The Smiley Smile Message Board

I got an early proof copy and I'm thoroughly enjoying it. Early revelations include he first explained cunnilingus to a young Dennis.

A cracking read so far.

And there's your lyrics for the nostalgic throw-back song on Mike's upcoming solo album.....

Spoiler alert!!! 

Rockin' The Main in the No Go Showboat

You better watch out what you eat...

I guess now we know what Mike will be talking about when he promotes the book on "The View" and Queen Latifah's show.

I can't wait for the audiobook.  I predict that, as he reads this passage aloud, a few notes of barely-suppressed satisfaction, maybe even glee, will enter his voice.

Excellent! Can't wait to receive my copy when it is released in the UK.  :hat

Well he is a Cunning Linguist..have you heard Belles of Paris

If the audiobook is actually unabridged and Mike reads stuff like that, I would imagine guys that make stuff like this: ( https://vine.co/v/iwPQdMKJIqV ) will have a field day with new audio material to work with....

 :lol

Slip on through ~

PSA: Mike's book is now up and searchable on Amazon.

So looking forward to his "explanation" for the infamous R&R tirade. That's certainly a fitting subject for him to discuss and try like hell to justify.

Don't hold your breath. ::)

Still trying to show he's better than Dennis after all these years.

Wow, did some searching through the book on Amazon and I have to give Mike credit, he doesn't skip most of the controversial things i figured wouldn't be in the book. Granted, he puts his own spin on things, but at least theyre on there and not completely ignored like i assumed.

I'm impressed by what I've read so far.  Will definitely pick this one up.

Mike has an interesting and predictable outlook on how the license revenue should be interpreted. He contends it's his band's hard work that has earned BRI $23.8 million over the 17 years he's been using the license.

I would argue he's getting a great deal in paying to use the name to generate TONS more revenue on top of that.

Also interesting that his numbers line up pretty well with some of the guesstimates thrown around on this board. It amounts to about $350,000 each year pre-tax for each of the four shareholders. Again, that's a pittance for Mike's band to pay to use such a valuable trademark.

Which means we can deduce that mike grosses ~7 Mil/year from touring (granted probably more in recent years since concert ticket prices have risen and also i believe theyre doing more dates now than ever, plus I doubt they were doing meet and greets, plat packages, etc when he first started) since he pays approx 18% license to BRI.

Also, I bet he'd be grossing $700k/year under "Mike Love & Bruce Johnston of the Beach Boys", so it's a good deal for him

I'm not sure exactly how the BRI license fee works; I vaguely recall reading that it consisted of an upfront fee or lump sum and then X percentage past that amount. Either way, Mike's tour is certainly grossing a lot of money. Especially as he has only *lengthened* the touring he does each year.

Now, of course, the money Mike's tour grosses obviously then has a bunch of overhead costs taken out (musicians, etc.). But also worth keeping in mind is that I believe it's Mike's own production company that runs the tour rather than an outside firm. So the fees a band would normally pay such an agency are going to Mike's own company as well.

But Mike is easily netting, I'd say, several million per year on top of the *equal* cut of the licensing fee that he gets. He could potentially and perhaps *easily* be netting ten times what the BRI shareholders are getting. A far cry from any sort of "equal cut" touring out on the road.

What I can also guess is that both Brian and Al made significantly more than $350,000 in 2012 touring as part of the anniversary tour.

This is book is brilliant. Genuinely brilliant. The haters are gonna have a field day, of course. But I'm really enjoying it.

Please stop calling people who criticize Mike "haters." I guess that term has fallen into more common usage in recent years, but it implies that people who criticize him are being hateful, and it also ends up being rather dismissive.

"Anybody who doesn't like this must be a hater" is the same as "It's Mike's book so I'm sure it'll suck."

I think there's a few different levels of the anti Mike crowd. 

You have fans who don't much care for Mike, but still give him chances, and even attend his shows, but don't like the things he says interviews, and don't care for some of his past actions (ie. RNRHOF speech).  More like dislike. 

Then, you have others who've given Mike every chance in the book, but have given up based on his recent actions.  I think these fans dislike Mike, but might still pick up the book and give it a chance.

But, I think there is also a very small group of people who are legitimate "haters."  These are the ones who refuse to give Mike any credit for any past Beach Boys successes, or acknowledge any positive contributions he's made.  They also will poo poo anything Mike releases without hearing it (ie. the Christmas single and the book).  And some will generally trash almost anything with M. Love's name attached to it without being objective. 

20% royalty on the first $1 million in gross receipts and a 17.5% royalty thereafter.


In the Rolling Stone article about C50 they mention that Mike tours "the wal-mart way" which means flying commercial and renting equipment, etc. So guessing he keeps a decent amount. Not to mention he moved to Nevada where there is no state income tax (and not a community property state, too) so he probably keeps a good chunk.
Also, someone on here said Bruce is paid a salary and doesn't get a percentage of the tour income.

I think that last group, especially on a board like this (as opposed to, say, YouTube commenters where the majority of people posting seem to hate *everything* ever) is so few in number that it's barely worth raising as a topic. And even those people probably didn't wake up one day not knowing who Mike Love was, saw a picture of him, and decided they "hated" him. Even that over-the-top blanket criticism stems to some degree from stuff Mike has done over the years.

The problem is that genuine criticism, especially when it has an extra layer of snark or edge to it, gets lumped in with the worst of the bunch.

There's also a frustrating tendency for an inflammatory Mike interview, for instance, to materialize, followed by criticism, followed by some folks assuming that criticism comes out of some deep-rooted hate of Mike. If Mike gives his 500th d***head interview and people criticize it, maybe they're still criticizing it because it's genuinely a lamentable interview. The criticism can become *redundant*, that's for sure. But it's not hate. And it's usually only redundant because Mike's statements and actions are often redundant in their negative, inflammatory nature.

I also find that the fewer years one has been a BB fan, the less fed-up those fans *sometimes* tend to be about Mike. Reading old interviews and learning the history is one thing; but if you've lived through decades and decades of this stuff in *real time*, it sometimes carries a little more weight. Absorbing the 50+ years of their history in a very short period of time is much easier now, and it sometimes softens the decades and decades of seeing and hearing the same thing over and over.

Which is why I think Mike really blew it in 2012, because he had won over many of those old, crusty, jaded fans who had found Mike unfortunate for decades prior.

Yes, Mike apparently runs a very lean machine, so he's definitely saving money there. Bruce is indeed on salary from everything I've ever heard, and was going back to the pre-2000s apparently.

Everything there makes sense. 

It's also kind of like people who say anything negative about Brian Wilson (be it an album, song, or concert) are accused of hating Brian and / or loving Mike. 

Some BB/Brian fans can be too overly-forgiving and/or too defensive. I myself had to deal with that a bit with my middling review of the "No Pier Presure" album last year.

But I don't exactly liken massive, targeted criticism of Brian with criticism of Mike.

They *can* come from the same place. But, and this is just my gut, while I've seen plenty of criticism of Mike, it doesn't often really smell like it's coming from people with an apparent agenda. Again, apart from the small number of trolls out there (and even their agenda seems more to be a troll than it is an anti-Mike agenda), the criticism of Mike seems to be pretty boilerplate, expected reactions to what Mike does.

I would argue, again as objectively as I can, that I've seen more out-of-line "hit pieces" on Brian in recent years than I have Mike. That's not to say that some articles haven't gone hyperbolic in criticizing Mike (that usually comes from lazy journalists that can't really say much beyond "Mike is an a-hole" without giving it much context).

But stuff like a few Beard pieces from last year (ironically one being ostensibly an "interview" with Mike) are the sort of over-the-top, out of line, out of left field attack pieces that I haven't really seen on Mike.

And also ironically, I'd say the person doing essentially a series of hit-pieces on Brian is Mike himself, and that's something you certainly don't see in turn happening against Mike.

I'm pretty sure that one "hit piece" on Brian - the one titled "Let's Debunk the Myth of Brian's Genius" or something or other - was written for the sole purpose of stirring things up, and maybe getting some clicks from loyal BB/BW fans.  That writer knew exactly what buttons to push (ie. slamming almost all of Brian's post PS material, Love You in particular) to get a rise out of fans. 

I can say whether or not the piece came directly from Mike's camp.  I honestly don't even think Mike would stoop that low. 

Hit pieces, which we're obviously using as a very loose term, wouldn't need to come from "Mike's camp."

I don't think *all* of the Brian pieces that could be called "hit pieces" have anything to do with Mike at all necessarily. 

