that living on different continents should not excuse someone for a) making physical threats of violence  and b) resorting to personal insults, especially when those insults are directed towards any relatives and loved ones who aren't even participating in the conversation.  

I also want to point out to Cam Mott that while yes, he and I have clashed over the years, I don't believe I've ever, ever crossed the line with my opinion that some in this thread have.  

 < censored: quotes from PM's >  

wow, i haven't read posts to this thread in a couple of days and was it a real eye opener when i read them today. man, the thread sure went downhill...and that's a shame. if it was up to me i think i would close and lock the thread. the board should be above this kind of threats and insults, at least in my opinion.....  :(

OK, this topic is brought back to life again. To my best knowledge I’ve tried to clean up those posts that I found to be inappropriate. Some - more explicit - opinions I did leave in, as IMO, I didn’t found them to be directly insulting towards anyone here.

An edit in a certain post doesn’t always mean the poster was breaking rules, as it could also be a correction in a quote or it was referring to an earlier post that was crossing borders.

If you tend to disagree with an edit, or think another edit is necessary, please be so kind to PM me about it, and I’ll correct it when necessary. PLEASE DO NOT reply about corrections on this topic itself. Before we know it, we get another side-discussion, and frankly I’ve seen too much of that on this topic.

Of course if you want to edit something in one of your own replies, you can do so by using the “modify”-button.



And - before we continue - some advise:

Please try to keep it on-topic and – above all – civil.

(1) Don’t start up the whole side-discussion again.
    -   If you don’t agree on an opinion, that’s OK, but don’t use it as an excuse to go off-topic and get personal in a negative way towards others.
    -   Please be so sensible to not stir up or quote posts of the last few days that nothing to do with the topic.
    -   Not insulting directly, but deliberately "pouring oil on the flames", is not a wise thing to do.
    -   A discussion on “what is and isn’t allowed to say?” fits much better on the Sandbox-forum. You’ll find a few topics on this very issue there, for example: http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,8355.0.html.

(2) As for the civil-part: Treat your fellow board members like you want to be treated.
    -   And if you think a certain reply is or looks to be insulting to you personally, be so smart to count to 10 first and then reply. My signature says it all: “Rule of thumb, THINK before you post. And think how it may affect someone else's feelings.”
    -   And – just to make sure – you can always ask the other person first what he/she meant with that remark.
    -   And if you want to notify it as inappropriate, do so by clicking “Report to moderator” which is shown below-right on every post.

(3) Part of the edits concerned quotes from PM’s. Try to avoid that.
    -   Keep a PM personal, don’t even bring it out in public at all.
    -   Seeing some of the content of the PM’s that were shown, I’d say some of us from now on need to re-think thoroughly what they write. Even if you don’t have any intention to say something in a rude way, remember that the receiver might judge otherwise.
    -   If you feel insulted or threatened in a PM, don’t try to hit back immediately, but inform a moderator about it. Moderators can’t check your PM’s, but if you’re not feeling comfortable with the situation, notify us, and we can take measurements.

(4) In conclusion.
    -   These words of course apply to ALL of us, moderators included.
    -   Please let these words I’ve just written, be the last one’s that are off-topic. Why? > see (1)   ::)


And now that this lecture’s over, feel free to continue the “Mike’s reputation” discussion.

And remember: keep “looking back with love”  :)

Mike blows. Better than Kenny G.

Funny this sums things up for me quite well, although half of Brian's solo work isn't any better then his later Beach Boys stuff.

"Cassius" Love vs. "Sonny" Wilson all over again...

 :lol yup...

One of Rob's and my replys might give the impression I meant Rob when I told about someone insulting my wife. I did not. Rob and I have always had passionate but respectful debates without insulting each other or our families, as far as I remember, and will continue to somewhere I'm sure.

Maybe this was un-neccesaary but there it is anyway. I hope Rob comes back here.

Yes, I agree. Rob makes this a better place.

It's been fun following this for the past twenty pages or so. Lots of latter-day diplomacy
intertwined with positive and negative viewpoints, impressive for such a volatile topic.

I believe 99% of the SmileySmilers value Mike for the majority of his contributions to the
legacy of the band, and a similar figure wouldn't want him hitting on their daughters.

So, I guess he is the living embodiment of the Janus, from what I have gleaned thus far.

2 questions.....

1.  What was written in the area labled <censored>, or is this something that I really don't want to know about?
2.  What was the original debate about?   I forgot.   ???

Wow, such reaction, but historically isn't this subject one of the most debated and most volitile on any BB/BW message board?  Guys, guys, chill.....

It's funny puting <censored> makes it sound 10x worse than it was.

By the way, wasn't there a second drummer on payroll from 1968??

