The Smiley Smile Message Board

http://www.penguin.com/book/good-vibrations-by-mike-love-with-james-s-hirsch/9780399176418


Oh dear.

Sigh...

Well at least the release will ensure that this board will have its hands full with topics for the next 25 years  :lol

or we could string together the last 20 years of interviews together and get the same thing in a nutshell  :lol
actually I'd be keen to know more about his life other than he didn't get credit for this or that. or drugs and the wilsons bla bla

What's it say under my avatar pic there?  There are 2 books I won't be reading.  I have great blood pressure...The BP of a 17 year old according to my doctor.  But that book?  No way.  Not a chance.  Not with YOUR eyes.
[unless it's printed on toilet paper I'll have little use for it...I already know what's gonna be in it.  More crap.]

how about the audiobook? have a nice early night to bed with 12 hours of Dr. Love in your ears

Whoopie do. "My lies as a Beach Boy" would be more apropos. Merely a collection of mahagarbage from an insecure, materialistic, angry, and ungrateful being.  ::)

two sides ( or three sides, or whatever ) to this group.  Who knows? Maybe Mr. Love will have more to offer in his story and side
than the side we've become to know.  don't judge a book by it's cover (.....as I quietly slip away into the shadows)

Cool Cant wait to buy it in September!

Al should be doing this, not Mike.

I mentioned in a thread years back to Jon Stebbins that his Dennis and Dave books were so good, I was hoping he might convince Al to partake as well, and I recall Jon mentioned that he recalled Al had batted around some of his own ideas to do his own book, stuff about his family's migration to California, etc.

Considering it took him until 2010 to put one solo album out, I'm not hopeful Al could pull off a book thing on his own. But I'm sure it would be interesting. I'd love to see a "Conversations with Al Jardine" book, just hundreds of pages of interviews.

I'll buy the book but I won't enjoy it. I freaking love music biographies/autobiographies but this one will be hard to stomach. I know its going to read like a 416 page interview without the interviewer. Or maybe Wink will reprise his role in text form?

Audiobook read by the author!  I honestly can't wait for the ontor pertawst cut-ups.

I honestly can't believe that he's doing that. It's definitely a twisted icing on a very biased cake.

I'm even more concerned that Howie Edelson's thoughts on the book's possibilities might be realized, that a lot of the book might end up being "Brian Wilson's story through the eyes of Mike Love." This blurb from the publisher is (only potentially) concerning:  "....while providing vivid portraits of the turbulent lives of his three gifted cousins, Brian, Dennis, and Carl Wilson."

Obviously, even a very singular-focused autobiography would have to include plenty of discussion of the other BBs. But where Mike could actually succeed is to tell us about HIM. It's like that interview he gave where he was asked if he had any regrets, and his answer was essentially that the Wilsons did drugs. Nothing about himself. It surely was difficult to see Brian and Dennis in particular have their issues, and I think Mike should discuss how this impacted him. But how much is there to say? Maybe a lot, but his interviews suggest it will be a very blanket sort of "Wilson and drugs BAAAAAD, meditation GOOOOOOD", and the tragic story of how the Wilsons' drug issues were first and foremost a tragedy for Mike.

I'm surprised that he didn't call it "Good Vibrations (which, by the way, is a song that I wrote!)-The Mike Love Story"

Seriously, I don't hate Mike nearly as much as a lot of people, and reading the description of the book made me sick.

Foward from OSD? ;D

Perhaps Mike will come on here and post the beginning of a chapter for us. C'mon Mike, lets see a teaser of the chapter with your exploits with Brando. We are already up to 424 views!

I'm honestly not expecting much from Mike or Brian's book, but I'll still read them with great interest.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if, in the book's index, there are more pages under "Stamos, John" than "Jardine, Al."

And of course also potentially in the index.....

"Back in the USSR"
-- how Mike Love helped to write 167, 169
-- how Mike Love inspired 168, 170, 171, 172, 173
-- how Mike Love was present during creation of 168, 170, 173, 175

 :lol

If only it weren't true.

Mentions of Shawn and Stephen? I'm guessing a couple sentences at most. Mentions of Mike's own mental breakdown? I'm not a gambling man, but I say it's unlikely.

I greatly hope to be proven wrong, and for Mike to dig deep and talk about his own issues. There needs to be balance if (and we know it won't be an "if") he's gonna go out of his way to talk at length about the Wilson brothers' issues.

Do the Smiley smile "trolls" get a mention in the book? >:D

I'm sure there will be some "new" stuff in the book. But I'm guessing the pre-Beach Boys material will include most of the interesting, new information.

I've always been of the "any BB autobiography might just be a bad idea" mind, but assuming Brian does actually put one together, I'm glad that it appears it will happen after Mike's, so there might be a chance to refute any inflammatory rhetoric.

I sense Mike's book, in terms of Brian (and I have little doubt at this stage that Brian will play a huge role in this book, perhaps larger than someone who's not the author should for an autobiography), will play much like his interviews and stage patter. Lots of praise, but with a backhanded quality. Essentially, Brian *was* amazing when he was 24 and still buds with Mike, with a tiny bit of the patronizing "Brian still has that ability" with the layers of regret as if he's not using that ability to the utmost unless he's writing with Mike in a room.

The books (both books, though Mike's more so) also probably put an extra death knell into any already-unlikely reunions. There's really no way this book will make any relationships better. At best, it will be innocuous, and at worst it will be like recent Mike interviews where long-past issues are dredged up again.

And Al will probably relatively rarely be mentioned, relegated to a few times where Mike mentions he and Al didn't do drugs, and maybe a quick foray into the 1998 splintering.

Considering that Al was one of Mike's most recurring Beach Boys collaborators in the 1970s, it's surprising that he doesn't mention him much in interviews. Like hardly at all, because Al's just off "doing his own thing", cough cough. And I assume, like you, that Al won't be discussed much in the book either. I imagine there won't be much about Bruce either, but maybe that's because ol' Historical is historically very private, and Bruce might want it that way.

It's always bugged me the way Al is dismissed by Mike. On one hand, it reminds me a bit of the way the band has historically leaned very heavily on the hits... the psychology of giving the public what they want... which Mike probably assumes is just hearing about The Wilsons and The Love(s) in the context of an autobiography. But on the other hand, treating Al as a minor, largely irrelevant part of the band also (perhaps inadvertently, or perhaps on purpose) helps Mike casually avoid any discussion of the fact that Al remains a vocal opponent to much of Mike's agenda.

It's a radical approach, but I'm going to wait until I've actually read the book before I decide if I'm going to like or hate it.  ;D

Interesting month in prospect - Mike's book due 9/13, Brian's on 10/11. And both before the Rockster's magnum opus. Truly, an embarrassment of riches.

I'd love to see Alan's book, but I'm never going to live long enough. None of us are.

It could be that by titling the book "My Life as a Beach Boy," instead of, say, "My Life" that the appropriate boundaries have been set.  If it doesn't strictly concern the Beach Boys, then it's not pertinent to the subject matter of the book.  Wait and see approach.

I expect, or at least hope that both will deliver something. The main questions in both cases are (a) has this person gained any awareness, or perspective, or wisdom about his life and the Beach Boys; and (b) is he willing to share this perspective publicly in an autobiography.

The Mike-Al relationship to me is more mysterious and interesting than the Brian-Mike relationship. Brian-Mike is complex, but sadly I think a lot of the obvious, stereotypical tropes (jealousy, ego, etc.) are truly at the core of that one. The Mike-Al deal might be less complex, but it's also less explored.

I think Mike rarely mentioned All post-1997 through most of the 2000s due to the various BRI/Al lawsuits and whatnot. I think Al was (mostly successfully) marginalized in that timeframe, and not mentioning Al meant not giving him or his band or cause any publicity, nor drawing attention to another "original" BB that wasn't in the touring band.

I remember some insiders mentioned back all the way in the early 2000s that certain parties were peeved that Al continued to associate himself with "The Beach Boys" in any way. For instance, Al did a nice interview back in 2001 on the internet to talk and promote the "Hawthorne, CA" set. A lot of the "Family & Friends" and other related suits were still winding their way through the system at that time, and I heard that some parties were pissed Al was still presenting himself as any sort of spokesperson for the BBs, even on archival releases.

I think some of that stuff relaxed in the late 2000s when the lawsuits (involving Al anyway) were all done with. Mike still didn't (and still doesn't) often talk about Al in much detail, but I feel like he at least said Al's name in interviews a bit more often. To be sure, I think some of the paucity of Al mentions is due to Al being Al. He is the marginalized, "waiting for a bus" guy.

I feel like, and this is just my opinion, that Mike would just as soon marginalize everyone else in the BBs and rarely mention them. But this simply can't be done with Brian. But it can to a large degree with Al.

I think an "Conversations with...." book for each BB would be the best. It's why the non-descript "In the Own Words" Beach Boys book from the 90s is one of the better ones, even if it sadly and frustratingly doesn't cite any of its sources.

What's the quickest any reader from this board will power through Mike's book? Not skimming it, but actually reading every word?

I read Scott Wilson's book in one long sitting as soon as I got it. Grammar issues aside (which I could care less about), it was engrossing and I couldn't put it down.

The marginalized thing must bug Al on some level. Al has probably put up with feeling that way for decades. One might expect Mike who seems like the BB who is most hurt (sometimes very justifiably) by feeling marginalized himself, would go out of his way to not act in a marginalizing manner to other BB members. Yet one would probably be incorrect in assuming that.

Maybe we'll be wrong, and Al will get his due in the book, even if Al isn't the surf word man. I hope for the best, but won't bet any bucks on it.

It's truly strange why Mike thinks he is marginalized when Al couldn't be near the BBs name for 12 years after decades of hard work touring. I hope Mike is fair to Al in his book.

My sense is that Al used to be more bitter and grumpy about it, but he's much more mellow and at peace now. His interviews weren't *regularly* full of vitriol about Mike over the recent decade and a half, but they were occasionally pretty snippy, which I wasn't always a bad thing. These days, he seems to kind of laugh off the Mike stuff more, such as his few quotes in the Rolling Stone piece.

And Al certainly lives in the shadow of Brian in the appropriate way, which is with respect and admiration rather than patronizing and egotism. He seems much happier not trying to prove to anyone that "he's a genius too." He has also been much more frank about his foibles from the past, admitting in interviews things like not fully recognizing Dennis's talents back in the day, while also offering genuine explanations for why that was (Dennis could be a pain, etc.).

I doubt Mike's gonna say much (if any) really bad stuff about Al in the book. I think the slighting will probably come from the small quantity of material that will likely be about Al. Which, to me, says a lot due the very action of saying very little, you know?

AGD's right though. I won't prejudge the book before reading it. I'm just expressing my educated guesses. I long to be wrong about my assumptions, and will happily stand corrected if my current guesses are offbase after reading it.

Here's a question... which of the living BBs and spouses will actually read the book cover to cover?

I think Mike must on some level view Al as a once-ally who became a "defector", maybe similar (on a much smaller level) to how he might view his own brother Stephen as a defector, and Al being marginalized is likely just a side effect of that probable resentment.  