I think something like those couple of Beard pieces, especially the one that was essentially a Mike monologue as well as the "Is Brian brain damaged? Yes." piece, did come from more of a "Pro-Mike, Anti-Brian" place. But they're not all like that.

When any "camp" has anything even tangentially to do with something negative being put around on someone else, it's usually more about using contacts and journalists and even fans and either knowingly or unknowingly parting out key pieces of information (and sometimes perks) that will just end up tending to surface in the form of things that paint the other "side" in a negative light.

That's why I laugh at all of the "on Mike's or Brian's payroll" stuff. It's wrong on either count. It's ludicrous in most cases, and in the likely rare cases where a band member *would* use someone to essentially assert their agenda online or wherever, it's not like they'd literally cut someone a "Say good things about me" check each month or something.

I'm fully aware of the difference between critics and haters. I use the word deliberately.

 ;)

Edit - to bring it back OT, it's a cracking read. Keen to hear your thoughts when you guys read it.

Then I would suggest that bringing up "haters" in reference to Mike's book is pretty much a straw man argument. *Especially* when it comes to this board.

I think the word is misused and overused, and there are a myriad of articles specifically calling for people to stop using the word for these reasons.

As for the book, I've read excerpts and they read, thus far, somewhat like his longer Facebook posts (his description in the book of his recent birthday party and holiday season look to possibly be re-written/expanded versions of his actual Facebook posts). I already see plenty of spin, which is true of most any autobiography. It's part and parcel for Mike's writing to do stuff like the aforementioned "license revenue" and frame it *not* as Mike paying a relatively small fee to make a s**t-ton of money, but rather his "hard work" in bringing revenue into BRI.

The style of the writing thus far seems to be clear and concise and straightforward, and I always appreciate when unneeded writing devices and flourishes are dispensed with. I wouldn't say anything is really "brilliant" in terms of its prose. It's more like a concentrated dose of his monologues of recent years, with more room to breathe so that hopefully he doesn't have to mention on every page that the Wilsons did drugs and that he was ripped off on songwriting credits.

I might have to wait a little bit.  I've been instructed not to buy the book, which likely means Little St. Nick will be dropped a copy down my chimney four months from tomorrow.  (I've been told the same about Brian's book). 

Is there any discussion in the book about Mike's falling out with Al? 

Ah, one of those threads I won't be touching with a 10-foot-pole.  People here were baited before by stuff like this.  I think, happily, I skipped it, or made a few vague comments.

I have no comments on this book.  I'll be back when it's out and there's a legitimate thread after it's release.

You're a little obvious this time, Iain.

*yawn*

Yep.

Enjoying the index!  Some highlights:

"acid alliteration," 151-53
   [Three pages!]

"All I Wanna Do," 231
"All I Want to Do", 204, 219, 375
   [The mind boggles as to why it's that way round.  And why the latter comes back on page 375.]

Hussein, Saddam, 382
Hutton, Danny, 149
   [Exciting that these two get the same number of pages.]

Looking Back With Love, 290-91
   [To be fair to Mike, it's more than I was expecting.]

Some family mentions...  See if you can spot the anomaly.
Love, Ambha (daughter)
Love, Brian (son)
Love, Christian (son)
Love, Hayleigh (daughter)
Love, Melinda (daughter)
Love, Mike Jr. (son)
Love, Shawn Marie
Love, Summer Bhavani (daughter)
Love, Teresa (daughter)

Love and Mercy (acclaimed and award-winning film featuring Mike Love as a character), not in index

Parks, Van Dyke, 149, 152, 156, 159, 163, 241, 330
   [That's more references than John Stamos!]

Summer Days (And Summer Nights!), 113
Summer in Paradise, 314
   [Same number of pages: same quality of album.  Neither as good as Looking Back With Love.]


... and finally, let's compare some sub-headings for "Love, Mike" and "Wilson, Brian":
[FULL DISCLOSURE: CHERRY-PICKING HAS OCCURRED]

Love, Mike:
   ability to cross racial boundaries, 15-16
   fundraising for charity challenge, 327-29
   lyrics, concern over Brian's, 151-53, 163-64
   lyrics, discussion of his own, not in index
   marriage to Cathy, 283-84, 410
   marriage to Frannie, 33-34, 68-69
   marriage to Jacquelyne, 363-64
   marriage to Sue, 268
   marriage to Suzanne, 123-24, 212, 217
   marriage to Tamara, 238
   marriage to Monica, Erica, Rita, Tina, Sandra, Mary, Jessica, you (see volume no. 5)
   not credited as songwriter, 76-77, 78, 119, 223, 225-26, 228, 342, 344, 351, 359 [JACKPOT #1]

Wilson, Brian:
   blame for his downfall, 160-162
   compulsive habits, 252
   confidence vs. fear, 158
   controlled by Eugene Landy, 254-56, 292-93, 309-10, 331-32, 333-41, 342-49
   drug use, 105-06, 132, 150-51, 158-59, 162-64, 224-25, 227, 275-78, 295, 346-48 [JACKPOT #2]
   erratic behavior and paranoia, 149-51, 153
   mental illness and brain damage caused by drugs*, 159-60, 164, 279, 292, 349, 367, 371, 375
   obsession with Phil Spector, 73-75, 107
   portrayed as a genius, 145-47, 164
   positive things said by Mike about, not in index

* Oh wow, even the index has to apportion the blame to drugs.  EVEN THE INDEX.


(NB Before anyone says otherwise, not a hater.  I really like "Big Sur" [not in index].)

Interesting. No mention of the relationship like the others.

I like that the phrase "it kinda feels like getting fired" has an entry in the index, apparently due to it being the title of an article.  :3d

Buying popcorn in bulk from Costco before the book is released... :hat

Don't get the obvious line Debbie, sorry.

There are proofs out there. I'm reading it right now. Sorry. I thought a thread about Mike's book would be acceptable. Surprised that you're implying it's not, Debbie.

That may be what raised an eyebrow...

(https://65.media.tumblr.com/ceb8b872cc857729af6f1bf6d5f47d4b/tumblr_ocg1zmltUT1qzd1yeo1_400.jpg)

Haha that should of been the book cover

Best part so far is Carl Wilson telling Mr T to 'shut the f*** up'!

 :lol

I love how the marriages to Sue and Tamara only need one page each.

Is this the book you guys are all talking about?

(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51TZXM50gUL._SS500.jpg)

More excerpts here about Smile and Manson

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/event/article-3761744/One-Charles-Manson-s-murderers-gang-babysat-two-children-says-Beach-Boys-star-Mike-Love.html

Wow! Looks like a great book from Mike .

I had hopes this book would not be a rehash of the Brian Wilson drug stories, but this excerpt from the Daily Mail seems to indicate otherwise.  I suppose one cannot go through a history of the Beach Boys without talking about how the group declined in the mid to late 60's due to the deterioration in Brian Wilson's health and his massive use of drugs.  I know that a lot of this has been written about before, but maybe this version will have even more detail and the perspective of the ultimate insider.  It seems like this book will be packed with disturbing, lurid stories of sex, drugs and rock and roll, with a double dose of massive ego on top.

Seems like a great read. The excerpt must be 5 pages from a 300-page tome. Looks good to me. Personally, I hope the book reflects Mike's POV, his own take on things, and not my own opinions or the things fans would rather Mike say. The writing style seems to follow Mike's straightforward yet lively prose of his recent FB posts.

I don't think there's a single person here who wants Mike to lie, or to say things that are not in his heart. So in that way, I think everyone, even his biggest detractors, would prefer that if he was going to write a book, that he be honest. Either that, or that he simply shut up. But not that he say something that he doesn't truly feel. People just wish he had some self-awareness, and that he would see the light, so to speak.

Mike will only be credited with having a straightforward style IMO if he addresses things like booting Al during Carl's illness, and owning up to undeniably crappy behavior of his own. Then we can say he is a straight shooter.

If he owns up to his mistakes and to the incredibly shitty way he acted towards Brian, then good on him. I don't think he will...I think it will be more of the constant blame on everyone else and will portray himself as St Mike like he always does.

Unfortunately I don't see how your statement will be inaccurate. Mike always has to be the victim. It's a way unhealthy attitude to have.

Seems like they're pulling random passages. Still, it looks like a doozy of a book. His comments about receiving death threats and having to go authorities after the C50 tour ended....Damn. 

