The Smiley Smile Message Board

Has anyone seen this yet? Mike Love stated in a recent phone interview that he thinks his "touring band is in better shape, vocally, since I can remember, since the original group with Carl Wilson and Dennis (Wilson) and everything." Interesting timing. Link is below.

http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/music/index.ssf/2015/04/our_touring_band_is_in_better.html

And shitstorm to commence in 5 4 3 2 1........

Try reading what Mike said properly: he clearly states that his band is in the best vocal shape SINCE the original band, i. e. since 1998.

The strapline is misleading.

Darn, you beat me to the point again.

And this line of Mike's is also good by me:

 For those scratching their heads, that was my original response. Both are valid. ;D

I was about to say wow, that seems to be one of the first times he's complimented Al since C50.... but nah, it's just to take a swipe at BW's vocal range. As if he's one to sniff about vocal ranges!

On a new BBs album: "If there is a way I'm able to do it the way I would like to do it, I'm not against it, I'm open to it, but it would have to be ... certain requirements would have to be met."

You can probably cram your requirements up a chakra, Mike. They went on without you. Have fun at the rodeo, tho!

It was these two quotes that I found especially bothersome:

"Unfortunately, Brian doesn't sing the range he once did."

"You can't go out and destroy yourself and be a good singer."

I wonder if Mike has heard NPP, as Brian sounds better to these ears than he has in about 40 years. And I've got news for you Mike - you don't have the range you once did either. I don't think anyone does in their seventies and beyond.

He meant those in a positive way. According to some guy on the internet, there aren't truly malicious things said about BW on the internet. Cousin Mike was saying it out of love and adoration! Just like when he uses his extensive TM knowledge to opine that BW is controlled by prescription drugs. Unleash the Love!

Actually, he seems to be referencing a time well before 1998, since he references Dennis, who you know died in 1983. So no, I don't think the strapline is misleading at all.

He clearly states "since the original group", which pretty much everyone here agrees finished in February 1998. However, that doesn't suit the prevailing agendas here, so I'll save my breath.  :)

If Mike really wanted to release some new music, he and his group could put out a cd - as long as it's not as "the Beach Boys". Could be billed like the NASCAR cd, or something to the effect of "Mike Love and Bruce Johnston of the ..."

Good luck convincing Capitol to put out a "Mike Love and Bruce Johnston of..." album! Maybe soundcloud? A shame Radio Shack disintegrated , they really seemed to be a good fit with Mike's whole um, aesthetic.

Count me as not super bothered by this. Brian has talked up his group, too. It's a it of puffery, and no one denies Mike's group can deliver the goods.

I agree this is rather innocuous, in the sense that it’s kind of mildly and typically inflammatory, but not any different from countless other pieces. It’s a typical promo piece that markets often do when Mike comes to town, full of the same questions and answers for the most part. The only difference in the last few years is that we sometimes get an additional subset of the same canned responses to questions about C50.

I don’t think it matters, but I don’t particularly read Mike’s comment as pertaining to the 1998 iteration of the band. He says "I think our touring band is in better shape, vocally, since I can remember, since the original group with Carl Wilson and Dennis (Wilson) and everything.” First and foremost, he’s just pumping his current band up because that’s the whole purpose of the piece. To me, it seems more like hyperbole and/or enthusiastic promo hype, more like the “sounds like 1965” stuff he was saying back during C50. I don’t think he has a particular year in mind in his comments here. To me, it kind of reads more like he’s referring to the “classic” 60’s iteration of the group. That’s why it reads as hyperbole to me. Or, as Wirestone put it, puffery.

Either way, I don’t put any stock in it. By all accounts, even cynics who’d rather not see him using the name, his band is tight and professional. At the same time, I don’t know much of anyone who would suggest the 2015 iteration is better than the 2012 reunion lineup. If anything, his comments kind of continue the pattern of downplaying the quality of the C50 tour.

Mike is full of crap as usual. The voices in Mike's band are worn out from overtouring, just listen to these songs from 2014-2015.

Goin to the Beach:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuBSWYoSPj4

Bruce on GOK:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxW5j1l73BI

When was the last time you saw a whole M&B show in person, and not just isolated clips where you can cherry pick the lesser performances ?

2011, a meat and potatoes show if there ever was one. Bruce sang two songs and didn't do crap the rest of the show. Mike was nasally bleating in a ludicrous far-eastern themed outfit that showed his gut in graphic deal.

I see you went with an open mind and no agenda...  :)

It just ain't cool for Mike to be repeatedly saying that stuff in interviews. Ugh. As if his own sh*t don't stink. Everyone's does! Why does he have to turn it into a competition, where the other "team" has to be put down/diminished. I do not know why he always has to put down Brian in some way. This is not an innocuous reminder to "remind the public about the dangers of drugs, without any political motivations in mentioning the drug angle". Does anyone really, HONESTLY think that? IMO, this reeks of putting down someone else for self-boasting purposes, though it's nothing new.

Is it also not just stating the obvious about Brian's lessened vocal range? I doubt Mike can still hit his original high notes on All I Wanna Do and Oh Darlin'. Should Brian now bring up Mike's vocal range in an interview?

Mike's own voice is not what it once was either. One could also make a strong argument that he himself has "destroyed" his voice (beyond normal wear and tear due to age) as a result of over-touring at an extreme rate of his own choosing. It's an addiction too, that is not without consequences. Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt there are many singers who could tour as much as Mike does at his age without there being some adverse effects on their voice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGUlmphteUk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGUlmphteUk)

They sound fairly good here, plus check out the Mike Love doppleganger at the 1 minute mark.

Yeah, its a problem when Mike has trouble speaking normally as a result of touring. His vocal cords are really worn out from overtouring the hit songs he sang on.

Not when I've spoken with him since summer 2011. But hey, I would say that, wouldn't I, being on his payroll and all.  ;D

You have no idea what an utter fool you look with such posts. I pity you.

So.........why didn't Mike say this before? The band wasn't the best vocally until his son left and Jeff Foskett joined? NOW it's better than it was before? Jeff was the pivotal band member in making it better I guess.

I've been following this band and enjoying their live shows since 1976.  Longer than many, not as long as many others.  I've seen them at their best (April 21, 1977, Edwardsville, IL) and worst (October 10, 1981, Terre Haute, IN).

I saw them in Temecula, CA in July of 2008, after Scott Totten took over as MD.  It was one of my top 5 shows I've seen.  And I told Scott Totten the same backstage.  It's also very obvious that whatever was undercutting Mike's voice the last few years is now gone.  He's sounding better than ever, with vocal quality reminiscent of his live work in the late 70s.

It's a damned fine version of the Beach Boys.

In all fairness, it's Mike who is, in this particular interview, opening the door to comparisons. He could have just said his band is a fine band. I get it, it's easier to get into that sort of hyperbole when the interview isn't face to face and wearing a "Brian Wilson is God" shirt or a "Save Al Jardine" shirt or something.

I credit interviewers who will at least raise the C50 topic with Mike.

It's also pretty apparent, *in my opinion*, based on this interview as well as that weird David Beard "interview" that there is some sort of weird passive aggressive thing going on with Mike continuing to mention negative stuff about Brian and weird backhanded compliments like <well, as long as it doesn't have auto-tune, wink-wink, I'm sure Brian and Al's new song is just fabulous, even though I can' t find five minutes to stop and listen to it.>

I've said before that I kind of dread Mike's upcoming book. If he's this way in the light and fluffy short pieces promoting his local gig, I can't imagine his book will be less inflammatory.