Al rules. If anything, Mike's book should logically express awe at how well-preserved Al's voice is due to his clean living. I think Mike doesn't - and won't in the book - because it doesn't serve Mike well to remind people of the amazing vocal talent Al still is... while the glaring contradiction exists that Al is, for "some" reason, is not in the band with Mike (despite wanting to be).

I don't think the guys on the "bands reunited" show could work with the BBs! ;)

I can't wait for September, because it's gonna be a September of Love!

sort of like everyone else?

haha.

Not everyone else, evidently:


Nothing like having an open mind...  ;D

Could be the greatest musical autobiography ever... could be a complete load of old rubbish. Until I've read it, I won't know. I suspect, something in between.

I've heard it's not the way to judge a book, but does anyone else think the cover is a bit uninspired?

Oh Mike Mike... the cover of the book is just. Ah...

Brian's isn't much better

not a great cover, agreed.

Mike looks pretty sleazy, but that's how he rolls. he should really stop with the praying hands in every damn shot.
interesting too that Mike seems somehow separate in the group shot and the furthest away with the Wilson brothers together in the foreground. as they should be. when you think about it, Brian even provided the book's title.

how about an alternate cover contest? here's my submission. Mike seemed to like it before:

(http://images.yuku.com.s3.amazonaws.com/image/jpg/0b2ce7c5aafe4a208bba192d69f64a95.jpg)

Nice photo, but it's... what... nine years old ?

I was looking at the cover of Mike's memoir and I was wondering what it reminded me of. . . .  and then it hit me!!!!

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51%2Ba0yqTN6L._SY290_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

Yes! :lol

To our esteemed authors here. How important is a cover? A turban headed, shirtless, tight gold lame pant wearing Mike on the cover may cause some to shudder, but it may stop others in their tracks and then open up an read a few paragraphs, perhaps catching their interest.

Or do people actually go to bookstores anymore.

Quick, someone go pre-order Mike's book on eBay and then feign confusion over whether it was a "Mike Love" book or a "Beach Boys" book..........

Ah that description...

I would assume plenty of autobiographies don’t use contemporary photos. As it is, I don’t think Brian looks hugely different now compared to those circa-2007 shots. Just more grey and a bit more wrinkled.

But let’s be honest; if Mike hadn’t specifically used a head shot taken from that same 2015 touring band photo shoot at the train station that every local paper has used for stories, it looks exactly the same as Mike has for the last decade. Kudos to him for aging to a certain point and then looking pretty much the same for a decade or more. But we can only date these photos because they’re both using well-known and often-used publicity photo shoots.

I’ve never been fond of Mike’s goatee look since he started doing it circa 1998 on and off. I think the full beard look makes him appear a bit friendlier and more kindly for some reason (a near full beard briefly resurfaced circa 1992, and again briefly in the 2000s), so I’d rather either see that or the clean-shaven look. Something about the goatee just seems kind of too groomed and douchey. But that’s 100% my own thing. I was glad for some weird reason he went back to clean shaven for C50.

I think the Beach Boys photo that was selected for the cover speaks volumes.

That said, I appreciate the contributions of each individual Beach Boy, and enjoy all their shows and I'd buy any of their biographies.

I mean this genuinely, I'm curious, considering the book's blurb touts Mike as an "environmentalist", if Mike's book will address the disparity between environmentalism and some of the politics and people that he has tacitly or directly endorsed or at least supported. 

Interesting he chose a group photo without Alan......

I can see that being interpreted either way. It could be a group-politics-motivated decision, or they may have just been looking to use one of those early-era pictures that evoke the band's earliest days. A lot of books and articles use those early Al-less shots.

Mike's book will cost me $1.01 more than Brian's.  :smokin

When the reviews come out, I hope someone here purchases the audio book.  ;) Interestin' listenin'.

For gosh sakes, he never had the time to watch Love and Mercy, but he had the time to devote to a thespian reenactment of his book.

"One more time Michael. Syncopate it. Say druuugs, with disdain in your voice."

Nice! :hat

I'm sure the chapter on the recording of Kokomo will prove enlightening. "I wrote a great song that the band recorded WITHOUT BRIAN; at the same time, Brian and his shrink were working on a big turkey of an album that nobody bought. Landy thought Brian was the goose that laid the golden egg; what he didn't understand is that I know how to make hit records with Brian. Kokomo sold more that all of Brian's solo albums put together." Of course, the chapter on Summer in Paradise ...well, it won't even be mentioned.

That might get a mention in Brian's book! :lol

So, how many completists will be buying the audiobook on CD? It IS a solo recording by a Beach Boy, in a way.

 :lol

It would be interesting for him to discuss Summer in Paradise, what he was thinking and how it went wrong.  In all likelihood, this is a book about the golden years of the early to mid 1960s, how he was cheated out of songwriting credits, TM and his life leading the band on the road.   

To you I'm sure it will be the greatest musical autobiography ever  ;D

And by "a thespian reenactment of his book" you mean... an audiobook. Like any book released by a major publisher will have.

We'll compare notes, 'K ?  :)

BW's cover looks like dummy art to me. A placeholder. Something about the fonts, art choice and spacing seems off.

Good call.

Until it was mentioned here, the early BB photo on the cover, with Dave and thus sans Al, never occurred to me to be a slight toward Al. I saw/see it as representing the span of time from the early BBs (in photos) to ML today in the top photo.

I'm totally looking forward to Mike's book, as I am Brian's. Wonder to what extent Mike realizes that the reality is that there is no way Brian is going to come across poorly in his forthcoming autobio, while it's up to Mike to show some humility and counterbalance his braggadocio concerning the biggest hits by also focusing on being the guy who wrote the lyrics to stuff like The Warmth of the Sun and Please Let Me Wonder, rather than continually harping on the success of Kokomo. (And Kokomo is a song I love, btw. Initially I was going to mention Mike's cringeworthy Summer of Love "It'a a Love Thing", but BW has written some cringeworthy stuff too.)

Al's absence occurred to me immediately upon viewing the cover photo in the wee hours of last night when it was posted on Mike's Facebook fan page (I had insomnia).  While I think that things between Mike & Al have definitely improved over the 1998-2010 period, I still don't observe them to be close friends at this point.  I alluded to this in my post earlier in this thread (although not directly).  HeyJude made some great points as well earlier in the thread...Mike, from 1998-2013, has, whether purposely or not, mentioned Al very little in his interviews, and at times seemed more than willing to write minimize his contribution to BB history. He has mentioned him a bit more often in the last 3 years, and has some complimentary things to say about Al's voice, and has mentioned that he has spoken to him, so things seemed to have thawed out a little bit.  But I would stop short of saying that they are good friends.  Even during the C50 tour and the concurrent and subsequent CD releases, Al seemed to take a distant 3rd place in importance when it came to track selection for 50 Big Ones and Live - The 50th Anniversary tour.  Look at Disc 1 of 50 Big Ones and who sings lead on the different songs. Also look at what songs got cut from Live - The 50th Anniversary Tour, and what stayed.  Brian and Mike were prominently featured, while Al was featured about as much as Bruce & Dave, although he sang significantly more leads than both.

That said, I look forward to any upcoming books, shows, and studio/live releases coming from any and all Beach Boys!  I'm grateful to have the Beach Boys that remain, and I welcome any output they give to us!

Yes but not all them are read out by the author himself, particularly when said author is in his seventies and singing for hours at a time in a punishing touring schedule for half the nights of the year.

Almost all autobiographies are read by the author.

Morrissey's wasn't.

Praise be, there IS a God !!

The picture is a great one imo. I remember how impressed I was when it first was shown back then on Brian's website. But unfortunately it has been totally overused in the years since.
I think it's ok to use a picture from any given time since the book is about his life and not about the year 2015/16. Same goes for Mike's book too of course.

Yes. An audiobook. Any book? Really? Learn something new everyday. Wonder if Brian's book will have an audiobook? I'm really too arsed to look it up right now...

Of course I'm being snide, Andrew. Something just tells me he'll devote more to his audio re-enactment than he does to vocals most nights. Why? Because setting the record straight is more important to him than air, water, and food. The elements!

Maybe you could find something better to be snide about than the existence of books in formats that are accessible to blind people? Personally I don't find the existence of books my wife can read to be something utterly contemptible and a sign of ego on the part of the author, but clearly you disagree.

And yes, any book released by a major publisher will now come with an audiobook version as standard. Audiobooks are seeing massive market growth even as sales of print and ebooks decline.

Mike gives us more than enough actual reasons to mock him. His book coming out in audiobook format -- which will be something stipulated by the publishers, not by him, which is a standard thing for all books published by any publisher with enough money to hire a recording studio, and which will make it accessible to disabled people -- isn't one.

Really. Having to reach for reading-specs nowadays, I can't bemoan an audiobook format. And if it benefits those who benefit, all the better. Don't try to twist what I said.

Simply, because of all things Love, there's something funny about a Mike Love narration. When that nasal kicks in, it's gonna be funny. But then again, as the saying goes, your mileage (and sense of humor) may vary.

I hope he belts out WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEN whenever that word comes up!

I'm not twisting what  you said. You complained that Mike would spend time recording an audiobook (or as you called it "a thespian reenactment of his book" and "his audio re-enactment") but not watch Love and Mercy, and you acted like it was some massive ego-trip on his part.

And no, I don't have much of a sense of humour about disability accommodations, as it happens.

Yes! :lol

Neither do I. But the pure audio sensation of a Mike Love reading strikes me as exceedingly funny. Yuk yuk funny.

If you can't separate the forest from the trees, then well too bad.

Betcha some Mike fans buy the audio just to hear their personal rock n roll Jesus.  And that's fine (and has nothing to do with disabilities). Some of us snicker at the thought!

 :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

Will they autotune Mike's voice like the Christmas single? >:D

I welcome both autobiographies with open arms--just as I would welcome autobiographies from Al and Bruce and a definitive Carl biography.

Will I take either book as gospel, absolutely not, but autobiographies are often used by the author to shed a positive light on their lives and careers (I think of most presidential memoirs). We are certain to get anecdotes never known to the community before that may have been held back for just such an occasion.

I am a bit concerned that Brian switched co-authors, as I always enjoyed Jason Fine's work. While I have heard of Penguin publishing (Mike's book publisher), I can't say I had heard of Da Capo Press (Brian's book publisher) before today--though it seems they do quite a few music autobiographies. I wonder if Jason Fine staying on the project would have brought a bigger publisher--managing editor of Rolling Stone carries a certain cache.

Smart, of course, to read it before we review it!
I keep going back in my mind to that Wink Martindale Q&A where Mike took fan questions. He was asked about Dennis'  album Pacific Ocean Blue. He responded by saying he wrote lyrics for the album, and then moved on to discuss how Don't Go Near The Water was an earlier song with an environmental theme. It's an interesting thought process, it's Mike's thought process. I think the book will follow a similar thought process.