Odd that they pulled random passages. Other than the death threats, the C50 blurb reads exactly like his other past comments on the tour. I would certainly hope he explains beyond simply saying the tour was not feasible economically, which is specious and circular logic. That some of these lines are almost verbatim what was in his LA Times letter is disappointing.

While death threats are never justifiable, I'm curious if he might have any perspective on why fans might have been that upset.

Death threats are never justifiable but how would he justify fans threatening his death?

sadly it appears we have a book by the only Mike there is:

not a man interested in any type of meaningful self-reflection, apologizing for any wrongdoing, or displaying any degree of humility whatsoever.

just the same guy proclaiming his immense contributions to the band's success, extolling his superior lifestyle choices, and bitterly calling out those he feels ripped off or slighted by.

what a loathsome, ungrateful, and utterly self-centered human. y'all enjoy the book

Agreed bossaroo. Sounds like it'll be the  literary equivalent of a septic tank...completely and utterly full of sh*t.

But surely you never heard about the time Mike helped Paul McCartney write "Back in the USSR"! Or that he came up with the hook to "Good Vibrations"! That's what the people wanna (constantly) hear from Mike, right?  ;)

I for one won't be purchasing a copy.

He does explain why Al was kicked out of the Beach Boys. I'd never heard the story before.

Read what I wrote again. Having perspective on why fans might be upset is not the same as justifying death threats.

As in "Death threats are never okay. But I wonder what I did that might have upset fans."

I dont know if you can consider them fans if you are threatening to kill a member of the band.

I honestly hope if Mike did receive death threats that he filed a report and had them investigated. 

John Lennon, Selena, "Dimebag" Darrell Abbott have all been killed at the hands of their "fans" so that's nothing to mess around with. 

So you meant that while death threats are never justifiable, you are curious if Mike might have any perspective that might justify why fans might have been that upset to justify death threats.

I wonder why anyone would give any consideration to any of the thoughts of anyone who would threaten death over anything, let alone Pop concerts.

This is from Domenic Priore's book SMiLE: The Story of Brian Wilson's Lost Masterpiece (on p. 154):

"The keynote moment of the evening [a tribute to Brian at Gerde's Folk City, Greenwich Village] was a performance by Ben Vaughn, who that night debuted his song 'Ben's Prayer', referencing the '50s vibe of the early Beach Boys----'Every night I pray to the stars above'. Then, abruptly, he stopped to wrench out the words 'KILL MIKE LOVE!', prompting the New York City crowd to scream with delight."

Shame on you, Mr. Priore.

Hey Jude - it is "crossing the line."  And another poster mentioned fans (fanatics-borderline or bona fide mentally disturbed and dangerous individuals) who have this "associative" thing going on where they think they "know" a performer or celebrity, where it threatens their personal safety and that is never "ok" nor "qualified or justified" or by being "upset" - or perceive that Brian is a family member whom they have to defend by threatening another band member.   Or that Brian (or any other musician/artist) is their "personal savior."  It is a most dangerous place.

And, I can assure you that I have met some of these such "marginal people" who have built up a "Brian thing" in their minds where  they needed to be talked-off- the-ledge.  For example, at one meet-and-greet C50 event, I landed next to a "borderline" fan who was literally crying in the line, that Brian's/Beach Boys' music had literally "saved her life" and she was diagnosed with a serious behavioral disorder so the music was a huge help.    

This person was literally shaking at the prospect of "what to do" and "what to say" to Brian during the photo op.  (There was no personal chat, as I had to explain and just put on a big smile for a great photo to have forever.)  

There is a hard line - for personal safety that, never gets "justified" for a threat of violence.  And those of our artists such as Lennon or Selena, etc. are lost forever because of people who felt "justified" to take matters (that are none of their business) into their own hands.  There is never justification.  

 

He does explain why Al was kicked out of the Beach Boys. I'd never heard the story before.

So what does he say about it?

No. Try actually *reading* what I wrote without a weird filter. Let's try it this way:

"Having perspective on why fans might be angry" DOES NOT EQUAL justifying death threats.

Again, you can find something happening to you totally unwarranted, illegal, immoral, and so on, but also take a moment to ponder why it's happening. Sort of like when, say, a country is attacked and NOBODY feels it was warranted or moral in any way, but people still take time to actually understand why someone may have come to have so much anger towards you.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but if you're able to, say, parse the definition of "talk" versus "discussion" as you did regarding Mike's statements in the past about the possibility of additional C50 shows, then I can't fathom how it's difficult to understand the difference between "perspective" and "justification."

Let's try Google dictionary:

Perspective - a particular attitude toward or way of regarding something; a point of view.

Justification - the action of showing something to be right or reasonable.

The idea isn't that Mike should take various perspectives on the issue and arrive at a justification. The idea is simply to look at additional perspectives and perhaps even briefly ponder *why* people would be so angry, and think about whether there was *any* possibility of avoiding the animus from some fringe group of fans.

True. And if so, it makes the resulting death threats still just as heinous and awful, and also even less germane to the issues surrounding Mike choosing to end the reunion. If it was trolls and other assorted bad guys, *non-fans*, on the internet, what does that have to do then with actual fan attitudes towards Mike's decision in 2012?

Yeah, I'd say so. There was another posted named "HeyJude" who agreed with you yesterday when he posted:

death threats are never justifiable

Here's the link to the post that you probably NEVER EVEN READ, just in case your scrolling ability isn't working:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,24284.msg587239.html#msg587239

Hey Jude - you don't "know me" or "what I read."

You gave an "opening" after your comment, where ""why fans might be upset."  It does not matter if or why a fan is "upset" - it is that "mental state" that precipitates or can precipitate violence against a public figure  - and there is nothing to explain it or qualify it.  And what I shared about only ONE instance, where a fan who was "mentally fragile" in a C50 meet-and-greet line, only feet from Brian (never mind any other members) puts him and all the nameless rest in danger.

And, please don't get confrontational; there is no need. (And it is against board rules.)

When you imply someone is justifying death threats when they're not and specifically stated that there is no justification, you're the one being confrontational and you're the one breaking board rules.

I disagree with elements of your (still) non-sequitur commentary above. There is no justification for death threats.

Does it matter *why* a fan is upset? Yes, I think it does. Sometimes.

Does it matter *why* someone (fan or otherwise) would be upset to the point of issuing death threats? Yes, I think so, and it should matter to the target of those threats MORE than anyone else. If you want to understand why people do bad things, it might be instructive to at least *try* to understand what precipitated it. Doesn't mean it was justified in any way. I'd want to understand *why* someone issued a death threat against me, and I'd at least *try* to have the foresight to not just chalk it up to 100% random and crazy people and not make any attempt to understand it. I'd never stop and all of a sudden believe there was anything justified about it. But again, UNDERSTANDING something is not the same as justifying it or supporting it or advocating for it.

I would also suggest that those who actually want to have a solid discussion about this book fight hard to keep the thread civil and I for one will do everything I can to not "feed the trolls."

I think there are a few folks who are much more sympathetic to Mike who would LOVE for this thread and other discussions of the book to derail into total cacophony and infighting, because it would then simply reinforce the notion (for which we can already see groundwork being laid in the book itself, ironically) that Mike is blindly and unfairly attacked. We've already seen one person sympathetic to Mike post a one-sentence positive review of the book that also served to pre-judge anyone who might be critical of the book. It feels like some people *want* to pre-emptively dismiss any possible criticism of the book.

Let's keep it on-point, which will be much easier once everybody has access to the full book. If you analyze the book or passages and come away with thoughts that are critical of the book itself and/or Mike, and someone tries to mischaracterize what you're trying to say and tries to accuse you of just being "anti Mike", or accuse you of other things you *aren't* saying, don't "feed the trolls", don't let the discussion be derailed. Use the "ignore" script if you have to.

Also, in case anyone wasn't aware, you can view *more* pages of the book on Amazon if you sign in to your Amazon account.

Ah. I messed up the quoting thing in here. Fat thumbs. And you know what, life's too short.

Double post

No trolling here. I've simply already seen the then-as-yet-non-existent critics of the book pre-emptively judged as "haters." I disagree with that style of characterization and find it dismissive.

I've continually seen the general assertion that vast swaths of people will *blindly* criticize any book Mike puts out since the book was *announced*, what was it, a year or two ago?

I'm not necessarily speaking to anyone specifically on this board, but there are parties who tend to be very sympathetic and very forgiving (putting it politely) towards Mike who, in my opinion, want any valid criticism (if and when it exists) to be lumped in with the trolls who do come out and also criticize Mike. This has been happening for years now, and it's unfair to those who actually take the time to make cogent, thoughtful comments about Mike or any other topic.

