The Smiley Smile Message Board

Sorry, another Mike thread, but this is something I often wonder about.

We know lots about Mike's relationship with Brian and Dennis, and even Al to some extent, but what was the relationship between Mike and Carl? I think I'm most interested in how they got on after all the late 70's debacles, and after Carl left the group and returned in the early 80's. How did Mike feel about this?

Carl was clearly the band leader in the 70's, and still was fenickity about rehearsals right up to the 90's. Who chose set lists in this era? Was there competition, or bad blood when the group became an oldies act  (I always felt Carl resigned himself to that).

I suppose what I really mean is, did they like each other much, or did they just put up with each other in a purely working relationship. (I suspect it's not this cut and dry)

I just remember the Carl quote near the end of Endless Harmony, about his "colleagues being his best teachers", or words to that effect. I always found that a strange quote. That can be read on so many levels.

And Mike, in his recent interview, being unsure as to when Carl died. (Totally excusable, but to us fans its not a date we forget)

Any thoughts, anecdotes?

Maybe I should have named this thread "Top 10  Carl and Mike's relationship", or "What's your favourite Carl and Mike's relationship?"  :lol

Well I thought it was interesting..........

"Rank The Beach Boys Relationships"

It's an interesting topic, if only I knew something to contribute! Carl in the nineties is so odd, there's that anecdote Carlin tells in his book where Carl seems really exasperated by the whole meat & potatoes schtick, but he blames the crowd or the venue rather than Mike.

What's also interesting is how Carl's taste kind of drops off in the nineties - his contributions to KTSA are the best contemporary things on it, he adapts the best to the modern tech on BB85 - I mean, with the best will in the world, Beckley Lamm Wilson is trash, and he nixed Brian's plans for both a new Beach Boys album and to play Pet Sounds live both of which seem like a slam dunk in hindsight. Maybe by the nineties he just came round to Mike's way of thinking?

See, I'd have that the other way round - I struggle to remember the exact year (1998?) but then I haven't spent the last 50 years of my life working closely with my cousin!

I think it's interesting too, but I don't have much to add!

Carl seems to have been pulled in all sorts of different directions and held the differing personalities and egos together in one single group for an incredibly long time. After Carl died, the Beach Boys as we knew them fell apart and I think that says a lot. My impression is that Carl was able to get along with everyone and was the glue that held it all together through a long and sometimes difficult journey. That includes getting along well with Mike. I'd say that Mike and Carl 'shared' something of a leadership role, in that Mike was the 'front man' with Carl leading the band and the two of them sharing lead vocals on much of the material. We know that they had some differences in the late 70's, but other than that there's not much to suggest conflict between them.

I remember the Carl quote as something more like - "My brothers are my greatest teachers". I always considered 'brothers' in that context to include people like Mike, but who knows (and of course, I might have misremembered the quote anyway). I'd love to see that full interview.

Well yes, I thought it was poor as well, and maybe a tad dismissive, but I do try to be as fair to the guy as I can be. He's old.

This is my impression as well, and is what we have "on record". I'd just love to know how they got on in private, whether there was any sort of friendly family relationship between them, so to speak.


I'm so sure it's band mates, or colleagues. I don't have the damn thing to hand. It is ambiguous though, I always read it that he learnt tolerance, and empathy, but at the expense of his own feelings and ambitions, which is sort of what you alluded to at the beginning of your post.

Well I did get an interesting comment from Marilyn in 1995. I asked why Carl didn't fight for more artistic shows after Dennis died, and she said basically that time had made it a lesser issue and that the peace between them was more valued. She was very fond of Carl and considered him a very good person.

The only person I herd Carl had a bit of problems with was with Bruce (I believe).

In trying to stay on topic, staying with Carl's role as on-stage band leader, staying with Carl's "keeping the peace" - and not trying to start anything >:D - if there were minutes kept for band meetings (assuming the band members attended those meetings), I'd love to read them. While I'll concede that Mike was the most vocal in promoting the 1962-1965 period songs, I will always believe the others - including Carl Wilson - eventually realized and came around to the "give the people what they want" philosophy. That doesn't mean that a part of Carl always desired the more artistic cut, or that he didn't become bored and ask himself "what am I doing here". But, Carl wasn't dumb, and he knew that if this Beach Boy thing was going to continue for the long run - and don't think the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ issue wasn't very, very prominent - so, I believe he was doing a lot more than pacifying Mike.   

As Carl presumably agreed to Al being suspended from the group in the early 1990s, it would be interesting to know what his relationship with Al was like.

With regard to the setlists, I think Carl was right in that it was down to the fans that they played the greatest hits. Mike's attitude is to give the fans what they want and Bruce said a few years ago that the fans would walk out if they played a different setlist. In the 80s and 90s there is no way the crowd would have wanted to hear stuff from Sunflower or Surf's Up.

Yes, you put it better than I did.  :)

Perhaps Al was the most vocal in complaining about the setlists but when he toured as BBF&F he ended up playing the greatest hits too.

It was "partners"

Was Al suspended from the group in the 90's and what for?

Being 'off message'. He was reinstated during work on Summer in Paradise.

Basically, Jardine was disciplined for grabbing his crotch and yelling "SUK DEEZ NUTZ" at some fans during a concert who were throwing eggs/batteries/eggs filled with battery acid at him and yelling "Kiss. The mid-get. Kiss. The mid-get." over and over. One of the fans was none other than Mike Love, moving to the crowd and yelling it into the microphone at Al. I was there, it was horrible to watch.

 :lol

I could imagine Al saying something like that with that voice of his  :lol  :lol

Thanks! Still a little ambiguous but in the context of an interview about the Beach Boys (I assume), I think its fair to say he was talking about his fellow Beach Boys.

Re: Carl and Mike's relationship

First cousins, right?

Next question!

Yeah, they were first cousins and equal business partners. Whatever that means. I don't recall ever hearing where Mike and Carl  specifically were on the outs.

I don't remember where I got the ideas anymore but I thought I understood that Carl was the touring band leader right up until he could tour no more and that playlist selection was a more or less democratic decision by the band. I suppose Carl was the most equal amongst equals. Anybody know different?

All I know is what I observed -- when they needed to share a dressing room, it was Carl and Al in one and Bruce and Mike in the other. Carl and Al socialized together (dinner, etc.) sometimes during the period in question. Not sure whether Carl socialized with Mike or Bruce.

My own feeling is that Carl was so busy being peacemaker that he didn't have much time for reworking the setlist extensively. That would mean rehearsing the backing band, for one thing. But he did add new songs once in a while ("This Whole World" for one example) and even added a few requests to the setlist. And he was certainly in favor of the 1993 unplugged box set tour.

True--at least for the years 1991-1996, Carl and Al shared dressing rooms, as did Mike and Bruce. When Carl toured with his illness in '97 (at least for the shows I was at), he had a private dressing room with Al, Mike and Bruce sharing one together (which was odd, because one night in LA even  Stamos had his own dressing room backstage...)

Somewhere I read that Carl and Al got quite close after Dennis died and Bruce came back full time. I always wondered though why Carl allegedly was ok with the plan of getting Al out of the group (which in itself is a totally absurd decision imo)

Al was suspended because he didn't like Bran Van 3000.

 I think has a lot to do with why  the band plays more of those early years songs. I was at a concert many years back and Mike Love says "We're gonna play something a little newer"  and this teenager down a few seats from me tells his buddy "I don't want to hear any new sh*t."   I think that's how most casual fans feel. It's what's played on the radio and it's what people are familiar with.

My favorite Carl-Mike moment is on Knebworth where there's a point between songs where they get together and both look at the set lists written on their hands.

I don't have any firsthand knowledge of this question but my sense of it from various data points I've gathered is that after Carl got clean around '79, and then after his solo jaunt happened, it was a period of detachment for him.  He definitely needed to separate himself from the drug culture surrounding Brian and Dennis, and also the creative stagnation and associated inertia of the band situation.  Yet, obviously by 1983, it became obvious that he needed them and they, him.  By that time, Mike's been in charge for two years and just by pure momentum, Carl's sphere of influence on the band upon returning would be slightly smaller.  It may have shrunk a little further after the Carl-dominated 1985 album only did so-so business, and certainly after Mike's co-writing success of "Kokomo."  So it would appear that Carl was very practiced in the art of the possible.  He fixed what he could, and stayed out of anything negative wherever it was doable.  It's clear, for example, that Carl rolls an eyebrow at "Still Cruisin'" in his 1989 interview with Cathy Macgowan.  But he went along with it anyway.  And, I would imagine, cashed his check, and went back home to Colorado and did other things he was more interested in. An old friend of mine had a saying about arguments he stayed out of that I loved:  "it's not a hill worth dyin' on."  I bet Carl thought that way a lot.  He either went along with it and played on the team, or if he felt strongly enough he didn't, and it didn't happen.  Not a bad place to be.

The feeling I get about the Beach Boys' power structure after the early '80s was that Mike set the agenda, and Carl held silent veto power.  And the feeling I get about how they felt about each other was a hard-won mutual respect, recognizing each others' differences and value to the group.

The one thing that runs against what I have portrayed above is, and I have heard this from several people who would know (and I'm sure I'm not the only one), that Carl was deeply involved, and stressed out by, the conservatorship battle over Brian.  He was not at all detached in that situation and it seems to have done a real number on him emotionally and physically.

Anyway take that for what it's worth, probably not a whole heck of a lot.  I think it's a great question though.

Carl was stressed over the Landy situation even back in the late '80s. It was a very painful subject with him.

Adamghost, I think you're right about Carl doing "what he could," and the best illustration is this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55XBMJ_ZM58

Before the embarrassing dreck from Mike, there is Two-and-a-half minutes of pure magic from Carl.

It must also be noted that Carl sang "Sailor on Sailor" right up to the end (he also did "This Whole World" on occasion, too). He didn't entirely relinquish the setlist.

That youtube sums up The Beach Boys, and a lot of the arguments on here, all in about 4 minutes!

Better yet, what was Dennis and Al's relationship?

uhh... big brother/ short brother?

Fine! How was Dennis and Al's relationship? It feels like they never interacted.

That was an incredibly moving performance, I'd never seen it before.  Only Mike would think that bringing cheerleaders on stage after that was anything resembling a good idea.  As others have said though, I think by this point he had learned to pick his battles and keep the peace, so he knew there were trade-offs that had to be made to maintain the delicate equilibrium within the group.

I posted this in the picture thread. Oddly, in this shot it looks like Dennis is the clean one.

(http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y131/jfe811/aj_zpsae57bdff.jpg)

All kinds of Beach Boys things are discussed in the greatest detail on this board, and still I can't find out what Al Jardine did to get suspended from the group.  I'd like to know what happened.

"I was on the beach, and I stopped off at Al's house ... and he played me a new version of 'Cotton Fields' ..."

Stebbins had some interesting comments on Dennis and Al's relationship, but if I could venture to guess, it would be just like two guys who work together who have basically nothing in common.  If you think about it, that doesn't generate hostility (a lot of the Dennis vs. Mike dynamic was driven by similarities between the two men, not just the difference) so much as indifference.  I'd guess that Al respected Dennis' musical talent but didn't really understand him very well personally and probably found his unpredictability unsettling.  I would also guess that Dennis liked Al well enough but probably thought he was boring and square ("man waiting for a bus.").  I can't see the guys hanging out and having all that much to talk about.  I could be wrong.  I could definitely imagine Al as a target for some of Dennis' notorious practical jokes.

As we seem to have very little first hand accounts, I think this gets pretty close. Very nice post.

And regarding Al and Dennis, we have the very telling "man waiting for a bus" quote!

Dennis helped Al arrange the vocals for Lady Lynda, didn't he?

"Stebbins had some interesting comments on Dennis and Al's relationship, but if I could venture to guess, it would be just like two guys who work together who have basically nothing in common.  If you think about it, that doesn't generate hostility (a lot of the Dennis vs. Mike dynamic was driven by similarities between the two men, not just the difference) so much as indifference.  I'd guess that Al respected Dennis' musical talent but didn't really understand him very well personally and probably found his unpredictability unsettling.  I would also guess that Dennis liked Al well enough but probably thought he was boring and square ("man waiting for a bus.").  I can't see the guys hanging out and having all that much to talk about.  I could be wrong.  I could definitely imagine Al as a target for some of Dennis' notorious practical jokes."

Hasn't Al said something along these lines - that he didn't realise how good Dennis' work was at the time?

Al was having 'attitude' problems.

Some of the cheerleaders took a liking to cute little Al, cutting into Mike's action.

Or maybe because of Al's terrible hair style, the guys were just sick of looking at it and told Al he was suspended until he did something with that hair of his lol

and that's when Al discovered the ponytail!

Yes, Matt should have been kicked out for the same reason.  :lol

Thanks for posting this, I've not seen it before. It's particularly great to hear Carl sing the Brian part at the end, without having to sit through a Stamos lead vocal!


An excellent post. This all seems very plausible. Even with conservative set lists, I think Carl went some way to balancing this out with just his voice. They at least had one of the finest vocalists in popular music singing brilliantly consistently, even if we might question the set lists. Carl's voice alone lifted the Beach Boys to a higher level.

P.s. This is a great thread and it makes a nice change from some of the others that have descended into argument/unpleasantness!

Let's not forget that when Carl rejoined the band after his solo tours, some of his solo material was added to the setlists - Heaven, Rockin' All Over the World, What You Do to Me. They didn't have to do that. The guys could've said to Carl "you wanna do your solo stuff, do it with your own band".

Yes, and around that time, Al was doing "Buzz, Buzz, Buzz" and "Runaway", and Bruce was doing "I Write The Songs". If you take a closer look, if wasn't just endless summer.

Supposedly, Carl had some conditions set for returning to the touring band in mid 1982, which included more rehearsal and a more interesting setlist. In the first few years after Carl's return, this seemed to help. But eventually as has been discussed, he seemed to put up less of a fight to the way the touring band ended up.

I'm not sure what you mean by the way the touring band ended up? I went to many shows throughout that time frame and in that regard every show was well done. They did vary the setlist each year, but was a typical Beach Boys setlist for the most part.

I was referring to the sometimes stale setlists and sometimes rote performances of the 80's and 90's. Even Carl admitted that sometimes the shows were a bit on autopilot. I think they did plenty of great shows too, and even the "autopilot" shows were usually professional.

When I think of the names Dennis and Al together, I think about what happened on September 3rd, 1977 on an airport tarmac in New Jersey.

Someone of the Boys has addressed the pre-post Carl setlists directly and said it was a democratic group vote so all get the "blame" or the "credit" I believe. Geez, I hope I don't vaguely remember that wrong. Surely not.

Just wanted to reiterate what southbay said about Carl's quote on the Endless Harmony doc.  This is as close to verbatim as I can get: "My partners are my greatest teachers."  And yes, I believe Carl was referring to all of his bandmates, not just his brothers.

Also, I must confess that I've grown weary of hearing (reading) the Beach Boys referred to as an "oldies act" in reference to the band's concerts of the '80s and early '90s.  To me, an oldies act is a band or performer that covers someone else's 1960s-era hits. The term, in my opinion, should not apply to a band that is performing hits from its own catalog – and especially an iconic band like the Beach Boys whose recordings are rock-and-roll classics and who have literally millions of fans throughout the globe who demand to hear those songs played in their concerts.

And, finally, I've really enjoyed this thread; plenty of interesting tidbits/comments. I confess, however, to knowing very little more about Carl's and Mike's relationship than I knew already.  I guess that's just the nature of the beast when it comes to Carl Wilson and learning anything more than just rudimentary facts about his life.

Yeah, I do think the oldies tag is sometimes a little bit overstressed. Of course they did play the vast majority of the greatest hits but they also added new songs whenever they had something to promote. Even in 1997 they were playing stuff like You're So Good To Me and Summer in Paradise regularly.

I think when M&B started going out together they were in danger of really going down the oldies route by playing stuff like Duke of Earl, Sherry and couple of Beatles numbers but thankfully they gradually fell from the setlist.

I'm ignorant of the details of what happened during that confrontation. Could you please elaborate?

I saw them in the summer of 1997, and there was no question that the band was incredible. Yes, it was phoned in to a degree. They had a very precise formula. But on the other hand, the combined vocal power of Carl, Al, Mike and Bruce on stage (not to mention Matt Jardine, who is still arguably the finest falsetto fill-in the band ever had) was amazing. To realize that this blend of voices was still what you'd heard in records 30-plus years before -- and that they all still had it -- was profound.

The C50 shows were more meaningful and had better setlists. The backing band was arguably more inspired. But that vocal blend -- even with Brian and a bunch of his guys added -- just can't compete with the Carl-led lineup.

I saw the band in October '96, then again in June '12. The '96 show was a downer, and the '12 show was transcendent.

It's in the Gaines book. Something about Carl and Dennis Wilson getting in a fight/confrontation with Al, Mike and Bruce about which airplane Brian should fly on, the stoners or the TM'ers  (they had two separate aircraft for each band faction).  It made Rolling Stone magazine and has been part of the BB lore for years. 

Bruce wasn't part of it in 1977 surely...

So it was Mike and Al on the tarmac, then.  Back when they were BFF's in TM.

I don't think it was so much that. Some of the books have said it was more that Al sided with Mike because he felt he had no choice. Carl and Dennis were too drunk/drugged up to trust at that time.

The huge success of Kokomo had to be a boost in morale for Mike and Carl and their friendship....Mike's speech at HoF probably hurt equally though....what do you think?

Yes, I've always wondered about Carl's thoughts on Kokomo. OK, I imagine, as he was a champion of that synthy 80's sound on the 85 album. Carl always seemed to want to be very current when it came to recording. I wonder what he'd have made of the autotune on the new album?

The only public discussion of it I've ever seen was in a Goldmine interview from 1992 - http://troun.tripod.com/mikelove.html
Mike talks about Al Jardine:

... And I told Al... we had a rough time the last couple of years communicating. He's definitely been on a bummer for many years based on some things that have happened to him historically. Different than what happened to me with Brian with respect to the writing but a similar effect on him emotionally. And me, I ignore it and go straight ahead and I think more of the future. Al has this thing where he'll obsess on something that happened 20 years ago. It's hard for him to let go.

