The Smiley Smile Message Board

Smiley Smile Stuff => General On Topic Discussions => Topic started by: Andrew G. Doe on May 20, 2015, 10:51:45 PM



Title: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on May 20, 2015, 10:51:45 PM
... I'm wondering who the usual suspects would hate instead. Nominations ?


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Gertie J. on May 20, 2015, 11:04:16 PM
al


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Smilin Ed H on May 20, 2015, 11:06:14 PM
Al. Already is for some mopes.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mike's Beard on May 20, 2015, 11:37:19 PM
I'm guessing it would be anyone who didn't have Wilson for a last name.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: STE on May 20, 2015, 11:45:27 PM

AGD



Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: CenturyDeprived on May 20, 2015, 11:57:42 PM
... I'm wondering who the usual suspects would hate instead. Nominations ?

We might not have a band called The BBs which lasted any significant length of time, and they might not have gotten famous in the early days without a frontman like he was when they needed one.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on May 21, 2015, 12:15:12 AM

AGD



Infamy, infamy... they've all got it in fer me !


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: SurferDownUnder on May 21, 2015, 12:59:50 AM
I think Murry would get even more of a lashing!!  >:D


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: jamesellaby on May 21, 2015, 01:14:38 AM
To be fair, I'm a fan of many, many bands and there's no-one who divides their own fanbase quite like Mike...


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: ash on May 21, 2015, 01:17:41 AM
If Mike wasn't in the band they'd be called The Beach Boy.  
The only possible nomination would be Bruce.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Jukka on May 21, 2015, 03:19:50 AM
If Mike wasn't in the band, would he be the most hated gas station attendant in greater Los Angeles area?


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: SurferDownUnder on May 21, 2015, 03:46:06 AM
To be fair, I'm a fan of many, many bands and there's no-one who divides their own fanbase quite like Mike...

What about Roger Waters or Phil Collins? Not the same but both of those guys have detractors who still like the band as a whole


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Gohi on May 21, 2015, 03:46:44 AM
The one who had no musical or artistic integrity and continually mistreated and under-appreciated the guy who saved him from pumping gas for the rest of his life.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: jamesellaby on May 21, 2015, 04:08:05 AM
To be fair, I'm a fan of many, many bands and there's no-one who divides their own fanbase quite like Mike...

What about Roger Waters or Phil Collins? Not the same but both of those guys have detractors who still like the band as a whole

Must be something about having an amiable, easy-going attitude to life  :lol


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Lee Marshall on May 21, 2015, 04:16:02 AM
To be fair, I'm a fan of many, many bands and there's no-one who divides their own fanbase quite like Mike...

The Roger Waters/David Gilmour 'thing' ain't pretty.  THAT kind of animosity doesn't seem to exist with Brian and Mike.  Some perhaps...but THAT much?  Doubtful.  Paul and John weren't exactly best buddies when they parted company either.  [How Do You Sleep?  Lying down with my eyes closed stupid. ;)]

I do believe Mike gets WAY more credit than he's due as a front man.  Nowadays?  OK.  He pretty much has to do it.  But back in the day?  I thought much of what he did was ridiculous...and really extra-specially goofy looking and sounding. [and "goofy" is being extra nice.]  Mike Love just wasn't at all cool.  When Jack moved Mike back off of the front and centre spot and he became more of the band and less of the centre-shot I thought that the Beach Boys were A LOT cooler.  Then came the 15 Bigguns tour and there he was back in the spotlight and...yikes!!!...there they were sounding like dorks again.  Somehow he finally figured out that he VERY MUCH needed to tone himself down.

ALL that said...Brian was the musical ying.  Mike the yang.  Together they came together to make the sound [by spring '63 and the Surfin' USA album] which made the group successful.  Salt and Pepper.  Smooth and rough.  And collectively brilliant.  Without BOTH of them there wouldn't have been the success and especially the staying power.  Mike, in spite of his 'front man' deficiencies, is certainly a KEY ingredient.  He just needs to keep his extracurricular yap glued shut.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: wilsonart1 on May 21, 2015, 04:49:37 AM
Haven't we paid enough for Pearl Harbor?


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: SMiLE Brian on May 21, 2015, 07:00:56 AM
I wouldn't hate anybody, Mike Love is a douchbag and deserves the hate.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: The LEGENDARY OSD on May 21, 2015, 07:22:33 AM
To be fair, I'm a fan of many, many bands and there's no-one who divides their own fanbase quite like Mike...

 :thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Douchepool on May 21, 2015, 07:31:08 AM
If he wasn't in the band the band might not exist. And that would be a shame.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: CenturyDeprived on May 21, 2015, 08:13:42 AM
If Mike wasn't in the band, would he be the most hated gas station attendant in greater Los Angeles area?

 :lol


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on May 21, 2015, 08:17:14 AM
... I'm wondering who the usual suspects would hate instead. Nominations ?

You're framing it as if the people who dislike Mike need to hate anybody. As if they enjoy hating SOMEONE, ANYONE and Mike is an easy target so they latch unto him. Really tho, there's many a valid reason to dislike Mike. Thats all there is to it. No matter how much it gets underplayed by most here, no matter how much the "club kokomo" crowd try to muddle the issue, hes done some things that were bad for the band and bad in general which is why he gets hate. Sure, the others have their faults to, but in my perception (and Im hardly alone on this) not to the same degree, and they have redeeming qualities. Mike does too, but it's his general attitude...his constant self-congratulations and always bringing up other people's shortcomings (whether prompted to or not) that really rubs people the wrong way and makes him come off like a complete ass.

I understand why people like him, but is it really so hard to see why people hate him? For my money, Im in the middle...possibly leaning more towards the disapproval side.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: HeyJude on May 21, 2015, 08:25:09 AM
I have to agree with a previous post that I can't really think of a fanbase that has such strong disdain a member of that very same band, especially one who wasn't just a quickie short-term member or something.

The question becomes, why is this? As with everything else, you can read it both ways. Are fans unreasonably hostile? Or is Mike really that deplorable?

I think it's much more the latter, unfortunately. And I truly mean that; it is unfortunate. Yes, some fans take it to extremes (as some "pro-Mike" fans have done on this forum as well, e.g. Al "putting a hatchet" in the backs of other members, etc.), and some outright false assumptions and "truths" that aren't really "truths" have been trotted out to vilify Mike over the years.

But there's also a TON of, in my opinion, valid reasons why Mike is criticized. I'd say Mike's actions/attitude/vibe came first, and then the fan animosity came after that. The fan animosity wasn't cooked up out of nowhere. Yes, in some cases, the animosity arose from exaggerating the degree to which Mike was responsible (e.g. "Smile"). But time and time again, among some of the fans who have gone out of their way to desperately try to give the guy the benefit of the doubt and give him "another chance", he'll pop up in some interview and come across as a total d**k. And there's only so many times and so many ways it can explained away by the myriad of reasons I've seen ("he just has a really wry sense of humor", or "he's just a straight shooter", etc.) He appears to have a HUGE complex about not getting enough credit. I don't think I've ever seen someone as *obviously successful* and well-off come across as so disenfranchised in interviews. The guy is insanely wealthy, he has FULL control over his touring band, has managed to secure the cash cow that is the license to the BB name, he's the lead singer on NUMEROUS huge hits, he's part of a band that has been #1 on the "best singles of all time" and "best albums of all time" lists, and the list goes on and on. But he still has a bone to pick, often over stuff that nobody else seems to still be stuck on, and in some cases things that were rectified *in his favor* decades ago (the songwriting lawsuit, which he still complains about 20 years after WINNING the suit).

I would say that, on the whole, it is Mike's own actions and attitude that have caused him to be arguably the most vilified person among his band's own fans. The he let the whole C50 thing go down the way it didn't help his case at all.  

As I've said before, I'm personally very wary of someone who will *never* admit they did something wrong, or that they have a fault. Not just mentioning that they participated in something that didn't do well, or regret what *other* people did. I'm talking about saying "I did X one time, and that was wrong, I was wrong."


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Lonely Summer on May 21, 2015, 08:27:46 AM
Yoko Ono.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: HeyJude on May 21, 2015, 08:39:43 AM
When it comes to the things that some fans find objectionable about Mike, I think a good hunk of it is “style” rather than “substance.” Make no mistake, the majority of it is substance. But the “style” is a part of it as well. That is something Mike actually *could* work on. Nobody should completely fake their personality or compromise who they are. But if you continue to be vilified; if people continue to think you’re coming across as a d**k in interviews, then at least a modicum of self-reflection rather than pure defensiveness would help.

If Mike stopped and said, “Hrrrrm. Maybe decades after the death of Dennis and Carl, and after decades of Brian being clean, maybe I should stop CONSTANTLY raising the issue of their drug and alcohol use. Maybe that would be hurtful to the Wilson family, and/or fans will think I’m an a**hole for talking about such personal and sensitive matters, especially when they’ve been discussed to death (literally) in the past, and the Wilsons admitted how problematic drugs and alcohol were and are.”

Touching on what another poster said, I think we should always re-examine how we’re expressing feelings about these guys. But I don’t understand how someone could have any degree of incredulity when it comes to wondering *why* a segment of fans seem to have negative feelings about Mike.

I think some fans, especially the more analytical fans, don’t even “dislike” or “hate” Mike. Rather, they simply aren’t opposed to criticizing him, and may actively do so.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: job on May 21, 2015, 09:25:00 AM
...there would be no band.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: drbeachboy on May 21, 2015, 09:39:07 AM
Until the books started to appear towards the mid-70s, I never knew nothing of their personalities and such, except for what they wrote on the back of their album covers. Mike came off as smug to me, though I am not sure why. It wasn't until Leaf's book that I started to take a dislike to him. Yet, once I realized Leaf had an agenda, I never again based my likes/dislikes on any of the books and articles that followed over the years. Like all of us, they have their good points and bad points and viewed them as "they are what they are". I will say that I always most identified with Brian earlier in my fandom and then later with Carl once he took prominence in the band.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Douchepool on May 21, 2015, 09:43:07 AM
It's kind of sad that so many people's views of one man is based upon the agenda of just another fan.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: drbeachboy on May 21, 2015, 09:54:11 AM
It's kind of sad that so many people's views of one man is based upon the agenda of just another fan.
I bought that book not knowing that it really wasn't about the Beach Boys. It was a book about Brian Wilson and the five assholes. I was very dismayed, to say the least. Like every book, there usually has to be a hero and a villain. Mike made the perfect villain in the Beach Boys' story. He and Dennis were the alpha dogs in the band and of course Mike being the front-man had the most visibility.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: CenturyDeprived on May 21, 2015, 10:35:05 AM
... I'm wondering who the usual suspects would hate instead. Nominations ?

You're framing it as if the people who dislike Mike need to hate anybody. As if they enjoy hating SOMEONE, ANYONE and Mike is an easy target so they latch unto him. Really tho, there's many a valid reason to dislike Mike. Thats all there is to it. No matter how much it gets underplayed by most here, no matter how much the "club kokomo" crowd try to muddle the issue, hes done some things that were bad for the band and bad in general which is why he gets hate. Sure, the others have their faults to, but in my perception (and Im hardly alone on this) not to the same degree, and they have redeeming qualities. Mike does too, but it's his general attitude...his constant self-congratulations and always bringing up other people's shortcomings (whether prompted to or not) that really rubs people the wrong way and makes him come off like a complete ass.

I understand why people like him, but is it really so hard to see why people hate him? For my money, Im in the middle...possibly leaning more towards the disapproval side.

This. It sucks to have a band which one deeply loves contain a band member who is both so vilified, as well as who does so many actions which, if not always on the level of the wrath they incur, are still worthy of major headshaking and eyerolls. It is not what I wish was reality, nor would this person's absence create a magical need to shift frustrations onto another bandmember.

If the implication of this thread is that people somehow "need" or "want" to have issues or dislike a given band member in a band... well, I do not think that is true in the slightest. There are numerous bands which I also adore and I have no major issues with how the various bandmembers seem to conduct themselves. (And there are also some others which I do; case by case). Fans don't go actively looking for someone in their favorite band to dump on. That's a ridiculous implication, if that's what the implication is. It *just so happens* that this band has a bandmember who is a magnet for controversy. If Mike didn't exist, but the band still happened to have gotten to a similar level of fame and subsequent discussion (which I think is unlikely, because Mike was vital to the band's early success, just as Murry was), people would probably be talking about Murry and Landy more, perhaps. But since they've been dead for a good length of time, they would no longer continually be stirring up stuff in current times.

I also think that the Kokomaoist extremists unintentionally cause a lot of hate to come out of the other side. Especially with the Kokomaoist extremists' frequent brief, one sentence sarcastic responses to well-thought out and nuanced discussion. When some people will defend anything that one given person does, and/or just sit back quietly and NEVER proactively say something to the effect of "you have a good point there" when a good critical point is made, well let's just say that this creates more fury; never backing down from a defensive stance just makes people feel they have more convincing to do.

(Fully expecting a Kokomaoist extremist to chime in with a sarcastic, childlike, one-sentence response here, ignoring and avoiding all the other points made in this post and this thread).


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: rab2591 on May 21, 2015, 11:00:56 AM
... I'm wondering who the usual suspects would hate instead. Nominations ?

You're framing it as if the people who dislike Mike need to hate anybody. As if they enjoy hating SOMEONE, ANYONE and Mike is an easy target so they latch unto him. Really tho, there's many a valid reason to dislike Mike. Thats all there is to it. No matter how much it gets underplayed by most here, no matter how much the "club kokomo" crowd try to muddle the issue, hes done some things that were bad for the band and bad in general which is why he gets hate. Sure, the others have their faults to, but in my perception (and Im hardly alone on this) not to the same degree, and they have redeeming qualities. Mike does too, but it's his general attitude...his constant self-congratulations and always bringing up other people's shortcomings (whether prompted to or not) that really rubs people the wrong way and makes him come off like a complete ass.

I understand why people like him, but is it really so hard to see why people hate him? For my money, Im in the middle...possibly leaning more towards the disapproval side.

This. It sucks to have a band which one deeply loves contain a band member who is both so vilified, as well as who does so many actions which, if not always on the level of the wrath they incur, are still worthy of major headshaking and eyerolls. It is not what I wish was reality, nor would this person's absence create a magical need to shift frustrations onto another bandmember.

If the implication of this thread is that people somehow "need" or "want" to have issues or dislike a given band member in a band... well, I do not think that is true in the slightest. There are numerous bands which I also adore and I have no major issues with how the various bandmembers seem to conduct themselves. Fans don't go actively looking for someone in their favorite band to dump on. That's a ridiculous implication, if that's what the implication is. It *just so happens* that this band has a bandmember who is a magnet for controversy. If Mike didn't exist, but the band still happened to have gotten to a similar level of fame and subsequent discussion (which I think is unlikely, because Mike was vital to the band's early success, just as Murry was), people would probably be talking about Murry and Landy more, perhaps. But since they've been dead for a good length of time, they would no longer continually be stirring up stuff in current times.

I also think that the Kokomaoist extremists unintentionally cause a lot of hate to come out of the other side. When some people will defend anything that one given person does, and/or just sit back quietly and NEVER proactively say something to the effect of "you have a good point there" when a good critical point is made, well let's just say that this creates more fury; never backing down from a defensive stance just makes people feel they have more convincing to do.

Both of these posts sum up my thoughts perfectly. I'm a huge fan of many different bands and I don't activity seek out an antagonist to vilify. Why would I? I'd rather just enjoy the music. That being said, Mike has done PLENTY to justify the certain level of irritation that some fans feel about the man.

Books, legends, stories from this site aside: I implore any Mike apologist to read Mike's latest string of interviews...If Ringo Starr started saying publicly that Paul McCartney was controlled and on prescription meds, made a negative implication about a Paul solo song before he even heard it, made a passive aggressive comment about Paul's current singing voice, ALL FOR NO REASON AT ALL would it really surprise anyone if people started disliking Ringo?


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: KDS on May 21, 2015, 11:20:27 AM
... I'm wondering who the usual suspects would hate instead. Nominations ?

You're framing it as if the people who dislike Mike need to hate anybody. As if they enjoy hating SOMEONE, ANYONE and Mike is an easy target so they latch unto him. Really tho, there's many a valid reason to dislike Mike. Thats all there is to it. No matter how much it gets underplayed by most here, no matter how much the "club kokomo" crowd try to muddle the issue, hes done some things that were bad for the band and bad in general which is why he gets hate. Sure, the others have their faults to, but in my perception (and Im hardly alone on this) not to the same degree, and they have redeeming qualities. Mike does too, but it's his general attitude...his constant self-congratulations and always bringing up other people's shortcomings (whether prompted to or not) that really rubs people the wrong way and makes him come off like a complete ass.

I understand why people like him, but is it really so hard to see why people hate him? For my money, Im in the middle...possibly leaning more towards the disapproval side.

This. It sucks to have a band which one deeply loves contain a band member who is both so vilified, as well as who does so many actions which, if not always on the level of the wrath they incur, are still worthy of major headshaking and eyerolls. It is not what I wish was reality, nor would this person's absence create a magical need to shift frustrations onto another bandmember.

If the implication of this thread is that people somehow "need" or "want" to have issues or dislike a given band member in a band... well, I do not think that is true in the slightest. There are numerous bands which I also adore and I have no major issues with how the various bandmembers seem to conduct themselves. Fans don't go actively looking for someone in their favorite band to dump on. That's a ridiculous implication, if that's what the implication is. It *just so happens* that this band has a bandmember who is a magnet for controversy. If Mike didn't exist, but the band still happened to have gotten to a similar level of fame and subsequent discussion (which I think is unlikely, because Mike was vital to the band's early success, just as Murry was), people would probably be talking about Murry and Landy more, perhaps. But since they've been dead for a good length of time, they would no longer continually be stirring up stuff in current times.

I also think that the Kokomaoist extremists unintentionally cause a lot of hate to come out of the other side. When some people will defend anything that one given person does, and/or just sit back quietly and NEVER proactively say something to the effect of "you have a good point there" when a good critical point is made, well let's just say that this creates more fury; never backing down from a defensive stance just makes people feel they have more convincing to do.

Both of these posts sum up my thoughts perfectly. I'm a huge fan of many different bands and I don't activity seek out an antagonist to vilify. Why would I? I'd rather just enjoy the music. That being said, Mike has done PLENTY to justify the certain level of irritation that some fans feel about the man.

Books, legends, stories from this site aside: I implore any Mike apologist to read Mike's latest string of interviews...If Ringo Starr started saying publicly that Paul McCartney was controlled and on prescription meds, made a negative implication about a Paul solo song before he even heard it, made a passive aggressive comment about Paul's current singing voice, ALL FOR NO REASON AT ALL would it really surprise anyone if people started disliking Ringo?

Unless Ringo criticized Paul for doing a song with Kanye West. 



Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Esoteric on May 21, 2015, 11:28:01 AM
I honestly believe that Mike Love would not be very attractive in drag. Of course it would give him the opportunity to wear a wig while performing which might be worth the ticket price.



EDITED: Sorry, Dirk. Did not mean to offend you.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: NHC on May 21, 2015, 11:40:56 AM
I honestly believe that Mike Love is a vicious asshole. I wish he hadn't ever been in the band. His singing (especially in the bass register) is the most out of tune of the members (bar Brian post 1975). Rieley should have booted his ass out of the band along with Bruce back in '71. Brainless jock idiots. Soul sucking jerks.

However, I will try to say a couple of nice things about Mike fucking asshat Love:

01) His put down on Mick Jagger was great. Anus to anus.

02) Um, that's actually all I can think of for now. The dude is a giant tumor. When he dies, there will be a long line of people waiting to piss on his grave.

 ;D

P.S. Try googling the words "mike love asshole" and you will come across pages and pages about why he is such a disgrace:

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=mike+love+asshole (https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=mike+love+asshole)

And then there is the chapter in the Stebbins FAQ book.

It is this kind of c**p, along with the earlier d-bag comment, that keeps me away from this board for weeks or months at a time.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: drbeachboy on May 21, 2015, 11:43:06 AM
... I'm wondering who the usual suspects would hate instead. Nominations ?

You're framing it as if the people who dislike Mike need to hate anybody. As if they enjoy hating SOMEONE, ANYONE and Mike is an easy target so they latch unto him. Really tho, there's many a valid reason to dislike Mike. Thats all there is to it. No matter how much it gets underplayed by most here, no matter how much the "club kokomo" crowd try to muddle the issue, hes done some things that were bad for the band and bad in general which is why he gets hate. Sure, the others have their faults to, but in my perception (and Im hardly alone on this) not to the same degree, and they have redeeming qualities. Mike does too, but it's his general attitude...his constant self-congratulations and always bringing up other people's shortcomings (whether prompted to or not) that really rubs people the wrong way and makes him come off like a complete ass.

I understand why people like him, but is it really so hard to see why people hate him? For my money, Im in the middle...possibly leaning more towards the disapproval side.

This. It sucks to have a band which one deeply loves contain a band member who is both so vilified, as well as who does so many actions which, if not always on the level of the wrath they incur, are still worthy of major headshaking and eyerolls. It is not what I wish was reality, nor would this person's absence create a magical need to shift frustrations onto another bandmember.

If the implication of this thread is that people somehow "need" or "want" to have issues or dislike a given band member in a band... well, I do not think that is true in the slightest. There are numerous bands which I also adore and I have no major issues with how the various bandmembers seem to conduct themselves. (And there are also some others which I do; case by case). Fans don't go actively looking for someone in their favorite band to dump on. That's a ridiculous implication, if that's what the implication is. It *just so happens* that this band has a bandmember who is a magnet for controversy. If Mike didn't exist, but the band still happened to have gotten to a similar level of fame and subsequent discussion (which I think is unlikely, because Mike was vital to the band's early success, just as Murry was), people would probably be talking about Murry and Landy more, perhaps. But since they've been dead for a good length of time, they would no longer continually be stirring up stuff in current times.

I also think that the Kokomaoist extremists unintentionally cause a lot of hate to come out of the other side. Especially with the Kokomaoist extremists' frequent brief, one sentence sarcastic responses to well-thought out and nuanced discussion. When some people will defend anything that one given person does, and/or just sit back quietly and NEVER proactively say something to the effect of "you have a good point there" when a good critical point is made, well let's just say that this creates more fury; never backing down from a defensive stance just makes people feel they have more convincing to do.

(Fully expecting a Kokomaoist extremist to chime in with a sarcastic, childlike, one-sentence response here, ignoring and avoiding all the other points made in this post and this thread).
From the other side, you third paragraph rings true for Brianista's too. Picking sides can only result in this type of behavior. Human nature, I suppose. I may like certain band members more than others, but I dislike none of them. For better or worse, they are The Beach Boys for Christ's sake.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: drbeachboy on May 21, 2015, 11:46:41 AM
I honestly believe that Mike Love is a vicious asshole. I wish he hadn't ever been in the band. His singing (especially in the bass register) is the most out of tune of the members (bar Brian post 1975). Rieley should have booted his ass out of the band along with Bruce back in '71. Brainless jock idiots. Soul sucking jerks.

However, I will try to say a couple of nice things about Mike fucking asshat Love:

01) His put down on Mick Jagger was great. Anus to anus.

02) Um, that's actually all I can think of for now. The dude is a giant tumor. When he dies, there will be a long line of people waiting to piss on his grave.

 ;D

P.S. Try googling the words "mike love asshole" and you will come across pages and pages about why he is such a disgrace:

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=mike+love+asshole (https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=mike+love+asshole)

And then there is the chapter in the Stebbins FAQ book.

It is this kind of c**p, along with the earlier d-bag comment, that keeps me away from this board for weeks or months at a time.
I agree. That is WAY over the line.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: CenturyDeprived on May 21, 2015, 12:01:00 PM
I honestly believe that Mike Love is a vicious asshole. I wish he hadn't ever been in the band. His singing (especially in the bass register) is the most out of tune of the members (bar Brian post 1975). Rieley should have booted his ass out of the band along with Bruce back in '71. Brainless jock idiots. Soul sucking jerks.

However, I will try to say a couple of nice things about Mike fucking asshat Love:

01) His put down on Mick Jagger was great. Anus to anus.

02) Um, that's actually all I can think of for now. The dude is a giant tumor. When he dies, there will be a long line of people waiting to piss on his grave.

 ;D

P.S. Try googling the words "mike love asshole" and you will come across pages and pages about why he is such a disgrace:

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=mike+love+asshole (https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=mike+love+asshole)

And then there is the chapter in the Stebbins FAQ book.

It is this kind of c**p, along with the earlier d-bag comment, that keeps me away from this board for weeks or months at a time.
I agree. That is WAY over the line.

Thirded. Way over the line indeed.

And I've been equated to being the flipside of the single most extremist Kokomaoist on this board? That's a laugh.

(Now let's see how many extreme Kokomoaists will go out of their way to specifically point out that a Mike Love defender is going way over the line the next time it happens... My guess is zero).


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Douchepool on May 21, 2015, 12:04:23 PM
I honestly believe that Mike Love is a vicious asshole. I wish he hadn't ever been in the band. His singing (especially in the bass register) is the most out of tune of the members (bar Brian post 1975). Rieley should have booted his ass out of the band along with Bruce back in '71. Brainless jock idiots. Soul sucking jerks.

However, I will try to say a couple of nice things about Mike fucking asshat Love:

01) His put down on Mick Jagger was great. Anus to anus.

02) Um, that's actually all I can think of for now. The dude is a giant tumor. When he dies, there will be a long line of people waiting to piss on his grave.

 ;D

P.S. Try googling the words "mike love asshole" and you will come across pages and pages about why he is such a disgrace:

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=mike+love+asshole (https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=mike+love+asshole)

And then there is the chapter in the Stebbins FAQ book.

And I thought bismuth had a shitload of edges. I CAN'T GET A GRIP ON ALL THIS EDGE, GUYS.

15 Big Ones/15 topkek trollbait bro.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Esoteric on May 21, 2015, 12:21:23 PM
I added a "smiley". That doesn't count for anything?


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Lee Marshall on May 21, 2015, 12:43:48 PM
I added a "smiley". That doesn't count for anything?

Worked for me. ;)


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on May 21, 2015, 12:48:22 PM
I added a "smiley". That doesn't count for anything?

idk, but I think that was an interesting point about Rieley kicking Mike out of the band at least. Would that have been possible? Honestly, I think by that point he had done all he could to help them and from then on he was dead weight, more or less. Could Dennis have filled in as a frontman by then? Carl? Blondie or Ricky?


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Lee Marshall on May 21, 2015, 12:54:19 PM
I got the 'feel' that Carl was in charge up on stage when Jack was around.  They didn't NEED a front man.  They were the Beach Boys for goodness sake.  By then everyone sang leads...including Blondie.  They had seemingly become a band of equals musically speaking.  The front man thing was old school and one didn't need a guy tip-toeing/swishing around and mock-lisping on stage.  It detracted from the music gigantically.  So Jack made it STOP.  And then...he left...and...

Example?  Listen to Live in London.  Or check out Mike prancing around in his dumb as sh*t sailor captain hat in front of the good ship 15 Bigguns.  Suddenly it was 1963 all over again...with longer hair.  Awful freakin' stuff.

Thank gawd he doesn't do that sh*t now.

[by the way it bugged me just as much when Jagger used to pull that stupid twaddle.  The thing is we all know Mick didn't 'lift' the concept from Michael Edward.  Mind you I kind of found Mike annoying as the 'front man' back BEFORE he started trying to do his version of the Mick thing.  I am convinced Mike only 'got' the responsibility 'cause NO ONE else in the band could have done it way back when.  Too young.  Too shy.  Too incapable.  And Denny was way at the back sitting behind the drums.  T'was the absolute WEAKEST part of the group from the beginning...that and the 'wardrobe']


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: SMiLE Brian on May 21, 2015, 01:02:49 PM
Plus his stage banter got unbearable to listen to. Just droning in for ages about stupid sh*t.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: drbeachboy on May 21, 2015, 01:18:39 PM
I got the 'feel' that Carl was in charge up on stage when Jack was around.  They didn't NEED a front man.  They were the Beach Boys for goodness sake.  By then everyone sang leads...including Blondie.  They had seemingly become a band of equals musically speaking.  The front man thing was old school and one didn't need a guy tip-toeing/swishing around and mock-lisping on stage.  It detracted from the music gigantically.  So Jack made it STOP.  And then...he left...and...

Example?  Listen to Live in London.  Or check out Mike prancing around in his dumb as sh*t sailor captain hat in front of the good ship 15 Bigguns.  Suddenly it was 1963 all over again...with longer hair.  Awful freakin' stuff.

Thank gawd he doesn't do that sh*t now.

[by the way it bugged me just as much when Jagger used to pull that stupid twaddle.  The thing is we all know Mick didn't 'lift' the concept from Michael Edward.  Mind you I kind of found Mike annoying as the 'front man' back BEFORE he started trying to do his version of the Mick thing.  I am convinced Mike only 'got' the responsibility 'cause NO ONE else in the band could have done it way back when.  Too young.  Too shy.  Too incapable.  And Denny was way at the back sitting behind the drums.  T'was the absolute WEAKEST part of the group from the beginning...that and the 'wardrobe']
In 1976, what Mike was wearing and doing was mild for the times. There was some wild, over the top sh*t going on in the 70's. Queen, Bowie and all the Glam Rock stuff. Not to mention all the Disco and Funk-A-Delic stuff too.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on May 21, 2015, 01:21:14 PM
Plus his stage banter got unbearable to listen to. Just droning in for ages about stupid sh*t.

Thats what I mean. Combined with not writing any good songs past oh say 1967 or '68...was he really needed anymore at that point?


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Lee Marshall on May 21, 2015, 01:22:47 PM
I GET that Doc.  100%.  But that was a new segment/genre in the biz.  The Beach Boys didn't DO that kind of music nor could they justify that type of approach.  They weren't trying to image themselves in THAT camp.  AND...they were established with a list of hit songs and albums that would have been the envy of all those glam acts.

It just didn't work for the Beach Boys...at all...even once.  It was dorky...with a capital D.  I guess all we can be thankful for is that he didn't come out wearing a speedo stuffed with socks.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on May 21, 2015, 01:23:30 PM
I got the 'feel' that Carl was in charge up on stage when Jack was around.  They didn't NEED a front man.  They were the Beach Boys for goodness sake.  By then everyone sang leads...including Blondie.  They had seemingly become a band of equals musically speaking.  The front man thing was old school and one didn't need a guy tip-toeing/swishing around and mock-lisping on stage.  It detracted from the music gigantically.  So Jack made it STOP.  And then...he left...and...

Example?  Listen to Live in London.  Or check out Mike prancing around in his dumb as sh*t sailor captain hat in front of the good ship 15 Bigguns.  Suddenly it was 1963 all over again...with longer hair.  Awful freakin' stuff.

Thank gawd he doesn't do that sh*t now.

[by the way it bugged me just as much when Jagger used to pull that stupid twaddle.  The thing is we all know Mick didn't 'lift' the concept from Michael Edward.  Mind you I kind of found Mike annoying as the 'front man' back BEFORE he started trying to do his version of the Mick thing.  I am convinced Mike only 'got' the responsibility 'cause NO ONE else in the band could have done it way back when.  Too young.  Too shy.  Too incapable.  And Denny was way at the back sitting behind the drums.  T'was the absolute WEAKEST part of the group from the beginning...that and the 'wardrobe']
In 1976, what Mike was wearing and doing was mild for the times. There was some wild, over the top sh*t going on in the 70's. Queen, Bowie and all the Glam Rock stuff. Not to mention all the Disco and Funk-A-Delic stuff too.

Forgive me, but I thought glam rock was an 80s thing? And disco is different. The whole thing with disco is that it wouldnt be a live band playing, it would be a DJ at a swinging night club. So maybe the patrons would be wearing wild clothes doing over-the-top dance moves, but it wouldnt be the frontman of the band doing that stuff.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Lee Marshall on May 21, 2015, 01:26:26 PM
No...Queen and Bowie and a mincing Mick were all around by the early to mid 70s.  And then there were The Barbarians...was that in the TAMI show?  Can't remember.  Are You A Boy Or Are You A Girl?


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mike's Beard on May 21, 2015, 01:29:53 PM
Time to point out the double standard. Yesterday AGD mentioned that several sources witnessed Brian weeping uncontrollably on a swing while Dennis looked at him blank faced and said 'F uck you, we need that song (Surf's Up)'. Now imagine if he'd said Mike instead of Dennis - we'd have had at least two pages by now on how Mike is an evil, bullying c unt, instead we get nothing other than a very reaching excuse for Dennis' actions.
These are The Beach Boys for fecks sake, they are all just as good at doing/saying dumb stuff as each other. Mike's antics are certainly worthy of criticism from time to time, but to spend so much time and energy on hating the guy to me is just pointless.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: CenturyDeprived on May 21, 2015, 01:33:02 PM
Time to point out the double standard. Yesterday AGD mentioned that several sources witnessed Brian weeping uncontrollably on a swing while Dennis looked at him blank faced and said 'F uck you, we need that song (Surf's Up)'. Now imagine if he'd said Mike instead of Dennis - we'd have had at least two pages by now on how Mike is an evil, bullying c unt, instead we get nothing other than a very reaching excuse for Dennis' actions.
These are The Beach Boys for fecks sake, they are all just as good at doing/saying dumb stuff as each other. Mike's antics are certainly worthy of criticism from time to time, but to spend so much time and energy on hating the guy to me is just pointless.

Firstly, there was someone (me) who said that sounds like those actions were very harsh and likely going too far. Secondly, this sounds like it was a real exception with Dennis, and not any kind of recurring pattern. If it seemed like it was a recurring pattern, coupled with copious amounts of defensive speak from the perpetrator, I think more people would be having big-picture conversations about it.

So no, it's not a double standard. Sorry. The real double standard was pointed out 13 posts above your last post.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Lee Marshall on May 21, 2015, 01:35:01 PM
I don't hate him.  Pointed out that he was KEY to the fact that they found a sound and lasted.  Don't...and never have agreed...that he is ALL that...that he is a dominant creative guy...that he is the best singer...that he was even a decent front man.  As part of the UNIT...the group...he was important.  He even contributed some neat lyrics and ideas for adding to the music.  So too did Carl and Al.