Reading the Daily Mail passages, it seems to read like a retelling of a lot of tales familiar to fans, with a few lines of opinion on Mike for each event.

I did find it interesting, how he uses an early 90's quote from Bruce to take a swipe at Brian's 'methodology' for recording SMiLE.

Stories like the India trip, and what have you, are going to sound old to those of us who have followed the band. But you HAVE to include them in your autobiography. If I was writing mine, and I'd spent time with the Beatles, I wouldn't choose to leave it out, even though I would have dropped it into every conversation I ever had, lol.

Hey Jude - I suspect you were not born or a young child when John Lennon was killed.  Certainly you were alive when Selena was killed but they are apples and oranges.  You can read about it but cannot fully appreciate the real-time impact of those who grew up with his greatness.  There are laws to keep everyone safe, and that includes those who are unpopular with some.  

The mentally ill person who is under treatment (or worse, not) is/can be a clear danger to a celebrity.  It is SO significant that if a therapist or other health care provider has knowledge that the person is going to cause harm to a celebrity (or another person) they MUST report to the authorities, and break confidentiality (this can vary regionally.) And there are plenty out there.  There are plenty of marginal people who are "highly suggestible" and who would have no problem taking matters into their own hands.  

Hey Jude - I can assure you that there are many "marginal" people who follow this board, and read it or lurk.  It would not be so funny, if harm came to ANY band member for any reason and the "seeds of violence were sown" and were "unchecked" on this (or any board.)

And, I think this board needs to make an official statement strongly condemning any suggested violence.  I am asking the good mods who generously give of their time, knowledge and experience to take this seriously.    

That is "not legal advice" but it would behoove this community to be fully united on this point.  And I would suggest further that it be a fully and permanently, bann-able offense.  It is not, nor should it even be a point of discussion.  I am in full agreement with john k in his post #68. Bravo to john k for that post.

You can try after the fact to figure out why but that won't bring John Lennon back from the dead or Selena for that matter.  Keeping a high-profile person safe is and should be priority #1 for us all.  There is no justification for violence - period, end of story.  Opening the door to any "reasons or justifications" is condoning the threat of violence or ratifying it.  And that is my opinion, to which I am entitled.    

Okay, I didn't see any "death threats" to Mike in this thread, nor have I ever seen one on SS.  Did I miss something?  People are being asked to comment on a book they haven't seen, by the same person who offered the thread topic "Why Do You Hate Mike Love?"  Remember that?  I remember it well, and the resulting "article".  That topic was a bit like the, "when did you stop beating your wife" question.  It's a set-up. Don't go for it.

Heyjude is asking great questions that need to be answered for once..... ::)

There were no death threats on this thread, and I've been seen any on any of the BB/BW boards I've been involved in.

HJ mentioned that Mike said he received death threats in the wake of the C50 fallout. 

I haven't asked anyone's opinion on a book they haven't read. I've read it. I really enjoyed it.

I also really enjoyed writing my article about Mike for Record Collector. Not everyone dug it. It's cool. Your use of quotations implies you don't consider it to be a real article. Ok. That's cool. But really, you need to calm down.

I've finished the book and it's flawed. It's obviously got a few stories some people will have heard before. But. Al not being a Beach Boy, Carl telling Mr T to be quiet, why Mike wears hats, loads of stuff I didn't know.

I enjoyed it.

I get the feeling some people don't like me here. If I've done anything wrong, I apologise. Should I see myself out? I really don't want to be somewhere where people aggressively dislike me. (You'll say no one has been aggressive except me...ok...eye of the beholder and all that)

Serious question. I like the BB. I like talking about the BB. This thread is no a sh*t stirring thread. Swear on my life that's not why I started it. I assumed a few more of you might had proofs and heck, it comes out soon. This was a genuine attempt to get a conversation going. But. There are a few of you who won't believe that and so constantly take shots and have digs at me. If you'd rather I left, I'll go.

I don't really know what you're talking about, and whether you intend to or not, these non-sequitur commentaries simply obfuscate. I still contend you're not reading this thread at all, and/or are just offering monologues having nothing to do with the topic at hand. Either way, it's detrimental to the discussion at hand.

There is no issue of violence of death threats pertaining to this board at all. Nobody has condoned death threats. You've apparently decided to take on what you feel is a controversial, David-vs-Goliath battle to prove that violence and death threats are bad. I think the rest of us reached this conclusion long, long ago. As in, since birth.

Since I have to assume (whether I'm correct or not) that you're not reading some or all of the posts in this thread, I'll recap: What we have is a UK article excerpting snippets from Mike's book. One short snippet included Mike's mention of having received death threats after C50 as a result of his deciding to not continue the reunion.

Also to recap some key points that I figured were beyond self-evident:

1. Mike, to my knowledge (and I have knowledge beyond the excerpts available to all) has not claimed this board has anything to do with death threats.

2. Nobody on this board has condoned or justified death threats of any sort, at any time. EVER.

3. Getting hung up on an unrelated, confusing, obfuscating straw-man argument that includes invoking the deaths of other famous singers and musicians tends to *CONVENIENTLY* distract from the topic at hand.

4. And in case you didn't read #2, I'll repeat it for #4: NOBODY ON THIS BOARD HAS CONDONED OR JUSTIFIED DEATH THREATS OF ANY SORT. AT ANY TIME. EVER.

5. Calling on the board to enact something to condemn death threats is INSULTING to both the members of the board and the moderators. It implies there's a problem with this (even though there ISN'T), and implies the moderators don't already know that threats of violence against ANYONE, whether board members or band members, are to be condemned. It also implies the moderators wouldn't ban and/or otherwise respond to such actions, which I'm quite sure they WOULD.

Official teaser:  https://youtu.be/v1KPMzDCybo (https://youtu.be/v1KPMzDCybo)

Agreed on all points.

Also agreed. There's enough in the book to discuss and tear apart without all the extra unneeded stuff added to it.

I can only speak for myself, but I don't dislike you. I don't know you, and I figure most don't.

In my opinion, I like to lean towards a very liberal, open form of discussion. Despite disagreeing with things you might say, I don't think you shouldn't be allowed to post them here.

Rather, I think anyone that posts anything then has to cope with the response. So, for instance, when David Beard posted a few articles about Brian (and Mike) that many people had a myriad of issues with, my feeling was not that the articles should have been censored or anything of that nature. Rather, he then has to deal with the response (so long as it doesn't turn into trolling or abuse, etc.).

So if someone says your comments (or mine) are offensive, or just disagreeable, or lamentable, or ill-advised, etc., and even if someone questions the motives of such comments (which admittedly can quickly *turn* into a more personal issue, though someone's motives can be questioned without personal digs), I don't think anyone is calling for you (or I) to go away or not post, nor is anyone calling for censorship.

We just all have to be prepared for a response.

I think in your case you appeared out of nowhere (as far as the board was concerned) some time back and posed an apparent open question concerning what is undoubtedly *the most divisive* issue regarding this group and its fandom. So people will start to jump to wondering if it's tinged with a bit of trollishness, or at least a small streak of enjoying being a s**t-disturber.

I don't have an exact analogy, but it's something like going into a Van Halen discussion and asking seemingly innocently about who is better, Roth or Hagar. Or going into a comic book movie discussion and seemingly innocently asking which is better, DC or Marvel. It's not that one can't ask those questions innocently. It just seems unlikely that someone would both A) Have the level of interest to enter the discussion, but B) Be unfamiliar with the topic to the point of not being aware of the biggest, most divisive hot-button issues concerning that topic.

That you then proceeded to write an article in defense of Mike Love was something that left me feeling NOT that you shouldn't be able to write the article. But rather, I felt (and this could be wrong) like you already felt that an article in defense of Mike was what you wanted to write and that you came on the board to solicit or elicit "anti-Mike" comments to help "prove" why Mike is unfairly villainized.

But no reiterate, I don't think liking or defending Mike or liking or defending his book are things that should cause anyone to be run off the board. And even if you do something I find disagreeable like making a comment that I perceive to be unfair (e.g. assuming people who don't like the book will be "haters"), even then I'm not advocating for you or anyone to go away. I'm simply criticizing (if applicable) those comments.

Hey filledeplage why didn't you ever respond to my posts in the Campaign 2016 thread in the sandbox? And why do you constantly obfuscate when HeyJude is trying to engage you in conversation?

Also, how do you afford to go to Mike & Bruce shows all along the eastern seaboard? Rumor is they pay your way!