Here's two posts of mine on the sandbox thread that I feel are good:

I must agree with Stone about the mental illness card being overplayed and a cop-out. A point I'd like to add meekly and humbly is that there is a certain kind of inbalance in the Wilson/Love blood as far as I know that would be, I don't want to say hereditary but certainly handed down...remember Murry's father was a very harsh man which carried to Murry and Murry stayed in bed for long periods. Brian was known to do this. Dennis and Murry had a lot in common and more than once Carl was described as a slighter version of Murry without the shouting and temper (which I only agree with for small periods). Stan beat up his cousin Dennis very badly, and Dennis married his cousin's daughter. Mike had 8 children and Brian has (adopted and natural) 6 children total. Brian and Carl had a difficult relationship later in life. Also remember Mike was institutionalized for a period, has not been on speaking terms with his father for a considerable amount of time and also doesn't talk to Stan now (I believe it's Stan although it could be Steve). There are definite patterns and you have to keep this is mind when discussing the whole saga.

One more point is that some people rightly take offense when people blame Mike for Brian's problems. It is possible, probable IMHO that Mike hurt Brian without knowing he was doing so. I was thinking of a personal situation where I had an argument with someone which played out with several other people, she really hurt my feelings, and then about a year later she told me half of the things I thought she said she never did and people were exaggerating and/or I was coming to the wrong conclusions at the time. I think this is what happened with Mike and Brian. They had arguments, Brian's feelings got hurt and he probably made it worse than it was. Mike probably was just saying/doing what he thought was right and what he felt strongly about. Brian in 1965-1967 (and then 10x so in the following years) was a fragile person easily upset. Hell, he cried at "Flipper" and didn't have a lot of patience in general. Mike could've easily upset Brian without knowing he was doing so or as bad as he was. Just a theory.
 

It was decided to put this topic back, but with those remarks that were or could be considered personally insulting or threatening (whether it was intentional or unintentional) edited out.
Maybe not an insult to you, but certainly to others. I thought it would be wise to edit those out. I could have chosen to delete complete posts, but then the context of the whole topic could get lost at some points.


I could change it into  :angry  or   :wall  ...   might as well be simply a few dots (if you think that would be better).

(but I'm ignoring my own advise now, so let's get back on topic)

Nope - Dennis was the drummer up until early 1971: thereafter, Ricky drummed until late 1974. Jon can give you chapter & verse but I think the double drummer setup was only implemented when Dennis' unreliability started escalating in the late 70s.

When was Kowalski hired?

Think he was hired 1968, 1969.

Absolutely. Mike and the other band members obviously would have wanted Brian to be healthy and happy. Even if they didn't care about him as a person (and I don't believe that of any of them), they would have wanted it for the benefit of the group.

 ???

Getting back to the topic, I think it was the Rolling Stone articles in the late 70s. I don't think the earlier articles were taken as negative but then in the late 70's a negative spin began to be put on the Boys [not just Mike] and those earlier articles/everything began to be spun in a negative light. Any love for that observation/theory?

Just to be clear, was he only hired for secondary percussion and not to play the drum set? It was previously said Dennis was the only drummer up until 1971. Thank you.

Starting in '68 the BB's began using a percussionist to fill out their sound, just as they added brass and more keyboards. They only had one drum kit on stage, except for a brief period in late '74 and again in 82/83. In late '74 it was utilized for Dennis to double drum with Ricky or Bobby...in 82/83 it was Dennis and Mike Kowalski. Other than that it was one kit, one drummer, and one percussionist. Primary drummer was Dennis '62 to '71. Ricky '72 to '74. Dennis late '74 to '83 (with a lot of missed shows and tours for DW in the '80 to '83 period). Kowalski took the primary role after that. When Dennis missed shows Bobby, Mike K. and others filled in. This is a general overview. There are periods like when DW was filming Two Lane Blacktop for a month or two in '70 that Kowalski took over, or when he was kicked out for part of '80 when Scott Matthews or Bobby F.  took over. But Generally the chronology of drummers is as stated above.

Thanks, Jon, now I understand fully...

Wasn't Dennis Dragon a fill-in around this time too?  It seems like I remember he was the drummer on the 1970 recording of a show from Syracuse, N.Y. around the time of the Big Sur festival...

Dennis Dragon also played extra percussion onstage too, right?

It's certainly him on congas in that clip of Wild Honey from, I think, 72? 73? with Keith Moon and Elton John on Help Me Rhonda.

I'm wondering if they didn't try DD out in '70 and he was too busy on the drums, so they moved him to percussion.  He was definitely one of those guys that went apesh*t on the kit and the reason the performance I'm referring to stuck out in my mind was it definitely sounded like a busy drummer subbing for a simple one, and the overall group performance suffered.  BTW, was he the drummer on "It's About Time?"  I always assumed it was him...with all those crazy snare fills.

It's just a theory based on a memory...been a long time since I listened to the show in question.

This just further points out how Dennis was the PERFECT drummer for The Beach Boys! Simple, sure, but he HIT the drums and played with great feeling!

You're sort of right...Earl Palmer played the drums on Its About Time, Dennis Dragon played the timbales, congas or whatever the added percussion was.