The Smiley Smile Message Board

http://m.beaumontenterprise.com/entertainment/article/Q-A-Beach-Boys-talk-TV-touring-and-The-Beatles-6869179.php

Mostly a fluff piece, but Mike talks about a new Pet Sounds box, and the fact that he's been in communication with Al, and a few other interesting things.

There is also a longer audio version of the interview on the same page.

Interesting.

Kinda figured there'd be some fiftieth anniversary Pet Sounds type release.

However, the question is, what can they put on there that will be new to us?

At the planning meetings, I somehow doubt "what can we do for the likes of the Smiley Smile posters ?" was a phrase anyone so much as considered, much less uttered.

I wonder what the talks with Al have been about. (Warning: total speculation follows.) I'd guess just joining the group for some Beach Boys Pet Sounds shows. I shouldn't say "just" about that, as it would be cool, but some new recordings are always what I'm most interested in (even though new Beach Boys + Al songs are less interesting sans BW, as the nostalgia level is bound to be off the charts). Still, if that were the case, it would be interesting that Al did full Pet Sounds performances with two different groups in the same year.

I can't see that happening -- if nothing else, Al is pretty much booked solid with Brian's band until mid-October. They've got 74 shows booked, which is almost as many as the 2012 tour already -- in fact I think this year Brian, Al, and Blondie have far more shows booked so far than MIke & Bruce have. I don't know when he'd fit in the shows -- unless of course Mike's planning to poach him from Brian's band and add him permanently to the touring band. Which is *extremely* unlikely (though if he is, and he's reading this -- could you leave it until June, so I get to see Al at the two Pet Sounds shows I've got tickets for?)
My guess, assuming they weren't just chatting, is that they might be discussing doing something together next year, since Brian's talked about this being a farewell tour.

I'm guessing it was more like Al *possibly* guest-appearing on a recording and/or a show or two. Nothing more. Just my guess.

Frankly, at this point I hope Al tells Mike to go f*** himself

Couldn't agree more!! He could, he should, but he won't.  ::)

C'mon Andrew! You know what I meant. Anything really revelatory that hasn't been released. Which I don't know is even possible. Or even anything from that era that could be collected in such a set.

What even "previously released" material could they put on such a set?

There are no unique single mixes, are there? I don't think so. I suppose as far as stuff that wasn't on The Pet Sounds Sessions set, you could add the mono mix of "Trombone Dixie" that was on the first Pet Sounds CD reissue, but that's not exactly the sorta thing that'll get people opening there wallets to grab $129.99. I suppose they could do another new stereo mix of the album, an "alternate" mix if you will, to the "official" stereo mix of 1996. Maybe there were some more piano demos out there, a la "Don't Talk"? I personally doubt it, as you'd think they'd have been used before now. Could you rope in "Stella by Starlight" or "How Deep Is the Ocean"? I guess, but are they even considered "Beach Boys" tunes?

The only other things, and some would probably think this to be horrible, but maybe have Tony Asher write new lyrics to "Let's Go Away for a While", "Pet Sounds" and "Trombone Dixie" and have Brian and Al do some new vocals, like how "Summer Means New Love" was remodeled into "Somewhere Quiet." I personally think that'd be cool, but I definitely could understand it would be anathema to a lot of people here.

Couldn't disagree more. He could, he shouldn't, and hopefully he won't. The past several years' worth of touring Beach Boys sound great based on most of what I've heard, and adding Al is obviously a plus, whatever the situation. As long as everyone decides they want to, whether out of friendship, financial interests, nostalgia, or whatever else, I hope they find something to work together on. One show, one tour, one song, one album, or more of any of the aforementioned.

Mike is so boring in interview.  You can almost guess everything he is gonna say.
same old answers, same old sentences.  He must love the sound of his own voice.

Now that I agree with. Although he's not the only celebrity to do something similar. It's probably worth keeping in mind that not everyone reads or listens to all interviews, just people like us. So if he thinks he has good anecdotes, it's not too surprising he returns to them. Analogously, I'm interested in biblical criticism, and so I watch or listen to a lot of speeches, debates, lectures, etc. Bart Ehrman is a leading scholar in the field. He has a handful of anecdotes he repeats over and over, year after year, speech after speech. While he does admittedly seem a bit arrogant, I don't assume that's the main reason for the repetition; rather, it's that he's found the anecdotes useful.

All that said, Brian isn't exactly a great interview either. Occasionally surprising and interesting answers, but he contradicts himself over time enough that one has to wonder what's even true. Al is interesting, but doesn't seem to have the best memory. Bruce is interesting, but he definitely seems to go to lengths to dole out at least equal praise to Mike and Brian. Of the living guys, I'd rather listen to David than anyone, but of course he missed a lot of the history. Maybe Carl or Dennis would have been more dependable and insightful, had they lived.

His answers are a good match for a bunch of boring same old questions.

Al's too nice to do that.

Yeah, Mike doesn't give illuminating interviews like Brian does.... ::)

David Marks by FAR! is the best person who gets interviewed.
And he usually throws in some more sideline history and tidbits that have not been discussed much before.
Another thing, I wish these damn stupid interview people would do some simple research into their subject matter.
A simple search would have answered the touring with Al question.  Why can't these guys ask some questions that
aren't often asked?  Completely unoriginal questions that have been asked a billion times.
No wonder Brian gets or is 'shitty' with interviews also.

Kohkohbullshit at it's best. You're busted to PFC for that remark. May Al stay with Brian for the long haul and not give myKe luHv , who had his chance and blew it, the time of day.

Yes, unfortunately for all concerned on & offstage. Just think of all that TIME he's wasted over the years as the most jaw flapping, uninteresting, boring, self absorbed dog ever to disgrace a stage. And don't think he doesn't preapprove the questions.  ::)

it's just the overkill of 'Brian had this part, but I came up the bass part, or I wrote all of this blah blah blah, we're gonna
have some fun, fun, fun and play some good vibrations blah blah blah.'
'cousin Brian and Dennis did drugs blah blah, I hung out with maharishi with George and and I wrote this song blah blah,
which is a tribute in the show to him' blah blah
and on it goes.

I agree with you 100%! Your right on with that remark!  :)

I wouldn't think to read too much into Al & Mike doing anything...especially with how that 4th of July BS went down a couple years back. Probably just in conversation over the "new" release...

I disagree with you 100%!



No. I'm just joshing. I thought I would give this sub-thread some symmetry.

I have to agree with you 100% but if push comes to shove, I'm 100% against it!

According to Mike, a stacks of vocals, no tracks CD.

But that's already on the old box.

Is it only me or Mike sounds like he doesn't know that Al will be performing with Brian this year?:

"No, actually Al does his own thing and so does Brian"

"I've been speaking to Alan, but Brian's on his own recognizance."

I actually disagree with my previous comment, unless of course I insist and then I'd have to reconsider and agree.

I had forgotten that. Apparently, so too has Mike.

When I listened to the interview, I didn't get the impression that he was saying that the stack-o-vox was new to a new box. Just that the (old, I thought) box had it. I'm going to go back to listen again quick.

Yeah, there is no reason to think he's saying the vox only is new to the new box. "There is a box set they put out several years ago, and they're getting ready to do another one, which is the 50th anniversary of Pet Sounds, um, where it's just a CD of just the vocals. It's a multiple CD set, and it has just the vocals on this one CD." (15:23)

The mention of the new set is more an aside. His comment about the vocals-only disc is referring back to the old box.

Pacific Foast Cighway?
Paleolithic Frothy Clump?
Preferred Fig Cookie?
Parts From Car?
Perforated Fascist Conglomeration?
Patrol For Comments?

Whatever the f*** PFC means, I guess (being busted) I have to throw myself upon the mercy of the court. Oooh, Court! Pathetic Factional Court! Got it! OK, I accept that I've been busted and reported to your pathetic factional court. I no longer throw myself upon its mercy. Now I just laugh at the charge as being typically childish.

Private First Class - the lowest form of military life.

Agreed.

Eh, he has some pretty bad words to say about Mike in this video...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBJOYwZUuYw

Disagree.

Probably just a case of Mike not wanting to acknowledge that Al's with Brian. You know, just in case the interviewer comes back and asks 'so which band has more original members?'  :o

If you listen to the audio of the phone conversation, I'd agree with Eric and the captain that Mike is referring to the vocals only stuff on the previously issued Pet Sounds box, but it wasn't well translated into print by the author. Same thing when the author says, "John Stamos also drummed for y'all" and he has Mike replying, "John Stamos was just with us for a week." That response could cause a reader who didn't know much about the band to assume that Stamos had only ever played with the BBs for a week, rather than Mike stating that Stamos had recently played with them for a week, which is quite clear when listening to the full interview.

Regardless, it is interesting to hear Mike saying that a new Pet Sounds 50 anniversary box is planned.

Incorrect. Take heed from someone who's been there. Trainee in boot camp is the lowest of the low.

EDIT: Wrong Thread

Another story.

This guy seems to have the history but something may have been lost in translation. Was a PS Tour this year discuused?


'Love, an original Beach Boy vocalist and Brian’s cousin, is joined on tour by longtime Beach Boy keyboardist Bruce Johnston. Brian also performs with a fellow Beach Boy, guitarist Al Jardine, and has in fact also asked Love to join his band.'


http://lubbockonline.com/filed-online/2016-03-05/kerns-love-providing-good-vibrations-original-beach-boy#.VtzviFR97cs

He could also be acknowledging that, while Al has been doing shows with Brian pretty such since C50, Al is not listed as an official member of Brian's band.   

I suppose it's possible that Brian pitched the PS50 tour to Mike (and the rest of the guys) as a BB tour, even if he knew the likely answer would be no. Anybody with a modicum of PR acumen would know that a full reunion PS tour would sell even more tickets, and is really the first super marketable "50th anniversary" since, well, the band's 50th anniversary.

Concerning Mike's discussion of a PS boxed set, I don't think we can assume anything yet. I don't think he's describing the entirety of any future boxed set. I think he's saying "They did a boxed set, they're doing another boxed set, and I remember on that boxed set there was a vocals-only version of the album."

I would assume a new PS boxed set would be mostly a reiteration of the old boxed set, no doubt with a few new things to get us to buy it again. I would presume it would have the "fixed" Mike bridge on the WIBN stereo mix. I just hope, if they do another boxed set, they at least give us like a full disc's worth of something new or different.

As for Mike "talking to Al", I take it more as Mike simply being on recent speaking terms with Al as opposed to not so much with Brian. I don't see Al jumping in on a random Mike show as super likely, for the following reasons:

1. The PS tour with Brian is booked pretty solid from March through October. There are obviously some gaps, but only a couple of larger gaps.

2. I'm guessing it wouldn't be politically the easiest thing for Al to do to be on Brian's tour and then also moonlight for guest appearances with Mike's band. Again, I'm not saying Brian is going to give Al the boot if Al pops in at one random Mike show to sing "Help Me Rhonda", but there are always some political issues at play, right or wrong.

3. The 2014 Jones Beach thing, from everything I've heard, left both Al and Mike feeling burned. I'm not sure how much they want to try *that* again.

4. Bonus thought: Mike had similar language about Al in earlier 2014 prior to the Jones Beach fiasco, about he and Al possibly writing something together. That obviously (we can only guess) came to naught. My guess is Mike is simply saying he has literally spoken to Al in more recent times. I would also guess that if they did anything together, it would be more likely to be some sort of studio situation of singing on each other's tracks or something.

I also agree with a few others that Mike saying he talks to Al could simply be a deflection against admitting that Al is on "Team Brian" these days. Mike *has* mentioned in other interviews that Al plays with Brian, but he does tend to soften it to something like "sometimes Al joins Brian", even though Al has played at nearly every post-C50 Brian show, starting in late 2012 through to the present. Al has only been absent at a handful of benefit gigs/TV show appearances. Al has certainly been on-board full-time on every actual full "tour" Brian has done since 2012.

One thing that makes me think there's a small chance that Mike is trying to butter Al up is that Mike has appeared to be playing a bit more hardball in the last couple years with whatever sour grapes (or vendetta or whatever you want to call it) concerning Brian, to the point of taking on two former Brian band guys, and trying to work Al into something back in 2014. So I don't find the idea impossible that Mike is trying to get Al back "on his side" and away from Brian. But that doesn't seem too plausible. I don't see Mike having any interest in just adding Al back to the band (they still have all sorts of BS between them, and he's probably have to boot Bruce to pay for Al). And again, Al's booked up most of this year. Plus, Al's comments about Mike the recent RS article, while not inflammatory, certainly don't sound like a guy who's ready to go play with Mike again.

With all of the "alone in the room" debates for the last few years about Brian and Mike, it would certainly be interesting if nothing else to hear what Al and Mike could come up with. I just don't know whether we'd ever hear the result even if they did get together and write and record a bit. Neither Al nor Mike have been prolific in releasing material.

Beyond that, what's left? Al playing in Mike's band? That frankly doesn't even sound that interesting. We'd get Al singing the same songs he sings with Brian, and maybe not even that many. The "deep cuts" Mike's band tends to do aren't "Al" songs. So Al singing with Brian's band (or with a full reunion) are exponentially more interesting prospects than Al joining Mike's band.

C'mon! He is always answering to the same questions. And we read all his interviews. What do you expect?

We've had the "same interview answers" discussion many times here. I always cut Mike plenty of slack in this area, because the same questions *are* asked in countless interviews. McCartney does the same thing. Do we ever need to hear the "Scrambled Eggs" story again?

But Mike certainly doesn't seem to often put in a great effort to not hit the same talking points, many of which are rather self-congratulatory and minimize the need to talk about Brian and Al, especially in the present tense. It's not as if when, in 2015, Mike was asked about Brian, he said "Oh yeah, Brian just put another solo album out. Everybody should check it out!"

I figured that this interview would eventually show up here. I was so outraged by it yesterday that I refused to post it, but here it is.

Apparently Mike's stepping up his game on this one.  I guess it's time to peddle that book.

According to Mike, L&M wasn't true (even though Brian says it is, and Mike hasn't seen it, according to Mike).  It was Stan and Carl instead of Melinda who saved Brian from Landy, according to Mike.  I was on the sidelines watching this process and I have a pretty good idea of who did what.  Melinda and friends (who wish to not be acknowledged so far) fought long and hard to save Brian from Landy and his over-medication of Brian.  They did their best to get the family to take legal action, as they were the only people who could.  Keep remembering this - only the family could act. 

It took the Landy will, just as it was portrayed in the movie, to get Carl and family to act.  Yet Mike says that Melinda didn't save Brian, but it was Carl and Stan?  I saw who was suffering and terrified that Brian might die before he got away from the man, and who was making all the efforts.  Melinda was front and center.  I'm glad Carl eventually chose to take legal action, as the movie portrayed. Maybe Mike should see the movie before calling it a lie.  Also, his portrayal in the film to me made him look like he was worried about the hit-making potential - not exactly damning.  Like I said, he should see the movie.

Finally, The Wilsons were trying to get the other BBs to do heroin?  Now this is the story?  Where was all this heroin?  I never saw any around Brian.  I'm not saying an incident couldn't have happened, but it was hardly a "lifestyle" for him.

I agree here. I don't think he comes off badly at all in the film -- and I suspect *he* would think he came off better in it than I do (since some of his concerns are portrayed as rather more reasonable than I think they were).

Not sure how spot-on that writer is with the band's history. He refers to C50 as occurring in 2011 instead of 2012 (yes, they did the one studio recording in mid-2011, but that's surely not what he's referring to), incorrectly characterizes the 1988 R&R Hall of Fame event as a "reunion" (probably just to bring up Mike's speech), and seems to have possibly mischaracterized how Mike is portrayed in the L&M film (possibly to simply get a rise out of Mike).

I do find it interesting that Mike uses the "Stan and Carl" reasoning, which negates Melinda (or the movie's depiction at least), and doesn't realize that someone might wonder "Well, why did Mike's brother have to "do" something? Why didn't Mike? Stan Love didn't have any more standing with the courts than Mike did. They're both Brian's cousin."

Mike doesn't come out so well in the "Stan and Carl saved Brian" story either.

Debbie KL - The movie did not leave me with the impression that the family was not involved.  I was left with two impressions.  First, that Melinda was the primary "facilitator" of the sunlight on the "Landy will."  She was the necessary communicator when Brian was "legally" in Landy's custody, to contact the family to act.  As a non-family member, at that time, it was better handled by one who had "standing" as a sibling, to articulate that problem.

And, second, that family had to be involved, because they had "standing" as family members, to go into the court and argue that there were "irregularities" and self-dealing, undue influence, etc., (Landy) to make himself beneficiary to the will.  I don't see anything inconsistent.   

I believe that was my point.  Melinda and friends provided the blood, sweat and tears.  The family were the only people who could take legal action.

Yeah, that's how I understood your post.

I wonder if it was more a case of the Landy will finally giving Carl the legal tool he needed to act. He was very frustrated over the whole Landy situation well before then.

Possibly.  I don't know the factors that caused Carl to act, nor what was required legally at that point, but that might make sense.  That draft will copy was a godsend for everyone, whatever the motivation.  

My point was that the movie is accurate.  That, and the fact that Brian wasn't exactly living in an opium den, beckoning Mike and Al to join him.

At the risk of sounding picky, the reference was not the C50 in 2011 but the 50th anniversary, which it was. 1961-2011. But I get your point.

....'That is, with the exception of reunions: the band’s 50th anniversary in 2011 and, in 1988, the Beach Boys’ induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame with the Beatles and Bob Dylan.'....