Hey man

I really appreciate your considered response. A lot. Thank you.

I too concur with HeyJude, Iain. And I appreciate your posts, please stick around.

Agreed 100% with your whole post, HeyJude. I'd also like to add that Iain came to the board to ask a question for an article and then proceeded to write an article that ignored the rational responses to his posed question. Go back and read the entirety of his initial thread then read his article: You're right HeyJude, it was like Iain already knew the article he wanted to write, then ignored the arguments that didn't fit his narrative.

Do you guys think this type of "journalism" actually helps Mike? It's the same exact tactic we're seeing from filledeplage above: twist, dodge, ignore any rational arguments that may cast the slightest negative light on Mike Love. It doesn't do you or Mike any favors when you have to duck and dodge logical arguments in an attempt to get your point across.

Hey Ian, stay mate. I enjoy the tone of your posts and your work outside this forum.

'Mike Love Good Vibrations: My Life as a Beach Boy Teaser....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1KPMzDCybo&feature=youtu.be

Jeez...I may be breaking the friggin' rules here.  I don't care...if I did...BAN my sorry ass.  I've only used the part of the quote I want to respond to...NOT to make it look as though 'rab' said something different than what he actually posted... ... ...

THIS 'concept of jottin' crap down and pressing 'post' or 'send' isn't journalism rab.  Not even close.  It doesn't even lend itself  to being considered 1/2-assed fictional 'writing'.  What it DOES lend itself to becoming is merely more 'bullshit with a completely shallow and transparent agenda'.  It IS an attempt to circumvent fact and reality and replace it with a fictionalized rewrite and semi-analyses of the actual TRUTH.  It is, at the very best, ONLY a feeble and failed defense of the indefensible.

There is SO MUCH OF THAT here at THIS specific website that it turns the facility into a snoozatorium.

I have NO idea if that was or is Iain's notion.  He is just as welcome, I'm sure, to post here as anyone else.  IF it is his goal...that'll just lump him in with another dozen or so 'windbaggies' who contribute nothing but roadblocks and pot holes to a meaningful discussion and to the attempt to make sense out of a mountain of nonsense.

A short review.

https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/mike-love/good-vibrations/

I didn't know it was a mystery why Mike wore hats...

That is correct.

Urbanite...Of course "candid" in no way, shape, or form is a substitute for the word honest.  They're not even distant cousins.  [kind of like law and justice aren't related]  I'm sure that the Back in the USSR myth survives because Paul has too much class to AGAIN try to set the record straight.

Oh...and I didn't meditate today...so anything negative I have to say about California's Mr. Negativity is 100% permissible and forgivable.  As a matter of fact I never mediate...so anything I've EVER said about this bald-headed pile of fly attractant is totally cool...groovy in fact.  Completely acceptable.

So there will be NO attempt at soothing ruffled feathers or forgiving trespasses in this booklette eh?  That seems to say there will be NO attempt to deal with truths, realities or any of the multitude of errors in judgement made by the so-called author of this apparent journey through the old and oft trod cow field.  Dead people will be targeted for offenses which never happened?  THEY can't sue.  Untruths retold will be included in the hope that to repeat crap X number of times finally makes it so?  The ever present and often highlighted and underlined resentment for being able to continue living the good life in spite of never having recorded anything successful and substantive from a SOLO perspective will continue to make sense to who?

Back when some of his claims might have carried a degree of truth to them there MIGHT have been some short term reasons for being "bitter".  30 some-odd years later...it is suggested that this old pile of disloyal bones is worth something in the vicinity of 50 million greenbacks.  Does anyone in their right mind believe that he accumulated all of that completely and totally due to his unique talents?

I sure as crap don't.  No Mike...I won't be giving you ANY money for your fantasy book and your fictional account of how you ended up living in the lap of luxury with nothing but sour resentment and a world full of people who KNOW that you're nothing but a dick.

I'm with you 100% Lee.

As others have been saying and the reviews are starting to appear, advance copies of Mike's book have gone out. I happened to be able to check one out. Without doing any spoilers or copying direct passages, or without doing a review, something did stand out and it runs through chapters of the book sometimes pretty obviously.

All I can say is, some of the defenses of various claims in the book might sound very familiar to readers of this board. I'd almost go as far as to say if you've kept up regularly with this forum, and the various topics and arguments around certain issues, you'll feel like you've read or heard it before.

Some posters here either had their fingers on the pulse of these things, enough to make some of the same points and offer the same explanations as you'll read in the book, or they just happened to be hitting on the same narrative.

As someone who has been reading this stuff for several decades, I recognized some of the original sources from which certain passages and background may have been used. Especially in the Smile chapter, certain descriptive words and phrases read like those in sources I've read and am familiar with. Some are too specifically worded not to notice.

But it was the similarity to quite a few posts made here on the Smiley forum (and the posters who made them) that really stood out. There are points, arguments, and even what you might call defenses that I recognized from discussions and debates here on the board. In some cases, some recently, I remember reading a poster's points (and defenses) and thinking that's odd, in all the years prior I don't remember that being raised as a point of defending or arguing for or against some aspect of Smile, or whatever else was the topic. Then those points also appear in Mike's book?

I remember them because I was involved in some of those debates directly as they played out here. And I remember who it was that was debating, and it sounded familiar on the pages of this book.

Apart from that, there was an odd method to offering some of the defenses. Instead of "setting the record straight", there were sometimes quotes from other band members and others involved with various aspects of the band inserted in order to bolster or back up whatever that chapter's narrative was suggesting. And some of them seemed taken perhaps too easily out of a larger context, but that's just my opinion.

If you've been reading this forum, and engaging in the debates, you may recognize some of the new book's narratives as what certain posters have been offering here on the board.

Yup, to the point where some of these posters were pretty much plagarized...


okay, maybe 'plagarized' was a bit harsh, but in some cases is so close as to give pause for thought

edit

key word is , 'pretty much'

Do you mean someone has had it right along or someone is a spy?

So there is concern that posters comments made ONLY on this message board have been lifted and put in Mikes book? Holy crap!

Sounds like Mike's co-author may have pulled a Todd Gold.

Could some of these said posts be by a now discredited former member of this board with a lifetime ban?

Golly, gee, I hope so.

I assume this is about Andrew Doe. If so, I think we should come out and say it. If this is indeed true, is it surprising? Andrew himself said that he has been helping out Mike with his book (as a fact checker if I recall). However, if someone's saying his book reads a lot like filledplage's or Cam's posts, well then that got a bit more interesting.

Though I don't think anybody would wanna take literary advice from the filledaplague, with the "overuse" of those "certain" quotation "marks" if you will. But hey, I'd just like an answer for how a supposed school teacher gets front row tickets to every Beach Boys show on the east coast.

Just really, really unlucky?

There were points made in the book that reminded me of Cam Mott's and filledeplage's posts.

There was something about C50 and email that Andrew had made mention of on this board, too. And there were other points brought up that will be familiar to readers and followers of this board, points that had been made in various debates coming from some other posters who I (or we) could name, and they were familiar because I remember debating them with people here.

But if I did notice some things specifically, and perhaps this is just my reading of it, it was indeed that some passages sounded like the same debating points Cam Mott and filledeplage to name two had posted here in the past. Mike in this book seemed to be using the same points to defend his positions as the narrator of his autobiography as had been done here to defend Mike's position as fans posting to a fan message board.

Well ok, I admit it:  I am, in fact, Mike Love.



Phew, time for me to medidate.

Wait so the book sucks?

Craig (and Billie?), I'm not clear on what is going on here. Are you accusing me of something?

I haven't read the book and don't know of the specific topics guitarfool is talking about but I don't think he is accusing you of anything. All that's being said is Mike's book has some very similar opinions as certain things that some posters have said. Maybe Mike read some of these things and agreed with these opinions and maybe it's just a coincidence.

Something is rotten in kokomo..... ;D

I wonder what Mike would do if someone used some of his words without giving credit. Can't imagine!

Wouldn't your board name, then, have been STD?  ;)

Wait, if this means that Mike's book is going to have a multi-page digression about how discussing a topic is not the same as talking about it, then I think I'm out.

Mods, any chance of an official ruling with regard to posting quotes from this book?  (I'm talking about fair use of short passages in the context of commentary, rather than copy-and-pasting complete chapters or anything like that.)

Craig, what exactly are you getting at here? Mike taking liberties with posts/arguments made on the board? Members being fed talking points from Mike? How about some side-by-side examples?