So we've actually been having group meetings between Carl, myself and Al with the psychiatrist Howard Bloomfield, who's a good friend of mine and a board member of the Love Foundation, and we've done a lot of healing kind of things, airing grievances and working things out. It's been very therapeutic for all of us individually and collectively. I think we've gotten to understand each other and see the other's point of view and experience and it's made the group better and stronger.

That confirms a report i heard a little while back that Al Jardine had left the Beach Boys.

We got to the point where we didn't want to be in the same room or on stage with him because he was so negative about things. He was negative about certain things and once we were able to get into a forum, an area where he was able to unload some of that, we could empathize with some of it, not all of it, and air our points of view and it resolved all that stuff.

Are you getting along better now?

A lot better. But the point is he wasn't even on the album until a couple of months ago when we finally resolved all the stuff. Then he came in and I told Al he made a good song great. It's not that we couldn't do an album and do it well without Al Jardine around. Or the same goes for anybody. You're talking the Beach Boys, you're going to get someone to listen anyway. But on several songs it went from good to great. And Carl, God, he's a monster on the album. I think he sounds phenomenal, the most commercial he's ever sounded.

That's a very interesting interview Andrew. To be a fly on the wall at those meetings eh?

Interesting that Carl was present as well. Was this in his role as mediator, or did he also have grievances / points to raise? As Bloomfield seems to have filled the role of mediator, I'd lean more towards the latter.

It's been very therapeutic for all of us individually and collectively. I think we've gotten to understand each other and see the other's point of view and experience and it's made the group better and stronger.

" And Carl, God, he's a monster on the album. I think he sounds phenomenal, the most commercial he's ever sounded."

The most commercial  -- I guess Mike means that as high praise. :'(

That's Mike for ya. Carl didn't sound beautiful, angelic or soulful he sounded "commercial".

Oy vey

Yep. It's a ridiculous interview through and through. And then people say things like, "If Mike Love gave you a million dollars you'd still find a reason to dislike him." No, I just dislike because of the things that he actually does.

It is not difficult to understand that certain things in life (in this case Al's) are not easy to let go. The RS reporter that tells the tarmac episode relates how some of the bitterness had to do with things that happened 15 or more years before (e.g. Dennis being left out of Brian and Carl's pre-BB group only to be let in thanks to their mother). Or remember Al being bitter towards in Gary Usher in 1986 because he thought the latter owed him money from the Rachel & Revolvers single from 23 years before! Biographical info that we take for granted, or that is part of our lore, are many times accounts of real-life very hard experiences that left their scars in these men.

That's the most aggressive interview of Mike there is. He sometimes comes out as blunt, but he comes accross as bitter on this one. Maybe he was pissed because of the royalties issue. Maybe he was playing tough. Maybe he just could not stand Al anymore plain and simple. I do not find inadequate the quote about Carl, though.

Maybe the autobiography set him on edge but that doesn't really explain the Al stuff. Like I said in another thread, though, when the chips are down and Mike opens up, I just don't like what I see.

The Carl remark isn't nasty but it is pure absurdity and speaks volumes about how Mike measures quality. The man should have been an exec.

Mike always speaks from the "Hits" perspective, which is odd, but I guess Kokomo had him thinking that way. From that "Hits" perspective, Carl was the most commercial sounding as a lead vocalist. I see nothing wrong with Mike's comment. Carl had the rock 'n' roll voice in The Beach Boys.

Did you miss the "monster" and "phenomenal"?

Yea, and so what am I missing here? I take it that he loved Carl's vocals on SIP.

Quite the contrary, I think. Carl's voice was almost angelic, hardly edgy/macho or anything rock&roll - especially in comparison to Mike. Even Al had a more rock&roll voice, I think. Sure, Carl could do it, but he hardly ever rocked out (two examples being live versions of "Darlin'" or "Marcella").

I agree but it's nevertheless amazing though that all the other commercially-oriented songs that did not do well throughout this period didn't phase him.


Well, but that's not what Mike is saying. He's talking about a particular album and is suggesting that Carl is sounding better than ever because he sounds so commercial now. The quotation has nothing to do with who is the most commercial sounding in the band (I think that Mike would have an edge there anyway since he's such a part of the brand sound) nor is it a remark about anyone's career output - it is an observation about a particular person on one particular album.

Did you miss the context in which they appeared?

That reminds me of a time when Brian said,

"You're" "the" "smartest" "person" "I" "have" "ever" "met." Yes, that was from 8 different interviews and he's talking about a whole bunch of different stuff, but seriously pay attention to the words that I am pointing to and understand that he's really giving me quite the compliment.

Mike is an odd duck....

And in proper context, he loved them because they sounded commercial which is a strange reason to like something. Even the most unaware fanatic of popcorn movies will at least praise the special effects or action sequences or the looks of the actors or something - they won't come walking out of the theatre going, "Man, that was one awesomely commercial movie."

Just because that wasn't always his roll in the band doesn't mean that he didn't have the voice for it. There are plenty of examples where he did with the group and with his solo albums. Shoot, even on background vocals he is the easiest to pick out. Like Michael McDonald, he had a very distinctive and commercial sounding voice.

Sure. Of course he had "a very distinctive and commercial sounding voice". I think what we actually are arguing about here is the "rock&roll" term. ;)

Why obsess over a word? I think he meant he sounded great. Maybe "commercial" was Mike's word of the day and he had to use it a sentence somewhere. ;) Oh, I'll bet record companies like commercial sounding groups and singers. Meaning ones who have a hit sound about them.

No we are not. He has a very rock n roll type voice when he sings those types of songs.

Erm, you did suggest that Carl "had the rock 'n' roll voice in The Beach Boys."

Or he loved them AND they were were also commercial. I for one would not be insulted by this trifecta compliment.

Well I am. ;) I'd argue that Carl definitely did not have the rock&roll voice in the group. ;)

I am not arguing anything. That's all this place ever does is argue. If you don't like my comment, please ignore it and forget that I ever mentioned it.

Dude, I was merely having a discussion with you. ??? Both 'sides' presenting arguments and stuff. But okay, I'll drop it. (I've no clue what just happened...  ???)

That's what I'm saying - Mike should have been an executive.

This thread has become very odd. I'm not sure how Mike praising Carl's singing is seen as a bad thing but there we go. Personally I don't have a problem with any of the things that he said about Al there either.

By the way, Al gave an interview in ESQ in about 2000 which is much more bitter about Mike. Obviously I can understand he was bitter about being frozen out of The Beach Boys but he even criticized Mike for marrying Jacqueline which was a bit much. In the interview Al said that Mike never forgave him and Carl for getting rid of the cheerleaders which I don't really believe but there we are.

Well, so much for the discussion about Carl's and Mike's relationship.

I'm not sure why this board bothers discussing Mike Love. It's almost not worth clicking on any thread with the name Mike in the title.

I just find it funny that a bunch of nobodies go on and on about a man who is more successful than they'll probably ever be...Michael really cares what people have to say about him, but he can't hear the bullshit over the sound of thousands of adoring fans night after night. :)

I can't tell if you're intentionally missing the point or not.

It's just a question of bias. Commercialism being the be all, end all. That's Mike's bias, and Carl (just a supposition mind you) probably had a broader perspective. Recall Bruce's comments on Pacific Ocean Blue (well before its remastering and re release) that he felt it wasn't 'commercial' enough. Bias. It's no wonder that Mike and Bruce are BFF's. The whole Mike and Carl relationship may have been close but frequently chaffed under the weight of the whole hit machine mindset. Does that make him a baaaad person? No...but I've got my biases too, so there you go.

And regarding the sound of thousands of adoring fans night after night, that's a moot point. We had the same dynamic in 2012 - and it walked the tightrope between commerce and ART. That's the difference, and Mike couldn't care less. C'est la vie.

Mike thought Carl was artfully commercial. Isn't that the point in Popular Music. Commercial is not a bad word in Popular Music. You don't get to express yourself long in Popular Music if you aren't commercial and popular. Imo.

I've always found the logic of this line of argument unpersuasive.

"Rich and famous person X is more 'successful' (however that is defined) than his critics, therefore the criticism is invalid." So Jay Leno, say,  is above criticism? Justin Bieber? George Bush, Obama?

Anyway, Mike's statement is ill-considered on the face of it. Is Carl's vocals on 'Hot Fun in the Summertime' , for instance, more commercial than his vocals on GOK? GV? If so, then why was SIP such a commercial shipwreck?

Whenever we're ragging on [insert any celebrity actor/athlete here], a brother of a friend of mine likes to opine, "he makes more money that YOU do."

Oh jeez, guess you're right. Never mind. End of discussion!

The only debatable thing in that interview imo is:

So we've actually been having group meetings between Carl, myself and Al with the psychiatrist Howard Bloomfield, who's a good friend of mine and a board member of the Love Foundation, and we've done a lot of healing kind of things, airing grievances and working things out.


If I were a clear thinking human being (and no Beach Boy) I would believe that having a friend of yours as your psychiatrist is not an advising situation.


Regarding the other stuff: Mike is praising Carl's and Al's voices. Nothing wrong with that. They both sound fantastic on the SIP album. No need to see something in Mike's words that isn't there

Remind me to use this line on you if we ever argue about Barack Obama again  ;D

He doesn't say anything about being artful in the quotation we're discussing. Does he use the term "artfully commercial" elsewhere?


Depends. There are commercial artists who have had a long shelf life. There are commercial artists who had a very short shelf life. There are non-commercial artists like, say, The Velvet Underground who have achieved long term success. Pet Sounds was at one point considered not commercial and now it's the most commercial Beach Boys original LP. You're right that commercial is not a bad word in Pop music. However, it is a useless term because the people who seem to really care about what is commercial like, say, music executives and Mike Love, haven't much of a clue about it. They don't really know what it is and they don't know how to make it, which is why they sometimes get lucky and sometimes fail spectacularly. Meanwhile artists achieve real success without seeming to care about what is commercial and what isn't. So, as far as I'm concerned when someone judges things on the basis of its commerciality, I am afraid I find it to be at best a trivial observation and at worst a betrayal of one's own ignorance.

OK, we'll just continue to disagree.

You don't think you might be obsessing too much over a quote from decades ago again do you?  ;)

 :lol

It's only a matter of time before I analyze Mike Love's remarks on TV show Quantum Leap.

We need to keep in mind that Mike is a guy who has one of the most commercial vocals in the history of popular music. His voice has been heavily featured in countless hit records and his voice is instantly recognizable due to so many hits and high profile exposure. So maybe his opinion on such should be a bit more respected.... Also, with the right promotion back in 92 (the height of the anti anything Beach Boys related that wasn't all BRIAN BRIAN BRIAN, David Leaf era) just about anything off SIP could have been a hit, so it wasn't like he was speaking gibberish.

Someone mentioned Velvet Underground.... I wonder if there was ever any mention in that camp of Doug Yule's vocals sounding commercial as opposed to Lou's? It wouldn't have been a ridiculous comment and if any of the songs with Doug on lead vocals had been a hit: his more commercial voice wouldn't have hurt.....  

One last thing, I don't consider VU to be a Pop group.  Pet Sounds was actually very commercial, its sales just weren't reported in 1966/67.

Does the Love Foundation still exist?

Other than White Light/White Heat, roughly half of the Banana album, and Murder Mystery from the third album, just about everything else from The Velvets could have been an AM radio pop hit!

He's an excellent and unique singer no doubt. He also undoubtedly sings on many hits - though interestingly he only sings lead on 2 of the boys #1 hits and one could say that the hook in Kokomo belongs to Carl (though that "Aruba Jamaica" bit was sung by many at the time). He's also sung on some duds (the self-penned Still Cruisin', the Looking Back with Love album). Like a lot of people who talk about commerciality, he doesn't really seem to know what makes for commercial music and what doesn't. And even if he was the one guy in the world who could know, it's still an inane observation on his part. He's not some suit working on the top floor of the Capitol Tower, spending his day mostly pushing paper around on his desk and and playing with that ball thing on his desk that every corporate office had in every 80s movie I ever saw. And yet, he sure sounds like one in this quotation. And that's the last thing I want anyone to sound like.


It's hard to say - some of the biggest hits and more enduring songs have been sung by guys who do not necessarily have what one could call (though I wouldn't) a commercial voice - Bob Dylan's Like a Rolling Stone, Neil Young's Heart of Gold, etc. I don't think anybody can truly say with any real certainly what voice is commercial and what isn't.

There's nothing wrong with Carl's or Al's vocals on SIP - the problem is the material and the production. But I suspect Carl's mind was elsewhere; he came in, punched the clock, did the required work on SIP, but he was already planning to work with Gerry Beckley and Robert Lamm. What Mike's hopes for SIP failed to take into account was that pop radio had changed dramatically since Kokomo hit #1. The only way the Beach Boys were going to have a hit in 1992 was to start wearing flannel shirts and become a garage band again. Yeah, that would've been cool, middle aged Beach Boys trying to jump the latest fad (Here Comes the Night, anyone?). I don't even believe Brian could've had a hit in this era. IJWMFTT and OCA didnt' exactly race up the charts.

He also couldn't admit that maybe, just maybe, Kokomo was a fluke.

Hey, I dig Still Crusin' :p

You are absolutely right, but people still have these rather vague yet rather stiff ideas of what constitutes "Commercial" yet still understanding all the variances and exceptions to....

Mike's also a collaborator.... I don't think he's ever talked himself up as some guy who single highhandedly cranked out hits all by himself with no help.... We can't blame the guy exactly for being a bit lost/adrift without the right collaborator(s) ....

Also couldn't admit kokomo was a team effort of songwriters not a total ML composition.

Yes, but Mike and The Beach Boys made it a hit!

You gotta admit the "Aruba, Jamaica" part is damn catchy and Mike's cool voice followed by Carl is pure gold!

OK, I'm running away now.....

In the words of Richard Kimble's judge, "May God have mercy on your soul."  ;D

Never understood that line of thinking either. But then again money means everything to some people. And as we can tell, money has made Mike Love a INCREDIBLY happy, who always sees the bright side of an issue. Err, wait...



Zing! Good one hypehat.

I like Kokomo just fine. I don't think it's a fluke that the boys could make a song like that - they made much better on their own: All This is That as a glaring example. I do think, though, that they were very lucky with their timing with that one.

Well, they only had four #1 hits (I Get Around, Help Me Rhonda, Good Vibrations, Kokomo) so singing lead on 50% of them ain't a bad average. Plus his "bow bow bow" on "Help Me Rhonda" is prominent as is his "I'm picking up good vibrations" part. Of course I don't have to mention that he wrote lyrics on all of those No. 1 hits.

All in all: a guy who can get away with having an opinion on what constitutes commercial......... even if he's dead wrong at whatever moment.

I remember thinking something along these lines years ago back when I first read this interview. Even if one wouldn't have a problem with their friend being their therapist of some sort, if I was a band member and another member came to me and said "hey, let's go to a group therapist who can be objective, how about my good friend who is on the board of my foundation?", I'd probably wonder how impartial or objective that person could be under even the best of circumstances.

I don't believe I'm familiar with that interview, but here is an interesting exchange from Al's 2000 Goldmine interview regarding the cheerleaders:

Goldmine: It saddened me that the Beach Boys' live shows were cheapened by the cheerleaders.

Al: Yeah, I actually got in trouble in an interview I did for a big magazine. I said virtually the same things and Mike got quite upset because I characterized the band that way. But I'm only telling the truth. It began to be a sideshow. Mike reluctantly gave into that eventually. But then I think he was so embittered by that that maybe that's when he began to reinvent the band.

I'm with Al on that one. How 'bout you, Jude?

When the cheerleaders came out, at first it was a novelty. Good looking ladies kicking their feet up in front of the stage. Then after a couple of tours, it kinda got old. Kinda took away from the Rock & Roll band's performance.  I mean, I like cute young ladies jiggling and bobbing around as much as the next guy, don't get me wrong, but it just turned it into a circus. I was waiting for the next act to come out in the circus.....

How many artists call their hit singles a fluke?  :-D

I agree with Al that it was right that the cheerleaders went but I'm not sure about Al's comment about Mike, 'being so embittered by that that maybe that's when he began to reinvent the band.' I think the issues between Mike and Al run a lot deeper than cheerleaders.

The group was never heard from again after cheerleaders. Pity.

Mike was only one member, the cheerleaders couldn't have kept happening without others' support. Carl was also very much hands on with the making of Kokomo according to Bruce, an example of how Carl and Mike got along I guess.

I agree. I doubt he was too interested in Beach Boys recordings at this stage.

I'm not sure Carl was involved in the reworkings of the SIP stuff which is why Terry Melcher is clearly audible on Island Fever.

I find it amusing that Mike believed that he had a bead on what were "commercial" vocals and music in 1992.

"Hey Bruce, check out this guy Kurt Cobain and his group Nirvana. This whole Seattle grunge thing is really happening!" :lol

Mike was the de facto leader of the band during the 80s to the present. Even if the others had a voice (and Carl certainly oversaw the players for much of the time), it's silly to consider the band an absolute democracy. Very few bands work that way anyway.

As to Carl's supposed hand in Kokomo, I'd expect that's a rewriting of history by Bruce. The only extensive, reported article about the making of the song -- http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,640541,00.html -- doesn't mention Carl a single time.

Smells like Teen Spirit (At The Beach)

Load up on girls
Don't be low
It's fun, fun, fun at Kokomo

She's over blonde
Outta reach
Oh no, she goes off to the beach

Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeen

Chorus:

Good vibration, a gyration, transcendental meditation

Yay

That was the best post I've seen on this board in a long time.  I really needed the laugh, thanks.

No worries-it's not often my love of The BBs and Nirvana meet in a world of angst and palm trees

Top five post in board history :lol :lol :lol

I wonder if ML would wear a blonde wig to be "commercial"

I'm pretty sure Carl was the actual touring band leader and musical director through the 70s, 80s, and 90s, except for his short solo stint, up to his inability to do it.

Edit: I'll get back to you on that article. I didn't realize there are more then one page in my initial reaction.

As long as he doesn't shoot himself in an effort to boost sales.