Also nit picky, but the HoF thing was a reunion of sorts.

Thanks Emily.  I addressed the Stan suit, albeit briefly, on the BW msg board, and said nothing here, I realize.  Of course, there's always Rocky's thread for reference. I will simply say that the people who actually did get Brian out of that nightmare seem to have proven that they were the choice for Brian to have a safe, healthy future.

Correct - and on a careful reading I suspect the 50th Anniversary Edition is the BluRay Audio version which seems to have been delayed, possibly until the exact 50th anniversary??!!??

… which I suspect is what this prerelease listing will transpire to be:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/B0076CQK7M

It is all nitpicking, I acknowledge, but when the writer referred to "the band's 50th anniversary in 2011", he's referring to a reunion. I guess he could mean they celebrated 2011's 50th anniversary in 2012, but that's an odd way to put it and an unclear way to construct the sentence. The band's "50th anniversary year" included 2012. I think it's far more likely the guy just tacked 50 years onto their 1961 formation.

I'm probably debating nitpicks nobody cares about, but I don't really see events such as the 80s HOF ceremony as a "reunion." It implies Brian had officially left the group, or hadn't performed with them in years and years or appeared in person with them in years and years. Brian had been making appearances with the group as recently as 1986 by that time, and was doing other stuff with the band in the 88/89 timeframe as well (I can't remember if Brian made any appearances on stage in 1987 at the moment). I've never even really heard the 25th Anniversary Hawaii show termed as "reunion." It was the band as it was at that stage, with Brian making increasingly sporadic appearances.

By the time of C50, other than a one-off gig in 2011 (doing a few songs, and essentially a trial run at the C50 reunion), Al hadn't played in the touring band in 14 years. Brian hadn't made a single appearance on stage with the group or Mike Love in 16 years. That five-man C50 lineup had literally *never* performed in that exact configuration prior to 2012.

Lumping together C50 and the '88 HOF ceremony as two "reunions" as that writer did doesn't make sense to me. At that stage, I'd say Brian's 1976 return to the stage or Carl's 1982 return to the touring band were closer to "reunions" than the '88 event. If we count every time a member was gone for any length of time and then came back as a "reunion", we'd have many.

As I mentioned before, I think the writer characterized the '88 event as "reunion" simply so he could segue into mentioning Mike's infamous speech.

It might just be a way of reading. When I read it, I thought he was using 'reunite' as get back together, the way you might reunite with your college friends when your in town. They reunited for the album; they reunited for the HoF; they normally don't see each other or work or appear as a unit and on these occasions they did. I may be wrong, but that's how I read it. I actually thought the author had a slightly better understanding of the background than many.

The thing I believe is that Melinda, while certainly a big big part of Brian getting free, wouldn't have succeeded without Carl (and Aubree & Stan to a much lesser degree).

I don't believe she could have because either Brian himself or a family member had legal standing to challenge Landy's conservatorship; Melinda did not. However, the family could have challenged earlier using the leverage of his medical code violations. I think the family seem to have given up on the matter until Melinda Ledbetter, with the help of others, presented the information about the will.
Regarding Stan, that was a separate suit that went nowhere.

In trying to figure out how much of a role Melinda played versus Stan Love and Carl, let's remember that Mike's comments in the article imply, at the very least, that Melinda playing a role is an out-and-out "inaccuracy." He doesn't just say that not mentioning Stan or only minimally mentioning Carl is an inaccuracy, but that "Melinda saved Brian" was an inaccuracy:

Asked for the film’s worst inaccuracies, Love responded, “That Melinda (played by Elizabeth Banks) saved Brian from Dr. Landy (played by Paul Giamatti). That was my brother (Stan Love) and Carl (Wilson) who stepped in. Landy was, in fact, over-reaching.”

While re-enacting the epic, awkward Stan Love press conference scene where Brian burst in and read an awkward prepared statement (out of the ballpark!) probably would have made for an interesting scene in the film, I think the whole point was that Melinda, and specifically her "relationship" with Brian, was an impetus for more action on the Landy issue.

The film also made it clear that Melinda *had* to go through Brian's family for the wheels of justice to actually work. I'ts not like the film shows Melinda arguing the case in court or something. It actually shows how Melinda wasn't "with" Brian or back together with him until *after* he was extracted from Landy.

Mike is frankly perhaps lucky that they didn't put a scene in the film where someone, I guess relatively rhetorically, asked why the other Beach Boys, especially those who were related and had standing in court, saw Brian and Landy's weird relationship (and numerous books have cited BB business meeting where Brian leaves the room and then comes back drooling and catatonic, etc.) and made no apparent attempt earlier to do something in court about it. Granted, there may have been legal/strategic reasons something couldn't have been done earlier. But if so, then why try to minimize Melinda's role?

Considering Mike mentions that Carl had to act, I'm wondering if perhaps, since he admittedly hasn't seen the movie (it's only $1.50 to rent at Redbox!), he isn't aware of the scene in the film where Melinda calls Carl.

I'm not sure who is more annoying, the author or Mike, in pointing out that Mike hasn't seen the movie, followed by several paragraphs about what Mike thinks about the movie.

Mike seems more bitter than ever.

Thanks Emily.  You said it all.  No one is arguing the point that Melinda needed a family member to take legal action, least of all the film.

Let's not forget that Landy was doing everything he could to prevent Brian's family from contacting him and vice versa. Melinda had more access to Brian in the first place -- and that she and Gloria Ramos could get the proof of Landy's malfeasance is a blessing.

One day in the late '80s I asked Carl about how Brian was doing -- he was very upset that he had no access to Brian. Make no mistake about it, Carl loved his big brother.

The frustrating thing is that Mike specifically feels the need to outright dismiss (or greatly diminish) Melinda's role in the matter, without just simply adding additional pieces of information he feels were omitted. Just because the film doesn't mention Stan specifically, the film doesn't take the step of saying that Stan DIDN'T have any role in the matter.

While I can understand if Mike feels the film doesn't show the entire story (if that's how he actually feels - who knows, since he won't fess up to having seen it!), I don't know why Mike can't just add that his brother played a role in the matter in addition to Melinda's actions, without feeling the need to specifically outright dismiss her, implying she didn't exist or play any role whatsoever in getting the ball rolling. Is that truly the narrative he wants people to believe? It's quite disheartening to see Mike's unrelated sour grapes toward Melinda mutate into nonsense venom and vitriol about a sensitive topic like this. I don't know if it's possibly rooted in sexism or just an anti-Melinda grudge about other unrelated stuff, but I can't wrap my head around the agenda he's trying to push. No way he'd be saying this nonsense if the reunion were still intact.

For a guy who has not seen the movie, never read the 'book', I would guess hasn't heard a solo album, definitely not been to a solo show, Mike sure has a lot to say about his cousin. Relying on second hand reports of the movie then commenting on aspects he doesn't like comes across as bitter. Even he should be impressed and appreciate the studio recreation in itself.

It also doesn't help when interviewers/writers stoke the flames with stuff like this:

But what about the on-screen Love being verbally cruel to Brian, regarding the latter’s musical ideas? “Total bull, a fallacy,” said Love. “Brian and I had always been friends.”

I guess I have to watch L&M again, but I don't recall Mike being portrayed as being "verbally cruel" to Brian. While Mike shouldn't just take someone else's interpretation of the film and run with it, it certainly doesn't help anything or anyone to give Mike this impression.

This sort of stuff reminds me of the flames being stoked in that Beard interview last year about "No Pier Pressure", where it seemed like Mike was acting extra hostile about the idea that someone somewhere was saying NPP "could have been a Beach Boys" album.

Surely, at the very least, Mike should be able to understand that he's going to come across as extra cranky and ignorant as to what he's talking about when he rants about subjects he admits he has little or no information about.

How many times did a Roger Ebert review start with, "Now, I haven't actually seen this movie, but here's what I think about it...."?

And since when does someone being friends preclude them from possibly being verbally cruel to that person? As though the two are mutually exclusive.  (Plus, I thought they were family, not friends). Doesn't this denial directly contradict the Rolling Stone article where Mike finally fessed up just a bit to the remote possibility that his words may have come off a certain negative manner when aimed at a very sensitive person? That's all that really matters in the end.

With as many bad things that Mike has said about L&M without (?) having even seen the film, I can't imagine Brian and Melinda are regretting their decision to not invite Mike to a screening.  I can understand insiders having some issues with parts of it, but hare-brained attempts at over-correcting perceived inaccuracies come off as having little to no credibility.

I don't think that anyone is saying that Carl didn't love Brian, but thanks for bringing it up anyway.  It is an important point, and it was made in the movie.  Landy had everyone blocked from access to Brian at a certain point, including Melinda.  Gloria was there, but essentially under "house arrest," caring enough about Brian to stay but fearful of Landy.  That's also made clear in the film.  It was frustrating for everyone.  In the end, only the family could take action, and Melinda and friends fought hard to make that happen, getting what was necessary to convince family and the authorities of the seriousness of the situation.

I know it's a sin, but I think Carl Wilson kind of failed Brian Wilson, when it comes down to it. All the stuff we're reading in the Pamplin thread, and then Landy in the 80s. Frankly, if you were around during that time and you weren't trying to help, I think you were part of the problem.

I can understand why some people would think this, and I partly agree... though I'd tend to think that Carl unfortunately may not have known of anything else he could have done at the time. I can't necessarily fault someone for not being well-informed of better solutions to the Landy problem. It is of course, very unfortunate in hindsight that Brian wasn't extracted sooner, and that it took Melinda's urging and conspiring to get it started.

Also... Carl, having just recently watched his other brother die in part due to not having anyone around who could help control his self-destructive behavior, may have clung to the thought for too long that no Landy would be worse for Brian than even an increasingly evil Landy.

I imagine that resentment emanating from Brian's side towards Brian's family (no doubt fueled by Landy, who surely wanted Brian distanced from his family out of Landy's own self-interest) might have made Brian's family just check out of the whole Landy situation a bit. Brian acting uncool to them (regardless if partly due to Brian being influenced by Landy) may not have been a particular motivating factor in getting them to deal with the excruciating intricacies of finding a way to extract Brian from the situation.

Perhaps in the way that Brian seemed to always need someone authoritative to take the reigns to get unpleasant but important stuff done, maybe Carl too needed that push in the form of Melinda.  It's quite hard to reconcile that Mike wants to paint Melinda as a complete non-factor in every way, shape, and form when it came to helping save Brian from Landy. We're not talking about songwriting credits here.

Carl was around during Landy I and Pamplin. What did he do to cut that sh*t out? What did he do to stop the hiring of Landy II? I understand that Carl Wilson was uber nonconfrontational and he had his own issues, so it's perhaps understandable that he didn't help, but to pat him on the back and call him a hero for standing to the side watching his brother being abused for 15 years, then finally doing something, is off.
And that goes for all the rest of them, not just Carl. What a massive failure Brian Wilson's supposed support system turned out to be.

Hey Jude - the LA Times is a good source on reporting what happened.  

http://article.latimes.com/1991-12-06/local/me-478_1_beach-boy-wilson

A suit was filed in May of 1990.  It was supposed to go to trial.  It was related to legal fraud.  

"The settlement was reached behind closed door and sealed by the court."

People generally do not discuss settlements that are reached behind closed doors and sealed by the court.  So, filed in May, with settlements by early December of 1991, and further paperwork to have been signed a couple of weeks post.

The article says that Carl, Audree, Wendy and Carnie were satisfied that the agreement would allow the singer the freedom "to live his own life as he chooses."   involved.  

Who would imagine that the family or the band would knowingly let Brian continue to be tortured by that creep.  Landy had wide berth to isolate Brian from his family and he did. It is too bad that once the "Brains and Genius" relationship arose, that action didn't result immediately.  

Thank God, Gloria and Melinda were able to work under-the-radar to set the wheels in motion to get Brian extricated from that predator.  But far as the sequence of events, court conferences, and the court sealing the records go,  that stuff is closer-to-the-vest than a full-on trial where it is open to the public and people feel free to comment.  It appears it was handled more discretely.  

It arose out of a medical matter even though there were certain "irregularities" as far as the evil doc was concerned, where he escaped prosecution.    

The family just had to have Landy manage their "golden goose" ::)

Emily - during Landy 2, no one but the Landy people had real access to Brian. They were marginalized and monitored. Landy was off-to-the-side of the stage when Brian appeared for a couple of songs.  And the band had no choice but to take it in stride and put on a good face for the public for the performance.  

Landy held the cards with the court at that time.  The band was underwriting the treatment.  How can they be the bad guys here? That is like victim-blaming and shaming.  What is that about?  They paid for the treatment in good faith.  No one benefitted from Landy.  Most of all Brian, but the band looks like collateral economic damage for Landy.

And, all that stress could not have been good for Carl who ended up with terminal cancer not long afterwards.  

What does any of that have to do with Mike commenting, in some detail, about a movie he hasn’t seen? That’s what my post, which you’re quoting above, discusses. Regardless of whether the film depicts Melinda helping Brian or if it depicts Scooby Doo and the Harlem Globetrotters exposing and capturing Landy, the point is that Mike is griping about something he hasn’t seen, and it shows, because he seems to have the impression that things occur in the film which do not actually occur.  

Not every topic and discussion point of all time is about court cases and old news articles. If you want to make the point separately, please do. But please don't quote someone's post if your intention is to talk about something completely different. It's confusing, at best.

Separately, all of the stuff cited above regarding the Landy case completely undercuts Mike's comments. He minimizes Melinda's role, and didn't mention Audree, Wendy, or Carnie at all. He appears to have total ignorance as to the L&M film (and admittedly so), and a selective and partial, at best, understanding or recollection of the Landy case.

Except that Kokomo was done without Brian (except on the Spanish version, after Landy woke from his slumber) and was a monster hit during that window of time.  

Where's your outrage for Mike's minimization (if not nearly outright denial) of Melinda playing any role whatsoever in the incidents you've just correctly described?

Wait, "Kokomo" was a hit? And not just a hit, but a "Monster Hit"?

If only Mike had mentioned this at some point over the years.

I think the same could be said for how Denny was attempted to be helped by his family. Unfortunately, they tried to help but inadvertently wound up enabling his addictions, by for instance having an extra drummer on hand in case he was too smashed to hold down the fort.  The family were SO in over their heads, tragically.

Al Jardine also did "Come Go With Me" largely if not completely without Brian. They toured successfully for years without him. The band had already established that it could have success without Brian participation. That doesn't mean they didn't bring him back around, in part, because it helped them too. There's little other explanation for why they kept Brian in the touring band in 1981 and 1982 for instance.

But there was and has pretty much always been a clear understanding that attaching Brian to the Beach Boys upped the rewards of most any project (e.g. the CBS contract requiring Brian participate). It doesn't mean every single collaboration with Brian or every time they wanted or tried to work with him, they were licking their chops for a huge paycheck to come out of it.

He likely knew who was in court. Mike may or may not have been at those court conferences that came about as a result of the "revised will" (from 1989) intervention.  

Mike would know more than me and you, if he was at those conferences.   But the case was sealed so no one (outside of those who were there over that stretch of time) can draw an inference out of thin air.

Someone is always going to construe an evil motive where there might not be one.  The case was sealed.  Only those who were there know.  

Surely Gloria and Melinda opened the door, but there may have been really contentious sessions, to get Brian out of a court-ordered guardianship and reverse their own order.  

We all have the exact same access to view the L&M film. Mike says he has not, yet continues to discuss it and its contents. Would you agree this is ill-advised (to put it politely)?

You're also characterizing that Mike did not have a full picture of the Landy case. He continues to discuss this as well, and even your own comments and citations contradict Mike's portrayal of Melinda's role. Would you agree this is also unfortunate and/or ill-advised?

Of course you won't. Even in a thread where you're adamantly championing Melinda's role in a thread devoted to articles where Mike seems to indicate that the depiction of Melinda helping to save Brian is inaccurate, you still won't repudiate one single word of anything Mike says.

CD - I did not get that impression.  There may have been real fireworks at those hearings.  It started in May of 1990 as a result of the revised 1989 Landy will, and was not resolved for about a year and a half in December of 1991.   It looks likke a very protracted series of events and since it has a closed file it is wrong for people to speculate about what it all means.  

We only know what happened out of court and not what happened with the court involvement.  It was not a one-day resolution.  

To expand on my earlier point, they did not need BW's cachet by the late 1980s. Therefore they were content to make subpar music and keep the touring machine going. Hence leaving BW under the "care" of Landy.

Hey Jude - It is not our business, to put it politely.  Especially looking at those time-lines that led to the resolution of that whole disaster.  I am not characterizing or mis-characterizing anything but pointing out that unlike the copyright lawsuits, that were public, these were conferences that avoided trial, and, it was a sealed case.  

There is not just one champion here. There may be many, including Brian's late mother and Carl and Wendy and Carnie.  Once Melinda and Gloria opened the door, those others who had standing, had to walk through and continue the fight.

And, I don't think this is just a story about Brian Wilson or the Beach Boys.  It is also the story of predatory doctors who can take advantage of their patients and exploit them.  It raises awareness about those issues, that millions of other suffer from.  And effective advocacy.    

Smile Brian - the record companies were asleep-at-the-switch with Pet Sounds.  They thought the band was all washed up and started releasing the older work. 