What's the point of bringing this up, if you're just going to talk around the topic? Is there something stopping you from saying what you mean, directly?

"What's the point of bringing this up, if you're just going to talk around the topic? Is there something stopping you from saying what you mean, directly?"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Well...isn't it a pretty good 'head's up' for those who plan to plow through the book...at least in terms of things to watch for?  There's more to it than Mike-Eddy teeing off on 'the expired'.  And wouldn't it be GREAT to find yourself quoted but uncredited almost as if your thoughts and posts had been airlifted directly from your keypad, to this locale and then finally into someone else's  book?  That might be cause for some kind of legal questions to be asked as said posts are pretty much dated and documented here on the pages of this site.

Will this 'auto-hymnal' to poor, disenfranchised Mike-Eddy end up being a cause for Mike to then sue 'fans' ... based on their reaction(s)?  Or perhaps might it go the other way?  Wouldn't THAT be remarkable turnabout?  (and maybe even fitting?)

Is it at all plausible that statements by the aforementioned users were Mike-Love approved? I mean no offense if this isn't the case about those mentioned but if these statements are true it would make me re-evaluate some statements i've seen from this site while forming my own view on the band...

Well, here we go.  (popcorn ready)

Well Filleplage and cam only post here anymore when there is a Mike controversial statement or topic to derail the thread.

Well to be fair, filledeplague has been busy building the Trump Wall and watching Fox News. She's busy. You can't expect her to be "posting" all the time on this "site" if "you" understand what I "mean."

Ugh, I can see that this thread will end well...

Mike is a narcissist, right? Many of us can agree about that? It wouldn't surprise me if he spent a little time lurking here, trying to get a feel for what direction the wind is blowing. Hell, he's publicly referred to our discussions here before, right? Posted that one image from the Mike Love picture thread on Facebook?

If these similarities do exist, and Smiley Smile is the source, my guess is this is stuff that Mike would have picked up over years of reading the arguments, coming across a post by Cam and saying "Damn, this is the ONE GUY who knows what's going on! I'll have to remember this apologia when it's time to write my book!" And the rest of us, meanwhile, were reading Cam and saying "Who would be crazy enough to believe THAT?"

Who indeed?  :)

And the part in the book where Mike claims he and Brian beat up a clown with an equal amount of blows also makes one pause and wonder  :shrug :shrug

 :lol

Me neither  ::)

At the minimum, the writers seemed to have plagiarized certain posters. Or it appears that way.

It is a proven fact that BRI is on this board constantly watching our conversations very carefully! So it wouldn't surprise me if Mike Love would do it from time to time! I am sure he gets quite a few good laughs about the conversations here. If there was a message board about me i for sure would want to read about it and see what people think or have to say about me!  :-D

Reading a board for shits and giggles is different from using poster's comments while writing your own life story.

 :lol :lol :lol

My observations were how some of the passages reminded me of things I have seen posted on this board, and in Cam's case, points and debates going back to the Smile Shop, "Sunshine Pop", and even forums prior to those.

So far I have accused no one of plagarism, or anything of the sort.

The Smile chapter was something of a letdown, because I was hoping to read some new firsthand insights from Mike regarding Smile that we've not heard before especially related to personal interactions during this period, but instead a lot of the chapter was Mike voicing what felt like his opinions and defenses of various issues or incidents. So to my eyes it read as if I had already read very similar "opinions" over a decade or more of reading Cam Mott's posts. From the drugs to the apparent degradation of having the band lie on the floor to cut vocals and make animal noises, to the notion that the Beach Boys were doing the heavy lifting on the road spreading the gospel while Brian stayed home in LA acting silly, it has all been offered previously. And in a few specific cases, it really did feel like I've read the same defenses offered by Cam Mott, and others.

No accusation of plagarism, just noting the similarity.

For the record, and not wanting to review per se, the Smile chapter felt disjointed and out of chronology. There were events and scenes described that actually happened during the making of Smiley Smile, the timeline jumped back and forth from December 66 to April 67 to Smiley Smile summer 67 and back to February and March 67. There was no flow to the timeline, and some events told out of order seemed to be done to make a point rather than present the actual timeline of events. The band was recording in an empty swimming pool at Brian's house for SS, not the Smile sessions.

Fact checking 101.

It also felt more like Mike was defending accusations and charges made against him than trying to tell the story. Again, more of the usual points from years past. And in this case, to do so, there are quite a few excerpts used as quotes from Brian that came from various depositions Brian gave in lawsuits in the 90's, alongside the familiar 70's interviews where Brian would mention hashish and other points.

If I'm reading Mike's book, I'm more interested in what Mike has to say versus reading transcripts of what Brian testified in legal depositions from the 90's, pulled out of whatever context those depositions were pulled in order to do what looked like bolster Mike's opinions and defenses against the attacks.

In terms of my referencing both Cam and filledeplage's posts as having a familiar ring, again...I did not accuse anyone of plagarizing anything. I did notice a similarity between the section where Mike talks about Full House and John Stamos and the benefits to the band's legacy, and posts like this which I remembered reading here several years ago from filledeplage and others who would offer these same points when other posters were being critical of having John performing with the band, or similar debates. And there were plenty of them:



Just my opinion: If you read that quote, and click on the quote link to read the rest of that thread from 2014, you might soon read that section where this is addressed in the book and feel as if it sounds familiar, as something you've heard before. And that is only one example so far.

Let the readers decide when they can get their own copy.

I'd like to add that I don't mind if someone who has read the book wants to do a full-blown, blow-by-blow, detailed review. I don't consider it a spoiler or anything.

If anyone has read the book and wants to do as detailed of a review as possible, please go for it. Maybe start a new thread and mark that it's a detailed review in case someone considers it somehow "spoilers."

I wouldn't mind hearing more details about what Mike goes into as far as the 1997-1998 era and Al relationship, C50, and so on.

So there is an opportunity here for Cam to pull a 'Kramer' and start the Real Mike Love Reality Tour!!

 :lol

And this one:

Anything positive to say about the book so far?

I may have this all backwards, but assuming the publisher submitted the edited extracts to the Daily Mail to publish (which I would assume would be the case), it's funny that Mike and his publisher went to the Daily Mail for publicity for his book; was it not the Daily Mail that was part of the mid-2000s lawsuit from Mike regarding the free CD promotion?

GF - there is little or anything in that/those posts that is/are not common knowledge or within the common background of experience seeing Full House in the 80's-90's or on Nick at Night.  I articulated it, but I didn't make it up nor was I urged, paid, or whatever to post here.

And, it is also common knowledge that Stamos did popularize "Forever" on his program for millions to be exposed to the music of The Beach Boys and in particular Dennis' song which was given air play that otherwise would likely never have happened.

The Beach Boys and TV shows from their inception, such as Lassie,  Leave it to Beaver, Happy Days and Full House are a part of American culture.  It is not news. And I just finished reading the Mike book freebie on amazon, looking for whatever these wild accusations might be.  It was not a full version of the book.  

"Similarity?" Stamos toured with The Beach Boys and I saw them in the 80's when Carl was running the show and Brian was on Full House.   Stamos gave much needed publicity to the band when they were in their late 40's or early 50's and were considered a has-been oldies band by many.  

And, when you are looking at what I have written, you might check out that other disparaged (on this board) BBB where I posted 2 reviews after seeing Brian on this recent tour. I think of those band members as "Beach Boys" which defies logic for some here.  Maybe it is generational.  It is not an original position and is one held by millions of fans.  They are still The Beach Boys - just playing in different venues.  And that is my opinion.  

Fans who post here, should not be put continuously on the defensive if they see all of the Beach Boys where ever they play. It is what has led many posters to leave this forum, which is pretty sad.  JMHO        

Wait, how did ANOTHER puff piece on Stamos come out of this particular discussion?   :3d

 ;D



It's no secret that this board is watched by more than one "side" of the Beach Boys. And I don't think it would be news to anybody. Remember that Mike only started to talk about autotune in an interview when asked if he had heard Brian and Al's "The right time" after that song and it's use of autotune was discussed right at the same time as said interview on this board very intensely. It was much too obvious to be a coincidence.
I hate to say this, mainly because people will probably get this in a wrong way, but Mike is what one would call a populist. On one side he jumps on any bandwagon (and usually keeps hanging on there for much longer than anyone would consider appropriate). On the other side he's stuck in a view that everyone is against him (which could be a result of decades of pure hate thrown towards him) and therefor lets people know that he is the one who is fighting for truth and righteousness. His "message" is reduced to simple and striking statements (many of them not even very reasonable) that he's repeating over and over until he has his own view built around that and can't escape that swirl.
He smells a conspiracy when something doesn't fit in with his view of himself. Unfortunately it is quite obvious that Mike's idea of himself is very different to what comes into notice.
He wants everything to be outlined very clearly so that in his mind it makes "sense" (a word he uses quite often, I guess, especially during the Beach Boys reunion and the interviews*) and then that's the way it is. There's no interfering; only one way/reason. You can even kinda see that in the way he compiles the setlists of the shows.