I need a "save Al Jardine shirt"!  :lol

Does Brian still sing the range he once did?

The "destroy" quote is about Mike himself. Surely he can have an opinion about himself.

At Mike's age "since I can remember" could be last week.

 :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :pirate :pirate :pirate :woot :woot :woot :tm :tm :tm :tm :tm

Hey, we thought you were gonna "save your breath". Try doing what you promised us, and please, save the pity for yourself.  :brow :brow

If we are throwing a "pity party" maybe we can make it a group affair and bring salsa and chips?  :grouphug

(https://backtothethames.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/inigomontoya.jpg)

This is directed towards everybody on the board by the way.  ;)

No, IMO Brian doesn't sing in the range he once did... that's why I used the word "either," etc. It was yet another needless, oblique dig from Mike. As I noted however, I think Brian is in great voice on NPP, Whatever Happened being my favorite.

Brian is in much better voice than Mike these days.

  Brian is a better singer today than say, 1995. Mike sounded fairly good last summer, certainly better than Gerry Beckley. (America was on the bill.)

The album could have been better if Mike had stayed on the concert circuit. Suggesting that he's waiting for his requirements to be met is like Norma Desmond saying she's willing to star again when the right part comes along.

(https://40.media.tumblr.com/058e4e4b53332d541af9bd7530174a25/tumblr_mtuqdslMpn1qaseldo1_500.png)

Well said :-D. Although I will admit that Mike has written some fantastic lyrics in the past, and I've always liked his singing voice as well, the songs I liked the least on TWGMTR are the ones in which Mike was involved the most (as a writer).

  It looks as if "Pisces Brothers" will never see daylight on a Beach Boys album. Damn!  :lol

Team Brian does the same thing over and over and over and over. Collectively, I'd say they do it more than Mike ever has. I don't appreciate when Mike says shit like this, but Team Brian does the same thing and does so more often.

I don't think "Team Brian" simply getting Al, Blondie, and Dave onboard, and kicking some butt, proving they've got some chops, is equivalent to what Mike repeatedly does/says/implies in interviews. Brian doesn't come off as bragging, and if he speaks highly of the musicians he works with, I really don't see it as having a subtle dual purpose of dissing "Team Mike". Maybe one could argue Brian simply getting a bunch of BB members was a diss to Mike in and of itself, but the difference is that Brian doesn't go and additionally point that out.

It would be if Brian, in numerous interviews, verbally said what a great band of Beach Boy members he has onboard, and then either directly or in a hinting manner insinuating how this was more actual BB members than Mike has, and then Brian additionally saying how his vocal range has improved over the last several years, especially because he doesn't play excessive quantities of shows like his cousin, whose speaking voice at times sounds "destroyed" from overtouring. Brian hasn't and doesn't say or insinuate stuff like that, but IMO, Mike says or implies the ridiculous flipside of this kind of mean-spirited stuff from his corner.

The thing is, we can argue until the cows come home about Mike's intentions when he says this kind of stuff. But regardless of his intentions, I do not for the life of me understand how it does not dawn on him how he comes off to many, many people when saying this stuff.  And I wonder if there is a non yes-man person close to Mike who has had the guts to point that out to him. I most certainly doubt anyone who is in his employ would.

Brian's said 10,000 times that his band sounds better than the Beach Boys.   What's wrong with Mike saying the same thing once?

Has Brian ever referred to Mike directly?

I take it to mean that the Brian Wilson band has been able to more authentically reproduce the studio recordings of the '60s than any other live iteration of The BBs, past or present (C50 obviously excluded). And that's probably because the instrumentation is much closer to The Wrecking Crew, among other factors.

There may have been some interviews (I'm sure some people will point them out to me in a hurry) where Brian has said the vocal blend of his band is fantastic, or possibly (?) Brian may have implied that it is better than the BBs' classic vocal blend, though I doubt he'd really believe that in his heart, even if such was ever (?) implied in an off the cuff moment; it was a very special family blend, and I think every BB member, Brian and Mike included, ultimately knows that.

But it's the additional, extra mile of Brian pointing out how great Brian's own band is, coupled by an additional dig against Mike as a cherry on top, that is something I've never witnessed from Brian. And that's the thing that I'm seeing here from this latest Mike interview which leaves a bad vibration with me.

Mike can always find an unnecessary, ill-timed, and redundant instance to rag on Brian by using the drug use angle (Lifestyles of The Rich and Famous, anyone?), and claim that he has absolutely no intention of boasting himself up in the process, and that he has to keep repeating the drug thing constantly simply 100% out of good intentions - no group politics ever involved, ever ever ever (does a single person here really believe this, by the way?)...but IMO, it has become a way to legitimize cloaking an insult, however subtly. I know Mike and his family have been adversely affected by drug use, but there's an appropriate time and place for certain things.

Mike commendably took the Ice Bucket Challenge... now I wonder if he can take the "in the next 50 interviews, don't mention that Brian took drugs" challenge. Brian's gonna be asked about drugs many times in his own interviews (especially with L&M coming out), and will no doubt mention the regret of drug usage on his own, more than enough times to go around.  

The irony is how sick and tired Brian clearly is of being asked about and talking about his dark drug times in the '70s (because he's asked about it so much), and how much Mike seemingly likes to go out of his way to bring it up, every chance he gets. Strike anyone else as odd or ironic?

Brian tours as "Brian Wilson". He can prefer his band over the Beach Boys...clearly he's much more comfortable with them.

Mike is touring as The Beach Boys...with only one other "Beach Boy". He is of course allowed to prefer that to playing with Carl Wilson, Dennis Wilson, Blondie Chaplin or Alan Jardine, but to say his band is better than any live iteration of The Beach Boys? It's probably more to do with the fact he has total control of the setlists and venues they play rather than how beautifully Jeff can overpower a harmony stack.

Mike's gonna Mike.

Mike sure didn't sound well in that recent Beach Movie parody video. But the reasons for that are unclear. Is it over-touring? A cold? An allergy? (Three years ago I developed an allergy that sometimes affects my singing voice, but so far not my speaking voice.)


To me it is in fact more likely that touring is Mike's addiction rather than he does it only for the money.

While it is true that Al still sounds great while Brian's range has deteriorated, Mike could indeed have left the latter fact unsaid...

Yes... so predictable.

What amused me in the article was this: "Mike Love is not ruling another tour with founding Beach Boys Brian Wilson and Al Jardine." (my emphasis) I hope he never rules another tour with Brian and Al again.

I should also add that I strongly suspect Mike's mentions of Brian's deteriorated voice, and the endless finger wagging at drug use decades ago would probably both *significantly* decrease, if not cease in interviews, if Mike got his way and got to write in a room with Brian, and was granted the control and near-equal footing/recognition he obviously desires.

Under those circumstances, I cannot see him harping on and on about these topics remotely as much in interviews, can anyone else? And doesn't that then infer that there is in fact a subtle political aspect to all the endless and contextually inappropriate harping that goes on when Mike is frustrated and feels slighted?

And shouldn't someone apologize to Mike for making him feel that way, you were probably going to say next.

I do not think that Brian sees Mike as the near creative equal that Mike likely sees himself as. I think that Brian genuinely values Mike's songwriting contributions to the band, but I also believe that Brian  outgrew working with Mike as being his primary regular collaborator. I have no doubt they could collaborate to a degree, but I don't know it could ever realistically be enough quantity-wise to Mike's liking. And in 2015, that ship has sailed. I really, truly don't think there is a way that Brian could get artistic fulfillment within the context of The Beach Boys, without Mike feeling slighted. It's unfortunate and sad. It's called creative and personal differences.