1.  They gave Landy the cards. What kind of people sign their family member's conservatorship over? Why didn't they just maintain it themselves and hire Landy like a regular doctor/patient deal? They just signed Brian over to someone and walked away.
2. And what wacko thought it was a good idea to hire Landy again after seeing the abusive treatment BW got from him before? And who stood aside and didn't try to stop that?
3. And which Beach Boy or brother or cousin or mother or wife stood up and said, "hell, if Brian doesn't want to write for, produce, record with, tour with the Beach Boys, he shouldn't have to. Why are we physically forcing him to do things he obviously doesn't want to do? Maybe leave him alone."
When Rocky tells us about that scene, I'll change my opinion. Right now, they all seem to have been cooperating in his abuse.

No one followed the proper legal procedure, which they knew about because they did it for Brian.

Also record companies and promoters were much more likely to work with them if Brian was part of the deal.

Mike even had the gall to say the BW songs on still cruisin "diluted" the concept of the album's movie songs.

Emily -
Landy got the cards with "court approval."  Did the court independently investigate Landy?  Did they investigate the doctor "prospectively" who was the prescribing physician? I don't think so.  Would it have changed a devious predator such as Landy?  Probably not.  

There was some positive success with the first Landy run.  Brian lost a great deal of weight and appeared to be in better condition.

In that era, people knew less than they do know with neuroscience. It is misapplying a standard for 2016 that did not exist in those years.

Emily -  by that time, people were asking for over 10 years when they would see Brian perform.  He was off the road, by agreement of the parties in 1965.

Everyone wanted to see Brian Wilson.  I waited 20 years and it was a Landy cameo that was my first glimpse of Brian. I did not see Brian in 1981 or 1982.  It was not until June of 1987 that I saw Brian. 

You did not get that impression? Then what impression did you in fact get? Mike said the film’s worst inaccuracies included “That Melinda (played by Elizabeth Banks) saved Brian from Dr. Landy". In Mike's own words... Melinda saving Brian is negated to the point of her involvement in getting Brian's extraction to happen is inaccurate.

You yourself went so far as to thank god that Melinda was "able to work under-the-radar to set the wheels in motion" (which I don't disagree with), in direct contradiction to what Mike said. Exactly how are you interpreting what he said in some other way?

Again... it was more than JUST Melinda's actions, and the film does state that. She calls Carl and/or Audree (I can't recall if it's both or just one of them) in the film. If Mike's miffed and thinks it's wrong that Stan's role in the process wasn't additionally mentioned, that's fair for him to state... but not at the expense of avoiding any acknowledgement of Melinda's role. Two wrongs don't make a right.

How does Mike in any way give Melinda any credit at all in the interview? It would seem your opinion of thanking god for Melinda's actions would be at odds with what Mike is putting out there. It's not speculation to categorically state that Melinda played a significant role in the process. What Mike is doing is tantamount to the film existing without one single mention of Mike writing a hit song with Brian, which of course would be grossly inaccurate, and of course the film made no such claim.

The first Landy period was transparently focused on forcing Brian to act as a Beach Boy and Landy's 'treatment' was transparently inappropriate. The court approved Landy's conservatorship at the family's request.
I said nothing about neuroscience.

You jumped into this discussion. Why would you if it's "not our business?"

You've jumped into a discussion of how Mike has minimized the role of Melinda by pointing out that Melinda did have a role, followed up with a bunch of legal mumbojumbo that had nothing to do with what anyone was talking about and that nobody, generally speaking, seems to disagree with.

So when the topic at hand is, while admittedly a bit rhetorical in nature, "Mike is being a d**k for minimizing Melinda's role", and you jump in to absolve Mike of anything that might be construed as slightly negative, while also going on at length about how Melinda DID play a role, it comes across as sort of troll-ish to be honest.

If you want to write a non-sequitur dissertation about the intricacies of conservatorship cases and whatnot, there are plenty of other places to do it.

Why continually step into these "anti-Mike" discussions if one feels they are inherently inappropriate or none of our business? And most especially, why step in with information that contradicts Mike's own words, the very words at the heart of the current discussion, and then continue to incredulously wonder why someone would take issue with his comments?

CD - Those people that Melinda called in the movie are no longer with us.  As a mother, or even a sibling, I would have been devastated to learn that a medical person took advantage of a family member.  Imagine being in their shoes.    

Maybe they were not portrayed out of respect because they have since passed and that was tasteful. I will tell you that I might not have been as restrained (behind a closed door hearing and a sealed case) as that family was.  It does not take much to imagine the scenario of having to face your son's predator.  Or for Carl, to face his brother's predator after losing your other brother only a few years earlier.  Not pretty.  Or the band members learning they had been "had." (By Landy.)

We know what we saw in that brilliant movie, but don't know the heartache of discovering about this criminally abusive situation by the immediate family members and the band.    

I think this is unquestionably the most legit criticism that can be leveled at Brian's family and band. While some people might make the defense argument that if not pushed to write Beach Boys songs, Brian would have just sat around deteriorating even more... the problem lies in the fact that prior to Brian's truly destructive '70s era, way back in 1967-ish, Brian was also cruelly blocked and bullied into ceasing writing for Redwood, and turn Time To Get Alone into a Beach Boys song. The argument that this action was done for Brian's own good (and not for selfish Beach Boys reasons) is rather impossible to believe.

I frankly don't know how Brian's family and band would not be able to understand and empathize at how Brian felt deeply resentful at being treated like a commodity and circus elephant, which I'm sure he felt. Maybe they do privately in hindsight.

In other words CD, you're not going to get an answer and several of us are, even if unwittingly, essentially being trolled here.

You're never going to get certain people to ever, ever, ever say "Ooh, that's an unfortunate comment from Mike." Ever.

EVER. 

The family turned into a mafia of hanger-ons. ::)

Hey Jude - Getting Brian extricated was all about legal "mumbo jumbo" and that LA Times article with details of the sealed case is not unimportant to have a complete picture of what happened.  I did not just jump in.  I did some homework first.  Nothing minimizes Melinda's role.  But others were involved who are now deceased.  

Carl was attacked in this thread.  Guess I have a problem with that.

 

I could have sworn I asked you a question, a very clear one, about how Mike's statement avoiding saying Melinda had any involvement in Brian's extraction is at odds with you thanking god for Melinda's actions... and I'm pretty sure you answered absolutely none of it, and just said a bunch of unrelated stuff.

Mike says it's INACCURATE to credit Melinda for Brian's extraction. You, a god-thanking-for-Melinda person, agree with that?

(Hint: here's where you *might* consider actually answer the question... not where you place unrelated sentences, or get all upset for me politely requesting that you respond with an actual answer, the way non-trolls do).

How much anyone can blame Brian’s family, and if so, whether we should bother at this stage, truly is a complicated matter. No easy answers there.

It’s probably one of the reasons nobody, including Brian or the makers of “Love & Mercy”, ever tried to make a point of “So-and-so totally DIDN’T help Brian get away from Landy!”

There’s only one person in the BB circle that I’ve seen try to minimize the role one of Brian’s closest allies in the Landy saga, specifically NAMING a person and implying they didn’t help.

Nobody said extricating Brian didn't involve a great deal of legal activity. Nobody has said news articles are unimportant.

Someone did attempt to minimize Melinda's role. That's what that article and what the recent discussion in this thread has been about. THAT is the discussion you jumped into, and why citing court records and news articles has nothing to do with it. It all strikes me as obfuscatory, extraneous information to divert from how Mike comes across poorly in a recent interview according to some fans.

I also don't think Carl has been attacked in this thread. Some have posed the question about his actions in the Landy situation. As long as the discussion remains respectful, I don't see a problem with that.

And, CD - I think I answered it fully.  I said that the late Carl and Audree, were contacted (according to L + M) and that set the wheels in motion.  

Brian was in a catch-22 situation.  He was confined by Landy under the court order and it could be argued that at the same time falsely imprisoned because there was fraud going on.  What were the band to do without any solid evidence?  Maybe you have an answer for this.

How would they get by Landy who could have gone into court to tell the judge that the band was interfering with court-approved treatment?  Maybe you can answer that.

This must be some sort of "Schrödinger's Cat" thought experiment, where one can simultaneously agree with Mike's portrayal of it being inaccurate that Melinda helped extricate Brian, and also believe that Melinda absolutely did help.

I am asking you SPECIFICALLY about Melinda.

Melinda played a role in getting the wheels in motion. I'm not trying to diminish Carl, Audree, Stan, or anyone else. Nor do I wish to discuss them at this moment, because that's unrelated to the point I'm making.

You, yourself, said that we need to thank god for Melinda's (among others') role in the Landy extraction.

Mike says it's INACCURATE to have Melinda be credited. Mike did  NOT say that "Melinda was a part of the process, but other people were too..." He simply said that the film's greatest inaccuracies included giving credit to Melinda for the extraction (which you have already pledged thanks to the guy in the sky for her doing).

Somewhere, there's a disconnect here. NOBODY is claiming that Melinda SOLELY is the ONLY reason why Brian got out from Landy. Not the film, not anybody on this board. So we don't need to discuss courts, Carl, Audree, Stan, who admittedly were part of it - that does not need addressing.  I politely and sincerely beg of you, please don't bring those unrelated subjects up, because it's not what we are talking about, nor does anyone disagree with those being factors.  I won't post any unrelated Fat Boys lyrics either. Deal?

What does need addressing is where Melinda fits into this. She either did or didn't play A PART in the process. That - and that alone - is what this convo is about.

Duck and dodge. ;)

I've noticed too that FDP's mentions of the name "Melinda" have gone down in quantity in subsequent replies since we pointed out how and acknowledgement of Melinda's role might contradict Mike's words.

Is the idea that if we just all keep quietly not saying her name, maybe any morsel of acknowledgement of Melinda's role might just fade away, along with anyone being aware of the blatant hypocrisy?

This does feel like a really bad experiment. Like the hatch in Lost.

How about this:

 "Asked for the film’s worst inaccuracies, Love responded, “That Melinda (played by Elizabeth Banks) saved Brian from Dr. Landy"

You are saying that this Mike statement doesn't minimize her role?  Yes? No? Maybe? It's got to be one of those. If it's a bunch of unrelated sentences, you are trolling.

FDP was saying lip service about Melinda and her true opinion supporting Mike is coming out.

That is not how I read that.  Carl is absolutely in the mix as is Audree.  It perhaps "opened the door" to whatever transpired during those 19 months.  Melinda and Gloria heroically started the wheels in motion but Carl, Audree and the others involved had to finish it.  And it took 19 months.  

Smile Brian - were you in the courtroom off and on for 19 months while Landy was defending his actions, his drugging Brian, his changing the will?  We don't know that whole scenario.

It always goes back to Mike-hate with some here. 

Trolling?  I don't think so. That is a personal attack.  Mike is perhaps merely stating that there was another whole phase that transpired after that call to the family.  We don't know that phase because the case is sealed. 

People began reporting Landy's unethical behavior to the state in '84. Melinda contacted the state in '87 at the latest. In '88 Landy was legally charged with violating has client/patient relationship and with improperly prescribing drugs. As you mentioned earlier, FdP, the family could have acted then. The courts always rank the family above outsiders in conservatorship cases. Landy was charged with having an inappropriate relationship with Brian. Yet the family waited until Peter Reum sounded the alarm and the will was revealed. Why?

Hey Jude - that is meant as a personal attack.  There is another whole series of events that happened after the wheels were set in motion. The story did not end there.  I am looking beyond what happenend in the film, looking at the LATimes article and the timelines it covered.  

Can you even bring yourself to say that it *might* have been a better course of action, one that would have garnered him less criticism AND been more accurate, for Mike to have stated that while Melinda DID have a role, he found it inaccurate that others such as (fill in the blank here) weren't additionally acknowledged to a level that he felt would have been more accurate?  

Because you know, that way, nobody would get the impression that Mike believes Melinda's role regarding the extraction is a wholly untrue and inaccurate idea.

It's ok for us to look beyond the film for the truth. It's ok for Mike to do so too, of course. However, it's not cool to imply that Melinda's involvement in Brian's extraction was inaccurate. If Mike things the film is lopsided, that's one thing. He says no such thing though. He simply can't bring himself to say one word of praise or acknowledgement for Melinda.

If Mike's interview didn't exist, and I went on this board, or anyone did, and said what Mike said in that interview, that it's inaccurate for Melinda to be credited in some capacity for Brian's extraction, that nobody should thank god for Melinda... I imagine, based on your earlier post, that you would object and chime in to say how wrong I (or anyone else) would be to say that.

So you find it distasteful when others try to guess or infer what Mike means or what he thinks based on interviews and comments, but you're allowed to here? Your "perhaps" implies (correctly) that you're just guessing.

That this guess completely ignores the syntax and construction of Mike's answer is a separate issue, as is the convenience of a potential defense of Mike's negative and hurtful words being locked away forever in a "sealed" case.

Mike's answer is, even if disagreeable, at least far more clear and direct than any of this other stuff.

Then feel free to start another thread on that topic. The topic at hand here involves (or involved anyway) Mike's comments about Melinda in an interview.

I haven't seen any personal attacks here, other than the sort of passive personal attack against Melinda in that article.

Where does Mike give any credit to Melinda and Gloria for heroically starting the wheels in motion?

Nothing was happening to pull him off the case or revoke the license of the prescribing doc that Landy used?  That is on the state.

The family needed to provide evidence of self-dealing and the will provided that door.  I understood that Carl worked with Peter to surreptitiously observe Brian for drugging effects and Brian's "affect."

We don't know all the details because that case is sealed.  That is what is behind the door.

The 1984 timeline I am not familiar with.  I saw Brian first, in 1987 and 1990.

It seems incredible that people are questioning some of what was done in good faith.  There is a lot we don't know.  

Then why is it so easy to so indignantly and incredulously speak to people in this thread, but not repudiate or renounce that Mike most certainly was questioning the good faith actions of Melinda?

*crickets*

Believe me folks, there's a whole subtext in the BB universe to the "Love & Mercy" film. For something so much more innocuous than the clusterfudge that was the Mike-endorsed "An American Family" movie, it seems to have elicited a very strong reaction from Mike. There's a lot we still don't know about the political machinations involved in the aftermath of that movie; the "screenings", the soundtrack delays. There's a nice story there I'll bet that we don't know.

The goal, in my opinion, going back to last year, appears to be to scrape together anything that puts the film in a bad light and throw it against the wall and see if it sticks. Mike can't be bothered to take the time to rent "Love & Mercy" (you can rent it on Amazon and watch it on your phone for fudge's sake!), but he clearly meticulously read Evan Landy's piece refuting the film. Same with the Stan/Carl thing. How many times has Mike publicly patted Stan Love on the back for his role in the Landy case? (Wasn't most of the rest of the family/organization notoriously silent on the Stan Love issue when it hit the media?) It seems like it only comes up when Melinda needs to be minimized.

Hey Jude - I guess finding the article with the bare details of the court matter that went on for 19 months tells me that there likely was first Melinda/Gloria battle that led to an all-out war for 19 months.   And, a "sealed" case.  That is not unimportant info that should be dismissed out of hand.  

And, yes, I get a little indignant when Carl and Audree become attacked for their inaction.

They are not here to defend themselves.  

The state did act. A few years before the family bothered to. We don't need details to know that.

Nobody is attacking Carl or Audree, and frankly if we want to talk about "personal attacks", it veers much closer to a personal attack against any or all of the folks posting in this thread to imply anyone is attacking them.

You've invented these "attacks." I've seen none. Another way to obfuscate and avoid the actual discussion.

That you continue to refuse to even refer to Mike's interview (and specifically Mike's interview, NOT the Landy case as a whole), the interview where he's the one who doesn't even MENTION Audree Wilson at all, and most certainly denigrates Melinda's role in helping Brian is, well, I'll just say unfortunate.

I'm pretty critical.

1. Again. Where's the Melinda/Gloria battle mentioned in Mike's interview?

2. Does Melinda's role deserve a hint of acknowledgement by Mike? 

3. Doesn't Mike not mentioning their role whatsoever amount to inaction on his part, which should at the very least a hint of displeasure from someone like you, who is able - without pulling teeth, apparently - to actually actively acknowledge the role of Melinda and Gloria?

I know you can address these questions.
I know crickets aren't an inevitability.
I believe in you, FDP.  

Being critical isn't a "personal attack" in my mind, though. The bigger issue is that accusations that anyone is attacking them are being used to avoid addressing the repudiation of Mike's comments.

Opening the question up for discussion of what the family didn't do or could have done is not a personal attack. Especially in this case, as it's all speculation and hypotheticals.

"Same with the Stan/Carl thing. How many times has Mike publicly patted Stan Love on the back for his role in the Landy case? (Wasn't most of the rest of the family/organization notoriously silent on the Stan Love issue when it hit the media?) It seems like "

What was up with that whole Stan debacle. Was this an attempt by Mike to wrestle control? Was he working on behalf of BRI? On his own?

I'd never had the impression that Mike was involved at all in that. But I certainly have no inside information.

Excuse me - as soon as I posted there were no fewer than three or four who jumped in to disagree.  

Maybe it is time to look at that whole 19 months and inquire as to that missing section of time?

And I will always get indignant when those who are not alive are questioned as to their motives.  I never questioned Melinda.

You should maybe ask Mike what he meant or what you took away from what was said.  Don't allege that I did. Or contort want I said.  That time suggests to me that a lot went on.  

Whatever Mike says is on him.  Not me.  Ask him.

That audio interview is a career once-over.  I have it on now.  I noticed you defended Carl. I appreciate that.  There is a lot we do not know and should not assume.  Or attempt to put words in another's mouth. 

What I am assuming is that there is an element of MYOB with the court sealing the case, but much was left out for any number of reasons. 