Hate him?  Not a chance.  Respect him?  Sometimes.  Give him any credit that isn't due?  Never.  Besides we all know that he'll grab THAT for himself.  It's just his life-long nature.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: drbeachboy on May 21, 2015, 01:43:19 PM
I GET that Doc.  100%.  But that was a new segment/genre in the biz.  The Beach Boys didn't DO that kind of music nor could they justify that type of approach.  They weren't trying to image themselves in THAT camp.  AND...they were established with a list of hit songs and albums that would have been the envy of all those glam acts.

It just didn't work for the Beach Boys...at all...even once.  It was dorky...with a capital D.  I guess all we can be thankful for is that he didn't come out wearing a speedo stuffed with socks.
The fans filling the stadiums didn't disapprove. What he did was of the times and kind of expected. It was entertainment. I hear you, though. I didn't like those jumper suits that Carl wore, either. Not my taste in clothes, but then again those guys wore stage outfits. Now, if Mike wore that outfit offstage, then different story altogether. ;)


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on May 21, 2015, 01:56:29 PM
Time to point out the double standard. Yesterday AGD mentioned that several sources witnessed Brian weeping uncontrollably on a swing while Dennis looked at him blank faced and said 'F uck you, we need that song (Surf's Up)'. Now imagine if he'd said Mike instead of Dennis - we'd have had at least two pages by now on how Mike is an evil, bullying c unt, instead we get nothing other than a very reaching excuse for Dennis' actions.
These are The Beach Boys for fecks sake, they are all just as good at doing/saying dumb stuff as each other. Mike's antics are certainly worthy of criticism from time to time, but to spend so much time and energy on hating the guy to me is just pointless.

Yes. And in another thread I referenced that anecdote and said I couldnt think of anything more frustrating and devastating, and that while I completely understand why they did it at the time, in hindsight using the SMiLE material for scrap was a bad move that cheapened the material and ruined the reveal. That coming from family, it must have made that insult even more personal and troubling. What's your point?

Ive also gone out of my way to say that Brian was a bad brother to Dennis in that he never listened to his solo album, when Im sure from Dennis' perspective, a little encouragement and constructive criticism from Brian probably wouldve meant the world. I've also said on many occasions that Brian letting Mike get cheated out of his song credits for decades was absolutely inexcusable on his part.

I criticize every Beach Boy for the things theyve done which deserve criticism. Just so happens Mike's done way more over the years to warrant criticism. That's on him, not me.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Lee Marshall on May 21, 2015, 01:58:03 PM
What HE said...


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: The LEGENDARY OSD on May 21, 2015, 01:58:21 PM
I honestly believe that Mike Love is a vicious asshole. I wish he hadn't ever been in the band. His singing (especially in the bass register) is the most out of tune of the members (bar Brian post 1975). Rieley should have booted his ass out of the band along with Bruce back in '71. Brainless jock idiots. Soul sucking jerks.

However, I will try to say a couple of nice things about Mike fucking asshat Love:

01) His put down on Mick Jagger was great. Anus to anus.

02) Um, that's actually all I can think of for now. The dude is a giant tumor. When he dies, there will be a long line of people waiting to piss on his grave.

 ;D

P.S. Try googling the words "mike love asshole" and you will come across pages and pages about why he is such a disgrace:

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=mike+love+asshole (https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=mike+love+asshole)

And then there is the chapter in the Stebbins FAQ book.

Perfect, Rog and removing the smiley would would hit home even better! Four solid whoots are in order.   :woot :woot :woot :woot


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mike's Beard on May 21, 2015, 02:01:31 PM
Time to point out the double standard. Yesterday AGD mentioned that several sources witnessed Brian weeping uncontrollably on a swing while Dennis looked at him blank faced and said 'F uck you, we need that song (Surf's Up)'. Now imagine if he'd said Mike instead of Dennis - we'd have had at least two pages by now on how Mike is an evil, bullying c unt, instead we get nothing other than a very reaching excuse for Dennis' actions.
These are The Beach Boys for fecks sake, they are all just as good at doing/saying dumb stuff as each other. Mike's antics are certainly worthy of criticism from time to time, but to spend so much time and energy on hating the guy to me is just pointless.

Firstly, there was someone (me) who said that sounds like those actions were very harsh and likely going too far. Secondly, this sounds like it was a real exception with Dennis, and not any kind of recurring pattern. If it seemed like it was a recurring pattern, coupled with copious amounts of defensive speak from the perpetrator, I think more people would be having big-picture conversations about it.

So no, it's not a double standard. Sorry. The real double standard was pointed out 13 posts above your last post.

Whether it was commonplace behaviour or a one off kind of deal is somewhat besides the point. If it had been Mike standing over the swing that day his detractors would be very quick to hold it up as another example of why he is such an ass. As it goes against the perceived romantic notion of how many people view Dennis, it was quietly overlooked.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: CenturyDeprived on May 21, 2015, 02:13:18 PM
Time to point out the double standard. Yesterday AGD mentioned that several sources witnessed Brian weeping uncontrollably on a swing while Dennis looked at him blank faced and said 'F uck you, we need that song (Surf's Up)'. Now imagine if he'd said Mike instead of Dennis - we'd have had at least two pages by now on how Mike is an evil, bullying c unt, instead we get nothing other than a very reaching excuse for Dennis' actions.
These are The Beach Boys for fecks sake, they are all just as good at doing/saying dumb stuff as each other. Mike's antics are certainly worthy of criticism from time to time, but to spend so much time and energy on hating the guy to me is just pointless.

Firstly, there was someone (me) who said that sounds like those actions were very harsh and likely going too far. Secondly, this sounds like it was a real exception with Dennis, and not any kind of recurring pattern. If it seemed like it was a recurring pattern, coupled with copious amounts of defensive speak from the perpetrator, I think more people would be having big-picture conversations about it.

So no, it's not a double standard. Sorry. The real double standard was pointed out 13 posts above your last post.

Whether it was commonplace behaviour or a one off kind of deal is somewhat besides the point. If it had been Mike standing over the swing that day his detractors would be very quick to hold it up as another example of why he is such an ass. As it goes against the perceived romantic notion of how many people view Dennis, it was quietly overlooked.

Again... quantity of times that somebody seems to exhibit a behavior DOES matter. Decade-long patterns vs. what appears to be uncommon one-offs is not a negligible factor in why there is a discrepancy between how people view the two men. It's not besides the point.

Why do you think it is that there are so, so many stories from many, many different sources of people talking first-hand about what a generous, good (yet messed up), big-hearted person one of those guys was, vs. not nearly as many types of stories from all sorts of sources for the other person? There are reasons for this, and they are not just because of the differences two peoples' last names or their looks. It's not a competition, but there are LEGIT reasons why two people are judged and reacted to differently on a case-by-case basis; it's not just some purely hypocritical injustice as some would like to believe.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mike's Beard on May 21, 2015, 02:16:33 PM
Time to point out the double standard. Yesterday AGD mentioned that several sources witnessed Brian weeping uncontrollably on a swing while Dennis looked at him blank faced and said 'F uck you, we need that song (Surf's Up)'. Now imagine if he'd said Mike instead of Dennis - we'd have had at least two pages by now on how Mike is an evil, bullying c unt, instead we get nothing other than a very reaching excuse for Dennis' actions.
These are The Beach Boys for fecks sake, they are all just as good at doing/saying dumb stuff as each other. Mike's antics are certainly worthy of criticism from time to time, but to spend so much time and energy on hating the guy to me is just pointless.

Yes. And in another thread I referenced that anecdote and said I couldnt think of anything more frustrating and devastating, and that while I completely understand why they did it at the time, in hindsight using the SMiLE material for scrap was a bad move that cheapened the material and ruined the reveal. That coming from family, it must have made that insult even more personal and troubling. What's your point?

Ive also gone out of my way to say that Brian was a bad brother to Dennis in that he never listened to his solo album, when Im sure from Dennis' perspective, a little encouragement and constructive criticism from Brian probably wouldve meant the world. I've also said on many occasions that Brian letting Mike get cheated out of his song credits for decades was absolutely inexcusable on his part.

I criticize every Beach Boy for the things theyve done which deserve criticism. Just so happens Mike's done way more over the years to warrant criticism. That's on him, not me.

There is a gulf as deep and wide as the Grand Canyon between those that legitmately criticise certain bandmember's actions and those that act as if Mike Love personally f ucked their wife or ran over their dog back in the day.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mike's Beard on May 21, 2015, 02:22:37 PM

Why do you think it is that there are so, so many stories from many, many different sources of people talking first-hand about what a generous, good (yet messed up), big-hearted person one of those guys was, vs. not nearly as many types of stories from all sorts of sources for the other person? There are reasons for this, and they are not just because of the differences two peoples' last names or their looks. It's not a competition, but there are LEGIT reasons why two people are judged and reacted to differently on a case-by-case basis; it's not just some purely hypocritical injustice as some would like to believe.

I think it is in no small part because one of these guys is dead and the other isn't.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: CenturyDeprived on May 21, 2015, 02:31:01 PM

Why do you think it is that there are so, so many stories from many, many different sources of people talking first-hand about what a generous, good (yet messed up), big-hearted person one of those guys was, vs. not nearly as many types of stories from all sorts of sources for the other person? There are reasons for this, and they are not just because of the differences two peoples' last names or their looks. It's not a competition, but there are LEGIT reasons why two people are judged and reacted to differently on a case-by-case basis; it's not just some purely hypocritical injustice as some would like to believe.

I think it is in no small part because one of these guys is dead and the other isn't.

I'm pretty sure the same wide gulf between those types of stories existed pre-12/28/83. 


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Cam Mott on May 21, 2015, 02:31:58 PM
Consider this, there is much less defense of Mike than there is offense against Mike. (drops mic)


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on May 21, 2015, 02:37:43 PM
Consider this, there is much less defense of Mike than there is offense against Mike. (drops mic)

So...what?

Consider THIS, the "offense" against Mike that I see tend to be pretty rational and fair. Im not doubting Mike's Beard that there's some who take it too far. But for the most part, it's just people saying "hey, he couldve been a bit more supportive of Brian considering his condition" or "hey, that RnR speech was pretty embarrassing for the band" or "hey, I dont understand why he broke up C50 in such an unceremonious way" meanwhile the "defense" of Mike primarily amounts to "WAH WHY ARE YOU GUYS SO MEAN?! YOU PRAISED BRIAN X TIMES SO YOU SHOULD HAVE TO PRAISE MIKE X TIMES TOO, MIKE OWES YOU NO APOLOGY LALALA I CANT HEAR YOU"


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Lee Marshall on May 21, 2015, 02:54:49 PM
By and large...not exclusively...but...by and large...people who buy Brian Wilson tickets do so in order to go and see [and hear] Brian and his 'cracker-jack' band perform songs specific to the latest SOLO [or TWGMTR] album AND to hear the classic hits and album tracks performed with nothing but heart-felt precision and an ear to detail.

I would suggest, alternately, that a predominant majority go to see [and hear] the 'Beach Boys' perform those great OLD tunes because it'll be fun to hear them and sing along with them.  Maybe take the kids and a beach ball and for a resonable price know that the FAMILY will be entertained.  An absolute MINORITY go to primarily see and hear Mike Love.  Not that there is ANYTHING wrong with that.  It's just the way it is.

2 distinct opportunities to enjoy vastly different 'stuff' with a common denominator.  [mainly...Brian's music and arrangements...and sometimes Mike's lyrics...but how many know that...or, casually speaking, care.]

Brian is Brian.  He's unique to the music world and is recognized as such.  He's a Beach Boy and quite a bit more.

Mike?  At best for most..."Mike Love is one of the Beach Boys... ... ...I think."

So?  Hasn't hurt him.  He doesn't live in an empty mattress box.  He drinks fine wine when he celebrates if a recent picture was any indication.  And while he REALLY DOESN'T have to wear a hat...I guess it's his version of Roy Orbison's sun glasses. [although NOWHERE near as cool]

Mike does quite a good job being one of the guys who performs some truly outstanding songs.  That's not a bad claim to fame.  AND...it's real.
After that?  Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. ;)


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: SMiLE Brian on May 21, 2015, 02:57:16 PM
Addsome should be Mike's PR guy. ;)


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Sheriff John Stone on May 21, 2015, 02:57:35 PM
Time to point out the double standard. Yesterday AGD mentioned that several sources witnessed Brian weeping uncontrollably on a swing while Dennis looked at him blank faced and said 'F uck you, we need that song (Surf's Up)'. Now imagine if he'd said Mike instead of Dennis - we'd have had at least two pages by now on how Mike is an evil, bullying c unt, instead we get nothing other than a very reaching excuse for Dennis' actions.
These are The Beach Boys for fecks sake, they are all just as good at doing/saying dumb stuff as each other. Mike's antics are certainly worthy of criticism from time to time, but to spend so much time and energy on hating the guy to me is just pointless.

Yes, it is a double standard. Unfortunately, that is now the norm for this board, the double standard. Posters are allowed and do say anything they can think of to criticize Mike Love, but, Brian or Dennis Wilson, no, you must have an agenda if you say anything negative about them.

And this is even sadder. "Mike Love is a vicious asshole." "Brainless jock idiots." "Soul sucking jerks." "Anus to anus." The dude is a giant tumor."When he dies there will be a long line of people waiting to piss on his grave." And, we'll finish with this one - "Mike fucking asshat Love." Those quotes are one above poster's description of (mostly) Mike and Bruce. This is the new standard on this board. The moderators are now accepting this kind of...stuff. It is sad. Very sad.  


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Lee Marshall on May 21, 2015, 03:01:27 PM
But with maybe 2 or 3 exceptions we all recognize that that stuff is wrong...and it's pretty much water off a duck's back.  Maybe people don't type that kind of drivel about any of the other Beach Boys because none of the other guys have encouraged that kind of response or reaction.  Ol' Keith Richards sure nailed his 'mate' Mick a few times in his book though didn't he?  Some people just INVITE that kind of BS.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: CenturyDeprived on May 21, 2015, 03:05:43 PM
Time to point out the double standard. Yesterday AGD mentioned that several sources witnessed Brian weeping uncontrollably on a swing while Dennis looked at him blank faced and said 'F uck you, we need that song (Surf's Up)'. Now imagine if he'd said Mike instead of Dennis - we'd have had at least two pages by now on how Mike is an evil, bullying c unt, instead we get nothing other than a very reaching excuse for Dennis' actions.
These are The Beach Boys for fecks sake, they are all just as good at doing/saying dumb stuff as each other. Mike's antics are certainly worthy of criticism from time to time, but to spend so much time and energy on hating the guy to me is just pointless.

Yes, it is a double standard. Unfortunately, that is now the norm for this board, the double standard. Posters are allowed and do say anything they can think of to criticize Mike Love, but, Brian or Dennis Wilson, no, you must have an agenda if you say anything negative about them.

And this is even sadder. "Mike Love is a vicious asshole." "Brainless jock idiots." "Soul sucking jerks." "Anus to anus." The dude is a giant tumor."When he dies there will be a long line of people waiting to piss on his grave." And, we'll finish with this one - "Mike fucking asshat Love." Those quotes are one poster's description of (mostly) Mike and Bruce. This is the new standard on this board. The moderators are now accepting this kind of...stuff. It is sad. Very sad.  

And you also had multiple people in a row, including myself (apparently who is "supposedly" equivalent of this board's most extremist blind defender), critically saying that the post you refer to was a wrong and inappropriate post.

Again - I point out... why aren't people crying out about the double standard where Kokomaoists refuse to, on their own volition, go out of their way to point out the outright absurdity and "going too far"-ness of extreme Mike defense, when it happens on this board? There will only be vague notions of "yeah, sometimes Mike defense goes too far" (and only when Kokomaoists are pressed/cornered into saying such), instead of any direct pointing out of such postings (by Kokomaoists) when they occur.

Why, Sheriff? Why?


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Sheriff John Stone on May 21, 2015, 03:07:17 PM
Maybe people don't type that kind of drivel about any of the other Beach Boys because none of the other guys have encouraged that kind of response or reaction. 

You must've read a different dozen books about Brian/Dennis/The Beach Boys over the last 40 years than I did. There's plenty of material to criticize Brian and Dennis in many, many areas. But, believe me, you don't wanna go there. You really don't wanna go there.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: wilsonart1 on May 21, 2015, 03:15:24 PM
mike  would have a ham sandwich in a synagogue on Yom Kippur


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Lee Marshall on May 21, 2015, 03:16:06 PM
Ya...except that Brian and Dennis were sick...drug addicts with alcohol issues.  One died.  The other kicked it and somehow mirculously was properly diagnosed in terms of the REAL problem and then subsequently was given the proper prescription.  How does that correlate to a guy who continues to proudly walk the brave land with both his feet in his self propelled yap?

As an entertainer [not formerly as a front man imo] Mike is quite good.  He wrote some nifty tunes.  He helped shape an image of summertime and Cali4-nye-eh.  He deserves recognition and credit.  [which he's received as he IS in the R'n' R Hall of Fame for goodness sake.]  He's also made a couple of bucks along the way and is still gainfully employed and will be for as long as he can pull it off]  He just REALLY needs to stop talking.  He has no clue what to say.  He never has.  It's why I keep saying he NEEDS a PR company to give him some badly needed guidance.

To toss Dennis and Brian under the exhaust of the Mike Love bus is just wrong.  The issues are entirely different.  Opposites actulally.  MIKE should be able to help himself.  He chooses not to.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Sheriff John Stone on May 21, 2015, 03:34:19 PM
Ya...except that Brian and Dennis were sick...drug addicts with alcohol issues.  One died.  The other kicked it and somehow mirculously was properly diagnosed in terms of the REAL problem and then subsequently was given the proper prescription.  How does that correlate to a guy who continues to proudly walk the brave land with both his feet in his self propelled yap?

To toss Dennis and Brian under the exhaust of the Mike Love bus is just wrong.  The issues are entirely different.  Opposites actulally.  MIKE should be able to help himself.  He chooses not to.

NOW WE'RE GETTING SOMEWHERE! I'm serious, Add Some. Your post should be framed or put in the Smiley Smile Message Board bylaws or posted as everybody's signature. Brian and Dennis Wilson are treated/handled/dealt with/posted about on this board under DIFFERENT STANDARDS than others because of their...problems. You just said it. And, you're right, that's how it is. So, there it is. Mike and Bruce and Al DON'T have all those problems so it's fair game and acceptable to criticize the sh*t out of them because they should be able to help themselves. But, Brian and Dennis can't help themselves so, different standards, or...double standards apply.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: CenturyDeprived on May 21, 2015, 03:40:43 PM
Ya...except that Brian and Dennis were sick...drug addicts with alcohol issues.  One died.  The other kicked it and somehow mirculously was properly diagnosed in terms of the REAL problem and then subsequently was given the proper prescription.  How does that correlate to a guy who continues to proudly walk the brave land with both his feet in his self propelled yap?

To toss Dennis and Brian under the exhaust of the Mike Love bus is just wrong.  The issues are entirely different.  Opposites actulally.  MIKE should be able to help himself.  He chooses not to.

NOW WE'RE GETTING SOMEWHERE! I'm serious, Add Some. Your post should be framed or put in the Smiley Smile Message Board bylaws or posted as everybody's signature. Brian and Dennis Wilson are treated/handled/dealt with/posted about on this board under DIFFERENT STANDARDS than others because of their...problems. You just said it. And, you're right, that's how it is. So, there it is. Mike and Bruce and Al DON'T have all those problems so it's fair game and acceptable to criticize the sh*t out of them because they should be able to help themselves. But, Brian and Dennis can't help themselves so, different standards, or...double standards apply.

People with medically quantifiable mental issues are also treated differently in many court cases, with good reason. I have a family member who suffers from autism, and he sadly lashes out with violence sometimes. Should I think of his actions as equivalent to someone without his condition?

And while you're at it, if you want to, perhaps you could kindly address my question about double standards which I posed to you a couple posts back.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Lee Marshall on May 21, 2015, 03:58:22 PM
No...pretty sure that's not the point I made...although Sheriff John Stone that may be what you carried away from the wreckage.  Brian DID help himself.  Dennis didn't make it.  As an ex smoker with COPD I can say that Carl didn't do himself any favours either.  Nicotine is one of the most addictive things one can put into their bodies.  So?  He died too.  Me?  I just sit and wait.  The Grim Reaper can kiss my arse.

I don't see many folks here going after Al or Bruce [or David...or Blondie...or Ricky...or Glen]  What the heck makes you guys who carry Mike around on your shoulders like he's some kind of victim not ever pause to see that he brings the shitstorm down on himself?  Look here 'Sheriff'...I'm the Marshall around here and any western I ever watched showed that the Marshal always overrode the Sheriff.

Mike needs PR help.  He has since the era when Jesus was playing with wood chips. ;)


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Pretty Funky on May 21, 2015, 04:01:24 PM
... I'm wondering who the usual suspects would hate instead. Nominations ?

Another thread, somewhat confrontational in topic, degrades in to the usual farce....

AGD thinks 'My job here is done.' ;D


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Sheriff John Stone on May 21, 2015, 04:07:32 PM
Ya...except that Brian and Dennis were sick...drug addicts with alcohol issues.  One died.  The other kicked it and somehow mirculously was properly diagnosed in terms of the REAL problem and then subsequently was given the proper prescription.  How does that correlate to a guy who continues to proudly walk the brave land with both his feet in his self propelled yap?

To toss Dennis and Brian under the exhaust of the Mike Love bus is just wrong.  The issues are entirely different.  Opposites actulally.  MIKE should be able to help himself.  He chooses not to.

NOW WE'RE GETTING SOMEWHERE! I'm serious, Add Some. Your post should be framed or put in the Smiley Smile Message Board bylaws or posted as everybody's signature. Brian and Dennis Wilson are treated/handled/dealt with/posted about on this board under DIFFERENT STANDARDS than others because of their...problems. You just said it. And, you're right, that's how it is. So, there it is. Mike and Bruce and Al DON'T have all those problems so it's fair game and acceptable to criticize the sh*t out of them because they should be able to help themselves. But, Brian and Dennis can't help themselves so, different standards, or...double standards apply.

People with medically quantifiable mental issues are also treated differently in many court cases, with good reason. I have a family member who suffers from autism, and he sadly lashes out with violence sometimes. Should I think of his actions as equivalent to someone without his condition?

And while you're at it, if you want to, perhaps you could kindly address my question about double standards which I posed to you a couple posts back.

I work with individuals with disabilities every day so I am more than aware of the treatment that is necessary. But that's only half the point or half the issue. The other half is the double standard. Just because the "other" person doesn't have a disability, does that make it OK to disparage them, attack their character, call them vile names? Just because they don't have a disability? I don't think so, but that appears to be the standard on this board. I mean, these posts are being accepted.

And, with all due respect, I'll respond to questions or posts that I choose to. If I don't have anything to offer or say in relation to your question(s), well, I'm not gonna come up with some...response, just to appease you.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: wilsonart1 on May 21, 2015, 04:13:34 PM
Mike is just easy to make fun of.. really the Patron Saint of Peanuts!


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: CenturyDeprived on May 21, 2015, 04:24:53 PM
Ya...except that Brian and Dennis were sick...drug addicts with alcohol issues.  One died.  The other kicked it and somehow mirculously was properly diagnosed in terms of the REAL problem and then subsequently was given the proper prescription.  How does that correlate to a guy who continues to proudly walk the brave land with both his feet in his self propelled yap?

To toss Dennis and Brian under the exhaust of the Mike Love bus is just wrong.  The issues are entirely different.  Opposites actulally.  MIKE should be able to help himself.  He chooses not to.

NOW WE'RE GETTING SOMEWHERE! I'm serious, Add Some. Your post should be framed or put in the Smiley Smile Message Board bylaws or posted as everybody's signature. Brian and Dennis Wilson are treated/handled/dealt with/posted about on this board under DIFFERENT STANDARDS than others because of their...problems. You just said it. And, you're right, that's how it is. So, there it is. Mike and Bruce and Al DON'T have all those problems so it's fair game and acceptable to criticize the sh*t out of them because they should be able to help themselves. But, Brian and Dennis can't help themselves so, different standards, or...double standards apply.

People with medically quantifiable mental issues are also treated differently in many court cases, with good reason. I have a family member who suffers from autism, and he sadly lashes out with violence sometimes. Should I think of his actions as equivalent to someone without his condition?

And while you're at it, if you want to, perhaps you could kindly address my question about double standards which I posed to you a couple posts back.

I work with individuals with disabilities every day so I am more than aware of the treatment that is necessary. But that's only half the point or half the issue. The other half is the double standard. Just because the "other" person doesn't have a disability, does that make it OK to disparage them, attack their character, call them vile names? Just because they don't have a disability? I don't think so, but that appears to be the standard on this board. I mean, these posts are being accepted.

And, with all due respect, I'll respond to questions or posts that I choose to. If I don't have anything to offer or say in relation to your question(s), well, I'm not gonna come up with some...response, just to appease you.

Firstly, the people who we are talking about are not copy/paste clones of each other who are only differentiated by the fact  that some of them have quantifiable mental illness and others don't.  There are things that one of them uniquely seems to have a pattern of doing which are part of why the criticism is dished out in a certain unequal manner... Mental illness aside.

And you are correct. The criticism should never get to a vile, over-the-top, hateful point.  That post which we saw earlier today was wrong and messed-up.

But I guess you are okay with certain double standards and not with others, since the only thing that can be "offered"  as a response to my question is that it is in fact a valid point. Heaven forbid that could possibly be conceded.

Could having nothing to say be because admitting that there's some truth is tantamount to being some sort of traitor or something? I don't get it; it's like pulling teeth to get Kokomaoists to call out extremism on their side when it happens.  But you're right... better to just avoid answering and say you simply have nothing to say... then maybe my valid point will disappear into the ether like you want it to.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on May 21, 2015, 04:48:02 PM
Ya...except that Brian and Dennis were sick...drug addicts with alcohol issues.  One died.  The other kicked it and somehow mirculously was properly diagnosed in terms of the REAL problem and then subsequently was given the proper prescription.  How does that correlate to a guy who continues to proudly walk the brave land with both his feet in his self propelled yap?

To toss Dennis and Brian under the exhaust of the Mike Love bus is just wrong.  The issues are entirely different.  Opposites actulally.  MIKE should be able to help himself.  He chooses not to.


NOW WE'RE GETTING SOMEWHERE! I'm serious, Add Some. Your post should be framed or put in the Smiley Smile Message Board bylaws or posted as everybody's signature. Brian and Dennis Wilson are treated/handled/dealt with/posted about on this board under DIFFERENT STANDARDS than others because of their...problems. You just said it. And, you're right, that's how it is. So, there it is. Mike and Bruce and Al DON'T have all those problems so it's fair game and acceptable to criticize the sh*t out of them because they should be able to help themselves. But, Brian and Dennis can't help themselves so, different standards, or...double standards apply.

People with medically quantifiable mental issues are also treated differently in many court cases, with good reason. I have a family member who suffers from autism, and he sadly lashes out with violence sometimes. Should I think of his actions as equivalent to someone without his condition?

And while you're at it, if you want to, perhaps you could kindly address my question about double standards which I posed to you a couple posts back.

I work with individuals with disabilities every day so I am more than aware of the treatment that is necessary. But that's only half the point or half the issue. The other half is the double standard. Just because the "other" person doesn't have a disability, does that make it OK to disparage them, attack their character, call them vile names? Just because they don't have a disability? I don't think so, but that appears to be the standard on this board. I mean, these posts are being accepted.

And, with all due respect, I'll respond to questions or posts that I choose to. If I don't have anything to offer or say in relation to your question(s), well, I'm not gonna come up with some...response, just to appease you.

yeah...mikes disparaged because he doesnt have a disability. thats literally the only reason. yep. youve got us all figured out


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: drbeachboy on May 21, 2015, 04:57:12 PM
Ya...except that Brian and Dennis were sick...drug addicts with alcohol issues.  One died.  The other kicked it and somehow mirculously was properly diagnosed in terms of the REAL problem and then subsequently was given the proper prescription.  How does that correlate to a guy who continues to proudly walk the brave land with both his feet in his self propelled yap?

To toss Dennis and Brian under the exhaust of the Mike Love bus is just wrong.  The issues are entirely different.  Opposites actulally.  MIKE should be able to help himself.  He chooses not to.


NOW WE'RE GETTING SOMEWHERE! I'm serious, Add Some. Your post should be framed or put in the Smiley Smile Message Board bylaws or posted as everybody's signature. Brian and Dennis Wilson are treated/handled/dealt with/posted about on this board under DIFFERENT STANDARDS than others because of their...problems. You just said it. And, you're right, that's how it is. So, there it is. Mike and Bruce and Al DON'T have all those problems so it's fair game and acceptable to criticize the sh*t out of them because they should be able to help themselves. But, Brian and Dennis can't help themselves so, different standards, or...double standards apply.

People with medically quantifiable mental issues are also treated differently in many court cases, with good reason. I have a family member who suffers from autism, and he sadly lashes out with violence sometimes. Should I think of his actions as equivalent to someone without his condition?

And while you're at it, if you want to, perhaps you could kindly address my question about double standards which I posed to you a couple posts back.

I work with individuals with disabilities every day so I am more than aware of the treatment that is necessary. But that's only half the point or half the issue. The other half is the double standard. Just because the "other" person doesn't have a disability, does that make it OK to disparage them, attack their character, call them vile names? Just because they don't have a disability? I don't think so, but that appears to be the standard on this board. I mean, these posts are being accepted.

And, with all due respect, I'll respond to questions or posts that I choose to. If I don't have anything to offer or say in relation to your question(s), well, I'm not gonna come up with some...response, just to appease you.

yeah...mikes disparaged because he doesnt have a disability. thats literally the only reason. yep. youve got us all figured out
That kind of remark should never be aimed at anybody. Not you, me, Brian or Mike. It's is totally uncalled for and adds nothing constructive to the conversation.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on May 21, 2015, 05:28:01 PM
Ya...except that Brian and Dennis were sick...drug addicts with alcohol issues.  One died.  The other kicked it and somehow mirculously was properly diagnosed in terms of the REAL problem and then subsequently was given the proper prescription.  How does that correlate to a guy who continues to proudly walk the brave land with both his feet in his self propelled yap?

To toss Dennis and Brian under the exhaust of the Mike Love bus is just wrong.  The issues are entirely different.  Opposites actulally.  MIKE should be able to help himself.  He chooses not to.


NOW WE'RE GETTING SOMEWHERE! I'm serious, Add Some. Your post should be framed or put in the Smiley Smile Message Board bylaws or posted as everybody's signature. Brian and Dennis Wilson are treated/handled/dealt with/posted about on this board under DIFFERENT STANDARDS than others because of their...problems. You just said it. And, you're right, that's how it is. So, there it is. Mike and Bruce and Al DON'T have all those problems so it's fair game and acceptable to criticize the sh*t out of them because they should be able to help themselves. But, Brian and Dennis can't help themselves so, different standards, or...double standards apply.

People with medically quantifiable mental issues are also treated differently in many court cases, with good reason. I have a family member who suffers from autism, and he sadly lashes out with violence sometimes. Should I think of his actions as equivalent to someone without his condition?

And while you're at it, if you want to, perhaps you could kindly address my question about double standards which I posed to you a couple posts back.

I work with individuals with disabilities every day so I am more than aware of the treatment that is necessary. But that's only half the point or half the issue. The other half is the double standard. Just because the "other" person doesn't have a disability, does that make it OK to disparage them, attack their character, call them vile names? Just because they don't have a disability? I don't think so, but that appears to be the standard on this board. I mean, these posts are being accepted.

And, with all due respect, I'll respond to questions or posts that I choose to. If I don't have anything to offer or say in relation to your question(s), well, I'm not gonna come up with some...response, just to appease you.

yeah...mikes disparaged because he doesnt have a disability. thats literally the only reason. yep. youve got us all figured out
That kind of remark should never be aimed at anybody. Not you, me, Brian or Mike. It's is totally uncalled for and adds nothing constructive to the conversation.

I think Ive added quite a bit to the conversation up to this point, thank you very much. But y'know, when presented with such a ridiculous assertion as what sherif was implying, I cant help but respond in the same manner. If anyone is really gonna sit there and say that Mike gets the flak he does simply because he doesnt have a disability, thats a completely ridiculous argument and ignores everything me, centurydeprived, add some and others have been saying for a dozen posts now. Just how is that uncalled for? I've had worse comments directed at me, and Ive seen worse comments directed at others on this board with nary a complaint from anyone, but no a sarcastic response to a silly assertion, thats where the line is drawn?


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: guitarfool2002 on May 21, 2015, 05:55:22 PM
Time to point out the double standard. Yesterday AGD mentioned that several sources witnessed Brian weeping uncontrollably on a swing while Dennis looked at him blank faced and said 'F uck you, we need that song (Surf's Up)'. Now imagine if he'd said Mike instead of Dennis - we'd have had at least two pages by now on how Mike is an evil, bullying c unt, instead we get nothing other than a very reaching excuse for Dennis' actions.
These are The Beach Boys for fecks sake, they are all just as good at doing/saying dumb stuff as each other. Mike's antics are certainly worthy of criticism from time to time, but to spend so much time and energy on hating the guy to me is just pointless.

Yes, it is a double standard. Unfortunately, that is now the norm for this board, the double standard. Posters are allowed and do say anything they can think of to criticize Mike Love, but, Brian or Dennis Wilson, no, you must have an agenda if you say anything negative about them.

And this is even sadder. "Mike Love is a vicious asshole." "Brainless jock idiots." "Soul sucking jerks." "Anus to anus." The dude is a giant tumor."When he dies there will be a long line of people waiting to piss on his grave." And, we'll finish with this one - "Mike fucking asshat Love." Those quotes are one above poster's description of (mostly) Mike and Bruce. This is the new standard on this board. The moderators are now accepting this kind of...stuff. It is sad. Very sad.  

Double standard? Like this?