Mike wants what he feels he deserves, and it's unfortunate that this is incongruous with reality. But it's even more unfortunate that it's highly probable that bitterness over Mike's 2012 experience is a culpable factor in why we now hear the endless onslaught of slights directed at Brian by Mike, not the least of which reference decades-past drug use that "destroyed" Brian's voice. That's just really messed up to bring up continually.

And Cam, I truly believe in my heart of hearts, that if Mike had ever apologized in a public way to Brian for hurting his feelings regarding SMiLE, that Brian would be more likely to offer an apology to Mike for Mike being hurt for feeling slighted in 2012. There is a continuum of dysfunctionality and improper communication that goes throughout the story, which, I might add, could be traced back even further to Mike's unfair songwriting exclusions. Yes, I can point the finger at Brian sometimes. So you should be able to point the finger at Mike sometimes. There's culpability on both sides, but let's be honest and recognize that it goes both ways, and sadly, there are reasons why no apologies in 1967 = no apologies in 2012. I do not think Brian excluded Mike from the songwriting process in either era out of resentment or anger. I think it was out of artistic and personal necessity. And Mike will never get that, and thus he subtly acts out in interviews like these.

Oh I do blame Mike. I blame him for "Wrinkles".

I agree that Mike should have apologised for not having the faith in Brian to offer more support during SMiLE but Mike obviously felt and probably still feels that this direction was a mistake. No doubt the success of Endless Summer made Mike feel vindicated. I believe Mike is wrong but Mike is incapable of seeing it from Brian's perspective IMO.

As for Brian apologising for C50 - why? Mike was being less than sensible if he expected that after what has gone down over the years (above mentioned artistic differences, Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, all those barbed comments by Mike about Brian and of course the litigation) Brian was going to want to go back to using Mike as his main collaborator. That is Mike's problem. He always wants to 'do it again'. He always wants to repeat the past. Brian had moved on. They'd been apart as artists for years.

Also, Mike owed Brian and Al an apology re the C50. The way he ended it was obviously intended to hurt. He could easily have discussed his decision with Brian and Al first.

<Also, Mike owed Brian and Al an apology re the C50. They way he ended it was obviously intended to hurt. He could easily have discussed his decision with Brian and Al first.>>

I believe the deal for Mike resuming touring with his own band was set in stone during negotiations for the original reunion tour.  I'm not sure why this is still being debated 3 years later.  This was no surprise.  It was a deal everyone agreed to.  In fact, you have to give Mike credit for agreeing to the tour knowing his post reunion tour revenue might be hurt by the fact that the "real" Beach Boys had been on the road.  The "surprise" in all this was that, given the success of the reunion tour, Mike might suddenly change his mind and give up the idea of the M&B show in favor of extended and future reunions.  Personally, I think, had everyone been on the same page, with no public arguments, Mike would have resumed his torus with Bruce, the Beach Boys might have done another studio album with Brian in 2013 and another reunion tour might have happened in late 2013 or 2014.  But revisionist history seems to continue.

It isn't that it ended, it's the WAY that it ended.

Exactly, Mike ditched them with a lame press release and the BBs name showing up at seaworld.

I think you know there was some logic in these posts I've made. But I wouldn't expect that to remotely be admitted to, only sarcasm, joking deflection, or a "we will continue to disagree" avoidance remark, just as one of those responses will undoubtably appear as a response to this. It's as predictable as if Joe Thomas will use Ottotune.

Which press release was issued at the behest of Brian's management to clear up any confusion concerning the post-C50 version of The Beach Boys. Granted, the timing could have been better, as could some of the phrasing, but fact is Mike was doing what he was asked to do.

According to one of the LA Times article/interviews, there was a meeting requested to discuss putting out such a clarification about the different bands in a press release, but before that meeting could take place the press release you're mentioning went public before it had a chance to be reviewed by all parties, which I believe would have been part of the request and agreement on doing such a thing. I believe all that was spelled out in one of the articles, fall 2012 if anyone's interested in digging it up.

once again, Mike will say anything in a desperate attempt to make himself look good and disrespect Brian in the process. no one's buying it

news flash, Mike: your voice has sounded like sh!t for well over 20 years and your range has always been (and continues to be) but a fraction of Brian's

such a sad, pathetic human being. truly the one worthy of pity

Exactly, pity and scorn in equal measure.

(http://i59.tinypic.com/34pb3nn.jpg)

Point of the article - Mike prefers his band of non Beach Boys to any era of the band that had Beach Boys.

What else do we need to know from him at this point. He's disrespectful and lacking in talent. The last time he showed an ounce of creative drive or artistic integrity was in the 70s. And yet he has personally helped kick out nearly every single member of the band at one point or another. It makes no sense. I wouldn't even think of him nowadays if it weren't for the crap he keeps telling journalists.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/brian-wilson-to-mike-love-it-sort-of-feels-like-we-re-being-fired-20121009

Sounds like things were just assumed without any discussion within BRI.

I hope nobody in this thread gets accused of having an agenda.

Wtf, when did the Brianistas take over this message board? This was such a lovely place with OSD spilling out his bullshit from time to time, but now so much crap. What happened? Did Brian's board close?

Oh, it's still a lovely place. It's just that fewer and fewer people are buying into myKe luHv's bullshit. They're finally seeing the light more and more with each passing day. The most hated, laughed at man in rock and roll is a hack and an amateur human being. But not to worry, he'll always have you and a few, and I mean a few, people to shine his shoes for him.  >:D

Yeah, I don't see how that's relevant to anything I said in any way. At all. Brian's people have said and done some very spiteful things, generally unprovoked, toward Mike in the last twenty years. Mike's done his fair share of bullshit over the years, but so have Brian's people. Mudslinging only serves to damage Brian's reputation, which doesn't need to be defended anyway considering he's Brian Wilson, thus making the spiteful moves etc. totally unnecessary.

Agree. There was a good middle ground that this board was on for several years that kind of seemed to disappear rather suddenly at some point within the last six months or so. I love Brian, obviously, but you don't have to love Brian to the exclusion of all others.

One of the best parts about the release of No Pier Pressure was that it, temporarily put a stop to the constant Mike Love bashing that tends to go on this and Brian's boards. 

But, the album's a week old, most of us have soaked it in a few times. 

And, here we go again. 

Some folks just love to hate Love. 

When I look back on what happened in 2012, I'd rather think of the one great tour we got, and the way better than expected TWGMTR album.  It was a special year.  But, it's over now. 

Now, in 2015, we have a really good new Brian Wilson album, featuring three other Beach Boys (Dave, Al, and Blondie).  We have a movie in less than two months.  A nice looking concert DVD in Brian and Friends.  And a tour with Brian, Al, and Blondie to look forward to. 

With all that's going right in the Bri-universe, I don't get why so many dwell on the bitterness towards M.E. Love. 

Personally, I'm going to take advantage of this rare opportunity this summer to see Mike, Bruce, Brian, Al, and Blondie in concert.  OK, they won't be on the same stage, or the same state.  But it's two Beach Boys concerts with five members.  Two nights of great songs.  Who knows if a summer like this will ever happen again.   Brian has hinted this could be his last tour, and Mike and Bruce are no spring chickens. 

There's no doubt that Love & Mercy, and well as Brian and Mike's books will drag some dirt back out, but I think it's time to let it go and just enjoy the music. 