They'll try to but we'll still get a nasty, high pitched, nasal bleating sound regardless.  :p

I would enjoy hearing Mike read his autobio. I just wonder how many of the words are his own? I've read a lot of music autobios, and very few of them were done without a ghostwriter - Dylan's Chronicles, Chuck Berry's book, Ray and Dave Davies' books...and that's about it.

“It was like I hardly did anything and Brian did everything,” Love told Rolling Stone. “It’s like kind of trying to erase somebody from history or create another reality.”

(https://m.popkey.co/eae84b/lMGOl_s-200x150.gif)

We fans have often given credit where credit is due, (well us hardcore fans at any rate) as do many scholarly books about the band. Brian IS at the heart of everything, during the early-to mid-'60s and later, but the others did so much later on and without their voices and input (Mike's lyrics, for example) those songs wouldn't be what they are.

Christ. I hope the whole book won't be as crybaby as that.

It still seems to me that the general public see the Beach Boys as being Brian and his puppets. True, the serious fans know the contributions of the other members, but with Brian touring as a solo artist year after year doing the old songs, and getting all the critical plaudits, it has kind of made for a lopsided view of the band. Sure, Mike and Bruce are on the road constantly, but when was the last time you read a rave review of one of their shows in the mainstream media? They're seen as the commercial sell-outs just in it for the money, Brian is seen as the genius artist. If any of the other band members are acknowledged at all, it is usually just Dennis. And the rock media loves nothing more than a tortured genius that dies tragically young. If Carl had been the one that died before turning 40, would he now be praised as the other genius in the band?

That would have been in 1985 or thereabouts... say after the Levine album. Based purely on that, I'd say, no. Two mediocre solo albums and a scant handful of BB compositions don't stack up against POB, Bambu and Dennis' BB-related canon 1968-79. Carl was many things, almost all of them admirable, but a genius of any order (except maybe in keeping the band for completely imploding) he was not.

Not getting that type of critical recognition, plaudits and coverage is one of the byproducts of over touring. When you roll the same act into the same locations year after year, there is nothing new to write about so it's the same old thing.

Yeah, M&B really over tour. The BBs name needs be an event like on the C50. Not some oldies package brand name.

The over touring is another prime example of the cash grabbing, greedy myKe luHv philosophy at work. It's also a *watering down* of the legacy of the name in that they're *too available*.

They only over-tour if your second two sentences are correct. But they're just an opinion. To make the shows rare, to drive up ticket prices, to get a different kind of media coverage, sure. But what about keeping the music in front of huge numbers of people annually, selling tickets to people who want to attend concerts and don't care about critical acclaim in the slightest? If they're trying to play a lot of shows for a lot of people--and do a profitable business all the while--then they're doing things just fine.

They're not going to be everyone's Beach Boys. They're wise to be whatever they want to be, and let people on message boards whine as they see fit.

I'm not a Mike Love fan. At the same time, I don't understand why it seems that people want to always bring it back to bashing him. A thread will start out about something, and after about a page and a half in goes into a Mike V. Brian slugfest, and usually not even about the subject at hand.  Then, people will bring it back around and try to start having conversations about whatever the thread is about, and again someone will make a couple of comments to start the bullshit all over again. I mean, I don't get it.

I think that this board should have 2 sections. A Brian Wilson section, and an Everyone Else section. I mean, these threads all end up exactly the same way, Mike V. Brian. This way, the Lovesters can hang out at their own spot, and The Brianistas or whatever they call themselves these days can hang out at their own crib.

Or...you could hide behind the security of the Hickeyscript and try to escape reality like those who don't have the ability deal with anyone else's opinion.

And reality is what?  Constantly bitching, moaning, and whining about "what a tool Mike is"?  What are ya gonna do?  Go find out where he lives and pay him a visit?  Send him a bunch of hate mail?  No, folks are just gonna keep yammering on about him, cause apparently there's nothing else to talk about.

BTW, I'm not particularly a ML fan myself, but I just get a little tired of reading bits of actual BB's info, just to have them devolve into the predictable emotional Mike Love jabs. 

Sadly, quite a few hate Mike Love and love Mike hate. That's almost a palindrome!

To paraphrase Brian fans when the autotune issue is brought regarding new releases, I only hear a multiple-stacked vocal with lots of echo and possible an effect like chorus.
👹👹👹

Like I said...

I've seen that mentioned a couple of times. What is it exactly?

This will get you up to speed.

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,23115.0.html

I'm probably the only BB fan that would pick Carl's albums over Denny's. I have played them regularly since they came out in 81 and 83, never tired of them, in fact, prefer them to a lot of the stuff the group was cranking out in the late 70's/80's.

No, we'd need a Dennis section, too, and a Carl section. I'd be in the latter area.

Or maybe we really just need a minimal amount of decency and common courtesy, the ability to avoid intentionally and incessantly insulting other posters, at the very least, if not band members and their families. A lot to ask, I know...

Sure, except that, to a lot of people on the board, if you want to treat, say, Mike Love with decency, then obviously you love Mike and hate Brian. Which is as stupid as it sounds, but then again, there you go.

  Let's face it. Mike and Brian have autobios scheduled for publication roughly one month apart. This is likely to be the ultimate Brian Wilson/Mike Love showdown as both put their spins on the group's history for posterity. I'll read both and comment when the time comes.

Being the big spender he is, I wouldn't be surprised if myKe placed a $5.00 bet with Brian that his book would outsell Brian's.

I enjoy seeing M and B , but over touring has it's pros and cons. I like that I get to see them and others get that, but it hasn't helped their critical claim or legacy either. It's a double edged sword

Realistically?  Brian will sell 327,987 copies.  Mike will sell about 1,000...plus the copies he buys...bringing his total up to 251,000,

I'm sure both books will sell a reasonable amount of copies, but the Brian Wilson legend has been told so many times through the decades, many fans will feel like "I know this already, why do I need to spend $25 on it?" Mike's POV has been presented many times in recent years, so it will be interesting if the book continues the tone of recent interviews, or if he actually shows show heart towards his former bandmates.

Not originally. Brian's book was supposed to bs published October last year.

  Yes, but as it happens the books are being published at virtually the same time. Comparisons will be inevitable. I can envision dual reviews in the media. Things will be lively around here.

Only thing interesting about Mike Love is his relationships with Murry, Brian, Carl, Dennis, and Al. If he sticks with those topics, the book might be cool. Long detours into such yawners as TM, his marriages, and environmentalism could leave the book inhabiting the celebrity memoir nether regions along with 'Ice by Ice' (Vanilla Ice).

As I've said in the past, the book may well have more pointed, gloves-off depictions of Murry, Carl, and Dennis (and other folks no longer with us), because families/estates can't sue for libel of deceased individuals.

I'm still thinking Mike's book might be like this, given the page count and topics at hand: The pre-BB stuff will be most interesting, least inflammatory, and carry the most unique/new information. The BB stuff will, at times, veer into "Brian Wilson's story through Mike Love's eyes."

I don't think Mike has so far displayed the ability to thoughtfully and *empathetically* (or sympathetically) talk about Dennis, so while I think Mike *could* have some insightful, non-inflammatory things to say, I'm not sure we'll get a lot of it.

I don't think Al is going to get very many namechecks in *either* book, for better or worse. Mike most often namechecks Al in interviews only to point that Al along with Mike didn't do drugs.

I don't see how Mike could write a book about the Beach Boys and not explain why Al Jardine was fired from the band.

I think Al's more likely to get namechecked in Brian's book, especially since just about every concert Brian has done over the last five years (including BB C50) has included Al. 

Oh, I would imagine it'll be covered. I just don't know in how much detail. I'd *love* to have more info and context about that time, as I'm one of apparently few fans confused and intrigued by that time frame.

I'm curious how much Mike's account would differ from the Marks/Stebbins book, which indicates Mike was seeking out Dave as a likely replacement for Al (which would presumably mean there was an assumption/prediction that Al would either be fired or he would quit or somehow no longer be in the band), with Carl's situation just complicating the whole thing.

What I don't anticipate, but would like to see/read, is an explanation of the actual machinations leading to Al not being in the touring band. Not just simple a "we decided to go our separate ways and do our thing" sort of explanation, but what logistical/business move came about so that Al was no longer in the band. In other words, did he quit, was he fired, or did the band essentially "break up" and then reform without inviting Al back?

That's why I think Al would write a must read book. 

An Al book, likely more along the lines of an "authorized biography" like the David Marks book, could and probably would be quite interesting. I just don't know if Al can ever get around to it. It took him forever just to finish one solo album. Obviously, working with a writer on a biography is not the same as recording an album, but Al sometimes seems slow to move on that sort of stuff.

On the other hand, Brian and Mike books may spur Al into doing his own. As I've mentioned before, I remember back when the Marks book came out, and I mentioned to Jon Stebbins on this board that he would be a great candidate to the same basic idea with Al, and I think Jon mentioned that Al had his own idea for doing a book, and I think Jon also humbly suggested the very "open" and stark info and style provided in the Dennis and Dave books might not be what Al would want for his own book.

On the other hand, I like that in the 2000s Al started to get a little more feisty in interviews, so perhaps he *could* do a book where he "tells it like it is" to some degree.

I think if Brian does slow down with touring, Al's schedule for writing should really open up. 

I've noticed that in Al's interviews too, so that's why I think he's the best candidate in the band to write a "tell all" book. 

I expect Mike's book to be a tad skewed, and Brian's book to be quite diplomatic.  But, I have a feeling Al might dish a little more. 

Maybe all the answers ARE in Al's book
http://www.amazon.com/Sloop-John-B-Pirates-Tale/dp/1596871814

Last four years: Alan didn't tour with Brian at all in 2011.

As for a book by Alan... if he ever gets around to it - and he won't - his ability to harbour, and nurture, a grudge for decades would likely render it close to unreadable.

In fairness, this is the fifth consecutive calendar year during which Al has toured with Brian, including at least one solo gig at the end of 2012.

I meant five years starting with C50 - 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, & 2016.  He's currently in year #5.

Apparently holding a grudge for many years hasn't prevented Mr. Love from writing an autobiography.

This is true. In fairness, AGD, grudges shouldn't prevent you from applying the same 'judge it after I've read it' approach to Al that you give to Mike.

Wouldn't be shocking. 

Ozzy Osbourne's autobiography didn't even mention Jake E. Lee, the underrated guitarist who played with Ozzy for three years and on two albums. 

Events that are publicly known, but that aren't necessarily super talked about or deeply well-known outside of bigger fans, will probably be avoided completely if they would paint Mike in a poor light should the full scope come to light. Mike's not gonna want to get into why he feels deserving of control of the band/brand, and that Al doesn't, and how people like Al got in the way of his "vision"... and unfortunately, the Al firing issue from 1997/1998 will likely get glossed over almost completely if it's too difficult to "spin" it in a way that makes Mike seem like a well-meaning/not power-hungry person.