'Love You' was their equivalent of the Probot album

Thanks for the link to that article. It amuses me that Al disliked the song so much and yet was forced to sing it himself with BBF&F due to the audience demanding it. It's also curious that he was for changing the setlists but apparently against playing their new single.

I'm not sure I entirely believe Van Dyke Parks' story but it's funny if true. Not sure why he would have agreed to appear on Summer in Paradise if that were the case though.

Carl may well have been hands on when recording the vocals even if he wasn't involved in the music I guess.

Hilarious!

That EW article isn't exactly a detailed account of how Kokomo was cut in the studio. It's designed for the article writer's maximum snark. It quotes Jeffrey Foskett, who wasn't there every minute of the sessions. It says that Brian's PR said that Brian would not want to be quoted about it ever, yet Brian has been quoted numerous times since the early '90s that he very much regrets not having been asked to sing on the record (or in any case, if he was asked, Dr. Landy turned it down without telling him).

I didn't find that article to show anything one way or another about whether Carl did as Bruce, an eye witness, claimed. There is no evidence to dispute Bruce in there.  As I remember Bruce said that there was a version being worked on and then Carl took over and produced a new version of the tracking etc.. Is Carl's voice on there too?

I wonder if c-man can tell us anything about the various sessions for Kokomo?

The article mentions the words "used to go" changed to "wanna go" - Isn't It Time single version, anyone? :o "all of those things we used to do/wanna do"...

I think that was a great change from Mike on Kokomo.

Not so much on Isn't it Time.

Van Dyke has always been there for the group when they needed him. Reckon he asked to sing on Day in A Life Of Tree? Besides, the way session work goes I reckon he'd have considered playing accordion on anything as another days work.

I love it!

Excuse me ? Ry Cooder and Jim Keltner are on Kokomo ? Really ?

I'm late chiming in here, but I have to agree with those who say the use of the word "commercial" as a qualitative exercise in an interview is actually a significant indicator of where Mike's head at, and pointing it out isn't obsessing at all.  And before all of Mike's defenders jump all over me, look:  credit the guy for saying what he thinks even when it isn't "cool" to do so.  Because that's exactly what he's doing here.

Lots of bands obsess PRIVATELY over whether their stuff is commercially viable.  But I once had a friend of mine -- a friend of mine who sold a LOT of records (many more than the BBs) in the time frame we're talking about -- explain it thusly:  "you want to forget about selling records.  Yes, somewhere over in the corner of your mind you want to be thinking 'I want to be a rock star and sell a million records' but you don't focus on that."  And that was the prevailing attitude at the time and one which led this particular fellow to success.

You just didn't SAY that in an interview, because to say that meant you valued commercial success over artistic success or "feel".  It puts you squarely in a certain kind of camp and ironically, in 1992, to say something like that puts you out of the mainstream.  So it betrays a lack of perspective and understanding of the true commercial landscape on Mike's part.  Like many of Mike's statements over the years, he boldly says things that, while you can defend them on their merits if you choose to, make him sound out of touch and, occasionally, a bit douchey.  It's kind of a "tin ear" effect.  Again, if you are a Mike defender, credit the man for not giving a sh*t and saying what he thinks and leaving it at that.

One more thought.  I've had occasion at least once to see the inner workings of bands that had enjoyed success and in many cases, these guys are the LEAST able to have perspective on what they're doing and how they're perceived.  A few people have said here something along the lines of "well X has had way more success than you'll ever have so why should they care?"  Well, that's exactly the point...once you have achieved a degree of success you will always find a certain number of people who will worship that success and want to be around it.  So if you are that successful person, you have the ability if you so choose to never engage with anyone who doesn't agree with you or can offer you real-world perspective...because you can dismiss them as losers (or, if you like, less successful than you) and there will be a crowd of people who will always give you the thumbs up through thick and thin.  BUT...over time, this has consequences, because it isolates you from corrective feedback and keeps you out of touch with reality, and that's bad for business.  So that's the folly of the whole "success for success' sake" argument.  Commercialism is a random and fickle horse to ride.  There are more enduring values over time that are better keys to long-term success -- finding a deeper meaning and connection wtih your core audience.  The Beach Boys HAVE achieved that -- but it's precisely because of the complimentary tension between Mike's commercialism and the Wilson "artism".   Focus on the former solely, and you lose the magic.

I completely agree with you that pointing it out isn't obsessing about it. But when it is pointed out repeatedly for one page of a thread then it can get a bit much.  ;) It was threatening to make this thread identical to many others after all.

Obviously Mike wants success. He has said it many times (including in the Catch a Wave book) and obviously was way off goose at the time because Summer in Paradise died a death.

I agree that Mike can seem like a berk in interviews. The Beach Boys are probably some of the worst interviewees on the planet in truth.

On the other hand, Brian is/always has been also obsessed/concerned with wanting to be commercial and he has said it publically. Neither one considers commercial a dirty word, that commercial is a dirty word is a figment of our own imaginations/sensibilities. They have both always wanted to be artfully commercial.

This was the perfect summary of, what I think, are the biggest problems in the band since the 1980s. It's not just that there was a shift in focus from art to commercialism, but that because of the band's popular revival, they (all of them, not just Mike) were able to justify lazy creative decisions because they didn't have anyone around them to tell them they needed to put in more effort.

Exactly. Brian was never happy if the Beach Boys didn't sell.  One could make the argument that Brian Wilson was the most commercial of all Beach Boys. He was actually better at being commercial than Mike Love.

Don't have the exact quote handy, but the Uncut interview circa '98 (the one with Sean Hagen, Bruce, etc.). Brian tells Sean "can we get Carol? can we get Hal for the sessions? If we do, we'll have a number one record!" He's then told by Melinda I believe - "Brian you don't have to make a number one record...just make the record YOU want to make." To which Brian responds - "you mean you don't want a number one record?"

It's funny, it's sad...it's just Brian!

I bet he wouldn't have enjoyed BWPS half as much if it didn't do as respectably in the charts. He obviously puts a lot of weight on that stuff.

It seems to me that they all want to be commercial and that is what they are striving for with their art. The idea that we project our ideas on them and claim this one is a goose but that one is a gander for the same good-for-them seems...I don't know...not pointless...but not necessary.

I think it was Sean O'Hagan himself (could be wrong) who said they didn't have to have a number one record. I think Bruce's advice of 'Talk corporate. The Beach Boys like corporate.' said everything really.

I agree that Brian puts a huge weight on chart positions. Before BWPS was released he was saying in the press how badly he wanted it to be a hit.

The C50 album probably had a fair bit to do with being able to make a hit group record rather than a miss solo album.

Anyways I bet there is a lot more sympatico between Carl and Mike [and Brian and Dennis] on the deep levels like the music and commerciality than many of us are ready to recognize. They are first cousins and grew up making music together after all.  My impression has always been that they had love and respect for each other.

I am sort of a Mike defender, but mostly because many attacks against him seem so irrational to me. If only everybody here would bring their points forward as civilized as you do, this board would be a much better place. The points you bring forward against Mike don't have that attack attitude, so I can heartily agree with you even as a "Mike defender". :)

Absolutely he was better at it and probably because he didn't equate commercialism with quality, as Mike does. If he did, he probably wouldn't have made Good Vibrations or Pet Sounds, for that matter. Yes, I'm sure Brian really wanted them to do well in the charts - he probably wanted everything he ever did to do well in the charts. Who wouldn't? Nevertheless he still often did what he wanted to do with the hopes that an audience would be there but never catering to some fictional audience of pop listeners. Take a look at some of the albums Brian has listed as his favourites: Friends, Love You, etc. Obviously he evaluates his own work on merits other than commercial potential. I don't get the sense that Mike does.

I'm convinced Brian never did/does anything without the intention it be commercial. And Mike/Al/Carl/Dennis/Bruce does the same as Brian, he puts his best out there with the intention it be commercial. In the early years their ideas of commercial and art coincided with popular taste and then later neither one of their ideas of art coincided with being commercial except for a few rare exceptions. They both [all] see commercial as a noble goal I imagine because they are in the Popular Music business. 

So is, say, Neil Young but he doesn't consider "commercial" as a noble goal, and I would agree with him. However, I get the point that you keep making. I'm not sure how it is a response to what others are saying, though.

That's OK 'cuz I get the point you keep making but I'm not sure how others' are a response to what I am saying.

Absolutely. Brian was competing against Phil Spector and The Beatles for hit singles and popularity.

Brian created this artistic masterpiece with Pet Sounds, but expressed disappointment because of its underwhelming sales.

One of the reasons that Brian scrapped SMiLE was because he felt that the listening public wouldn't "get" it, which is another way of saying they wouldn't buy it.

After the SMiLE debacle, sprinkled among Brian's dwindling output were these commercial singles - "Darlin", "Do It Again", "Marcella", "Sail On Sailor", and, yes, even "Child Of Winter". Brian never stopped trying for that hit single.

When Brian "came back" in 1976, he had one goal in mind - to produce hit singles and hit albums for The Beach Boys. From 1976 until, well, That's Why God Made The Radio, Brian didn't release one deep, artistic, song with The Beach Boys. But, I think there were a lot of fans who would've welcomed one. I, for one, was hoping and waiting for Brian's Pacific Ocean Blue.  

"Night was so young" was a deep artistic song, same with "my Diane"

While I love "The Night Was So Young"; it's one of my favorite Love You songs, and I like "My Diane" very much; it's one of the best M.I.U. songs though I do think it is slightly overrated....I don't think of them as complex, deep, artistic cuts, but more simplistic verse/chorus/verse type love songs - not that those songs can't be arty....I'm thinking more of songs like "Time To Get Alone", "Til I Die", This Whole World", "Day In The Life Of A Tree", heck I might even throw in "A Mess Of Help To Stand Alone". And those Pacific Ocean Blue songs. I bought that album when it came out in 1977, and for some reason, many times when I listen to that album, I think of Brian. And I would think, gee Brian, didn't that wake you up, didn't that motivate you, didn't that show you the possibilities, you know, just a little friendly brother-to-brother competition. Just my opinion.

I think Brian did the best he could with his mental issues in my opinion. I mean how productive are you going to be with the voices of "Phil Spector and Murry Wilson" buzzing in your head 24/7. Adult Child's new tracks like "still I dream of it" showed Brian's muse was still there for great music.

Listen, of course Mike and Brian and Carl wanted to make hit records. (Did even Mike make a record as egregiously faddish as 'Smart Girls?')

But to get back to Mike's comment : Carl's vocals on SIP are "the most commercial he's ever done". That remark is obtuse on several levels.

1) Mike had no idea what was "commercial" (actually Nirvana, grunge, U2) in 1992 rock.
2) What does he even mean by "most commercial" vocals? More commercial than GV? What attributes constitute a commercial vocal, anyway?
3) And of course, Mike is demonstrably wrong. SIP was a huge flop -- nothing was "commercial" about that lp.

Rather than demonstrating Mike's commercial acumen, Mike's comment showed how out of touch with contemporary musical tastes and trends he really was.

(And no, I'm not a Mike hater. I love the Beach Boys, and Mike is a Beach Boy).

I'm not sure Marcella or Sail on Sailor were really Brian attempts. He had very little to do with the recording of them after all.

I think it's true what Jeff Foskett has said about Mike being a performer. Mike probably wouldn't describe himself as an artist and thinks about pop music as something that should connect with as many listeners as possible. He wants success rather than respect which is fair enough. He got it wrong with Summer in Paradise though clearly.

Interestingly Melinda said that Carl's reason for quitting the sessions with Don Was in the 1990s was that the music wasn't commercial enough. I haven't heard any of the Don Was productions and he may well have been right but it suggests he and Mike weren't a million miles apart.

AND it followed on to the topic of how qualitatively GOOD Carl's vocals were...with "commercial"-sounding being the highest praise in that regard.

Yeah, everything that's been posted above is a fair statement.  Again, and I'm speaking as someone who has been "on the inside" to a minor level, there's the commercial calculations you put into your art, which everybody who is trying to make a living does or SHOULD do, and then there's the level to which you TALK about it publicly, and make commercialism your guiding star.  They seem like the same thing but they are not.  Anybody who ever got onstage has to think about how their music is going to translate to the crowd...and Mike being the consummate frontman that he is, that's front and center in his reality.  He's not necessarily going to grasp the subtler long-term aspects of how a band positions itself or comes across -- which is ALSO a commercial consideration, just not as immediate as the other.

If this is a little too hard to follow, let me put it this way:  talking about being "commercial" in an interview is an uncommercial thing to do.  It affects perception of the band adversely and that trickles down to how magazines review you, what stations add you, etc.  There's a whole 'nuther level of what is and isn't "commercial" that is all about such winks and nudges and how the band's image is conveyed.  So there's an ignorance of that level of how the game is played. 

Yeah, all bands think about the marketplace, even if it's to think about how to turn it against itself (e.g. punk).  But you aren't supposed to live by it, or talk about it, because you're "the artist".  Them's "the rules."

Consummate frontman???? WTF? ::) He's a dirty old (rich) man! Beach Boys never needed a "front man". Just get out there and play the crap outta the songs and skip all the corn fed banter.  :hat

I'm not a big Mike Love defender, but I think you're wrong there...Mike Love is a great frontman. Cheesy? Corny? Hell yes...but that's been part of The Beach Boys from Day Freaking One....Mike Love and his slightly cornball personality has always been part of the band. You can't have it both ways: It's either The Beach Boys with Mike Love and all that comes with it, or no Beach Boys. Brian IS the Beach Boys. Yeah, I've heard that quote and agree with it to an extent, but Terry Melcher was right in Endless Harmony when he said "There's a definite Mike Love element to the Beach Boys."

A no.1 song and a platinum album is historic.

Getcha back reached #26, Still cruisin reached #9 on Adult contemporary radio (just a quick look at wikipedia).....

Why is it a fluke?

I wonder if Mike still rubs Kokomo in Brian's face like its 1988.

So now all of a sudden it's a bad thing to write a no.1 song?

Well, for one, we're not talking about A/C chart numbers. Kokomo went to #1 in the Billboard Chart where Still Cruisin reached #93. Apart from Rock and Roll Music which was also somewhat of a fluke hit, riding the coattails of Endless Summer and a renewed Beach Boys mania, the boys hadn't had a top 10 hit in the States in over 20 years, let alone a number one, which is significantly more difficult to achieve than a #26, a chart position they managed to beat 7 times in the years since Good Vibrations. Had Kokomo reached #26 I wouldn't have called it a fluke success - it wouldn't have been out of the ordinary at all.

Kokomo came at a very lucky time - it was right at the time of about five years or so in the mid to late 80s when the baby boomers were nostalgic for the 60s (i.e. their own youth which they were just beginning to realize was gone) - thus, the era saw massive hits by people who hadn't had massive hits like that in years - (Paul Simon's Graceland (#3 - 1986), George Harrison's "Got My Mind Set On You" (#1 - 1987), Neil Young's "Rockin' in the Free World" (#2 - 1989), Roy Orbison's "You Got It" (#9 - 1989), etc.). On top of that, it was also a huge time for that kind of song due to the rise in popularity of "island"-theme music ("Hands Up", "Montego Bay", "Hot Hot Hot", "Conga"). Kokomo kind of occupied the space where these two colliding sensations met. And, then, to solidify things it was part of a soundtrack to a box office smash which itself cashed in on what was then a popular trend of island-themed music. The soundtrack produced a few big hits (Don't Worry, Be Happy - anyone???).

I don't think either Rock and Roll Music or Kokomo were a fluke exactly.

Rock and Roll Music was a hit because the Brian is Back campaign was a stroke of genius in terms of publicity. I think the song is crap but it certainly wasn't a fluke.

With Kokomo The Beach Boys had clearly realized that the idea of doing duets and movie soundtracks was their best chance of chart success (hence Wipeout also being a big hit). Nothing accidental about that. Kokomo is a much catchier song than Chasing the Sky, Happy Endings, Still Cruisin' etc. and it was in a bigger movie. The soundtrack idea was a good one commercially and there was always the possibility that one movie they recorded a song for would be a box office success.

Anyway, there is no way that you can expect the singer and co-writer of the song to say, 'Our biggest hit was a complete stroke of luck'. Not realistic at all.

Mike had good reason to be proud of the success of the song, but his crass and rude way in taking credit for it rubbed a lot of BBs fans the wrong way. Even today in interviews he can't stop bragging how he "outdid" Brian with the song.

if you're looking for deep, artistic cut from Love You I would say Let's Put Our Hearts Together. He really means it when he sings that one (badly). Like it or not, that is as close as Brian got to bleeding on tape in the post-15BO years.

When I say fluke though this is essentially what I mean. These songs would have unlikely been the hits they were had it not been for a bunch of external factors that didn't exist for their other hits.

Pure GOLD.  :lol :lol :lol

So they made Kokomo to be right for its time just like they had with their early hits? Sounds like the Boys continued Brian's brilliance for the same thing.

I still don't understand why "It's OK" wasn't the first single for 15 Big Ones. It is a much better song than "Rock And Roll Music" and also would've represented the 1970s Beach Boys much better. It reminds one of their early stuff but it definitely was more up-to-date than stuff like "Kona Coast" or "California Calling".

Absolutely. But if you think there was any possibility that Mike would state in an interview, 'Kokomo was a hit due to external factors' then I think you were dreaming.  :)

I haven't seen any recent interviews where he has said that...

I do think that one of the really unfortunate things that happened during the Landy era was that it became, 'Brian versus The Beach Boys' though. Some of the things that Mike said certainly sound too harsh and aggressive and that goes for some of the things Brian continued to say until a few years ago about his band being better singers than The Beach Boys as well.

Maybe. The fact that Brian was writing songs for Debbie Keil and Diane muddies the water a bit though.

No, that's not what I said at all. I suggest you re-read what I wrote.

Indeed. It's a real shame as It's OK probably would have gone top ten as well.

If the group had credited the album as 'Produced by Brian Wilson' but actually not let him do all of the work (which you could say happens nowadays) then they obviously had enough songs to make an album from originals.

You did say that 'island-themed' songs were popular at the time and Kokomo obviously fits in with that.