This board is a lot of fun and filled with interesting folks with different opinions. Yeah we argue a lot, but so many fascinating tidbits come to light and we get contributions from the actual folks involved. If all this Brian-love during a year with a lot of Brian-stuff going on is too much for you guys, why not migrate to The Vibe Room and bask in the Love? It could use more posters desperately! Or hit up BBB... I hope that wasn't a nationalist slur, but you have on site Bruce Johnston access and no terrible jokes about the Lovester.

The mods do a great job here and I've sprayed beverages all over my monitor due to some of you funny f*ckers. This is a terrific forum compared to hundreds of other noise-filled boreathons around the internet, we should appreciate the hard work that goes into it even if we have drastically different opinions of "Cousin Mike" and "Cousin Brian."

And if you want to enjoy the music and ignore the politics, why not just... er, enjoy the music and skip these threads? You people aren't mods and don't get to dictate how everyone else reacts to this silly soap opera. The tedious shaming and tut-tutting adds nothing...

Ontor,

Despite my love of The Beatles and The Who, I've always considered myself more of a Rocker than a Mod. 

 ;D

If you took what I said as shaming or tut-tutting, I didn't mean for it to come across that way. 

I go on these boards because I enjoy the music so much, and enjoy reading about folks opinions from everything from Surfin' to No Pier Pressure. 

And, look, I know that Mike Love isn't always the easiest guy in the world to like.  But, you have to admit, the bashing of him is getting old. 

Much like Ole Betsy. 

Heh! I figure these guys are public figures and any gibberish is acceptable... but expect pushback from the other side and to be called on it! We just shouldn't attack each other as much probably in defense of our sacred icons. It gets a bit heated and personal and then the mods step in, but even you admit how tough it can be to like Mike sometimes. Mike Love is a guy that is going to be made fun of until people forget the words Mike Love. So here's to keeping his memory alive, each in our own way... Whhheeeeeeeeennnnnnn!

Nothing to ditch. Agreed by all parties (late 2011/ early 2012 I guess).

But minds were gradually changed. Let's not pretend that's a non-existent factor, like Mike does.

But Mike called "no changees" and said "neener neener" and that was the end. Brian (via BRI) then relented and let the baby have his bottle. Mike probably played the opening "na na na na na" from "Problem Child" on repeat for motivation.

Meanwhile Mike's somewhere with his fifth hot ass wife, getting paid to hang out with D list celebrities, and also getting paid a little bit every time you buy a ticket to a Brian Wilson concert.  Think about it.   

Who's really winning the argument? 

Le succès à tout prix

Also getting paid every time you buy a copy of NPP (Deluxe) w/ITBOMM.
He's winning like Sheen.  Except that a truly happy, content person doesn't find it necessary to continually bring up his former bandmate's deteriorated voice in inappropriate contexts. But I'm sure Mike finds enough distractions, like nonstop touring with nobody to share the spotlight with, to make himself feel much better. I'm sure it's good to be Mike, no matter how you slice it.

Oddly, every time Mike & Bruce play a show, Brian gets paid a little too. Currently that's "a little" x roughly 125 annually. Think about it.  ;D

Definitely!

Mike Bitches about Brian like lots of people on this board bitch about Mike....



















... and Andrew, of course Brian gets some of Mike's cake.  That's my whole point.  Think about it.  It's all a bunch of bullshit, these guys are somewhere eating birthday cake right now with your and my money, we just think we gave it to our favorite.

For a variety of reasons...many who make/made a living using their voices...have to deal with deterioration of the 'asset'.  It's why Brian was just plain FOOLISH to break his voice on purpose back in the day...but he was improperly diagnosed and medicated and he can't be held responsible for what he did.  He has made HUGE strides to get the most out of it over these past 17 years or so and has been rather successful at it.  I mean really!!!  Not at all bad for an old fart who once blew his voice almost to shreds.  Meanwhile clean living Mike has to almost whisper his songs out now or his voice will give him away.  Me too.  Smoking gave my voice grit.  It made me dough.  Then it got too screwed up...I got a lung disease and now my lungs are only working at 50% capacity TOPS ... with no hope to EVER show improvement.  [and I'm claustrophobic!!!  Great eh?]

Like Mike...I could chastise Brian for what he did...but right now Brian's in way better 'form' than either Mike or I will ever be.  And unlike Brian...neither Mike nor I can write MUSIC...let alone create arrangements.  So?  I guess Mike and I should shut the f*** up and save our voices for making every last penny we can...'cause time is running out.

It sounds to me like they never even got together to decide anything one way or another. Both sides are saying this but then they all played out their non-decision in the press.

  I heard docs are doing some experimental lung transplants; maybe you should sign up, wherever it is, to breathe clear for the next 66...

From an unbiased view point (contrary to popular belief) I agree with Mike's observations...but, they were not necessary or professional in the context of promoting another show in Smalltown USA.

That being said...those clips posted on the first page did NOT boast well for the touring band. Mike and Bruce both sounded rough, and "God Only Knows" sounded extra corny on the musical end. But, that's a damn good version of "Fun, Fun, Fun" (barring a weak lead vocal) and it probably is the best the Beach Boys band has sounded in a LONG time.


The point we should all take away from these facts is that all of these guys (well, except Al Jardine...he's amazing) are declining in voice maybe more rapidly than ever now. Regardless of what "camp" you want to support, they all get your money...go out and enjoy this music live by the guys that brought it to you, regardless of how many are on the stage, while you still can.

Unlike some here (if their posts are to be taken as any indication) I've no problem with any of the band being recompensed for composing, recording and then touring the wonderful music that has not only brightened my life but also, to no small degree, directed its course these last 40 years.  :)

Yep.  And I agree with Andrew's contention directly above me.  [In what was the previous post while I typed this.]  I DO, though, think that shutting up would be a good idea for Michael when discussing Brian's singing voice.  Pots and kettles.

"Unfortunately, Brian doesn't sing the range he once did"

I don't see what's problematic about this line.  It's a statement of fact.  Brian has a different place, vocally, within the band and in the harmony stack.  He's not criticising Brian's singing in his current range.

eh....NPP is Brian's 11th solo album singing in a different range to the one he once had Mike. That's how many more albums than you again?

Lovely post from one of the guys in the Love and Mercy crowd.

Would it be equally allowed for people to say these things about Brian Wilson on this board without getting banned?

Fair enough.  I will admit that intro to Be Cool to Your School is both cringeworthy and hilarious. 

There are a lot of things these guys could say about each other in interviews that are statements of fact, but would clearly not be intended as an objective statement of fact with no negative connotation. That goes for anybody. At the family's thanksgiving dinner, you can point out that Aunt Suzy has way more wrinkles and flabby skin compared to 20 years ago. Just because it's a statement of fact doesn't mean it doesn't make you look like a douche for saying it. The context of the comment does matter, both in terms of the band as a whole as well as the context of the comment in the interview itself.

Here's the pertinent part:

"Being able to get into the studio again to record with those guys was really good. Being on tour was I think a neat thing to do, especially for the longtime fans," Love said. "Al Jardine sounds fantastic. Unfortunately, Brian doesn't sing the range he once did."