It does not detract from Gloria/Melinda's involvement but is a large hint that there was a lot that we, as fans, are not privy to.  I feel strongly that we should not second-guess the band members or the family because we did not walk-the-walk. 

I'm not putting words in Mike's mouth. I'm pointing out what he DIDN'T say, and that's one single thing which acknowledges Melinda's role.

And yeah, about asking Mike? Mike will answer random fans' questions about clarifying his feelings on Melinda the day Mike answers random fans' questions about Shawn. That'll be the day.




So what you're saying is that Mike NOT acknowledging Gloria/Melinda's involvement somehow actually helps people be aware of their involvement? Is that how FDP logic works?

When somebody goes out of their way NOT to mention someone's part in something, it usually doesn't signify they have any burning desire for people to actually know about that person's part.

You do realize that it is possible for Stan/Carl/whoever's involvement to be mentioned by Mike and for him to still, in the same sentence, acknowledge Gloria/Melinda's involvement too, right? You realize that's possible, right?

Yeah. Fans like that must be like manna from heaven to Mike. All both of them.

CD - not words in Mike's mouth. My mouth.  I know little about Stan.  

Logic I am not using.  This all defies logic.  I am looking at timelines taking it the step beyond where the movie covered, and the time it took from the May, lawsuit 1990 filing, the fact it was "sealed" and just finishing up in 19 months.  I think the court or the parties covered a lot of issues, in 19 months.  We don't know that. A lot is none-of-our business.  ;)

And there is that pesky issue of..."Asked for the film’s worst inaccuracies, Love responded, “That Melinda (played by Elizabeth Banks) saved Brian from Dr. Landy (played by Paul Giamatti). That was my brother (Stan Love) and Carl (Wilson) who stepped in. Landy was, in fact, over-reaching.”

So essentially Mike dismissed Melinda's efforts at the outset in the interview.  But the dance is to address anything but this issue.

Debbie - L + M was told through a lens that has a time-window that is not the same as some others whether family or band members. 

Others have a lens with a different perspective and time-line.  I think they should be respected.  I don't dismiss Melinda's lens because she had a unique perch during her involvement that is different from Carl's lens or Audree's or Wendy/Carnie, Marilyn or Mike.  It is their vantage point from a different point in time under different circumstances.   

What I find pesky is that time-line of the May, 1990 lawsuit filing and the long interim to resolution in December of 1991, that is "sealed."  And, the outright dismissal that others don't have a different perspective.  It does not detract from the enormous task that the movie and all the followup to benefit others.  Few films have a follow-up component with such impact.  That is to both Brian and Melinda for outreach. 

As far as this window is concerned, I have more questions than answers but a "sealed case" won't resolve that for me.  It won't make me "turn on" an individual band member, whether living or dead.   Or, denounce them. 

Looks like SMiLE Brian called it way back. Crickets it is. I must have smoked some realllly good weed to have thought otherwise.

Juice Brohnston, I think you may have misread my post. I'm under no impression that FDP is saying Mike gave Melinda credit in the interview. Mike obviously doesn't give Melinda or Gloria credit in the interview, and obviously FDP knows that too - FDP, if you're reading this post, before you chime in, it's not a matter of "interpretation"... Mike simply does not give her credit based on his words in the interview.

My question "Where does Mike give any credit to Melinda and Gloria for heroically starting the wheels in motion?" was a rhetorical one to point out the blatant LACK of credit that Mike bestows upon them... which is in direct contradiction to FDP's correct assertion that Melinda and Gloria deserve credit (and that god must be thanked for Melinda's actions - not a minor thanks by any stretch, FDP means it!)... and to highlight the bizarre disconnect/contradiction in FDP having a viewpoint in direct opposition to what Mike has stated, yet FDP being unable to either admit to the differences in viewpoints between her statement and Mike's interview... or to heaven forbid do the unthinkable and criticize Mike.

Whether or not Mike gives Melinda *some* credit privately is up for debate, but in the interview none is given. Nobody but nobody can walk away from that interview believing that Mike gives Melinda and Gloria any credit whatsoever based on what he said, because of the very simple fact that he said no such thing, despite going out of his way to directly give credit to others.

Giving credit to others where credit is due is fine, of course. But doing that AND simultaneously snubbing Melinda/Gloria ain't cool. And this is the guy who complains ad naseum about being snubbed of credits. I don't really believe that Mike truly privately feels Melinda had no role in getting Brian out of that situation. He just can't bring himself to publicly positively credit a person he seems to detest.

Is anything shown in L&M about the Landy period inaccurate?

I think the scene where Brian happily jumped off the boat and swam away was called into question.  As far as I recall from reading on this board, not much else from that era was considered inaccurate.

That actually happened.

Right on, I was unaware of that.

No.  I would say that the only support people involved with Melinda during the Landy period who weren't portrayed in the film had requested that it be that way - so not an inaccuracy, simply honoring a request for privacy.  I was really impressed with the accuracy and honesty of the portrayal of that period.  That took guts on everyone's part involved with the film.

CD - we are here to "discuss" not "admit" positions are "wrong" - the movie was not intended to cover the whole life of Brian. It was targeted specifically to cover "well" certain periods of Brian's life and why they chose two actors to do those time-periods well.

The period that is largely unknown is that period after "Help was on the way."  That is what FOLLOWS the intervention.  

You are asking all kinds of rhetorical questions that have nothing to do with anything except looking to elicit vicariously a band member's position or reflection.  I am not vicariously responsible for anyone else's comments.   I am responsible for my own comments.  

There is a whole segment of what happened that appears to be "closed to the public" with that sealed case.  There is more to the story than what was in the film.  

Think nothing happened in 19 months in court?   Think again.  

Melinda and Gloria "caused" the chain reaction.  We don't know the details of the chain reaction which followed. The court sessions, specifically.  

That is my point.  I have no idea how much clearer I can make that.    ;)

So, to be brief, the movie shows Gloria contacting Melinda about the will.  Melinda then contacts Audree or Carl, and tells them about the will.  At that point, Melinda is out of Brian's life until Brian steps in front of her car many months later, after Brian has been freed from Landy's clutches.  The movie did not deal with Brian's extraction from Landy in any great detail after Melinda's phone call.  Of course, we know that Carl and Audree and others then took the ball and ran with it, but that wasn't shown in the movie.  I think we can all agree that what is shown in the movie is pretty much how things went down.        
  
Ray Lawlor, Brian's and Melinda's good friend, says that what is shown in the movie is an accurate portrayal of what happened.  Debbie KL says that what is shown in the movie is an accurate portrayal.  Brian and Melinda Wilson, who were in the middle of all this crap, say that what is shown in the movie is an accurate portrayal of what happened.

Mike Love, who has admittedly not seen the movie, and who also was not around Brian during Landy's reign, while answering an interview question regarding the movie, says that Melinda saving Brain from Doctor Landy is one of the film's worst inaccuracies.  

Right?  

Sounds to me like Mike is calling Brian and Melinda liars.

Lost Art - Right down to the jumping off the boat, (one of the coolest scenes) I believe the movie is accurate.  I have zero reason to believe otherwise.

That said, what we don't know is not unimportant.  In some BB related book, I have read that BRI was covering the cost of treatment.  Someone will correct me if that is incorrect.  When you pay for what you believe in good faith is appropriate, you have every right (standing) to inquire into those matters. 

That may be one point where the court wrestled with the treatment (maybe the matter of not inquiring into the prescribing doc) and the unethical business interference. It also appears that there was some settlement to get rid of Landy who I think should have gone to jail, along with his co-conspirators.  Maybe that kind of public trial would have been too stressful all around so it was handled behind closed doors.

The movie did not cover in depth Murry getting away with selling the SOT catalog.  Other things were deemed to be more important and kept the movie going at a riveting pace. 

But it means that the legal Landy take-down must have been ugly.  I highly doubt that Landy went down with a whimper and had plenty of negative things to say about everyone involved.  The movie leaves that alone, while showing Landy's vitriol towards Melinda in the car dealership.  Think he behaved like that when around the band or in public?  I don't think so.

Mike, while on tour, during those years absolutely did have the opportunity to witness Landy who was likely on his "best behavior." That is where the observation ended because of the way in which Landy micromanaged the situation. No one without Landy's permission, was allowed contact.

And there are Youtubes around where Landy can be seen either on-stage or close by. 

It may be that there is plenty behind-the-door in that 19 months that is significant in a way that means there is also an equally important story which was court-sealed.   If I were paying for health care for a family member and found out there was fraud, medical malpractice, extreme manipulation, self-dealing, and who knows what else, there would be a big problem, as most people would react in the same way.  That part of the story, would be as the late Radio Hall of Famer, Paul Harvey would say, "And, Now, The Rest of the story."

It may sound like lying to you.  What it sounds to me is that there may be a part 2, that was also highly inflammatory and contentious, as it related to the family and the business, that the world has not heard and may not ever, hear because of the sealed case.  JMHO 

That comment suggests to me that there was more that happened, to completely get rid of Landy, in a legal context, by dissolving that fraud partnership, physically removing him, having him lose his credentials and many other factors.   

     

I am unconvinced, though, that this information works as a credible defense to the charge that Mike Love probably shouldn't condemn what happens in a movie without having actually seen it.

And furthermore, while I agree that there is much that we don't know and that that should be taken into account, I am ultimately doubtful that the things we don't know could prove it to be inaccurate that Melinda played a role in saving Brian from Landy.

No, it doesn't sound like lying to me.  It sounds like Mike is calling Brian and Melinda liars by saying that what is depicted in the film, that is, Gloria and Melinda getting the ball rolling to get the family to take action, is the worst inaccuracy of the film.  Mike wasn't asked about the court case, he was asked about the movie.  What is shown in the movie is accurate, and Mike says that it is not. 

Unless this "19 months" during which the court proceedings ran their course, they created a time machine at some point and jumped into it, kept Melinda from meeting Brian or contacting his family regarding Landy's abuse, then I don't see how any of the court proceedings would impact what had happened prior, e.g. Melinda playing a role in the saga.

Thus, the original point of contention and discussion, ignored by a few, stands. Which is that Mike is unfairly minimizing (and when I say minimizing, I mean obliterating) Melinda's role in the saga.

It comes across as just generic vitriol in my opinion, from someone who doesn't like a movie he hasn't seen, and who clearly has a truckload of disdain for Melinda. That's what was being discussed here. Frustratingly, I've even gone to some lengths to acknowledge that a thread lamenting yet another inflammatory Mike interview quote has become somewhat rhetorical in nature.

There are some, SOME, interviews with Mike where I think potentially inflammatory comments are open to some amount of interpretation. Obviously, anything is open to interpretation. But I've seen instances where it seems like maybe Mike was trying to make a specific point and it sort of came out poorly. But this recent interview where Melinda is mentioned doesn't strike me as such a case. It's a guy who has contempt for the L&M film and Melinda in my opinion, and I think it's counterproductive in a thread specifically about said interview, to either ignore Mike's comments about Melinda or somehow try to imply an interpretation that ignores simple grammar and syntax. Claiming the interview misquoted Mike would be a stronger argument at this stage.

CSM - I like to think of Melinda's role in sort of a romantic context...that she went "undercover" (along with Gloria - Melinda - both - probably would have made good private investigators) for Brian.  Sort of a romantic heroine.  

But, I am looking at the comment in the context of what followed and, thinking there could very well be a p.s. to the story, and the 19 month court sessions window leads me to believe that there is an untold "sequel" to the events.  

And, I think that Melinda "started' it and the family "finished" it.  It is maybe like that omnipresent "Wanted" poster.   An eyewitness/es (Melinda and Gloria) alerts the authorities as to the actions of the criminal, and then the authorities (and the family) do the prosecution of the criminal.    

I am not convinced, despite what Mike said in interviews, that he has not seen the movie.  If he has not seen the movie, he should not be commenting on the movie.

I appreciate your point of view on Melinda but that's not what this conversation is about. You were not retorting to anybody's comments about your own personal point of view on Melinda's role, rather you were responding to comments that called into question Mike's claims about the accuracy of the film.

And as for the context of what followed, Mike was talking about the context of what happens in the film, not what followed. So while I understand that stuff happened that wasn't shown in the film, Mike is specifically talking about what we see in the movie and noting that what we see is inaccurate. He did not say that what we see in the movie is accurate in terms of what it portrays but isn't the full story. He says flat out that the film is inaccurate.

Again, I'm not sure how this works as a defense to the criticism that Mike shouldn't critique a film without having seen it. If anything, I think it bolsters that argument.

But this comes off as you wanting FDP to say that she commends and acknowledges Melinda's role, and therefore she should denounce Mike. Why the hell would you care? Can't she like/admire/respect Mike, and still acknowledge Melinda's role in getting Brian away from Landy? If Mike plays a certain 'word game' in interviews to get digs in at Melinda, well that makes him look like a douche in most people's eyes. BUT, FDP I think is sticking to the factual truth that Melinda could help get the ball to the goal line, but by law, a Family member had to put it across. So in the legal sense, Melinda wasn't the person to extricate Landy from Brian. Mike uses that 'legal' angle to take a swipe at the Movie.
Your question, I misread as being direct instead of rhetorical, as you quoted her, then simply replied with the question. Others (Smile Brian) may have misread this as well as they reponded (crickets) expecting FDP to respond.

People care because she entered into the discussion with a direct response to the remarks that Mike's criticisms of the film were off-base and shouldn't have been made without having seen it, thereby appearing as support for a comment that she also appears to not support with her own comments. This whole conversation is simply a matter of trying to comprehend this contradiction.

CSM - I entered the discussion with an unknown factor to add and not speculate about anything...The 19-month court sessions as a "sealed" case as reported in the LA Times.  I just didn't jump in with no facts. I backed-up what my impression was, with that time-line suggesting that there was a part 2 to the story. 

And as Juice Bronston used the analogy, "Melinda could help get the ball to the goal line, but by law, a Family member had to put it across."  Exactly my point.     

Getting the ball to the goal line is what is depicted in the movie. 

I would tend to disagree with the idea that what you've discussed was/is an "unknown factor", as if you have information about the case that nobody else does.

In any event, the issue isn't whether the information was/is "unknown", but rather whether it was/is germane to the discussion into which you entered. It was not. It may be germane to any number of other discussions, but not this one.

If someone wants to turn on blinders to Mike's inflammatory interview comment and instead discuss the known or unknown ins-and-outs of the Landy case, then there's always the option of starting another thread. But to cut into a conversation about the potential veracity of a Mike interview comment with a DIFFERENT topic ends up, well, off-topic! It also gives at least the appearance of an attempt to divert a thread's attention away from the topic at hand (Mike's lamentable comments).

Right.  And Mike said that that is one of the worst inaccuracies of the movie.

Tbh, when I read FdP's first post in this exchange, I was interested because it read to me like she was agreeing with and supporting Hey Jude's and Century Deprived's position.

Just to repeat the above point made by LostArt to some degree, while I certainly believe that the part 2 as you describe it is certainly relevant to the discussion of the whole saga, it is not particularly relevant to the elements of the interview under discussion. As was mentioned, yes, "getting the ball to the goal line is what is depicted in the movie" and Mike Love believes that that depiction of getting the ball to the goal line was an inaccurate one. The discussion was about how that point of view is unfair and is rendered even more unfair in light of the fact that Mike hasn't even seen the film. So, again, the "part 2" details are relevant but it is not a response to the conversation in this thread.

Go back to the original article and quotes in question:

Even so, he would have to live in a vacuum not to know how he was portrayed in the film. While the movie is admirable on many levels, Love says accuracy is not one of them. Indeed, “Love and Mercy” never was meant to be misconstrued as a documentary.

“It’s all Hollywood and made to be entertaining, not accurate,” Love said.

Asked for the film’s worst inaccuracies, Love responded, “That Melinda (played by Elizabeth Banks) saved Brian from Dr. Landy (played by Paul Giamatti). That was my brother (Stan Love) and Carl (Wilson) who stepped in. Landy was, in fact, over-reaching.”


So there is a challenge to this film's accuracy made via a public (or published) comment, putting aside for the purpose of discussion the fact that the person challenging said he had not seen the actual film. Although it has been answered already, let's ask again: What about the Landy era as shown in this film is inaccurate, and is anyone able to show specifically how or why something in the film was depicted inaccurately?

A "sealed file" is done generally under a court order.  And, maintained apart from public records which may be inspected during business hours.

Why would a fan have information from a sealed record? It is sealed to the public, which means the public has no access to the files.

And 19 months of court sessions is germane, in my opinion.

Maybe not for you.  ;)

I still want to know why in the world, in Love and Mercy, was Landy grilling one burger patty at a time.

You have three other people to feed.  Why not have at least four burgers on the grill?  

Or was this a part of his therapy to try to get Brian to control his urges to overeat?  

???

Germane to what?

The follow-up of closing out Landy and restoring the civil liberties (association rights, etc. ) that Landy apparently deprived Brian of, as well as the mistreatment, self-dealing, the will, etc.  

Absent the court sessions, Landy would still have been in the driver's seat. He had to be stripped officially of those powers.

It's very simple. One (FDP, or anyone for that matter) can't "thank god" for Melinda's actions, obviously be very much of the opinion that they played an important role in a matter... and then think it's fine for someone else (Mike) who has a known major grudge against Melinda (I challenge *anyone* to dispute this is the case) to eradicate that person from being deserving of any praise (certainly no thanking "god" for Melinda by Mike... or even Mike mentioning that Melinda performed one single praiseworthy action in the Landy saga).