Yes, but Cam seems to think that I am criticizing the band for making Kokomo or criticizing the song or criticizing why they made the song or criticizing the fact that they cashed in on a fad, or something along those lines when I'm merely explaining one of the reasons why it was a hit and I place an emphasis on "one of the reasons" since there were many factors that I mentioned (the soundtrack to a film, 60s nostalgia, being two other major examples which has nothing to do with The Beach Boys's earlier hits, but those points were of course entirely ignored).

I will say though that the Beach Boys early hits rarely cashed in on fads in the way that Kokomo did. Yes, surfing was a big sensation in Califorina but I would suggest that the Beach Boys were more responsible for taking part in creating the fad of California culture in the early 60s than they were following it. And at the point that the Beach Boys came dangerously close to becoming a novelty act, they changed course. So, even the premise I disagree with.

I think you forgot a few fads and circumstances they also exploited?/used to their advantage in the earlier hitmaking part of their career.

I read what you said, understood, and spoke to it. We just don't agree I guess.

Overlap from another thread...The lack of any chart, MTV, or popular success with any of the follow-ups to Kokomo might show that the record's success - as musically catchy as it was and is - was in fact more of a fluke than a pattern of success that was either seen in the years just before or immediately after Kokomo.

What also stays with me is the image of Mike being shown playing a sax solo in the videos for Kokomo, Problem Child, and perhaps more I don't know or can't remember. At what point did it become important to either his or the band's image to prominently feature him playing sax in those videos?

Being a frontman, MC, or showman is one thing, but why put the image out there of Mike playing these sax solos if not for vanity, ego, or some other reason I'm just not understanding in the history of the band?

No more of a fluke than the singles that didn't hit amongst the earlier hits though I'm thinking.

I'm going to guess direction from the director.

The word fluke implies an accident though. To use a pool analogy, a fluke would be going for a long shot into the corner pocket and it ricocheting around the table before unintentionally potting it in the middle bag.

The Beach Boys situation is more the equivalent of attempting 10 long shots into the corner pocket and potting a couple (Wipeout and Kokomo) with the others missing. The two that go in aren't flukes but the misses indicate a lack of sustained ability.

Of course ego plays a part. Mike's ego is the stuff of legends. As probably none of the group played a note on Problem Child and many of the other songs I don't think it really matters though.

What any of this has to do with Carl and Mike's relationship is a mystery anyway.  :)

I think it plays into the interpersonal relationships of the band in general to try to understand why the image of Mike playing those sax solos was as important to putting across a specific image to people watching as it seems to have been especially at this time. And unless the same video director followed the band around constantly in the 80's and 90's telling Mike to pretend to play a sax during certain moments on film or on stage, it was coming from another source entirely.

I'm not going to spell it out in detail, but it's just one of those points which could be applied to other aspects of this band's history in order to better understand the how's and why's of the story. In my opinion.

I wonder how many fans went to see the group in concert and were disappointed when Mike DIDN'T play the sax solos?

I think the sax solo "playing" in videos went back to Mike's ego, he had always taken criticism for "not playing anything" with the BBs.

 So to "show the truth" of playing saxophone, Mike played the sax solos in the videos. While in reality, he could barely honk on shutdown.

Mike's ego is relevant. Not the other stuff though imo.

There is one interesting thing in one of the videos from that era though. Obviously people label Mike as corny (rightly so) and badly dressed, mock Al for his ponytail and Bruce for the shorts. Some have said that if Carl had been in charge the image of the band could have been very different. I think the Crocodile Rock video shows Carl to be just as much of a cheeseball as the rest.  ;D Carl's appearance on Solid Gold was similarly cheesy at times...

Which is kind of hilarious when you think about it. 'Why doesn't the front man play an instrument?' 'Because he's the front man!!!'

Well once it's in the video then after it is just an "imitation" of the video. Was Mike doing this before the video was shot?

I should know this, but were there stage or concert appearances after Kokomo, filmed or not, where Mike was on stage with a sax prop pretending to do more than when he actually is honking two sax notes on "Shut Down"?

It's my own opinion, of course, but I had in mind a long-lost article where Elvis was being discussed and the point was made how many non-musician fans for years would hear an early Elvis record and assume it was actually Elvis playing something Scotty Moore had played because they had it in their mind that Elvis was a "guitar player", and therefore anything played on guitar on his records was played by him.

It's a point that gets into how powerful image and assumption can be in the entertainment biz.

But the thing with Mike and his sax playing persona is that they were putting forth both an image and an assumption for those watching that Mike really was playing those sax solos, which was known by those with a more passionate interest in the band and their music to be not only misleading but completely false, yet the image someone wanted to project to those less-invested fans was that besides being the "frontman", the guy could also play one helluva a sax solo...it's the kind of thing that could have been used against people trying to talk up how great this band was/is and how we should listen to the music apart from any image and find/enjoy the greatness therein, only to see the most widely-seen image of this band for a period of time featuring a misrepresentation of the music and the musicians seemingly based on creating a persona that has nothing at all to do with the band, the music, or much else beyond vanity and/or ego.

If the video was satire, or playing up an image for laughs, that's one thing and it can be hilarious when done right, but Kokomo and the rest seem to be an earnest attempt to convince people watching that Mike could and did play a mean saxophone. My point is he is obviously the frontman in the spotlight, he does sing leads and did write those classic lyrics since the 60's, why push it even more to try to show that he is an ace sax player as well?

The possible answers to that are what relates to this thread's topic.

As much as I enjoy much of the BB's 80's output, when I watch the videos for those songs, it is painful. I don't know who to blame - the video directors, management, or the group themselves, but they look like a parody of themselves. Getcha Back and California Dreamin' are good; the rest, bleh! And we wonder how Carl felt about all of this....I have no idea, but it is interesting that he didn't participate in the Wipe Out video. As far as I know, he isn't on the record, either.

Such as?

It can but it is all wrapped up in chance. This is where language is tricky. Fluke can imply accident but it can also imply luck and luck and accidents are frequently on opposite sides of the spectrum (no one says, "It's really lucky you had that accident."). So while fluke can mean accident, it doesn't always, which is why "accident" is typically one of several definitions for the term.

Mike Love deserves tremendous credit for recognizing the power of the formula - yes, THAT formula - and realizing that the formula will prevail no matter what era, meaning that it will never be a fluke.

I was fortunate to live through the later (post 1974) hits, so, after awhile, the shock value wears off and you realize the genius of Brian's "sound" and why Mike will ALWAYS push for it, no matter what the popular genre is. Let me explain.

It's 1974, and I'm listening to The New York Dolls, Blue Oyster Cult, Kiss, Slade, and Sparks, and, guess what group comes into my life and wipes out (pun intended) those aforementioned artists? The Beach Boys and Endless Summer. How did that happen?

It's 1978, and my radio is full of disco music and some cutting stuff like Blondie, The Police, and The Rolling Stones (Miss You). And, all of a sudden, I turn the dial and hear, "Sum, sum, summer, well it's almost summer..." A Top 40 hit!

It's 1981, MTV is just taking off, there's all kind of weird videos, synthesizers, "Bette Davis Eyes" and "Jessie's Girl", drugs are everywhere....and two Top 20 hits, "The Beach Boys Medley" and 'Come Go With Me". Go figure....

I could go on. There's "Good Timin", "Getcha Back", "Wipe Out", and 'Kokomo". What does it all mean?

This is basically what Mike Love is saying. It doesn't matter what music is popular at the time. The "right" Beach Boys' song is gonna chart. Oh, there were great Beach Boys' songs that didnt; history has shown that. But, that won't stop Mike. I think that's why Mike wanted to keep recording and releasing music. I also think that's why he wanted to keep recording with Brian and was so frustrated when he wasn't.

Mike Love is a lot like Brian Wilson in this area. Mike Love has no idea what music is popular today. He probably hates the music of today and he probably listens exclusively to oldies stations. BUT THAT DOESN'T MATTER TO HIM. He knows the power of the Beach Boys formula and he STILL believes in it. He always will. Yeah, there hasn't been a Beach Boys' hit single since "Kokomo", and that's been 25 years now. But, again, they (whoever "they" are) could release just the right Beach Boys' song tomorrow and it could be a hit single. And, it won't be a fluke. It will be because human beings love to listen to The Beach Boys' sound. They just love it! And Mike Love knows that better than anybody, and he likes to tell ya that, too.

Car culture, motorbikes, skateboarding, Santa Claus, and Psychedelia would be my examples.

Seriously I think that is taking things a bit far. Sure Mike probably had the prop due to his ego in the Kokomo video (In the Problem Child video it was necessary) but I really don't think it has any big meaning. I really don't think people watching would think deeply about whether Mike was actually playing on the record (or Bruce was playing bass or Stamos percussion etc.). I doubt anyone could have cared less.

The point is that no lead singer of a band would say, 'our biggest hit was a fluke'. Something you seem not to want to acknowledge.  ;)

They didn't write any songs about psychedelia as far as I know. But you are sort of correct about car culture, in a way although the car song has pretty much always been a more of an ongoing topic of American pop music rather than a fad. I also wouldn't call Santa Claus a fad.

Well, I'm not sure what your point is.

Great post Sheriff! 8)

But was Kokomo really the BBs sound?

Mike doesn't use the "nasal voice" and the harmonies lack the hallmarks of BW's work.

The instruments are totally different from Brian's classic WC sound and quirkier later works.
 
The BBs are guesting on a song (beside Mike's input) and it sounds like it.

http://www.contactmusic.com/news/gossips-biggest-hit-a-fluke_1203640

Sorry, I wasn't being entirely serious.

My point was that earlier in the thread I think you said that Mike maybe couldn't admit that Kokomo was a fluke. The truth is I doubt many artists at all would have been able to admit that even if had been clear cut (and obviously I don't think fluke is the right word). It isn't realistic to think that Mike would just say to himself, 'Kokomo was a fluke and it will never happen again'.

 

Touche.  ;D

I think the difference being that she would like to turn people's attentions away from that song and onto the rest of the output.

I change my comment to...'Only 1% of lead singers...'  :)

OK, forget fad, they took advantage of popular cultural conditions in ways like you attribute to Kokomo's popularity. I would argue there was a very much more robust car culture in the 60s [boomers of driver age] that they exploited. They timed their Christmas releases to take full advantage of a popular cultural condition, and so forth. I see GV as Brian's attempt to capitalize on the growing psychedelic popular culture scene.

Maybe. I don't know. Randy Newman didn't follow up "Short People" with some satire that focused on the overweight. And Neil Young went in the opposite direction when he scored with, say, "Heart of Gold." However, I will say that Shirley Ellis did follow "The Name Game" with "The Clapping Song" to pretty good success so I guess Mike has some precedence.

This is a great post.

I would add Lady Lynda to the list. That is maybe the most inexplicable Beach Boys hit of all and I think Al's reasoning for its success was that people were just desperate to hear anything like Brian's music.

Excuse me, but I'm not talking about anyone taking advantage of or exploiting a popular cultural condition. I am saying that Kokomo came out at a time when the island was a topic in songs that large audiences enjoyed. "Islands" are not a popular cultural condition just as psychedelia is not a topic in a song. Your parallels and connections are repeatedly faulty.

There was a "robust car culture" all throughout the 20th Century in the United States, which is why car songs have been such a significant part of music in general, but rock and country especially. But you might as well be arguing that their love songs exploited the popular cultural condition of being in love.

Well, that's a different matter altogether. I certainly wouldn't say that all singers after having a hit then try to record a replica. But I don't think that has much to do with the hit being a fluke or not.

The Beach Boys situation is different to most other artists anyway. Obviously Mike takes a lot of criticism for rehashing the fun in the sun theme and I agree many of his lyrics in the wilderness era are dire (some of his solo stuff is ok though) but the public played a big part in that.

The Beach Boys obviously released stacks of singles in the late 60s and early 70s but their biggest hit was with a surfing song with Do It Again (as it was a massive hit overseas as well as hitting the top 20).

Then all of their biggest original singles in the wilderness era are retro things. It's OK, Almost Summer, Getcha Back, Kokomo etc. Nothing else really got a look in. When you consider that and the success of all of the compilations it is not surprising that they stuck to the formula really.

I've always wondered about this . The harmonies on Kokomo are oddly thin. And no falsetto! WTF?

I can hear a late 1980s Brian wailing on the top of the harmony stack in my head.

Yeah, I agree with a lot of that. I've said this before that the public in the US mostly considered The Beach Boys a novelty act and the things that broke out of the novelty simply didn't get as much attention. The beach thing never really broke in England so they didn't have the same hang up there.

If other fans do that then I can understand why so many hate it.  ;)

If no one cared than why not just give him a guitar to f*** around with in the videos so he's "doing something" instrumentally apart from acting as the frontman, clowning around on stage, acting as the emcee, etc.?

For the record, too, if some folks here can't see the difference between how Good Vibrations sounded on the top 40 radio stations in fall 1966 and the way Kokomo sounded on FM and on MTV in the late 80's...Houston, we have a problem. And I'm thinking no amount of convincing or arguing or debating will ever sway that kind of opinion.

I mean, seriously, defending Mike and his actions or career decisions because you're a fan is one thing, but rewriting history and the historical context of popular music to somehow equate a lame cover of Wipe Out or even Kokomo and the era in which they were released *in any way* to Good Vibrations in 1966 or even the entire years of 1963-64 when the music of the Beach Boys was both subliminally and often blatantly creating a mythology around the California lifestyle seems a bit extreme if not incorrect.

I'd argue there was no pop act until 1966 that wasn't considered a fad or a novelty until 1966, including The Beatles, Elvis, and yes, The Beach Boys, as they were still put into the category of "teen" music when it came to selling and marketing the records. So to peg that onto the Beach Boys would mean adding them to a long list of acts we now consider "serious" musicians, including the sacred cows like The Byrds, Beatles, Stones, etc.

Once again, the context within the history of this exact time period is crucial, and around 65 going into 66 there was a definite change in the way this "teen" music was being evaluated, appreciated, and taken as an influence by people other than the teenage fan base the execs and so-called experts in the media and elsewhere were thinking. The whole Inside Pop project keyed in on this, only a year late to the party which is usually how the media works anyway.

The publications which were being read by these "teens" supposedly buying into the novelty of the Beach Boys and their peers like the Stones had already begun to write about them on a level somewhat greater than the usual gushing fan drivel like "What do the Byrds REALLY like in a girlfriend?" type articles. And if there is a case of any article written in 1965 or 1966 that highlights the Beach Boys and in some way emphasizes anything about surf or car culture apart from a sentence or two, I'm unaware of it. In fact - credit of course to Derek Taylor - such articles about the Beach Boys more often keyed in on the music, even more specifically how Brian was creating the music and topics centered around that.

The surf and car themes were totally gone from the band's current music after 1964, at least until "Do It Again", so how did this band still manage to chart a handful of top-10 singles going into 1967, having *nothing* to do with surfing or cars, if they were considered just a fad or a novelty act centered around cars and surf?

Novelty? Sure, surfing and cars sold records in the millions from 62-64. So did being British or acting and looking British for any young musician in the wake of the first wave of Beatlemania. But to suggest that a novelty was the Beach Boys identity in 1965-66-67 apart from doing a car medley at the live shows? I just don't agree as much with the novelty tag in light of the historical evidence we can read in publications from that time. Either that, or we go the corporate route and link anything "pop" into the "teen" category, where it wasn't considered having much substance by those execs charged with selling them, and was considered a novelty sure not to last more than the trend would allow.

Are you feeling ok?

I've already said that Mike probably had the saxophone due to his ego. But your opinion seems to be that The Beach Boys music would have been taken more seriously if only Mike hadn't appeared in a video holding that instrument. Not a chance imo. They had already released Wipeout by this point and Brian was being humiliated by being forced to appear on things like Dick Clark's Primetime while probably drugged up.

Feeling just fine. And that's not my opinion, nor is it the bigger issue overall. It's a symbolic thing. My opinion of the reasons for Beach Boys music being taken seriously or not goes far beyond seeing Mike pretending to play a sax in a video.

Or to further dance around that bigger issue, if someone were to ask you personally for an introduction to the band's music through a playlist or a compilation/mix CD or something similar with songs you felt were a good representation of the band and its musical legacy, exactly how many songs from the Kokomo-Summer In Paradise-Still Cruisin' era would you add to that playlist? And would you go heavy on those 80's-90's era songs at the front end of such a collection? Or if they wanted a few video links which best represented the band, on your recommendation as a fan passing it down to someone less knowledgeable but interested in hearing what makes so many people think this band is great, would you link to the "Baywatch" appearance or the Kokomo video at the top of that recommended viewing list?

There is a common thread at work here which if it's not obvious already, it was to some like me who watched and listened and often cringed (or said 'what the hell is this?') as this stuff happened in real time from the 80's onward. And if some fans were into it, more power to 'ya! It's all personal taste, naturally, and the band obviously had reasons for doing what they did at that time.

(http://www.epcommedia.com/DATM/images/Beach%20Boys.jpg)

I can completely understand you disliking the music of the era. I dislike much of it myself. But this has such a tenuous link to Mike pretending to play the saxophone in a video that I can't believe we've taken up so much board space discussing it.  :)

To get back closer to topic... I would guess that Carl knew a lot of the stuff they were doing was cheesy during this era but he also knew that they weren't capable of much more. He said himself that they weren't capable of making another Holland. Melinda has said that all of the band members were worried that Brian would embarrass himself or them when they did Stars and Stripes and I can't really blame them after all that had happened. It would seem from quotes in the Catch a Wave book that Carl was also very aware that some of the crowds they were performing to just wanted the meet and potatoes set so that's what they gave them.

We just seem to be talking past each other so I'm out.

The point about not being able to do another Holland is a very good one. Whatever we think of the music from the 80's / 90's era, what was the alternative? We might not like much of the music from that era but it's not like there were other viable release options. Artistically, the better option might have been to release nothing at all, but its hard to put blame at Mike's door for some of what happened during this time when no-one else had much to put forward for release. It's not like Brian junked Smile because Mike insisted on Summer in Paradise. By the time we did get to SIP, who else had anything significant to put forward? To Mike's credit, at least he tried to keep the Beach Boys relevant for a time in the later years.