Mike ironically bounced the negative comment off of a positive one about Al of all people. Guy A sounds good, but Guy B doesn’t. The implication is a negative one. He's allowed to make it, and Brian clearly doesn't sing in the range he once did. Nobody in the band particularly does anymore, accept for perhaps Al in certain scenarios. Brian's voice is nothing like it was in the "olden days." But that has been the case since 1976, and a guy who took perfect care of his voice probably wouldn't be able to hit the "Papa Oom Mow Mow" falsetto part in his mid-70's. In any event, Mike can say all this stuff. But he's going to come out looking like a dick. As most anybody would be if they criticized a fellow bandmate for their shortcomings, especially when the person saying the stuff has plenty of shortcoming themselves, and ESPECIALLY when they're saying it about a bandmate from whom they are professionally estranged.

Mike has in previous interviews mentioned that Brian’s voice isn’t like it was in the olden days. I think he truly laments that. We all do, obviously. But it sometimes seems as if he blames Brian for this completely, as opposed to the ravages of time. As if, even after singing professionally for over half a century, after having worked with numerous vocalists and falsetto singers who have aged, he doesn’t get that a voice in the higher range that does falsettos will, more than his baritone or mid-range voice, give out more noticeably to time itself regardless. News flash, Mike doesn’t sound like he used to either. They have to lower the key on some songs for him too, like “It’s OK” for instance.

I'm pretty sure people might suggest that Brian or Al was being pretty catty if they pointed out, say, that Bruce Johnston has hardly participated in live Beach Boys concerts in decades. That's as much a fact as the current state of Brian's voice.

Or if, say Brian pointed out in the last few years that his touring band has had as many if not more “Beach Boys” than Mike’s own band called “The Beach Boys.” That would be a statement of fact too, but would clearly be loaded with a clear implication and connotation. Or if Brian mentioned that Mike has developed an on-and-off rasp in his voice. That would be a fact too. Never mind that it could be the ravages of time and/or incessant touring year after year without significant breaks.

Also, Mike isn't one of those world-weary, crusty old timer rockstars who give entertaining interviews where they kind of roast and criticize anybody and everybody. That's another reason when he *does* go negative in some way about Brian or someone else in his own band, it comes across more like a pretty specific negative commentary. When you feel you are "Mr. Positivity" and instances where the interviews reflect on yourself you spout the same PR stuff over and over (bringing the music to the fans, sending out fun fun fun and good vibrations, etc.), when you tout how your current band of backing guys is awesome, but then shift gears and point out that Brian Wilson doesn’t sing in the range he once did, then that negative “it’s just a statement of fact” bit is going to come across as exponentially more pointed and loaded.

It's not like people have to go out of their way to find something to complain about. The one fueling the Mike Love negativity here is Mike Love himself. If Mike or Scott or anyone on this board want the criticism of Mike to stop, they should consider convincing him to be a bit more diplomatic and gracious in his interviews. This thread didn't get started out of the blue just to bash Mike. It's a discussion of Mike's statements in an interview, and yes, he seems to take some backhanded swipes at Brian for no reason.  And, since he's been doing this in quite a few interviews lately, he's going to come under fire.

The backlash from the majority would be the same if Brian or Al went into interview after interview talking about what a law suit happy dirty old man Mike is. They, however, don't spend their interviews trying to build themselves up by tearing Mike down. Mike hasn't learned this lesson. He needs to.

Exactly. I dare say that because of Mike's continued barbed comments he has become extremely unpopular in some quarters and it is difficult to recover from that. Seeing him as a victim is however quite mistaken IMO.

I know, right? Especially when he will get stick for even compliments and praise or not mentioning someone at all. It's a lose/lose no matter deserved or not. He should learn to just sit in stony silence through every interview.

No. There's a middle ground between constantly pointing out "Cousin Brian's" flaws and not saying anything at all. It's called tact.

I wonder how Mike feels about the movie Love and Mercy.

One would think that Mike would have accepted the change in Brian's voice by now. I mean, that happened 40 years ago, for crisse-sakes. Beginning to think that Mike is becoming Mr. Ying & Yang, more so than Mr. Positivity.

Well, he hasn't had time to listen to the new music, so I doubt he'll bother seeing the movie. But, if he's worried that he might not come off very well, he already had his stab at presenting Brian as a slobbering idiot in "An American Family."  It all evens out.

I guess if there was anything objectionable he would have already launched his lawsuit.

Cyncie,

You bring up an interesting point with American Family.

I wonder if there will be a push to get that officially released onto DVD around the time Love and Mercy is due for release.  

I actually enjoyed the first half of American Family, not so much the second half where Brian turned into a cartoon character.  

You hit the nail right on the head. I guess for some people, negative attention is better than no attention at all. I'm not sure if that's what fuels Mike, but I agree, you would think he would learn the lesson this is presenting to him, especially since he seems to be a pretty smart guy. I guess we all have things we are blind to.

They would have to pay both the publishers and the owners of the recordings pretty expensive "sync" fees to put a DVD out of that miniseries. Considering that, and the fact that it got pretty lukwarm reviews, was not well received by fans or some of the members of the band, and even Stamos himself seems to know the movie was/is a dud, I doubt we'll see a DVD release.

Excellent point. The truly positive people I know don't make it a practice to point out the negative.

Agreed. I wonder if the irony is lost among too many on this board after reading all of the autotune bullshit.

Good point Hey Jude.  As far as accuracy, I'd rate it up with Oliver Stone's The Doors.  Which the surviving members of the Doors washed their hands of.....after the checks cleared.  

The thing is, Mike is perfectly fine at being the frontman, and of being the shiny, happy PR guy in interviews. He can masterfully take sometimes even pointed questions and turn it into an advertisement for whatever he has going on now. There was one interview a year or two ago where he was specifically asked about C50, and he immediately just started talking about his current, post-reunion lineup.

Avoiding those questions and/or just doing the happy PR "fun fun fun" thing is not exactly admirable either, but it at least avoids any inflammatory, dick-ish commentary.

So, when Mike *does* shift gears in an interview from PR mode to saying something negative about Brian Wilson, if anything, it carries more weight. If a guy gives interviews and always talks s**t about everybody and anybody, that's one thing. But if a guy who gives the same PR schpiel and reads the same lines off over and over in interviews (<we're gonna have some fun fun fun tonight in "your city name here">) then breaks off and mentions an estranged bandmate can't sing in a certain range anymore, it sticks out even more.

I don’t think the little swipe at Brian’s voice in that interview can be equated to fans suggesting Brian’s new album might have autotune on it.

One is indeed pretty much a statement of fact, and also *clearly* a negative swipe. The other is merely speculation, and ironically is not necessarily intended to be wholly negative.

The two scenarios are actually kind of opposite. I actually will buy that at least *some* of the people pointing out autotune on Brian’s music are really just pointing out something objectively as a “statement of fact” (or more a “statement of what they believe to be a fact or strong possibility”). Many who think autotune is on there still like the material. On the other hand, I don’t buy that Mike is just stating an objective fact for the record in that interview, given the context of the comment. It has a clear negative connotation.

As I’ve said before, I’m skeptical of any scenarios where someone is unceasingly positive about a huge, complicated topic. That’s true, for me, whether it’s Mike talking about himself or fans talking about Brian’s new album.

As someone else pointed out, there are tactful ways of not being 100% positive about everything all the time. There are even ways to politely say Brian’s voice isn’t what it used to be. Mike’s words were, I suppose, more blunt than they were hyperbolically scathing or anything. And, as I’ve touched on before, a lot of his comments about Brian (and C50) read more negative because of their context. The more negative something is, and the more *unprompted* those negative comment seem, the more they seem inflammatory. A good example of that would be the infamous David Beard “interview”, which appeared to take the most innocuous question imaginable, with an easy opportunity to make a very quick neutral or positive comment, and turn it into a an uber-defensive diatribe.