While it's not any kind of secret that it happened (despite the known details being murky), it isn't an event that has sparked widespread fan outrage, infamy, and major notoriety anywhere near the same way as the late 2012 powergrab where both Al and Brian were affected. Other than the superfan readers like us on this board, Mike can largely get away with avoiding certain topics/people in the book and not get too many eyebrows raised at large, and I fully expect him to take advantage of that whenever possible.

My original "read it first" comment was in response to the usual dimwits who instinctively "know" the worth of Mike's book... but you have a valid point, even though the chance of Alan actually doing a book before we all die is a slim as a slim thing.  :)

According to Amazon, Mike's book is worth $25.20. 

 ;D

In all seriousness, I'm looking forward to reading both.

I should've included a winky face or something. That was meant as a joking dig, not a mean one.

If Mike doesn't address Al's "firing" in his book, maybe Brian will address it in his. Or, at the very least, Brian can explain why he never came to Al's rescue in helping him get back in the band. Brian himself voted to give the license to Mike (for a fee of course); I wonder if he ever did anything to change it? Maybe that's why Brian keeps "hiring" Al for his band, maybe he feels guilty. That might explain why he continues to under-utilize Al.

Brian not helping to get Al back in the Beach Boys (when Al wanted back in) reminds me of that scene in The Godfather when Abe Vigoda (in this case Al) is about to get terminated, and he asks Robert Duvall (in this case Brian) for help, saying "For old time's sake...", and Robert Duvall responds, "Can't do it Sallie (Al)..."

Unlike Myke luHv, Brian gets along with Al plus he got an incredible voice. I doubt that Brian feels any *guilt* but rather is far more concerned than myKe luHv about how his band comes across to the ticketholder. luHv-quantity. Brian-quality.

It's telling Mike has constantly changing hired hands and one worn out Replacement BB while BW's band has stuck together for all these years.

Inaction by not coming to someone's rescue is quite a bit different than someone else actively making efforts to specifically squeeze someone out of the band.  Comparatively speaking, one would think the latter incident would certainly be more worthy of being addressed by the person who is responsible for those actions (Mike) in their book.  

Trying telling that to Andy Paley, Bob Lizik, Jim Hines, Taylor Mills, Jeff Foskett for starters.   ;)

Apart from them Brian's band has stuck together without any changes ::)

Funny, but without those mentioned, Brian's band is even better. myKe luHv's band is in dire need of Al Jardine for his great voice not to mention authenticity.

Maybe they are better now (Bob is back on bass) but they have always been the best band out there IMHO and I don't think there has been any improvement or decline noticeable to my ears.

As for Mike's group, I agree with you! And you could apply the same logic as you have used with Brian's. Which is, Mike has made those changes to improve the band.

The point of SB's post though was not about the merits of either band, but more do with another statement knocking Mike for the sake of it.  I believe, you have also just backed me up on this one!

Smile Brian's point is invalid. Can't have it both ways. Either you stay long-term because you're good, or because you've become a worn-out stand in? Bruce has earned his place in Beach Boys' history. As have Brian's band members, past and present.

Sorry… "Smile Brian" - bloomin' auto correct!!!

Hardly. myKe luHv employs *yes men*, you know, like br00th who adds virtually nada to the band but omits Al  ??? ??? myKe luHv so deserves all the knocks he receives.

I certainly don't think it should be suggested that Brian's band has remained intact and unchanged. But I'd say Brian's band has had a relatively low amount of turnover for being together for 17 years now, especially with such a big band. First of all, Lizik of course is back. If we're to believe the published accounts/statements, Foskett chose to leave. Andy Paley was only brought in as an ostensibly temporary replacement for Mike D'Amico, in 2001, right?

Most accounts suggested Lizik and Hines's departures were not of their choice. Not sure about Mills. Didn't she kind of just not get integrated back in when Brian got back to touring? Simons I presume had other things on his schedule, resulting in the return of Lizik.

Whereas, with Mike's band, how many folks who have left the touring band since the late 90s have done so of their own choice? We obviously can never say for sure, but other than Christian Love and, I guess David Marks, not many others seem to have chosen to leave. Maybe Matt Jardine in 1998 if we want to count that (and that had some obvious extenuating circumstances). Maybe Phil Bardowell? So I would guess Mike has a higher involuntary turnover rate in his band.

Not that *that* is even necessarily a bad thing. It's like any other job/industry. Some people over the years were probably let go for legitimate musical reasons. Some were maybe let go because even though they were fine, someone else was wanted more. Some people (probably relatively few) have chosen to leave. Even those who don't care to see Mike's shows can objectively see that moves like Cowsill and Totten have helped the band, and that Foskett and Ike are no slouches musically either.

While Brian's band is not and has not been immune from the common industry tropes of some amount of turnover, I'd say there has been more mutual employer *and* employee loyalty *and* consistency there than many other bands, including potentially Mike. So much so that Brian got most of his band into the C50 band as well. Something tells me it probably would have been easier for Brian to just submit to having he, Al, and Dave join Mike's band. But Brian didn't do that.

Didn't Taylor leave to (successfully) start a family? She's guested on stage at least once since, I believe.

It's hard to compare but Mike's guys tend to have served for thousands of shows where as Brian's guys have been around for hundreds of shows?

If you had been with Brian's band for every show since 1998 you would have had like 700 shows (I think), Mike's guys match that milestone in 4 or 5 years (I think).

Er, try about 520 to date.

If you follow touring bands, from the 175-per-year variety (Mike) to the lucky-if-you-can-book-a-dozen-rib-cook-offs variety (Al solo), what you'll find is that it is typically *more difficult* to hold a backing band together when you play fewer shows.

It's why, if you open up Al's "Live in Las Vegas" CD, I think it shows like three different bass players, a few drummers, etc. Obviously, he had one set of musicians on that album. But doing scattershot dates usually means your band is more likely to drift apart.

That Brian has kept all of the guys he has over 17 years when he has done very scattered touring during certain years, is even more impressive in terms of mutual loyalty and consistency between Brian and band. Even more so considering the people currently in the band are probably *not* kept on retainer the way, say, McCartney keeps his guys, or Mike keeps his guys (and even if Mike doesn't literally keep this band on retainer, they are employed for nearly the entire year, every year, even if they're simply being contracted for specific blocks of dates).

Noted, so the equivalent 3 to 4 years of loyalty in Mike's band.

And in addition to the loyality that Brian has earned, I'm sure that it has something to do with playing with a true legend unlike the myKe and br00th BB tribute band.

I don't think anybody has questioned the loyalty of musicians in both Brian's and Mike's band. Very few members in either band have seemed to voluntarily exit their respective band.

It's more an issue of "turnover" than it is "loyalty", considering the majority of musicians exiting have probably done so not of their own choice.

When you factor in departures relative to total band size, and look at length of service, (to say nothing of actual tour schedules), Brian's band has had less turnover than Mike's. Which could mean any number of things. Mike could be finicky. He could be meticulous in upgrading musicians. He could be bad at hiring musicians in the first place.

I didn't bring up band member turnover, so it's not a big thing to me one way or the other. But *if* we're going to compare the two bands, and certainly if we're going to really get into "loyalty", I think two germane points are: 1. Most members of both bands tend to *want* to stay in them. and 2. If one way we measure "loyalty" is sticking to a band even without consistent monetary reward, and not taking other long-term gigs, then the *less active* touring band and its members could easily be characterized as having more "loyalty."

We agree about Brian but it would be an honor to perform with the living legends Mike and Bruce (and Al, and Dave) too.

I also imagine that the musicians in Brian's band feel they get significantly more respect from the media and fans, when compared to the musicians Mike's band. That's not a dig against any of the musicians in either band, but the undeniable fact of the matter, regardless of politics, is that Brian's band is respected on a much higher level, and play places like Hollywood Bowl, etc. Mike's band does play some big shows sometimes, but as far as I know not Hollywood Bowl headlining level, and only smaller local press typically covers the M&B show, compared to more legit news outlets for Brian's shows. For whatever that disparity could mean to band members on a personal level, I would tend to think it's not a negligible issue when it comes to turnover and morale.

myKe luHv and posse legends?? Maybe in myKe's book and your book but very few would call them something like legends.

OSD,

I'm curious. 

Are you actually going to read any of Mike's book to have something real to complain about on or around Sept 13?

Or, do you plan on sticking with your usual repetitive and tired nonsense? 

Probably the former while also doing much of the latter.

Brian's band is as much a tribute band as Mike's. Both tour the world doing the music created by Brian, Mike, Carl, Dennis, Al and David in the 60's. Both occasionally throw in a few newer songs, but the bulk of the show is songs recorded from 1962-1969. With Mike's band, you get the guy who was the lead singer on a lot of the hits, and lyric writer on many of those; and another long time BB, who also sang on the records; With Brian's band, you get the guy who was the main writer/visionary of the group, and he sang lead on a good number of the hits; and another core member of the group, the voice of "Help Me, Rhonda". I'm sure the guys that back up Mike have as much respect for him as Brian's band members do for him.

To each his own ol' pal.

So Brian Wilson, the creator of the music, touring under his own name with another founding member of the band - Al Jardine, the spectacular Blondie Chaplin and his own band of many years is a tribute band?  Brian's band has been publicly acknowledged as the best band performing - this by some of their most gifted competitors in the business.  Whatever logic you put into that paragraph above defies any kind of thinking that I can begin to grasp.

Given the thread topic here, I can only hope that there won't be any similar sentiment in Mike's book.

I would agree that while the "tribute band" pejorative doesn't really accomplish much of anything, *if* we're going to start throwing the term around, Brian and Mike's bands can't be judged in the same fashion, as Mike *chooses* to actually use the name "The Beach Boys." To many (including the licensor), such a band is held to a different standard.

Any band member that leaves a band and tours under his or her own name can have the "tribute band" accusation lobbed at them. But they're doing everything they can, using their own name and playing the music they wrote and/or originally performed. When a member leaves a band (and let's be honest, Mike essentially has *left* the Beach Boys in both 1998 and 2012 and then re-formed his own band and then pursued/used a license) but then continues touring under that band's name, the "tribute band" accusation is going to sting a lot more, because they don't *have* to use the original band's name.

When you have two or three splintered remnants of a band out there touring, they're all going to resemble "tribute" bands to some degree, because they all have to fill out their bands. If anything, you're certainly going to get more actual Beach Boys singing leads at a BW show than you do at a Mike show.

I think "tribute band" status starts to become less of an unfair slam when you start getting more than the occasional lead vocal from a "backing band" member. I'd argue especially with Matt Jardine being essentially an adjunct Beach Boys in the 90s, you don't get much non-BB lead vocal material presently at a BW show. Darian sings a song or two, that's about it.

In fairness Lonely Summer maybe doesn't believe either to be a tribute act.  But would merely be stating they are both as valid as each other and was in responsive to the usual unhelpful comment before his.

Personally, I prefer to see Brian's band.  I just hate the way certain posters constantly dredge up the same old tired stuff, most of which are one or two sentence posts, and rarely about the actual music or new releases.

Anytime Brian and Al want to Mike to stop calling his band the Beach Boys, they can put a stop to it. Don't let him license the name again.