Tried to stay out of this, but hell. You took a swipe at GF, called him a hypocrite, and now refuse to back it up. If you have something to say, then say it. Tell you what, if you continue with this, you don't have to worry about him banning you, cause I'd have already done it. Say what you meant, or better yet discuss it privately with h8m, just quit clogging up the board with this garbage.

I spend a lot of time defending Mike when he's unfairly attacked (same with Brian, or anybody ) and crap like this is why it's so damn difficult. I'm supposed to be working right now yet I'm putting my job on the line dealing with this childish fuckery. Gloves are about to come off.

Billy, I feel terrible about this. I mean, for you to have to risk your job to come on the board to keep me from clogging the board with my crap and garbage, well, frankly I'm embarrassed. You know, Billy, I have this problem. It seems that I'm always posting something that upsets people on this board. But, I'll change; I know that I have the ability to change. And, just to show you that I'm on the right track, I'd like to apologize to anybody I offended with anything I posted, including guitarfool2012. But, Billy, there's still a few "loose ends" that I have to clear up before I can truly reach my goal on this message board. And, Billy, you're the perfect person to help me. I just have a few questions that I need answers for, if you don't mind.

Question 1: If a poster expresses their opinion about Brian Wilson, say a Brian Wilson solo album or a Brian Wilson TV performance for example, and an Honored Guest or a Moderator responds to that post by calling it "utter bullshit" or "total bullshit" or just plain old "bullshit", does the original poster have the right to then, in turn, refer to the Honored Guest or Moderator's post by calling IT "utter bullshit" or "total bullshit" or just plain old "bullshit"?

Question 2: Scott Totten recently posted, "Mike gets slandered and trashed on a regular basis and many of you think that is equal to wondering whether Brian played piano. I don't find these two examples to be of equal value. I really feel that some of you are bullies." Billy, when I read that I thought, "Uh oh, there's going to be some outrage now. Somebody is accusing board members of not only unwarranted Mike Love bashing, but also bullying. The moderators aren't going to like that." However, there was no outrage, barely a ripple. I then thought, "Gee, the moderators must agree with Scott.

Well, earlier in this thread I read this post, "Mike is a sad and insecure man", and "Mike is a wretched human being to his so called songwriting partner, Brian Wilson", and finally I read, "I don't think anyone can argue that Mike is the most tactless BB member, relatively speaking, nobody even comes close." Well, Billy, again I thought, "Now there will be outrage because the moderators must've agreed with Scott and will respond to this Mike bashing." So, I kept checking the board and checking the board, but I never saw a single moderator respond to those posts. No calling them "total bullshit", no asking them to apologize to Mike, not even a "Gloves are about to come off." Now I'm confused.

Thread after thread, post after post, things like Mike Love's vocals and Mike Love's lyrics and Mike Love's solo songs are criticized. Over and over. And I get that; this is a music message board. But, sadly, every other possible area of Mike's career, character - and life - is also criticized. I've read posts criticizing Mike's spiritual pursuits, Mike's personal conduct on the road, and I've even seen comments directed about the legitimacy of his children. And, those comments were allowed. I ask you, Billy, would those same comments be permitted if they were directed at Brian Wilson? I ask an even more specific question. If somebody merely substituted the name Brian Wilson in place of Mike Love, would the same comment be allowed? For example, Brian Wilson is a wretched human being. Brain Wilson is the most tactless BB member and nobody comes close. I don't think they would permitted. Wow, I almost slipped and used the "h" word. But, see, I'm already getting better and caught myself.

Just one more thing, Billy, and I'm sorry to bother you, but, well, it's about my wife. Oh, don't misunderstand, she's a wonderful woman. She volunteers at church, works at charities; she's a beautiful person. But, see, Billy, when I'm reading or posting on the message board, she thinks I'm discussing good vibrations, going to the beach, and fun, fun, fun. Sometimes she's lurking, you know, when she's cleaning, and she'll occasionally take a peek at the computer monitor, and, well, Billy, if she saw where you described my posts as "childish fuckery", she'd get very upset. She's very sensitive. So, Billy, the next time you insult me or use derogatory terms to describe my posts, could you not use the term "child fuckery"? 

Billy, thank you for everything you do for this message board. I realize it's a long, hard, thankless job. Love and mercy... 


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: SMiLE Brian on May 21, 2015, 05:57:47 PM
Exactly, it's what the kokomaoists do best. Throwing insults under the banner of "positivity" like Mike Love does.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: drbeachboy on May 21, 2015, 06:17:14 PM
Ya...except that Brian and Dennis were sick...drug addicts with alcohol issues.  One died.  The other kicked it and somehow mirculously was properly diagnosed in terms of the REAL problem and then subsequently was given the proper prescription.  How does that correlate to a guy who continues to proudly walk the brave land with both his feet in his self propelled yap?

To toss Dennis and Brian under the exhaust of the Mike Love bus is just wrong.  The issues are entirely different.  Opposites actulally.  MIKE should be able to help himself.  He chooses not to.


NOW WE'RE GETTING SOMEWHERE! I'm serious, Add Some. Your post should be framed or put in the Smiley Smile Message Board bylaws or posted as everybody's signature. Brian and Dennis Wilson are treated/handled/dealt with/posted about on this board under DIFFERENT STANDARDS than others because of their...problems. You just said it. And, you're right, that's how it is. So, there it is. Mike and Bruce and Al DON'T have all those problems so it's fair game and acceptable to criticize the sh*t out of them because they should be able to help themselves. But, Brian and Dennis can't help themselves so, different standards, or...double standards apply.

People with medically quantifiable mental issues are also treated differently in many court cases, with good reason. I have a family member who suffers from autism, and he sadly lashes out with violence sometimes. Should I think of his actions as equivalent to someone without his condition?

And while you're at it, if you want to, perhaps you could kindly address my question about double standards which I posed to you a couple posts back.

I work with individuals with disabilities every day so I am more than aware of the treatment that is necessary. But that's only half the point or half the issue. The other half is the double standard. Just because the "other" person doesn't have a disability, does that make it OK to disparage them, attack their character, call them vile names? Just because they don't have a disability? I don't think so, but that appears to be the standard on this board. I mean, these posts are being accepted.

And, with all due respect, I'll respond to questions or posts that I choose to. If I don't have anything to offer or say in relation to your question(s), well, I'm not gonna come up with some...response, just to appease you.

yeah...mikes disparaged because he doesnt have a disability. thats literally the only reason. yep. youve got us all figured out
That kind of remark should never be aimed at anybody. Not you, me, Brian or Mike. It's is totally uncalled for and adds nothing constructive to the conversation.

I think Ive added quite a bit to the conversation up to this point, thank you very much. But y'know, when presented with such a ridiculous assertion as what sherif was implying, I cant help but respond in the same manner. If anyone is really gonna sit there and say that Mike gets the flak he does simply because he doesnt have a disability, thats a completely ridiculous argument and ignores everything me, centurydeprived, add some and others have been saying for a dozen posts now. Just how is that uncalled for? I've had worse comments directed at me, and Ive seen worse comments directed at others on this board with nary a complaint from anyone, but no a sarcastic response to a silly assertion, thats where the line is drawn?
I was referring to Roger the shredder's post. Not to you, at all. To me, there is no defense for what he said. It isn't funny and it isn't quaint, emoticon or not.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: rab2591 on May 21, 2015, 06:19:07 PM
Exactly, it's what the kokomaoists do best. Throwing insults under the banner of "positivity" like Mike Love does.

Have to agree.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: drbeachboy on May 21, 2015, 06:19:59 PM
Time to point out the double standard. Yesterday AGD mentioned that several sources witnessed Brian weeping uncontrollably on a swing while Dennis looked at him blank faced and said 'F uck you, we need that song (Surf's Up)'. Now imagine if he'd said Mike instead of Dennis - we'd have had at least two pages by now on how Mike is an evil, bullying c unt, instead we get nothing other than a very reaching excuse for Dennis' actions.
These are The Beach Boys for fecks sake, they are all just as good at doing/saying dumb stuff as each other. Mike's antics are certainly worthy of criticism from time to time, but to spend so much time and energy on hating the guy to me is just pointless.

Yes, it is a double standard. Unfortunately, that is now the norm for this board, the double standard. Posters are allowed and do say anything they can think of to criticize Mike Love, but, Brian or Dennis Wilson, no, you must have an agenda if you say anything negative about them.

And this is even sadder. "Mike Love is a vicious asshole." "Brainless jock idiots." "Soul sucking jerks." "Anus to anus." The dude is a giant tumor."When he dies there will be a long line of people waiting to piss on his grave." And, we'll finish with this one - "Mike fucking asshat Love." Those quotes are one above poster's description of (mostly) Mike and Bruce. This is the new standard on this board. The moderators are now accepting this kind of...stuff. It is sad. Very sad.  

Double standard? Like this?

Tried to stay out of this, but hell. You took a swipe at GF, called him a hypocrite, and now refuse to back it up. If you have something to say, then say it. Tell you what, if you continue with this, you don't have to worry about him banning you, cause I'd have already done it. Say what you meant, or better yet discuss it privately with h8m, just quit clogging up the board with this garbage.

I spend a lot of time defending Mike when he's unfairly attacked (same with Brian, or anybody ) and crap like this is why it's so damn difficult. I'm supposed to be working right now yet I'm putting my job on the line dealing with this childish fuckery. Gloves are about to come off.

Billy, I feel terrible about this. I mean, for you to have to risk your job to come on the board to keep me from clogging the board with my crap and garbage, well, frankly I'm embarrassed. You know, Billy, I have this problem. It seems that I'm always posting something that upsets people on this board. But, I'll change; I know that I have the ability to change. And, just to show you that I'm on the right track, I'd like to apologize to anybody I offended with anything I posted, including guitarfool2012. But, Billy, there's still a few "loose ends" that I have to clear up before I can truly reach my goal on this message board. And, Billy, you're the perfect person to help me. I just have a few questions that I need answers for, if you don't mind.

Question 1: If a poster expresses their opinion about Brian Wilson, say a Brian Wilson solo album or a Brian Wilson TV performance for example, and an Honored Guest or a Moderator responds to that post by calling it "utter bullshit" or "total bullshit" or just plain old "bullshit", does the original poster have the right to then, in turn, refer to the Honored Guest or Moderator's post by calling IT "utter bullshit" or "total bullshit" or just plain old "bullshit"?

Question 2: Scott Totten recently posted, "Mike gets slandered and trashed on a regular basis and many of you think that is equal to wondering whether Brian played piano. I don't find these two examples to be of equal value. I really feel that some of you are bullies." Billy, when I read that I thought, "Uh oh, there's going to be some outrage now. Somebody is accusing board members of not only unwarranted Mike Love bashing, but also bullying. The moderators aren't going to like that." However, there was no outrage, barely a ripple. I then thought, "Gee, the moderators must agree with Scott.

Well, earlier in this thread I read this post, "Mike is a sad and insecure man", and "Mike is a wretched human being to his so called songwriting partner, Brian Wilson", and finally I read, "I don't think anyone can argue that Mike is the most tactless BB member, relatively speaking, nobody even comes close." Well, Billy, again I thought, "Now there will be outrage because the moderators must've agreed with Scott and will respond to this Mike bashing." So, I kept checking the board and checking the board, but I never saw a single moderator respond to those posts. No calling them "total bullshit", no asking them to apologize to Mike, not even a "Gloves are about to come off." Now I'm confused.

Thread after thread, post after post, things like Mike Love's vocals and Mike Love's lyrics and Mike Love's solo songs are criticized. Over and over. And I get that; this is a music message board. But, sadly, every other possible area of Mike's career, character - and life - is also criticized. I've read posts criticizing Mike's spiritual pursuits, Mike's personal conduct on the road, and I've even seen comments directed about the legitimacy of his children. And, those comments were allowed. I ask you, Billy, would those same comments be permitted if they were directed at Brian Wilson? I ask an even more specific question. If somebody merely substituted the name Brian Wilson in place of Mike Love, would the same comment be allowed? For example, Brian Wilson is a wretched human being. Brain Wilson is the most tactless BB member and nobody comes close. I don't think they would permitted. Wow, I almost slipped and used the "h" word. But, see, I'm already getting better and caught myself.

Just one more thing, Billy, and I'm sorry to bother you, but, well, it's about my wife. Oh, don't misunderstand, she's a wonderful woman. She volunteers at church, works at charities; she's a beautiful person. But, see, Billy, when I'm reading or posting on the message board, she thinks I'm discussing good vibrations, going to the beach, and fun, fun, fun. Sometimes she's lurking, you know, when she's cleaning, and she'll occasionally take a peek at the computer monitor, and, well, Billy, if she saw where you described my posts as "childish fuckery", she'd get very upset. She's very sensitive. So, Billy, the next time you insult me or use derogatory terms to describe my posts, could you not use the term "child fuckery"?  

Billy, thank you for everything you do for this message board. I realize it's a long, hard, thankless job. Love and mercy...  
v
I don't understand, why are you addressing this post and not the one that started this series of posts in the first place?  


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: guitarfool2002 on May 21, 2015, 06:20:06 PM
This thread has done exactly what it was posted to do. Stir up the sh*t.

Here's my take, forget about moderator this-and-that.

No one stops anyone from challenging what gets said or written here. If things are being said that don't jive or agree with what may be known to be the way things actually happened, prepare to have it challenged.

At that point, present some facts to back it up, and have discussions just like any number of scholars, intellectuals, professors, authorities of any kind in any field are doing as part of their everyday existence. Debate, challenge, hypothesize, analyze, whatever else is in the process. This may sound funny but it really is not: There are astrophysicists and biblical scholars and musicologists who are authorities in the works of various composers having similar conversations as we speak in their own fields of expertise.

An article may be published in the next issue of JAMA that would cause the same kinds of arguments as we see here on occasion. One transplant surgeon in Switzerland might make a conclusion based on his research, publish it, and perhaps hundreds of doctors around the world would say "bullshit" in reply. That's the way it goes. The field of history just happens to be one where the arguments get escalated even more. Or maybe not.

The warning bell for me, call it the red flag, is when the request for something concrete (as in a 'fact' or an 'example') becomes the topic over the actual topic. "You have no right to ask for proof, I know what I know! I hear what I hear! I don't have to prove anything!"

Oh really? Prove it. Simple as that. When making the case that nothing needs to be presented, nothing has to be offered as a counter to the point being argued, to the point of that overtaking the topic itself, that's when the red flag goes up. Too many red flags recently. Or perhaps since 2012.

If Mike or Brian or Al or Mumbly Joe or Phyllis says something in an interview, it's fair game. If that something doesn't add up to previously known information or facts, be prepared for people to challenge it. It might get heated, too. That's the way it goes.

Above all, facts are facts. Some things no matter how much it is attempted to nuance or parse or reshape or "set the record straight" are what they are. Again, don't expect things that don't add up to just be accepted as fact. If those things are opinions being presented as fact, be prepared even more. If those things are attempts to change fact entirely, it's game on.

It's not always about "hating" on someone by challenging, questioning, or calling bullshit on something written or said. Does it go too far? Sometimes, yes.

Guess what? That's real life. People argue, fight, and call names. It ain't pretty, but it happens. It gets dealt with.

But to make these constant suggestions about "haters" and double standards and all the other stuff? C'mon, just roll with it.

Or better yet, if things are said that don't sit well with you, or that go against facts or whatever the case, put up a challenge. Ask for - no, demand - proof if necessary. Back it up.

If the argument against doing that is made more strongly than the original points, you might have a clue as to what's going on. Meaning, the tank might just be empty at that point. The facts ran out.

Like I still have that standing offer for a bottle of wine, which no one has ever accepted or even tried to claim. But that's another can o' worms.

Just things to consider next time the attempts are made to label people who have issues with something or someone "haters" here, or drag everything into a big shitstorm of a wrestling match.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: guitarfool2002 on May 21, 2015, 06:21:47 PM

I don't understand, why are you addressing this post and not the one that started this series of posts in the first place?  

Something about those who live in glass houses, I can't recall the rest.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 21, 2015, 06:23:56 PM
Quote
The other half is the double standard. Just because the "other" person doesn't have a disability, does that make it OK to disparage them, attack their character, call them vile names?

It does if said person attacks others' character and takes jab at them for their problems/disability.
s

Here's the thing (and why I'm wasting my time with this on my lunch break, I have no idea)...many  of the attack posts on Mike have been out of line (and some have been very much so). What I don't get is why some posters have to be 100% on either 'side'. EVERY member of the group has done things in the past that would get the average person quite a lot of sh*t, and rightfully so. Some, however, have learned from their past actions and grown as people, and some haven't...and it's perfectly okay to criticize for the latter.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on May 21, 2015, 06:24:40 PM
Ya...except that Brian and Dennis were sick...drug addicts with alcohol issues.  One died.  The other kicked it and somehow mirculously was properly diagnosed in terms of the REAL problem and then subsequently was given the proper prescription.  How does that correlate to a guy who continues to proudly walk the brave land with both his feet in his self propelled yap?

To toss Dennis and Brian under the exhaust of the Mike Love bus is just wrong.  The issues are entirely different.  Opposites actulally.  MIKE should be able to help himself.  He chooses not to.


NOW WE'RE GETTING SOMEWHERE! I'm serious, Add Some. Your post should be framed or put in the Smiley Smile Message Board bylaws or posted as everybody's signature. Brian and Dennis Wilson are treated/handled/dealt with/posted about on this board under DIFFERENT STANDARDS than others because of their...problems. You just said it. And, you're right, that's how it is. So, there it is. Mike and Bruce and Al DON'T have all those problems so it's fair game and acceptable to criticize the sh*t out of them because they should be able to help themselves. But, Brian and Dennis can't help themselves so, different standards, or...double standards apply.

People with medically quantifiable mental issues are also treated differently in many court cases, with good reason. I have a family member who suffers from autism, and he sadly lashes out with violence sometimes. Should I think of his actions as equivalent to someone without his condition?

And while you're at it, if you want to, perhaps you could kindly address my question about double standards which I posed to you a couple posts back.

I work with individuals with disabilities every day so I am more than aware of the treatment that is necessary. But that's only half the point or half the issue. The other half is the double standard. Just because the "other" person doesn't have a disability, does that make it OK to disparage them, attack their character, call them vile names? Just because they don't have a disability? I don't think so, but that appears to be the standard on this board. I mean, these posts are being accepted.

And, with all due respect, I'll respond to questions or posts that I choose to. If I don't have anything to offer or say in relation to your question(s), well, I'm not gonna come up with some...response, just to appease you.

yeah...mikes disparaged because he doesnt have a disability. thats literally the only reason. yep. youve got us all figured out
That kind of remark should never be aimed at anybody. Not you, me, Brian or Mike. It's is totally uncalled for and adds nothing constructive to the conversation.

I think Ive added quite a bit to the conversation up to this point, thank you very much. But y'know, when presented with such a ridiculous assertion as what sherif was implying, I cant help but respond in the same manner. If anyone is really gonna sit there and say that Mike gets the flak he does simply because he doesnt have a disability, thats a completely ridiculous argument and ignores everything me, centurydeprived, add some and others have been saying for a dozen posts now. Just how is that uncalled for? I've had worse comments directed at me, and Ive seen worse comments directed at others on this board with nary a complaint from anyone, but no a sarcastic response to a silly assertion, thats where the line is drawn?
I was referring to Roger the shredder's post. Not to you, at all. To me, there is no defense for what he said. It isn't funny and it isn't quaint, emoticon or not.

ah. you quoted my post, so i assumed otherwise.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: drbeachboy on May 21, 2015, 06:27:38 PM

I don't understand, why are you addressing this post and not the one that started this series of posts in the first place?  

Something about those who live in glass houses, I can't recall the rest.
I call bullshit. Do your job. Mike Love nor anyone else should have to read what was posted. I agree with what you said above, but it has nothing to do with RTS's post. We who are offended by the post should not have to defend our position. What he said cannot be argued reasonably. It would just be more sh*t throwing.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: drbeachboy on May 21, 2015, 06:29:24 PM
Quote from: Sheriff John Stone link=topich=21625.msg518746#msg518746 date=1432247659
Ya...except that Brian and Dennis were sick...drug addicts with alcohol issues.  One died.  The other kicked it and somehow mirculously was properly diagnosed in terms of the REAL problem and then subsequently was given the proper prescription.  How does that correlate to a guy who continues to proudly walk the brave land with both his feet in his self propelled yap?

To toss Dennis and Brian under the exhaust of the Mike Love bus is just wrong.  The issues are entirely different.  Opposites actulally.  MIKE should be able to help himself.  He chooses not to.


NOW WE'RE GETTING SOMEWHERE! I'm serious, Add Some. Your post should be framed or put in the Smiley Smile Message Board bylaws or posted as everybody's signature. Brian and Dennis Wilson are treated/handled/dealt with/posted about on this board under DIFFERENT STANDARDS than others because of their...problems. You just said it. And, you're right, that's how it is. So, there it is. Mike and Bruce and Al DON'T have all those problems so it's fair game and acceptable to criticize the sh*t out of them because they should be able to help themselves. But, Brian and Dennis can't help themselves so, different standards, or...double standards apply.

People with medically quantifiable mental issues are also treated differently in many court cases, with good reason. I have a family member who suffers from autism, and he sadly lashes out with violence sometimes. Should I think of his actions as equivalent to someone without his condition?

And while you're at it, if you want to, perhaps you could kindly address my question about double standards which I posed to you a couple posts back.

I work with individuals with disabilities every day so I am more than aware of the treatment that is necessary. But that's only half the point or half the issue. The other half is the double standard. Just because the "other" person doesn't have a disability, does that make it OK to disparage them, attack their character, call them vile names? Just because they don't have a disability? I don't think so, but that appears to be the standard on this board. I mean, these posts are being accepted.

And, with all due respect, I'll respond to questions or posts that I choose to. If I don't have anything to offer or say in relation to your question(s), well, I'm not gonna come up with some...response, just to appease you.

yeah...mikes disparaged because he doesnt have a disability. thats literally the only reason. yep. youve got us all figured out
That kind of remark should never be aimed at anybody. Not you, me, Brian or Mike. It's is totally uncalled for and adds nothing constructive to the conversation.

I think Ive added quite a bit to the conversation up to this point, thank you very much. But y'know, when presented with such a ridiculous assertion as what sherif was implying, I cant help but respond in the same manner. If anyone is really gonna sit there and say that Mike gets the flak he does simply because he doesnt have a disability, thats a completely ridiculous argument and ignores everything me, centurydeprived, add some and others have been saying for a dozen posts now. Just how is that uncalled for? I've had worse comments directed at me, and Ive seen worse comments directed at others on this board with nary a complaint from anyone, but no a sarcastic response to a silly assertion, thats where the line is drawn?
I was referring to Roger the shredder's post. Not to you, at all. To me, there is no defense for what he said. It isn't funny and it isn't quaint, emoticon or not.

ah. you quoted my post, so i assumed otherwise.
My apologies to you. I can understand why you assumed that.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 21, 2015, 06:34:12 PM

I don't understand, why are you addressing this post and not the one that started this series of posts in the first place? 

Something about those who live in glass houses, I can't recall the rest.
I call bullshit. Do your job. Mike Love nor anyone else should have to read what was posted. I agree with what you said above, but it has nothing to do with RTS's post. We who are offended by the post should not have to defend our position. What he said cannot be argued reasonably. It would just be more sh*t throwing.

I've already messaged him about it.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mikie on May 21, 2015, 06:35:19 PM
I call bullshit. Do your job. Mike Love nor anyone else should have to read what was posted. I agree with what you said above, but it has nothing to do with RTS's post. We who are offended by the post should not have to defend our position. What he said cannot be argued reasonably. It would just be more sh*t throwing.

Careful, Dirk. He'll ban you with the flick of a switch. When he starts wielding his power, time to take the hint and save it for a rainy day.

Your friend,

Mikie


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on May 21, 2015, 06:36:02 PM
Quote from: Sheriff John Stone link=topich=21625.msg518746#msg518746 date=1432247659
Ya...except that Brian and Dennis were sick...drug addicts with alcohol issues.  One died.  The other kicked it and somehow mirculously was properly diagnosed in terms of the REAL problem and then subsequently was given the proper prescription.  How does that correlate to a guy who continues to proudly walk the brave land with both his feet in his self propelled yap?

To toss Dennis and Brian under the exhaust of the Mike Love bus is just wrong.  The issues are entirely different.  Opposites actulally.  MIKE should be able to help himself.  He chooses not to.


NOW WE'RE GETTING SOMEWHERE! I'm serious, Add Some. Your post should be framed or put in the Smiley Smile Message Board bylaws or posted as everybody's signature. Brian and Dennis Wilson are treated/handled/dealt with/posted about on this board under DIFFERENT STANDARDS than others because of their...problems. You just said it. And, you're right, that's how it is. So, there it is. Mike and Bruce and Al DON'T have all those problems so it's fair game and acceptable to criticize the sh*t out of them because they should be able to help themselves. But, Brian and Dennis can't help themselves so, different standards, or...double standards apply.

People with medically quantifiable mental issues are also treated differently in many court cases, with good reason. I have a family member who suffers from autism, and he sadly lashes out with violence sometimes. Should I think of his actions as equivalent to someone without his condition?

And while you're at it, if you want to, perhaps you could kindly address my question about double standards which I posed to you a couple posts back.

I work with individuals with disabilities every day so I am more than aware of the treatment that is necessary. But that's only half the point or half the issue. The other half is the double standard. Just because the "other" person doesn't have a disability, does that make it OK to disparage them, attack their character, call them vile names? Just because they don't have a disability? I don't think so, but that appears to be the standard on this board. I mean, these posts are being accepted.

And, with all due respect, I'll respond to questions or posts that I choose to. If I don't have anything to offer or say in relation to your question(s), well, I'm not gonna come up with some...response, just to appease you.

yeah...mikes disparaged because he doesnt have a disability. thats literally the only reason. yep. youve got us all figured out
That kind of remark should never be aimed at anybody. Not you, me, Brian or Mike. It's is totally uncalled for and adds nothing constructive to the conversation.

I think Ive added quite a bit to the conversation up to this point, thank you very much. But y'know, when presented with such a ridiculous assertion as what sherif was implying, I cant help but respond in the same manner. If anyone is really gonna sit there and say that Mike gets the flak he does simply because he doesnt have a disability, thats a completely ridiculous argument and ignores everything me, centurydeprived, add some and others have been saying for a dozen posts now. Just how is that uncalled for? I've had worse comments directed at me, and Ive seen worse comments directed at others on this board with nary a complaint from anyone, but no a sarcastic response to a silly assertion, thats where the line is drawn?
I was referring to Roger the shredder's post. Not to you, at all. To me, there is no defense for what he said. It isn't funny and it isn't quaint, emoticon or not.

ah. you quoted my post, so i assumed otherwise.
My apologies to you. I can understand why you assumed that.

no worries.

For my money, RTS' post was insanely hyperbolic but i dont think it should be taken down for "offending" anyone. I just dont believe in that kind of PC bullshit. I say the only posts that ought to be taken down are deliberate spam and personal attacks on other board members.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: drbeachboy on May 21, 2015, 06:37:43 PM
I call bullshit. Do your job. Mike Love nor anyone else should have to read what was posted. I agree with what you said above, but it has nothing to do with RTS's post. We who are offended by the post should not have to defend our position. What he said cannot be argued reasonably. It would just be more sh*t throwing.

Careful, Dirk. He'll ban you with the flick of a switch. When he starts wielding his power, time to take the hint and save it for a rainy day.

Your friend,

Mikie
Thanks Mikie, warning noted. :)


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: guitarfool2002 on May 21, 2015, 06:39:06 PM

I don't understand, why are you addressing this post and not the one that started this series of posts in the first place?  

Something about those who live in glass houses, I can't recall the rest.
I call bullshit. Do your job. Mike Love nor anyone else should have to read what was posted. I agree with what you said above, but it has nothing to do with RTS's post. We who are offended by the post should not have to defend our position. What he said cannot be argued reasonably. It would just be more sh*t throwing.

How about this: The board is whatever the membership chooses, whatever direction it takes is up to what the members post. It's an open forum.

Plenty gets said that cannot be argued reasonably. Plenty gets said that is an outright lie. Plenty gets said that comes from sources other than what is presented. Plenty gets done which doesn't make sense at all, by people who should know better. You know what? A lot goes on away from the public part of the board. Some really stupid sh*t. Some outright lies and stuff like that. That can of worms could be opened as well but the results might not be what some might think. Those complaining about double standards, consider that. Just saying.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: SMiLE Brian on May 21, 2015, 06:39:53 PM
Guitarfool wouldn't do that, he is a scholar and gentleman.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: drbeachboy on May 21, 2015, 06:43:17 PM
Quote from: Sheriff John Stone link=topich=21625.msg518746#msg518746 date=1432247659
Ya...except that Brian and Dennis were sick...drug addicts with alcohol issues.  One died.  The other kicked it and somehow mirculously was properly diagnosed in terms of the REAL problem and then subsequently was given the proper prescription.  How does that correlate to a guy who continues to proudly walk the brave land with both his feet in his self propelled yap?

To toss Dennis and Brian under the exhaust of the Mike Love bus is just wrong.  The issues are entirely different.  Opposites actulally.  MIKE should be able to help himself.  He chooses not to.


NOW WE'RE GETTING SOMEWHERE! I'm serious, Add Some. Your post should be framed or put in the Smiley Smile Message Board bylaws or posted as everybody's signature. Brian and Dennis Wilson are treated/handled/dealt with/posted about on this board under DIFFERENT STANDARDS than others because of their...problems. You just said it. And, you're right, that's how it is. So, there it is. Mike and Bruce and Al DON'T have all those problems so it's fair game and acceptable to criticize the sh*t out of them because they should be able to help themselves. But, Brian and Dennis can't help themselves so, different standards, or...double standards apply.

People with medically quantifiable mental issues are also treated differently in many court cases, with good reason. I have a family member who suffers from autism, and he sadly lashes out with violence sometimes. Should I think of his actions as equivalent to someone without his condition?

And while you're at it, if you want to, perhaps you could kindly address my question about double standards which I posed to you a couple posts back.

I work with individuals with disabilities every day so I am more than aware of the treatment that is necessary. But that's only half the point or half the issue. The other half is the double standard. Just because the "other" person doesn't have a disability, does that make it OK to disparage them, attack their character, call them vile names? Just because they don't have a disability? I don't think so, but that appears to be the standard on this board. I mean, these posts are being accepted.

And, with all due respect, I'll respond to questions or posts that I choose to. If I don't have anything to offer or say in relation to your question(s), well, I'm not gonna come up with some...response, just to appease you.

yeah...mikes disparaged because he doesnt have a disability. thats literally the only reason. yep. youve got us all figured out
That kind of remark should never be aimed at anybody. Not you, me, Brian or Mike. It's is totally uncalled for and adds nothing constructive to the conversation.

I think Ive added quite a bit to the conversation up to this point, thank you very much. But y'know, when presented with such a ridiculous assertion as what sherif was implying, I cant help but respond in the same manner. If anyone is really gonna sit there and say that Mike gets the flak he does simply because he doesnt have a disability, thats a completely ridiculous argument and ignores everything me, centurydeprived, add some and others have been saying for a dozen posts now. Just how is that uncalled for? I've had worse comments directed at me, and Ive seen worse comments directed at others on this board with nary a complaint from anyone, but no a sarcastic response to a silly assertion, thats where the line is drawn?
I was referring to Roger the shredder's post. Not to you, at all. To me, there is no defense for what he said. It isn't funny and it isn't quaint, emoticon or not.

ah. you quoted my post, so i assumed otherwise.
My apologies to you. I can understand why you assumed that.

no worries.

For my money, RTS' post was insanely hyperbolic but i dont think it should be taken down for "offending" anyone. I just dont believe in that kind of PC bullshit. I say the only posts that ought to be taken down are deliberate spam and personal attacks on other board members.
I am offended and a few others, as well. And not PC offended. Just plain good taste and decency offended.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Lee Marshall on May 21, 2015, 06:43:45 PM
Mike Love nor anyone else should have to read what was posted. I agree with what you said above, but it has nothing to do with RTS's post. We who are offended by the post should not have to defend our position. What he said cannot be argued reasonably. It would just be more sh*t throwing.

I agree with THIS actually.  Tried to make light of it...but really it was and is out of line and serves no purpose other than to conquer and divide.   Someone mentioned it earlier,  It would seem that Andrew made his point.  [or rather some of us made it for him]


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Cyncie on May 21, 2015, 06:44:45 PM
Someone explain what happened here, please. I mean, certain posters love to complain when Mike's own ill considered comments result in backlash and so-called "Mike negativity." Yet, here we are, all politely discussing Brian's movie, interviews, albums, tour and Mike's upcoming shows, and out of the blue we have a thread guaranteed to illicit "Mike negativity." And the "Brianistas" didn't start it.

What, did it get to civil around here?


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: SMiLE Brian on May 21, 2015, 06:46:40 PM
Its the Agenda being pushed on the board as told by Howard Beale.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 21, 2015, 06:47:08 PM
I call bullshit. Do your job. Mike Love nor anyone else should have to read what was posted. I agree with what you said above, but it has nothing to do with RTS's post. We who are offended by the post should not have to defend our position. What he said cannot be argued reasonably. It would just be more sh*t throwing.

Careful, Dirk. He'll ban you with the flick of a switch. When he starts wielding his power, time to take the hint and save it for a rainy day.

Your friend,

Mikie

He's not the only mod here, and none of us do anything without discussing it with each other first.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: guitarfool2002 on May 21, 2015, 06:48:31 PM
I call bullshit. Do your job. Mike Love nor anyone else should have to read what was posted. I agree with what you said above, but it has nothing to do with RTS's post. We who are offended by the post should not have to defend our position. What he said cannot be argued reasonably. It would just be more sh*t throwing.

Careful, Dirk. He'll ban you with the flick of a switch. When he starts wielding his power, time to take the hint and save it for a rainy day.

Your friend,

Mikie

Prove it. Give everyone reading this an example of me banning someone on the flick of a switch or weilding this imaginary power as you're trying to suggest.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: drbeachboy on May 21, 2015, 06:49:21 PM

I don't understand, why are you addressing this post and not the one that started this series of posts in the first place?  