It has no place being said in an interview by Mike, in the context of when he said it. Should Brian say, "Unfortunately, Mike has much less hair on his head than I do"? No. It's stating the obvious. It's distasteful to bring it up. I don't think Mike would bring it up if Mike hadn't been denied the mythic "room" he wanted.

This, this, this and... THIS.

To HeyJude:
"I haven't heard the song yet, I am sure with Al's voice and hopefully no autotune, the song will be great."

I think the autotune thing is a discussion of how something may have been mishandled a bit in the production process (and not being as transparent as it could have/should have been), not unlike discussions for other bands where people may be discussing "brickwalling" during mastering, etc, and not unlike people remarking that a CG shot in a film may have needed more passes of rendering in order for it to appear totally seamless. Transparent autotune usage requires skill and mastery, and I'm sure any vocal tuning was performed by a person at a computer who was not Brian Wilson, so IMO it's more bitching at the guy who did it, rather than berating Brian in any way.

Imagine if your cousin had come through years of drug abuse to, against all odds, be alive and well and working in his 70's.

You don't celebrate or congratulate your cousin on the fact that he is working and successful, you make a public point of saying that you don't bother listening to his new music, while bringing up his decades-old drug abuse at seemingly every available opportunity as if it's something he should be inextricably linked with and deserves no credit for having moved past.

What do you call that? I call it being a sh*t.

Not to mention it's entirely possible that some of Brian's own previous years of self-destruction may have in part been fueled by the dysfunctional circumstances around him, and Mike himself is not completely removed from that scenario himself. A guy who is gonna run his mouth like this against Brian in inappropriate contexts is showing his true colors, which is that it appears he has a history of saying hurtful things devoid of tact. More so than most people in Brian’s past or present life, I’d imagine.

I personally know a very small amount of people who have a history of continually saying hurtful things, devoid of tact, and I choose to no longer associate with them. Some of them I am related to. If I was forced into associating with them on a regular basis, day in day out, it might lead me to want to indulge, speaking personally. So I'm just saying it's not to be dismissed outright, if someone chooses to say I am being totally out of line suggesting such. I'll admit it would still be my "fault" for indulging.

A decades-earlier mentally ill Brian, with less of an emotional support system, was further indulging in substances most likely in part to escape hurtful people and hurtful situations. I am not blaming Mike for Brian taking drugs, but I am saying that a sick person taking drugs to self-medicate and avoid dysfunctional people wasn’t going to have been helped by a personality like Mike’s. They could in fact make things worse. Even if Mike had then and has now only selfless, good intentions, which in the eye of the beholder. Of course, it’s ultimately Brian’s responsibility what he did to himself, and I’m sure that Brian knows that. But Mike seems just as oblivious as ever, after all these years, at how he comes off, and how he may have not helped the situation, both then and now. Not trying to be inflammatory, just stating my opinion on how words and continual lack of tact can have consequences.

It’s all about context. When you read that entire diatribe from Mike, it’s clear that the context of even mentioning autotune is to take a jab/swipe, whatever you want to call it. It read to me as well like somebody had fed that piece of information.

Conversely, while some fans have invoked the topic of autotune in a similar fashion, many other fans have simply pointed out that they think they hear it. Some might even lament its use. But it isn’t *always* intended as loaded term/topic full of a bunch of implications.  If someone writes a short, or even one-line, “review” of Brian’s album mentioning autotune, it’s probably meant as a loaded dig. If someone writes a long, thoughtful review of the album that includes the suggestion of autotune, I’m more inclined to believe they aren’t trying to use “autotune”  as some sort of “trigger” for defensive fans or something, or to just be negative about Brian for the sake of being negative.

Just curious to hear your reasons: For what purpose would someone have "fed" such a piece of information?

I have no problem actually believing that some of the stuff Mike does in interviews, such as bringing up decades-old drug abuse, is partly just a personality tick rather than an overt attempt to smear anybody. Some people are indeed just like that. They will continually bring up negative stuff from the past even if it has been resolved and everybody else has moved on. Mike does the same thing with the songwriting lawsuit topic. He STILL brings it up in interviews, even though he WON the case *twenty years* ago, and nobody including Brian ever disputed the legitimacy of his claims (outside of little things like Asher with WIBN). His name has been on the songs and he has been receiving royalties for twenty years (and was awarded damages when he won the case). It’s the textbook definition of a “wrong being righted”, yet he *still* seems disenfranchised about it. Track down that story Van Dyke Parks told about how, circa 1992, Mike was *still* asking Van Dyke about the “cornfield” lyrics.

That seems to be a common thread in some of Mike’s interviews. For a guy who is so successful, so freaking rich from this whole thing, has achieved success by any measure most could conjure (money, fame, houses, spiritual enlightenment by his own account, whole *gala events* in his honor), and who professes to be all about positivity, he also seems awfully disenfranchised about a list of specific things (songwriting, C50, Murry, Landy, “people around Brian”, Al in the 2000’s, “Smile”, etc.).

I think Mike would not do these things, would not bring stuff up the way he does, if Mike had the recognition he feels he deserves  (perhaps a Grammy recipient for solo work, like Ringo), if Mike wasn't the laughing stock of his contemporaries, and if Mike got to write with Brian in a room and wrote latter-day hit songs with his cousins, which were specifically publicly recognized for having super lyrics. But this is not reality. It's a Catch 22.

He's not a well-liked figure, and does not have the recognition he deserves, precisely because of him doing/saying these types of things repeatedly, which rub most people the wrong way.  I wish this was not the case. I really, really, really wish it was not. I don't think he has a history of doing these things as a result of being secure. He's his own worst enemy, and even his most ardent defenders must know this. People thought things might be starting to change in 2012, but we were way too naive in thinking that.

I don’t hear Mike often talk about the perils of autotune in interviews. I’m not sure if he had ever even used the term prior to that Beard interview. To me, the whole thing smelled like Mike was butt-hurt about a few journalists implying he (Mike) was the reason Brian’s album wasn’t a “Beach Boys” album. Then, surprise, Mike is tapped for an “interview”, and Mike mentions autotune in relation to a song *HE HASN’T HEARD*.

I’m not sure how or why this would have come up in a conversation Mike had with someone else. I just don’t think it’s far-fetched that *somebody* mentioned to Mike something like “Did you hear the track? It has autotune on it.” And/or, Mike read some commentary to that effect online.

I can only say it read as though Mike’s purpose for raising the topic was to make a passive dig. He doesn’t appear any longer to be a fan of Joe Thomas or of Brian’s working relationship with Thomas. It read to me like he was using a criticism often-discussed among fans as a way to make a little dig. He added the common twist of making it a passive theoretical criticism. Instead of saying “if it has autotune, I think it could suck”, it turns into “I am sure with Al's voice and hopefully no autotune, the song will be great."

As I mentioned back then, it would be like Brian commenting on a new Mike album, “I’m sure, assuming Mike doesn’t mention surfing or cars or the beach and assuming he doesn’t namecheck old Beach Boys songs in the lyrics, it will be great.” It’s an accusation without being an accusation. Without hearing a Mike album, you wouldn’t know whether any of that stuff is on it. But it’s an often-discussed criticism that *could* be there, and which may or may not negatively impact the work.

I think if the Smiley Smile messageboard didn't exist, I have my doubts that Mike would have mentioned Autotune in that interview.