It's bloody preposterous. This whole "19 months! 19 months!" crapola is a diversion. REGARDLESS of what happened during that 19 months... it's COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the discussion that Melinda did play a role. Period. Mike won't acknowledge it. That sucks. Nobody should say it doesn't suck for him to insinuate that, least of all a person who thanks "god" for Melinda's actions.

No more of this 19 months BS. It's not what we are talking about here.

The simple fact is that some posters cannot bring themselves to say anything bad about a band member, and also bizarrely can't even admit that's the case; it's the diversionary tactics (19 months! Let's chant it from the top of a hill! 19 months! If I keep saying it, people will forget about Melinda not getting any credit whatsoever from Mike!) that are so incredibly frustrating as well as patronizing, in insinuating that it's relevant to the discussion of the ONLY thing we are talking about: what Mike didn't say about Melinda.

FDP was so grateful that I defended Carl. Yeah, I defended Carl when he deserved defending, and I've also defended Mike when he deserved defending.  But when Mike essentially despises Melinda (I've heard multiple insiders say as much), there's no way in the world that this grudge is not going to influence his complete and utter diminishing of her role in the Landy saga. And that is simply not cool or defensible, no matter which way one slices it. It is unfortunate.

It very simply would have been preferable for Mike to have acknowledged Melinda had a role, even if he thinks the film is lopsided and that there's more to the story than what the film shows. I have NO problem with Mike or anyone saying that, and does anyone really think that would have been a *bad* thing for Mike to have said? This thread would be a helluva lot shorter! Isn't that what is desired? Less bickering and some compromise, even from the stubborn and bitter Mr. Love.

But yeah, that's a dream world. In Mike's world, Mike gets to complain about his credits until the end of time, but gets to also completely discredit Melinda's role ENTIRELY, and thinks that is an okay way to behave. It is hypocritical and ridiculous.

Mike almost seemed content that BW was in semi-retirement with Landy and only was pissed about the cost in dollars.

FDP wants to have it both ways, and it doesn't work.

It is not right for Mike to continually, over and over again, complain about being not credited on songs, and then to turn around give ZERO credit to Melinda for her undeniable role in a very important matter... a matter that's far more important in fact than any song. Brian's life.

CD - do you think a judge had a magic wand to hear all the issues surrounding the custody of Brian, Brains and Genius, the medication issues,  etc. to be done in one day?

You have no idea how anyone else feels except yourself unless you can project yourself into another human being.  And you are putting words in Mike's mouth.  The appears to be no room for the reality that the family had to jump in after the Landy will. That had to be defended by Landy's lawyers and argued against by Brian's.  

How many charges against Landy were there? I don't know.  The records are sealed. So, the work was hard on both sides. The pre-trial to get Brian out of Landy's clutches and the follow-up to disband the Landy Brains and Genius, restore Brian's wishes for his will, etc.

Reading "bitterness" into someone else's words is only opinion.  

And Smile Brian - there are both ways here. The before and after.  There are still two sides to one coin.

OK and while I agree that that information is relevant to that particular area of inquiry, but I don't think that that is what was being discussed but maybe I'm confused.

A large pizza and a Caesar salad is also germane, in my opinion. Not to this discussion, but to what I'd like to have for dinner.

Same with the court sessions. It's germane to whatever you're apparently thinking about. But it's not germane to a discussion about the veracity of a specific comment from Mike Love in an interview.

Seriously, if I read a Mike Love interview, and that randomly makes me think about something ELSE, then everything that then follows is not germane to the original discussion. A Coke sounds good to go along with the pizza. Is that germane now too?  

Wait a minute... you think Mike actually ISN'T bitter against Melinda? That's a laugh. I know you won't answer, so not sure why I even bother.

BOTTOM LINE: Melinda was NOT a non-issue in the Landy matter. She DID play A role, as you yourself have acknowledged. We are not talking about how much of a role. Just that she played A ROLE.

Mike did not give her ANY credit in the interview.

Period. The end.

Please for crying out loud, stop talking about the OTHER things in the Landy saga, which are not what this convo is about. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

After the connection was made, in th film, my next question (to myself) was what the follow-up was for Brian.  

So, I asked myself how it was handled, how did they get rid of Landy, strip his credentials, disgorge him of money he was not entitled to, etc.

The article describing the 19 month process that was sealed filled in the blanks.  

OK but it's a bit confusing when you give the initial information without the above context and as a reply to someone else's comments about another subject.

So, just so I'm clear, all of what you have written has to do with your personal reactions to the film and none what you have written has to do with the article and quotation under discussion? If I'm wrong, can you tell me how it relates?

CSM - I think the film is great.  But, I know there was a limit to what could be told in a timespan of a movie.  Their story has a many vantage points, from whoever has a relationship to the band members.

But, I guess I tend to take comments from whomever with a grain of salt, and know from experience with interviewers, that often, a quote is cropped to not include the full statement or put in a semantic of the writer's choosing.  

That burden of explaining a comment is on the speaker.  

 

How would anyone make that assessment about who might be bitter unless you had personal knowledge?  I won't answer because I can't answer.  It is rhetorical. 

And, I do not know what Melinda's role was after the call was made.  Maybe she was a witness? Absent a transcript of the proceedings, we don't know.  I would imagine if she was bringing the information to the family, that she witnessed that she would be a necessary witness and very helpful for the court to reverse it's orders.   

The other things in the Landy saga do matter. I have a CD that still has Landy's name in larger print font, than Brian Wilson.  It will always be a problem. 

So now it's actually really going to shift to arguing the possibility that Mike was misquoted or that his statement was taken out of context?

Mike actually did "explain" his comment about Melinda in the interview. He said that Melinda saved Brian was inaccurate, and went on to expand who he felt actually was responsible for saving Brian (Stan and Carl).

Again, Mike isn't the one who is being unclear. His comments, while unfortunate and lamentable, are crystal clear. Time and time again, when we discuss what Mike does or says, Mike at least if nothing else is often pretty clear and unequivocal about what he's saying or doing, however objectionable it might be. The problem is trying to defend his comments sometimes. When defending Mike requires literally ignoring what he actually said (usually the defense involves huge stretches to parse what he says, but because his comment about Melinda is so blunt and clear, it's kind of just being ignored here), I think that's when the discussion gets extra bogged down.

OK maybe I haven't fully seen everything in this thread but I feel as if this is the first time I'm seeing this argument from you in relation to discussion which is that you feel that Mike is being misquoted or that his quote is being manipulated in some way. If that's the case, I would have to ask what evidence do you have to support that assertion?

The discussion is circular without what we cannot know in a sealed court case.  Someone earlier mentioned the possiblilty of some kind of a misquote. It did not start with me.  

  

What does the font of Landy's name on a CD have to do with Mike's comments about Melinda? This keeps getting pulled farther and farther away from the topic at hand. Nobody here condones Landy's actions.

Seriously, I can start taking fortune cookie quotes and try to tie them into this discussion, too.

Also, I think people here are actually pretty good about using the correct verbiage and tone, which involves the OBVIOUS idea that when someone says Mike seems bitter in an interview, OF COURSE it's an opinion.

If interviewers and journalists and observers refrained from commenting on an interview subject's demeanor or attitude or apparent feelings unless they were able to literally probe into the subject's mind and extract their actual thoughts, then nobody would ever describe anything about anyone beyond their personal appearance and transcribing what they say.

CSM - earlier in the thread that suggestion came up but not from me.  

Mike's 2016 interview comments are not sealed in a 1990s court case. I'm pretty sure anyway.

Like I said, and here I'll quote myself, "this is the first time I'm seeing this argument from you." My question is, what evidence do you have to support that assertion?

Hey Jude - bottom line for me is that a journalist's job is to tell a course of events as a reporter would, without editorializing. That is for the editorial page.  

If you go back, you'll see that I threw the "misquote" idea out there ironically as essentially a hyperbolic example of what the next tact in defending Mike's comments would be.

I had no idea someone would actually invoke the "misquote/taken out of context" argument, which of course comically strains credulity.

Should I contact the author of the article?  That is where  the evidence might come. 

But the events that transpired at that time are; getting rid of Landy. 

Carl, Audree, Wendy and Carnie would likely have been in the position of advocating for Brian. 

So the only place a writer or journalist can speak IN ANY WAY to the frame of mind or outward apparent emotion or demeanor or attitude of a subject is in an actual editorial piece?

I guess every profile piece writer of all time was just told they've been doing it wrong.

So when a concert reviewer says the audience is enjoying the show, they should leave that part out and publish their clearly SUBJECTIVE characterization of the audience in a separate editorial piece?

How is the issue of bias handled?

A reporter's job is to get the story. 

So the events that transpired in the court case at the time the court case occurred are part of the court case? I had no idea; thanks for clearing that up.  :3d

The topic at hand is Mike's 2016 interview comments. Please for everybody's sake just say you don't want to discuss Mike's interview and then you can move on and start a separate thread to ruminate on aspects of the Landy case that nobody disagrees with.

Again... was Melinda a non-issue in the entirety of the Landy extraction saga? Did she not make the call that you thanked "god" for doing? She either played a role (either small, big, or somewhere in between), or she played NO role. You don't go thanking "god" for someone who you feel needs zero thanks for, right?

You thanked "god" for Melinda for a reason.

Obviously, you feel that REGARDLESS OF THE OTHER STUFF YOU KEEP DISTRACTEDLY TALKING ABOUT, that Melinda was in fact a PART of the process?

Yes?

Where does Mike state Melinda was even a teeeny tiny part of the process in his interview???

I'm waiting.

Does he say she played a role? A small role? Any role whatsoever?

Stop talking about the other non-Melinda stuff - it's NOT what I'm asking you. Please. Please.
 

So you do believe that every concert review that characterizes any emotion or feeling of any other audience member or person on stage is inappropriate and should be sent over to the "Editorial" department? And for that matter, any piece of writing that doesn't factually simply state events that have occurred and transcribe words should also be sent to the "Editorial" department?

What are you even talking about?

I dunno man, you say, it's very simple, FDP can't thank God for Melinda's part and then not criticize Mike for his statements in an interview. She can't? Accoring to who? You?

Don't get me wrong, I see clearly what Mike is trying to do in this interview. Maybe he does have a grudge against Ol' Mel. But you are hammering away on FDP for 'defending' Mike. What she keeps coming back to, and what you keep not wanting to hear, re:19 Months, is that Mike has chosen his words carefully in the interview,. He can fan the flames by stating what is, from what I understand, factual: Family had to be responsible for the legal removal of Landy from Brians life. So all of Melinda et al efforts, neded a family member to officially get Landy removed. So Mike can use that as 'ammo' for lack of a better word to say something on the record, that while factual, doesnt tell the whole story.  Maybe Mike feels that is what L&M was doing on the other side of the argument.
FDP doesnt have to make a statement bashing The Lovester. She's correct in that she doesnt know what he's thinking or why he says what he says. Her angle seems to be a) Melinda was a saviour to Brian and b) The actual legal removal came after Melinda took some action, and some of those facts may not have come to light(?)
The thread doesnt have to be all anti-Mike, although, most people are gonna have that take. Personally, I wonder why the hell Mike would go down that path, even if baited by a reporter. But on several occasions I have had an opportunity to spend time with Mike, and he has always extended extreme courtesy to me, and I have seen first hand Mike go out of his way for fans. So when I contrast this to what I like to call, 'Media Mike', who more often than not comes off looking terrible, hell I get confused about the guy.

What would be the first order of business?  Restoring Brian's personal freedom as an American.  

The comment was about the film.  The window of time was exactly what lead up to the lawsuit that was not tried in the public eye.  Those comments referred to exactly that window of time.  

And if you go back to the first page, there were some pretty rude comments.  

FDP, what is the line you stop defending Mike? Making videos for ISIS????

No, unless you want to adopt a standard where every author of every piece of writing ever should be contacted except in the case where the author is dead at which point we would have to discount everything and anything in the text on the basis that the information in it could be wrong.

As it stands right now, there is no evidence to support your speculation.

Now THAT I agree with. Mike is a lot more interesting than most Brian interviews these days.

Smile Brian - pardon me for looking at other possiblities for the unknowns.  

That is a pretty outrageous statement.    

Some of what you're saying sounds totally plausible. But it's not what FDP is arguing. At all.

You're characterizing Mike's interview in a much more plausible fashion; that he has an agenda (perhaps a grudge), and is arguing something (Melinda didn't save Brian) that, by some unspoken definition, can be construed as technically accurate. (Depends on his definition of the word "save").

Again, none of this is anything like what FDP is saying. She is ignoring Mike's interview, and recounting details of the court case in a non-sequitur fashion; details nobody disagrees with largely. There's no acknowledgement that Mike ever, EVER come across looking "terrible" in interviews. No acknowledgment of even the possibility that Mike could harbor a grudge against Melinda.

Again, it's sometimes a rather rhetorical atmosphere of "Mike gave another a**hole interview." I've acknowledged that numerous times. One can agree or disagree with that. But the timeline of the Landy case isn't germane to whether people think Mike comes across like an a**hole in an interview.

The support is the LA Times article from December of 1991. 

Delete

I'm referring to your speculation that Mike Love is misquoted in the interview. An article from 1991 does not and could not support that speculation.

The 1991 LA Times article predicted whether a 2016 Mike interview would be misquoted?

That IS impressive.

It did! :lol

from LA Times November, 20, 1991.  "Rescheduled: A trial to determine who would oversee Beach Boy Brian Wilson's affairs was rescheduled Monday in Santa Monica to Dec. 5 by Superior Court Judge Hiroshi Fujisaki.  The suit, which asks that an independednt conservator be appointed over the singer-songwriter's affairs, stem from a claim filed by members of his family alleging that Wilson has been brainwashed by his therapist, Eugene Landy."

The movie and the commentary refers to that era. Retrospectively, not prospectively.

Yes, Mike does not state the whole story in his interview. He omits Melinda's role in the process. Just because he seems to think the film was itself guilty of omission, he seems to use the same omission tactic (which he thinks is so horrible) in trying to play up other peoples' roles in the process.

Do two wrongs make a right? If Mike gets to be critical of the film omitting certain other angles, so should we be critical of Mike for not only omitting mentioning Melinda's role, but for taking the ADDITIONAL step of categorically implying she DIDN'T have any role in the process. That's next level sh*t. It's worse than any "sins" committed by the film. Omitting an angle is one thing, but there's no scene in the film where John Cusack as Brian specifically dismisses everyone else except Melinda from having played any role.

Believe me... if the film made a statement where everyone else's roles were specifically and deliberately negated, I'd be just as critical of the filmmakers as I am of Mike right now.
 
If someone wants to thank god for Melinda's role, and say that Mike not mentioning Melinda is hunky dory... there's at the very least a difference of opinion that exists between that god-thanking person and what Mike puts out there for public consumption. Wishing to not criticize is one thing - it's quite another to be an ostrich and deny that this difference of opinion exists.

As I said before... how does one reconcile the fact that the guy who is endlessly outraged by his being omitted from songwriting credits... is the same guy who - in the very same month that he publicly gripes about his lack of credits to Rolling Stone, hoping that readers would share his outrage that anyone in Beach Boys land would not get proper credit for what they contributed to - is the same guy who shortly thereafter then goes to another magazine, and omits Melinda's role completely from the Landy extraction process?

How does that work? A reader of both articles is supposed to have selective amnesia about the idea of credit deprivation outrage that they were just educated about by Mike in Rolling Stone? I'd love to hear someone explain that away.

I have to agree with Juice on this.  It's a fact that Mike has a grudge against Melinda.  It also appears to be a fact that he hasn't seen the movie (by his own admission).  He obviously has been told some things about it though in order to make a comment about how it portrays Melinda in regards to the Landy situation.  Mike obviously feels that family are the ones who saved Brian from Landy and not Melinda.  So if someone said to Mike, "Hey Mike, you won't believe it but the movie makes Melinda out to be the hero in getting Brian out of Landy's clutches," then that is going to anger Mike on two fronts- it downplays the roles of the people he feels are actually the heroes and it builds up someone who he doesn't like.  It's not good that he is commenting on a movie he hasn't seen but I can certainly see why he would say what he said.

Yes, of course I can understand the logic that you've just described. It's not hard to connect the dots of the likely reasons why Mike said what he said.  

It still doesn't make it right for Melinda's role to be outright disregarded by Mike, any more than Melinda (who I'm sure hates Mike as much as he hates her) would be in the right to specifically deny Mike ever wrote a single song with Brian. Virtually everyone with a brain across the BB political spectrum would be just as critical of Melinda if she were to say such a fallacy.

Nothing... not Mike believing that other people need credit for the Landy saga too, not Mike having a grudge against Melinda... legitimizes his specifically negating Melinda's role in the saga. Mike didn't just mention other people - he specifically eradicated any notion of Melinda playing a role. That is the problem.

Melinda's partial role is still a role.

Brian wasn't right to not settle with Mike over the songwriting lawsuit, and Mike's not right in this matter either. It goes both ways. If someone's salivating looking for Brian criticism... there it is. Why is anyone afraid to call it when someone in the band acts in a regrettable manner? What's so damn hard about it? Why is it like pulling teeth?

Even if Mike was told things about the film which are less than correct, it doesn't excuse Mike not checking it out for himself before making such comments in interviews. Were I in that situation it would make me more determined to see the film, not less so.  As I understand it, Melinda's role is undeniable. She wasn't the sole hero: Gloria helped and without the family, Melinda would have been powerless. And there were others, I believe, who wanted anonymity. The film did not try to pretend that Melinda was the only person who helped Brian. We must also remember that Love and Mercy was partly the story of Brian and Melinda's relationship and so was bound to focus on their characters in the later part of the story.