I wasn't born until '84, so my perspective is all looking backwards. My personal opinion is that most of the music from this era cheapens and diminishes the Beach Boys legacy, and I find that frustrating. I think it damaged the Beach Boys image for several generations. It's incredible to think that Kokomo came out less than five years after Dennis had died. It's five years since 'That Lucky Old Sun' came out, but the gap between Dennis passing and Kokomo seems to me to be so much bigger. To me, Kokomo represents a very clear marker of what the band had become, even if the timeline and reasons for my perception of the change aren't clear, something had definitely changed by '88. Kokomo is  so far from who Dennis was as an artist that we can only imagine what he would have though of it.

Back to Holland and lots of positive things seemed to come together at the same time, probably for the last time. Two Brian classics (which become increasingly rare after this point), possibly Mike's best 'solo' composition, one of Al's most enduring compositions (though not personally a favourite of mine), one of Carl's best and his excellent production skills, two more great Dennis songs, Blondie's powerful vocals, Ricky's creativity and musicianship and the energy that the two of them brought along with a manager that really pushed the band towards creativity with a 'current' feel. After Holland, Brian's best moments become increasingly sporadic and often 'odd' lyrically, Carl stepped back from production and failed to develop as a songwriter, Blondie and Ricky left, Dennis' talents weren't capitalised on and he began to look for an alternative outlet (solo) before his health began to decline. Possibly with the exception of Al they all declined vocally and began to fracture as unit, with personal differences becoming more and more of an issue. Love You brought Brian back in during a creative burst before he withdrew again. Al and Mike stepped forward, but weren't able to match their Holland contributions. Holland was the last time it clicked for all of them in some way and after that the results are usually mixed. Its pretty obvious that after Love You, only Dennis had a lot to offer the Beach Boys creatively and his contributions to LA stand out a by a mile. I'd say that Carl contributed some great moments to '85, but they were mixed up with a good few clunkers. Take the best material from KTSA to Still Cruisin and there's a decent compilation with contributions from Carl, Brian, Mike and Al, but they couldn't bring it together all at the same time.

Kokomo, Baywatch, Stamos, Mike's Saxophone playing - they're all part of a change in what the Beach Boys represent to me, and I think many others. For those not old enough or interested enough to know the earlier Beach boys and their beautiful music, they might be more likely to know the band through these things than anything else. Mike became an increasingly dominating force, largely through others stepping back, passing away and compromising. But perhaps Mike and the Beach boys were simply taking the opportunities that came there way. Mike is obviously proud of Kokomo and its easy to see why. As someone who'd been unfairly blamed for many things and had been on the receiving end of some less than stellar treatment from his cousin's family, a big hit without Brian probably did feel all the more sweet. Creative merits aside, many people would be proud of a big hit like Kokomo 25 years into a music career. I might not like it and the band that the Beach boys had become, but my perspective is very different from its creators.

It's harder to see where Carl was during this time. He's there, but its less clear how invested he was in what they were doing. The last good opportunity for a solid Beach Boys album until 2012 was probably the Wilson/Paley material and apparently Carl didn't think it was the way to go. It's easy to see that as a big mistake, but Carl didn't know he wouldn't be around just a few years later. At the time, he might have looked forward to a full Beach boys album with Brian at the centre at some point - but who knows?

Apologies for a long and rambling post. In summary, I don't like what the Beach Boys became and I think a lot of it can be attributed to Mike, but I don't particularly blame him because all of the other Beach boys had the opportunity to create music and push the band in a different direction, but they either couldn't or didn't feel the need to do so. I'll still enjoy Carl's vocal on Kokomo and almost anything else he sang on and be grateful for the brief moments where the light of his beautiful voice still shone through cheese!

I want to see M&B do this in 2013. :lol

Though I felt an odd sadness when looking at this picture...

Great post, El Molé!

Great photo of ML playing the Shut Down sax solo.
Does not make me sad. I love these guys, nonsense included.

Maybe the issue was the way in which a band or an artist does stay relevant while maintaining the legacy of their greatest work. Perhaps the issue some fans had with this era was trying to justify something like Summer In Paradise or the appearances like Baywatch when the band's legacy seemed to be pretty well represented by the Pet Sounds reissue on CD in 1990 - which was well-received by the fans and critics and which led to a renewed interest in the band and that album, as well as the reissues on CD for the first time of all the original albums through the Capitol 2-fers.

There were old and new fans going to record stores to buy Beach Boys albums in the early 90's, so the question of trying to keep the fire lit under the band's legacy and relevance by trying to put new product/music on the shelves at a time when it would seem there was no one in the band either willing or able to see an album project through has to be mentioned.

I remember the excitement around the first Pet Sounds CD release, I remember 1993 when Rolling Stone gave the box set a 5-star review heaping with praise for the music, I remember people going back and rediscovering or perhaps newly discovering albums like All Summer Long and Friends and Sunflower through the various 2-fers releases. Then I also remember getting excited after reading that the Beach Boys would be appearing on Baywatch with Brian, only to watch what eventually aired and trying to square up that image and that "new" music I was hearing with the music that had a lot of people excited about the Beach Boys again, in other words keeping the legacy of their music alive.

It may have been difficult for some fans to have the classic albums fresh on CD and fresh in their minds trying to coexist with the new material of this time, to the point where some might have asked "Is this the same band?" Perhaps it was not the best decision to try maintaining the band's legacy with new material that fell short at a time when many fans were feeling excited about listening to and rediscovering Beach Boys music. In one hand, you'd be holding a classic album reissue, in the other Summer In Paradise...the decision to even try and force these different images of the same band to coexist especially for newer fans was probably misguided and perhaps a bit harmful to the legacy as well.

I agree with an awful lot of that expect for perhaps the last few words.

Baywatch may have been harmful at the time but that will be completely forgotten about when people look at the band's legacy from now on. The same goes for Summer in Paradise as it is out of print and is unlikely to be re-released anytime soon. Some of the earlier dire albums like 15 Big Ones and KTSA are perhaps more likely to be harmful to the legacy as they will continue to be widely available.

Basically though I think the legacy is secure due to the number of original and compilation albums that will be out there which contain some of the band's best work.

I remember as kid that I was pretty depressed with SIP being the last BBs album at the time. The scary thing about the whole 1985-1998 period is Mike regrets none of it.

I think the 1985 album was Carl's last attempt to make the band contemporary. He seemed re-energized and committed to the band after the solo albums and tours - the group even put a few of Carl's solo songs into the shows. When the 1985 album didn't set the world on fire, Carl retreated. It was all Mike's group after that, even if Brian and Al were both allowed a token song on Still Cruisin'. I don't know what else Carl could've done, it was an uphill battle, and the record buyers sure seemed to prefer the retro stuff like Getcha Back to more contemporary sounding songs like It's Gettin' Late. Even Brian, with the music press pushing him as the genius of the group, couldn't get a hit album with his solo debut. The real shame is that the success of Kokomo didn't motivate the band to make one last great album. Landy was not gonna let Brian record with the group unless he was credited as producer and co-writer; Mike just thought the success of Kokomo meant he and Terry should write 12 Kokomo clones; and who knows what Carl and Al thought.

The man released "Santa's going to Kokomo" only a few years ago.

He regrets nothing.

What exactly does Mike have to regret? I hardly think he was fighting down all the other Beach Boys and/or Brian for them trying to include quality "Holland" style material? They were the fun-in-the-sun Beach Boys and why not? It's just as big a part of their legacy as anything else and if no one else was picking up the slack, why was Mike supposed to just sit there and do nothing?

Speaking of, say 1985 and onward, how much of their great stuff post Pet Sounds was even in print? We had the Gaines book slagging off every single album since Pet Sounds and I remember all the respected music tomes (all-music guide and the like) giving Holland 2 pathetic stars along with all those albums, so why should Mike have assumed that sticking to that formula would get them anywhere?

I meant the would-be hit chasing with Kokomo clones and SIP along with the bizarre live show (cheerleaders, Billy H. rapping, etc.) that killed the image of the group.

But that's what bands do! Wasn't Heroes & Villains a hit chasing attempt/Good Vibrations clone in a way?

Beach Boys 85-98: what else do you expect from a bunch of sober middle aged guys? :P

Class and Dignity. :lol

Personally, I would say no.

It was certainly cut from the same cloth and an attempt and progressing with the same formula!

From the beach Boys??????  :P

A formula, insofar as a genre is a formula. But that's saying Martin Scorsese's Casino from Goodfellas is following a formula similar to, I don't know, Charlie Chaplin's The Gold Rush and Modern Times, as the latter are both comedies and therefore progressing with the same formula.

I have to say, this "But Brian did it too" attitude when confronted with a Mike criticism is almost entirely akin to a religious person arguing that atheists have faith too in their religion of science.

Oh yes, Casino is most certainly an example of an artist attempting to re-create the magic of a most recent success by utilizing the same formula..... I happen to love Casino though, so....

I like Casino, too, actually...  :)

You can't lop off 1985 onward without realizing the utterly stultifying effect that Endless Summer had on the band in the mid- to late 70s. And you can't talk about that without talking about the way that the group was almost instantly anthologized as an oldies act in the late 60s.

The fact is, this is a band that was always about a singular created reality. And that reality (loosely defined as surf/cars/girls/occasional mopey BW ballad) was so powerful that it warped the group's entire career, and continues to do so. The embarrassments of the 80s and 90s are easily explainable when you realize that this was something that had pulled on the group its entire career.

What's funny is, the group managed to hold it together reasonably well music-wise as long as Brian or Carl were in charge. Each one had enough of a personal musical vision that they could avoid being sucked too far into the past (or if they did, it was on their own terms). Mike had neither the artistic ability or aesthetic sense to do anything other than the most ham-handed, nakedly tacky crap once he led the band. But it wasn't his fault. The market demanded it, and he made it. And when the market stopped demanding it, he stopped making it.

You could say a big part of Mike's odd behavior is trying to live up to that reality without moving on like Brian somewhat did. Mike Love wants to go back to those times and just can't as time marches forward.

"Fun is in, it's no sin, it's that time again"!!!!

That, my friends, is timeless gospel  :)

Yesireebob! Cheerleaders, palm trees, turbans, flowing robes, sandals, costume jewelery, Kohohmoe, failing at being a Jagger clone but succeeding as a true wannabe and the unending obsession of thinking people want to hear fun in the sun crap till the end of time was mYke luHv's pathetic vision for a once great band.

OSD, the "problem" is: boatloads, stadium-loads, Sea-Worldloads, areanloads, casinoloads of people around the world want to hear the fun-in-the-sun stuff! They always have and always will.....

Brian Wilson has NOT moved on, at least not musically. If you think he has, then you haven't been following his solo career very closely. His solo albums and concerts couldn't sound much more Beach Boys-like.

I just thank the stars that that I'm over that phase of the group, mYke luHv, and all his cheese infested baggage that he unloads in front of his record breaking crowds. ::)

That's it OSD! You're next birthday is at Mike's Club Kokomo! Me and Smile Brian got the bill ;)

WTF????????????????????????Are you drinking? :o

Even in 1965, Brian was using the BBs and the WC to make "pop symphonies" unlike the 1963 garage material. California girls, the quintessential "formula" song, features a complex backing track based off Bach. The progression with Pet Sounds through love you sound nothing like the early material.

As Brian ages, he likes to look back to his prime and makes new music using his BBs sound. While Mike threw away his talents developed on Wild Honey through Holland to relive the past. It can't be 1964 forever, Mike.

I will join OSD in starting a bar fight with M&B... :lol

You should hurry and tell Mike this....

Living in the past has gotta be rough:

(http://i43.tinypic.com/b9d894.jpg)

God only knows what Mike Love would be without Viagra.... ;)

He'd be OSD.....  >:D

J/K

I have a folder on my laptop called "It's easy being Mike". A few samples

(http://www.careytorrice.com/photogallery/photos/38.jpg)

(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/c0.0.403.403/p403x403/384314_488240384543088_1781141735_n.jpg)

(http://imgc.artprintimages.com/images/art-print/mike-love-of-the-beach-boys-with-his-girlfriend-and-his-family_i-G-29-2972-BZ6QD00Z.jpg)

(http://phawker.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Mike-Love-Somebodys-Mom.jpg)

It's easy being Bruce too

(http://www.careytorrice.com/photogallery/photos/221.jpg)

That is just a small sample of Mike's many conquests

Meanwhile, Brian is in the studio working on hot new product.... ;D

Well Brian has Jeff for eye candy  ;D

Could that be Mike letting Bruce in on a little action there in the last pic??

.... The lovely blonde lasses in the tree is a sampling of some of his daughters, I think.

This is almost the same point which was ridiculed and eventually thrown out of court when Saul Zaentz sued John Fogerty for copyright infringement issues based around the song "The Old Man Down The Road" on Fogerty's solo album sounding too much like the old Creedence hit "Run Through The Jungle". The case led to Fogerty taking out a guitar in court and playing for the jury and the judge a demonstration of the tunes and the style called "swamp rock" that both songs shared.

Zaentz was suing Fogerty in part for sounding too much like himself, and for essentially stealing his own song and style from Zaentz's Fantasy-owned Creedence hit and putting it onto Fogerty's non-Zaentz-controlled solo album.

Which was and is patently ridiculous to take a case before a court under a pretense where someone sues an artist and writer for sounding too much like himself.

Should Fogerty have tried to sound like Marvin Hamlisch instead? ;D  Should Brian?

And if Brian's original music may sound too much like the Beach Boys records, it would not be a surprise since this man's musical vision, musical mind, songwriting and arranging style, and overall musical muse is what created 99% of the music on those Beach Boys records which are most fondly remembered by the public.

I'm not sure there is much of a comparison.

It's interesting that since going solo both Al and Brian have gone back to that old Beach Boys image so often.

Al's solo career thus far has consisted of a song paid for by the PT Cruiser and a song and an album about California.

Brian's career has been much more varied but he has still gone back to the fun in the sun image very regularly right from Let's Go to Heaven in My Car. Things like South American, Sunshine, Desert Drive, Forever My Surfer Girl and Mexican Girl (obviously) all fit into the old Beach Boys cliches. The less said about the execrable Speed Turtle the better.

Recording and releasing that piece of filth music is a statement which puts Myk Luhv in the highest echelon of tastelessness.

This must be a joke. ^^

To quote OSD on this:
 :woot :woot :woot :woot

That post was a long but very good one. It's all down to taste, though. On Sunday I listened through Holland and was pretty bored. That's just not my music.  On the other hand, it's not unlistenable like parts of SIP.

I like to play BB songs on guitar at birthday parties. Last year someone who didn't know me actually asked for "Kokomo". Another woman was actually surprised this was the Beach Boys. They both were disappointed I couldn't play it. And I don't intend to learn it, even though there are definitely people out there who love the song. It fits their taste.

What do you have in mind when you say "allowed"? Mike Love saying "one song each, guys, that's it!"? I think they had to take what was there. And probably the album was handicapped by the usual quarreling, plus Landy. I may be wrong of course.

What?

It's exactly the same charge pointed at Brian on this page as was used to try to sue Fogerty for sounding like himself when a solo effort sounded like a song he wrote 15 years earlier for his band Creedence. The Fogerty case and charge got thrown out of court on its ass, as it should have been.

If you don't want to see the comparison, that's one thing, but it's the same basis for both points, only one was taken to court by a team of lawyers and the other was posted on a message board.

Case closed.

The original point wasn't about Al, it's not even an issue what his records sound like because he's not primarily known as a songwriter by the majority of the public and the original charge was that Brian's music was still sounding like Beach Boys records. Why even bring Al or his records into this discussion?

Am I the only one who thinks it's absurd to suggest Brian's music hasn't progressed because it still sounds like Beach Boys records?

The same guy wrote it! Naturally it would have the same traits, signatures, and quirks.

Again I ask, should Brian write songs that sound like Marvin Hamlisch instead?

End of story.

At least they didn't request "Problem Child".  ;D

Was "problem child" inspired by Dennis Wilson? I MUST know! :lol

I think it was an effort to keep the Beach Boys relevant.   :)

Mike certainly made it seem like they were forced to include a song by Brian and a song by Al.

I want Mike to advise bands on how to stay "relevant"

Mike's rules for Success:
1. Wear neon hats and Zubaz pants.
2. Use cheerleaders and "rappers" in your live show.
3. Hang onto a teenage lifestyle into your 50s.
4. Call your cousin a "genius" for staying home.
5. Use cheap 1980s keyboards for past hits.
6. Have latter day hit song and never let ANYBODY forget it.
7. Go on baywatch with a "current" song.
8. The past is what you want it to be.
9. Play only the hits and covers that sound like them.
10. Pretend that abandoned project that was the best work the group ever did doesn't exist.

.

.

No problem, we all get cranky when we don't eat lunch. :)

I meant by the "past is what you want it to be" statement that the BBs under Mike neglected their back catalog of great music from 1965-1973 and made it look like they were the "endless summer" band playing the early hits and covers.

The "scares" statement is just that I find it odd that Mike won't ever admit he made mistakes in the 1980s-1990s with the BBs brand after Kokomo. This happened in a recent interview where made TWGMTR look like a flop for "only getting to number 3 and no hit singles."

Can you show me any instance where a Beach Boy showed regret for past mistakes? "well I should have been more tactful", "I should have understood his position", "My songs in that album suck, I let the band down". No way. The closer you get is Bruce and his weird self-deprecating humour ("they should never have used my songs, they just don't fit").

You always request things from Mike that you never get from Brian - or Carl, Dennis and Al.

Jeff probably has bigger boobs than most of those women with Mike.

Brian regrets scraping smile and the drug abuse.

Al regrets siding with Mike in the 1970s.

Dennis regretted not going solo.

Carl deeply regretted the 2nd Landy Situation.

All the BBs made horrible choices in 50 years of the group.

I see it more as Darian, Foskett, Joe Thomas etc trying to clone the Pet Sounds/California Girls style arrangements to everything Brian does these days. If given true 100% creative freedom, I'm positive Brian would be making music that sounded like 'Love You' only with more modern synths.