*THIS* is the crux of what I've been saying. I'll concede that perhaps in my usual wordiness it may not always seem to be at the surface and maybe it comes of as me directing things in a more broad sense than I intended, but I actually have to say I'm almost relieved to read this line in light of all that has gone down over this issue.

It has been and is often used as a criticism for the sake of criticizing (and beyond just this board, let it be noted). Beyond negatively impacting the work, if it gets used negatively to the point of creating false impressions by suggesting it, it could negatively impact the impression *of* the work in the minds of those who have not yet heard it. And that, to me, is the part I perhaps most strongly object to depending on the context. And within the context of 2014-15, I saw perhaps too much of that happening, yet being defended as someone hearing or not hearing it. If I was unclear, that's on me.

But that line quoted above crystallized it, nailed it, hit the nail on the head, got down to brass tacks, whatever the phrase that applies. I was relieved to see the entire post worded as you did, seriously.


EDIT: To clarify even more, it was seeing a recognition that the notion of "autotune" when used in certain ways was in fact a passive or even outright negative connotation being used that struck a chord. That was one of my pet peeves, and it felt at times like there was not an acknowledgement that it was in fact being used in exactly the passive-negative way that HeyJude laid out.

And...that it isn't used...primarily is JUST as important ultimately as Andrew's and Jon's [and others] quest to make sure that the right people are credited for their work playing the instruments on specific songs and albums...as opposed to the myths which all too often  seem to overtake the truth.

To keep this myth from being auto-turned into fact is just as important.  :hat

There are additional myths that come up with some regularity, and it's frustrating to either know what really happened or be able to offer proof to confirm or deny that myth or falsehood, yet there are those who will continue to push and push and push, perhaps hoping to repeat something enough times so it becomes "fact" over the actual facts. If only the same voracity applied in certain other myth-busting cases as applies to the session musician credits issue whenever it comes up, it might level out.

I won't go any further into details, I've already done enough of that.  ;)

Unfortunately, I doubt it will ever be as easy to “prove” the autotune issue one way or the other. It isn’t like looking up AFM contracts and listening to old session tapes.

I agree that an unsubstantiated allegation becoming the “truth” over time is troubling. But this could apply to either side of the autotune issue.

The evidence, all of it circumstantial, in my opinion largely points to it having been used to some degree in some spots. I would be troubled by any piece/work that painted the “autotune” issue dismissively, as if a few fringe weirdos made the accusation. If anything, and I’m facing this myself as I continue to think about my own full review of the album, the “autotune” issue in relation to reviewing the album has become an issue in and of itself. It pervades the discussion of the album so much that it would be hard to review the album at this stage without mentioning that the issue itself is being hotly debated among fans.

Yes, yes...THIS:
"It pervades the discussion of the album so much that it would be hard to review the album at this stage without mentioning that the issue itself is being hotly debated among fans."

This is exactly my pet peeve. A non-issue, more or less, has had the effect on at least one person (you, HeyJude) to where "autotune" gets implanted into the experience of hearing the album with open ears and an open mind.

That is the insidious part of it, the bullshit in other words. It's my big issue, this one. To have your experience as a fan affected in any way by such a "pervading" issue, I'd call it an intrusion, is perhaps *exactly* the way this was set up to do. Call it an agenda, call it trolling, call it Henry or Bill...

It's fucking insidious, pardon the language.

Heyjude, please ignore the pervading issues and go into it with a smile of expectation and excitement rather than letting this subliminal autotune whisper-campaign sort of bullshit interrupt your feelings as a fan and as a commentator. Because as much as you've made the case for fans reporting what they heard and perceived, there is the other less honest side of it at play too.

f*** autotune and those who may be pushing it in the negative/passive way to diminish or alter anyone's impression of it. Listen with your heart, not just your ears. That's how the album was designed to be experienced.

I also agree that Mike was likely "fed" the "autotune" line as well. I mean, let's look at the facts. The man made some of the MIDI-est, most sterile, slickest work this side of the T-Pain. I mean, Summer In Paradise? The NASCAR album? Summertime Cruisin'? If this guy is serious about being worried about "autotune" I'd be very, very surprised.

Instead it seems like somebody on this board mentioned how that "autotune" thing was kinda coming up as a so-called "bad" thing when relating to BW lately. So I'm sure Mike then felt happy to have some more ammo in his arsenal.

I appreciate the advice, truly. I can certainly only speak for myself, but I’m quite able to handle the issue appropriately. I’ve been on the interwebs posting about the Beach Boys for, wow, 20 years now. I trust my ears and deductive reasoning, so none of the opinions (which are welcomed and interesting) are going to impact how I feel about the album. Nothing has been “implanted” into my listening experience or analysis. That the autotune issue pervades discussion won’t impact my opinion of the album. It may only impact whether I take a detour and discuss the debate itself. If I do or did discuss that debate, it would only be because I find it interesting or noteworthy enough (or amusing or tragically ironic, etc.)

I`m sure many people think that Auto-tune has been discussed too much...

So who on earth thought it would be a good idea to bring it up in this thread as well???  :lol

I feel so bad for all of you who can't seem to figure out all of this for the past 20 years is nothing more than the extended version of  "Cassius" Love vs "Sonny" Wilson.

Jokes on you.

Agree wholeheartedly. I've found myself expecting pitch correcting / Auto tune… whatever… with every listen to NPP and still haven't been able to detect it - but listening out for it is detracting from my enjoyment.

Also, the line about Mike being "fed" the Auto Tune line… well I wouldn't be surprised if that did originate in something he or an acquaintance read here on this board. I've suspected in the past that some band principals (or their representatives here on Earth) come here to find out what they're supposed to be doing/have done, and this is another coincidence.

As for Auto tune migrating to this thread, well, maybe that's not a bad thing - if all the conspiracy theories are in one place, it saves the CIA the effort of having to search for them.

John Lennon, on the grassy knoll, with a machete.

As said earlier, Mike is his own worst enemy. The other thing I find is that people who really possess certain traits, let's take positivity in this instance, as it applies, don't go around telling people they are positive. In fact, they may not even know they are that way until it's pointed out by someone else. My life experience suggests that people who go to the trouble to point out so-called positive traits in themselves, like a positive attitude, are usually wanting but lacking the very thing they profess to have, and it's obvious to everyone but them.

I certainly think it’s a bummer if anybody’s enjoyment of the new album is being compromised in any way. But if *not hearing* the autotune is bugging people who don’t think it’s there or don’t care *more* than *hearing* autotune is bugging people who do care to some degree that it’s there, I’m not sure what can be done about that.

Either way, it seems like, as is sometimes the case of message boards/forums, it has become a rather “meta” sort of discussion. We’re not talking about autotune anymore. We’re talking about talking about autotune now. I empathize with and to some degree agree with the fears that some sort of misconception might turn into “the truth.” But I don’t think the autotune thing is one of those cases. It’s not one of those blatantly false things that needs to be (or can be) disproven. It’s a very open-ended, provocative topic.

Maybe Mike is unhappy he sounds like a robot on the C50 live album?

We’ve heard some indirect reports, if I’m recalling correctly, that he did indeed express displeasure to somebody about that sound on the live album. But he’s not objective about anything to do with C50, so his opinion on it doesn’t carry much weight with me. The autotune is a mess on that album (on certain tracks much more than others), but if Mike otherwise felt better about all the other aspects of C50, I doubt he’d be hammering things that he, on some level, has negative feelings about. A lot of people do this in certain circumstances. It’s the same reason that stuff Mike has said post-C50 was not heard for him during C50.