*The interviews show another side as well: the way certain things get changed or adapted until they fit with his view or just what he'd like to have happened. In the earlier interviews he quotes Brian with after re-recording "Do it again" with - paraphrasing - "Not bad for a 70 year old". As the interviews went along, it suddenly was "How can a 70 year old sound so great?!". IIRC there were three "phases" of this quote, each one getting more complimentary towards Mike. I think this is an interesting point. It doesn't mean btw that Mike didn't indeed do a great job with his singing. The view is just on the evolution of said quote.


So, that is a populist. And that's ok. Some people are populists or lean towards that side, others don't. It doesn't automatically mean you are a bad person. Plus this is only the way we can see Mike in his public behavior. It could be very different in private.
Mike is an entertainer and his personality and actions won't do any serious harm to many people. It's another thing if populists who are millions of times more dangerous than Mike could ever be get, the chance to become president. That said, I wouldn't be surprised though if Mike felt at least a little sympathy for Dumb Donald, not necessarily for his racist, homophobic and stupid comments but because he feels somewhat like he can identify with that "me against the rest" mentality.

Ok, I guess I will get some digital punches from a couple of members. So, go ahead.

I'm not seeing anyone being criticized for which touring bands they see in concert.

If someone sees, say, a dozen or more Mike shows per year and maybe sees Brian once or not at all, then perhaps I'll weigh their "opinion" on Mike-related topics accordingly.

But nobody is being attacked for the act of seeing any or all touring bands.

The response was to GF.   

You're right, they shouldn't. But if a poster gets to see Mike n Bruce wherever they play because travel and concert ticket costs are being covered by someone involved in the group, then maybe it deserves to be brought up.

Seriously, I'm not the hugest Mike Love fan in the world, but if I were offered an opportunity to see their band quite a bit without having to spend hardly any money, I'd jump at that chance too. But I'd also admit it.

Obviously, yes. But the topic is about the possible similarity between Mike's book and posts on this board. I don't think GF was trying to restart the Stamos debate itself. Hence, the question of why we need a reasserted Stamos defense.

That is very interesting to know that my gas is being paid for by the band. :lol

And, I will have to double-check that against my credit card charges.  Then, I have to go check the mail for that check.   :lol  

If I was commenting on a band and/or reviewing shows and *any* aspect of it was "comped" by the band or any of its associates, I'd certainly have no problem saying so. I'd also certainly like to know when reading someone's comments on a band or a show if they're being comped anything by the band.

Also worth noting is that things (usually tickets, but also potentially other things) that are "comped" or "covered" is not the same thing as someone "paying for" something.

A band member or band associate could get comped hotel rooms and/or tickets for a fan without any "out of pocket" costs, and certainly without having to cut a check to a fan. I've never heard of a band comping tickets for someone by writing a check to pay for the tickets. Bands are usually allotted a big pot of comp tickets for friends and family; that cost is built into touring and built into the contracts with promoters and venues.

So Filleplage has a vested interest to defend Mike practically to the death here...

Then this is solved because, besides Mike actually living it, all of my information in those regards came from publicly available sources, which I suppose a co-author would also find.  Usually my sources are cited so feel free to post them so we can see the sources.  I haven't read the book so I can't comment on it but if these suspect bits were to be posted it wouldn't be a spoiler because it has already happened.

Anything else?

That is hilarious. We could plug in your handle and it would be true of you.

Will you be filing suit against your leader if indeed he has used your words without your consent? Or would you just consider it an honor?

I just reread your initial post and this comes off as the biggest backpedal...

I'll have to see some/any evidence first, but IF it were true I'd be honored; just as i would be honored if it were Brian, Al, Bruce, David "quoting" me.

No spoilers, just a reference to a passage being discussed and challenged in another active thread.

David Anderle's son Jonathan posted a comment and rebuttal to a section of the book that appeared to link David Anderle to the "scam" of selling Sea Of Tunes to Irving/Almo/A&M, and mentioned how David ended up being enriched by the scam.

So that passage in the book does indeed make a very clear connection and charge against David Anderle, and what Jonathan Anderle reacted so strongly to is in fact pretty easy to pick out in that chapter.

But also in that chapter is what could be seen as the NY Times' reviewers notion of cherry picking the facts. This in regards to the 1969 Sea Of Tunes sale. Taking only what is in that chapter, its specific paragraphs relative to what's written about the sale itself, and David Anderle's association with A&M:

The book specifically says that on July 21 (1969), "Murry and Brian" signed the papers to liquidate Sea Of Tunes, and by August 20, it was liquidated.

Someone unfamiliar may read that passage alone and think Murry and Brian were the only ones who signed.

For one, Mike himself signed papers regarding that sale of SOT. He testified to it in Superior Court in October 1994, as reported by the LA Times:

Metropolitan Digest / LOS ANGELES COUNTY NEWS IN BRIEF
LOS ANGELES : Beach Boys' Singer Testifies in Suit Against Brian Wilson
October 29, 1994

Beach Boys lead singer Mike Love testified Friday that he was told he would not get proper credit for the songs he co-wrote if he failed to sign a 1969 agreement to sell the group's 140-song catalogue.

"I signed it under duress, " Love testified in Los Angeles Superior Court. Both the group's manager and its attorney, Abraham Somer, told him to sign the agreement, Love said at the end of the fourth week of testimony in his suit.

The controversy began with the sale of the band's songs, known as Sea of Tunes, to Irving Music, a division of A & M Records. The late Murry Wilson, father of co-founder Brian Wilson and owner of the publishing rights, got $700,000 for the songs. The sale was negated in a 1992 settlement that netted Brian Wilson $10 million. Love, 53, sued his cousin, Brian Wilson, to obtain a share of royalties he claims he is owed for songs including "California Girls," "Dance, Dance, Dance" and "Help Me Rhonda."


The testimony in 1994 was that Mike also signed paperwork agreeing to the sale, but that he signed "under duress". So it wasn't a case of "Murry and Brian" alone signing those papers, because Mike signed them too, whether under duress or not.

That makes the definitive statement in that section of the book not entirely accurate. If the statement is made in the context it was in that chapter about the sale in 1969, it should have been noted too that Mike signed under duress, but that he too signed an agreement. If you leave that chapter, you get the impression Murry and Brian signed it. That isn't entirely accurate, if the October 1994 testimony is factored in.

Beyond that, prior to October 1994, Mike had already received over a million dollar settlement from Irving/Almo over the nature of the sale, and how it was found to be deceptive, negligent, etc etc.

And even more striking is that the reason why Mike was in court in October 1994 hinged on the court decision made in Brian's favor that declared the original sale was invalid, and that Brian was owed back royalties and compensation for the money lost due to what Brian's legal team had proven to the court was a sale that was deceptive, fraudulent, and in some cases had accusations of signatures being forged, papers being given to Brian to sign without full knowledge of what was being signed, and a partnership contract between Brian and Murry that wasn't valid under California contract law when it was agreed by both parties because Brian was underage at the time of the agreement.

So is it "cherry picking" to not say in the chapter where it was written that "Murry and Brian" signed the papers to unload Sea Of Tunes that Mike also signed papers agreeing to the sale, that he later testified he signed but signed under duress, and that the entire sale was found by a court to have been deceptive and fraudulent enough for that court to award Brian back royalties and payments for the income lost due to that sale?

That's one issue that also stood out, made even more glaring by what Jonathan Anderle wrote a few days ago. There could have been more info given related to the details of that sale, if it was a topic in that particular chapter, so people reading would have all the facts and not just a statement that "Murry and Brian" signed away Sea Of Tunes in summer 1969.

Reread it again Marty and tell me where I suggested plagarism or made a claim that anything was plagarized. I said I noticed similarities, gave several specific examples and names when asked, and can continue to do so. I thought passages in the book sounded familiar - and they do. Familiar defenses, familiar topics, and familiar points of discussion as I had seen on this and other boards. I never said posts were stolen, lifted, or plagarized by anyone. I said passages of the book might look familiar to those who have been following the discussions on this forum.