We're all waiting for Brian and his tribute band to do exactly that. While Brian has certainly established himself as a solo artist, he is THE Beach Boy who most identify as the creative force behind the band. Let's see what myKe luHv can do peddling a band with just his name alone and...good luck with that.  :lol

Do you honestly think that it would be easy if they wanted to stop Mike? That it wouldn't devolve into a prolonged legal battle which would be an emotional albatross over their heads for likely all their remaining years, when they are 75 years old? Even if they wanted to stop it, it's really not worth the fight at this stage of the game. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking it would be a remotely easy thing to do.

Actualy OSD, Mr. Love does have another band, full of the touring BB band members minus BJ, they play corporate and private events for half the booking fee of the current touring BB.

I have seen both bands several times. IMHO, Brian's band is far superior to the M&B group referred occasionally as the Beach Boys.
That is not to say that Mike's version is not entertaining. They are both superlative bands however BW's is much better

No, they cannot.

If they could, why haven't they since 1998 (especially in fall 2012) ? If Brian & Al decided to call a special meeting of BRI to revote on the license issue (assuming they could - as fans we don't know if, or how, things have changed since 1998), the vote would still be locked at 2-2 as Carl's estate are highly unlikely to give up a yearly six-figure income purely on a supposed point of artistic principle, thus the status quo would prevail. But anyway, fact is they can't do it at the drop of a hat.

 If I was to look up threads from 2006 chances are this M&B vs Brian topic would have the same replies. (and 2007, 2008, 2009....)

Tribute bands: as ever I stand to be corrected but tribute bands do not routinely include one or more original/core members. Members of the "mother" band may sit in now and then (Mike Rutherford with In The Cage is one example that springs to mind) but they don't tour exclusively with them. Thus, neither Brian's nor Mike's is a tribute band.

I think the whole point of the pejorative nature of calling a legit band a "tribute band" is that they're not, but that they resemble one due to having few original members, or because of the middling quality of the show. Hence people even referring to, say, a McCartney show as a McCartney tribute band, etc.

End of the day they are both bands paying tribute to the music, but not tribute bands by definition.

Macca is the leader of the world's highest paid, biggest drawing Beatles tribute band.

Given the fact that most BW Band members were big fans of the big man long before they even met him, I suppose you could argue that Brian Wilson (as billed) is a Brian Wilson tribute band.

(Enough of this, surely?  :-\ )

All this talk of tribute bands has me thinking of my favorite line from the movie Rock Star. 

When, Mark Walhburg's character is kicked out of the Steel Dragon tribute band, he's asked if he wants to play in a cover band forever.

"We're not a cover band, we're a tribute band!!!" 

While I really don't think called them "The Beach Boys," Mike and Bruce (and sometimes David) are far from a tribute band. 

Exactly. Brian and Al don't have a majority vote even if they want the license yanked. And I would guess even if they got the three votes they needed, the thing would immediately be tied up in litigation for years.

Their situation is also messy because they're all individuals, but things have to run through BRI as a corporation. Just as "BRI" had to go after Al in 1999, if there were a 3-to-1 vote against Mike and Mike had a gripe or wanted to tie it up in litigation, he might have to take action *against* BRI in that case. Thus, the Beach Boys at various points have literally fallen into the "Rutles" category of suing themselves.

But yeah, I don't think Brian and Al want to pay hundreds of thousands if not millions in legal fees just to then *not* make their cut of the licensing fee.

Some observers have also speculated that *no* vote on the license has taken place since Mike got his exclusive license in 1999 or 2000 or whenever it was. In other words, BRI probably don't meet every year to "renew" the license. The potential semi-perpetuity of the license may also play into the difficulty involved in revoking it.

I think it's technically possible it could be done, as in the corporate/legal machinations could be attempted. Indeed, Mike's 2005 lawsuit included the accusation/allegation that Brian threatened to vote to revoke the license and tour with Al Jardine as "The Beach Boys." I don't think they voted in 1999 to give Mike a permanent license with no ability to revisit it ever.

But, however contentious relations are between the parties, I think they probably all enjoy *not* having to pay teams of lawyers to litigate stuff. They've been lawsuit free (with each other anyway) for a little while now, so maybe they see the wisdom in letting the dogs sleep.

I wonder what would have happened if, in 1998/1999, the terms of Mike getting to use the band name also included the stipulation that Al could tour as "BB Family and Friends". If the whole "licensing fee" was waived for Al, and was thus a non-issue for Al's entire band, being as they would have played smaller, lower profit shows, and if Al was required to share profits with BRI when shows were profitable and actually made money (seems fair to me).

I assume if Mike *had* to let Al use the name he wanted to use in order for Mike to use "The BB" name for himself, that he'd have grudgingly gone along with it. In fact, I'm not sure there's anything that Mike wouldn't have done or conceded to at the time, if it were the only way to get the "BB" band name to himself.  

The sense I get is that in 1998/99, Al had no other corporate support in what he was trying to do, so he had no leverage.

My recollection of court documents is that Carl's estate proposed the idea in 1998 of everybody getting non-exclusive licenses. Mike may have voted against this, but this idea was voted in by BRI.

I think Al wanted to pay a lower license fee because he was calling his band "BBFF" instead of "The Beach Boys", and may have even been offered a reduced license fee by BRI at some point (one which he apparently didn't feel was enough of an accommodation).

While that all sounds sensible (the general idea of paying a smaller fee by using the BBFF name instead of the BB name), it was probably an awful move strategically, because it eventually led to lawsuits because Al was not abiding by the terms of the license and/or didn't have a license, and his arguments in court that he *had* a license and also that he *didn't need one*, obviously didn't win the court over.

By the end of 1999, Mike had an exclusive license, which I can only imagine is what he wanted all along. I wouldn't be surprised if he was surprised Al even attempted to go back out with his own band.

So I don't think there would have been any scenario where BRI or Mike agreed to let Al tour as "BBFF" with minimal or no licensing fees. I would imagine part of the reason Al wanted to try something, *anything* to pay less licensing fees, was due to the overhead costs of starting a band, a touring production company, etc. all from scratch. He may not have been *able* to afford even BRI's proposed reduced licensing fees when starting his band out.

If Al had had any support in that 1998 timeframe, he could have received some help in leveraging something like an arrangement where Al would agree to vote to give Mike the license if Mike agreed to let Al use the "BBFF" name with perhaps no initial licensing fee, or a licensing fee kicking in after a certain threshold of profit was reached.

But there were a lot of factors at play at that time. I think once Al started actually touring and was getting better reviews than Mike (even some Mike supporters would acknowledge that Al's band sounded better in 1999 than Mike's band did in 1999), it made it even less likely that Mike would be agreeable to anything that kept Al on the touring circuit using the BB name in *any* fashion.

Based on very recent Al interviews (as in the last year or two), Brian and Al may *still* get warnings to not emphasize their "Beach Boys" connection too prominently. So it's *still* an issue nearly 20 years later. I can only hope that Brian and Al (or their attorneys) would tell anyone trying to strong-arm 50% of the shareholders of BRI regarding their billing as original BBs to go f**k off, but whatever happened, it still appears to be an issue.

I was going to say it can be done and has been done multiple times I believe: BRI voted Mike an exclusive license; they voted to take it away after Al threatened a law suit; they voted non- exclusive licenses for Brian, Mike, and Al; they voted to offer sweetened terms for Al's non-exclusive license; then they voted to take Al's license away; they voted to restore an exclusive license to Mike.

It's very doable even when one of the principles goes rogue and sues his fellow board members.

What about this point are you missing?  Paul's band tours under the name "Paul McCartney," not "the Beatles" - as Brian has toured for many years under his own name with his band, not "the Beach Boys."  Paul and Brian both perform material that was recorded under their own names.  Is this really so difficult for you?

I don't think we can assume all of those actions each involved a corporate vote. I'm not even sure that succession of events is accurate.

And anyone who isn't on the board of directors or involved in their corporate setup suggesting "it's very doable" can't possibly know what they're talking about. Technically possible? Yes. "Very Doable." Nah, I don't think so. Not any more doable than every member of this board never having a single disagreement or argument again. Is that technically possible to undertake? Yes. Is it realistic to suggest it's "very doable?" No.

I've talked to numerous folks who are as familiar with the BRI setup and the BBs history (and history of litigation) as anyone can be outside of the actual organization, and every person I've talked to agrees that even if Brian, Al, and Carl's estate all voted 3-1 to revoke Mike's license, Mike could tie it up in litigation for YEARS. How successful he would be in the end, I don't know. But there's are a ton of potential causes for civil action that could arise from such an event, and such an upheaval within BRI could easily result in litigation that would outlive some of the band members.

Agreed, and well-said.  Making the leap that anyone here knows the inner-workings of BRI and how the licensing work is rather silly...and if anyone here would happen to know, one might assume they wouldn't be able to talk about it, since these actions would not be public and subject to confidentiality.

And the "pulling the license" speculation is always a non-starter anyway, because there has never been much indication such a thing was on the table once Mike got his exclusive license. I'm not even sure Al ever wanted Mike to *not* have any license. There was just a period where Al wanted to use the "BBFF" name as an alternative. Al *may* have voted against Mike's exclusive license, but that doesn't mean he wanted an exclusive license himself. He just didn't want one person to have it and be frozen out.

The only indicator I've ever seen of talk of pulling the license was the accusations made in *Mike's* 2005 lawsuit, alleging Brian threatened to vote to pull Mike's license and either tour with Al as "The Beach Boys", or completely remove the license from the marketplace.

I don't tend to believe this *serious* allegation was completely fabricated, but I'm also not convinced it was ever something Brian (or Al) really wanted to do or planned to try to do. It sounds very much like a posturing/negotiating thing, which I'm sure all of these guys have undertaken over the years.

If ever there was a time they would have tried to yank the license, it would have been in the aftermath of 2012, and there's no indication any movement (or desire) on anyone's part ever happened. Brian's 2012 letter to the LA Times mentioned something about the whole thing being a matter for discussion among the shareholders, which is the only bit that I could try to stretch to suggest it might have been a veiled reference to changing the licensing setup at BRI.

At the same time, it's a total lapse in logic to suggest that if Brian and Al haven't tried to take Mike's license, that they're "perfectly fine" with it. As with many things in life, they may be grudgingly acknowledging it's the best choice from a list of choices that aren't ideal.

I'll bet the day after he was kicked out of the band, circa 1998, Al probably wanted Mike to not have any license. I cannot imagine how hurt and screwed over Al must have felt in that moment.

I'm convinced that if social media existed in its current form at that time, that the hell Mike would have gotten for it would have been tremendous and overwhelming, and fans would have demanded an explanation from Mike for Al's dismissal.  *Especially* considering the opportune timing with Carl's passing. I don't think Mike could have avoided addressing his "reasoning" publicly.

Social media, and people refusing to let Mike sweep things like the ugly dismissal of a 35+ year original bandmate under the rug, is Mike's Kryptonite.

Mike doesn't give a damn even with social media, his ego is so big that he ALONE is the BBs.