Something about those who live in glass houses, I can't recall the rest.
I call bullshit. Do your job. Mike Love nor anyone else should have to read what was posted. I agree with what you said above, but it has nothing to do with RTS's post. We who are offended by the post should not have to defend our position. What he said cannot be argued reasonably. It would just be more sh*t throwing.

How about this: The board is whatever the membership chooses, whatever direction it takes is up to what the members post. It's an open forum.

Plenty gets said that cannot be argued reasonably. Plenty gets said that is an outright lie. Plenty gets said that comes from sources other than what is presented. Plenty gets done which doesn't make sense at all, by people who should know better. You know what? A lot goes on away from the public part of the board. Some really stupid sh*t. Some outright lies and stuff like that. That can of worms could be opened as well but the results might not be what some might think. Those complaining about double standards, consider that. Just saying.
Again, we who are offended by the post are members here too. I want you or some other Mod to do something about the post. This is why there are Moderators on forums. Please moderate the situation. Please moderate.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: guitarfool2002 on May 21, 2015, 06:50:26 PM
Someone explain what happened here, please. I mean, certain posters love to complain when Mike's own ill considered comments result in backlash and so-called "Mike negativity." Yet, here we are, all politely discussing Brian's movie, interviews, albums, tour and Mike's upcoming shows, and out of the blue we have a thread guaranteed to illicit "Mike negativity." And the "Brianistas" didn't start it.

What, did it get to civil around here?

This is what happened:

This thread has done exactly what it was posted to do. Stir up the sh*t.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: SMiLE Brian on May 21, 2015, 06:51:50 PM
Exactly and make BW fans look bad.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: drbeachboy on May 21, 2015, 06:53:15 PM
Someone explain what happened here, please. I mean, certain posters love to complain when Mike's own ill considered comments result in backlash and so-called "Mike negativity." Yet, here we are, all politely discussing Brian's movie, interviews, albums, tour and Mike's upcoming shows, and out of the blue we have a thread guaranteed to illicit "Mike negativity." And the "Brianistas" didn't start it.

What, did it get to civil around here?

This is what happened:

This thread has done exactly what it was posted to do. Stir up the sh*t.
I have to agree with you here. AGD, WHAT THE HELL WERE YOU THINKING?


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Esoteric on May 21, 2015, 06:53:57 PM
I edited my original post:
http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,21625.msg518677.html#msg518677 (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,21625.msg518677.html#msg518677)


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: SMiLE Brian on May 21, 2015, 06:55:08 PM
No need, I understand your humor my friend!


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mikie on May 21, 2015, 06:59:35 PM
I call bullshit. Do your job. Mike Love nor anyone else should have to read what was posted. I agree with what you said above, but it has nothing to do with RTS's post. We who are offended by the post should not have to defend our position. What he said cannot be argued reasonably. It would just be more sh*t throwing.

Careful, Dirk. He'll ban you with the flick of a switch. When he starts wielding his power, time to take the hint and save it for a rainy day.

Your friend,

Mikie

He's not the only mod here, and none of us do anything without discussing it with each other first.

No PM's, no warnings, no nuthin'. You never see it coming. Just wake up the next morning and surprise! The ban hammer has been lowered for a week!

Preferential treatment is the order of the day. If he doesn't agree with what you're saying even after he's been driving his point home forever and a day, you're gone!  

I'm still hanging onto this one. I shouldn't, but I am.  Anything further on the subject, I'd be more than happy to take it to PM.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: CenturyDeprived on May 21, 2015, 06:59:51 PM
Exactly and make BW fans look bad.

If the point (which I'm not sure it was) was to imply that people are fixated to have a bug up their butts about some bandmate, that it has to be "someone" who takes the fall for some reason, well I think that has been disproven. People have specific issues for reasons specific to the person who is being complained about.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: drbeachboy on May 21, 2015, 07:00:36 PM
No need, I understand your humor my friend!
I edited my original post:
http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,21625.msg518677.html#msg518677 (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,21625.msg518677.html#msg518677)
Thank you. Now, since you moderated your own post, hopefully the Mods will edit your post where it was quoted elsewhere.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: SMiLE Brian on May 21, 2015, 07:01:24 PM
Yeah, Mike is a controversial figure and to suggest otherwise is crazy.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: SMiLE Brian on May 21, 2015, 07:02:53 PM
Plus Guitarfool is not one to ban people out of the blue. He is a team player with Billy and Klaas.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: drbeachboy on May 21, 2015, 07:04:40 PM
No need, I understand your humor my friend!
I totally understand it. I just don't find it humorous. I don't find shredding someone funny.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: guitarfool2002 on May 21, 2015, 07:07:11 PM
I call bullshit. Do your job. Mike Love nor anyone else should have to read what was posted. I agree with what you said above, but it has nothing to do with RTS's post. We who are offended by the post should not have to defend our position. What he said cannot be argued reasonably. It would just be more sh*t throwing.

Careful, Dirk. He'll ban you with the flick of a switch. When he starts wielding his power, time to take the hint and save it for a rainy day.

Your friend,

Mikie

He's not the only mod here, and none of us do anything without discussing it with each other first.

No PM's, no warnings, no nuthin'. You never see it coming. Just wake up the next morning and surprise! The ban hammer has been lowered for a week!

Preferential treatment is the order of the day. If he doesn't agree with what you're saying even after he's been driving his point home forever and a day, you're gone!  

I'm still hanging onto this one. I shouldn't, but I am.  Anything further on the subject, I'd be more than happy to take it to PM.

Would you be more honest in a PM than the lies you just told everyone on the board?


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: drbeachboy on May 21, 2015, 07:08:32 PM
Yeah, Mike is a controversial figure and to suggest otherwise is crazy.
Who suggested that Mike is not controversial? No one. We can discuss Mike without being nasty to him or to each other.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Cam Mott on May 21, 2015, 07:08:41 PM
Is anything being done about the member who is repeatedly and recently calling another member a "fellator"? Is that sort of thing OK on the board too?


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 21, 2015, 07:11:09 PM
Quote
Again, we who are offended by the post are members here too. I want you or some other Mod to do something about the post. This is why there are Moderators on forums. Please moderate the situation. Please moderate.

Perhaps you missed my post where I said I messaged RTS about his post. I'll assume you did, and if that's the case, then this doesn't apply to you.


I'm done being nice about this. I'm expected to be on here 24/7 , because if I'm not, sh*t storms like this develop. And not matter what I do, all I hear is this pissing and moaning 'the mods, the mods, wah wah wah'.  Well, you know what? If that's how it's gonna be, and have an issue with how I do things, or if you're only on the board to start sh*t,  then get the f*** off the board. Just leave. You won't be missed. For the record, two of my closest friends (on OR offline) are on supposed 'opposite' ends of the BW/ML spectrum. You know what? That's ok. We're all different, and not all of us are going to like the same sh*t or feel the same way about the band. What I do have a problem with is all the little sh*t stirrers here. I'm not going to call out any names; you know who you are. I've had it up to here with it. I've been on boards where the slightest transgression has led to a life time ban, even if it is something as minor as having a difference of opinion with a mod. You think THIS is bad? Well, I suggest untwisting your panties, because I got news for you...this ain't nothing. My God, if I was half as bad as I've been accused of (directly or indirectly), half this board would have been banned a long time ago. But, if that's what you want, well, fine...just be careful what you wish for.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: CenturyDeprived on May 21, 2015, 07:11:30 PM
I honestly believe that Mike Love would not be very attractive in drag. Of course it would give him the opportunity to wear a wig while performing which might be worth the ticket price.



EDITED: Sorry, Dirk. Did not mean to offend you.

Since the offending quote got changed, this brings up a serious, actual question about offensiveness (which I've privately wondered before, but never posted about): am I, or are others allowed to feel offended by instances when Mike talks in a way mimicking a woman's (or possibly a caricature of a homosexual man's) voice? I've heard brief bits and pieces of that kind of talk on session tapes (boots as well as officially released material) and I have found that it could be considered somewhat offensive, even through the lens of history and such voices being thought of as less offensive back then. Maybe other BB members did so as well, I just haven't come across any such instances (and if I did, I'd think it was just as icky for any other member to have done so, I might add). I guess it's a rhetorical question: I know I'm "allowed" to get offended. I'm *relatively* less offended because the tapes are from 50 years ago, but it still bugs me somewhat.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mikie on May 21, 2015, 07:12:51 PM
Like what, Guitarfool? Tell me just ONE lie that I've told on the board. NO PM, put it right here for everybody to see it. And I'll respond accordingly. Is it about you banning me after you and two others didn't agree with my opinion? And let me know how I supposedly "piled on" by agreeing with someone else's opinion.

Tell me where I lied ANYWHERE on the board and I'll address it with the absolute truth, Guitarfool. Promise!


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: SMiLE Brian on May 21, 2015, 07:14:11 PM
Billy, you are a great guy. I may not be on my best behavior, but thanks for always keeping the peace here! Being a mod with Guitarfool and Smileholland has kept this board great.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: CenturyDeprived on May 21, 2015, 07:17:21 PM
Billy, you are a great guy. I may not be on my best behavior, but thanks for always keeping the peace here! Being a mod with Guitarfool and Smileholland has kept this board great.

I concur. All the mods are level-headed, good peeps.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Lee Marshall on May 21, 2015, 07:17:49 PM
One thing for sure...NO ONE ever wins these debates.  And they're all alarmingly similar.  [and addictive]  It's like...OH!!!  Another car crash better slow down and take another look.  See if there's a leg up in the tree or a head rolling down the hill.  Maybe a spare finger which can be claimed as a souvenir.  We all assume our regular positions by the crash site and then away we all go again.  The Mods can probably set their watches to it.

There'll never be a camp-fire night here where will all sit around singing Kumbaya together.   Not even if Brian worked out the best arrangement for it EVER.  And as long as any member of the Beach Boys, current or recurrent, decides to once again fall down, roll around and cover himself in mud...we'll all gather round to run the bath.  Some will operate the hot water and some the cold.  Others will argue that the soap hurts the eyes.  Other will suggest that it serves the dirty boy right.  No one will get...let alone throw in...the towel.

But...the bottom line?...NONE of US got him dirty.  He just is.  Some of us simply refuse to get used to it.  It makes the halo look like it came from the dollar store.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Douchepool on May 21, 2015, 07:20:41 PM
I'm done being nice about this. I'm expected to be on here 24/7 , because if I'm not, sh*t storms like this develop. And not matter what I do, all I hear is this pissing and moaning 'the mods, the mods, wah wah wah'.  Well, you know what? If that's how it's gonna be, and have an issue with how I do things, or if you're only on the board to start sh*t,  then get the f*** off the board. Just leave. You won't be missed. For the record, two of my closest friends (on OR offline) are on supposed 'opposite' ends of the BW/ML spectrum. You know what? That's ok. We're all different, and not all of us are going to like the same sh*t or feel the same way about the band. What I do have a problem with is all the little sh*t stirrers here. I'm not going to call out any names; you know who you are. I've had it up to here with it. I've been on boards where the slightest transgression has led to a life time ban, even if it is something as minor as having a difference of opinion with a mod. You think THIS is bad? Well, I suggest untwisting your panties, because I got news for you...this ain't nothing. My God, if I was half as bad as I've been accused of (directly or indirectly), half this board would have been banned a long time ago. But, if that's what you want, well, fine...just be careful what you wish for.

 :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: CenturyDeprived on May 21, 2015, 07:22:24 PM
One thing for sure...NO ONE ever wins these debates.  And they're all alarmingly similar.  [and addictive]  It's like...OH!!!  Another car crash better slow down and take another look.  See if there's a leg up in the tree or a head rolling down the hill.  Maybe a spare finger which can be claimed as a souvenir.  We all assume our regular positions by the crash site and then away we all go again.  The Mods can probably set their watches to it.

There'll never be a camp-fire night here where will all sit around singing Kumbaya together.   Not even if Brian worked out the best arrangement for it EVER.  And as long as any member of the Beach Boys, current or recurrent, decides to once again fall down, roll around and cover himself in mud...we'll all gather round to run the bath.  Some will operate the hot water and some the cold.  Others will argue that the soap hurts the eyes.  Other will suggest that it serves the dirty boy right.  No one will get...let alone throw in...the towel.

But...the bottom line?...NONE of US got him dirty.  He just is.  Some of us simply refuse to get used to it.  It makes the halo look like it came from the dollar store.

2 things:

- I hope Mike decides to write a mashup of Kokomo and Kumbaya... maybe call it Kokomubaya!

- People who just suddenly stop posting in the middle of a back-and-forth conversation, or who suddenly refuse to answer a question directed at them are doing themselves (and the topic they defend, whether it be Mike or anything/anyone else) a great disservice. Mike's infamous term "chickensh*t" again comes to mind. If one has an ACTUAL point, suddenly refusing to address or actually answer some part of a question just proves you have nothing to back it up, but you are too afraid (or chickensh*t, if you will) to admit it.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: guitarfool2002 on May 21, 2015, 07:26:01 PM
Like what, Guitarfool? Tell me just ONE lie that I've told on the board. NO PM, put it right here for everybody to see it. And I'll respond accordingly. Is it about you banning me after you and two others didn't agree with my opinion? And let me know how I supposedly "piled on" by agreeing with someone else's opinion.

Tell me where I lied ANYWHERE on the board and I'll address it with the absolute truth, Guitarfool. Promise!

All of this is a lie:



Careful, Dirk. He'll ban you with the flick of a switch. When he starts wielding his power, time to take the hint and save it for a rainy day.

Your friend,

Mikie


No PM's, no warnings, no nuthin'. You never see it coming. Just wake up the next morning and surprise! The ban hammer has been lowered for a week!

Preferential treatment is the order of the day. If he doesn't agree with what you're saying even after he's been driving his point home forever and a day, you're gone!  




All of it, completely false and what is even worse is that you know it's false but want to take a shot at me so everyone can read it. That's low.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Lee Marshall on May 21, 2015, 07:30:20 PM
It's why these debates always prove to be fruitless Cent Dep.  And why they continue.  Nothing is ever resolved.  It's just the same old steaming pile of fly attractant...and people wearing hip-waders...every freakin' time.

By the way...40 plus years ago when those making fun of gays voices were being used...I loathed and hated the sound of it.  I wasn't into gay rights or figuring that all people were created equal or any of that new age tolerance stuff.  I just thought it was disrespectful to EVERYBODY.  It thought it reflected entirely negatively on NO ONE but the guy doing it.

Like I said. . . he figured out that he had to tone that sh*t down.  Thankfully.  More figuring still required.

---------------------------------------

And ultimately 2 people I respect a TON...GF and Mikie come to blows...BECAUSE of the never-ending Mike Love's a dink show.  Mikie...remember what you told me.  It's happening for what?  No valid reason.  Cool.  Just cool.  GuitarFool.  Easy.  This won't work out well for the board.  It's amazing the things which grow out of SOMEBODY ELSE'S bullshit.  Doc and Mikie aren't the problem


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on May 21, 2015, 07:30:45 PM
I honestly believe that Mike Love would not be very attractive in drag. Of course it would give him the opportunity to wear a wig while performing which might be worth the ticket price.



EDITED: Sorry, Dirk. Did not mean to offend you.

Since the offending quote got changed, this brings up a serious, actual question about offensiveness (which I've privately wondered before, but never posted about): am I, or are others allowed to feel offended by instances when Mike talks in a way mimicking a woman's (or possibly a caricature of a homosexual man's) voice? I've heard brief bits and pieces of that kind of talk on session tapes (boots as well as officially released material) and I have found that it could be considered somewhat offensive, even through the lens of history and such voices being thought of as less offensive back then. Maybe other BB members did so as well, I just haven't come across any such instances (and if I did, I'd think it was just as icky for any other member to have done so, I might add). I guess it's a rhetorical question: I know I'm "allowed" to get offended. I'm *relatively* less offended because the tapes are from 50 years ago, but it still bugs me somewhat.

As an effeminate man questioning his gender identity [seriously] that kinda thing offends me. But this is what I meant by PC culture. Who's to decide what's "offensive" and what isnt? I know we have plenty of older gentlemen here who couldnt care less about femininity being equated to weakness or gay being used as a derogatory term because thats the culture they grew up with. Not that that makes it ok exactly, but if we have to all have a collective time out every time someone's feelings get hurt where would we be? This is all rhetorical as well. IDK the right answer, and obviously we all shouldnt be assholes or crude either...


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on May 21, 2015, 07:32:58 PM
Billy, you are a great guy. I may not be on my best behavior, but thanks for always keeping the peace here! Being a mod with Guitarfool and Smileholland has kept this board great.

100% agreed. I havent talked much with SMiLEHolland, but Billy and the fool are great people who've made me feel more welcomed than almost anyone else here. Keep it up, guys. Some of us do appreciate it.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: drbeachboy on May 21, 2015, 07:35:29 PM
Quote
Again, we who are offended by the post are members here too. I want you or some other Mod to do something about the post. This is why there are Moderators on forums. Please moderate the situation. Please moderate.

Perhaps you missed my post where I said I messaged RTS about his post. I'll assume you did, and if that's the case, then this doesn't apply to you.


I'm done being nice about this. I'm expected to be on here 24/7 , because if I'm not, sh*t storms like this develop. And not matter what I do, all I hear is this pissing and moaning 'the mods, the mods, wah wah wah'.  Well, you know what? If that's how it's gonna be, and have an issue with how I do things, or if you're only on the board to start sh*t,  then get the f*** off the board. Just leave. You won't be missed. For the record, two of my closest friends (on OR offline) are on supposed 'opposite' ends of the BW/ML spectrum. You know what? That's ok. We're all different, and not all of us are going to like the same sh*t or feel the same way about the band. What I do have a problem with is all the little sh*t stirrers here. I'm not going to call out any names; you know who you are. I've had it up to here with it. I've been on boards where the slightest transgression has led to a life time ban, even if it is something as minor as having a difference of opinion with a mod. You think THIS is bad? Well, I suggest untwisting your panties, because I got news for you...this ain't nothing. My God, if I was half as bad as I've been accused of (directly or indirectly), half this board would have been banned a long time ago. But, if that's what you want, well, fine...just be careful what you wish for.
Billy, I have never had an issue with you. You do a great job as far as I am concerned. I read your post, but I was replying to gf2k. Not sure whether he read your post. I just found it odd that gf2k addressed sheriff's post first instead of the one that started the storm. Again, I thank RTS for moderating his own post. I admit it, I'm 57 years old and don't always agree with what goes as humor these days. I was brought up old school, is all I can say.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: CenturyDeprived on May 21, 2015, 07:35:44 PM
It's why these debates always prove to be fruitless Cent Dep.  And why they continue.  Nothing is ever resolved.  It's just the same old steaming pile of fly attractant...and people wearing hip-waders...evt freakin' time.

By the way...40 plus years ago when those making fun of gays voices were being used...I loathed and hated the sound of it.  I wasn't into gay rights or figuring that all people were created equal or any of that new age tolerance stuff.  I just thought it was disrespectful to EVERYBODY.  It thought it reflected entirely negatively on NO ONE but the guy doing it.

Like I said. . . he figured out that he had to tone that sh*t down.  Thankfully.  More figuring still required.



Well, at least when some people suddenly stop replying to a question (as soon as a point has been proven), that in and of itself makes a statement too. So, not quite fruitless. And your last line, which I bolded, is pretty much 110% on point.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: CenturyDeprived on May 21, 2015, 07:39:15 PM
I honestly believe that Mike Love would not be very attractive in drag. Of course it would give him the opportunity to wear a wig while performing which might be worth the ticket price.



EDITED: Sorry, Dirk. Did not mean to offend you.

Since the offending quote got changed, this brings up a serious, actual question about offensiveness (which I've privately wondered before, but never posted about): am I, or are others allowed to feel offended by instances when Mike talks in a way mimicking a woman's (or possibly a caricature of a homosexual man's) voice? I've heard brief bits and pieces of that kind of talk on session tapes (boots as well as officially released material) and I have found that it could be considered somewhat offensive, even through the lens of history and such voices being thought of as less offensive back then. Maybe other BB members did so as well, I just haven't come across any such instances (and if I did, I'd think it was just as icky for any other member to have done so, I might add). I guess it's a rhetorical question: I know I'm "allowed" to get offended. I'm *relatively* less offended because the tapes are from 50 years ago, but it still bugs me somewhat.

As an effeminate man questioning his gender identity [seriously] that kinda thing offends me. But this is what I meant by PC culture. Who's to decide what's "offensive" and what isnt? I know we have plenty of older gentlemen here who couldnt care less about femininity being equated to weakness or gay being used as a derogatory term because thats the culture they grew up with. Not that that makes it ok exactly, but if we have to all have a collective time out every time someone's feelings get hurt where would we be? This is all rhetorical as well. IDK the right answer, and obviously we all shouldnt be assholes or crude either...

True. And while I can (and regularly do, when enjoying pop culture media from yesteryear) readjust my goggles to make sure I am viewing the world through the eyes of the relatively prehistoric times, I would hate to think that there was any homophobia lurking beneath the surface, because that kind of stuff pisses me off to the nth degree.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mikie on May 21, 2015, 07:40:19 PM
Billy, I have never had an issue with you. You do a great job as far as I am concerned. I read your post, but I was replying to gf2k.

Same here.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 21, 2015, 07:42:05 PM
Quote
Again, we who are offended by the post are members here too. I want you or some other Mod to do something about the post. This is why there are Moderators on forums. Please moderate the situation. Please moderate.

Perhaps you missed my post where I said I messaged RTS about his post. I'll assume you did, and if that's the case, then this doesn't apply to you.


I'm done being nice about this. I'm expected to be on here 24/7 , because if I'm not, sh*t storms like this develop. And not matter what I do, all I hear is this pissing and moaning 'the mods, the mods, wah wah wah'.  Well, you know what? If that's how it's gonna be, and have an issue with how I do things, or if you're only on the board to start sh*t,  then get the f*** off the board. Just leave. You won't be missed. For the record, two of my closest friends (on OR offline) are on supposed 'opposite' ends of the BW/ML spectrum. You know what? That's ok. We're all different, and not all of us are going to like the same sh*t or feel the same way about the band. What I do have a problem with is all the little sh*t stirrers here. I'm not going to call out any names; you know who you are. I've had it up to here with it. I've been on boards where the slightest transgression has led to a life time ban, even if it is something as minor as having a difference of opinion with a mod. You think THIS is bad? Well, I suggest untwisting your panties, because I got news for you...this ain't nothing. My God, if I was half as bad as I've been accused of (directly or indirectly), half this board would have been banned a long time ago. But, if that's what you want, well, fine...just be careful what you wish for.
Billy, I have never had an issue with you. You do a great job as far as I am concerned. I read your post, but I was replying to gf2k. Not sure whether he read your post. I just found it odd that gf2k addressed sheriff's post first instead of the one that started the storm. Again, I thank RTS for moderating his own post. I admit it, I'm 57 years old and don't always agree with what goes as humor these days. I was brought up old school, is all I can say.

I figured it wasn't directed towards me, which is why I made sure I stated it wasn't directed to you. As soon as I saw the post, I handled it via PM. I prefer not to call out things publicly but rather via PM. I don't like putting people on the spot. That's just how I am.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on May 21, 2015, 07:43:05 PM
I honestly believe that Mike Love would not be very attractive in drag. Of course it would give him the opportunity to wear a wig while performing which might be worth the ticket price.



EDITED: Sorry, Dirk. Did not mean to offend you.

Since the offending quote got changed, this brings up a serious, actual question about offensiveness (which I've privately wondered before, but never posted about): am I, or are others allowed to feel offended by instances when Mike talks in a way mimicking a woman's (or possibly a caricature of a homosexual man's) voice? I've heard brief bits and pieces of that kind of talk on session tapes (boots as well as officially released material) and I have found that it could be considered somewhat offensive, even through the lens of history and such voices being thought of as less offensive back then. Maybe other BB members did so as well, I just haven't come across any such instances (and if I did, I'd think it was just as icky for any other member to have done so, I might add). I guess it's a rhetorical question: I know I'm "allowed" to get offended. I'm *relatively* less offended because the tapes are from 50 years ago, but it still bugs me somewhat.

As an effeminate man questioning his gender identity [seriously] that kinda thing offends me. But this is what I meant by PC culture. Who's to decide what's "offensive" and what isnt? I know we have plenty of older gentlemen here who couldnt care less about femininity being equated to weakness or gay being used as a derogatory term because thats the culture they grew up with. Not that that makes it ok exactly, but if we have to all have a collective time out every time someone's feelings get hurt where would we be? This is all rhetorical as well. IDK the right answer, and obviously we all shouldnt be assholes or crude either...

True. And while I can (and regularly do, when enjoying pop culture media from yesteryear) readjust my goggles to make sure I am viewing the world through the eyes of the relatively prehistoric times, I would hate to think that there was any homophobia lurking beneath the surface, because that kind of stuff pisses me off to the nth degree.

Dont want to accuse Mike of anything, but Id guess probably not homophobia so much as sexism. Who know, who cares, who can really say. In any case, attitudes towards gender and sexuality are progressing which is a good thing. I only bring it up to illustrate that all of us here have different lives, attitudes and moral codes. It's impractical to demand a post be removed for offending someone, unless the intent of the post was clearly malicious and personal. All in all though...just dont be a jerk. Good rule of thumb


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 21, 2015, 07:50:36 PM
I honestly believe that Mike Love would not be very attractive in drag. Of course it would give him the opportunity to wear a wig while performing which might be worth the ticket price.



EDITED: Sorry, Dirk. Did not mean to offend you.

Since the offending quote got changed, this brings up a serious, actual question about offensiveness (which I've privately wondered before, but never posted about): am I, or are others allowed to feel offended by instances when Mike talks in a way mimicking a woman's (or possibly a caricature of a homosexual man's) voice? I've heard brief bits and pieces of that kind of talk on session tapes (boots as well as officially released material) and I have found that it could be considered somewhat offensive, even through the lens of history and such voices being thought of as less offensive back then. Maybe other BB members did so as well, I just haven't come across any such instances (and if I did, I'd think it was just as icky for any other member to have done so, I might add). I guess it's a rhetorical question: I know I'm "allowed" to get offended. I'm *relatively* less offended because the tapes are from 50 years ago, but it still bugs me somewhat.

As an effeminate man questioning his gender identity [seriously] that kinda thing offends me. But this is what I meant by PC culture. Who's to decide what's "offensive" and what isnt? I know we have plenty of older gentlemen here who couldnt care less about femininity being equated to weakness or gay being used as a derogatory term because thats the culture they grew up with. Not that that makes it ok exactly, but if we have to all have a collective time out every time someone's feelings get hurt where would we be? This is all rhetorical as well. IDK the right answer, and obviously we all shouldnt be assholes or crude either...

True. And while I can (and regularly do, when enjoying pop culture media from yesteryear) readjust my goggles to make sure I am viewing the world through the eyes of the relatively culturally prehistoric times, I would hate to think that there was any actual homophobia lurking beneath the surface regardless of decade adjustment, because that kind of stuff deeply pisses me off to the nth degree.

I'm with you. I was watching cartoons with my daughter the other day (Tom and Jerry, to be exact), and there was an offensive racial stereotype or two in there, and I had to have a talk with her I was hoping to avoid for a few years. One thing's for sure...when people talk about the 'good old days', a lot of times I have to ask myself 'good for WHOM?'


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: guitarfool2002 on May 21, 2015, 07:54:31 PM

And ultimately 2 people I respect a TON...GF and Mikie come to blows...BECAUSE of the never-ending Mike Love's a dink show.  Mikie...remember what you told me.  It's happening for what?  No valid reason.  Cool.  Just cool.  GuitarFool.  Easy.  This won't work out well for the board.  It's amazing the things which grow out of SOMEBODY ELSE'S bullshit.  Doc and Mikie aren't the problem

It has nothing to do with this topic when I'm accused by Mikie of banning people at the flick of a switch, accused of wielding power and using it on a whim, and worse of all, accused of using my opinions in winning or losing a debate with board members as the basis of a member being banned.

That last one is as absurd as it is insulting. And above all, it is a lie.

So I'd suggest the street is one-way in this case, as the truth of what went down and why/how it went down is known by those involved.

And the way I'm being presented in the retelling of it is a complete lie.

The odd thing is that *no mention* of this was ever put up on the board. No names, no calling out, nothing at all. It was what we decided would be a "time out" resolution, of which at least 5 were given out around the same time.

No one else except you, Mikie, who got similar time outs that week made an issue of it publicly on the board. No one.

Now I'm being called out based on things that never happened, accused of things I never did, and having to read suggestions that I've banned people because I didn't agree with them in a discussion?

No, I don't accept that kind of thing from anyone. My reply:

Mikie, prove it.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mikie on May 21, 2015, 07:57:07 PM
Like what, Guitarfool? Tell me just ONE lie that I've told on the board. NO PM, put it right here for everybody to see it. And I'll respond accordingly. Is it about you banning me after you and two others didn't agree with my opinion? And let me know how I supposedly "piled on" by agreeing with someone else's opinion.

Tell me where I lied ANYWHERE on the board and I'll address it with the absolute truth, Guitarfool. Promise!

All of this is a lie:



Careful, Dirk. He'll ban you with the flick of a switch. When he starts wielding his power, time to take the hint and save it for a rainy day.

Your friend,

Mikie


No PM's, no warnings, no nuthin'. You never see it coming. Just wake up the next morning and surprise! The ban hammer has been lowered for a week!

Preferential treatment is the order of the day. If he doesn't agree with what you're saying even after he's been driving his point home forever and a day, you're gone!  




All of it, completely false and what is even worse is that you know it's false but want to take a shot at me so everyone can read it. That's low.


Nope. Not my intention at all. The absolute truth, like I said. It's black & white. No PM's, no warnings, no nothing. Complete surprise. Like I said, I don't lie, especially about something like that. I've never been known to slander people.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Douchepool on May 21, 2015, 07:57:47 PM
Since the offending quote got changed, this brings up a serious, actual question about offensiveness (which I've privately wondered before, but never posted about): am I, or are others allowed to feel offended by instances when Mike talks in a way mimicking a woman's (or possibly a caricature of a homosexual man's) voice? I've heard brief bits and pieces of that kind of talk on session tapes (boots as well as officially released material) and I have found that it could be considered somewhat offensive, even through the lens of history and such voices being thought of as less offensive back then. Maybe other BB members did so as well, I just haven't come across any such instances (and if I did, I'd think it was just as icky for any other member to have done so, I might add). I guess it's a rhetorical question: I know I'm "allowed" to get offended. I'm *relatively* less offended because the tapes are from 50 years ago, but it still bugs me somewhat.

Being offended is a choice; one is ALLOWED to make the choice to be offended but one is not due special consideration just because. To most people, being told "I'm offended" is going to lead to little more than a "so what?" If you're* offended, congratulations. The world doesn't give a damn. I certainly don't.

*speaking in general, not to a specific person.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Lee Marshall on May 21, 2015, 08:02:30 PM
I have friends who make fun of Blacks.  I have very dear friends who are Black.  I make it known that I don't appreciate the humour...that the man who sang at my Dad's funeral is Black.  My eldest daughter is Jewish...because...her mother is Jewish.  Therefore I'm going to do what?  Laugh along with the ignorant?  Not today.  My current wife and I have several gay friends who used to come visit us each summer.  Now I've moved...we can only keep in touch via e-mail...'til Lucy moves down here too.  Then I'll get to enjoy their company again.

People are people.  We sure as f*** don't need someone/anyone demeaning anyone else with their ignorant disrespect while holding a microphone...in front of 10s of thousands of people...or subsequently recorded and on the record for millions to see and/or hear.  Refuse to be divided and conquered.  You never know otherwise...who's next.  We're all in this together...ultimately.  If 10% [or so] of the population is gay...we're willing to toss that segment of potential music and ticket sales onto the book burning fire?  I wonder how BRI would vote on that one.  No wait...Let me 'GUESS'

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
------------------------------------------------------

Guitarfoll...I realize that THIS thread didn't start the issue here.  BUT...the heat and passion of the shyte contained here-in sparked the other from back in the day.  Anyway...It seems that THIS subject matter centering around the controversial Michael Edward cannot and will not ever be resolved and were coming to blows over the passions fueled by a foolhardy venture into quicksand.  [again]


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: SMiLE Brian on May 21, 2015, 08:05:37 PM
I suggest we listen to friends and relax!


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Douchepool on May 21, 2015, 08:06:41 PM
I suggest we listen to friends and relax!

You have any hash joints left? I know you do.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: guitarfool2002 on May 21, 2015, 08:08:09 PM
Like what, Guitarfool? Tell me just ONE lie that I've told on the board. NO PM, put it right here for everybody to see it. And I'll respond accordingly. Is it about you banning me after you and two others didn't agree with my opinion? And let me know how I supposedly "piled on" by agreeing with someone else's opinion.

Tell me where I lied ANYWHERE on the board and I'll address it with the absolute truth, Guitarfool. Promise!

All of this is a lie:



Careful, Dirk. He'll ban you with the flick of a switch. When he starts wielding his power, time to take the hint and save it for a rainy day.

Your friend,

Mikie


No PM's, no warnings, no nuthin'. You never see it coming. Just wake up the next morning and surprise! The ban hammer has been lowered for a week!

Preferential treatment is the order of the day. If he doesn't agree with what you're saying even after he's been driving his point home forever and a day, you're gone!  




All of it, completely false and what is even worse is that you know it's false but want to take a shot at me so everyone can read it. That's low.


Nope. Not my intention at all. The absolute truth, like I said. It's black & white. No PM's, no warnings, no nothing. Complete surprise. Like I said, I don't lie, especially about something like that. I've never been known to slander people.

It has nothing to do with this topic when I'm accused of banning people at the flick of a switch, accused of wielding power and using it on a whim, and worse of all, accused of using my opinions in winning or losing a debate with board members as the basis of a member being banned.

That last one is as absurd as it is insulting. And above all, it is a lie.

So I'd suggest the street is one-way in this case, as the truth of what went down and why/how it went down is known by those involved.