The other irony here is that if the reporter said FDP's comments "Thank god for Melinda's actions" to Mike after Mike's comments in the interview, Mike would have probably either laughed in their face, or things would have gotten awkward and interview ended right there.

Or if FDP's words were placed in the comments section of the article itself, Mike's team reading those comments would think those words of FDP were just another argumentative example of "Wilson-based negativity".

 

CD-the suggestion of a misquote was earlier in the thread. Apparently you reject the concept that "it took a village" to completely extricate Brian from Landy.  It was a village, including inside and outside family members.  And a great deal of time. 

Where the flip do you get the idea that I reject the concept that  "it took a village"?

I don't reject that notion, nor do any of my posts remotely suggest that I reject that notion.

I've CONSISTENTLY said the opposite... that it's fair for people, including Mike, to feel that there are additionally angles (and other people) who are part of the story, as long as Melinda's role isn't completely negated in the process. Those angles can't in good conscience come at the expense of Melinda, where she receives ZERO credit.

THIS IS WHAT YOU KEEP NOT ADDRESSING ------> The simple fact is that Melinda is PART of that village of folks, according to you, according to me, yet NOT according to Mike's comments. <------- THIS IS WHAT YOU KEEP NOT ADDRESSING

Okay, I'm confused about how we got to this point.  Now we're speculating as to why Mike, who says he hasn't seen the film, says it's inaccurate in saying that Melinda saved Brian, but that it was Carl and Stan (and Stan's efforts went nowhere, so that's odd in itself), and how he might be justified in this?  

I can't imagine how anyone knowing the situation could honestly dispute Melinda's extensive efforts in getting the attention of the people who could take legal action to get Brian away from Landy (the family), then providing the material that would get them to act.  Since Melinda provided the impetus to get this action to happen, it's ridiculous to deny her role.   And yet this was clearly done in that Lubbock interview.

I honestly don't care how long the legal action took.  Clearly the attorneys were handling that with input and approval from Brian's family.  I'm not dismissing the family's role in this part of the equation by any means - I'm thrilled that they finally chose to act and I'm certain that it probably wasn't cheap.  But then, it was the family who hired Landy, so there's some responsibility there.  There's no indication that the family would have done anything until it was too late without Melinda.  To deny that Melinda had the key role saving Brian, much less denying her any role at all, is pretty indefensible.

As far as dear Filledeplage's comments, I really don't have a problem with her unwillingness to say anything negative about certain members of the Beach Boys.  That's her choice.  I only have a problem with the derailing arguments that totally deny the facts at hand and seem to be so often contradictory in nature.  We aren't supposed to speculate, yet the whole argument being offered seems to be that a legal action took 19 months - a legal action we know nothing about - and we're supposed to speculate how that would cause Mike to entirely dismiss Melinda's role in getting Brian away from Landy.

There are people I prefer not to publicly criticize (but I will if it gets to that point), but I can handle that easily by simply not commenting when they've made a pretty horrendous public blunder.  There's no need to create these sidetracks that have little or nothing to do with the discussion about that public blunder to attempt to deflect criticism.  It's bound to annoy serious posters.  I guess the interesting thing about this tack is that it probably keeps a thread going that the blundering public figure would rather have disappear.  There's a bit of irony there, I think.  

Is Stan Love ever mentioned in Love & Mercy?  I've only seen it once and don't remember it.

I think that is irrelevant. The point is very simple. Mike should not have responded to the question about the film's inaccuracies with this answer:  “That Melinda (played by Elizabeth Banks) saved Brian from Dr. Landy (played by Paul Giamatti). That was my brother (Stan Love) and Carl (Wilson) who stepped in."

The reasons his answer is unacceptable are that Mike allegedly hadn't seen the film and that the film didn't deny others were involved but Mike is giving the impression that Melinda wasn't one of those who saved Brian which seems to be completely untrue.

+1

It's not the filmmakers' obligation to include every single person who was part of the story.

There's not enough space in a narrative film format for that.

The film, however, DOES have an obligation to NOT make a statement where a character says to the camera "Stan Love had no part whatsoever in Brian's extraction from Landy".

And guess what? The film never did that.

Yet Mike did exactly the inverse of that in the interview when it came to Melinda. He didn't just talk about what Stan did... he prefaced that by NEGATING 100% of what Melinda did. THAT very specifically is the heart of why it's an inexcusable thing for Mike to have said or to have implied.

Clearly it is a rejection of the concept of "before and after."  And that the litigation which was not public which involved a  whole group of family and others is irrelevant.  

You have clearly rejected the protracted court sessions, disregarding the time involved, and ridiculed that concept.  

Did I say that Melinda was not an integral part? No I didn't.

Do not put words in my mouth or ascribe an inference that calls for pure speculation.  

I don't believe he was mentioned.  I did reference this in my previous post.  Stan's suit went nowhere, so why would it be included in a film that wasn't about him and did address the suit that actually freed Brian?  Given time restraints and the flow of the film, I can't imagine why it would be necessary to mention.

No, and you must not be reading my posts, FDP. I never, ever said that you said Melinda was not an integral part.

I keep pointing out that you said that Melinda WAS an integral part.

I also keep pointing out how Mike completely, 100% OMITS Melinda's part.  

What is unclear in this?  

So, your answer is no, Stan's role in saving Brian from Landy wasn't mentioned in the film?  Anybody else remember Stan being mentioned in the film?

Do you want to actually address the points I just made?

Stan wasn't mentioned in the film. So what? What's the point you're trying to make?

Debbie KL - the suit that resulted from Melinda's intervention and was reported on periodically in the LATimes, at least provides a timeline that is useful, as to the framework of the legal action. It is impossible, in my view to separate the two.  

The ultimate goal was to get into court to get Landy out of Brian's life. How is that timeline a distractor?  It went to the heart of the matter.  Only the court had the power to change the status quo.  

How that is marginalized in the discussion is beyond me.  It was the essence of the intervention.

The suit was necessary, yes, as I indicated.  It still doesn't address why Mr. Love totally dismisses Melinda as the impetus of the entire suit. (editing typo)

Perhaps Mike is looking at "the village," and the "collective action" both pre and post intervention.  I'd say that window of time, suggests that it was contentious and not a cut-and-dry routine matter.  The timeline suggests the complexity of the issues.

The whole group may have made a very regrettable mistake in rehiring Landy but after losing Dennis who slipped through the cracks, it may have been more desperate than anything else. And Landy was the "devil they knew."

But, you do understand my absolute reluctance to be critical of those whose music has been such a universal gift.  They get the benefit of the doubt.

If I had to gamble my house on whether Mike has seen this film or not. I would choose to bet that he has.

So how is he justified in excluding Melinda from the "Village" when she got the whole suit rolling?

He's not because he's talking about what's represented in the film as being inaccurate.

You would need to ask him.  But he may have been suggesting that there was a whole "village."

And a whole part 2 that is not on peoples' radars...

The articles tell me that the legal action was part 2.

This online PR managing for Mike is a fools errand....

Yes, rather unlikely that Mike has not seen L&M. But it's quite common for public figures to claim that they haven't seen a movie, read a book, listened to an album, etc, in order to avoid answering questions concerning their thoughts about said project, although in this case for some reason Mike felt compelled to make a comment about the film.

If there's one good thing that maybe, just maybe, could come about from this... it's that maybe word gets back to Mike that COMPLETELY dismissing Melinda is a no-no.

I noticed in this interview that Mike backtracked on his own previous wishy-washy "probably" notion that he not too long ago was spouting (regarding if Landy went too far)... in this interview, Mike says "Landy was, in fact, over-reaching.”

Nice to know that Mike finally considers it overreaching that Landy tried to reap huge rewards from Brian's will, and that he caused irreparable cognitive issues with Brian. Mike previously got a TON of blowback online for his "probably" comments. Coincidence?

Since Mike's preposterous "probably" has evolved to "in fact"... that's a GOOD thing, of course, that Mike's softer stance on Landy of just months earlier has hardened. Perhaps this is just a matter of chance, but if he says stuff that gets LOTS of blowback online (ie. more than just the usual blowback which is the norm), perhaps an alert goes off which encourages him to backtrack just a bit in a subsequent interview. Maybe he's even got an iPhone app for it.

I predict that in a future interview, Mike might just grit his teeth and allow for Melinda's role to be acknowledged (which will of course be followed by oodles of minimization), but that'll be better relatively speaking than him shutting her out completely.

Negating Melinda's role to null will never, ever be considered acceptable, and the amount of crap he's gonna get for denying Melinda gets ANY credit may not eventually compute as worth it to him, ESPECIALLY when he's trying to garner renewed public sympathy for him not being credited. It's yutz city.

Mike's mention of Carl and Stan isn't even germane to the original issue and point of contention for some readers of the article. So it's just another diversion to start incredulously asking "Was Stan mentioned in the film?" It truly doesn't matter. Neither the film nor Mike mentioned EVERY person who played a role, nor should anyone expect either to do so. It's a long list, and I've never seen ANYBODY on those lists try to take ALL of the credit.

The point of contention was the simple, SPECIFIC mention of Melinda saving Brian as being inaccurate.

The point here is not any person or detail that was omitted, but rather that Mike singles out a specific person and, to my interpretation, implies they DID NOT play a role. It shows, to me, a specific modus operandi of singling one person out and diminishing them and their role out of spite.

That all of this was done in the course of a discussion about a film that Mike claims not to have seen only makes the whole thing more ridiculous.

The Stan Love issue is an interesting, though unrelated sidebar. How much DID he really help? Can anybody provide contemporary reports of anyone else in the family or the Beach Boys standing beside Stan during his press conference and supporting Stan? Was it Stan's petition that, functionally, led to freeing Brian? Or was his dropped in favor or someone else's? I know a bunch of this is covered in various books (White, Carlin, etc.). The impression I always got was that Stan was seen by all sides as kind of a weird interloper in the whole situation. Perhaps his high profile press conference (subsequently made more high profile when Brian awkwardly showed up, gave a stilted speech, and was then aggressively served with court papers on camera, etc.) helped shine a light on the whole thing. But is anyone prepared to say that Stan either passively or directly helped Brian MORE than Melinda?

Definitely wish Ray Lawlor could sign on and shine more light on the implications of Mike's comments about Melinda.

To summarize for all you late to the scene, No Melinda= No intervention.
 After that fact is absorbed the enormity of her involvement should be understood.

Mike seems quite happy to go negative about the L&M film. I think this dismissive comment about Melinda is where two different things he seems to have a grudge about have come together: The film and Melinda.

Back in June, 2015, he again seemed, to me, so anxious to invalidate the L&M film (despite professing to not having seen it) that he had this now infamous exchange:

Q: I also read that Dr. Landy is portrayed as a pretty villainous character. Do you have a comment on that portrayal?

A: The interesting thing to read is on Evan Landy. He is Landy’s son and spent years with Brian in a very intimate way. He has a whole different perspective of Landy and his motivation. Was he [Dr. Landy] overreaching? Probably. Did he cost a lot of money? Hell yeah. Did he want to be producer and the writer and stuff with Brian? Yes, he did. Did he go beyond the bounds of therapy? Probably. But, guess what? He also saved his life. So to read Evan Landy’s dissertation on it is very, very interesting because you get an intimate look at someone who was with Brian everyday for a few years. So it’s a whole different story that came out on Love and Mercy.

There are also a number of, of course, very circumstantial, open-to-interpretation indications that Mike isn't a fan of Melinda. Indeed, he named Melinda specifically (not just Brian and other companies, but also Melinda personally) in his 2005 lawsuit. I'll let the 2010 appeals court characterize the outcome of Mike's action against Melinda:

The court dismissed Melinda Wilson from the suit
with prejudice, as Love had not been given permission to add
her as a defendant, and because the complaint alleged no facts
that would support keeping her in the lawsuit.

There are also interview quotes going back over a decade of Mike portraying people "around" Brian in a negative fashion.

So again, Mike's comments combine apparent, in my opinion, disdain for the film and Melinda into a stew of, well, whatever you want to call that interview comment. I'm surprised he didn't work the songwriting lawsuit into the answer too.

Well said.

Just because I'm a fool I'm going to try this.
Asked for the film’s worst inaccuracies, Love responded, “That Melinda (played by Elizabeth Banks) saved Brian from Dr. Landy (played by Paul Giamatti). That was my brother (Stan Love) and Carl (Wilson) who stepped in. Landy was, in fact, over-reaching.
FdP, to me, and I think to several others on this thread, this sounds like (due to the wording "That was my brother... Who stepped in") Mike is saying that Melinda did NOT step in; others did. To me, your interpretation would require words like "and". Such as "That Melinda alone saved Brian. It was Melinda AND my brother..." Or, for your timeline, "It was Melinda THEN my brother..."
Though actually Stan did not play a part. His suit turned out to be an irrelevant sideshow.
So it sounds like he's saying Melinda played no part.

It is impossible to read the article, and to walk away thinking that Mike wants people to give Melinda a single morsel of credit whatsoever.   I think that ultimately, rage is clouding his judgment.  It happens. Rage clouded Murry's judgment. Rage probably clouded Brian's judgment when he punched Mike.  And of course there would be many examples for Dennis as well. The guys are human, and they are not immune to doing and saying very stupid things.

I truly believe Mike deeply wants to say a gigantic f-you to her, and he probably really wishes he could say those exact words publicly, without getting crucified for it. 

But because he can't actually publicly say that, we instead get interviews like this.

Apart from the grandstanding and making press appearances, can anyone explain exactly what Stan Love did? If he was not next of kin for Brian, what could he even do under the law?

I think if you ask around the answer may come.

Good question, and in the years between his term as Brian's bodyguard and the press conference, did he have any involvement with the band, or Brian?

It's sort of been revealed in the Rocky thread that the Steve/Stan/Rocky team splintered at one point. Did that mean Steve and Rock were out, while Stan stayed in the circle somehow?

I thought it was explained fairly thoroughly in Peter Carlin's book that Stan got involved because Audree called him. She was depressed over not having access to Brian.

I also seem to recall reading somewhere that Carl took over Stan's suit cause he didn't want Stan to be Brian's conservator.

That seemed pretty clear to me, as well.  Why do I have a feeling that you'll get the same response as the one I received above?  I personally don't feel the need to give Mike a call to clarify his statement (like I could).  It seemed pretty obvious to me, and apparently the majority of the people here, what he was saying.

Stan says in Timothy White's book that he filed after two former Landy employees came to him with info that Landy was added to Brian's will.  Something like that.

Stan's suit was filed May 7, 1990.

http://articles.latimes.com/1990-05-08/local/me-105_1_brian-wilson (http://articles.latimes.com/1990-05-08/local/me-105_1_brian-wilson)

The suit that was settled by the family was also filed on May 7, 1990.

http://articles.latimes.com/1991-12-06/local/me-478_1_beach-boy-wilson (http://articles.latimes.com/1991-12-06/local/me-478_1_beach-boy-wilson)

Cam - thanks for this.  Stan did have a role in this debacle.  And, at the time, according to the article, Audree, was quoted in full support of this action.  

"Wilson's mother, Audree Wilson, said she supported the actions by Love and called Landy, 'the worst news that ever happened' to her son. I think he's pretty well brainwashed Brian,' Audree said in a telephone interview. He manipulates him, that's all I know.  He just hasn't been a free guy.'

Although she regularly receives phone calls from her son, she has given up trying to contact Brian on her own, she said. 'If he calls you, that's great,' she said. 'But...you can't get through to him.  If you call his home, you get the answering machine. To get through to him you have to go through the office--and you're put on hold.  It's just a crock.  I won't be so insulted.  That's my son.'"

Wendy and Carnie were touring in Europe at the time, as well as The Beach Boys also on tour. That helps explain why Stan went into court.  

It shows the utter cruelty of Landy as against Brian's own mother who had not long before already lost Dennis.  

The article also described how Landy had already lost his license for "misconduct" of a sort with a patient.

Thanks again for those links.  ;)  

I'm going to try to dig in to some other sources on the book shelf regarding Stan's part in the Landy situation. I don't think a ton has ever been written about it, but as I said before, the band, which included two family members, were strangely silent as Stan launched his PR campaign. It always struck me as something that needed to be done, with likely some amount of true caring for Brian, but also with at least the appearance of a very opportunistic slant.

Was the band, especially the family members within the band (e.g. Carl and Mike) behind Stan? Were they trying to let someone outside of the band "get their hands dirty" to not make the entire debacle an even bigger PR nightmare for the band and the "brand"?

In any event, Mike raising Stan's name while downplaying Melinda's role is still ridiculous. It appears that Stan may have been another "getting the ball rolling" player in the saga, as too was Melinda.

Hey Jude - next to my late mother, I was closest to my aunts.  Audree was Stan's aunt.  If you think of any family structure, an aunt, enjoys a very high status.  If my aunts had requested my help on anything,  especially helping one of her children, and whether that meant risking anyone's wrath, it would be a done deal. No questions asked.  She was a family elder and her requests would be dutifully honored.  

Stan stood in the shoes of Audree, (and perhaps Carl) who, it is alluded to in the film got the contact information surreptitiously because Brian used Melinda's phone.  Melinda's phone bill was well out of Landy's reach, and beyond his micromanaging control.

In those days, (now online) you got a copy of every single incoming and outgoing cell phone call made on that particular phone line and it was the equivalent of what the FBI wants with the apple company to crack the phone codes.  At any rate, in the late 1980's that was the way to get a phone number (phones, at least the one I had only stored about 10 numbers.)