It would certainly be interesting to see how that 1998 situation would have played out in today's social media. I have no idea. Mike got a ton of bad PR at the end of 2012 ("Mike Love fires Brian Wilson" trending on Twitter, etc.), but it didn't keep him from doing what he does.

I think it was business moves in the mid-late 90s on Mike's part that ended up serving him very well. Al saw it coming (see the Marks/Stebbins book) but couldn't do anything to stop it without allies in Carl or Brian.

That Al has gotten over *that* and works with Brian is refreshing. Everybody made nice and enjoyed C50. Guess who was disenfranchised in the aftermath of that project?

True, but at least in 2012, Mike could fall back on the lame excuse that C50 was a pre-planned, temporary arrangement. It would have been quite another thing entirely for social media to chime in when the 1998 firing of Al was a brand new, fresh thing of an original member being permanently ousted. It would be interesting to see what kind of spin Mike would have tried to put on it. I'm sure a PR damage control person would have been hired and consulted.

I'm sure Mike in 1998 would never have just flat out publicly admitted that he wanted full control for the sake of power, and because he deserves it for writing hit songs that Al never wrote. Mike would have had to go back to focusing on publicly hammering Al for being a sourpuss or something. But if that had been the tack Mike had taken right after the devastating passing of Carl, I just could see the sh*tstorm having been huge. It would come off as so incredibly opportunistic, regardless if this was "planned" before Carl got sick. And if Mike got hammered about the opportunism, I'm not sure how he could respond to it. It would not have been pretty.

I'm not saying that Mike wouldn't have just gone ahead and done it anyway. Just that he'd be much more taken to task for it, and that it would be humorous to see Mike dodge mentioning his own ego as a prime motivation. It's always both simultaneously amusing and infuriating watching the dodging and the spin.

I can't speak for Al, Brian, Mike, Bruce, or David.   I don't know them personally, nor do I really know a ton of the inner workings of BRI.  

But, I'd have to think that almost four years after the C50 Reunion ended, they've all moved on.  

Al has been enjoying touring with Brian.

Brian seems to be having a great time touring.  He may be happier on stage now than at any point in his life previously.  He's put out some very good music too.

Mike gets to do very good shows with his band, and gets to be the center of attention.  The fans who attend leave happy each night.  

Bruce gets to do what Bruce does.  

David has gone back and forth between the camps, touring with Brian and Al, appearing on NPP, and doing shows with Mike and Bruce.  

It seems to me that it's the some of the fans who don't want to move on.  

Sure, I think the name "The Beach Boys" should be amended somehow, just as other Touring 60s acts have been.  But, at this point, it is what it is.  

The idea that a subset of fans have more trouble getting over something (e.g. C50) than the actual members is something worth pondering. But I think, especially after the immediate aftermath and all-around disappointment from most fans, we all "got over it", and the topic only rears its head when two sides, who both "got over it and moved on" but ended the saga feeling differently, restate their feelings or opinions on the matter.

I'm over the C50 debacle. Discovering how much of a clusterf**k the whole thing was helped to get over it in fact. But if someone reasserts that Mike is blameless in the demise of the reunion, I have no problem getting back into it and disagreeing. I don't see that as "not getting over it", but simply not being opposed to reengaging in a debate. I don't think we all *always* get back into it; it can be tiresome.

I also question how much the various factions have "gotten over" all of the BS attached to C50. I don't think any of the guys wake up in cold sweats about it, or fume about it on a daily basis. But I doubt, behind close doors, privately, they simply say "we're all just doing our own thing now, it's all good!" There is a half century-plus of chips on shoulders and animosity and not getting over some grudges. I don't think that will ever go away.

At the end of the day, I'm not prepared to say all of the band members take all of this stuff more lightly than argumentative fans, because some of the band members are the ones who have launched lawsuits, lobbed insults and backhanded compliments in interviews, send "polite warnings" to fellow band members about how they bill their shows, and so on.

Fans may publicly talk about the BB shenanigans more than the members do, but I would guess some or all of the members *do* talk about it and stew on it sometimes themselves, and they certainly *act* on it more than fans do.

So it has been done but it is not "doable". 

I think all of that info was from the court record but we all know how reliable they aren't.

Except those for whom the very mention of a certain name causes their eyes to glow a terrible, baleful red, the frothy drool to start dripping from their lips, their incisors to grow a good foot and their few remaining brain cells to turn to mush.  ;D

Sounds like a certain someone here when a poster offers an opinion that he doesn't agree with or a simple case of incorrect punctuation or a misspelled word. ::) ::) ::) ::)

Is that an exact quote from your foreword to the book? If so, I'll have to seek it out.

Just a little something I'm working on... the inside story of this august forum. I'm thinking of calling it F*ckwits & Sh*tweasels, With A Light Frosting Of Trolls.  ;D

C'mon, Mike doesn't get *that* upset when you mention Brian or Melinda or the songwriting credits lawsuit...  :3d

Brian gave an interview not that long ago where he said he likes that Mike is keeping the Beach Boys "name" out there with his live shows (and of course, Brian gets a cut from those shows) so it sure doesn't sound like Brian is upset about it at all.

Brian's obviously made peace with the idea of it, as he often does with many events and people (who many others less forgiving than Brian would have had a much harder time doing). He was however certainly upset, as evidenced by the LA Times article, about feeling like he was fired due to Mike's actions. That didn't not happen.

I wonder how forgiving Mike would be of Brian if through some means, Brian finagled a way to tour as "The BBs", and specifically exclude Mike from being in the live band called "The BBs". Something tells me Mike's forgiveness level would not be high. Can you even imagine how absolutely endlessly Mike would be publicly complaining about it? Can you imagine Mike being appreciative of Brian keeping the BB name out there (without Mike's involvement)? It would never happen.  

True, he was disappointed 4 years ago when the C50 tour ended. As he's also said in recent interviews, that the C50 tour was the most enjoyable tour he's had and he likes having Mike as the frontman (although I doubt many on this board with agree with him there).

The point is, Brian has moved on. He appears healthy and happy and doing the kind of shows and maintaining the kind of touring schedule that works for him.

In a perfect world, Mike, Bruce and Al (and possibly Dave) would've toured without Brian, only having him pop up at selected shows like they had done decades before, so Brian wouldn't have to live out of a suitcase like the others....but then we probably would've been back to the same old argument that poisoned fan circles in the 80's and 90's. "It's not the Beach Boys without Brian". People forget that even Carl was vilified by hardcore fans in those years.

So what do you do? You've got Mike who wants a stripped down unit to play as many shows as humanly (and economically) possible, and Brian who wants a larger unit playing less shows. We're not even getting into the lawyers/accountants/managers point of view which is a major factor in all of this business.

This subject won't be closed until both men can no longer tour at all, a day that's coming sooner than later.

That's "a perfect world" for that most rapacious and intolerant of creatures, the fan. Or rather, the hard-core fan. Joe Q. Public could are less. Point being, the subject is closed, as far as Brian & Mike are concerned: they're both touring the way they want to, and that's fine by them. The End.  :)

Agreed. My point was that even a "perfect world" scenario of Mike, Bruce and Al touring as The Beach Boys with Brian popping in now and then would tick off the fans. I remember those days all too well.  8)

It's basically as though they've had a divorce, and Mike walked away with the family business, although he still pays the other business members alimony. Ultimately they all of course deserve to be happy, and they are on different paths... but it's a bummer that the name of the brand had to take a hit the way it did. Ego got in the way. No amount of explaining (Mike-splaining?) can make that not true, at least to a point. And for the brand name to take a hit PLUS the guy who got to walk away with the brand name just happens to be the lone guy still endlessly complaining, well that's what just bugs the heck out of a lotta people.  

Ultimately, I think that Brian and Al are just making the best of it, not necessarily touring "the way they want to". What they wanted was to be BBs again and they were denied that. This fact sucks. I am glad Brian and Al are having fun touring though, and I'm also glad M&B are having fun doing their touring too. Frankly, as much as I'd love to see all the living members making music together... with some exceptions, it seems they cannot work together and be truly happy (in no small part due to one member's ego issues - the Achilles heel of the band, barring drug use/mental illness), and I think that's been the case for decades.

Honestly, I don't see the brand taking any kind of a hit. Pet Sounds and SMiLE aren't loved any less. The Beach Boys are frequently written about with lofty language in music publications, etc. If anything, their (and Brian's) level of respect among hipsters, music lovers, critics, etc is higher than it's ever been. That certainly wasn't the case 30 years ago.

The tours these days make no dent in any of that.

Mike lost a ton of respect for how C50 imploded. He is the public image of the touring band these days. If there was a longterm reconciliation of Brian and Mike, and the ego issues were in check, and Brian + Al continued associating with the BB name while making quality "BB" material, the brand name would have more dignity these days. No doubt.

The current touring BBs, for example, will never be invited to the 2016 Mega-Concert of 1960s superstars with Dylan, Rolling Stones, Neil Young, etc. (that's being talked about in another current thread)... but if Brian and Al were still in the band, with the reunion going strong, Mike's ego in check, and the band touring (but touring less, with an emphasis of quality over quantity) I think there's a high probability the BBs would have been invited as a headliner.  Plus, many more people would like Mike a lot more. None of these things would do anything but help the brand.

I desire for Mike to be better respected (by earning such respect) and I also desire the brand name to have more dignity. Sucks that it ain't so. I'm glad the members are all making the best of things considering how much better things could have been.

Sadly that they may be happy and content post 2012 doesn't come across in interviews. Mike still snipes about one thing or the other constantly in interviews. He is not a content soul by any means and Al and Brian have sniped occasionally as well.

Uh... I never mentioned Alan. I doubt he'd be happy even if you managed to reanimate Carl & Dennis especially for him. Not the epitome of a happy camper...

Exactly!  Most of the public couldn't name the individual Beach Boys (Brian included).  They do however appreciate and love the music and will continue to do so as long as people gather for parties, barbecues and good times.  Those who are music scholars and musicians etc, know that Mike Love is out touring without Brian, Al and David but it doesn't matter because they/we know Brian is a genius and the band were about more than the early hits.  All this adds up to the legacy still being intact.  Everyone's happy (except the minority who keep banging on about it).  ;D

The 70s/80s Beach Boys probably did more harm to the brand than Mike is now.
The 'brand' of the Beach Boys is quite unique.  On the one hand the hits which people buy time after time and the 'serious' stuff which allows them to market stuff to obsessives like us!  None of what happens now will affect that.

Exactly. If some of the Boys' behaviors back in that day didn't kill the image, it is bulletproof. I don't think continuing to play the everyman kind of venues that helped make their rep is a problem.

Andrew, you know I love ya, but I've noticed here and there that you've been painting Al as a pissy little SOB lately. And I don't know, maybe he has been. From the interviews and whatnot that I've seen and read he seems pretty cool.

I just think it's interesting you've gone out of your way lately to paint Al as a grudge holding, bitter dude with posts like this...


....but then you turn around and brush off Mike harping about songwriting credits (which were rectified years ago) and bagging on Melinda and shitting on use of possible autotune on Brian's new material (while apparently also using it himself on his Christmas tune).