And the way I'm being presented in the retelling of it is a complete lie.

The odd thing is that *no mention* of this was ever put up on the board. No names, no calling out, nothing at all. It was what we decided would be a "time out" resolution, of which at least 5 were given out around the same time.

No one else except you, Mikie, who got similar time outs that week made an issue of it publicly on the board. No one.

Now I'm being called out based on things that never happened, accused of things I never did, and having to read suggestions that I've banned people because I didn't agree with them in a discussion?

No, I don't accept that kind of thing from anyone. My reply:

Mikie, prove it.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mikie on May 21, 2015, 08:08:13 PM
And ultimately 2 people I respect a TON...GF and Mikie come to blows...BECAUSE of the never-ending Mike Love's a dink show.  Mikie...remember what you told me.  It's happening for what?  No valid reason.  Cool.  Just cool.  GuitarFool.  Easy.  This won't work out well for the board.  It's amazing the things which grow out of SOMEBODY ELSE'S bullshit.  Doc and Mikie aren't the problem

Thanks for that, Lee, and thanks for the PM. I'll drop it for now and will deal with it behind the scenes later. I never responded to my unfair "timeout" before now, and I probably should have. My fault. I still stand by the simple advice I gave you earlier, and you obviously already know how to take the high road.  :)


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on May 21, 2015, 08:08:23 PM
Since the offending quote got changed, this brings up a serious, actual question about offensiveness (which I've privately wondered before, but never posted about): am I, or are others allowed to feel offended by instances when Mike talks in a way mimicking a woman's (or possibly a caricature of a homosexual man's) voice? I've heard brief bits and pieces of that kind of talk on session tapes (boots as well as officially released material) and I have found that it could be considered somewhat offensive, even through the lens of history and such voices being thought of as less offensive back then. Maybe other BB members did so as well, I just haven't come across any such instances (and if I did, I'd think it was just as icky for any other member to have done so, I might add). I guess it's a rhetorical question: I know I'm "allowed" to get offended. I'm *relatively* less offended because the tapes are from 50 years ago, but it still bugs me somewhat.

Being offended is a choice; one is ALLOWED to make the choice to be offended but one is not due special consideration just because. To most people, being told "I'm offended" is going to lead to little more than a "so what?" If you're* offended, congratulations. The world doesn't give a damn. I certainly don't.

*speaking in general, not to a specific person.

Agreed. All the same, we all ought to practice a little common decency.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: SMiLE Brian on May 21, 2015, 08:09:21 PM
I suggest we listen to friends and relax!

You have any hash joints left? I know you do.
yeah, TM isn't working for me.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Douchepool on May 21, 2015, 08:09:26 PM
Agreed. All the same, we all ought to practice a little common decency.

A smidge would be nice...but the internet combined with an AK-QWERTY7 makes warriors out of us all. :lol


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Douchepool on May 21, 2015, 08:09:42 PM
I suggest we listen to friends and relax!

You have any hash joints left? I know you do.
yeah, TM isn't working for me.

You're not levitating hard enough, dawg.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: SMiLE Brian on May 21, 2015, 08:10:21 PM
I suggest we listen to friends and relax!

You have any hash joints left? I know you do.
yeah, TM isn't working for me.

You're not levitating hard enough, dawg.
fly me to fosters freeze


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: drbeachboy on May 21, 2015, 08:13:28 PM
Since the offending quote got changed, this brings up a serious, actual question about offensiveness (which I've privately wondered before, but never posted about): am I, or are others allowed to feel offended by instances when Mike talks in a way mimicking a woman's (or possibly a caricature of a homosexual man's) voice? I've heard brief bits and pieces of that kind of talk on session tapes (boots as well as officially released material) and I have found that it could be considered somewhat offensive, even through the lens of history and such voices being thought of as less offensive back then. Maybe other BB members did so as well, I just haven't come across any such instances (and if I did, I'd think it was just as icky for any other member to have done so, I might add). I guess it's a rhetorical question: I know I'm "allowed" to get offended. I'm *relatively* less offended because the tapes are from 50 years ago, but it still bugs me somewhat.

Being offended is a choice; one is ALLOWED to make the choice to be offended but one is not due special consideration just because. To most people, being told "I'm offended" is going to lead to little more than a "so what?" If you're* offended, congratulations. The world doesn't give a damn. I certainly don't.

*speaking in general, not to a specific person.
The thing is, if people respected each other, they would use a bit more restraint in what they post. Just a little common courtesy. I respect RTS for moderating his post. I think we are a community here and to be a community sometimes we act for that community instead of for ourselves only. You and I are personal friends and I know that with me you do give a damn, as I with you. Giving a damn can be a good thing every once in a while. ;)


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: CenturyDeprived on May 21, 2015, 08:26:26 PM
I suggest we listen to friends and relax!

You have any hash joints left? I know you do.

Can we pretty please get a round of brownie-stoned Cassius Love vs a peace-pipe-toked-out Sonny Wilson?
 ;D :hat


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: drbeachboy on May 21, 2015, 08:30:26 PM
I suggest we listen to friends and relax!

You have any hash joints left? I know you do.

Can we pretty please get a round of brownie-stoned Cassius Love vs a peace-pipe-toked-out Sonny Wilson?
 ;D :hat
That would make a better thread. Do you toke or ingest? ;)


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: guitarfool2002 on May 21, 2015, 08:32:13 PM
And ultimately 2 people I respect a TON...GF and Mikie come to blows...BECAUSE of the never-ending Mike Love's a dink show.  Mikie...remember what you told me.  It's happening for what?  No valid reason.  Cool.  Just cool.  GuitarFool.  Easy.  This won't work out well for the board.  It's amazing the things which grow out of SOMEBODY ELSE'S bullshit.  Doc and Mikie aren't the problem

Thanks for that, Lee, and thanks for the PM. I'll drop it for now and will deal with it behind the scenes later. I never responded to my unfair "timeout" before now, and I probably should have. My fault. I still stand by the simple advice I gave you earlier, and you obviously already know how to take the high road.  :)

If I call someone out and accuse them of something publicly, I at least have the guts to back it up with proof and the balls to man up and apologize if I was wrong.

You lied, made false accusations against me, haven't backed up a single thing, and now try to bow out gracefully without backing up any of your claims.

Again, prove it Mikie. There are others besides you and I who know exactly what happened.

Moral of the story: Keep things private that should stay private, and always tell the truth. Simple.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: CenturyDeprived on May 21, 2015, 08:37:34 PM
I suggest we listen to friends and relax!

You have any hash joints left? I know you do.

Can we pretty please get a round of brownie-stoned Cassius Love vs a peace-pipe-toked-out Sonny Wilson?
 ;D :hat
That would make a better thread. Do you toke or ingest? ;)

A little bit of both... And sometimes at BB/BW shows even!

Speaking of weed, I would love to get Mike toked up and tell him that many people, even people who think he acts like a butthole often, still have some genuine love for Dr. Love (contrary to what he might think), and would love to talk a bit of sense into him (fat chance, I know - maybe would take LSD for what I had in mind). I, for one, still truly believe that there's more "good person" stuff buried deep down in there, that's just buried by extreme defensiveness and enabling surroundings.



Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Douchepool on May 21, 2015, 08:38:31 PM
Hey, I LIKE Van Dyke Parks! He's a NICE PERSON.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mikie on May 21, 2015, 08:50:32 PM
Lemme tell you somethin', Guitarfool. What you're doing now is egging me on to say things openly in a public forum that will ultimately get me banned (again). Unfortunately, YOU hold the ban switch, and I'm not stupid!! I won't get enticed into a heated exchange with you because one of us will end up with the short end of the stick and by default it will be me. I'd be more than happy to put the link to the thread in question right here and let EVERYONE be a mod here and decide whether it warranted me getting a 7 day "timeout" or not. Do you want to do that? I have no problem with that! You want to make this a public discussion, then let's do it! My cred won't be hurt a bit from it!! It's up to you, my friend, but don't say I'm a liar - it just ain't true!

When Real Beach Boy resigned from being a Mod here, my opinion was solicited on whether you should get the nod. I gave the 2 thumbs up for you. I pulled for you because you seemed half-way intelligent and you seemed fair. But you turned on me. Unfortunately, the latter turned out to be untrue.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Jim V. on May 21, 2015, 09:04:07 PM
Is anything being done about the member who is repeatedly and recently calling another member a "fellator"? Is that sort of thing OK on the board too?

Gosh, Cam. Stop being so cryptic. What are you talking about? If you're not gonna come out and say it, then save it fellator.

You've got the Mike. Tell us what's up. Or is it stuck in your mouth?


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: guitarfool2002 on May 21, 2015, 09:09:09 PM
Lemme tell you somethin', Guitarfool. What you're doing now is egging me on to say things openly in a public forum that will ultimately get me banned (again). Unfortunately, YOU hold the ban switch, and I'm not stupid!! I won't get enticed into a heated exchange with you because one of us will end up with the short end of the stick and by default it will be me. I'd be more than happy to put the link to the thread in question right here and let EVERYONE be a mod here and decide whether it warranted me getting a 7 day "timeout" or not. Do you want to do that? I have no problem with that! You want to make this a public discussion, then let's do it! My cred won't be hurt a bit from it!! It's up to you, my friend, but don't say I'm a liar - it just ain't true!

When Real Beach Boy resigned from being a Mod here, my opinion was solicited on whether you should get the nod. I gave the 2 thumbs up for you. I pulled for you because you seemed half-way intelligent and you seemed fair. But you turned on me. Unfortunately, the latter turned out to be untrue.

Do you want me to post all the stuff I know too?

Who gave you the 7 day timeout, Mikie? Answer: THE MODERATORS. Plural.

Did you receive a reply with a reason why after asking for one, Mikie? Be honest for everyone reading this.


Open forum or not, you do not have the right to lie about what I did, suggest I banned you because of losing a debate or reasons beyond the truth, and in general use bullshit and false assumptions to attack me as a moderator.

You are lying, just man up and admit it. Then we move on, it's done. Or show proof of these claims of me banning you on the flick of a switch over a thread on the board.

Prove it, that's all.

And consider that to try to be respectful, not a single word was EVER said about this on the board until you chose to lie about it here and make false accusations against me and my actions in this thread. And after I understand you asked for and received an explanation. Yep, that's right. Received.

Don't bullshit me to score points on the board, at least show that respect.

Beyond that, thanks a lot for the respect in return, pal. All this over *not being able to post on a  message board for 7 days*. Respect is a two way street, you have some potholes to repair in that area.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 21, 2015, 09:47:22 PM
I suggest we listen to friends and relax!

You have any hash joints left? I know you do.

Can we pretty please get a round of brownie-stoned Cassius Love vs a peace-pipe-toked-out Sonny Wilson?
 ;D :hat
That would make a better thread. Do you toke or ingest? ;)

A little bit of both... And sometimes at BB/BW shows even!

Speaking of weed, I would love to get Mike toked up and tell him that many people, even people who think he acts like a butthole often, still have some genuine love for Dr. Love (contrary to what he might think), and would love to talk a bit of sense into him (fat chance, I know - maybe would take LSD for what I had in mind). I, for one, still truly believe that there's more "good person" stuff buried deep down in there, that's just buried by extreme defensiveness and enabling surroundings.



I agree.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mikie on May 21, 2015, 09:53:56 PM
You want to make it public, eh?

OK.

I was NEVER warned or told beforehand that I might be banned.  After I was banned, I had to ASK another Mod via e-mail why I was banned because I had no clue why.

Reason?

For supposedly "tag-teaming" with Mike's Beard against Debbie Leavitt.  HUH?  WHAT!? NO sh*t??

Yep. And Guitarfool actually pressured others into seeing it his way after Debbie and Wirestone complained. This was coincidentally right after I'd seen how the proceedings of the thread had progressively gone downhill, I thought that free speech was compromised with some posters, and I decided to stick up for the underdogs who had their own views and who were trying to get their point across but were being squelched in the process.

Now. Tell me about this lie I told, Guitarfool!

Here is the thread in question. This was the last post I made on the thread before being banned. I encourage you to read my posts before this to see if there's any indication that I was aggressive or pushing an agenda or a hint that I would be banned for violating any rules. Does it really look like like I'm "tag-teaming" with Mike's Beard against anyone? There was no warning at any time from any of the Mods, either on the board or by PM, that I might or would be be banned.

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,20337.275.html


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: CenturyDeprived on May 21, 2015, 10:10:40 PM
You want to make it public, eh?

OK.

I was NEVER warned or told beforehand that I might be banned.  After I was banned, I had to ASK another Mod via e-mail why I was banned because I had no clue why.

Reason?

For supposedly "tag-teaming" with Mike's Beard against Debbie Leavitt.  HUH?  WHAT!? NO sh*t??

Yep. And Guitarfool actually pressured others into seeing it his way after Debbie and Wirestone complained. This was coincidentally right after I'd seen how the proceedings of the thread had progressively gone downhill, I thought that free speech was compromised with some posters, and I decided to stick up for the underdogs who had their own views and who were trying to get their point across but were being squelched in the process.

Now. Tell me about this lie I told, Guitarfool!

Here is the thread in question. This was the last post I made on the thread before being banned. I encourage you to read my posts before this to see if there's any indication that I was aggressive or pushing an agenda or a hint that I would be banned for violating any rules. Does it really look like like I'm "tag-teaming" with Mike's Beard against anyone? There was no warning at any time from any of the Mods, either on the board or by PM, that I might or would be be banned.

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,20337.275.html

The only actual tag-teaming that ever happened with Mike's beard is the day a few stray crumbs of naan bread got stuck amongst (tag-teamed with static electricity) his bountiful red, bushy facepube bristles one spring day in the spring on '68; the Fab Four bore witness.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: guitarfool2002 on May 21, 2015, 10:13:47 PM
You want to make it public, eh?

OK.

I was NEVER warned or told beforehand that I might be banned.  After I was banned, I had to ASK another Mod via e-mail why I was banned because I had no clue why.

Reason?

For supposedly "tag-teaming" with Mike's Beard against Debbie Leavitt.  HUH?  WHAT!? NO sh*t??

Yep. And Guitarfool actually pressured others into seeing it his way after Debbie and Wirestone complained. This was coincidentally right after I'd seen how the proceedings of the thread had progressively gone downhill, I thought that free speech was compromised with some posters, and I decided to stick up for the underdogs who had their own views and who were trying to get their point across but were being squelched in the process.

Now. Tell me about this lie I told, Guitarfool!

Here is the thread in question. This was the last post I made on the thread before being banned. I encourage you to read my posts before this to see if there's any indication that I was aggressive or pushing an agenda or a hint that I would be banned for violating any rules. Does it really look like like I'm "tag-teaming" with Mike's Beard against anyone? There was no warning at any time from any of the Mods, either on the board or by PM, that I might or would be be banned.

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,20337.275.html

You're lying, plain and simple. What you posted above is/was the tip of the iceberg. What you posted about me was a lie, as mentioned. I didn't ban you, the moderators did in agreement after discussing it. No one was pressured as you said. You weren't banned because I lost an argument, or because I "pressured" anyone, and you know damn well that's the case because it was explained to you after you asked why.

By the way, who was it that banned you Mikie?

And prove this bullshit about me "pressuring" someone or else get off the pot. I "actually" didn't pressure anyone into doing or saying anything no matter how much you want to lie about it or delude yourself into thinking that it's true.

Just prove your claims, show they weren't lies.

Did I ban you?
Did I ban you due to losing an argument or an "agenda"?
Do I wield the power of a moderator to ban people on a whim, if so, who have I banned that way?
Were you given an explanation for the ban when asked for one?
Did I pressure someone into banning you?
Did Wirestone have anything to do with the decision to ban you?
Was it a 7 day time out or a full ban?

Answer them, Mikie, in other words sh*t or get off the pot.






Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mike's Beard on May 21, 2015, 11:35:13 PM
Yeah, Mike is a controversial figure and to suggest otherwise is crazy.
Who suggested that Mike is not controversial? No one. We can discuss Mike without being nasty to him or to each other.

Thank you! The voice of sanity.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 21, 2015, 11:45:31 PM
Let me make this very clear....nobody, and I mean NOBODY, pressures me to do anything. I'm more than capable of thinking for myself, thank you very much.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mike's Beard on May 21, 2015, 11:56:34 PM
You want to make it public, eh?

OK.

I was NEVER warned or told beforehand that I might be banned.  After I was banned, I had to ASK another Mod via e-mail why I was banned because I had no clue why.

Reason?

For supposedly "tag-teaming" with Mike's Beard against Debbie Leavitt.  HUH?  WHAT!? NO sh*t??

Yep. And Guitarfool actually pressured others into seeing it his way after Debbie and Wirestone complained. This was coincidentally right after I'd seen how the proceedings of the thread had progressively gone downhill, I thought that free speech was compromised with some posters, and I decided to stick up for the underdogs who had their own views and who were trying to get their point across but were being squelched in the process.

Now. Tell me about this lie I told, Guitarfool!

Here is the thread in question. This was the last post I made on the thread before being banned. I encourage you to read my posts before this to see if there's any indication that I was aggressive or pushing an agenda or a hint that I would be banned for violating any rules. Does it really look like like I'm "tag-teaming" with Mike's Beard against anyone? There was no warning at any time from any of the Mods, either on the board or by PM, that I might or would be be banned.

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,20337.275.html

You're lying, plain and simple. What you posted above is/was the tip of the iceberg. What you posted about me was a lie, as mentioned. I didn't ban you, the moderators did in agreement after discussing it. No one was pressured as you said. You weren't banned because I lost an argument, or because I "pressured" anyone, and you know damn well that's the case because it was explained to you after you asked why.

By the way, who was it that banned you Mikie?

And prove this bullshit about me "pressuring" someone or else get off the pot. I "actually" didn't pressure anyone into doing or saying anything no matter how much you want to lie about it or delude yourself into thinking that it's true.

Just prove your claims, show they weren't lies.

Did I ban you?
Did I ban you due to losing an argument or an "agenda"?
Do I wield the power of a moderator to ban people on a whim, if so, who have I banned that way?
Were you given an explanation for the ban when asked for one?
Did I pressure someone into banning you?
Did Wirestone have anything to do with the decision to ban you?
Was it a 7 day time out or a full ban?

Answer them, Mikie, in other words sh*t or get off the pot.



As my name as been mentioned I'd like to add that I recieved no warning or PM off any sort before my timeout. I'm not sure if people usually do or not. I am baffled as to why I was given 7 days for what may be one of the mildest jabs to another poster in the history of this board ( and only posted it after about a week of said posters snarky remarks in general for anyone who didn't gush 100% over Brian's new album). I certainly was not in cahoots with Mikie to make this person feel unwelcome on the board. Anyway it's done now and flinging mud over it is only going to put further strain on board member relationships.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Cam Mott on May 22, 2015, 03:07:49 AM
I have a question for the Moderators, if people got a 7 day time out for accusing someone of being a cheerleader, what is the consequence for falsely calling another poster "fellator" multiple times and as recently as yesterday (see post #156 in this thread)?


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mendota Heights on May 22, 2015, 03:34:59 AM
I have a question for the Moderators, if people got a 7 day time out for accusing someone of being a cheerleader, what is the consequence for falsely calling another poster "fellator" multiple times and as recently as yesterday (see post #156 in this thread)?

How do you know it's falsely?


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: wilsonart1 on May 22, 2015, 04:32:20 AM
We need a certain film to be released soon, should change the tone of things.  PP has only been out a few weeks (can you say PP?)  Good title for a Love album.  Sorry didn't mean to cross that bridge.  I'm standing here beside myself!   Wilson concert is on LifeTime channel on Sunday evening.  Let's all warm up the tube (Oh Ya! no tubes any longer)  Let's all give it a nice view .  Class Dismissed!


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Cam Mott on May 22, 2015, 05:58:18 AM
I have a question for the Moderators, if people got a 7 day time out for accusing someone of being a cheerleader, what is the consequence for falsely calling another poster "fellator" multiple times and as recently as yesterday (see post #156 in this thread)?

How do you know it's falsely?

Wouldn't this apply anyway?

"If we want to talk about bullying, people being made to feel like they've been attacked personally especially in repeat situations, if it was asked that it stop and those requests not respected, then it's time to step in. Maybe this isn't in line with what everyone might agree with, or what has happened in the past, but it's what is happening now. This personal sniping taken beyond a certain point, to where board members feel like they've been singled out and attacked, has to end. It's not welcome, it won't be welcome, and it will be dealt with."



Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Douchepool on May 22, 2015, 06:09:54 AM
A certain poster used the term "homophobic" to describe me when I used the term "Brian-fellating" to describe certain fans. But there's no double standard there at all, guys.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: rab2591 on May 22, 2015, 06:26:02 AM
I have a question for the Moderators, if people got a 7 day time out for accusing someone of being a cheerleader, what is the consequence for falsely calling another poster "fellator" multiple times and as recently as yesterday (see post #156 in this thread)?

How do you know it's falsely?

Wouldn't this apply anyway?

"If we want to talk about bullying, people being made to feel like they've been attacked personally especially in repeat situations, if it was asked that it stop and those requests not respected, then it's time to step in. Maybe this isn't in line with what everyone might agree with, or what has happened in the past, but it's what is happening now. This personal sniping taken beyond a certain point, to where board members feel like they've been singled out and attacked, has to end. It's not welcome, it won't be welcome, and it will be dealt with."

I'm sure the infamous Fellator-gate scandal of 2015 will be dealt with soon enough. Hopefully there's a deep-throat character on SS who can expose this great atrocity once and for all.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on May 22, 2015, 07:56:09 AM
Boy this thread just gets crazier and crazier...


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: jamesellaby on May 22, 2015, 08:09:25 AM
It's like watching a foreign-language soap opera where everyone is shouting at each other but you've no idea what they're talking about. But you're still gripped...  :3d


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: CenturyDeprived on May 22, 2015, 08:11:54 AM
I have a question for the Moderators, if people got a 7 day time out for accusing someone of being a cheerleader, what is the consequence for falsely calling another poster "fellator" multiple times and as recently as yesterday (see post #156 in this thread)?

How do you know it's falsely?

Wouldn't this apply anyway?

"If we want to talk about bullying, people being made to feel like they've been attacked personally especially in repeat situations, if it was asked that it stop and those requests not respected, then it's time to step in. Maybe this isn't in line with what everyone might agree with, or what has happened in the past, but it's what is happening now. This personal sniping taken beyond a certain point, to where board members feel like they've been singled out and attacked, has to end. It's not welcome, it won't be welcome, and it will be dealt with."

I'm sure the infamous Fellator-gate scandal of 2015 will be dealt with soon enough. Hopefully there's a deep-throat character on SS who can expose this great atrocity once and for all.

I don't think fellatio should necessarily be thought of in a bad way. People shouldn't take offense to the word, as it implies a wonderful experience where one person selflessly helps another person out, regardless of sexual preference. And selflessly helping out another isn't always a bad thing. It sucks to go down the route where people get offended by it; What Ever Happened (track 3 on No Pier Pressure) to swallowing one's pride?


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Cam Mott on May 22, 2015, 08:25:21 AM
What about the lying and making another member "feel like they've been singled out and attacked" and the stated practice of the Mods being violated and the offender apparently being in defiance of the Mods? Don't you imagine they at the very least owe an apology or a time out for that?


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: drbeachboy on May 22, 2015, 08:27:05 AM
I don't think fellatio should necessarily be thought of in a bad way. People shouldn't take offense to the word, as it implies a wonderful experience where one person selflessly helps another person out, regardless of sexual preference. And selflessly helping out another isn't always a bad thing. It sucks to go down the route where people get offended by it; What Ever Happened (track 3 on No Pier Pressure) to swallowing one's pride?
So, if fellatio is to be thought of in a good way, then why did you use "sucks" in a negative way? ;)


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: CenturyDeprived on May 22, 2015, 08:36:21 AM
I don't think fellatio should necessarily be thought of in a bad way. People shouldn't take offense to the word, as it implies a wonderful experience where one person selflessly helps another person out, regardless of sexual preference. And selflessly helping out another isn't always a bad thing. It sucks to go down the route where people get offended by it; What Ever Happened (track 3 on No Pier Pressure) to swallowing one's pride?
So, if fellatio is to be thought of in a good way, then why did you use "sucks" in a negative way? ;)

 I could replace "sucks" with "blows"… But then I might be in the same quandary. How about I replace "sucks" with "is preferable not to".


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mendota Heights on May 22, 2015, 08:41:04 AM
Has anyone asked Mike or Bruce what they think about the fellator epithet. Do we know they would frown upon it?


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on May 22, 2015, 08:44:26 AM
What about the lying and making another member "feel like they've been singled out and attacked" and the stated practice of the Mods being violated and the offender apparently being in defiance of the Mods? Don't you imagine they at the very least owe an apology or a time out for that?

You're right, Cam. I'm sorry for having fellatio. Ive been naughty and deserve a spanking.

As poetic justice...I say Mike himself dish out the punishment.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: SMiLE Brian on May 22, 2015, 08:48:39 AM
Has anyone asked Mike or Bruce what they think about the fellator epithet. Do we know they would frown upon it?
What happens on the M&B tour, stays on the tour. ;)


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: CenturyDeprived on May 22, 2015, 09:09:35 AM
Has anyone asked Mike or Bruce what they think about the fellator epithet. Do we know they would frown upon it?
What happens on the M&B tour, stays on the tour. ;)

I don't know why some people drop loads of time trying to see the negatives in a beautiful act of selflessly helping out. That's not very keeping with the positivity angle.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mike's Beard on May 22, 2015, 09:28:00 AM
This board has sunk to a new low.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: guitarfool2002 on May 22, 2015, 09:44:05 AM
This board has sunk to a new low.

Considering the thread topic where it happened, that shouldn't be a surprise. Everyone happy now? This is the board you wanted?


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mendota Heights on May 22, 2015, 09:45:48 AM
I mean, it was created as a pure bait thread.

This was meant to happen. I was about to comment on it when the thread was created, but I did not care enough about it.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on May 22, 2015, 09:55:50 AM
I mean, it was created as a pure bait thread.

This was meant to happen. I was about to comment on it when the thread was created, but I did not care enough about it.

Exactly. Honestly, i think this turned out as well as it possibly could have. We firmly established that the Mike hate is logical, all had a moment together last night, and now we're having some laughs. IDK what Mikie's talking about and frankly I dont care, but aside from that...what's the problem? Now let's all just hold hands and sing a song  :-D


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mendota Heights on May 22, 2015, 09:57:41 AM
I am gonna spin Feel Flows and drink some red wine now.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: guitarfool2002 on May 22, 2015, 10:03:09 AM
Not everyone is laughing. And I take that aspect of it personally. But due to respect for privacy concerns, I'm not going to make it a public issue exactly why that is. And for those similar concerns, the reasons why some things were done and the reasons why it was so offensive to me to have to read an untrue version of things that happened which turned into having to defend something based on those misrepresentations cannot and will not be aired out beyond that point on a public forum.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on May 22, 2015, 10:07:47 AM
Not everyone is laughing. And I take that aspect of it personally. But due to respect for privacy concerns, I'm not going to make it a public issue exactly why that is. And for those similar concerns, the reasons why some things were done and the reasons why it was so offensive to me to have to read an untrue version of things that happened which turned into having to defend something based on those misrepresentations cannot and will not be aired out beyond that point on a public forum.

I didnt mean to downplay the accusations against you. But...personally, I know youre a good guy. A couple other people gave a shoutout to what a great job you mods do. Dont let one dude get to you so much. I've had my serious beefs with Mikie in the past. I dont know what makes him say the things he does in such an aggressive way sometimes, but thats just who he is evidently. For better or worse.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mikie on May 22, 2015, 10:20:33 AM
Not everyone is laughing. And I take that aspect of it personally. But due to respect for privacy concerns, I'm not going to make it a public issue exactly why that is. And for those similar concerns, the reasons why some things were done and the reasons why it was so offensive to me to have to read an untrue version of things that happened which turned into having to defend something based on those misrepresentations cannot and will not be aired out beyond that point on a public forum.

I didnt mean to downplay the accusations against you. But...personally, I know youre a good guy. A couple other people gave a shoutout to what a great job you mods do. Dont let one dude get to you so much. I've had my serious beefs with Mikie in the past. I dont know what makes him say the things he does in such an aggressive way sometimes, but thats just who he is evidently. For better or worse.

That WAS the past and you had to bring it up again. Nobody cares about our disagreement in the past. You indicated that you don't know what I'm talking about on this thread, you don't care, yet you decide to chime in and add fuel to the fire. Not a good way to strengthen your relationship with other posters.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: guitarfool2002 on May 22, 2015, 10:27:27 AM
I'd like to address the issue of members jousting with each other on this forum. Speaking only for myself, just to be clear. Judgement calls need to be made, and they are made. Is it always the right call? No. Are situations taken into consideration as much as possible, and the entire picture viewed rather than individual elements to make those calls? Yes. There are members on this forum who for years have been trading insults, almost as a general expected thing. I could name a few names but won't. Many, many times the advice has been given to work it out individually however that gets done. How many times have the words "take it to PM" been written in those cases? It becomes an issue of how much administration does the board really want? It's been asked before, and it comes down to those who want a totally open forum with little involvement beyond the members themselves, to having a more tightly controlled forum where statements and threads are regularly called out or deleted.

Maybe I'm wrong here, but at some point there are members who perhaps can handle these dust-ups among themselves based on who they are and the fact that we're all adults who have been doing this for years. It's not new to this place and it's not uncommon in life in general. If the judgement call is made that something really does go too far for a variety of reasons, then further actions and stepping in may be required. The system seems to work overall and has in most cases for a decade now.

Does it always mean everyone thinks it's a fair deal? Nothing on or apart from this board in real life can have such a guarantee short of having an all-encompassing authority that swoops down on every case of a complaint or a feeling of unfairness. It's not a term I like to use but a lot of times it's true, and that is "you cannot please everyone". Some things, perhaps it's better to handle them yourself. Again, we're adults here. It can't be expected to have a classroom-like setup where anything that gets said or done will be closely monitored by the hour. I don't think many on the board want that, or maybe it's my mistake to think that way.

This is a fan forum. I'm repeating myself, but it's like a sports-talk radio or TV show in that fans have an open line to call in and talk, complain, and vent. Is everything said and heard going to agree with everyone's opinions? Is the way someone voices an opinion going to agree with everyone else? Of course not. That's the nature of having an open forum, an open line discussion format. It also allows "Joe from Rochester" to call in and blast the New York Jets' quarterback in no uncertain terms to be followed by "Frank from White Plains" to call in and defend him while arguing Joe's points.

That's the nature of fan forums and discussions. Above all it is every fan's right to voice these opinions and in turn, counter the ones they disagree with. It gets nasty, it gets stupid very often, but if you want an open fan forum that's the nature of the beast. These professional athletes like that Jets quarterback are paid to do what they do performing on the field, and those fans buying tickets and jerseys and a plate of wings and beer at the local bar to watch them are going to have a say. It can get ugly. It's how fans are, the good and the bad of it. And it goes well beyond sports teams.

After a certain point, you just cannot please everyone. So you try to find the best middle ground understanding that some will feel ripped off and some will agree with whatever was done.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on May 22, 2015, 10:33:07 AM
Not everyone is laughing. And I take that aspect of it personally. But due to respect for privacy concerns, I'm not going to make it a public issue exactly why that is. And for those similar concerns, the reasons why some things were done and the reasons why it was so offensive to me to have to read an untrue version of things that happened which turned into having to defend something based on those misrepresentations cannot and will not be aired out beyond that point on a public forum.

I didnt mean to downplay the accusations against you. But...personally, I know youre a good guy. A couple other people gave a shoutout to what a great job you mods do. Dont let one dude get to you so much. I've had my serious beefs with Mikie in the past. I dont know what makes him say the things he does in such an aggressive way sometimes, but thats just who he is evidently. For better or worse.

That WAS the past and you had to bring it up again. Nobody cares about our disagreement in the past. You indicated that you don't know what I'm talking about on this thread, you don't care, yet you decide to chime in and add fuel to the fire. Not a good way to strengthen your relationship with other posters.

Because it's indicative of your personality. I was just trying to let guitarfool know that nobody else really knows or cares what your little fight is all about. You cant please everyone, so he shouldnt get so hung up on the fact that one person is displeased. How is that adding fuel to the fire? And y'know...Ive basically given up on having a good relationship with most posters here. If I talk about SMiLE it's "cocksure gaslighting" or some such according to buddhahat, if I weigh in on a petty feud that you had no issue airing in public Im adding "fuel to the fire" according to you, if I weigh in on some bad things a band member did Im a "hater" according to the Kokomo crowd...I cant win. So I dont care and just say what I want to regardless.

EDIT: Seriously though, I really cant see the logic behind airing a personal feud thats unrelated to the topic at hand in public, making a big spectacle of calling out one of the mods in front of everyone over something Im sure very few know or care about and then acting all righteous and indignant when someone else adds their two cents to it. Isnt this what you must have wanted airing your dirty laundry in public? Or are you upset that we're not rallying to your cause and hanging guitarfool out to dry? I really dont understand, what's the point of fighting in public if you didnt expect other people to comment?


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: alf wiedersehen on May 22, 2015, 10:44:09 AM
what the f***, guys


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mikie on May 22, 2015, 10:55:36 AM
Not everyone is laughing. And I take that aspect of it personally. But due to respect for privacy concerns, I'm not going to make it a public issue exactly why that is. And for those similar concerns, the reasons why some things were done and the reasons why it was so offensive to me to have to read an untrue version of things that happened which turned into having to defend something based on those misrepresentations cannot and will not be aired out beyond that point on a public forum.

I didnt mean to downplay the accusations against you. But...personally, I know youre a good guy. A couple other people gave a shoutout to what a great job you mods do. Dont let one dude get to you so much. I've had my serious beefs with Mikie in the past. I dont know what makes him say the things he does in such an aggressive way sometimes, but thats just who he is evidently. For better or worse.

That WAS the past and you had to bring it up again. Nobody cares about our disagreement in the past. You indicated that you don't know what I'm talking about on this thread, you don't care, yet you decide to chime in and add fuel to the fire. Not a good way to strengthen your relationship with other posters.