I wonder how much Mr L paid them to walk on his testicles in their high heels later on?

Oh well. Let's see...

Brian regrets scrapping Smile, for sure, but who did he blame for it in the Beautiful Dreamer DVD? Clue: it was a statement that made oldsurferdude dance the fandango.

Where's the interview where Dennis regrets not going solo? And Carl's quote about making a big mistake when bringing in Landy for the second time? I'm sure they did in private, but your concern was about doing it in public, wasn't it? If we will especulate about private concerns, we can daydream about Mike regretting SIP as well, don't you agree?

Finally, I'll give you Al . Yes, he did.

You don't need interviews to show regret,

Brian has always regretted not finishing smile for his own sake, not just in the 2004 puff piece.

Dennis didn't finish bamboo and practically drank himself to death after giving up the POB tour.

Carl fought for years behind the scenes to free Brian and it took a huge toll on his health.


Mike just makes himself a target with his personality in general. From the rock and roll HOF speech to the 1992 goldmine article where he said Brian's solo album was "crap"

Not at all.... Nor is it a criticism. H&V (as with Smile in general) was most certainly an attempt (in part, and an awesome attempt) at running with the groundbreaking "thing" Brain arrived at with Good Vibrations: a song/production with all sorts of twists and turns and tape edits n such.... No big deal.

Ok, let's read minds then.


Where does Brian ever said that he scrapped Smile by himself? What can I do if he blames someone else as usual for it in a high-profile release? Should I blame David Leaf for the "puff piece"? Poor Brian, always manipulated...


And Mike ruined n marriages till he met Jackie. I guess he may blame the non-release of "First Love" for it. :-)


Carl never said much of anything, blaming or taking the blame. The guy was always extremely private.


I agree. I just don't understand why you need a mea-culpa from him because SIP sucks. Will you campaign to obtain a admission of guilt from Brian as well for the suckiness of 15 Big Ones? Oh wait, he was forced to produce a new album after Endless Summer, then it's different, he was manipulated and used by the band. Except dor Dennis and Carl, they are Wilsons after all.

I think The Little Girl I once Knew is more of a clone of California Girls. But H&V has 'follow-up to Good Vibrations' written all  over it, and it's fine. Brian is a genius but he never had the widest range as a songwriter.

All I am saying is that I don't like Mike's arrogance in putting "TWGTMR" down as a flop, when he did not do better leading the BBs with SIP.

Well, ya know: at least SIP was HIS flop :p

No, you were saying you deserve his apology for SIP. Let's not rewrite history.  :)

That's not what he said though is it?

I actually haven't seen Mike really interviewed about the period from 1985 onwards apart from when he is asked about Kokomo which is a shame.

In the BBC documentary Mike said something like, 'I think that being related has allowed us to be much more horrible to each other than non-related people could have been'. Or words to that affect. An interesting comment.

I think has commented showing regret for pretty much everything he has ever done.  :) Surfin' Down the Swanee River, How She Boogalooed It, lending Charles Manson his guitar and never getting it back (?!?) etc.

I think comparing one person posting an opinion on a message board to somebody being taken to court is buffoonery. Kill me.  ;)

I mentioned Al because I was getting the subject back closer towards the original topic of the later years of The Beach Boys. Al was obviously a big part of the Mike/Carl relationship because he was such a pain in the proverbial (and I like Al I should say) during that period. From various sources it has been claimed that Al complained about performing Kokomo live, refused to sing Somewhere Near Japan due to the drug references and also wasn't happy to sing Summer in Paradise. It's interesting to me that he made so many complaints about the group at that time and the setlists before going solo and doing much the same as The BBs had done. Playing a greatest hits set at casinos and outdoor shows and singing songs about cars for PT Cruiser money. He obviously realized this is what the public wanted.

I think Brian's management have also realized how narrow the public perception can be and even he has been forced at times into playing greatest hits sets and recording stuff about cars and girls.

When you see some of the stuff that Al and Brian have done due to public demand, it isn't really such a surprise that The BBs turned into the act that they did in the 1980s.

Didn't Terry Melcher produce SIP?

Yep and he has expressed regret for it. Bruce said that Melcher hated it as they had to rush the CD because the distributor offered them a stack of cash to get it out quickly.

I never said I wanted an apology, I was just pointing out how I grew up in the 1990s and finding out SIP was their final album. Just seeing all those bad reviews was a bummer.

Read between the lines:
Q: Well, it’s recent history.

A: Well, it debuted at No. 3. That’s not bad.( didn't do as expected) But it didn’t stay up there very long. (disappointment like H&V) To have sustained success, like we’ve been known to do (kokomo reference), you need a single that will chart and stay in the Top 20 or the Top 10 for three months.(Fantasy on how well Kokomo did)   And that didn’t happen with this album. (flop)

Not bad doesn't equal flop. I'm not saying I agree with what Mike said because I think the comments show himself to be out of touch with the music industry nowadays as many older performers are. But he didn't say flop at all.

Kokomo reference? H&V? Do you have a direct link to Mike's brain to know every obscure reference he throws in his interviews?

I think TWGMTR was a triumph and Mike wasn't exactly Mr. Positivity here. He was being grumpy, while he had better things to say about the CD and reunion in several other interviews. You really take everything the guy says out of proportion. It's just Mike being Mike, you can criticize him without fantasizing about his ulterior motives.

I wonder if Mike ever nailed Taylor Mills!

I'm sure he's at least tried.

Before or after weight-loss surgery?

Not that it matters because Jeff got around in the 1980s ML style.

Why would he need to?

I'm sure he has plenty of other comely wenches who are willing to commit harlotry with him in any city he visits. :lol

Well, at least we had a lot of pages before the "Brian is being manipulated / exploited by his collaborators" meme started. Admirable restraint, folks.

Brian has all the freedom in the world. If he doesn't use it, it's either because he doesn't want it or is indeed content with how his modern-day music sounds. Amazing how despite the collaborators he's used -- Andy Paley, Joe Thomas, Scott Bennett, etc. -- it still mostly comes out sounding like the Beach Boys when he was in charge. I don't think that's an accident.

To be fair, this thread had already gone wildly off topic as most do after a while.

Brian obviously didn't have freedom in 2004 so it would be interesting to know when that began...

That should probably be saved for another thread though.

Can't we all just call a truce and blame Bruce for everything?

Ah, the Bruce truce.

Free Shorts and disney girls for everybody! ;D

I truly nearly died laughing at this post

Buffoonery can also be cherry-picking one or two lines from posts rather than addressing the bigger point(s) being made which you've conveniently distorted or ignored, or instead focused on bullshit minutiae like the saxophone and comparing message boards to court cases rather than taking a giant analytical leap forward and addressing the actual points being made *through the symbolism* instead of the actual symbols.

I'd suggest buffoonery is also trying to bring in a non-issue or a non sequitur like Al Jardine's recent career decisions in order to deflect attention or distract from the other points being made...and expecting no one to notice the tactic. That also never works in the political threads, because those attempting it are usually as ham-fisted in the execution as Mike was when guiding the new music being released by the Beach Boys... :)

Hashing this stuff out is fine, but trying to rewrite history and telling new fans how Mike was "keeping the legacy alive" or "keeping the band relevant" while fucking things up time after time will continue to be challenged.

It was the recent interview about TTGMTR that got me on this topic anyway, prior to this I could care less and basically ignored what Mike said or did and let the other stuff that used to bother me as a fan from the past drift away into history, bygones-be-bygones and all of that.

But reading the interview as he tries to marginalize TTGMTR, point out its lack of top-5 single success, bemoan the fact that he wasn't as involved...yet the credits read: EXECUTIVE PRODUCER: MIKE LOVE...I guess that's just a bullshit title if he says he wasn't involved...then makes it a point yet again to remind us that he wrote the lyrics to California Girls and Good Vibrations and all those other classics.

It's just too much disappointment and crap to read that interview and see him still playing the same games and all but suggesting the TTGMTR fell short of the greatness that was Kokomo's chart success 25 years ago (it has to be Kokomo he's comparing it to because the man or the band name has not had a new single or album reach anywhere near TTGMTR's #3 position in the past 25 years) because of something they did or didn't do related to his involvement, or his lyrics, or whatever he's saying.

Despite the credit EXECUTIVE PRODUCER: MIKE LOVE

Anyone who can't take the whole of that interview and connect the dots to see these sentiments coming out, after a year of supposed "good vibes and harmony" around the 50th tour and album, either doesn't want to see it or is simply blind to what's going on.

And this is coming from a fan who has enjoyed quite a lot of what Mike has done and what he does musically and on stage for decades. It was just a huge letdown to see him pissing on the latest album, while pointing out his success as a lyricist yet again.

That's about it. Bring back the Mike who was on the Jimmy Fallon and Charlie Rose interviews, he was a much more positive and upbeat guy who seemed to actually be enjoying the music he was involved with rather than Monday-Morning-Quarterbacking it and trying to remind folks of past success.

Sounds like Socialism to me ;)

Great post! :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot

Yes it's true! Five out of 100 whores prefer canned ham over antipasto! And now we have pictures!

I think if Mike didn't have his obsession with commercial viability he'd be pretty punk as f***. Dude just doesn't seem to give a sh*t in a lot of ways, haha.

Good point...... And if he was really hip to commercial viability, aren't there SO MANY things he could be doing?? Like, putting out cool releases (a Wouldn't It Be Nice To Live Again/waltz Big Sur 7inch, Carnegie Hall live set, Country Love 180gam vinyl release, vintage live DVDs, etc etc etc) and such? Playing SeaWorld and putting out repetitive greatest hits CDs doesn't cut it these days.

Not that it matters a lot in a message board, but I think there's a daughter of his sitting in the sofa.

I'm pretty sure the one servicing him with her heels is his wife

She, of course, gets first dibs on the nut-crushing.

Letting other people make choices for you because you refuse to make them doesn't mean you're being controlled. It doesn't mean you aren't free. It just means you're lazy (or scared). Brian doesn't have to stay married to Melinda, he doesn't have to work with his band, and he doesn't have to record.  He either allows himself to be forced or chooses to do these things.

If folks don't like his current day music, fine. But blame the man responsible. Don't prefer some imaginary world where an "unshackled" Brian would totally start blowing everyone's mind with synth-pop masterpieces. After 25 years as a solo artist, I'm pretty sure we would have had some evidence by now if that were an actual possibility.

Yeah, Mike should have the self-awareness to realize that he's basically Tony Bennett at this point -- an elderly gent singing the songs of his long-gone youth.

I mean, Tony doesn't pretend to be hip to contemporary musical tastes or trends. He's not trying to make hit singles. He's just making music he loves in a timeless style.

Mike needs to recognize that the music of the Beach Boys is as classic as Gershwin or Berlin or Richard Rodgers. Let contemporary taste move Beach Boy-wards (which it has), no need to go chasing after passing fads.

Which wife??  :p

Mike Love recognized that in 1973.

Hmmmm, don't recall ever using the words manipulated or exploited in my post. It's much less sinister than that, Brian simply doesn't care half the time and is willingly led around by whoever is leading the project at the time just for a quick, simple, quiet life. And most of these people can't see past the Brian of Pet Sounds/California Girls. What we often get is a Beach Boys forgery by talented session pro's which Brian then bangs out his shouty, robotic Ozzy Ozborne type vocals over the top of.

Thankfully you've got me mixed up with someone else as I don't think Mike was 'keeping the band relevant'. I think he was turd polishing by doing as many duets, movie soundtracks and TV shows as the band could because he knew that was the best/only way to keep the band in the public eye at the time.

Oh, I completely agree that if Brian were left to his own devices he wouldn't suddenly come out with a 'synth-pop masterpiece'.

But the reason I mentioned 2004 was due to the release of GIOMH. Not an album he seemed to have any interest in and one which his management picked the songs and called Robbie Williams, Sting, Elton etc. to make guest appearances. As you say, it may well be that he allows himself to be forced in these things.

Man, you took what I was trying to say upthread, and just nailed it in two short sentences.

Exactly right.

This thread has moved on quite a bit since this post, but I think it's pretty important to the discussion. From '67 to '73 the band had been trying make great music and reclaim their popularity, without that much success. Endless Summer and Spirit of America (which I think had one post-65 song between them) threw them back into the people's consciousness based on material from the early sixties. The next release was 15 Big Ones, which could barely be more of a throwback. Would things have been different after Endless Summer if they'd released a solid and current sounding album in '76? A Pacific Ocean Blue with Beach boys vocals, for example? I've no idea whether the context of that time would have allowed for any genuine interest in new progressive music, but 1976 seems like a year in which they were likely to sell albums. Yet 15 Big Ones seems like an album that would make it very difficult for them to sell subsequent records. Could things have turned out differently if they'd taken the wave of success and pulled things together to release a good album on the back of it? If they could have challenged the perception of being an oldies act with a solid album of new material, maybe they wouldn't have been so locked into the image that hampered them through the 80's and 90's. It seems like they had a chance to show that as well as the early hits, they still had good music to offer - but 15 Big Ones doesn't show that they did (and most subsequent albums don't either).

At one point during the 15 Big Ones sessions, the plan was to release a double album...one disc of oldies, and one disc of new material.  I believe it was Carl and Dennis pushing for the release of new material, but I could be wrong about that. 

Another great post.

Best of the Beach Boys #8, Beach Boys Concert #1, Endless Summer #1, Spirit of America #8, 15 Big Ones #8.  It's hard to look at that and the stats for their "new" music albums and see how Brian was "wrong" in bucking Carl and Dennis in 15BO or how the group would see an incentive to make a lot new direction music.

Given that that looks like a family photo (it has Mike's wife and at least one of his daughters in) this might be the single least classy thing I've ever seen on this board.
For that matter, even if they *weren't* his family,  that would still have been an absolutely disgraceful comment. This board is rapidly descending into a cesspit of misogynist filth.

I was in high school at the time.  I thought Surf's Up and Holland were wonderful albums.  Then Endless Summer was released around the same time as American Graffiti, a period of reaction against progressive rock and psychedelia, when the simplicity of  oldies was again becoming fashionable.  15 Big Ones built on that.  The attitude among those like me who were musical elitists was "oh they've become just an oldies band" -- but for most kids my age -- including the jocks and cheerleaders, etc, it was at that point that the Beach Boys became popular.  I remember hearing "15 Big Ones is a really cool album."  But I never bothered to listen -- until decades later when I discovered Love You and started sampling other later work.  I actually enjoy the album now -- but I need to remix it in my head -- bringing the drums and synths way up in the mix.  (I still hope for such a remix someday.)

My point here is that 15 Big Ones did exactly what it was supposed to do.  Even official arbiters of taste like Christgau liked it.  I think we are hard on it because it made some big steps in the direction of the painful mistakes that were to follow.

I wonder if a Compromise could have been made where Dennis and Carl made the new material disk while Brian did the oldies disc as "warm up"

I'm not sure about that. I know it did get some good reviews at the time but it also received some poor ones. It is a desperately poor album imo and I certainly don't think people are too hard on it.

I think the Brian's Back campaign also showed the group (Mike in particular) that having a decent gimmick is more important than having good music when it comes to chart success. Pretty much all of the band's biggest successes since then have come due to something other than the music.

Not appropriate at all, and - as the mods have decided to be more strict on the rules - he just got a first (temporary) ban.

Wait. This board is modulated?

I've heard that there are alternate mixes done by virtually everyone in the group of 15BO. Can anyone with knowledge clarify, confirm or deny that?

I think the 'Brian's Back!' campaign was more Steve Love's idea than anyone else. There was no need for it. Just having Brian back as a willing, full time contributing member should have been enough. Dumping full production, leadership and the bulk of the songwriting on him was clearly too much too soon. It should have been obvious within a couple of sessions and it no doubt was, but Steve HAD to have his 15 year anniversary, Brian led album out at any cost. So yes it became a case of the gimmick being more important than actually having decent music.

The line in bold print may be where opinions we agree on start to drift apart, hear me out: What you say is correct, to a point, because once again it has to be remembered that at the same time we had all the Summer In Paradise and Baywatch and Problem Child debacles and missteps coming out, we also had the CD releases of the classic albums for the first time, as well as a continued buzz about the Pet Sounds CD release. I remember that well, and while not on the mass appeal level of 1987 when I witnessed people lining up at record stores to get the newest crop of Beatles releases on CD, there were a lot of people seriously getting into the *music* of the Beach Boys through those albums which they could buy for the first time on CD, and that legacy was alive and well, and serving the band quite well, thank you.

When you write "keep the band in the public eye", I'd suggest a better phrase would be "keep Mike in the public eye".

As a distant observer and fan, a lot of what gets done and said seems more about Mike's desire to be in the spotlight than it does any notion of the band or the legacy. "The band" as a concept often looks more like a vehicle for Mike to get the spotlight.

And I may be waaaayyyyy off base in saying this, but I think the 50th anniversary tour and the TTGMTR album of 2012...hell, all of 2012 related to Beach Boys events...may have challenged Mike's identity and his role as the focus of attention surrounding the name "Beach Boys", especially on a concert stage. He became part of a larger group and a larger event where his frontman routine was pushed aside every night by not only a "full" band of original members, but also a notion that people were there to celebrate the Beach Boys as a whole...whether that was seeing Brian on stage, hearing David Marks play some amazing guitar solos, seeing Al and David rocking out on rhythm guitars, watching the tributes to Carl and Dennis, etc.

There wasn't much room for Mike in a frontman/leader/focal point role when all of that was going on under the name "Beach Boys", whereas Mike was more accustomed to being the only true original member on those stages and being the focus of the attention during the show.

And when it came time to do the first new BB's album with this lineup, yes he received "Executive Producer" credit on the cover but the focus was clearly on Brian producing the surviving original members of the Beach Boys in the studio for the first time in decades. Mike's role was again pushed aside by the sheer force of what was happening and who was involved, and there was no room to make videos like Kokomo or whatever the case may be.


And the difference between thinking Mike was doing those things around the Kokomo era for the "band" versus doing it for "Mike" relates to the original topic of Mike and Carl. I believe Carl could very well have known when it was time to step a little further back into the shadows for the benefit of the band and those who depended on it, whereas Mike's decisions were more about proving himself and his role as a frontman and focus of attention.