Now my thing is, I like both Mike and Al (and Brian more than either). In fact, I've been waiting too many years for Mike to have the guts to release a new album (I was kidding myself to think he would actually release something this year). But regardless, if we are gonna be pointing out whose book is "unreadable" due to insane bitterness, I think Al has quite a bit of competition in The Beach Boys.

Maybe so, maybe not... but at least I couch my posts in fairly good basic English and spell his name correctly.  :)

"Just a little something I'm working on... the inside story of this august forum. I'm thinking of calling it F*ckwits & Sh*tweasels, With A Light Frosting Of Trolls."

Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Post of the month, Ang. Good job of pointing out his hypocrisy.  :woot :woot

After all, Jack didn't say "To sum it up, Mike blew it, Mike blew it consistently, Mike continues
to blow it, it is tragic and this pathological problem caused The
Beach Boys' greatest music to be so underrated by the general public."

Not judging. Just stating facts. We have all three, plus a smattering of World Champeen Fence Sitters.

For it to be a fact we would have to have a definition of 'f*ckwits and sh*tweasels' - these words are insults without having any specific meaning. Also, the proposed title suggests that this forum consists of little other than these three categories which of course begs the question 'which one are you?'

For someone who corrects others for mistakes you certainly like to make up your own words and spellings!  

I have seen a good many posts in this forum from learned, articulate posters who have made their feelings exceptionally clear and I'm not talking about you here Andrew.  There seems to be no category for them.

Stupid [f*ckwit]- everyone makes mistakes, even you.
Deceitful [sh*tweasle] - there is a motive to every post here and whilst some make it obvious what that motive is, not everyone does and some are working on behalf of others and are constrained to keep that quiet.
Fence sitters - although we all know which side of the fence currently meets your needs, you are curiously silent on some issues where a fight cannot be won.

Also you missed the hoodwinkers - those who lead you up the garden path on a detour from the original argument.

From what I've gathered over the years talking to many fans and scholars and students of the band, coupled with my own observations, there have been periods of time where Al could be difficult. I don't doubt that that stuff Mike talked about in that circa 1992 Goldmine interview, about Al having an attitude problem or getting hung up on things from the past, is accurate to some degree. Now, maybe Al had some legit reasons that Mike didn't and doesn't agree with (do any of us really staunchly disagree with Al being perturbed by adding cheerleaders to the stage show for instance?), and maybe in some cases Al was just being a contrarian, just being difficult where nobody else was.

I think he still has some idiosyncrasies that makes dealing with him an enterprise that becomes perhaps more complicated than it should.

But I think to make a big deal out of this in light of this band and its history is pretty silly. For a few reasons:

Apart from a few apologists that won't ever objectively say anything negative about Mike, I think most fans would agree Mike in recent years has come across as bitter about several topics. More bitter than any of the other BBs. He seems less content and more unhappy than Al or Brian does. That's how he comes across anyway.

One of the reasons this is extra ironic is because, as I've said many times, Mike, based on his own description of what *he* wants, has everything the way he wants it. Touring his way, with the people he wants, etc. He won the songwriting lawsuit.

Al has been continually and comically marginalized by all sides at one point or another. Even in Brian's band, he's humbled himself quite a bit and basically just does whatever Brian wants him to. Al's not getting a bunch of setlist picks. He's basically there to support Brian. Al has never gotten any traction touring on his own since 1999, his ideas never seem to be considered or taken seriously within BRI, or even during group interviews. Remember the Charlie Rose 2012 interview where Al suggests touring every other year? I'm not saying that was really a plausible idea. But his idea goes over like a lead balloon even in a public interview with the band. I could almost sense at least one or two of the guys stifling a "pffffttttttt."

Al and Brian had allegedly continued to be harangued about calling themselves "Beach Boys" post-2012.

In any event, I always laugh at the whispers that Al is the a-hole or the difficult one to deal with. Even if he is "difficult", it's a bit rich of an accusation coming from *that* group of guys (insert the Lester Bangs quote here), and it's comical because Al is completely marginalized and impotent both within the group dynamic and within the BRI structure.

C50? Salaried. Al got "Don Felder-ed" in that scenario. Both were "corporate" members, and both got sidelined to "salary" status for their respective reunion gigs. Yet Al seemed happier than most of the guys in the band, sang his ass off, and wanted to *continue* in that mode.

1998? Al got figuratively and effectively (if not literally) s***canned, and based on the Marks/Stebbins book *saw it coming* and didn't appear to be able to do anything about it.

1990s? Al didn't like the cheerleaders, didn't like the business machinations, and the evidence suggests he was told to sit down and shut up. In the case of the "SIP" sessions, he just wasn't called.

I'm not even getting into how much Al deserved or didn't deserve any of this stuff. Either way, he has been marginalized for literally decades and I don't buy for a second that anybody in the BB camp should object *that* heavily to Al having an "attitude problem" (assuming that's true, which I question) in light of how politically and interpersonally f-ed up the band has been and continues to be.

Considering how marginalized and humbled Al has become (whether by choice or by circumstance) in the last couple decades, he seems to be a lot more mellow and content than Mike is, even though Mike (whether by circumstance or shrewd business acumen, or both) has molded everything exactly the way he wants.

The only thing Mike can't change is the past, and he seems pretty bitter about it even after all this time, and I can't be the only person who sees the irony in that 1992 version of Mike derisively pointing out how it was Al who couldn't get over stuff.

In 2016, how often do you see Al complaining about being squeezed out in 1998, or complaining about the "Family & Friends" lawsuits?

Yeah.

Tell me more about the C50 situation? I assumed it was participation as opposed to salaried for Al being a member of BRI.
So was it salaries for David, Al and Bruce? %'s for Mike and Brian?

No, Jack didn't say that. If Jack said that, with his comments focused on one guy, I imagine he'd probably have subjected himself to being at risk of retaliation in some fashion. I'm sure Jack felt that others in the band also went along with some hare-brained decisions, and it was in his best interest to be less than specific in his comments. However, I'd be quite surprised if Jack didn't feel that Mike was the biggest cheerleader/heaviest influence leading to those hare-brained decisions.

Yeah x 2.

Great question.....and the answer will say a lot about the BB's/BRI organizational "status and structure" from 1962 to C50.  Had Al been marginalized long before the 90's by the group ?  Thinking back, hasn't it been posted previously over the years here, that when Al returned to the band after the Dental school/David Marks situation, he wasn't a principal and did not receive that status until Bruce's time off from the band in the 70's ?

The C50 setup was simply a one-shot deal done through a production company formed around Joe Thomas, Brian, and Mike. "50 Big Ones Productions." It wasn't a BRI-run operation.

I don't think there's anything *extra* nefarious about Al not being a part of that. It's more a symptom of Al's place or "rank" in the whole BB orb. The pecking order in many ways tends to run Brian-Mike-Al-Bruce-Dave. Even all of the C50 posters had the names in *that* order. Foskett introduced the BBs on stage in *that* order.

I'm not even suggesting Al should have or could have been a part of "50 Big Ones Productions." Just objectively, he being a BRI shareholder but *not* being a "shareholder" so to speak in that production company is something I can say some folks *would* take issue with. And to my knowledge, he has never publicly expressed being upset about it.

And Al or anyone familiar with other even vaguely comparable band situations would look to something like the Felder/Eagles/Hell Freezes Over scenario and wonder if Al could slip through the cracks in a similar fashion. Al had already been squeezed out in 1998. If I were Al and 2012 rolled around and I was once again simply made an employee in the tour, I might worry that *if* the thing continued (obviously a MOOT point now), it would be easy to be phased out. Again.

He seems to have been fairly accepting of a status that would cause most people to bristle.

Al Jardine - the Richard Wright of The Beach Boys.

Thanks for the info. Of course, being a salaried member isn't necessarily a bad thing. Depends on the salary! Al knows how to count, so when the offer came in, I assume he could do a quick calculation on what a tour of that scale might net, and what his fair share should be. The production company/ promoters take the risk. However the 'Felder Squeeze' could have altered that landscape as you say. The leverage of Al, Dave and Bruce, I assume, was in the fact that their participation legitimized a true 'reunion'

I think, as with most cases, Al had very little leverage. My *guess* is that he wasn't offered a choice. It was either sign on as a salaried player on the tour, or no invitation. It's true, being part of the "production company" would involve certain responsibilities. But I've always sensed that Joe Thomas kind of pulled all of that together from his end. He was the one who had the cash and/or found the cash, and got the deals done. Then, I would guess his next goal would be to get Brian and Mike on board with the project and with each other. I would imagine that would be where "50 Big Ones Productions" was the way to go.

Bruce and Dave have always been salaried as far as the touring band is concerned in the later era, and Dave is usually agreeable and Bruce goes where Mike goes.

The one guy falling smack dab in the middle would be Al. Marginalized, and image-wise (however unfairly or fairly) the "Ringo" of the group to borrow the phrase from the recent Rolling Stone article on Mike, but still a BRI shareholder. But he would really just fall into the same category as he has since 1998. The minority vote (potentially) at BRI. Another company running the tour, and employing most of the members. Instead of Mike's "Meleco" or whatever it's called, it was "50 Big Ones Productions." The only leverage Al would really have is that his joining would avoid all of the PR and news articles always having that little asterisk about "not all of the original surviving members" joining. Other reunions have survived such things, both in scenarios where that holdout wants to be there and those where they don't, and everything in between.

Al always seemed more *enthusiastic* about the idea of *everybody* being together again and out on tour. He was going on about this back in 2005 during the one time I met him. Unprompted (I didn't bring up reunions or anything), he talked about having recently seen the Eagles (extra irony!!!!) and wanting the BB's to all reunite.

I think Al's enthusiasm about the reunion trumped caring too much about the level of pay or number of setlist selections or number of songs on the album that he got. Indeed, he spoke more than once I believe right before and/or during the C50 tour about "asking Mike" to add specific songs to the setlist, didn't appear to get anything that screamed "Al picked that song!" into the setlist other than "California Saga", got ZERO songs of his own on the new album, and so on. Jason Fine in Rolling Stone depicts Brian literally walking out of the room to avoid having to work on Al's "Waves of Love"; meanwhile telling Mike how much he likes "Daybreak Over the Ocean." Yet, Al still seemed most enthusiastic, to the point of being naïve about the reunion's future. It's no coincidence he seemed most bummed when the reunion didn't continue.

I'd say!  The whole "he can't get over anything" rumor was based on one incident with Gary Usher in the mid 80's.  If you read The Wilson Project, it was obvious that Al did not like Usher one bit.

There then was Mike trying to fire Al from the touring band (before Carl's death) and replace him with Dave Marks, which never materialized. Dave Marks even confirmed this in his book.

Al has plenty to be sore about.

I don't doubt Al could well have been a pain to be around during certain eras of the band's history. I've only heard rumblings and vague allusions to it, but some have brought up that he had a bout with tinnitus around that early 90s "SIP" era, and that may have contributed as well.