Because it's indicative of your personality. I was just trying to let guitarfool know that nobody else really knows or cares what your little fight is all about. You cant please everyone, so he shouldnt get so hung up on the fact that one person is displeased. How is that adding fuel to the fire? And y'know...Ive basically given up on having a good relationship with most posters here. If I talk about SMiLE it's "cocksure gaslighting" or some such according to buddhahat, if I weigh in on a petty feud that you had no issue airing in public Im adding "fuel to the fire" according to you, if I weigh in on some bad things a band member did Im a "hater" according to the Kokomo crowd...I cant win. So I dont care and just say what I want to regardless.

EDIT: Seriously though, I really cant see the logic behind airing a personal feud thats unrelated to the topic at hand in public, making a big spectacle of calling out one of the mods in front of everyone over something Im sure very few know or care about and then acting all righteous and indignant when someone else adds their two cents to it. Isnt this what you must have wanted airing your dirty laundry in public? Or are you upset that we're not rallying to your cause and hanging guitarfool out to dry? I really dont understand, what's the point of fighting in public if you didnt expect other people to comment?

My initial comment on this thread was to warn another poster not to push the mod (or others) too far. Guitarfool chose to go public with my experience with him and my ban, essentially saying that I "lied" and to prove it. He called me out on it. So my subsequent posts were intended to counter his claim that I lied. And I'm still not done yet! I still have "proof" through a private e-mail AND the thread in question to support my side of things. If Guitarfool wants to take it further on the board, I will. I don't like to be called a liar and neither does anyone else, I'm sure. And if others want to bring up past experiences with me like Mujan has, you're more than welcome! There are quite a few people on this board who I regard as friends, some of which have addressed me on the board, and have PM'ed and e-mailed me privately. Thanks for that!


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mike's Beard on May 22, 2015, 11:02:13 AM
i reread the whole thread that led to Mikie and myself getting 7 day timeouts and I honestly can't see nothing on it that warrented Mikie's ban, nothing.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Woodstock on May 22, 2015, 11:03:59 AM
This thread was started to stir sh*t, and that's exactly what it did. Well done AGD, and well done everyone that played along.



Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Woodstock on May 22, 2015, 11:05:54 AM
Seriously, reread the first post in this thread - what could it have turned into, other than what it did?


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: KDS on May 22, 2015, 11:08:33 AM
Just wanted to try to lighten the mood a bit. 

It's a holiday weekend. 

Summer's just about here. 

We're two weeks from the release of Love and Mercy (in the US)

We're about a month or so away from the start of Brian Wilson's tour with Al and Blondie 

We're all here because of the music of this great band, and here's a great track to chill out to:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45LpOzVcKYw


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mike's Beard on May 22, 2015, 11:13:04 AM
Seriously, reread the first post in this thread - what could it have turned into, other than what it did?

Despite it being the same tired arguement, there was actually some decent conversations back and forth at one point....then it all turned to s hit.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Ang Jones on May 22, 2015, 11:45:41 AM
... I'm wondering who the usual suspects would hate instead. Nominations ?

This question assumes that fans of the Beach Boys had and still have a need to hate one of the band members which suggests that this shows a failing on the part of the fans rather than that Mike Love has behaved in ways that have aroused this hostility.  I do not believe that such a need by the fans has yet been proven.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mike's Beard on May 22, 2015, 11:56:25 AM
Not really, Andrew used the words 'usual suspects' - we all know what people he had in mind, not the entire Beach Boys fan community.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: guitarfool2002 on May 22, 2015, 11:58:25 AM

My initial comment on this thread was to warn another poster not to push the mod (or others) too far. Guitarfool chose to go public with my experience with him and my ban, essentially saying that I "lied" and to prove it. He called me out on it. So my subsequent posts were intended to counter his claim that I lied. And I'm still not done yet! I still have "proof" through a private e-mail AND the thread in question to support my side of things. If Guitarfool wants to take it further on the board, I will. I don't like to be called a liar and neither does anyone else, I'm sure. And if others want to bring up past experiences with me like Mujan has, you're more than welcome! There are quite a few people on this board who I regard as friends, some of which have addressed me on the board, and have PM'ed and e-mailed me privately. Thanks for that!

This is a crock of sh*t but at this point I'm not surprised at all considering the source and the way lies have been used to make a case against me for some reason.

It's kid stuff to try arguing with the irrational and the lies. Now I have to revert back to "who started it" kind of sh*t? No.

Anyone with eyes and a brain can see the first post you made that was designed entirely to blast off on me over an axe you've been grinding from this 7 day timeout last month.

You chose to do it the chickenshit way rather than address the moderators in private, you chose to LIE after the explanation was given to you immediately after it happened, you chose to distort and twist what actually happened to make me look like i did something wrong, and now you're lying about how all this came into the thread.

You point-blank made charges and claims against me that I banned people on a whim and banned someone because of a discussion not going my way. You lied about me trying to persuade and influence others into doing something against you. You lied about the reasons for the time out as explained specifically to you.

And you knew all along there were privacy concerns at play here which I would not post private messages or emails, so you thought it would be good to try fucking me over in public.

Why should I or any of the moderators at this point give you any benefit of the doubt since your entire diatribe about this since YOU BROUGHT IT UP by accusing me falsely has been based on lies and distortions?

We have the entire string of messages, emails, board posts, everything else which played into the decision. It was a mutual, agreed decision, not something I nor anyone else did on their own initiative or with spite.

Can you fucking accept that without trying to lie your way out of it, or wrongly place the blame on my shoulders to prove a point? Do you get a gold star or something for trying to take shots at me in public?

This is the most pathetic and childish crap I've encountered on this board. Having to defend lies and knowing there are privacy issues that would keep me and most rational people from pasting the full story on a public board, Mikie to be blunt this is chickenshit and it is the stuff that has ruined the board.

Now the lie is I started this whole thing. I don't have to say prove it because the proof can be found by anyone tracing back this thread and seeing the bullshit you posted. And continuing to lie and distort publicly rather than presenting something to back it up, or doing what should have been the right thing to do all along, which would have been taking it up with Billy and I privately. Even though Billy already explained all of this to you.

It's too bad you're not man enough to accept what he said and move on after a month of this.

Mikie, it was 7 days not being able to post here for f***'s sake. And it was kept off the board, so no one knew until you decided to air it out here and do so by lying about it.

All i can say is, we lost a very, very good person in all of this, and it was a maldito shame to see it happen over someone who cannot accept or deal in the truth and something as silly as a 7 day no-post timeout that could have been over and done and forgotten by this point.

Keep it classy, man.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mikie on May 22, 2015, 12:19:02 PM

My initial comment on this thread was to warn another poster not to push the mod (or others) too far. Guitarfool chose to go public with my experience with him and my ban, essentially saying that I "lied" and to prove it. He called me out on it. So my subsequent posts were intended to counter his claim that I lied. And I'm still not done yet! I still have "proof" through a private e-mail AND the thread in question to support my side of things. If Guitarfool wants to take it further on the board, I will. I don't like to be called a liar and neither does anyone else, I'm sure. And if others want to bring up past experiences with me like Mujan has, you're more than welcome! There are quite a few people on this board who I regard as friends, some of which have addressed me on the board, and have PM'ed and e-mailed me privately. Thanks for that!

This is a crock of sh*t but at this point I'm not surprised at all considering the source and the way lies have been used to make a case against me for some reason.

It's kid stuff to try arguing with the irrational and the lies. Now I have to revert back to "who started it" kind of sh*t? No.

Anyone with eyes and a brain can see the first post you made that was designed entirely to blast off on me over an axe you've been grinding from this 7 day timeout last month.

You chose to do it the chickenshit way rather than address the moderators in private, you chose to LIE after the explanation was given to you immediately after it happened, you chose to distort and twist what actually happened to make me look like i did something wrong, and now you're lying about how all this came into the thread.

You point-blank made charges and claims against me that I banned people on a whim and banned someone because of a discussion not going my way. You lied about me trying to persuade and influence others into doing something against you. You lied about the reasons for the time out as explained specifically to you.

And you knew all along there were privacy concerns at play here which I would not post private messages or emails, so you thought it would be good to try fucking me over in public.

Why should I or any of the moderators at this point give you any benefit of the doubt since your entire diatribe about this since YOU BROUGHT IT UP by accusing me falsely has been based on lies and distortions?

We have the entire string of messages, emails, board posts, everything else which played into the decision. It was a mutual, agreed decision, not something I nor anyone else did on their own initiative or with spite.

Can you fucking accept that without trying to lie your way out of it, or wrongly place the blame on my shoulders to prove a point? Do you get a gold star or something for trying to take shots at me in public?

This is the most pathetic and childish crap I've encountered on this board. Having to defend lies and knowing there are privacy issues that would keep me and most rational people from pasting the full story on a public board, Mikie to be blunt this is chickenshit and it is the stuff that has ruined the board.

Now the lie is I started this whole thing. I don't have to say prove it because the proof can be found by anyone tracing back this thread and seeing the bullshit you posted. And continuing to lie and distort publicly rather than presenting something to back it up, or doing what should have been the right thing to do all along, which would have been taking it up with Billy and I privately. Even though Billy already explained all of this to you.

It's too bad you're not man enough to accept what he said and move on after a month of this.

Mikie, it was 7 days not being able to post here for f***'s sake. And it was kept off the board, so no one knew until you decided to air it out here and do so by lying about it.

All i can say is, we lost a very, very good person in all of this, and it was a maldito shame to see it happen over someone who cannot accept or deal in the truth and something as silly as a 7 day no-post timeout that could have been over and done and forgotten by this point.

Keep it classy, man.


Actually Guitarfool, it's not a crock of sh*t at all. Far from it, in fact. But you're very persistent, I'll give you that!

My last resort here will be a communique that I had with Billy. The day I was banned, I sent him an e-mail questioning him why I was banned and he sent me a reply a couple of days later after he "had a chance to sort things out". I choose not to embarrass him, but maybe it will serve to put your accusations (and your list of 4-5 questions) to rest. If you guys don't mind, I'll post it right here. Because the more you try to diminish MY rep here, the more ridiculous it seems. You chose NOT to go to PM with this, so maybe I should "cover my butt" and lay out what was communicated to me via a mod.



Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 22, 2015, 12:23:17 PM
Quote
And you knew all along there were privacy concerns at play here which I would not post private messages or emails, so you thought it would be good to try fucking me over in public.

Why should I or any of the moderators at this point give you any benefit of the doubt since your entire diatribe about this since YOU BROUGHT IT UP by accusing me falsely has been based on lies and distortions?

We have the entire string of messages, emails, board posts, everything else which played into the decision. It was a mutual, agreed decision, not something I nor anyone else did on their own initiative or with spite.


The bolded parts..I have to lay heavy emphasis on this.  As I was the *initial* person contacted originally in regards to this, I have to explain that it is part of the reason why I've stayed quiet. If a member PMs me (or any of the other mods) with a concern, it stays anonymous. I cannot in good conscience violate that confidentiality. Although said poster has asked me to delete his/her account, and I have complied with this wish, I still will not explain further unless given permission by said (now former-) poster to do so. I admit that I made a mistake in not contacting the affected parties at first before taking action, but what's done is done and I cannot go back and change that.


Edit...

How ironic...as I was typing that, this was posted...

Quote
My last resort here will be a communique that I had with Billy. The day I was banned, I sent him an e-mail questioning him why I was banned and he sent me a reply a couple of days later after he "had a chance to sort things out". I choose not to embarrass him, but maybe it will serve to put your accusations (and your list of 4-5 questions) to rest. If you guys don't mind, I'll post it right here.

I strongly advise against that.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 22, 2015, 12:40:06 PM
The sad part is, I hadn't even read this thread until I got my PM box basically exploded full of complaints about it. The whole topic to begin with was out of line to begin with (served no purpose), but the fact it's denigrated to what it has, quite frankly, never should have happened.  There are other issues between other posters that popped up in this thread that I haven't had time to deal with because of this other issue that I've had to respond to above, but it is being addressed with said poster(s).


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mikie on May 22, 2015, 12:45:03 PM
Just an FYI Billy, e-mails to me are held in strict confidence unless authorized by both parties to share. I was going to await your feedback on this before moving forward. Guitarfool keeps coming on to me and it's getting to the point now where I'm against the wall with his accusations and have to fight back. That's what I would do in a physical altercation before getting beat up. He keeps asking for proof and I was ready to provide more. The evidence is in the pudding. I have more (see comments toward GF from other posters on the thread in question). Call me a Chickenshit or whatever you want, but I will bow out now before I get banned again. Any further communication that I have with GF will be through PM and I will copy you, Billy.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Ang Jones on May 22, 2015, 12:45:10 PM
Not really, Andrew used the words 'usual suspects' - we all know what people he had in mind, not the entire Beach Boys fan community.

'We all know' well, that's another assumption, isn't it?  But even if we do all know to whom Andrew is referring, what proof does he have that if Mike had not been in the band they would have wanted to hate someone else?  And of course if they were just nasty people, where is it written that they may only hate one person? Edit to point out that they could have hated more than one band member for years.

Of course, I could ask 'had there not been a band called The Beatles or a person called Mick Jagger, or several other persons named in Mike's R&R Hall of Fame speech, who else would he have had a go at?'


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: CenturyDeprived on May 22, 2015, 12:59:50 PM
Not really, Andrew used the words 'usual suspects' - we all know what people he had in mind, not the entire Beach Boys fan community.

'We all know' well, that's another assumption, isn't it?  But even if we do all know to whom Andrew is referring, what proof does he have that if Mike had not been in the band they would have wanted to hate someone else?  And of course if they were just nasty people, where is it written that they may only hate one person?

Of course, I could ask 'had there not been a band called The Beatles or a person called Mick Jagger, or several other persons named in Mike's R&R Hall of Fame speech, who else would he have had a go at?'

There is, in my estimation, not a single person on this board (including any "usual suspects") who, in the absence of Mike Love's existence in the band, would somehow start finding some sort of smoke and mirrors issue to hammer another bandmate about. It ain't so. I can see how the original post was said completely in jest, off the cuff... but it's everyone's fault (including my own) for actually responding seriously to such an obviously facetious remark.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Ang Jones on May 22, 2015, 03:43:42 PM
Not really, Andrew used the words 'usual suspects' - we all know what people he had in mind, not the entire Beach Boys fan community.

'We all know' well, that's another assumption, isn't it?  But even if we do all know to whom Andrew is referring, what proof does he have that if Mike had not been in the band they would have wanted to hate someone else?  And of course if they were just nasty people, where is it written that they may only hate one person?

Of course, I could ask 'had there not been a band called The Beatles or a person called Mick Jagger, or several other persons named in Mike's R&R Hall of Fame speech, who else would he have had a go at?'

There is, in my estimation, not a single person on this board (including any "usual suspects") who, in the absence of Mike Love's existence in the band, would somehow start finding some sort of smoke and mirrors issue to hammer another bandmate about. It ain't so. I can see how the original post was said completely in jest, off the cuff... but it's everyone's fault (including my own) for actually responding seriously to such an obviously facetious remark.

The original comment may have been made in jest but it nevertheless suggests the fault lies with the usual suspects and not with Mike. Were this the case we would surely already have seen negativity towards other band members too. The fact that we haven't isn't IMO coincidental. Yes, unfortunately several of us rose to the original post just as many of us over the years have risen to various comments Mike has made in interviews. There are recent examples of this on this very message board.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Cam Mott on May 23, 2015, 05:07:40 AM
I know that the libel didn't rise to the heinous level of being called a "cheerleader" but what is being done about the member who libeled another member as a "fellator"? Are the vague do-nothing and/or being-handled posts in regards to the "fellator" libel?  A public announcement was made in the "cheerleader" incident, could a Moderator please respond/clarify in some way?


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on May 23, 2015, 06:35:28 AM
I know that the libel didn't rise to the heinous level of being called a "cheerleader" but what is being done about the member who libeled another member as a "fellator"? Are the vague do-nothing and/or being-handled posts in regards to the "fellator" libel?  A public announcement was made in the "cheerleader" incident, could a Moderator please respond/clarify in some way?

Im sorry but...get over it. I dont mean to be rude, but someone called you a not so nice name. Youre an adult, I presume. We all know you didnt actually go down on Mike or Bruce or whoever. You crying about it just brings more attention and actually makes you look worse. If you just talked to the person in question and/or PM'd the mods about it I think that would accomplish more than this hissyfit. Not saying this to be rude, just being a "straight shooter" like good ol' Mr Love.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: The LEGENDARY OSD on May 23, 2015, 07:06:06 AM
I know that the libel didn't rise to the heinous level of being called a "cheerleader" but what is being done about the member who libeled another member as a "fellator"? Are the vague do-nothing and/or being-handled posts in regards to the "fellator" libel?  A public announcement was made in the "cheerleader" incident, could a Moderator please respond/clarify in some way?

Im sorry but...get over it. I dont mean to be rude, but someone called you a not so nice name. Youre an adult, I presume. We all know you didnt actually go down on Mike or Bruce or whoever. You crying about it just brings more attention and actually makes you look worse. If you just talked to the person in question and/or PM'd the mods about it I think that would accomplish more than this hissyfit. Not saying this to be rude, just being a "straight shooter" like good ol' Mr Love.

 :thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup  Exactly.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Cam Mott on May 23, 2015, 07:08:58 AM
I know that the libel didn't rise to the heinous level of being called a "cheerleader" but what is being done about the member who libeled another member as a "fellator"? Are the vague do-nothing and/or being-handled posts in regards to the "fellator" libel?  A public announcement was made in the "cheerleader" incident, could a Moderator please respond/clarify in some way?

Im sorry but...get over it. I dont mean to be rude, but someone called you a not so nice name. Youre an adult, I presume. We all know you didnt actually go down on Mike or Bruce or whoever. You crying about it just brings more attention and actually makes you look worse. If you just talked to the person in question and/or PM'd the mods about it I think that would accomplish more than this hissyfit. Not saying this to be rude, just being a "straight shooter" like good ol' Mr Love.

You are forgiven since you don't know what all has and has not been done up to this  point.  I could PM the offender but he offended publicly and multiple times,  others were disciplined publicly  for less, others are airing their grievances publicly, I think I have done more than enough privately, I'm comfortable with public.  If the offender wants to apologize publicly and stop I'm good with it.

I find it a little ironic that no one on the board has objected at the offender but instead at me.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: drbeachboy on May 23, 2015, 07:13:15 AM
I know that the libel didn't rise to the heinous level of being called a "cheerleader" but what is being done about the member who libeled another member as a "fellator"? Are the vague do-nothing and/or being-handled posts in regards to the "fellator" libel?  A public announcement was made in the "cheerleader" incident, could a Moderator please respond/clarify in some way?


Im sorry but...get over it. I dont mean to be rude, but someone called you a not so nice name. Youre an adult, I presume. We all know you didnt actually go down on Mike or Bruce or whoever. You crying about it just brings more attention and actually makes you look worse. If you just talked to the person in question and/or PM'd the mods about it I think that would accomplish more than this hissyfit. Not saying this to be rude, just being a "straight shooter" like good ol' Mr Love.
Wait a minute there, who are you to tell Cam how he is supposed to feel? I am sure some of the things that hurt your feelings would roll off a duck's back with me or other people. You don't get to decide those things, none of us here do. This is why we have Mods to go to if we feel someone has gone too far. Personal attacks are just that, personal.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Douchepool on May 23, 2015, 07:16:33 AM
And this thread has long since become worthless. Best to lock it down, methinks.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mendota Heights on May 23, 2015, 07:22:19 AM
I almost fellatormychair when I read this thread.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: drbeachboy on May 23, 2015, 07:22:28 AM
And this thread has long since become worthless. Best to lock it down, methinks.
I know, it just never ends in this place. We must be all be socially backwards to some degree. Hardly a thread started that doesn't devolve into name calling and personal arguing. We really don't know how to have a civil conversation with each other.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Douchepool on May 23, 2015, 07:26:20 AM
At least the sparring on Male Ego was funny...this sh*t is just pathetic.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: lee on May 23, 2015, 08:39:38 AM
And this thread has long since become worthless. Best to lock it down, methinks.

I agree. Considering AGD only posted one more time within this whole thread shows that it was only created to start sh!t. It's quite sad that a thread like this was started from a so called "historian".


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: The LEGENDARY OSD on May 23, 2015, 08:49:55 AM
And this thread has long since become worthless. Best to lock it down, methinks.

I agree. Considering AGD only posted one more time within this whole thread shows that it was only created to start sh!t. It's quite sad that a thread like this was started from a so called "historian".

Fairly, and abundantly obvious what this thread was created to make happen but instead ended up a complete fail. Sorry, bubby.  8)


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 23, 2015, 10:04:12 AM
I know that the libel didn't rise to the heinous level of being called a "cheerleader" but what is being done about the member who libeled another member as a "fellator"? Are the vague do-nothing and/or being-handled posts in regards to the "fellator" libel?  A public announcement was made in the "cheerleader" incident, could a Moderator please respond/clarify in some way?

Im sorry but...get over it. I dont mean to be rude, but someone called you a not so nice name. Youre an adult, I presume. We all know you didnt actually go down on Mike or Bruce or whoever. You crying about it just brings more attention and actually makes you look worse. If you just talked to the person in question and/or PM'd the mods about it I think that would accomplish more than this hissyfit. Not saying this to be rude, just being a "straight shooter" like good ol' Mr Love.

You are forgiven since you don't know what all has and has not been done up to this  point.  I could PM the offender but he offended publicly and multiple times,  others were disciplined publicly  for less, others are airing their grievances publicly, I think I have done more than enough privately, I'm comfortable with public.  If the offender wants to apologize publicly and stop I'm good with it.

I find it a little ironic that no one on the board has objected at the offender but instead at me.

Perhaps you've missed the fact that said.poster making those comments was suspended yesterday for those remarks . Or you're just trying to start mess, which is part for the course. For your sake, I hope it's the former.

Fair warning, though...I am going back and looking at every single post between you two since it first started getting out of hand. If it turns out that you were actually the one that started this, well...


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Cam Mott on May 23, 2015, 10:11:37 AM
I know that the libel didn't rise to the heinous level of being called a "cheerleader" but what is being done about the member who libeled another member as a "fellator"? Are the vague do-nothing and/or being-handled posts in regards to the "fellator" libel?  A public announcement was made in the "cheerleader" incident, could a Moderator please respond/clarify in some way?

Im sorry but...get over it. I dont mean to be rude, but someone called you a not so nice name. Youre an adult, I presume. We all know you didnt actually go down on Mike or Bruce or whoever. You crying about it just brings more attention and actually makes you look worse. If you just talked to the person in question and/or PM'd the mods about it I think that would accomplish more than this hissyfit. Not saying this to be rude, just being a "straight shooter" like good ol' Mr Love.

You are forgiven since you don't know what all has and has not been done up to this  point.  I could PM the offender but he offended publicly and multiple times,  others were disciplined publicly  for less, others are airing their grievances publicly, I think I have done more than enough privately, I'm comfortable with public.  If the offender wants to apologize publicly and stop I'm good with it.

I find it a little ironic that no one on the board has objected at the offender but instead at me.

Perhaps you've missed the fact that said.poster making those comments was suspended yesterday for those remarks . Or you're just trying to start mess, which is part for the course. For your sake, I hope it's the former.

Fair warning, though...I am going back and looking at every single post between you two since it first started getting out of hand. If it turns out that you were actually the one that started this, well...

First, thank you. Second, how would I have known he was suspended?  Third, warning noted, please do. 


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 23, 2015, 10:21:14 AM
You're right...how would you know he wasn't suspended?  My answer to that? THAT'S why you should never assume things.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Cam Mott on May 23, 2015, 10:34:05 AM
You're right...how would you know he wasn't suspended?  My answer to that? THAT'S why you should never assume things.

What? I didn't assume he wasn't and I didn't assume he was, I didn't assume anything, I was asking what was being done about it in my not knowingness. Now I know, I'm good.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: guitarfool2002 on May 23, 2015, 10:40:47 AM
I know that the libel didn't rise to the heinous level of being called a "cheerleader"

No need for this kind of thing unless it was to drag things even deeper into the muck. It's none of your business.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on May 23, 2015, 11:01:31 AM
I know that the libel didn't rise to the heinous level of being called a "cheerleader" but what is being done about the member who libeled another member as a "fellator"? Are the vague do-nothing and/or being-handled posts in regards to the "fellator" libel?  A public announcement was made in the "cheerleader" incident, could a Moderator please respond/clarify in some way?


Im sorry but...get over it. I dont mean to be rude, but someone called you a not so nice name. Youre an adult, I presume. We all know you didnt actually go down on Mike or Bruce or whoever. You crying about it just brings more attention and actually makes you look worse. If you just talked to the person in question and/or PM'd the mods about it I think that would accomplish more than this hissyfit. Not saying this to be rude, just being a "straight shooter" like good ol' Mr Love.
Wait a minute there, who are you to tell Cam how he is supposed to feel? I am sure some of the things that hurt your feelings would roll off a duck's back with me or other people. You don't get to decide those things, none of us here do. This is why we have Mods to go to if we feel someone has gone too far. Personal attacks are just that, personal.

Youre right, its just in how you react to it. I recall asking if there was some kind of ignore button when things got tense for me. It really seems more and more like that might be the best option for everyone. I know thats not exactly a quick fix, but it would probably save us all a lot of trouble down the road. I just think crying about it to the mods in a thread where they're already being given enough grief might not be the best way to get what you want. Its like throwing a temper tantrum as mommy and daddy are discussing how theyre gonna pay the mounting bills...theres a better time and place and way to do it.

I agree it might be better if this thread were locked now. It was probably meant to start sh*t, it failed to start the sh*t it set out to but now theres a whole different kind of smellier sh*t thats stinking up the board.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 23, 2015, 11:07:13 AM
You're right...how would you know he wasn't suspended?  My answer to that? THAT'S why you should never assume things.

What? I didn't assume he wasn't and I didn't assume he was, I didn't assume anything, I was asking what was being done about it in my not knowingness. Now I know, I'm good.

You assumed nothing was done about it, or was going to be done. In any case. I kept my word like I always do.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Cam Mott on May 23, 2015, 11:12:06 AM
I know that the libel didn't rise to the heinous level of being called a "cheerleader"

No need for this kind of thing unless it was to drag things even deeper into the muck. It's none of your business.

It isn't but the other half of it was.

I'm good with it now but it did gall a little that it took so long for something so clearly against board standards practices while others were handled so quickly. Anyway, it was handled and thanks.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Cam Mott on May 23, 2015, 11:22:29 AM
You're right...how would you know he wasn't suspended?  My answer to that? THAT'S why you should never assume things.

What? I didn't assume he wasn't and I didn't assume he was, I didn't assume anything, I was asking what was being done about it in my not knowingness. Now I know, I'm good.

You assumed nothing was done about it, or was going to be done. In any case. I kept my word like I always do.

I'm not sure what you are referring to but I did ask if you and GF2002's comments about "handling" a situation were in regards to my situation, because you were not specific, so no I didn't assume. I asked.

And again, thanks for handling it.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: guitarfool2002 on May 23, 2015, 11:30:12 AM
I know that the libel didn't rise to the heinous level of being called a "cheerleader"

No need for this kind of thing unless it was to drag things even deeper into the muck. It's none of your business.

It isn't but the other half of it was.

I'm good with it now but it did gall a little that it took so long for something so clearly against board standards practices while others were handled so quickly. Anyway, it was handled and thanks.

So quickly? Again, you don't know what you're talking about enough to comment on it, especially publicly on the board so everyone can read it, and beyond that consider using some tact when referencing other situations that have been going on. Because rubbing salt in an open wound is usually not a good way to get people's attention. Neither is getting into other business that is none of your concern.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: drbeachboy on May 23, 2015, 12:44:45 PM
I know that the libel didn't rise to the heinous level of being called a "cheerleader" but what is being done about the member who libeled another member as a "fellator"? Are the vague do-nothing and/or being-handled posts in regards to the "fellator" libel?  A public announcement was made in the "cheerleader" incident, could a Moderator please respond/clarify in some way?


Im sorry but...get over it. I dont mean to be rude, but someone called you a not so nice name. Youre an adult, I presume. We all know you didnt actually go down on Mike or Bruce or whoever. You crying about it just brings more attention and actually makes you look worse. If you just talked to the person in question and/or PM'd the mods about it I think that would accomplish more than this hissyfit. Not saying this to be rude, just being a "straight shooter" like good ol' Mr Love.
Wait a minute there, who are you to tell Cam how he is supposed to feel? I am sure some of the things that hurt your feelings would roll off a duck's back with me or other people. You don't get to decide those things, none of us here do. This is why we have Mods to go to if we feel someone has gone too far. Personal attacks are just that, personal.

Youre right, its just in how you react to it. I recall asking if there was some kind of ignore button when things got tense for me. It really seems more and more like that might be the best option for everyone. I know thats not exactly a quick fix, but it would probably save us all a lot of trouble down the road. I just think crying about it to the mods in a thread where they're already being given enough grief might not be the best way to get what you want. Its like throwing a temper tantrum as mommy and daddy are discussing how theyre gonna pay the mounting bills...theres a better time and place and way to do it.

I agree it might be better if this thread were locked now. It was probably meant to start sh*t, it failed to start the sh*t it set out to but now theres a whole different kind of smellier sh*t thats stinking up the board.
And you don't get tell people how to react to different stuff, either. Some people will cry to mommy and some people will punch a person in the face, while others it won't bother them at all. Everyone is different. This is the problem, we don't take any of this into account when we post in here. A little forethought can go a long way.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Pretty Funky on May 23, 2015, 01:07:08 PM
And this thread has long since become worthless. Best to lock it down, methinks.

I agree. Considering AGD only posted one more time within this whole thread shows that it was only created to start sh!t. It's quite sad that a thread like this was started from a so called "historian".

And from someone who is first to dump on any so called 'troll' behavior.

Lock it down.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Douchepool on May 23, 2015, 01:08:14 PM
And this thread has long since become worthless. Best to lock it down, methinks.

I agree. Considering AGD only posted one more time within this whole thread shows that it was only created to start sh!t. It's quite sad that a thread like this was started from a so called "historian".

And from someone who is first to dump on any so called 'troll' behavior.

Lock it down.

 :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mike's Beard on May 23, 2015, 01:12:46 PM
Don't just lock it down Mods, delete the whole f***!ng thing. Anyone new who comes to the board and sees this is going to run a mile.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: guitarfool2002 on May 23, 2015, 01:18:43 PM
I say let this one stand as a testament to what happens when this kind of thing replaces the reasons why most people come to this or any message board. Let it stand as a crumbling ruin to show what this board could turn into if that's how members want it to turn. Learn from what happened and get a sense of what could happen if this stuff continues, and by that I mean on all fronts and all aspects and with all implications being considered. All.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: guitarfool2002 on May 23, 2015, 01:25:27 PM
And as I wrote that the irony was not lost as I was listening to WXPN as they spun three Beach Boys records back-to-back, Don't Worry Baby, California Girls, and the Smile Sessions "Cantina" version of Heroes And Villains...three of the finest records of the 60's and beyond.

That's what it's all about, not this other crap. Why it keeps coming up, I don't know, but the elixir for it is always not too far away, in this case it was on 88.5 on my FM dial for roughly 10 minutes of sonic bliss.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Pretty Funky on May 23, 2015, 01:34:32 PM
I say let this one stand as a testament to what happens when this kind of thing replaces the reasons why most people come to this or any message board. Let it stand as a crumbling ruin to show what this board could turn into if that's how members want it to turn. Learn from what happened and get a sense of what could happen if this stuff continues, and by that I mean on all fronts and all aspects and with all implications being considered. All.

A good start but unless you come up with a decent 'hook' and a catchy tune, I don't think its going to be a hit! :lol


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on May 23, 2015, 01:53:05 PM
And this thread has long since become worthless. Best to lock it down, methinks.

I agree. Considering AGD only posted one more time within this whole thread shows that it was only created to start sh!t. It's quite sad that a thread like this was started from a so called "historian".

Wrong - it was a thought that suddenly popped into my head, so I created the topic. Kinda amusing "what if", not unlike a lot of other "what if's" of recent vintage.

And care to show me the rule that says I have to post a minimum of x times in a thread I've started ?  ;D


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mike's Beard on May 23, 2015, 01:55:03 PM
Maybe what this board needed was a good 'vent'. Everyone has now gave their two cents worth and perhaps we can now move on and not have every other thread turned into a Mike bashfest..... well at least until his book comes out.  >:D


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: SMiLE Brian on May 23, 2015, 02:07:17 PM
Mike's book will be a bloodbath here.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Pretty Funky on May 23, 2015, 02:16:46 PM
And this thread has long since become worthless. Best to lock it down, methinks.

I agree. Considering AGD only posted one more time within this whole thread shows that it was only created to start sh!t. It's quite sad that a thread like this was started from a so called "historian".

Wrong - it was a thought that suddenly popped into my head, so I created the topic. Kinda amusing "what if", not unlike a lot of other "what if's" of recent vintage.

And care to show me the rule that says I have to post a minimum of x times in a thread I've started ?  ;D

'Rising above At the same level as the fuckwits, shitweasels & trolls.' then AGD? :lol


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Lee Marshall on May 23, 2015, 02:33:18 PM
It'll turn into something like 'this' every time.  Nothing has been resolved.  No agreement has been made.  Nothing has been decided.  So to let this 'thread' stand as a testament to 'what can happen' will only make it part of an unsavory collection of similar, although not QUITE identical, threads.  THIS time everybody came crashing down to the jagged edge of the fossilized manure pile.  No exceptions.  The good guys, the bad guys, the heroes and the villains...the spectators and the referees all now needing, in the worst possible way, to purchase a new pair of exrra stength, extra long, professional-grade hip-waders.

Hardly anyone is satisfied, satiated, vidicated, pleased or happy.  EVERYBODY lost.  NOTHING was gained.  There is NO way to even midly suggest that ANYBODY was right...about anything...whatsoever.

And we have the nerve to criticize ANYONE?  We are qualified to lead and guide?  We'd be happy to show what we 'accomplished' here to our kids?  Well... ... ...no.