I truly believe Carl was more of a team player who could have been more willing to take a step back, out of the spotlight and leadership role, if it meant keeping the band going. I believe Mike had a harder time doing that because his identity as leader and frontman of the Beach Boys is both his offense and defense, as he sometimes shows in interviews like the one where he mentioned TTGMTR's chart position at #3 as "not bad" while mentioning his authorship of California Girls. It's about him rather than the notion of the band.

In my opinion.

I think in some ways 15 Big Ones DID work for the group:

1. First and foremost, it made money for the band. The album went to No. 8, stayed on the charts for 27 weeks, and went Gold. The guys were drug addicts, alcoholics, had alimony payments, child support payments, mortgage payments, boat payments, attorneys' fees, and doctors' fees. 15 Big Ones wasn't a commercial flop.

2. It got them a hit single (almost two) and got them back on AM radio since when, 1969?

3. It gave them accessible songs to perform live; they played a good 5-6 songs from 15 Big Ones.

4. For better or worse, 15 Big Ones did get Brian back to writing and producing. An album of entirely new material might've been too much for Brian and scared him away. I think the tracks on 15 Big Ones are well-produced.

15 Big Ones, while seriously flawed, did what it was intended to do (see above points). Yes, it might've driven some fans away. I mean, by the time you got to "Blueberry Hill" you were losing patience fast. And it had its fair share of WTF moments (i.e. Brian's and Dennis's vocals). However, I think the real problem at that time (late 1976 early 1977) was Love You. As much as I adore Love You - and it's in my Top 4-5 Beach Boys' albums - THAT WAS THE ALBUM that sealed the band's fate in their attempt for relevance and going in a non-fun musical direction. Love You was not the album for that crucial time.

The Beach Boys kept their fans interested with 15 Big Ones, they stayed on the radio, they stayed in the record stores, and they remained popular on the road. NOW WAS THE TIME for that serious, post-Holland, "band showcase", non-surf 'n turf album. Oh, um, did I mention a couple of things that prevented that from happening....It was "decided" on a full album of Brian Wilson songs, Dennis was pursuing a solo album so there went his songs, Carl was having serious drug problems, and I really don't know what Mike Love voted for in late 1976. If a group ever needed a manager or a mentor or someone to provide guidance or words of wisdom, it would've been The Beach Boys in 1976-77. But, based on where everybody's heads were at in 1976-77, I guess it just wasn't meant to be, and we never got the album we were waiting for...

Nice post. But I gotta say, since it's bugging me....its TWGMTR and not TTGMTR.

I guess 15 Big Ones worked to an extent, but I still think they would have garnered more positive reviews and more sales if they divided up the album a la Holland and L.A. (Light Album). You could still market Brian as being "back" with his four new classics. One classic ballad ("Good Timin'"), one summery rocker ("It's OK"), one quirky pocket symphony ("Had To Phone Ya"), and one paean to California ("California Feelin'"). Add in a few tracks by Dennis ("River Song", "Pacific Ocean Blue"), maybe one by Mike ("Everyone's In Love With You"), and one by Carl ("Angel Come Home)", along with a few covers ("Just Once In My Life", "Palisaides Park"), and you have a pretty strong album. Maybe not as strong as Holland, but possibly with more high points. I also think that album would be stronger than anything their contemporaries had out (Wings At The Speed Of Sound, The Who By Numbers, Dylan's Desire, or the Stones Black And Blue. I think it would have made The Beach Boys more firmly contemporary than 15 Big Ones did.

sweetdudejim, I agree with you 100%. That's the way they should've gone, no doubt about it. The point I am making, and have been making for years, is that even though they made a mistake with 15 Big Ones, and took a hit with it to some extent, they were still very much alive. It was still 1976 and they were still riding high - literally. But, instead of moving forward from 15 Big Ones and recording that artistic, post-Holland, blah blah blah album, they did Love You and the game was over. There was still a chance AFTER 15 Big Ones is my point I guess.

Billy C once made an interesting idea for a BBs album in 1975. To hide Brian's vocal decline by using vault outtakes from 1968-1974.

One thing I've noticed about 'bad' Beach Boys albums is that up to a point they all have some pretty bang on material on them.

I mean- 15 Big Ones, I LOVE, despite it's deficiencies (everyones in love with you, back home, few too many covers), but I have to admit it's still a 2 or 3 out of 5.

BUT it's got 'it's ok' 'rock n roll music' 'had to phone ya'...those are some pretty high, high points

I too have always enjoyed 15BO. The 15BO/Love You twofer is actually one of my most played on itunes.

I completely agree that the legacy was alive and well but I'm not sure exactly which period we are talking about now or what course you are saying the band should have taken. What I mean by that is that from 1986 onwards Brian was playing a lesser and lesser role in the group which basically meant Mike had to choose whether they kept recording or just became an oldies act. I would guess that he knew they would need some boost in order to have any chart success which led to the duets and movie songs (and of course they made money off some of these things too). After Kokomo and Still Cruisin' were both successful I think it was inevitable the band would record another album and that Terry Melcher would produce it.

Although I'm sure there were many people getting into the Beach Boys music when the twofers were re-released in 1990 and when Pet Sounds was reissued, it is still shocking that Pet Sounds didn't go gold until 2000 (I think that's right).


Sorry, I cut some bits from your post just to make it easier to quote.

I don't think Mike is too bothered about the legacy at all. I think he is more concerned with the here and now.

Due to Mike's ego I can imagine that there were times during the C50 tour that maybe he did begrudge Brian his cheers and so-forth. But Mike was very much the central figure on stage in terms of the number of leads that he sang and his roles as the MC and front man.

I honestly think that bigger concerns for Mike would be that he would rather tour more simply than acquiesce to Brian's demands, would rather have his son play rhythm guitar than Al and that he would rather not have his wife around so that he can have sex with whoever he chooses. I could be wrong though.

As the years wore on and Mike ran out of highly creative and motivated collaborators (Brian, Carl, Dennis), bandleaders, he had basically two choices: 1. let the band collapse, or 2. focus on what he did well: lead singer/front-man, lyricist (if there's anyone around with a good song idea) .... So, under the circumstances, he chose option 2: .... everything past that point was basically just an excuse to keep the ball rolling so that he could continue to be the lead singer of the Beach Boys for concerts ...... Can we really blame him? It was the 80's and basically all of The Beach Boys contemporaries were either dead, in turmoil or sucking massive balls.... When taken in the context of the times, The Beach Boys come out rather well. I mean, Kokomo, Still Cruising, Somewhere Near Japan, Rock And Roll To The Rescue:  not bad stuff at all.

There was still some chance but I guess the unanswerable question is, how turned off were the American public by 15 Big Ones itself and by Brian's TV performances? In the songwriter DVD someone (PA Carlin?) states that those appearances by Brian giving dire performances of Back Home and Love is a Woman turned off the entire nation and made people realize that they had been had. So even an artistic, quality album may have struggled after that perhaps.

Love You was clearly the wrong way to go though if they had any hope of selling any records...

I think that's oversimplifying things a little.

He could have had the band continue touring the oldies with no interest in new material (which is essentially what happened from 1998 to 2011), he could have accepted submissions from other songwriters for the band or he could have done as he did.

The success of Kokomo proved that they were right (in the 1980s at least) not to pick the first option (irrespective of what fans may think of the song). If they'd combined some Mike songs with songs from other songwriters then the quality would probably have been higher but maybe it would have sounded even less like The Beach Boys than it did.

There's no question that Brian's reputation took a hit after those 1976 TV appearances and his work on 15 Big Ones. But the Brian Wilson "genius mystique" was still very strong, and there were still so many unanswered questions - what the hell is wrong with that guy? - that he kind of got a mulligan. His appearance alone was so startling that it fed into that mystique.

What is also ironic is that while The Beach Boys Love You was the wrong album at the wrong time, it did receive some excellent reviews and kept the "Brian is Back" talk alive. Love You tanked, more Endless Summer fans left the fold, the band was starting on a downward spiral, but, oddly enough, if you were a Brian Wilson diehard, you were optimistic. Each new photograph showed more weight loss, his hair got shorter and cleaner, he played more bass and sang more lead vocals in concert, and you couldn't wait for the next album. Ho hum....

Makes a lot of sense.

15BO went to #8, how is that a turned off public?

I'm guessing they bought it because they liked the Rock And Roll Music single, and also because they were expecting a return to the sound heard on Endless Summer and Spirit of America. When 1BO failed to deliver, the fans stopped buying BB's albums. 15BO was also a staple of the cutout bins for years after - joined there shortly after by Love You and MIU.

The public bought it expecting classic Beach Boys and instead got a weak, hodge podge album. It entered high but soon dropped out of sight, subsquent albums bombed and the follow up single from it underperformed.
What's maddening is at the time the band had either in the can or at least demoed Pacific Ocean Blues, River Song, Rainbows, Angel Come Home, Glow Cresent Glow and California Feeling. That's half a fantasic album right there. But no, they had to go with the 'fun' direction.The band really squandered their chance to make a great comeback.

If releasing this fantasy "fantastic album" some of you speak of would mean there then wouldn't be Love You, I say: Bring on 15 Big Ones. For as shitty as 3/4 of that album is... I wouldn't want to live in a world without Love You!

This.

This, exactly...now can some of the folks better understand why other fans might be a little miffed if not outright calling bullshit on Mike's comments about #3 being "not bad"?

They have been consistently squandering such chances to make something great for four decades! And when they did make a successful and well received comeback album last year, Mike most recently acted bitchy in an interview when asked about it.

Consider it was the highest charting album the Beach Boys had in the US since 1965, and the highest charting in the UK since 1970.

In light of that, and this most recent discussion on 15 B.O. and the rest, Mike's comments are even more foolish. And I'll continue to call them out any chance I get, call it a cause celebre for me because I liked the new album and Mike is both embarrassing himself and angering fans yet again when he could be celebrating the best charting album they've had in 40+ years.

And quite a respectable "comeback" effort too, considering how weak some of the previous comebacks have been.

Absolutely.

And that quarter of an album rules: I will drunkenly fight anyone who hates on "It's OK", "Had To Phone Ya", "Chapel Of Love"*, "Talk To Me"**, "Pallisades Park"***, "Back Home", and "Just Once In My Life"!

* "Chapel Of Love" is great because Brian sounds like he desperately wants to believe what he's saying but doesn't exactly care enough to sing it. f*** you, it's great.
** "Talk To Me" kinda underwhelms as a song but I love the synth/horn/guitar (?) bit of instrumentation. If nothing else the album is very interesting texturally...
*** I wish this was sped up but it cooks man! Even Carl knows it! You hear that nasty synth/guitar stuff? Hell yeah.

The Beach Boys should've released EPs, I think they would've benefited from both the shorter running time (7 Big Ones EP, oh yes!) and the freedom to do one-off, quick things while working on albums.

"Back Home" is punk as f***. Brian gives no shits. You love it.

And "Sea Cruise" rules too. Why was this left off in favour of shitty songs by Mike and Al? AND WHERE IS THE 'HOT MIX' OF "ROCK AND ROLL MUSIC"

Holland had gone to #36 and 15 BO went to #8 and LY to #53. I don't know if all of the fanecdotal justifications are true or not but it seems the public's support was pretty well expressed with its bucks. If I had a band I think this would tell me a story about my public support.

Start drinking in preparation. ;D Chapel of Love and Back Home are pretty crappy.

The mix of Rock and Roll Music that Carl played on the radio was certainly superior to the single though.

You are being surprisingly naive in your underestimating of the power of Endless Summer and Spirit Of America. While I love 15 Big Ones and Love You as much as anybody, their commercial success is almost directly related (i.e. riding the coattails) to fans wanting more fun in the sun classics. If you want a truer indication of the merits, or lack of, of 15 Big Ones and Love You, it might be more applicable to look at how many fans hung around for M.I.U. By that time many fans had enough of these new - or now "older" - Beach Boys and were content with the comps of the classic oldies.

I also wanted to mention that in addition to the 1976 NBC-TV special and Brian's TV appearances, Mike and Al appeared on the Mike Douglas TV show, the Beach Boys appeared on the cover of People magazine, Brian appeared on the cover of Rolling Stone, and there were other "greatest hits" albums surfacing.

I'm not sure I understand you, I just posted the numbers for ES and SoA. The public wanted oldies, they still want oldies, they had been wanting oldies and they didn't want the Boys' new music so much. I agree the public did not want MIU either. Or Friends, 20/20, Sunflower, or CATP. What are you saying?

In your above post that I quoted, you listed 15 Big One's chart position of #8 and Love You's chart position of #53 and said "I think this would tell me a story about my public support". I am simply saying that those chart positions could be misleading because of the overwhelming success of Endless Summer and Spirit Of America and there was some serious "piggybacking" going on there. How do you think 15 Big Ones and Love You would of fared if they directly followed Holland WITHOUT the effects of Endless Summer and Spirit Of America? And I'll say again that I love 15 Big Ones and Love You....

LY tanked, so I don't see an ES/SoA effect in effect for it.

ES and SoA were a success because the public supported oldies, 15BO had oldies and was supported. LY and MIU and other new music albums on either side [except SU] tanked. ES and SoA were supported because they were oldies. 15BO supported because it had oldies presumably. New music albums mostly tanked. That's the story as I see it. Oldies supported, new not. What am I missing?

I’ve never sensed that “15 Big Ones” had the amount of “success” it did because it had oldies. If anything, it succeeded to the degree it did despite the presence of oldies (and despite a lot of things, including Brian’s voice, the clunky overall production, etc.). “15 Big Ones” seems to me to have had its level of success purely due to the amount of publicity the group had at the time due to press, TV appearances, etc. Had they released “MIU” or “Love You” or something else at the same time as 15BO, I think it would have had a similar amount of success. That 1976 era seems to have been one of the last times that the group were being afforded the opportunity of an eager public wanting *new* music due to publicity and the success of oldies in concert and on record. They squandered it, and more often than not from that point on tended to attempt some level of integrating “oldies” or a “retro” 60’s sound element into their albums, and never had much success album-wise until 2012.

I always figured that the public largely bought whatever was new from the BB’s in 1976, and they could have probably even gained more artistic credibility or critical acclaim by simply taking the tracks from the “Holland” album and repackaging them in a “15 Big Ones” sleeve. Lol……

It's funny that you say this, but at the same time support Mike when he badmouths how TWGMTR went to #3. Also, is it not obvious that a lot of people didn't give Love You a chance because of the supreme disappointment of 15 Big Ones? And isn't it also obvious that the public was turned onto 15 Big Ones because they were still buzzing over Endless Summer and the hype that the guy who made the classic music had returned? And then once they actually heard most of the music, they realized that those guys were washed up* and they were no longer interested, even if their next album after that (Love You) was actually quite good.

*I actually like 15 Big Ones, but there is no doubt that they (mostly Brian, Al, and Mike) squandered a golden opportunity to be even bigger than they were before.

When did I support Mike's #3 comments? Mike has an opinion on their last album, big deal, everybody will take it the way they want to take it.

None of that is obvious to me. The charts show what they show, the rest is conjecture.

I'm not a particular fan of 15BO or LY. I skip the oldies on 15BO, they make me cringe. My opinion on that doesn't matter. But my opinion is Brian [and presumably Mike and Al] was right about 15BO and people don't ignore or not buy new music because old music is available, if they want it they get both. I have never not bought someone's new music because I enjoyed their old music or their old music was also available in a flashy comp. People just did not support their new music and that can't be blamed on oldies imo.

I must have missed the part in Mike's recent interview where he said things positive or congratulatory about TWGMTR.

He also says the interviewer is "hung up" on the C50 tour.

You would think the fans driving the 2012 "comeback" album to #3 on the charts would indeed tell a story about their public support.

Again, I ask: Does anyone have an idea what successful project Mike may have been comparing the 2012 album with when he made those comments about the lack of hit singles, #3 not bad, and all of that?

I don't have the interview in front of me but I thought I remember it was in the context of 1965 and a time when he and Brian sat in a room together and wrote. It would indeed tell a story of support that is "not bad" but also didn't sustain like had happened in the past. I probably should have looked up the interview first.

The link to the full interview:
http://www.azcentral.com/thingstodo/music/articles/20130415beach-boys-mike-love-interview-arizona.html (http://www.azcentral.com/thingstodo/music/articles/20130415beach-boys-mike-love-interview-arizona.html)


The segment of the interview where TWGMTR came up:

Q: What do you think of the album that came out last year?

A: Well, I wasn’t consulted very much with that album. Brian and I had spoken about a year before we even got started with that album. He wanted to do some re-records of some of our favorite songs. And I was up for that. We mentioned a couple of songs to each other. But that never happened. Nor was I able to actually get in a room and write with Brian like I did back in the ’60s. So that was, to me, unfortunate.

On the other hand, he had some songs he had been working on for several years. Brian has done a lot of things as a solo artist over the past 10 or 15 years, but it was nice to get together and do something in the studio together for the first time in many years. It sounded great, reminded me of 1965 again. And Brian said that, too.

Q: So you would like to get together with Brian and work on new material?

A: If that could be done. Just Brian. Yeah. I would be open to that.

Q: “That’s Why God Made the Radio” sounds more like a Beach Boys album than a Brian solo album.

A: That’s because Alan is singing and I’m singing, and Bruce came up with his parts. So yeah, it does. Because it is (laughs). Anyway, it sounds like you’re hung up on that album. Or that tour.

Q: Well, it’s recent history.

A: Well, it debuted at No. 3. That’s not bad. But it didn’t stay up there very long. To have sustained success, like we’ve been known to do, you need a single that will chart and stay in the Top 20 or the Top 10 for three months. And that didn’t happen with this album.

Q: Do you have a favorite era of the Beach Boys?

A: Well, yeah. I mean, “California Girls,” I wrote the words in the hallway while Brian was working on the track with the Wrecking Crew, this really great group of musicians in LA. I wrote the words to “Good Vibrations” on the way to the studio when he finally decided what was going to be the track for the single. So, yeah, I had a really good time back in the ’60s co-writing a bunch of great songs.