So, if you go back (as you alluded to) the contentious locked thread from June of 2015, Autotune's quote (# 199) a quote from Brian, from People magazine..."The fact that my mother is involved against me in this conservatorship suit really scrambles my brain...I hate to say this, but I don't think she loves me." And does he love  her? "Somewhat," he (Brian) replies."

Knowing how mothers are - they don't have to be the "friends" or "pals" of their children, because she is the "mother" - period, and end of story.  Audree held her nose and did "what she had to do" because she knew her kid was not free to live as he should have been.  And she likely endured slanderous comments from that predator.  

And, at that time, Melinda's status was as a friend/girlfriend, and relatively powerless except as a whistleblower who was trying to work under-the-radar. It does not detract from her role.  But it better explains the actions that the family took and the time-line in the court case.

And, yes it took "a village" to rescue Brian.  

Stan, as I look at when he acted (when Carl and Wendy/Carnie) were on tour, stepped-into-their-shoes, as a surrogate for Carl, and Audree was courageous but just acting like any other lioness mother, as to her son.  

If Brian was mad, Audree didn't care, because her kid was in danger, and she was going to help fix Landy's wagon.  Who else was around to go into court in Audree's behalf?  (And likely, at the behest of Melinda having the phone number on her phone and more importantly on her cell phone bill as evidence of the all-important electronic communication. )

The LA Times article and and People magazine quote indicate the contentiousness of the court case.

I think the mere fact the BBs kept touring instead of helping free BW from Landy is the problem in a nutshell. They didn't seem to care enough to help BW in the first place (hence Landy in the first place).

Part of their touring money went for his treatment.  

Landy was keeping Brian from writing with the band and only working for Brains and Genius.  

And, Brian was on the road with The Beach Boys, from time to time.  

Much of that info is contained in those articles including the dissolution of Brains and Genius.

So was Audree wrong going after Landy in behalf of Brian, risking his wrath, and having her nephew help because Carl was on the road?  

http://articles.latimes.com/1991-10-13/entertainment/ca-1172_1_brian-wilson

Landy's accounting...

I think Carl's action or inaction is not a simple, clear cut issue.

Carl may not have needed any "excuse" for not taking a more active role; he may have been taking the appropriate role to help Brian.

But either way, Carl being "on the road" sounds like a really lame excuse. Any member of the band could have missed a few gigs, or the band could have rescheduled a few gigs if time off was needed to attend to whatever legal matters. They had phones and teams of lawyers and managers and agents that could have facilitated whatever needed to be done.

Carl, Al, and Mike all individually missed short strings of shows in 1990 for (presumably) other unrelated reasons. In other words, the show always went on even with a BB missing. So I don't think it was touring that dictated Carl not be more hands-on. As I said, maybe he was doing more behind the scenes and strategically decided to support doing it the way it was done. That's all fine.

I don't think anyone needs a lame "they were busy on tour" excuse, whether an excuse is needed or not.

Wow!  Carl was at fault?

OMG.

I think Carl was the MD at the time, IIRC.  

Of course they had phones and lawyers.  Audree just took the bull-by-the-horns, mama-style.  

Mothers don't wait for anything or anyone, if they have any indication that their kid is in danger.  

Neither Audree nor Wendy/Carnie were allegedly able to spend more than five hours with Brian in five years.  Audree, as the mother, did not need to justify to anyone, either her motivation or her actions.

Stan had been a manager for the band, but  whether he ultimately prevailed on the conservatorship or not, is irrelevant, because it ultimately opened the door for further scrutiny of Landy. The goal was to remove Landy from Brian and that happened.    

The court fashioned it's own plan to allow an independent conservator to become appointed. And Brian agreed to the appointment which had "specific and limited powers over the artist's affairs" (Santa Monica Superior Court) as reported on December 6, 1991 in the LA Times.      

Hasn't Melinda said she left or was shut out or something after Landy lost his license (1989) but Landy was still with Brian? Apparently still was until the family suit Stan filed in May 1990 was settled at the end of 1991.

FDP, what, in your estimation, WOULD be an example of someone detracting from Melinda's role?

If someone, either a person on this board or a person in an interview, actually WANTED Melinda's role to be completely disregarded, what would be a statement that they could conceivably make that would draw your ire, and make you think "that's just not right"?

You're clearly capable of outrage, such as your outrage at HeyJude due to your misreading his statement and thinking that he was blaming Carl. That set off the alarm bells in your head. Could someone, anyone, say something that would detract from Melinda's role which could lead to you expressing similar outrage?
 
Or are inaccuracies about Carl (spoken by people on this board) the only thing that sets you off?

"OMG" do you actually read posts before you respond to them?

I went to EXTREME lengths to make it VERY clear that I was not even prepared to judge Carl's action or inaction.

What I said is that "he was too busy on tour" is a LAME excuse, whether it's a hypothetical excuse or a real one.

It's a LAME excuse whether you're making it or Carl made it. Not coincidentally, there's no evidence Carl did or would ever make such a lame excuse.

Carl being the musical director is also a lame excuse; he had missed shows in 1990.

And again, there may be no need for anyone to make any excuses for Carl. Which is why making super-lame excuses for some hypothetical scenario where someone might criticize or just questions Carl's involvement is just silly and reeks of being hyper defensive.

Shall we make excuses for everybody just in case someone questions their involvement? Al was too busy tending to horses. Bruce was busy at Old Navy buying shorts. Van Dyke Parks was trimming his moustache.

Go back and watch the Dateline piece done on Brian and Landy. Melinda was the "Landy employee" interviewed anonymously. Different people were probably doing things independently of each other, but to deny Melinda her role is just incredibly pissy.

Cam - I think I read that but don't know whether it goes along time-wise with Landy losing his license.  

In 1989 he admitted to a single charge of unlawfully prescribing drugs and surrendered his license to practice psychology in CA for 2 years. That was from Landy's obituary.  Some other article had another charge.  

But at that time, most of the portable phones were the kind you could install in a car, or carry around in a big bag, and were pretty expensive, around $800 to 1,000.  And you'd get a bill with incoming and outgoing calls.

So, Melinda's phone looks like the lifeline for the pertinent info to get the ball rolling.  

And there is the rub. There's just flabbergasted outrage at things people say on this board, but nothing about Mike's own words.

If Mike's interview had never happened and someone ELSE on this board said the EXACT words Mike did about Melinda, there would be no excuses and parsing of words going on. 

Well there you have it. THAT'S what Mike meant. Melinda doesn't get the credit, Melinda's PHONE does.

I'm typing up an email right now to Bill Pohlad asking why this phone was not appropriately depicted in the movie. Credit where credit's due folks.

Hey Jude - I did not read it that way. It looked as though it has a "blaming tone" - when I read it.  Why would his name be placed in contention for blame?  There was an element of speculation. You mentioned his name 5 times. "He may have been taking an appropriate role to help Brian."  The word "may" suggests the possibility that he was not.  

Because Brian was not married at that time, to look for his next of kin would have put his mother and children at the center of those who had the strongest capability to step up.  It was Audree's absolute right.

And if the band was on tour, their commitments were serious ones. It is not like calling for a substitute teacher.  Carl's voice was irreplaceable. As it remains.

Excuse me. The interviews I have seen, IIRC related that Melinda had the family phone numbers because Brian used her phone to speak to his family without Landy's prying eyes.  Landy had cut his family off as was in the court allegations reported in the LATimes.

That phone record gave her access to Brian's family. 

Why are you so willing to parse the posts of people here, and read a "blaming tone" into posts, but you're unwilling to even attempt to "read" anything into Mike Love's interviews?

What happened to "it's not my place to say what he's thinking?" Why does that apply to Mike, but not me or other posters?

As for Carl and touring. LAME. Carl missed gigs, and they indeed DID hire a substitute guitarist in 1990 (he's in some videos with big poofy late 80s/early 90s hair, I don't know what his name was), and had others fill in Carl's vocals. Nobody would have batted an eyelash if Carl said "I need to tend to this family matter. I need to take a couple weeks off and I'll miss a few gigs." Why do I know that? Because Carl, Mike, and Al *all* did that in the same time period. Mike toured Japan with his band in the summer of 1990 and the BBs toured without him. Al randomly missed some gigs. So did Carl.

Nobody can be this dense. Nobody.

FDP: HeyJude was being sarcastic. It comes from being exasperated from your continual refusal to respond to what he, I, or 99% of people on this board actually ask you.

The phone was important, it played a role, as did THE WOMAN WHO OWNED THE PHONE. The inanimate object known as a cellphone needed a mammal to operate it, and that mammal was named Melinda. She was part of the process of extracting Landy, using a phone as a tool in her mission against the tool named Landy, and Love won't credit her for it, EVEN IN PART. Speaking of tools...

there's irony there that I'm a little surprised Pohlad didn't work into the L&M script somehow - Brian is prevented from contacting his family with the usual means by Landy, so he covertly uses Melinda's cell instead to call Mom & Carl w/o Landy's knowledge, which saved phone numbers later gives Melinda the direct means she needs to make family contact and take down Landy

CD - filtering uncalled-for sarcasm is not anyone's job on this board.

In the late 80's most of those phones were either installed into cars or in the alternative carried in a large bag.

Melinda had the exclusive custody and control in the legal sense of that phone to possess that critical information and her address where the post office would deliver the bill that had those phone numbers.  That is not unimportant and common knowledge or should be that the person who owns that phone, and the phone line has exclusive control over it and a place where Landy could not go.  

That is the point.  The electronic documentation to get help for Brian so those who had standing could get into court as well as the will.  If I had to guess the family had private unpublished phone numbers and not available in the public phone directory.

Melinda contacted the family on a line over which Landy had no control.  Brian could not.  

It was a very important inanimate object.
 

  

Is this an attempt to wear down posters who you hope will just stop responding to your distractions? It won't work. I'll be here all night to tear apart all of your ridiculous trolling non-answers and distractions.

How many times do I or anyone else on this board have to remind you:

NOBODY DENIES THE PHONE, STAN, OR A HOST OF OTHER PEOPLE AND INANIMATE OBJECTS WERE PART OF THE LANDY EXTRACTION.

If you want to talk about them, that's fine. Start another thread.

Don't sidestep that Melinda was not included in Mike's "village" that you like to call it.

If she was included, by Mike, if she was given ANY credit, by Mike, this conversation would not be where it is now. What is so hard about saying, "yeah, it appears that Melinda may not have been credited by Mike in his statement, and that is unfortunate". Is that putting words in your mouth? Are those words which you do not feel? That Mike has to be asked to clarify what he meant before you'd say something like that?

If a member on this board posts: "Saying Mike had a role in the writing of the song California Girls is inaccurate. That was Brian Wilson who wrote it"... would you say it needs further clarification that the person who posted that is full of sh*t?
 

Pohlad had enough on his plate - what he accomplished with the Pet Sounds scenes was nothing short of amazing.

What people may not realize (especially young people who grew up with cell phones when they were in grade school) is that they were not something that everyone had. That goes back about 30 years.

And, I bought one as a gift in 1987 and it was a lot of money.  Then you had to get it installed in a car.  So, people had them, if they were doctors, lawyers or business people who had to be able to be reached on short notice.  

Portable phones in the States were not commonplace until the mid to late 90's.  So, a portable phone for the late 80's was the exception rather than the rule. Radio Shack used to sell them as a specialty item and still has some of it's ads online.    

Yeah, and there's a coupon for inexpensive phones at Fry's in Burbank, did you know that?

They give you lots of free minutes, and lots of free data! Isn't that great!

I'm so glad we can talk about the intricacies of cell phones, instead of the issue at hand!

Yipee!!!

Flippin' TROLL.

It is utterly frikkin' exhausting, isn't it?  Can we get back to the subject of this thread, already, Madame Counselor?

It is easier to look at the posts as a fillabuster, not an actual argument.

The "village" is not one-dimensional.   And frankly, until I read more of the LA Times articles, I did not realize Stan's role with Audree as the follow-up.  And, there is a lot of credit to go around.  It may not have been the job of that movie to tell part 2.  

Please do not contort my position of full support for Melinda's role.  But on balance, I realize that what Melinda started, had to be finished.  And, by Brian's family, and complicated by the fact he did not have a spouse at that time.  I wondered how it was resolved.  

Mike is a big boy.  He can freely, if he chooses, discuss or not discuss, his role or his brother's in the context of this mess.  

But, it seems that as someone had to bring the legal complaint, (a definite "bad guy messenger" job that few would want to take on in court) which could not have been an easy task, I now see more clearly the follow-up role that Stan took to see a clearer and fuller picture of what happened.  

It does not matter to me that the court sessions were not in the movie.  The important message of Brian's great gift of music, his struggle with a predatory and ultimate redemption engaged by Melinda was conveyed in the film.  

And, I won't be apologizing for looking at both series of events; the initiation of the rescue, and the follow-up in court.  It is "the rest of the story."  ;)

If you have an issue with Mike, take it up with him.  





      

Is it easier to ignore the follow-up?

Debbie KL - the OP thread post was about one article from the beaumont enterprise, then took a detour to lubbock online. 

That was the initial subject of the thread.

And both were interviews with Mike, one far more derogatory and inflammatory than the other.  Should we start a new, separate thread about the Lubbock online article, the one we've been discussing for pages now, aside from you and your diversions?

Sacred cows.

Debbie - I think the Lubbock article was covered more than the original thread topic.  And this firestorm was covered in a now-locked thread.

Happy Friday!  :beer

Interesting.  Why was the thread locked?

Edit - adding:  And since it's become a primary discussion on this thread that doesn't specify a particular article, why is that a problem?

And this big boy named Mike can also freely specifically publicly eradicate Melinda from having any part of it too, and that's okay by you.

Sorry - I meant to ask this of Filledeplage from the previous discussion (Edit)

So, is this the article that needs to be moved to a different thread, or not?  If so, I'll post it that way.

http://lubbockonline.com/filed-online/2016-03-05/kerns-love-providing-good-vibrations-original-beach-boy#.VtxOOvkrLIV

You do follow-ups?

I'm confused. What thread is locked?

Just read this for the first time.  It is completely dismissive of Melinda.  I am surprised he was ever on the guest list.  Go buy a ticket like everybody else indeed.

EoL

Re:  Stan's role, of course this is his account and he doesn't describe the source of the will information.  He certainly wasn't involved with the people around Landy who might have gotten access to that draft will.  He also wasn't the person the family desired to follow-through on the legal process it appears.  Another red herring.

Edit:  Oops, failed to mention that Audree wasn't involved with those folks either.  Do you think that Melinda and friends might have contacted Audree as well as Carl in trying to save Brian?  I'm thinking there's a lot of evidence that says so.  Once again, we're back to Melinda as the impetus to the legal action that saved Brian.

Is there any further need to try to take credit from her? 

According to Timothy White, in September 1991 Stan said "Two former employees of Landy's approached me about the will, and the attorneys for the Wilson family now have signed affidavits from these former Landy employees in which they state that they saw a new will drafted by Landy in which Landy was going to get 70 percent of Brian's estate and publishing, with Landy's girlfriend Alexandra Morgan getting 10 percent and Brian's daughters each getting 10 percent. The witnesses say in their affidavits that the will was being readied for Brian's signature."

One of my late father's favourite expressions was "self praise is no recommendation". Stan's version of events is obviously going to make his role seem significant. I don't know whether it is the truth but I would guess that if Brian felt really grateful to Stan that would manifest in Brian's attitude.

Mike of course said this: "The interesting thing to read is on Evan Landy. He is Landy’s son and spent years with Brian in a very intimate way. He has a whole different perspective of Landy and his motivation. Was he [Dr. Landy] overreaching? Probably. Did he cost a lot of money? Hell yeah. Did he want to be producer and the writer and stuff with Brian? Yes, he did. Did he go beyond the bounds of therapy? Probably. But, guess what? He also saved his life. So to read Evan Landy’s dissertation on it is very, very interesting because you get an intimate look at someone who was with Brian everyday for a few years. So it’s a whole different story that came out on Love and Mercy."  Now it's all very well stating that Landy saved Brian's life and quoting from his son. His son if I'm remembering it correctly didn't go into details about the changes to Brian's will. That's rather harder to defend, isn't it? 10% to Landy's girlfriend - the same amount as to Brian's next of kin? And didn't Love and Mercy show Gloria had retained some of the meds? So maybe Gloria should get more credit for saving Brian's life.

To me it seems there are two parts, Melinda and others saving Brian from Landy's medical malpractice in 1989 and Stan and Carl and others saving Brian from Landy's on-going life control in 1991.  Something like that.

Cam - The vicarious biography of Landy (WIBN) on pages 350-351, has a very interesting narrative that reads like some kind of sequence of events...

"In the meantime, Dr. Landy and I were hit by a bombshell that severely darkened the already long shadow in which we stood.  In February 1988, the Board of Medical Quality Assurance (BMQA), California's custody of the medical professions, charged Dr. Landy with ethical and licensing code violations that threatened his ability to practice psychology in California. The public witch-hunt Carl, Marilyn, the Beach Boys, and Carolyn Williams had pursued and always hoped for.  

One morning after my workout, Gene broke the news to me. He had spent the morning with his attorney Mark Meador...

...Filed by the attorney general's office, the BMQA charges originated with a complaint filed by Carolyn Williams in 1984.  They were then fueled by the journal Gary Usher compiled while we wrote songs together the previous year and pressed by Marilyn and Carl.  The real reason BMQA brought charges had to do with Dr. Landy's unorthodox treatment of me.