 :-[


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on May 23, 2015, 02:41:41 PM
And this thread has long since become worthless. Best to lock it down, methinks.

I agree. Considering AGD only posted one more time within this whole thread shows that it was only created to start sh!t. It's quite sad that a thread like this was started from a so called "historian".

Wrong - it was a thought that suddenly popped into my head, so I created the topic. Kinda amusing "what if", not unlike a lot of other "what if's" of recent vintage.

And care to show me the rule that says I have to post a minimum of x times in a thread I've started ?  ;D

'Rising above At the same level as the fuckwits, shitweasels & trolls.' then AGD? :lol

Inasmuch as I don't do it compulsively and incontinently, yup, still rising above.  ;D

Lee's right - can this sucker. No-one's come out of it covered in glory and smelling of roses. No-one at all.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: wilsonart1 on May 23, 2015, 02:51:16 PM
Can someone tie my shoe's? I just can't figure it out. 


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on May 23, 2015, 03:00:12 PM
I know that the libel didn't rise to the heinous level of being called a "cheerleader" but what is being done about the member who libeled another member as a "fellator"? Are the vague do-nothing and/or being-handled posts in regards to the "fellator" libel?  A public announcement was made in the "cheerleader" incident, could a Moderator please respond/clarify in some way?


Im sorry but...get over it. I dont mean to be rude, but someone called you a not so nice name. Youre an adult, I presume. We all know you didnt actually go down on Mike or Bruce or whoever. You crying about it just brings more attention and actually makes you look worse. If you just talked to the person in question and/or PM'd the mods about it I think that would accomplish more than this hissyfit. Not saying this to be rude, just being a "straight shooter" like good ol' Mr Love.
Wait a minute there, who are you to tell Cam how he is supposed to feel? I am sure some of the things that hurt your feelings would roll off a duck's back with me or other people. You don't get to decide those things, none of us here do. This is why we have Mods to go to if we feel someone has gone too far. Personal attacks are just that, personal.

Youre right, its just in how you react to it. I recall asking if there was some kind of ignore button when things got tense for me. It really seems more and more like that might be the best option for everyone. I know thats not exactly a quick fix, but it would probably save us all a lot of trouble down the road. I just think crying about it to the mods in a thread where they're already being given enough grief might not be the best way to get what you want. Its like throwing a temper tantrum as mommy and daddy are discussing how theyre gonna pay the mounting bills...theres a better time and place and way to do it.

I agree it might be better if this thread were locked now. It was probably meant to start sh*t, it failed to start the sh*t it set out to but now theres a whole different kind of smellier sh*t thats stinking up the board.
And you don't get tell people how to react to different stuff, either. Some people will cry to mommy and some people will punch a person in the face, while others it won't bother them at all. Everyone is different. This is the problem, we don't take any of this into account when we post in here. A little forethought can go a long way.

Give me a break, man. What I said to Cam is FAR from the worst thing anyone has said on this board, much less this very thread. No need to grandstand me. I agree with your general point, but I think we could all agree that to spam a thread with some derivative of "Mods! Suspend poster x cuz they were mean to me!" isnt the best way to settle problems. Im willing to bet if the roles were reversed you wouldnt be standing up for me either.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: drbeachboy on May 23, 2015, 03:15:30 PM
I know that the libel didn't rise to the heinous level of being called a "cheerleader" but what is being done about the member who libeled another member as a "fellator"? Are the vague do-nothing and/or being-handled posts in regards to the "fellator" libel?  A public announcement was made in the "cheerleader" incident, could a Moderator please respond/clarify in some way?


Im sorry but...get over it. I dont mean to be rude, but someone called you a not so nice name. Youre an adult, I presume. We all know you didnt actually go down on Mike or Bruce or whoever. You crying about it just brings more attention and actually makes you look worse. If you just talked to the person in question and/or PM'd the mods about it I think that would accomplish more than this hissyfit. Not saying this to be rude, just being a "straight shooter" like good ol' Mr Love.
Wait a minute there, who are you to tell Cam how he is supposed to feel? I am sure some of the things that hurt your feelings would roll off a duck's back with me or other people. You don't get to decide those things, none of us here do. This is why we have Mods to go to if we feel someone has gone too far. Personal attacks are just that, personal.

Youre right, its just in how you react to it. I recall asking if there was some kind of ignore button when things got tense for me. It really seems more and more like that might be the best option for everyone. I know thats not exactly a quick fix, but it would probably save us all a lot of trouble down the road. I just think crying about it to the mods in a thread where they're already being given enough grief might not be the best way to get what you want. Its like throwing a temper tantrum as mommy and daddy are discussing how theyre gonna pay the mounting bills...theres a better time and place and way to do it.

I agree it might be better if this thread were locked now. It was probably meant to start sh*t, it failed to start the sh*t it set out to but now theres a whole different kind of smellier sh*t thats stinking up the board.
And you don't get tell people how to react to different stuff, either. Some people will cry to mommy and some people will punch a person in the face, while others it won't bother them at all. Everyone is different. This is the problem, we don't take any of this into account when we post in here. A little forethought can go a long way.

Give me a break, man. What I said to Cam is FAR from the worst thing anyone has said on this board, much less this very thread. No need to grandstand me. I agree with your general point, but I think we could all agree that to spam a thread with some derivative of "Mods! Suspend poster x cuz they were mean to me!" isnt the best way to settle problems. Im willing to bet if the roles were reversed you wouldnt be standing up for me either.
Hey man, I never said that you did. You are a perfect example of what I was talking about. You get very touchy when you think someone is getting on you, which I was not. I thought we were a having a civil discussion, guess not.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on May 23, 2015, 03:48:53 PM
I know that the libel didn't rise to the heinous level of being called a "cheerleader" but what is being done about the member who libeled another member as a "fellator"? Are the vague do-nothing and/or being-handled posts in regards to the "fellator" libel?  A public announcement was made in the "cheerleader" incident, could a Moderator please respond/clarify in some way?


Im sorry but...get over it. I dont mean to be rude, but someone called you a not so nice name. Youre an adult, I presume. We all know you didnt actually go down on Mike or Bruce or whoever. You crying about it just brings more attention and actually makes you look worse. If you just talked to the person in question and/or PM'd the mods about it I think that would accomplish more than this hissyfit. Not saying this to be rude, just being a "straight shooter" like good ol' Mr Love.
Wait a minute there, who are you to tell Cam how he is supposed to feel? I am sure some of the things that hurt your feelings would roll off a duck's back with me or other people. You don't get to decide those things, none of us here do. This is why we have Mods to go to if we feel someone has gone too far. Personal attacks are just that, personal.

Youre right, its just in how you react to it. I recall asking if there was some kind of ignore button when things got tense for me. It really seems more and more like that might be the best option for everyone. I know thats not exactly a quick fix, but it would probably save us all a lot of trouble down the road. I just think crying about it to the mods in a thread where they're already being given enough grief might not be the best way to get what you want. Its like throwing a temper tantrum as mommy and daddy are discussing how theyre gonna pay the mounting bills...theres a better time and place and way to do it.

I agree it might be better if this thread were locked now. It was probably meant to start sh*t, it failed to start the sh*t it set out to but now theres a whole different kind of smellier sh*t thats stinking up the board.
And you don't get tell people how to react to different stuff, either. Some people will cry to mommy and some people will punch a person in the face, while others it won't bother them at all. Everyone is different. This is the problem, we don't take any of this into account when we post in here. A little forethought can go a long way.

Give me a break, man. What I said to Cam is FAR from the worst thing anyone has said on this board, much less this very thread. No need to grandstand me. I agree with your general point, but I think we could all agree that to spam a thread with some derivative of "Mods! Suspend poster x cuz they were mean to me!" isnt the best way to settle problems. Im willing to bet if the roles were reversed you wouldnt be standing up for me either.
Hey man, I never said that you did. You are a perfect example of what I was talking about. You get very touchy when you think someone is getting on you, which I was not. I thought we were a having a civil discussion, guess not.

I admit I can get pretty touchy at times, but I dont consider this one of them. Whats uncivil about what I said? All Im saying is out of all the inherent problems with this thread and our various clashing personalities demonstrated within, I dont think me telling Cam he was going about resolving his beef in the wrong way really warranted being called out as if I was somehow being particularly rude. In my head I was "saying" that to you in a totally calm manner, but I guess you took it the wrong way. And I admit, to me it came across like you were lecturing me your past two posts when you probably imagined you were communicating in a friendlier way. So thats probably another thing we all need to keep in mind, how much information is lost when we arent speaking face to face and cant see the other person's body language or distinguish their tone.

Really though, I think this opens up another conversation we ought to have as a community: what should be the protocol for bringing attention to personal problems, and what standard if any should we expect from the mods? What kind of post requires action? Or...y'know...that ignore button...could be a good idea...maybe...at least I think so...


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: joshferrell on May 23, 2015, 03:58:16 PM
Murry would be the lead singer if Mike wasn't in the group. and their name would be "The Wilson 4"..(well until his death than they would have broke up)
"Let's go surfin now do be do be do be now, come on safari with me..do be do be do be do do."
"One step to step on the surf board..wa wa ohhhhhhhhhhh"
"She's real nice my 409, do be do be do be 409, my 409"
"When my children grow up to be men."
" Do be do be do, if we were older"
" There's one place that I like to go that's to the Nickelodeon, do be do be do be and we'll watch the show at the nickelodeon."
" And we'll have a swell time until the daddy gets the whip out."


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Douchepool on May 23, 2015, 04:14:45 PM
I think we could all agree that to spam a thread with some derivative of "Mods! Suspend poster x cuz they were mean to me!" isnt the best way to settle problems.

You must not have been here long. :lol


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Douchepool on May 23, 2015, 04:20:16 PM
Murry would be the lead singer if Mike wasn't in the group. and their name would be "The Wilson 4"..(well until his death than they would have broke up)
"Let's go surfin now do be do be do be now, come on safari with me..do be do be do be do do."
"One step to step on the surf board..wa wa ohhhhhhhhhhh"
"She's real nice my 409, do be do be do be 409, my 409"
"When my children grow up to be men."
" Do be do be do, if we were older"
" There's one place that I like to go that's to the Nickelodeon, do be do be do be and we'll watch the show at the nickelodeon."
" And we'll have a swell time until the daddy gets the whip out."


:lol

"My genius just wasn't made for these times."


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on May 23, 2015, 04:31:36 PM
I think we could all agree that to spam a thread with some derivative of "Mods! Suspend poster x cuz they were mean to me!" isnt the best way to settle problems.

You must not have been here long. :lol

Nope, Im relatively new...and learning day by day this place is WAY more disfunctional than I thought :lol

But i acknowledge I contribute a lot in my own way. I dont think anyone here is malicious with one or two exceptions* I just think its a case of conflicting personalities.

*Kitkay, or kattykat, or w/e her name most certainly was but thankfully shes gone


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: SinisterSmile on May 23, 2015, 05:42:04 PM
Murry would be the lead singer if Mike wasn't in the group. and their name would be "The Wilson 4"..(well until his death than they would have broke up)
"Let's go surfin now do be do be do be now, come on safari with me..do be do be do be do do."
"One step to step on the surf board..wa wa ohhhhhhhhhhh"
"She's real nice my 409, do be do be do be 409, my 409"
"When my children grow up to be men."
" Do be do be do, if we were older"
" There's one place that I like to go that's to the Nickelodeon, do be do be do be and we'll watch the show at the nickelodeon."
" And we'll have a swell time until the daddy gets the whip out."


Oh god. LMAO  ;D ;D ;D ;D


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Pretty Funky on May 23, 2015, 07:37:03 PM
Murry would be the lead singer if Mike wasn't in the group. and their name would be "The Wilson 4"..(well until his death than they would have broke up)
"Let's go surfin now do be do be do be now, come on safari with me..do be do be do be do do."
"One step to step on the surf board..wa wa ohhhhhhhhhhh"
"She's real nice my 409, do be do be do be 409, my 409"
"When my children grow up to be men."
" Do be do be do, if we were older"
" There's one place that I like to go that's to the Nickelodeon, do be do be do be and we'll watch the show at the nickelodeon."
" And we'll have a swell time until the daddy gets the whip out."


Keep An Eye Out For Summer  ;)


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: srealist on May 23, 2015, 10:40:18 PM
If this thread were taken for just its title, it might have been interesting - not that this thread isn't interesting - but interesting in a different way.  But given the conceit of the original post, it has devolved in a way one might expect.  Perhaps that was the intention - a troll thread to piss off some "brianistas." 

Though recently I saw the OP, with all due respect to Andrew, call himself a Brianista, so who knows?

A more interesting discussion might be something along the lines of...what might have happened if Brian and VDP had the collective courage/support to scuttle Mike from the band in 66-67?  Or what might have happened if they had decided to take Smile as a BW solo album and released it under a different label?

What might have happened if songs like Til I Die weren't considered "bummers" and were supported?

There are all kinds of speculative paths that are worth thinking about.  The *absolute worst* thing anyone might try to do at this point in time is shut down dialog and claim history as closed on any of these topics.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Lee Marshall on May 23, 2015, 11:16:32 PM
Brian's 'band' certainly gives us the chance to HEAR what it would sound like w/o Mike.  Imo...it sounds significantly better with Al.  THat's now...and it is LIKELY true since 1988.  One For the Boys proves something.  So too does BWPS.  If Mike wasn't in the band?

Generally...He isn't.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mike's Beard on May 24, 2015, 02:14:28 AM

A more interesting discussion might be something along the lines of...what might have happened if Brian and VDP had the collective courage/support to scuttle Mike from the band in 66-67? 

Mike would get kicked out just for not being 100% behind a few lyrics? Nah.

  Or what might have happened if they had decided to take Smile as a BW solo album and released it under a different label?


I remember my first ever post on this board asked that exact question. However I doubt it ever really came up as despite what acoyltes of Leaf may think the band very much wanted to complete and release Smile. Brian is even quoted as saying the band very nearly broke up as a result of him junking it.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Smilin Ed H on May 24, 2015, 03:07:25 AM
It would whittle down Loren Daro's list of negative influences on Brian to two.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Cam Mott on May 24, 2015, 05:48:55 AM
I know that the libel didn't rise to the heinous level of being called a "cheerleader"

No need for this kind of thing unless it was to drag things even deeper into the muck. It's none of your business.

It isn't but the other half of it was.

I'm good with it now but it did gall a little that it took so long for something so clearly against board standards practices while others were handled so quickly. Anyway, it was handled and thanks.

So quickly? Again, you don't know what you're talking about enough to comment on it, especially publicly on the board so everyone can read it, and beyond that consider using some tact when referencing other situations that have been going on. Because rubbing salt in an open wound is usually not a good way to get people's attention. Neither is getting into other business that is none of your concern.

By quickly I mean that the offending "cheerleader" post was up for 8 hours before action against the poster, the "fellator" posts were numerous, up for months, and (to my understanding) flaunted Moderator advisements. Whatever you are referring to I'm not supposed to know so no I didn't and it still leaves the above. I was commenting publically on a public post and only as a comparison to my public situation, so not rubbing salt or getting into other people's business.  It is also galling to have to defend myself over something that someone else did and could have been resolved with their apology and shouldn't have been tolerated in the first place imo.

That said, you are unhappy with me over a situation someone else created and I am unhappy with you over a situation someone else created but I'm not holding any grudges and I am grateful to the Moderators for handling it.



Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: CenturyDeprived on May 24, 2015, 08:45:03 AM
If this thread were taken for just its title, it might have been interesting - not that this thread isn't interesting - but interesting in a different way.  But given the conceit of the original post, it has devolved in a way one might expect.  Perhaps that was the intention - a troll thread to piss off some "brianistas."  

Though recently I saw the OP, with all due respect to Andrew, call himself a Brianista, so who knows?

A more interesting discussion might be something along the lines of...what might have happened if Brian and VDP had the collective courage/support to scuttle Mike from the band in 66-67?  Or what might have happened if they had decided to take Smile as a BW solo album and released it under a different label?

What might have happened if songs like Til I Die weren't considered "bummers" and were supported?

There are all kinds of speculative paths that are worth thinking about.  The *absolute worst* thing anyone might try to do at this point in time is shut down dialog and claim history as closed on any of these topics.

You can bet that if Mike had at any point during the band's history been attempted to be kicked out of the band, that whether via legal, personal, or other means, he would have put up a hell of a fight, and that it would likely have gotten unimaginably nasty.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Moon Dawg on May 24, 2015, 09:31:39 AM
  We can all agree that without Mike Love, The Beach Boys would not have formed in 1961. He is one of the cofounders of the band. The interesting question here is what would have become of the band had Mike left, or been asked to leave, at some point after 1961.

 Hard to see Mike leaving for any reason 1961-66. He was the front man, a major lyricist, and one of two main lead vocalists. All was well. After that, one can imagine him out at a couple of points.

 One is 1967. Fed up with Mike's resistance and emboldened by the brave new world promised by SMiLE, Brian kicks Mike out with the backing of Carl, Dennis, Van Dyke Parks, David Anderle, hell maybe Murry as well.

 1970 - Mike is kicked out after his nervous breakdown. That would have been nasty and hypocritical, btw.

 1972-  Bruce AND Mike are forced to leave in a move engineered by Jack Rieley.

 Hard to imagine Mike leaving at any time post 1972. Had he left at any juncture, The Beach Boys would likely not exist in any shape or form today. Remember, Mike has brought the music to the general public, one endless summer after another, for 53 years.

 Yes, Brian would have gone on to make more music, but The Beach Boys as a band would likely have ceased to exist. Or is that resist?


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: joshferrell on May 24, 2015, 09:56:14 AM
(http://i62.tinypic.com/wsus1k.jpg)


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 24, 2015, 10:14:00 AM
I know that the libel didn't rise to the heinous level of being called a "cheerleader"

No need for this kind of thing unless it was to drag things even deeper into the muck. It's none of your business.

It isn't but the other half of it was.

I'm good with it now but it did gall a little that it took so long for something so clearly against board standards practices while others were handled so quickly. Anyway, it was handled and thanks.

So quickly? Again, you don't know what you're talking about enough to comment on it, especially publicly on the board so everyone can read it, and beyond that consider using some tact when referencing other situations that have been going on. Because rubbing salt in an open wound is usually not a good way to get people's attention. Neither is getting into other business that is none of your concern.

By quickly I mean that the offending "cheerleader" post was up for 8 hours before action against the poster, the "fellator" posts were numerous, up for months, and (to my understanding) flaunted Moderator advisements. Whatever you are referring to I'm not supposed to know so no I didn't and it still leaves the above. I was commenting publically on a public post and only as a comparison to my public situation, so not rubbing salt or getting into other people's business.  It is also galling to have to defend myself over something that someone else did and could have been resolved with their apology and shouldn't have been tolerated in the first place imo.

That said, you are unhappy with me over a situation someone else created and I am unhappy with you over a situation someone else created but I'm not holding any grudges and I am grateful to the Moderators for handling it.



Last time I'm addressing this...one more complaint about this and there will be severe consequences.

Why does the first thing taken care of so quickly, and the other wasn't? Simple...the first one resulted in us getting PMs and notifications from more than one member. The latter? Not a peep from anybody else aside from you. If I had seen the posts and realized it was a pattern, I'd have handled it sooner. As I do have a life with my family and my job outside of this board, I don't have time to read every single post in every single thread. Neither do my fellow mods. I mean, it'll be great if we were omnipotent and could be everywhere at once, but we can't.

Again, this is my last post on the subject, and I consider this matter closed. Any further attempt to bring it up on the board, again, will result in severe consequences.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: SinisterSmile on May 24, 2015, 11:13:31 AM
(http://i62.tinypic.com/wsus1k.jpg)

You don't know how badly I want this to be a sitcom!  ;D ;D


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on May 24, 2015, 11:30:59 AM
A more interesting discussion might be something along the lines of...what might have happened if Brian and VDP had the collective courage/support to scuttle Mike from the band in 66-67?  Or what might have happened if they had decided to take Smile as a BW solo album and released it under a different label?

Every SMiLE fanatic, and possibly even every Beach Boy fan period, has asked this question at some point. Realistically it never would have happened. Not the way things had already played out. Ignoring his illness and insecurities, the relative "failure" of Pet Sounds and the Caroline No single probably showed Brian that to leave the band would be a commercial mistake. VDP never would have ousted a Beach Boy. He saw them as a family unit and felt guilty for driving a wedge between them with his work. He never would have turned them against each other willingly, and probably would have bowed out on principle if Brian told him he was choosing SMiLE over his cousin. So, it's a nice thought, but realistically it never would have happened, not either scenario you list. And again, it was primarily Brian who called the shots and decided not to go through with it. Mike and the Boys criticisms almost certainly influenced his decision, but ultimately he was the one who lost track of the big picture, lost faith in his creation, and decided to go in a different direction with it. End of story.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: filledeplage on May 24, 2015, 11:52:59 AM
If this thread were taken for just its title, it might have been interesting - not that this thread isn't interesting - but interesting in a different way.  But given the conceit of the original post, it has devolved in a way one might expect.  Perhaps that was the intention - a troll thread to piss off some "brianistas."  

Though recently I saw the OP, with all due respect to Andrew, call himself a Brianista, so who knows?

A more interesting discussion might be something along the lines of...what might have happened if Brian and VDP had the collective courage/support to scuttle Mike from the band in 66-67?  Or what might have happened if they had decided to take Smile as a BW solo album and released it under a different label?

What might have happened if songs like Til I Die weren't considered "bummers" and were supported?

There are all kinds of speculative paths that are worth thinking about.  The *absolute worst* thing anyone might try to do at this point in time is shut down dialog and claim history as closed on any of these topics.
srealist - "ousting Mike" (or any other BB member) would have been the "tail wagging the dog." And a joke.  A writer/lyricist "for hire" has no power or control of a vested member of a corporation. Courage is not a factor.  The band was not a "group for hire" but "owners and operators."  VDP was neither an owner, nor an operator.  These band members were on the road in support of the music.  

Now that SMiLE tracks have been released, I wonder how it could have ever been released in that era short of a triple LP.  

How many kids listening to rock music were going to fork over $10 or $15 or what ever out of their allowance or babysitting money, when they might be buying a couple of LP's a week or month?   How could 12 tracks been picked out for one regular LP? It is easy to say 40 years at least, post, when CD's hold 75 minutes that it should have been released with 30 minutes as single LP.  Even at a double LP, how do you boil SMiLE down to 60 minutes? LP's were the distribution medium. Not CD's or downloads.  Maybe in the alternative a "theme at a time" on one LP in a series fashion, might have worked. I don't know.




Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: drbeachboy on May 24, 2015, 12:00:18 PM
@Mujan & filledeplage,

Great posts and both pretty much on the money, imho.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on May 24, 2015, 12:24:35 PM
If this thread were taken for just its title, it might have been interesting - not that this thread isn't interesting - but interesting in a different way.  But given the conceit of the original post, it has devolved in a way one might expect.  Perhaps that was the intention - a troll thread to piss off some "brianistas."  

Though recently I saw the OP, with all due respect to Andrew, call himself a Brianista, so who knows?

A more interesting discussion might be something along the lines of...what might have happened if Brian and VDP had the collective courage/support to scuttle Mike from the band in 66-67?  Or what might have happened if they had decided to take Smile as a BW solo album and released it under a different label?

What might have happened if songs like Til I Die weren't considered "bummers" and were supported?

There are all kinds of speculative paths that are worth thinking about.  The *absolute worst* thing anyone might try to do at this point in time is shut down dialog and claim history as closed on any of these topics.
srealist - "ousting Mike" (or any other BB member) would have been the "tail wagging the dog." And a joke.  A writer/lyricist "for hire" has no power or control of a vested member of a corporation. Courage is not a factor.  The band was not a "group for hire" but "owners and operators."  VDP was neither an owner, nor an operator.  These band members were on the road in support of the music.  

Now that SMiLE tracks have been released, I wonder how it could have ever been released in that era short of a triple LP.  

How many kids listening to rock music were going to fork over $10 or $15 or what ever out of their allowance or babysitting money, when they might be buying a couple of LP's a week or month?   How could 12 tracks been picked out for one regular LP? It is easy to say 40 years at least, post, when CD's hold 75 minutes that it should have been released with 30 minutes as single LP.  Even at a double LP, how do you boil SMiLE down to 60 minutes? LP's were the distribution medium. Not CD's or downloads.  Maybe in the alternative a "theme at a time" on one LP in a series fashion, might have worked. I don't know.




In no scenario would all that music have come out together. The vast majority of it was playing around with different feels, remixing tracks in a new way, trying out a feel and either making it part of H&V or its own song. I strongly suspect that the original Capitol tracklist is pretty close to what we would have got, in terms of what tracks made the cut. The possible exception being Great Shape, since all we know of that is one verse.

It's pretty well agreed upon that Look and Holidays were scrapped. People seem to forget or disregard the fact that Dada wasnt fleshed out into a full song until just a week or two before the project was canned. I dont think it was ever intended for the album, and I think in Brian's mind the album was dead by this point. Id wager that thats why hes suddenly so happy on those tapes, because it was a huge load off his mind. All the extraneous H&V material was never all going to be used. Most of it would always have ended up on the cutting room floor, he was just experimenting with different skits. Some of it would have made the track, some of the better outtakes would have made the B-side. End of story. All the other little ditties like With Me Tonight were failed attempts at Heroes skits or working ideas he just wanted to get on tape to flesh out into their own songs at another point. They were recorded at the time but not part of the original 1966 visions, he just didnt want to lose that inspiration. Tones was probably Carl trying to fill the void left by the abandoned Elements to speed up the process since it was obvious Brian was losing his grip on the thing. Cool cool water and Cant Wait Too Long, as well as the Water Chant are post-SMiLE. So while there's a wealth of material we classify as "The SMiLE Sessions" I think less than half of it ever would have wound up on the real intended album. Thats my analysis.

And before anyone chimes in with the "you cant possibly know for certain" you're right. Im taking an educated guess. And before anyone says "there was no original intended album/structure!" I think you're right to a fault but also vastly simplifying things. Yeah, there was no 100% set in stone album, but to suggest that VDP and Brian didnt have some kind of general outline, as fluid as it may have been, is an insult to them. It also ignores the fact that the Capitol list sums up the major tracks extraordinarily well just at the time when the album seemed on the verge of being finished, and it wasnt until '67 that things got severely muddled again and new material started getting recorded willy nilly with seemingly no thought to how it fit in with the previously recorded songs. It stands to reason that even if the sequence wasnt agreed upon, and even if a few tracks remained unfinished or were likely to be replaced, there was still a core of about 9~10 songs that definitely would have made the cut. So while we look at everything on bootlegs and the boxset and say there's way too much recorded, what was Brian thinking, hed need a triple album...it actually makes sense and there actually was the foundation for a single LP if you really think about it.

/rant


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on May 24, 2015, 02:48:12 PM
In no scenario would all that music have come out together. The vast majority of it was playing around with different feels, remixing tracks in a new way, trying out a feel and either making it part of H&V or its own song. I strongly suspect that the original Capitol tracklist is pretty close to what we would have got, in terms of what tracks made the cut. The possible exception being Great Shape, since all we know of that is one verse.

Agreed - though, Great Shape coupled with Barnyard (not on the tracklist) is a longer track.

Quote
People seem to forget or disregard the fact that Dada wasnt fleshed out into a full song until just a week or two before the project was canned. I dont think it was ever intended for the album, and I think in Brian's mind the album was dead by this point. Id wager that thats why hes suddenly so happy on those tapes, because it was a huge load off his mind.

I agree with your point about Dada. But All Day was in the mix in late 66. And importantly, I'm pretty sure that the happiness you are talking about is in reference to the man who is not Brian saying the title and calling the takes. The man behind the voice has been confirmed here on this site (perhaps check in the Love to Say Dada thread in the Smile Box Set section) but I can't remember his name at the moment.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 24, 2015, 02:50:14 PM
I can understand the confusion, because I thought it was Brian too for the longest time!


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on May 24, 2015, 02:51:42 PM
I just checked: it's the voice of engineer James Hilton.

Thanks to c-man for the answer.

The question now becomes whether or not he was doing that voice on purpose. It reminds me of that ironic Phil Hartman voice but twenty years earlier.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on May 24, 2015, 04:22:14 PM
In no scenario would all that music have come out together. The vast majority of it was playing around with different feels, remixing tracks in a new way, trying out a feel and either making it part of H&V or its own song. I strongly suspect that the original Capitol tracklist is pretty close to what we would have got, in terms of what tracks made the cut. The possible exception being Great Shape, since all we know of that is one verse.

Agreed - though, Great Shape coupled with Barnyard (not on the tracklist) is a longer track.

Quote
People seem to forget or disregard the fact that Dada wasnt fleshed out into a full song until just a week or two before the project was canned. I dont think it was ever intended for the album, and I think in Brian's mind the album was dead by this point. Id wager that thats why hes suddenly so happy on those tapes, because it was a huge load off his mind.

I agree with your point about Dada. But All Day was in the mix in late 66. And importantly, I'm pretty sure that the happiness you are talking about is in reference to the man who is not Brian saying the title and calling the takes. The man behind the voice has been confirmed here on this site (perhaps check in the Love to Say Dada thread in the Smile Box Set section) but I can't remember his name at the moment.

For me personally, I think GS and Barnyard were just more abandoned Heroes skits. They only became famous because of the tracklist and demo in Humble Harv, if not for that they'd be as disregarded as With Me Tonight and Mission Pak. Really wish we had that vocal session, cause maybe Im wrong and Great Shape got lengthened into a track, or maybe that session was just rehearsals of that one verse (and maybe a few other tangential Heroes pieces?). If the latter, then I stand by the assertion that whoever wrote the list made a simple mistake including it. It'd make sense for Carl, who would presumably have sung at the vocal session, to misunderstand Brian's intentions and think they were working on a standalone track when really it was just part of Heroes. Who knows.

Yeah, but unless Im very wrong, it was my understanding that All Day was just another Heroes segment that didnt make the cut. It's just unique in that Brian came back to it at the very end of the sessions and made it a song, possibly as a B-side to Heroes or Veggies when the two-sided Heroes wasnt working out. In the tapes for All Day, he says theres gonna be talking during the pauses in the song. Sounds like a comedy skit section to me rather than a full track. Or maybe instead of Great Shape and Barnyard, Great Shape and All Day might have been a track? These two were both included on the Psychedelic Sounds bootleg right? Maybe Brian was working on some comedy bits to use there with his friends that the Boys could rerecord? Interesting idea...


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: srealist on May 24, 2015, 11:09:17 PM
A more interesting discussion might be something along the lines of...what might have happened if Brian and VDP had the collective courage/support to scuttle Mike from the band in 66-67?  Or what might have happened if they had decided to take Smile as a BW solo album and released it under a different label?

Every SMiLE fanatic, and possibly even every Beach Boy fan period, has asked this question at some point. Realistically it never would have happened. Not the way things had already played out. Ignoring his illness and insecurities, the relative "failure" of Pet Sounds and the Caroline No single probably showed Brian that to leave the band would be a commercial mistake. VDP never would have ousted a Beach Boy. He saw them as a family unit and felt guilty for driving a wedge between them with his work. He never would have turned them against each other willingly, and probably would have bowed out on principle if Brian told him he was choosing SMiLE over his cousin. So, it's a nice thought, but realistically it never would have happened, not either scenario you list. And again, it was primarily Brian who called the shots and decided not to go through with it. Mike and the Boys criticisms almost certainly influenced his decision, but ultimately he was the one who lost track of the big picture, lost faith in his creation, and decided to go in a different direction with it. End of story.

Thank you for your post.  What you say makes a ton of sense.  Where I would dare to disagree is "End of story."


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Smilin Ed H on May 25, 2015, 01:59:59 AM

[/quote ]As I do have a life with my family and my job outside of this board, I don't have time to read every single post in every single thread. Neither do my fellow mods. I mean, it'll be great if we were omnipotent and could be everywhere at once, but we can't.

Again, this is my last post on the subject, and I consider this matter closed. Any further attempt to bring it up on the board, again, will result in severe consequences.
[/quote]

Damn. I always saw you as some kind of Galactus-like entity!


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: SamMcK on May 25, 2015, 03:16:33 AM
Jesus. Now I remembered why I barely post here anymore. It's bad for your blood pressure!

So those Beach Boys are pretty good right? ;)


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on May 25, 2015, 09:06:16 AM
A more interesting discussion might be something along the lines of...what might have happened if Brian and VDP had the collective courage/support to scuttle Mike from the band in 66-67?  Or what might have happened if they had decided to take Smile as a BW solo album and released it under a different label?

Every SMiLE fanatic, and possibly even every Beach Boy fan period, has asked this question at some point. Realistically it never would have happened. Not the way things had already played out. Ignoring his illness and insecurities, the relative "failure" of Pet Sounds and the Caroline No single probably showed Brian that to leave the band would be a commercial mistake. VDP never would have ousted a Beach Boy. He saw them as a family unit and felt guilty for driving a wedge between them with his work. He never would have turned them against each other willingly, and probably would have bowed out on principle if Brian told him he was choosing SMiLE over his cousin. So, it's a nice thought, but realistically it never would have happened, not either scenario you list. And again, it was primarily Brian who called the shots and decided not to go through with it. Mike and the Boys criticisms almost certainly influenced his decision, but ultimately he was the one who lost track of the big picture, lost faith in his creation, and decided to go in a different direction with it. End of story.

Thank you for your post.  What you say makes a ton of sense.  Where I would dare to disagree is "End of story."

haha, fair enough. Not trying to silence dissent or anything, just emphasize how next-to-impossible it would have been for Mike to be kicked out over this, and even if he was it wouldnt make a difference in terms of SMiLE's release. For what its worth, I still think it would have been better off if he DID get kicked out around 68 or 69. By then he had written all he songs worth a damn, and all he was good for from then on was stirring up drama and pushing the band in the wrong direction. But I think the only chance for that to happen is the scenario someone else laid out where Jack Riely fires him.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mike's Beard on May 25, 2015, 09:27:42 AM
But Mike had a hand in plenty of good songs post '69. And until all the lawsuits happened, he couldn't compete with Brian and Dennis in the drama magnet stakes.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 25, 2015, 10:27:21 AM
A more interesting discussion might be something along the lines of...what might have happened if Brian and VDP had the collective courage/support to scuttle Mike from the band in 66-67?  Or what might have happened if they had decided to take Smile as a BW solo album and released it under a different label?