I’m surprised he hasn’t specifically mentioned the autotune on the live album, as that would be an obvious thing to bludgeon Joe Thomas (and Brian) with. He seems more bent out of shape he wasn’t a bigger part of the studio album.

Some have also suggested that you can hear autotune on some of Mike’s non-BB products, such as some of the stuff from the “Mike Love Not War/Unleash the Love, etc” material. I haven’t gone back lately to listen to any of that stuff. But considering Mike is self-professed to be far less interested in studio work than Brian, I think it’s plausible that his stuff was autotuned without his detailed knowledge.

I have a hunch that not a single member of the BBs has actually heard a single note from the C50 live album, or no more than a casual brief listen at most. Not quite sure what the motivation would be for any parties involved to relive that time in album form, what with all the bad vibrations that it ended with.

I think someone, perhaps AGD, made a passing reference to Mike (and perhaps Bruce) having heard enough of the live album to not be happy with the autotune/sound. I can’t find the post quickly here, though. Whatever the reference, I believe it was in passing. It wasn’t from a formal Q&A or anything.

The C50 live album was probably the weakest product to come out of the whole reunion project. The band didn’t seem to care, nor did Capitol. I don’t know how much of that was due to the dissolution of the reunion itself. Nobody hyped it at all. It was almost like somebody eventually mentioned “oh yeah, I guess we should do a live album from the tour.”

But yeah, I wouldn’t be surprised if none of them actually sat down and listened to the whole thing from beginning to end. They probably rarely if ever do that with any of their albums, certainly in retrospect years later. Brian would have been the only one who possibly did anything hands-on for the live album. Other than possibly Brian, everybody else’s involvement probably consisted of being given a copy. I suppose it’s possible they helped pick the tracks. I dunno.

Well, the songs on the album that came from some TV show or something similar (Isn't It Zime for example) sounded like they just copied it from the TV mix IIRC. All in all they mostly used recordings from earlier concerts (maybe because of contracts?) I believe and not only did their performances get better and better as the tour went on, in the earlier shows there was something done with Brian's microphone. Maybe this was because they had the live album in mind. No matter what, the album is a desaster. It sounds so sterile and like the audience was overdubbed later; so much isolation between the music and the audience that there's really no atmosphere. Plus the edits of studio and live singing (again Isn't It Time) is amateurish. Great chance, great blow.

I don't profess to being adept at determining subtle, tasteful applications of autotuna. Obviously, the C50 live release was a primer in what not to do - but what about the Chiba, Japan television recording? My favorite live artifact from C50; wasn't there some vocal manipulation going on there? The vocals pop, they shine. Hard to believe it wasn't doctored with (however judiciously).

IIRC they took at least "Isn't it time" from that performance and put it on the CD.

Pretty sure its been said by others but DIA is the 2011 remake on the Chiba show.

I will have to add my appreciation of the accapello version on Their Hearts Were Full of Spring last month when I saw them.  and not just without musical instruments of any kind, but without microphones or amplification.    I have NEVER seen or heard that done.    They are currently VERY good both musically and vocally.    that is just simply a fact

Since Mike's comment about Brian's voice was in reference to TWGMTR, perhaps he was upset that other band members didn't receive more leads on the album, which I think is a valid complaint.

Obviously Mike could have said it a different way, but that could be said for many things he's done over the last 50 years.

It's a bit odd that Al's voice is more present on NPP than TWGMTR, right?

I agree, it's a bit odd, now that you mention it. But I also think that Brian was re-acclimating to getting used to working with The Boys again, and maybe hadn't quite found the right comfort zone yet with navigating all the personalities. That's my guess. Also, Brian in his 70s has found a process that works for him, and it ain't easy to get him to write and finish songs anymore, by his own admission. I imagine that nobody (including Brian) wanted to rock the boat too terribly much or too soon regarding his process, so that's probably why parts of TWGMTR have lots of resemblance to a Brian solo record, including lots of Brain leads. And while there are a lot of Brian leads on the record, the same goes for Pet Sounds, and nobody's really complaining about that.

NPP has seen Brian working in the studio with Al for a good deal more time recently now than had been the case at the time immediately preceding TWGMTR. There's more trust and friendships probably have been more mended, and things probably fell together more naturally to give Al more of a presence. Perhaps also as more of a gesture of good faith, I don't know. I'm very glad Al is present more. Some people might say politics are at play in that, and maybe they are, but the flipside of that token is this:

I honestly think that if C50 had held together, and all parties involved let Brian be the boss without the demands that were clearly made by a certain someone, that the followup BB album to TWGMTR would have had a good chance of having more input from the other members, INCLUDING MIKE LOVE, both in terms of vocals, and in terms of some collaboration.  But these things would have to come naturally, without demands, with healthy communication, trust, and with a non-resentful understanding that Brian is the boss.  I don't think it's crazy to think that, and I think that Al's further presence on NPP is evidence of such.

Agreed on all counts.

I started to assemble my favorite tracks from both TWGMTR and NPP, and it just really stood out to me how many leads Brian had on TWGMTR, and I think there are multiple factors in play. I agree that it probably took Brian time to get comfortable working with a band again, but I also think the album was rushed, and it's probably a slow process for guys in their 70s to sing perfectly, and there also were probably scheduling issues trying to get everyone in the studio.

This is a band that hasn't recorded a full album all together since the 80s, so even things like work ethic could have been a problem.

Brian has continued to record full albums, he'll take the time to get his vocals right, and he doesn't have to convey a melody to a different person, who probably won't wind up getting it correct anyway.

So, I definitely understand why Brian took so many more leads, but it is disappointing at the same time. Al still has a fantastic voice, Mike sounded good on the album, as did Bruce, and those are recorded voices we haven't heard since the 90s. Plus, Brian's voice isn't what it once was. It's certainly getting better, but I think it would have been beneficial to spread out the leads a little bit.

That's why I can understand why Mike feels the need to express his dissatisfaction with the album. He signed up for a Beach Boys album and got something that more closely resembles a Brian Wilson/Joe Thomas project with one Mike Love solo track and scattered Beach Boys voices and lyrics. Would the songs have been better if Mike was able to get Brian in a room to write songs? Eh, that doesn't really seem feasible anymore. Mike is thinking about Brian like it's 1964, and not 2012. Brian admits it takes him longer to write.

But I believe there could have been more common ground with TWGMTR, and it possibly could have led to another album.

Once again, does Mike need to say that Brian doesn't have the same range anymore? No, probably not. But it's true, and I can see his disappointment.

With just under 200 buyers posting reviews on Amazon, the live album still has a 4.5 out of 5 average rating. It's like a disconnect between the overall opinions here versus among those buyers. I was surprised in some ways to see that.

I would say that most new albums get a very high score on Amazon. Ringo Starr`s new album has a 4.5 average, for example. People throw out 5 star reviews like confetti...

I'd love to buy a 30 pack of Miller High Life, share them with Mike Love, and then spend the rest of the evening egging him on as he talks poop and makes disparaging remarks of all the things Mike Love would get drunk passionate about after about a dozen cans of the champagne of beers.


Fucka VIP "meet & greet", I'll give that guy money for a "drink & speak".


I'll be sure to let you all know how that goes.

Make sure while you and Mike are tossing back the brews to play The Smile Sessions, BW Presents Smile, NPP, TLOS, and Hold On To Your Ego in the background.