I nailed it.

We'll be watching closely to see what kind of hit single Mike can conjure up next for that kind of sustained, top-10, three-month-long success he said they didn't deliver in 2012.

At the same time I'll be holding onto my Publishers Clearing House sweepstakes ticket waiting for them to ring my doorbell with balloons, camera crews, and a giant oversized check in my name.  ;D

Does anybody else find the "only me and Brian in a room together writing songs" statements by Mike kind of weird? Its not like Brian is that helpless and manipulated by other people to stay away from Mike.

If he doesn't want to write songs with Mike, so be it.

Finally you saw the light!  :)

Boy, you're really supporting your cause there.  ::)

Yeah, that isn't my quote. ::)

Yeaahhh...didn't runnersdialzero get in a lot of trouble for doing the same exact thing? Hmmm.

Yep. Sure did.

It could sound weird if you didn't consider that Brian keeps telling Mike that he wants to get with him and write some songs.

Just like your PCH sweepstakes ticket it might happen someday if he can conjure together with Brian without distraction like he hopes.

Define distraction.  :-D

Seriously though, after going through those old articles describing the events of the mid-90's BB's activities in the studio, it was interesting to read the comments from Don Was who said Brian wished to write with Mike and when Mike was approached he wanted to write with Brian, but at that time the lawsuit issues got in the way. Then when they finally did get together and work on some songs, they eventually had what seemed to be a pretty hefty catalog of tunes, according to Brian and Was.

Now fast forward to 2013 and we see Don Was again in the studio with Brian, you have to wonder if anything like the scenario from 1995 would have a chance to develop in any substantial way where some tunes could again develop from a Brian-Mike collaboration. Who knows if any party reached out to another asking to collaborate as happened in the 90's.

Unfortunately though it also feels like Mike is looking for a pure 2-man writing partnership that may not be realistic with the way Brian has been working on original music for the past decade or more. Maybe if Mike were less conditional about it, something new could come out. It feels again like Mike may be stuck too far in the past with his expectations, and could that be an excuse for something else as well? Who knows.

Mike is Mike. Why do people think he's not entitled to his opinion or are surprised when he says the type of things people expect him to say and hate him for?

As for Mike not liking the way TWGMTR came together, I can see his point of view, if not completely agree with it. TWGMTR is essentially a Brian Wilson solo album produced by Joe Thomas, as well as extensively co-written by Joe Thomas. Joe also put the Capitol deal together for the album and put together the tour. Joe is Brian's man. The other Beach Boys, not just Mike, had considerably less say than Brian's "camp" in both the album and the C50 tour. I can understand why Mike wouldn't have been crazy about that arrangement. However, that said, it's arguable that without Joe Thomas, there would have been no album recorded or released to begin with, and probably not a tour, either.

I also tend to think Mike is right that Brian doesn't have absolute control of his life or who he records with. He has gatekeepers and probably needs them to some extent. But it's no secret that Brian isn't in full control of his life. Just look at an album such as GIOMH, which was a Brian solo project, but Brian gave interviews at the time that album was released saying he didn't like the track selection and wasn't happy with the album, so presumably he was "persuaded" to do it.

By distraction I mean whoever or whatever Mike see as getting in the way of what he feels would work best for he and Brian. It sounds to me too like he would like to sit down with just he and Brian, but maybe he means without somebody in particular, I don't know.

I think Mike has shown he is willing to accomodate Brian. Perhaps if Brian were less conditional about it, because he seems to be setting the conditions. Maybe Brian could quit raising expectations and then not following through. Mike goes along with much less than his ideal conditions and he tolerates a lot of broken promises and let downs from Brian.

I don't think things have completely changed in Brian's life since the Landy years. He got used to having people to protect him from the outside world, the difference being his "people" today appear to be a much kinder, gentler bunch than Landy's goons. Mike is nostalgic for the Brian he knew in 1965, but that Brian is gone.

I think he kind of is. I think what Mike wants is very a very simple and rational thing: to hang out with his cousin and write some songs together. No producers, no money, no pressure, no "people", no politics, just some cousins/friends in a room writing some songs. That's how good music is written and always has been. If anyone needs to leave the room, they can. I think people around Brian stand in the way of that, and that kind of sucks.

I think that's rather a one-sided way of putting it and I also think that all of those comments should be in the past tense as the C50 tour is now dead.

There weren't any broken promises or let downs from Brian last year I don't think.

There were obviously a lot of conditions last year for the reunion and I think it's fair to say that Mike had to compromise more than Brian probably (Al didn't seem to get much say at all). If Mike had been in charge of the touring then the backing band would probably have consisted of 5 or 6 members in addition to the main Beach Boys which would have made good business sense. Mike has alluded to this in interviews as one of the reasons he was happy enough to go back to touring with Bruce which is understandable.

This just makes it more surprising to me that the C50 tour happened at all.

Its not Brian or his people totally shut Mike out, they let him write lyrics for songs on the album and gave him an executive producer credit. Even in 2006, Brian gave him a backing track to write lyrics to, but Mike rejected it. Writing with Brian, imo, for Mike is controling the creative process. Maybe MIU part 2 if worse comes to worse.

Let's not forget "A Casual Look" ..... Mike and Al get to shine and the croaking Wilson Brothers coda is pure drunken/cigarette wracked gold!

I doubt that very much.

I wasn't limiting it to just last year.

They let him? Another example of Brian setting conditions and Mike tolerating it.

I know you weren't but I don't think it's fair to talking about Brian letting Mike down in the present tense based on stuff that happened 30+ years ago.

We can go on arguing about every little word Mike has ever uttered, but I think there is larger point to be made, and that's the simple fact that The Beach Boys were fated from day one to have their "oldies" run their universe. Be it folks craving nostalgia, blame it on Mike all you want (or Brian) but if the Beach Boys wanted to avoid their oldies they should have just prevented themselves back in the day from recording such earth shattering classics. These songs are in the DNA of California and the universe. People will always clamor of the fun-in-the-sun oldies simply because they are THAT GOOD!

Which can be done at a distance.


Meaning Mike listened to the final album and said "Okay", and even then we've been told Capitol made tracklist decisions. In other words, Mike didn't have much say.


I don't know if Mike wants to "control" the creative process, but he probably wants some control, and why shouldn't he be allowed to have some along with Brian, Al, Dave and Bruce?


Buh? I don't see that as likely at all. Very different times. I'm not saying don't involve producers etc. throughout the entire process, but let's start with letting these guys write some fucking songs like human beings for once since the 60s or 70s.

400 posts later..I'm still not sure what kind of relationship Carl and Mike had

Who said the BBs were a democracy, even in the glory days Mike called Brian "The Stalin of the Studio"

Runners, I don't think Mike fully understood Brian's new creative process for the last 15 years and was disappointed to see how things had changed. Brian wrote songs with Mike in the 1990s but nothing much came out of that, the Baywatch nights song was apparently horrible.

Fair enough but the context of the interview in question goes back to 1965 at least.

Yes, another example of Brian setting conditions and Mike et al tolerating it.  It doesn't mean he can't be more democratic.

That was twenty years ago, though. Folks' sense of time gets totally warped when talking about music, for some reason. It's like yeah, their last album of original material was Summer In Paradise, but it was 21 years ago and done under totally different circumstances. Also, we've never heard the Mike and Brian 90s songs, have we?

Also, I'm not sayin' Mike and Brian should write the entire album and should do so with zero input from others, but I do think it'd be cool to see what initial results could come of that. Have the band write and THEN have a Joe Thomas or a Scott Bennett character come in with suggestions and possibly revisions and editing if need be, but try to be as hands off as possible. And hey, if Brian and Joe Thomas or whoever write something really cool, toss that into the hat of possibilities as well. I don't know, I think this approach is worlds simpler and would get better results overall.

I think it could result in the Beach Boys actually being closer to being a band of human beings again as opposed to what they are now: a bunch of different corporate entities and camps whom are constantly being spiteful to one another and trying to one up the other guy back and forth. It's all totally cold, sterile, and too much attention is given to the "people" around the band, the money, the egos etc. rather than five human beings and their songs. I just feel like we'd be seeing a lot more peace and a functional group again as opposed to the clusterfuck of now.

Mike and Brian wrote "Warmth Of The Sun" in one night at Brian's house at his piano. Just two guys in a house with a piano. "Surfin'" was written by a bunch of kids in a garage for the love of playing music, nothing more. I'm not saying they're gonna come up with things as good as "Warmth Of The Sun", that's almost irrelevant to everything I said, I'd just like to see some simplicity brought back into the picture.

Whata ya want, Shady? Us to get on topic?

Great post Runners! I agree about the messed up dynamics of the group, but I don't think anything can be done since these guys are crazy after 50 years of madness.

DON'T PUNCH ME :(

You bring up a great point. People wonder why Mike won't write words like Warmth Of The Sun to a track that Brian sends him via Fed Ex or whatever from Joe Thomas via this courier and that courtier with this stipulation and that demand.... The magic of two guys in a room is the guy feeling out chords/melodies on the piano or guitar can tell the other guy how these melodies/chores make him feel. They can have a discussion about where their moods are at in the moment and the song's lyrics can take on the character of this mood.... You can't get this effect via any other process....

(http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/3097/mi0001404802.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/259/mi0001404802.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

I've always wondered why Carl was the only Beach Boy that never dressed like a beach type person

Self respect possibly?

He didn't get any of the memoes?

True, True.

The real problem, though, is that you have to have a level of comfort and repartee between the two people for something like that to happen. And I get the impression that Brian is generally too weirded out or paranoid around other people to truly collaborate on anything these days. Most of his writing over the last 25 years seems to be very solitary. He puts together a chord sequence or tune or chorus and hands it over for someone to slap some lyrics on or add a verse. Most of the Bennett and Thomas collabs were done in this way, too.

And we wonder why that certain magic isn't there.....

TWGMTR is no more of a Brian solo album rather than Beach Boys album than Pet Sounds or Smile.  Mike even has a few (real) songwriting credits on the more recent effort, making it MORE of a "group effort."

Yeah, but how many great pop artists from the 50s and 60s still reveal that certain magic?

Only a few.

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,4637.0.html

I made a similar topic 6 years ago. It had one response. Which is probably all that needs to be said on Carl and Mike unless we know more.

Great post. Why have they made it so complicated? Why can't Brian call Mike up and say "I've got some new tunes I've been working on, do you want to call by on X day and try some things?" We have to face the fact that either Brian doesn't want to or his managment are still putting obstacles in his path to stop it from happening.

Agreed. At least Brian should stop leading Mike to believe something will happen if it's not.

Who's to say he hasn't already done so, but Muike refuses to believe it. 

Nobody. Nobody has said he has already done it.

Sure, that's right, it's Brian's fault for not telling the world what he says privately to Mike

[laugh] Good one.

Why didn't Carl use Mike as a lyricist? I know that that they did collaborate on a few songs, but those songs involved at least one other Beach Boy. You didn't get the C. Wilson-M. Love credit like you did the B. Wilson-M. Love , the A. Jardine-M. Love, or even, in a few cases, the D. Wilson-M. Love one. Carl, from the late 70's on, always -- with the exception of a Bruce collaboration -- used outside lyricists.

That has to tell us something about the Mike/Carl relationship, no?

It might tell us that Carl didn't like Mike's lyrics and/or didn't find them surprising.  And given his choice in lyricists, ranging from competent (e.g. Cushing-Murray) to verbose (Rieley), but none of them having Mike's moon-june flair for simplicity, that's probably the most likely explanation.

Mike is a better lyricist than either of those people. Or at least was once upon a time. Anyone can be forgiven not wanting to work with Mike post-'78/79, I guess, since he seems to have quit trying.

I have to admit one thing about Mike's constant demand that he and Brian sit down together and write kinda irks me.  It comes from personal experience.  I used to have a bass player in my own band who always complained I would never let him cowrite with me.  And I said, fine, bring me some lyrics, bring me a riff, bring me some ideas, bring in your own song.  And he always had the same refrain:  no, he wanted to sit down and write head to head and collaborate.

Except that what he REALLY wanted to do was to get in a situation where we were together "collaborating" but I was writing 90% of the song, but he stuck a few ideas in, and got to claim 50% credit and say he cowrote the thing.  And being that songwriting is -- well, was at that time -- hard work, I kinda resented that.  I wanted to see equal effort for equal credit.

So when Brian sends Mike a track to write lyrics to, and Mike refuses, I have to wonder if it's because Mike just knows he can't do it without someone else in the room to help him out, but doesn't want to say so.  And it's well established that he went back and claimed songwriting credit on many songs where he made pretty minimal contributions (not "California Girls," but "Wouldn't It Be Nice" for example).

I may well be being unfair to Mike, who I agree wrote some ace lyrics back in the day, and I admit I'm biased by my own personal experience.  But just offering this up for consideration from a songwriter's point of view.  Mike definitely likes to publicly take credit and point out his songwriting success -- but he was one of four writers on "Kokomo" and didn't originate the song, and so forth and on and on.

They wrote one or two things that were recorded in 1974 didn't they? I've no idea whether the recordings still exist or were destroyed.

I think the only thing to be read into them not collaborating in the 80s and 90s is maybe that The Beach Boys was a business at this point and the members didn't want to work together on anything much at all. How many songs were collaborations between any of the band members after KTSA? Crack at your Love, Male Ego and Somewhere Near Japan (Al has since said he doesn't remember Brian having anything to do with California Calling) and that's it.

I would really doubt that to be honest.

Firstly because while Mike has many faults, I don't think a lack of self-belief is one of them. ;)

But also because I really doubt that Mike would think, 'I need Brian to write some of the lyrics for me' (which happened anyway on Spring Vacation). Mike wrote quite a few new songs for Unleash the Love and his style of writing doesn't exactly rely heavily on inspiration.

Some people simply much prefer writing nose to nose. For example, the guitarist Tom Verlaine was given the chance to write with Morrissey years ago but turned it down due to Morrissey's style of writing the words separately. I guess it happens a lot.

M-m-maybe.  I'd just comment that outward self-belief takes place at one level of consciousness, and knowing one's own limits often at another.

But, lol...what do I know!  At a certain point it all becomes a parlor game. ;)

Mike wrote Good Vibrations in a car on the way to the studio and California Girls in the hallway at the studio, Mike obviously doesn't need to be in a room with Brian. Another thing is, as far as is known, it is Brian coming to Mike not the other way around and telling Mike he wants them to write together.

Perhaps but I would have thought that if Mike did have doubts about writing an entire lyric that he would want to replicate the situation that they had with something like Isn't It Time. Other writers do some of the work but Mike still gets a credit.

As you say though, what do we know.  :)

I guess Mike wants a creative collaboration.

He doesn't have to be sitting in the same room with Brian working on a song from scratch, but neither does he want (I'm guessing)  a make-work assignment from Brian and Joe Thomas : "Hey Mike, we composed the tune, selected the title and the subject matter, and wrote the chorus and most of the verses, but we've left a verse for you to write, just so we can have a Wilson-Thomas-Love credit."

But I don't know if Mike can even write a lyric nowadays that doesn't have a theme of 1) let's have fun in the sun,  2) remember those times in the past when we had fun in the sun? let's do that again, or 3) don't mess up the ocean environment.

We've all heard the story of how Brian and Mike wrote Warmth Of The Sun together in a room late late at night....

Mike probably wants that experience again....

We would too if we could claim to have even farted in the general direction of such an amazing song...

Let's have some fun at the beach
Like we used to do
Make sure we pick up our trash when we go    ;)

Some people can't write from a 'blank page' perspective, they need an initial idea from someone else to get their creative juices flowing. I get the feeling this is how Mike often works.

There's an interesting segment in the M.I.U. documentary where Al and Mike are working on the lyrics to "Kona Coast."  It's pretty enlightening as to this kind of creative process (even though some of it is probably staged).

Yeah, he can. He just chooses to write like that because he believes that to be The Beach Boys' formula.

The solo stuff he wrote for Unleash the Love is nothing like that generally.

Deleted and moved again by me for being off topic.

Pet Sounds is considered the first (or at least, the precursor to) psychedelic rock album. SMiLE is about as psychedelic rock/pop as you get.

Pet Sounds is not about psychedelia, as say Little Deuce Coupe is about a car or cars. Also, I find Lennon's songs on Rubber Soul are more psychedelic than anything on Pet Sounds and it was 1/2 year or so earlier.

Hang onto your Ego/I Know There's an Answer is about tripping. The backing tracks of PS are very complex and evocative which foreshadowed the psychedelic wall of sound in 1967. What's psychedelic about RS?

The psychedelic Wall of Sound? I have never heard of that before.  :lol

To me Psychedelia is more the music or both music and lyrics, but not just lyrics. Hell, you can write lyrics about tripping and set it to a Waltz if you wanted. As for Rubber Soul, Think For Yourself, The Word and Girl all sound more psychedelic anything on Pet Sounds. Even Nowhere Man is trippy.

I agree with you that Psych. Rock is more about the combo of lyrics and music, hence why PS may be better described as a precursor. I disagree on RS being psychedelic tho. To me, it's textbook, Dylan-esque Folk Rock.

True to a point, but the Beatles stuff was electric and John's spacey singing makes them sound like he was trippin' when he wrote them. Growing up with this music in the 60's, I always considered it psychedelia.

Fair enough. And I'll concede Nowhere Man's lyrics wouldn't sound out of place on say, a Syd-era Pink Floyd track, so I can see your point.

I don't hear any of Rubber Soul as psycadelic; that would happen a year later on Revolver - Love You To; She Said, She Said; Tomorrow Never Knows.

After the endless summer LPs success and the touring act became more oldies - which I have to think was due to  Mikes influence - I have to wonder if there was tension between Mike and Carl.  Carl was the bandleader but the band wasn't rehearsing to his satisfaction, one of the reasons he left.  So who was deciding they didn't need rehearsals?   He must have been outvoted by Al and Mike.  He only came back under the conditions that there would be rehearsals, correct?

Has anyone asked this guy about Carl and Mike's relationship?  I think he would have a pretty good idea.

(http://www.rickresource.com/stt-research/billyhinsche2.jpg)