Every SMiLE fanatic, and possibly even every Beach Boy fan period, has asked this question at some point. Realistically it never would have happened. Not the way things had already played out. Ignoring his illness and insecurities, the relative "failure" of Pet Sounds and the Caroline No single probably showed Brian that to leave the band would be a commercial mistake. VDP never would have ousted a Beach Boy. He saw them as a family unit and felt guilty for driving a wedge between them with his work. He never would have turned them against each other willingly, and probably would have bowed out on principle if Brian told him he was choosing SMiLE over his cousin. So, it's a nice thought, but realistically it never would have happened, not either scenario you list. And again, it was primarily Brian who called the shots and decided not to go through with it. Mike and the Boys criticisms almost certainly influenced his decision, but ultimately he was the one who lost track of the big picture, lost faith in his creation, and decided to go in a different direction with it. End of story.

Thank you for your post.  What you say makes a ton of sense.  Where I would dare to disagree is "End of story."

haha, fair enough. Not trying to silence dissent or anything, just emphasize how next-to-impossible it would have been for Mike to be kicked out over this, and even if he was it wouldnt make a difference in terms of SMiLE's release. For what its worth, I still think it would have been better off if he DID get kicked out around 68 or 69. By then he had written all he songs worth a damn, and all he was good for from then on was stirring up drama and pushing the band in the wrong direction. But I think the only chance for that to happen is the scenario someone else laid out where Jack Riely fires him.

Disagree there. If you read contemporary interviews, he was very critical of the fans chanting for the oldies, pre-Endless Summer of course. The thing about him trying to get the band back to the old sound (before Endless Summer came out) is revisionist history (and he's perpetrated that myth too)


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Douchepool on May 25, 2015, 10:29:55 AM
If there was one man to pin the eventual return of a mostly-oldies setlist to the concerts, it's Jim Guercio. He put the seed in Carl and Dennis' heads.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 25, 2015, 10:33:25 AM
^ Yup. The In Concert book had a good deal of info for that time period, and I learned a lot I myself never knew.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Douchepool on May 25, 2015, 10:36:53 AM
And the mere thought that anyone would have kicked Michael out of the band at any point in the group's history is laughable to say the very least.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mike's Beard on May 25, 2015, 10:47:24 AM
If there was one man to pin the eventual return of a mostly-oldies setlist to the concerts, it's Jim Guercio. He put the seed in Carl and Dennis' heads.

Nope, we can't have the artistic, progressive Dennis being blamed for such a thing. Never let the truth get in the way of a good myth, especially when it doesn't fit with one's own preconceptions. It was all Mike, MIKE, MIKE, MIKE DAMMIT!


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Douchepool on May 25, 2015, 10:50:02 AM
Fellator! Off with his head!


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 25, 2015, 10:51:20 AM
MB..
are we a little angry, perhaps? :lol

Just busting your chops...I may be a Brianista  but I believe in 100% historical accuracy at all times


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: CenturyDeprived on May 25, 2015, 10:52:57 AM
And the mere thought that anyone would have kicked Michael out of the band at any point in the group's history is laughable to say the very least.

Would have? Yes, laughable.
Wanted to? No, not quite laughable. More like quite probable.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mike's Beard on May 25, 2015, 10:57:12 AM
MB..
are we a little angry, perhaps? :lol

Just busting your chops...I may be a Brianista  but I believe in 10p% historical accuracy at all times

I'm always angry Billy. I've tried this TM lark and all I want to do sue people and make a spectacle of myself at award ceremonies. Love and f*cking mercy everyone!


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: CenturyDeprived on May 25, 2015, 11:01:05 AM
A more interesting discussion might be something along the lines of...what might have happened if Brian and VDP had the collective courage/support to scuttle Mike from the band in 66-67?  Or what might have happened if they had decided to take Smile as a BW solo album and released it under a different label?

Every SMiLE fanatic, and possibly even every Beach Boy fan period, has asked this question at some point. Realistically it never would have happened. Not the way things had already played out. Ignoring his illness and insecurities, the relative "failure" of Pet Sounds and the Caroline No single probably showed Brian that to leave the band would be a commercial mistake. VDP never would have ousted a Beach Boy. He saw them as a family unit and felt guilty for driving a wedge between them with his work. He never would have turned them against each other willingly, and probably would have bowed out on principle if Brian told him he was choosing SMiLE over his cousin. So, it's a nice thought, but realistically it never would have happened, not either scenario you list. And again, it was primarily Brian who called the shots and decided not to go through with it. Mike and the Boys criticisms almost certainly influenced his decision, but ultimately he was the one who lost track of the big picture, lost faith in his creation, and decided to go in a different direction with it. End of story.

Thank you for your post.  What you say makes a ton of sense.  Where I would dare to disagree is "End of story."

haha, fair enough. Not trying to silence dissent or anything, just emphasize how next-to-impossible it would have been for Mike to be kicked out over this, and even if he was it wouldnt make a difference in terms of SMiLE's release. For what its worth, I still think it would have been better off if he DID get kicked out around 68 or 69. By then he had written all he songs worth a damn, and all he was good for from then on was stirring up drama and pushing the band in the wrong direction. But I think the only chance for that to happen is the scenario someone else laid out where Jack Riely fires him.

Disagree there. If you read contemporary interviews, he was very critical of the fans chanting for the oldies, pre-Endless Summer of course. The thing about him trying to get the band back to the old sound (before Endless Summer came out) is revisionist history (and he's perpetrated that myth too)

Just because he was critical of people being rude at concerts, doesn't mean he didn't still at heart desire for the band to regress in terms of going back to the old sound, with him being much more of the primary focus of the live shows. I think the truth falls somewhere near the middle. Even if his ultimate desire was to play more and more and more oldies, he was savvy enough to know (at that point) that the band still *needed* to keep up ancontemporary appearance for their popularity and street cred to keep climbing. And while I applaud him and any band member for hushing rude audience members, I don't think that says a ton about his complete and ultimate motivations at the time.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mike's Beard on May 25, 2015, 11:12:54 AM
Man, the guy just can't win with you can he?


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on May 25, 2015, 11:22:44 AM
Well, I stand corrected it seems.

You could definitely say Dennis was just as guilty for the drama as Mike, but my point was that their personalities clashed and like it or not, Dennis was writing better material in the Seventies so with hindsight he's the horse they should have backed. I think you could make a solid argument that he would have been more under control without someone who grated on him around all the time. But maybe Im wrong.

And the mere thought that anyone would have kicked Michael out of the band at any point in the group's history is laughable to say the very least.

Would have? Yes, laughable.
Wanted to? No, not quite laughable. More like quite probable.

^Exactly. That's what I mean.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Douchepool on May 25, 2015, 11:28:12 AM
You're saying Michael made Dennis take drugs?


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: CenturyDeprived on May 25, 2015, 11:34:18 AM
Man, the guy just can't win with you can he?

Not a matter of winning or losing.  I think that Mike had some great talent, some genuinely artistic and forward – thinking impulses, but that his long-standing urge to return to the old ways was always lurking being the surface.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Douchepool on May 25, 2015, 11:45:04 AM
I must say I envy your ability to read people's minds.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mike's Beard on May 25, 2015, 11:52:04 AM
You're overlooking one very important thing, there were more oldies added within the year of Endless Summer's success but the plan was (with Brian back in charge and the band more popular then it had been in years) that there would be many new hits added to the established setlist as they were recorded. The only problem was with the exception of the Rock and Roll Music cover there were no more new hits. The band kept playing a small core of progressive era material for years but by the end of the 70s it became crystal clear that nobody was coming to hear the likes of Feel Flows or All This is That anymore. It was only then that the band really became the travelling jukebox but it took the best part of 6 years for them to reach this state.
To claim that Mike was plotting this back in 1973 has no basis in fact or logic at all.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Douchepool on May 25, 2015, 11:54:28 AM
A cursory look at 1978 setlists still show the band taking risks in concert. After that...the risks became few and far between. And if you listen to the bootleg from Uniondale, NY in 1979, the audience annoys the band so much with idiotic requests for 409 that the band half-heartedly shrugs out the chorus and ends with Michael telling the crowd "NOW SHUT UP FOR A WHILE!"


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Moon Dawg on May 25, 2015, 06:17:11 PM
You're overlooking one very important thing, there were more oldies added within the year of Endless Summer's success but the plan was (with Brian back in charge and the band more popular then it had been in years) that there would be many new hits added to the established setlist as they were recorded. The only problem was with the exception of the Rock and Roll Music cover there were no more new hits. The band kept playing a small core of progressive era material for years but by the end of the 70s it became crystal clear that nobody was coming to hear the likes of Feel Flows or All This is That anymore. It was only then that the band really became the travelling jukebox but it took the best part of 6 years for them to reach this state.
To claim that Mike was plotting this back in 1973 has no basis in fact or logic at all.

 Maybe so, but I'll wager a bet Mike was the primary force behind what the setlist unquestionably became 1981-onward: the 25 biggest hits 1962-68, plus "Rock and Roll Music" and whatever the latest record was. Oh well, the whole band must take responsibility one way or another. And you know Mike brought in the cheerleaders.  ;)


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 25, 2015, 10:38:20 PM
You're overlooking one very important thing, there were more oldies added within the year of Endless Summer's success but the plan was (with Brian back in charge and the band more popular then it had been in years) that there would be many new hits added to the established setlist as they were recorded. The only problem was with the exception of the Rock and Roll Music cover there were no more new hits. The band kept playing a small core of progressive era material for years but by the end of the 70s it became crystal clear that nobody was coming to hear the likes of Feel Flows or All This is That anymore. It was only then that the band really became the travelling jukebox but it took the best part of 6 years for them to reach this state.
To claim that Mike was plotting this back in 1973 has no basis in fact or logic at all.

 Maybe so, but I'll wager a bet Mike was the primary force behind what the setlist unquestionably became 1981-onward: the 25 biggest hits 1962-68, plus "Rock and Roll Music" and whatever the latest record was. Oh well, the whole band must take responsibility one way or another. And you know Mike brought in the cheerleaders.  ;)

It's a bet you'd win, although a case could be made for 1980 being the cutoff point


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: srealist on May 25, 2015, 10:42:27 PM
A more interesting discussion might be something along the lines of...what might have happened if Brian and VDP had the collective courage/support to scuttle Mike from the band in 66-67?  Or what might have happened if they had decided to take Smile as a BW solo album and released it under a different label?

Every SMiLE fanatic, and possibly even every Beach Boy fan period, has asked this question at some point. Realistically it never would have happened. Not the way things had already played out. Ignoring his illness and insecurities, the relative "failure" of Pet Sounds and the Caroline No single probably showed Brian that to leave the band would be a commercial mistake. VDP never would have ousted a Beach Boy. He saw them as a family unit and felt guilty for driving a wedge between them with his work. He never would have turned them against each other willingly, and probably would have bowed out on principle if Brian told him he was choosing SMiLE over his cousin. So, it's a nice thought, but realistically it never would have happened, not either scenario you list. And again, it was primarily Brian who called the shots and decided not to go through with it. Mike and the Boys criticisms almost certainly influenced his decision, but ultimately he was the one who lost track of the big picture, lost faith in his creation, and decided to go in a different direction with it. End of story.

Thank you for your post.  What you say makes a ton of sense.  Where I would dare to disagree is "End of story."

haha, fair enough. Not trying to silence dissent or anything, just emphasize how next-to-impossible it would have been for Mike to be kicked out over this, and even if he was it wouldnt make a difference in terms of SMiLE's release. For what its worth, I still think it would have been better off if he DID get kicked out around 68 or 69. By then he had written all he songs worth a damn, and all he was good for from then on was stirring up drama and pushing the band in the wrong direction. But I think the only chance for that to happen is the scenario someone else laid out where Jack Riely fires him.

We are the same page, my fren. :)


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mike's Beard on May 25, 2015, 10:43:34 PM
You're overlooking one very important thing, there were more oldies added within the year of Endless Summer's success but the plan was (with Brian back in charge and the band more popular then it had been in years) that there would be many new hits added to the established setlist as they were recorded. The only problem was with the exception of the Rock and Roll Music cover there were no more new hits. The band kept playing a small core of progressive era material for years but by the end of the 70s it became crystal clear that nobody was coming to hear the likes of Feel Flows or All This is That anymore. It was only then that the band really became the travelling jukebox but it took the best part of 6 years for them to reach this state.
To claim that Mike was plotting this back in 1973 has no basis in fact or logic at all.

 Maybe so, but I'll wager a bet Mike was the primary force behind what the setlist unquestionably became 1981-onward: the 25 biggest hits 1962-68, plus "Rock and Roll Music" and whatever the latest record was. Oh well, the whole band must take responsibility one way or another. And you know Mike brought in the cheerleaders.  ;)

It would not suprise me if it was but it could just as well have been Al, Bruce or all of them. By 1981 they'd had 4 albums bomb in succession and no new material in sight. The progressive era was a faded memory but the Greatest Hits comps were still selling well, what choice did they have but to pack the shows full of early stuff?


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: urbanite on May 25, 2015, 10:51:01 PM
When Mike deviated from the old days, he was not so well received.  Remember the Maharishi tour?


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 25, 2015, 11:09:14 PM
You're overlooking one very important thing, there were more oldies added within the year of Endless Summer's success but the plan was (with Brian back in charge and the band more popular then it had been in years) that there would be many new hits added to the established setlist as they were recorded. The only problem was with the exception of the Rock and Roll Music cover there were no more new hits. The band kept playing a small core of progressive era material for years but by the end of the 70s it became crystal clear that nobody was coming to hear the likes of Feel Flows or All This is That anymore. It was only then that the band really became the travelling jukebox but it took the best part of 6 years for them to reach this state.
To claim that Mike was plotting this back in 1973 has no basis in fact or logic at all.

 Maybe so, but I'll wager a bet Mike was the primary force behind what the setlist unquestionably became 1981-onward: the 25 biggest hits 1962-68, plus "Rock and Roll Music" and whatever the latest record was. Oh well, the whole band must take responsibility one way or another. And you know Mike brought in the cheerleaders.  ;)

It would not suprise me if it was but it could just as well have been Al, Bruce or all of them. By 1981 they'd had 4 albums bomb in succession and no new material in sight. The progressive era was a faded memory but the Greatest Hits comps were still selling well, what choice did they have but to pack the shows full of early stuff?

Agreed, but only to a point. If 15 Big Ones (which I happen to love, by the way) had been up to the quality of the previous few albums, with the level of hype it got, they would've been set . As it was, the hype backfired. They got so many people buying the album, and were disappointed in what they heard to the point where their album sales weren't going to recover.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on May 26, 2015, 12:54:47 AM
You're overlooking one very important thing, there were more oldies added within the year of Endless Summer's success but the plan was (with Brian back in charge and the band more popular then it had been in years) that there would be many new hits added to the established setlist as they were recorded. The only problem was with the exception of the Rock and Roll Music cover there were no more new hits. The band kept playing a small core of progressive era material for years but by the end of the 70s it became crystal clear that nobody was coming to hear the likes of Feel Flows or All This is That anymore. It was only then that the band really became the travelling jukebox but it took the best part of 6 years for them to reach this state.
To claim that Mike was plotting this back in 1973 has no basis in fact or logic at all.

 Maybe so, but I'll wager a bet Mike was the primary force behind what the setlist unquestionably became 1981-onward: the 25 biggest hits 1962-68, plus "Rock and Roll Music" and whatever the latest record was. Oh well, the whole band must take responsibility one way or another. And you know Mike brought in the cheerleaders.  ;)

It would not suprise me if it was but it could just as well have been Al, Bruce or all of them. By 1981 they'd had 4 albums bomb in succession and no new material in sight. The progressive era was a faded memory but the Greatest Hits comps were still selling well, what choice did they have but to pack the shows full of early stuff?

Agreed, but only to a point. If 15 Big Ones (which I happen to love, by the way) had been up to the quality of the previous few albums, with the level of hype it got, they would've been set . As it was, the hype backfired. They got so many people buying the album, and were disappointed in what they heard to the point where their album sales weren't going to recover.

 :rock very true, by my reckoning.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Nicko1234 on May 26, 2015, 01:08:16 AM
I think the greatest hits touring was inevitable really and it happens to a huge number of singles bands. Daryl Dragon said that even back in the late-60s fans would walk out when they played rarer material...

1979 was indeed the cut-off point where they played just the hits and a few new songs (with maybe 1 rarity thrown in) but with the setlists pretty short in those days that is no surprise.

Below is a rough list of rare (non-new) original songs that the band played with any regularity after this time. Doubtless it is not entirely accurate but 1986 seems another cut-off point where the covers came in:

1979 – Roller Skating Child
1980 – Nothing
1981 – Sail on Sailor and sometimes Marcella
1982 – Disney Girls and sometimes Lady Lynda
1983 – You`re So Good to Me, The Warmth of the Sun and sometimes Sail on Sailor
1984 – Heaven, Wendy and The Warmth of the Sun
1985 – Heaven
1986 – Nothing as they were covering GTO, California Dreamin, Okie from Muskogee and Hey Little Cobra
1987 – Nothing as they were covering Little Old Lady from Pasedena in addition to the above
1988 – This Whole World and Wendy
1989 – Nothing (lots of covers)
1990 – Please Let Me Wonder and California Saga
1991 - Please Let Me Wonder and You`re So Good to Me
1992 – Nothing
1993 – The unplugged songs
1994 – Sometimes All This is That and Disney Girls
1995 – Nothing
1996 – Little Honda, The Warmth of the Sun and Sail on Sailor
1997 – You`re So Good To Me and sometimes Summer in Paradise, The Warmth of the Sun and Sail on Sailor


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Ang Jones on May 26, 2015, 03:46:04 AM
Mike was above all interested in the band remaining a commercial proposition so perhaps there were times when he wanted to do newer material. I first saw The Beach Boys in concert in 1970, and then in 1972 and in both years they were doing things from their current albums as well as material from Sunflower and some earlier material and Mike was making jokey comments about 'mouldy oldies'. In 1972 I remember the crowd yelling for Surf's Up in one of their shows though and they deliberately misheard and gave us Surfin' USA so I don't get the impression they were  even at this time always  as behind the new material as some are suggesting. If you can call Surf's Up new. It dated from the 60s but had only been released in 1971.  And not just another song about summer.

Of course, the situation in the UK is different to the US.  I don't know if the newer stuff was as popular there as here.

I would be surprised if Mike was other than relieved when American Graffiti and the subsequent release of Endless Summer gave him the opportunity to continue playing those songs from the early/mid 60s. It is unfair to suggest that Mike's liking of this material is a myth based on revisionist history. One only has to look at the set lists of BB shows. Some so called deeper cuts but most of it is 1966 and before.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: filledeplage on May 26, 2015, 04:15:55 AM
When Mike deviated from the old days, he was not so well received.  Remember the Maharishi tour?
Ya got that right!  ;)


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: El Molé on May 26, 2015, 04:42:54 AM
I think the live shows to Mike are very simply a case of giving people what he thinks they want and he's probably in a better position to judge what that is than most of us are (and it looks like Brian judges things in a pretty similar way). I'd love it if the live shows had always presented what I think is the best side of the band, but that's totally unrealistic. Almost all big acts return to the songs that people know, and why wouldn't they? If I'd been at a show in 1992 and Wouldn't It Be Nice and Don't Worry Baby had been cut so that they could play the Summer in Paradise album in full I'd have been pretty upset, and that same feeling would probably apply to some people attending and not hearing Barbara Ann. The point about failing to generate new hits to add into the mix seems pretty crucial to me, as it's pretty impossible to generate interest in oldie that few in the crowd know just through playing it at live shows (where all but the die-hards will probably hear it once). It's a shame they didn't get lucky with an deeper cut making it into a big film at some point (which could have had a similar effect to the Stamos-forever thing, only without Stamos).


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Ang Jones on May 26, 2015, 04:46:38 AM
When Mike deviated from the old days, he was not so well received.  Remember the Maharishi tour?
Ya got that right!  ;)

But the Maharishi tour wasn't just about the music.  Beach Boys' fans attend concerts for the music,  not to learn about TM.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: filledeplage on May 26, 2015, 04:50:24 AM
When Mike deviated from the old days, he was not so well received.  Remember the Maharishi tour?
Ya got that right!  ;)
But the Maharishi tour wasn't just about the music.  Beach Boys' fans attend concerts for the music,  not to learn about TM.
Whatever it was, I had an open mind and a ticket.   ;)


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Ang Jones on May 26, 2015, 08:21:03 AM
When Mike deviated from the old days, he was not so well received.  Remember the Maharishi tour?
Ya got that right!  ;)
But the Maharishi tour wasn't just about the music.  Beach Boys' fans attend concerts for the music,  not to learn about TM.
Whatever it was, I had an open mind and a ticket.   ;)

I'd have gone if I'd had the chance but it was shortly before I became a fan. This doesn't enthuse me much however: "Each concert began with a lengthy, unintelligible lecture by the Hindu preacher. The tour was a financial disaster for the Beach Boys. Twenty-four tour dates were subsequently cancelled at a cost estimated at $250,000 for the band." - See more at: http://www.mtvindia.com/thebuzz/this-day-in-music/tdim-the-beach-boys-opened-their-us-tour-with-maharishi-mahesh-yogi-in-1968-3rd-may-52190925.html#sthash.iQBkIwbl.dpuf



Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: The LEGENDARY OSD on May 26, 2015, 08:46:38 AM
When Mike deviated from the old days, he was not so well received.  Remember the Maharishi tour?
Ya got that right!  ;)
But the Maharishi tour wasn't just about the music.  Beach Boys' fans attend concerts for the music,  not to learn about TM.
Whatever it was, I had an open mind and a ticket.   ;)

I'd have gone if I'd had the chance but it was shortly before I became a fan. This doesn't enthuse me much however: "Each concert began with a lengthy, unintelligible lecture by the Hindu preacher. The tour was a financial disaster for the Beach Boys. Twenty-four tour dates were subsequently cancelled at a cost estimated at $250,000 for the band." - See more at: http://www.mtvindia.com/thebuzz/this-day-in-music/tdim-the-beach-boys-opened-their-us-tour-with-maharishi-mahesh-yogi-in-1968-3rd-may-52190925.html#sthash.iQBkIwbl.dpuf



I was there. Sad, unfortunate event in which they made fools of themselves. Being that they were the BBs and Carl sang Friends so damn well, I kinda brushed off the Mahagoofball thing. :-D


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: CenturyDeprived on May 26, 2015, 01:26:28 PM

I would be surprised if Mike was other than relieved when American Graffiti and the subsequent release of Endless Summer gave him the opportunity to continue playing those songs from the early/mid 60s. 

This.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: CenturyDeprived on May 26, 2015, 01:36:07 PM

You could definitely say Dennis was just as guilty for the drama as Mike, but my point was that their personalities clashed and like it or not, Dennis was writing better material in the Seventies so with hindsight he's the horse they should have backed. I think you could make a solid argument that he would have been more under control without someone who grated on him around all the time. But maybe Im wrong.


You're saying Michael made Dennis take drugs?

Kokomaoists (most probably especially including Mike) would love, love, love to think this is an absolute, utter impossibility. But face facts: while one cannot exactly go "blaming" someone else for an emotionally sensitive/messed-up addicted person falling further off the wagon and taking drugs, it seems quite plausible that someone who was probably the thorn in Dennis' side in many ways would have indirectly been a contributing factor to said addicted person's increased substance usage.

For example, if you knew someone in your own life who had a substance problem, but perhaps that person had it under control somewhat, but there were very sensitive raw spots that if unnerved could cause them severe stress, you might observe from experience just what emotional buttons that you could press with them that could indirectly cause them to fall further into their addiction and increase them turning to their coping mechanisms, even if completely unintentional. Sort of like how Dennis acting out and likely making Mike incredibly stressed/embarrassed onstage probably caused Mike to markedly increase the amount of TM he practiced, falling further into his own "addiction" - even though it's not a quantifiably destructive addiction, it's an addiction nonetheless.  

Does that mean "Dennis made Michael do TM"? Well, not exactly. But in both cases (Mike and Dennis falling further into their coping mechanisms of addictions due to their severe creative and personal clashing) most likely...sorta kinda, in a way, yes. Just to admit this has some truth to it does not mean that anybody has to be vilified.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 26, 2015, 01:37:28 PM
When Mike deviated from the old days, he was not so well received.  Remember the Maharishi tour?
Ya got that right!  ;)
But the Maharishi tour wasn't just about the music.  Beach Boys' fans attend concerts for the music,  not to learn about TM.
Whatever it was, I had an open mind and a ticket.   ;)

I'd have gone if I'd had the chance but it was shortly before I became a fan. This doesn't enthuse me much however: "Each concert began with a lengthy, unintelligible lecture by the Hindu preacher. The tour was a financial disaster for the Beach Boys. Twenty-four tour dates were subsequently cancelled at a cost estimated at $250,000 for the band." - See more at: http://www.mtvindia.com/thebuzz/this-day-in-music/tdim-the-beach-boys-opened-their-us-tour-with-maharishi-mahesh-yogi-in-1968-3rd-may-52190925.html#sthash.iQBkIwbl.dpuf



I was there. Sad, unfortunate event in which they made fools of themselves. Being that they were the BBs and Carl sang Friends so damn well, I kinda brushed off the Mahagoofball thing. :-D

I spoke to someone else who went to one of the shows...let's just say he was much less charitable than you were :lol


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 26, 2015, 01:39:35 PM

You could definitely say Dennis was just as guilty for the drama as Mike, but my point was that their personalities clashed and like it or not, Dennis was writing better material in the Seventies so with hindsight he's the horse they should have backed. I think you could make a solid argument that he would have been more under control without someone who grated on him around all the time. But maybe Im wrong.


You're saying Michael made Dennis take drugs?

Kokomaoists (most probably especially including Mike) would love, love, love to think this is an absolute, utter impossibility. But face facts: while one cannot exactly go "blaming" someone else for an emotionally sensitive/messed-up addicted person falling further off the wagon and taking drugs, it seems quite plausible that someone who was probably the thorn in Dennis' side in many ways would have indirectly been a contributing factor to said addicted person's increased substance usage.

For example, if you knew someone in your own life who had a substance problem, but perhaps that person had it under control somewhat, but there were very sensitive raw spots that if unnerved could cause them severe stress, you might observe from experience just what emotional buttons that you could press with them that could indirectly cause them to fall further into their addiction and increase them turning to their coping mechanisms, even if completely unintentional. Sort of like how Dennis acting out and likely making Mike incredibly stressed/embarrassed onstage probably caused Mike to markedly increase the amount of TM he practiced, falling further into his own "addiction" - even though it's not a quantifiably destructive addition, it's an addition nonetheless. 

Does that mean "Dennis made Michael do TM"? Well, not exactly. But in both cases, most likely...sorta kinda, in a way, yes. Just to admit this has some truth to it does not mean that anybody has to be vilified.

Ehh..not quite the same thing. Although I'm not a TM guy myself, I have a close friend (unrelated to the BB world,  I must stress) who would disagree with you.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: CenturyDeprived on May 26, 2015, 01:42:01 PM

You could definitely say Dennis was just as guilty for the drama as Mike, but my point was that their personalities clashed and like it or not, Dennis was writing better material in the Seventies so with hindsight he's the horse they should have backed. I think you could make a solid argument that he would have been more under control without someone who grated on him around all the time. But maybe Im wrong.


You're saying Michael made Dennis take drugs?

Kokomaoists (most probably especially including Mike) would love, love, love to think this is an absolute, utter impossibility. But face facts: while one cannot exactly go "blaming" someone else for an emotionally sensitive/messed-up addicted person falling further off the wagon and taking drugs, it seems quite plausible that someone who was probably the thorn in Dennis' side in many ways would have indirectly been a contributing factor to said addicted person's increased substance usage.

For example, if you knew someone in your own life who had a substance problem, but perhaps that person had it under control somewhat, but there were very sensitive raw spots that if unnerved could cause them severe stress, you might observe from experience just what emotional buttons that you could press with them that could indirectly cause them to fall further into their addiction and increase them turning to their coping mechanisms, even if completely unintentional. Sort of like how Dennis acting out and likely making Mike incredibly stressed/embarrassed onstage probably caused Mike to markedly increase the amount of TM he practiced, falling further into his own "addiction" - even though it's not a quantifiably destructive addition, it's an addition nonetheless.  

Does that mean "Dennis made Michael do TM"? Well, not exactly. But in both cases (Mike and Dennis falling further into their coping mechanisms of addictions due to their severe creative and personal clashing) most likely...sorta kinda, in a way, yes. Just to admit this has some truth to it does not mean that anybody has to be vilified.

Ehh..not quite the same thing. Although I'm not a TM guy myself, I have a close friend (unrelated to the BB world,  I must stress) who would disagree with you.

I'm not in any way equating doing drugs to doing TM. I'm just saying that both people fell  further into their own coping mechanisms which blocked out the outside world; coping mechanisms which helped remove the negative energy both men in part experienced due the people (each other) who were severe stressors in each others' lives (and who truthfully, after a certain point, because of such severe differences, should not have been working together at all).

Doing tons of blow is certainly a hell of lot worse than doing TM, no argument there. Doesn't invalidate my point though.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Cam Mott on May 26, 2015, 02:10:02 PM
Do some of you think the Maha Tour and the TM influences and perceived problems from it are Dennis' fault because he forced everyone into following the Maha?


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on May 26, 2015, 02:22:09 PM
Do some of you think the Maha Tour and the TM influences and perceived problems from it are Dennis' fault because he forced everyone into following the Maha?

I think it's Jesus' fault for inventing rock and roll


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: CenturyDeprived on May 26, 2015, 02:23:45 PM
Do some of you think the Maha Tour and the TM influences and perceived problems from it are Dennis' fault because he forced everyone into following the Maha?

Once again... You love twisting words in a misguided sarcastic attempt at proving a "point". I went out of my way to say that it isn't a person's "fault" if one person is driven to certain coping mechanisms. People are obviously responsible for what actions they themselves do. But there is still a correlation.  

Implying such extremes such as the Maharishi tour is ridiculous. That is many, many steps removed from the source. Setting up an entire tour, planning it out, coordinating schedules, trying to ride a famous figure's coattails, etc is not on par with a "quick fix" coping mechanism that could be achieved with relatively immediate results.

Saying that people who were thorns in Mike's side probably were *a* contributing factor helping to increase Mike's falling deeper and deeper into TM as a coping mechanism does not seem like an absurd statement to make - does that seem absurd to you? Do you honestly think that Mike didn't increase how often he did TM in part as a result of the chaos and chaos-causing people around him (and probably specific embarrassing onstage incidents like when Dennis grabbed and removed Mike's hat)? That in no way is a giant leap to assume.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Moon Dawg on May 26, 2015, 03:27:43 PM
Do some of you think the Maha Tour and the TM influences and perceived problems from it are Dennis' fault because he forced everyone into following the Maha?

I think it's Jesus' fault for inventing rock and roll

 That's Why God Made the Radio


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: Mike's Beard on May 26, 2015, 05:04:10 PM
Dennis didn't start drinking because he fell out with Mike, Mike fell out with Dennis because he couldn't control his drinking problem. F ucking the guy's wife probably didn't help matters....


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: CenturyDeprived on May 26, 2015, 05:49:59 PM
Dennis didn't start drinking because he fell out with Mike, Mike fell out with Dennis because he couldn't control his drinking problem. F ucking the guy's wife probably didn't help matters....

Not sure where anybody made any claims about Dennis "starting" drinking due to Mike. I do agree in part regarding what you say is the reason why Mike fell out with Dennis, though I think that's a simplistic and not particularly nuanced viewpoint to think that's the whole story, don't you? And do you think that it's fair to surmise that Mike probably went deeper into TM in part help deal with the stress of the band and bandmates who gave him grief (which could certainly include the above-mentioned wife-boinking incident)?


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: retrokid67 on May 26, 2015, 05:53:13 PM
Dennis didn't start drinking because he fell out with Mike, Mike fell out with Dennis because he couldn't control his drinking problem. F ucking the guy's wife probably didn't help matters....

Not sure where anybody made any claims about Dennis "starting" drinking due to Mike. I do agree in part regarding what you say is the reason why Mike fell out with Dennis, though I think that's a simplistic and not particularly nuanced viewpoint to think that's the whole story. Do you think that it's fair to surmise that Mike probably went deeper into TM in part help deal with the stress of the band and bandmates who gave him grief (which could certainly include the above-mentioned incident)?

And if it wasn't for Dennis, none of the BB would've done TM in the first place.  :p


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: CenturyDeprived on May 26, 2015, 05:55:44 PM
Dennis didn't start drinking because he fell out with Mike, Mike fell out with Dennis because he couldn't control his drinking problem. F ucking the guy's wife probably didn't help matters....

Not sure where anybody made any claims about Dennis "starting" drinking due to Mike. I do agree in part regarding what you say is the reason why Mike fell out with Dennis, though I think that's a simplistic and not particularly nuanced viewpoint to think that's the whole story. Do you think that it's fair to surmise that Mike probably went deeper into TM in part help deal with the stress of the band and bandmates who gave him grief (which could certainly include the above-mentioned incident)?

And if it wasn't for Dennis, none of the BB would've done TM in the first place.  :p

Ironically circular, isn't it? Though I have a hunch that they'd have discovered it through other means at some point nonetheless.


Title: Re: If Mike wasn't in the band...
Post by: drbeachboy on May 26, 2015, 06:03:31 PM
Don't forget, Dennis introduced the band to TM. Except for Bruce, they were all into it for a time. It didn't quite take hold with Dennis and Brian, but Mike, Al and Carl stuck with it for quite a while. To this day Mike & Al still practice it, while Carl looked to other things. Some people have certain things  that they do to relieve stress, while others struggle to find that certain something.