But his being poopy now and then is really just an anecdote, a curio, compared to all of the other machinations that have gone on around him. To suggest things like the aftermath of C50 or the 1998 unraveling of the band happened at the hand of Al is comical; stuff *happened* to him in those cases, and in most cases the indications are that he was tragically and comically unable to do anything about it.

The Gary Usher story from 1986 I think is more hilarious than anything else. Usher's own telling of the story turns into "Spinal Tap" levels of absurdity.

I don't doubt that Al might have been like that about some other stuff, getting hung up on the past. I just laugh at the idea that Al being that way was of any huge consequence in the midst of decades of band members turning up to gigs drunk and high, numerous lawsuits and business moves, the Manson stuff, the Landy stuff, and the list goes on and on. I'm not blaming anybody for any of these things specifically, but again, see the famous Lester Bangs quote (even if Bangs meant it in a totally different context). Al Jardine being weirdly stuck on getting the wrong sandwich order on the 1985 tour one time and then sulking about it for ten years doesn't even fall on the radar compared to all the crazy stuff this band has endured (and caused).

If "Waves of Love" had been written by Mike, I think it would had a better chance at getting onto the album, as well as had Brian showing more enthusiasm for it. Mike made no secret of how many demands Mike had of getting more, more, more Mike  involvement on the reunion album, and of course any Al song being included would have just been another opportunity for Mike to claim Mike was creatively marginalized compared to what he'd been promised (beyond what Mike was already unhappy and complaining about in the album's creation).

Daybreak is ok, nothing special, and of the two, I like Waves quite a bit better myself. I think Brian knows if peace and calm is to be kept, how important it is to Mike for Mike to be patted on the back and shown enthusiasm for his (Mike's) own work... and that Al historically can just be relatively brushed aside without much resultant fallout. I think that Brian knowing those factors probably played into Brian's outward reaction to those songs.

Let's put it this way... if Mike presented an already completed song (Daybreak) to Brian, and Brian just brushed it aside the way Brian did to Waves, what kind of flak would Brian have received from Mike? I imagine quite a bit more emotional flak and passive-aggressiveness than Brian endured from brushing Al's song aside.

I prefer "Waves of Love" to "Daybreak", though I never saw a huge value in adding "Waves" to the BB album since Al had already released it on his reissue of his solo album.

I'm not a huge advocate for needing "Waves" on the album, but it's an interesting illustration of how Mike seems off-put due to lack of involvement in TWGMTR, even though Al got far less involvement.

Mike gets a solo song flown in and several co-writes. Meanwhile, Al has his one song almost comically rejected by Brian. And who comes out bent out of shape and complaining about lack of input on the album after C50 is over? Mike, not Al.

And who continues to work with Brian even after having his song rejected? Al.

I've yet to see an interview where Mike laments Al, or Bruce or Dave for that matter, not getting any songwriting input on TWGMTR.

There's also the quote, which I guess has to weighed accordingly knowing little about the guy, from Larry Dvoskin saying:

“Mike 1000% c*ck blocked Al Jardine & Bruce from having any of their songs on the record out of self interest.”

One can be nearly absolutely certain that the above subject will be completely ignored in Mike's book, in contrast to the almost sure bet that Mike will complain (and expect widespread sympathy) about how he himself was so unfairly treated during the same album's songwriting process.  If Mike's gonna complain, I wish he'd just outright state that he deserves special treatment, as I assume he feels.

There's nothing out of the ordinary in having band members pursue power moves to have their own work presented on a long-awaited reunion album. Although I have my own personal bias regarding Mike, there's nothing going on that wouldn't occur within any mega-group reunion.

What I DO have issue with is the lack of empathy, a mea culpa if you will, regards to the wishes of his fellow band mates. Not unexpected, in fact most expected in this biz, but a little soul searching revelation (in the book) might just make the codger come off a tad less mercenary. My money is that there will be no mention of any behind the scenes maneuvers.

True, in a reunion, the behind-the-scenes power maneuvering is probably expected, in many groups like this. And yes, it's usually kept quiet and not publicly repeatedly talked about by the members. The odd thing here is that Mike breaks the norm by calling attention to the entire power structure by repeatedly and incessantly complaining about his own treatment during the making of the album, while ignoring the other members who Mike himself apparently  "c*ck blocked". It's like, if you're gonna c*ck block other people to achieve your own self-interests on a particular project, it's probably best to do it quietly, and unwise to repeatedly draw public attention to the inner workings of that same project unless you've acted decently yourself.

Truly, in my heart I feel that Mike insults the intelligence of BB fans, as though nobody would think to wonder Al who apparently suffered c*ck blocking at the hands of Mike on the very same project... while Mike just happens to be the only guy complaining about being c*ck blocked himself. It's very, very hard to empathize with Mike with this kind of hypocrisy.   I suppose Mike only does this because he can, since reporters don't seem to call him out on it or ask questions about Al's contributions to the project (if Al's songwriting is even a topic that is allowed to be brought up by the interviewer).

Eagles Don Henley expressed his personal misgivings that 'Long Road Out of Eden' was a double LP, but said it was a result of everyone in the band getting songs on the album. Maybe they could have streched TWGMTR into a double...

I think the idea would have or could have been that TWGMTR was fine as it was (they got the deal with Capitol based on Brian/Joe songs, and only had a finite amount of time to get the album finished; several backing tracks appear to have been recorded prior to the BB deal), and if they had been able to continue on, having a few songs from the other guys would have been nice.

Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering if we've got any examples of Al vocally holding a grudge in (say) the past decade.  In other words, ones which *fans* haven't held intently for at least as long...

Cheers,
Jon Blum

I don't know the exact timeline of how the reunion came together, but it seemed to happen very quickly. We're lucky we got an album at all. That said, I can imagine how Al felt at having his song rejected. TWGMTR felt to me like a return to pre-Smile BB's - Brian in total control, with minimal input from the other band members.

I've posted this before.  But I think an entire book could be written solely on C50 - the reunion, the album, the tour, the fallout.  It could be in anthology style with input from Brian, Mike, Al, Bruce, David, Joe Thomas, Foskett, Darian, Scott Bennett, Scott Totten, etc etc.

I agree, it would be intensely interesting. But I also think, to borrow a bit of AGD's phraseology, I do think Carl and Dennis reanimating is more likely than that scenario. Which is a bummer. I think we'll get a bit more in Mike's book, but he doesn't have a good track record at just saying at least part of his deal is that he likes being his own boss. It would be a hugely humbling and simple thing for him to say, because it's something I would think many if not most people would feel.

I think some sort of C50 book, or at least a once-and-for-all true bio on the entire band, could go into the project in more detail. But there's no way all of the BBs and the backing band guys are going to agree to be interviewed and "tell-all." I don't know if anyone literally has signed non-disclosure agreements (or some variant of such), but even if they haven't, there's a track record for the guys in both Brian's and Mike's band to not go into any great detail about much of anything. Scott Totten has graciously discussed some basic things here about Mike's band like setlist thought process, things like that. But other than that pre-C50 Probyn Gregory interview that got shut down, and Nelson Bragg and John Cowsill's "Stamos moment", we haven't gotten much about what went down. I think Darian has talked a little bit about some of the behind-the-scenes stuff with Brian over the years, but still very little.

Will there be a deluxe version of myKe's book available with bonus chapters such as "I'm Sorry, Brian". Or "Thank You, Brian", with real myKe luHv tears running down his face in the video.

Yep, much like a complete C50 concert on DVD, the book will never happen.  Especially since a book like that would really have limited appeal. 

A definitive bio is probably more likely, but of course, it'll only scratch the surface. 

You actually get a box with a vial of Mike's tears. Although, after awhile, they eventually dry out.

What is this 'Stamos moment'?  Is that when Brian's bandmates got annoyed about Stamos's behavior at the NY gigs? Or is there something more to it?

 :lol

That's the beginning of the story I suppose, but a good two years later it came back up again in a more awkward, sordid fashion as depicted in this thread:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,17981.0.html

Mike plugging the book in this radio interview.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lXGIpZ2DTQ

No, it's myKe luHv plugging himself as usual.  ::)

Oh my. I missed that one. Surprising to hear Bragg so pissed off, but Stamos is such a useless muppet. 

yeah, pretty much

So it's nowhere to be found... Why did it get shut down?

Mike love is a piece of sh*t and you can be sure the book will either reveal it futher or attemt to gloss over it entirely. Given his own record one can only assume the latter.

Well that radio interview made it fairly clear, he is going to drag up all the past problems with drug use of other members of the group.

 :woot :woot :woot

And he won't forget to fully elaborate on ALL of his MAJOR contributions to ALL of Brian's songs and how they wouldn't have happened without his input. ::) ::) 

I have a question for the moderators. I didn't know whether to move the above quote ^ to the Ask The Moderators thread or the Thread For Arguments With Or About Moderation, so I'll ask the question here. What is the moderators' stance on calling a Beach Boy "a piece of sh*t"?

I'd say as long as it's myKe luHv, it's kind of accepted by the masses.  ;)

Ahhh...


Nevermind. This board's half dead now anyway.

Funny how a critique of a Brian Wilson song can be met with a half page long rebuttal, sometimes filled with claims that criticizing a song is a show of disrespect.   

Yet, calling Mike Love a piece of sh*t is ignored. 

It's just a lull in the proceedings. Mark my words. :hat

I apologise to you all for that remark. In my mind it is unfortunately true and I find it so sad that the music I love so much is connected with such a loathsome individual, even though he had a great voice and was very important in the band's story. I wish my opinion of him was better, but the man continues to promote an image which I cannot dissociate from plain contemptibility.

I'm sorry for riling this board though. It'd better if I held my tongue on the matter.

Seems like the release date for Mikes new book has (with no surprise) been pushed back. As always Amazon only have this to say for now; "Delivery estimate: We need a little more time to provide you with a good estimate. We'll notify you via e-mail as soon as we have an estimated delivery date."

*EDIT

However, must only be the UK as the US says 13th Sept....  ::)

While publishing delays are common, I still see September 13 as the date on Amazon, for both physical and digital versions for the US (and Amazon UK shows Sep. 13 still for the physical book and Aug. 30 for the digital version). 

Having ordered way too much stuff (including pre-orders) on Amazon, I've found that they'll often send out e-mails with changing info about estimated delivery dates. I think it has more to do with their distributor and is sometimes simply a case of not knowing if they'll get the book early enough to be able to get it delivered by the release date. So the date *may* still be Sep. 13.

On the other hand, sometimes the release date *does* change and Amazon, instead of actually just changing the "release date" on their page, simply shifts the "availability" of the item. So I've seen cases where say, you'd hit Sep. 13 and the book is delayed until Oct. 13, but instead of simply changing *that* date, they keep the Sep. 13 date and change availability to "ships in 2 to 4 weeks."

Dunno if it was temp art or fan art or what, but Amazon UK has a separate listing for another version of Mike's book (with a Sep. 1 release date), which only has Mike's name (no mention of Hirsch) with different cover art:

(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51%2BfbABOrKL.jpg)