The papers filed by the BMQA detailed his (Landy's) roles as my executive producer, co-producer, business manager, cosongwriter, and business adviser.  The charges implied that Dr. Landy took advantage of me, even though at the time they were filed I was in the best physical, emotional, and financial shape I've been in since the Beach Boys inception.  Not only had Dr. Landy saved my life, he'd returned my career to me."

For those who are unfamiliar with "Wouldn't It Be Nice" by Todd Gold, it is the "autobio" of Brian that Landy apparently and vicariously wrote dedicating it to "Dr. Eugene Landy." The copyright is 1991 and Brian has completely rejected involvement with this book.  

In connection with this effort, October 10, 1991, Primetime Live, at about midpoint has Brian's attorney describing a BRI meeting with Brian that Landy attended, and his great and straightforward concern about him.  Diane Sawyer has Landy on the ropes.

http://youtu.be/wdik8rP2TYU  

A Current Affair has a perspective Maureen O'Boyle tells through the lens of Wendy and Carnie. Also high-profile national coverage.

There are screen shots of the legal documents filed in Brian's behalf.  

http://youtu.be/k56ecdZ1-As

While the case that was filed, is sealed, there is national media coverage to shine light on the Audree's, Carl's, Wendy's/Carnie's, Stan's and others' involvement in the separation from Landy.

Landy's attorney has a little cameo.  His status is on the State Bar of California's website.
  
Hope the links work but it is easily searchable.  ;)

I guess I'm curious why two Landy employees would approach Stan Love with the will when Carl, Audree and Brian's daughters were the next of kin and quite frankly, they were the ones cut out of that draft will.  There's something very wrong with this story, especially since Melinda and friends had already been in touch with Carl and Audree about the same subject.  It simply doesn't add up.

And again, we repeat, that doesn't excuse Mike's calling Melinda's role in extricating Brian from Landy, as portrayed in L&M "innacurate."  It totally dismisses all of her extensive efforts to get the family to take action, again we repeat the only people who could take legal action.  Melinda and friends got this to happen through Carl and his attorneys, as it's portrayed in the movie.  What about this is so difficult to understand? 

Mike was dead wrong challenging the accuracy of a film that he supposedly hasn't seen when it in fact, covers the subject well without the tedium that would destroy a film.  It's clear that Carl took legal action.  Should it have been a 4 hour film where the exterior of conference rooms and court rooms is shown while we imagine what the attorneys were discussing, with no facts since the files are sealed?  Stan was not part of that process, in any case.  This argument is ridiculous.

It seems that any conversation involving Mike-Eddie ends up there...at ridiculous Debbie.  So...let it be said that ultimately the guy invites hostility to erupt just ahead of the mandatory yawn festival.

Debbie - I don't know whom you mean by Landy's employees.  It seems that he had a dozen or so that he was paying out of whatever he was being paid. And about whom Landy used as a defense that he was not getting all the dough himself and that he had a payroll to "make good on."

What is interesting to me is that the catalog of Landy (because we know this autobio was not written by Brian) reads like "an enemy list." And it seems transparent about whom Landy was in the war with in court.    

The national media must have done some "due diligence" prior to filming, with court filings and those multiple interviews etc., and not taking anyone's word for what was going on.  Those programs aired in 1991 not long from when a decision was rendered.  

The film could not have covered everything. How do you cover 55 years in 2 hours?

And, Mike's response is something that comes from his set of experiences.  Everyone has an opinion that they formulate, based on their experiences.  The interview on A Current Affair was sort of a metaphor with the guy behind the jail-like gate, saying that Brian was doing great (while with Landy.)  It appeared Landy-coached, to me, while the cameras were rolling.    

On p. 269 of Carlin, with regarding Stan,"The real killer was that Audree kept calling me in tears, saying, 'I can't call Brian.  The girls can't call Brian. Landy tells them we're bad influences and won't let him talk to us.' (Landy says that on national TV to Diane Sawyer, as she is taking him down.) ...No matter his motivations, Stan found a lawyer in San Diego who not only specialized in psychological abuse but also turned out to be a fan of Brian's music.  The lawyer, Tom Monson, waived the usual retainer, and together they began turning up a trail of witnesses and documents that confirmed all his worst suspicions."

And, I would imagine that Mike was aware of what Stan was doing and keeping the band and the family in the loop. Audree must have trusted him.  I would absolutely expect Mike to have an opinion on that involvement as it appears that his brother found this lawyer, and was in pursuit of witnesses.  They are not named so we don't know if they were among those of Landy. Or, maybe fired by Landy?  

On p. 271, in Carlin, "For one thing, Landy had moved to cut off all the people with whom Brian had a personal connection that the psychologist couldn't control. Melinda Ledbetter, who had been seeing Brian on and off for three years, had seen her access to Brian, suddenly and inexplicably cut off in late 1989."  

But the recent interviews and last year's Evan Landy interview shows a guy who barely cares about BW's ordeal with Landy. The only reason he brings up Carl and Stan is make Melinda look like a liar. Mike didn't give a crap about BW during his post Kokomo egotrip, thinking Terry Melcher and Bruce made BW obsolete in the BBs.

Smile Brian -  I did not get that impression. I re-read the Evan interview again after I re-watched the Current Affair with Wendy and Carnie.  And the Sawyer interview.

The girls' position was that Landy stole their father and deprived them of Brian's companionship, during the same time Evan was enjoying Brian's company, complete with birthdays, that Brian spent with the Landy family, instead of the Wilson girls.  But, I also think that the Love family would be on the side of Brian's girls and Audree.

But part of me feels a little badly for Evan, who was born into that situation, with a father who was such a predator.  He was around the band for a while.  Just looking at him creeps me out.  I bet Landy creeped them out as well seeing Brian in a rented house and Landy living in Brian's house. 

Mike knows his brother was involved and filed the suit. It was very widely-publicized.   
 

I like reading Debbie's informed perspective, so please don't try to silence her.

I took it that a comma was missing in Add Some's post. I too enjoy having the opinion of someone with personal knowledge of what actually happened.

Oh! That makes sense. I was thinking that it seemed like a strange thing for Add Some to say. Good!

Exactly. Melinda has obviously put Mike in his place, many many times. She is a person, or rather in particular, a woman, who dared to do that, and didn't kiss his ass. I wonder how many women who haven't kissed Mike's ass over the years exist that Mike *hasn't* tried to completely dismiss, disavow, or discredit in some way.

You have yet to explain the discrepancy between your thanking god for Melinda, and Mike not saying a single thing about her role in the process. If Melinda's set of experiences included bad treatment from Mike, she still can't go around saying Mike being a BB songwriter is "inaccurate". Until you address these contradictions, you will convince nobody that you have a single point to make, except the point that avoiding and ducking questions is messageboard assclownary of the highest order.

Why don't you just admit that you don't want to ever say anything bad about Mike, even in instances where you might not agree with him. Just own it. We can then agree to disagree. But not before.

Yes, I didn't take it personally.  It struck me as a missing comma, as well.  Of course Add Some can tell me if I'm wrong!

Now that I look at it again, my reading is really odd!

Wasn't trying to silence her or anyone else Emily.  I agree with her.  :hat

It's amazing what confusion a little comma can make.  The US Constitution's 2nd amendment (and its many commas) is still confounding its Supreme Court (although often in self-serving ways), and its citizens for many years now.  In the mean time, we have more guns than people in the US these days, it appears.

Happily, I've been posting along side you for a bit, so I figured you were agreeing.  I also appreciated Emily's support, just in case it wasn't intended that way.  While I'm not an MB old-timer, I've had my share of people agreeing, others wanting to bait me, others wanting to "take me down a notch (from what, I'm not certain)," and others just having a discussion.  It's an odd phenomenon, but we all seem to survive. 

Debbie - "Commas matter" in writing.  I agree.

This thread became very contentious and at some points unreasonably confrontational, in my opinion.  There have been many threads started which depict Brian's "extrication"  from Landy.  Peter Reum has written an article and shared the location, five pages back.  It was not contentious and people expressed profound gratitude.  Another thread, on page six, was Specifics on Brian's extraction from Landy. In that thread, there was a discussion of Landy's name on music.  

When the issue arose, I went online to do some research of my own as I usually do prior to posting.  I appreciate that effort when someone cites outside sources.  

When I reviewed those videos it helped put a better time-context on the case, and used whatever print resources I had available.  I should not have to "admit" this or that about any band member.  

No one asked any other posters (or those who don't post) who were involved in this extrication to deny their efforts.  I like to look at all possibilities, and  realize there may have been a few "unsung heroes" - who were involved, especially Wendy and Carnie, enormously successful a that time, who had to work with the elders in the family.  I had not thought about their legal position of being deprived of a father, but "being deprived of the society and companionship" of their father which is a legal issue, and, which I would imagine they pled in their filings.    

And, I will repeat that no other "plaintiffs" in the case, would detract from Melinda's involvement that appears to have served as a catalyst for the course of events. But that should not take away from the enormous contributions that family members, lawyers, Brian's mom, Brian's children, and all the other necessary parties, including the media who stepped up (and "stepped on" Landy,) while Landy is on national TV and is referring to the Wilson family as a very "sick" group of people.        

We are here to discuss this great sphere of music with which we've been blessed.   ;)

I was in a comma coma.  I'll bet that NO ONE has ever called you Ridiculous Debbie  EVER  DKL...and they still haven't.  There's only one person here who I'd call ridiculous...NO...NOT YOU 'filled'.  *HE* doesn't post in any of the treads here at the Smiley Smile board... ... ...save one. ;)

All very interesting but we should remember what Beach Boys former employee Rick Nelson was once quoted as saying about Mike: "Imagine if he didn't meditate!!" 
:hat

I don't think there's any way for Mike to stop himself from trying to rewrite history. It's too ingrained. Given that most of us both know that and accept that for what it is, we should be able to let it roll off our backs.

I think the proper flow chart for the "extraction" of Brian looks something like this:

Landy-->Usher-->evidence supporting legal actions against unethical med practice--->
        -->Melinda-->Audree-->Stan-->Carl and the family-->legal actions against "estate tampering"-->end of Landy

Mike's motivations to leave Melinda out are 99% likely to be sour grapes about lack of access and control of the BB's overall destiny. It's amazing to me that he is incapable of seeing how giving her credit would make him look better in the eyes of the world. That book of his, possibly even more than "Rocky's," really could be something to behold...

I agree Don.  We "should" be able to...but he keeps poking us with it...and changing it up ever-so-slightly so that it becomes even more annoying.  And the reason he's NOW doing it?  To promote a freakin' book.

I just can't respect that...or ignore it.  I know.  I'm weak.

I just don't suffer fools with ease...or gladly for that matter.  And Mike is a fool.

I think one reason why Carl may have been slow to act was that Landy was smart to not let Carl and the other guys see the things that Melinda and Gloria saw. Gloria, especially, probably saw Brian and his lowest, most doped-up and most mind-controlled by Landy.

My guess is that the bad doctor had Brian at very high levels of medication but would cut back on them whenever Brian was going to be around Carl and the Beach Boys. People talk about how completely out of it Brian would be, and how his eyes would roll back in his head. But when Brian was shooting the video for Rock and Roll to the Rescue he was energetic and, in the video, even hammy.

When they shot the campfire scenes in 1989, Brian was showing some signs of dyskinisia (which legitimate medication can cause in some cases) but otherwise was very good. For example, beginning in this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZylusEw-68

at 1:08:50, he tells the story of writing Surfer Girl, leads the singing of a very nice rendition. And then at the end with all the good feeling around the campfire, he smiles at Mike and says, happily and without any slurring. "Our theme song."

If I saw that guy, I wouldn't thing he was horribly unhappy, being brainwashed or was ready to jump off a boat.

Landy was evil and smart, which made him really dangerous.

Note: While giving Carl and the Beach Boys and the rest of the family more of a pass than some others in the threat, I am NOT trying to diminish the actions of Melinda and Gloria. They are definitely heroes in this story.

FdP:Mike Love
Everyone else:Carl Wilson

It's even worse than Mike not seeing that giving Melinda credit would make him look better. He could simply start by not specifically and pointedly dismissing her role. Just not mentioning her name, if he has such strong animosity, would be a good start. But he can't even do that.

I have no reason to believe Mike *doesn't* understand what dismissing Melinda's role means as a media salvo and what it means in the BB political sphere.

As has been pointed out in the past, Mike's doing himself and his legacy no favors. The recent Rolling Stone article was probably as good as it's going to get. There was an author that, while snarky and familiar with Mike's reputation, certainly seemed open to letting Mike show another side and to prove his naysayers wrong.

If Mike's book is like these recent interviews (and let's be honest with ourselves, a book is by its very nature going to be totally one-sided, with no interview or journalist asking followup questions such as "why does the guy who meditates every day seem so unable to not be so angry and seem unable to proactively work on bettering group relations?"), it's going to be a slog to get through (yes, I'm sure there'll be some interesting pre-BB stories and tidbits here and there that we haven't heard), isn't going to help his reputation with fans, and while amenable media outlets (e.g. the O'Reilly Factor, Queen Latifah) will pitch Mike a bunch of softballs to let him talk up his book, in the long run a book that reads like his interviews is only going to seal his legacy as the overcompensating, defensive, inferiority complex-wielding Beach Boy.

All valid points, and it's all truly tragic in my opinion. Apologies for the off-topic sidebar, but I urge anyone who is a fan of Mike, yet has a difficult time trying to wrap their head around his behavior, to see the film "Steve Jobs" (with Michael Fassbender, not the "Jobs" film with Ashton Kutcher). "Steve Jobs" is about another super-successful celeb, who just appears to uncontrollably repeatedly lash out at those around them, won't acknowledge paternity of a daughter who desperately seeks acknowledgement, suffers from apparent egomania, and other general similarities. As hard as it can be to have empathy for people like this, at least the film connects the dots between Jobs' tragic childhood and how he came to be the way he did.

One day, perhaps a scripted film about Mike may come to be, which might delicately uncover some of those same connections, as he has become quite a tragic figure, perhaps even moreso than Jobs. Get Aaron Sorkin to do it. I certainly don't think the Steve Jobs film was made to "bash" Jobs, and I would hope a Mike film could be made in similar fashion. Perhaps Mike needs more general empathy directed his way, but what he doesn't need is inexcusable actions (like purposefully completely omitting Melinda in this article) being excused by people on this board, or by anyone for that matter.  What Mike needs from both his fans, as well as those in his inner circle, is people standing up TO him for doing things like this, which only serve to hurt himself in the long run.

There can certainly be other points of view, and other angles to the Love & Mercy film. It's not the WHOLE story; it's Brian/Melinda's point of view. That's a fair point to make. But while there are other people and angles that can be discussed, examined, and brought into fuller light, which should be able to be discussed by Mike (or anybody)... it will never be right or ethical to try and discuss those other people/points WHILE also very specifically attempting to erase and discredit Melinda from having ANY role. That can't be acceptable, that can't be ethical, and Mike trying to do it is about as bad and despicable as any type of blatant falsehoods that Landy spat out of his vile mouth during his reign.

Melinda playing an undeniable *part* of the Landy extraction process should be as etched in stone and irrefutable as any songwriting credit that Mike has.  

I agree with your statement in the last paragraph.  Mike could easily get a lot of sympathy from others, including me, if he'd simply accept and credit Melinda for the person she is and what she's accomplished. 

Re:  the timeline you proposed: I would simply say that no timeline, including this one, is completely linear, so - actually, no.  Melinda had been working with Carl and one of his attorney's for some time.  Audree appeared to be overwhelmed, as I understand it, when approached by Melinda and friends.  I suppose we could consider that understandable, given her age and health.  Melinda, Gloria and friends never gave up in the face of very tough odds and they approached whomever might take action when given the opportunity, as I understand it.

Again, I'm grateful for the legal actions taken that were effective and thank the family members who could, and finally did, act.  I shudder to think what might have happened without the relentless efforts on the part of the people who got the family to take action - Melinda, Gloria and friends.  To have Melinda and the others "dismissed" in that interview is offensive to many of us who are glad Brian Wilson is still alive.

Sadly, I don't expect anything to change in that regard.

I feel so very sorry for Audree during this time. Does anyone know what her living conditions were like at the time? Was she living on her own, or at an assisted living facility? I cannot imagine what it would have been like to be an elderly person seeing their child go through this, especially just years after the death of another child.

Thank goodness Melinda took the initiative in the manner that she did.

I am very certain that Audree was taken care of extremely well.  She was a wealthy woman on her own and my limited observations were that she and Carl were as close as a parent/child can be.  Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that she was in distress.  She was simply older and I don't know exactly when her health began to fail.  No one was "harassing" her to save Brian.  I didn't mean to imply that at all.  The woman lived well in her later years. 

While there are only a few little tidbits of stories and a bit of footage on the Carl Wilson "Here and Now" DVD from Billy Hinsche, Audree certainly seemed well taken care of and in good spirits in footage and stories from later years shown on the DVD.

Thanks Debbie, yes, I did not think you implied anything less. I could imagine that regardless if she was living well and was well cared for, that it must have just been an emotionally overwhelming experience for an elderly parent to know what to do, especially someone who may have been fragile from losing another child recently.

I hesitate to even think about what would have happened absent Melinda's involvement at the exact moment when she got the ball rolling. Maybe Mike can think about that too. To unequivocally brush her off is a low blow. It reminds me of Phylicia Rashad's now-infamous comment "forget these women" when referring to Cosby rape victims.