I was the one who sarcastically suggested plagarism, not Craig, and my words were 'pretty much plagarized'.

As was the Daily Mail the source of the Evan Landy interview (referenced by Mike in one of his many set-the-record-straight recent interviews).

To me it's the old axiom of throwing sh*t up on the wall, and hoping for the best.

Most of us haven't read it, but the excerpts confirm what we expected.

Makes me wonder - is Mike expecting some type of mea culpa from the industry? And just who is going to give it?

Industry peers? Doubt it. Will we see any fellow musico's come out in favor of this whitewash?
The journalistic community? So far, it doesn't look good.
The fans? Well...aren't their opinions hardened already? The closest he came to a reevaluation was C50, and that went down the commode.

I just don't see how he wins here. Just don't. He gets his word out, but he still ends up the same bitter, defensive old fool that he's always been. Like a bug in amber. Permanent.

I think the thing with McCartney is that he doesn't give Mike much thought. For that matter, I think Paul's main interest has been pretty focused on Brian and "Pet Sounds" and not a great deal else related to the BBs.

Van Dyke Parks later related what he claimed John and Paul thought of Mike, by way of conversations he (Parks) had with Lennon. I'll let people look those stories up.  

The only Love story I recall in McCartney's "authorized" bio by Barry Miles was Paul recounting that Mike would go "into town" and buy up batteries and things like that in bulk and then bring them back and re-sell the stuff to others in the camp. That's right, even in the lap of pure TM bliss at the dawn of the Maharishi hippy era, Mike was a "business guy."

It is funny that it's Foskett, by way ENTIRELY of his connection with Brian Wilson, who still gets backstage and posts selfies with McCartney despite having left Brian's employ almost three years ago. I wonder if Paul knows what Jeff's new boss says in interviews about Brian, to say nothing of *why* he says the things he says.

Isn't this in the book, Daily Mail quoted it as from the book I thought:

"And in 1969, we learned that our entire catalogue of songs – 140 to 150 of them, including about 80 I had co-written, though I had received credit on only a fraction of them – was to be sold. A&M agreed to pay $700,000 for the entire catalogue. And the payment was going, not to the band, but to Uncle Murry. In cash.
I drove to Brian’s house in Bel Air to see if he knew what was going on. At the time, Brian was not in good shape. He was using cocaine and living in the chauffeur’s quarters of his home while his wife Marilyn slept in the bedroom.
I reached his house, stormed into his room and asked what happened with our songs.
‘My dad f***ed us,’ he said.
‘Yeah, no s***.’
For the deal to go through, the agreement had to be signed by Brian, Dennis, Carl, Al, and me. I complained to the lawyers that songs like California Girls, I Get Around and Surfin’ USA, while co-written by me, had never been credited. If I signed, I’d lose the chance to claim them. But if I didn’t, he said, I might lose credit for Good Vibrations, Surfin’ Safari and The Warmth Of The Sun, which did bear my name.
What could I do? I had to sign the agreement to retain what I had. Everyone else signed too, and we lost all we had created.
It wasn’t until 1994, as I faced Brian in a courtroom, that jurors ruled that I deserved credit on 35 Beach Boys songs that had been solely credited to Brian for decades, leaving him facing potential damages of between $58m and $342m.
I had no interest in crushing my cousin, and it wasn’t about the money anyway. It was about getting credit for my songs. I proposed that he give me $5m and we move on. Brian agreed."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/event/article-3761744/One-Charles-Manson-s-murderers-gang-babysat-two-children-says-Beach-Boys-star-Mike-Love.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/event/article-3761744/One-Charles-Manson-s-murderers-gang-babysat-two-children-says-Beach-Boys-star-Mike-Love.html)

That's all the context it gave.

Could you go ahead and post the claim about David Anderle with its context?  Feel free to post anything of mine you suspect.   Thanks.

Well, all you have to do is read the first page and a half and many people were jumping on the plagiarism bandwagon until Craig attempted to extinguish the garbage fire he started with the initial post. Craig, when you have to make multiple posts to clarify you weren't suggesting

Also, how many threads do we need on Mike's book? There are 4 or 5 threads within the first 10 posts all discussing the book (two started by the same author, I might add). Is there any way we can combine these conversations?

I'm kind of curious how, as a result of Mike not signing the sale agreement, Mike's name could have been taken *off* of the songs he was already credited for. Presumably they were registered already through ASCAP or BMI or whatever, his name had already appeared on record labels, etc.

Is he implying he was told they would illegally take his name off the songs in retribution for souring the deal?

Seems like that would have been a potentially easy case to prove back then if they all of a sudden took his name off of EIGHTY songs *immediately* after he refused to sign a sale agreement.

Exactly...and why wait so many years?

Oh, and someone from 'the other forum' mentioned that Brian 'called Al a racist in his book'.

You know, the one Brian had nothing to do with?

Apples and oranges, unless it turns out Mike's book was ghosted by Evan Landy...

Is Andrew G. Doe really Eugene Landy to Mike’s Todd Gold (James S. Hirsch)? The world may never know.

I personally was referring to current members

[/b]

In 1969? I thought he moved to the chauffeur's quarters in 1972...

Did this thread merge with another or something, or did I have a stroke?

With regards to anyone who has read the book... does Mike express any regret for having done any hurtful (or in hindsight, regrettable) actions that he did to anyone, be it bandmates or others? (Not talking about wishing he'd done a business deal differently). For example, the Shawn section that I read on Amazon (just a brief snippet which they had available) was seemingly very matter of fact and devoid of emotion, without as much as any hint of stating that he wishes he'd done things differently.

Just curious if that's the general tone of the book.  Because my interest in the book in some ways hinges on it.

(Getting ready for people to say Mike  has nothing to say he's sorry about in a book, or that Brian won't say he's sorry about stuff Brian has done in Brian's own book, etc.... Please: in advance, this type of response can all just be set aside, as it distracts from my actual question).

If Mike wasn't interested in the money, why did he propose Brian give him $5M and they would call it even? Why didn't Mike just ask Brian to give him written credit for the songs(or a certain amount of songs they both agreed upon)?

Yes, I merged it after Marty requested I did.

Exactly.

Going back to articles and other court documents, it appears the jury reached a verdict in that 1994 songwriting case, but then after the verdict but prior to the jury deciding damages, Brian and Mike reached a settlement as to the financial aspect of the case.

The bit we're able to read from Mike's book makes it sound like Mike agreed to a settlement  for $5 million even though he could have gotten much more.

However, some articles have indicated (and perhaps those articles are wrong) that the $5 million figure was calculated based on being half of the $10 million that Brian had received from his settlement against Irving Alamo Music.

Also, contemporary articles reporting on the jury verdict indicate Love was entitled to "30%" of the $10 million Brian had received from Irving Alamo.

So I'm not exactly sure Mike would have necessarily received much more than the $5 million he settled for had the jury been allowed to set those damages.

If he were a man, and a true gentleman, he would have said something like "look, we're family and this lawyer stuff is bullshit. Give me $1.00 and let's be done with it".

Doesn't Craig want his credit in the "Started by" box?

Agreed, Jay. And actually, I understand the thing with the money...I'd react the same way  (that is a LOT of money) but it seems that has always taken precedence over everything else.

What is that supposed to mean?!

If I remember right this was after Mike was promised a settlement to help Brian win his case against Almo, which he never recieved, and after that offering to settle for $750,000, which was declined.

At least that's what I think I wrote for Mike's autobiography.   ;)

He started one of the combined threads but he doesn't get credit for it.

Huh???

I heard the latter, but not the former. What was the source?

He's not the only mod here. We both work together.

I don't understand.  What does that have to do with getting co-credit for a combined thread?

LA Times, as I remember.

http://articles.latimes.com/1994-12-13/business/fi-8511_1_beach-boys-lead-singer (http://articles.latimes.com/1994-12-13/business/fi-8511_1_beach-boys-lead-singer)

Who cares about getting credit for a thread?

Not Craig I guess.

I guess you'd have to ask those lawyers.

What business is it of any of us?

Zzzzzzzzzz..... Nice try Cam with blocking the topic by being boring as hell.

Where are you pulling that out of?


Yeah, it's not going to work

Who knows, it might end up as content in Al or Bruce's autobiography.

Maybe Cam is afraid Craig will sue for unpaid thread starting royalties.

And you just ended up on the ban list. Tired of the constant trolling and PM'ing trying to get others banned.

Bruce Springsteen is issuing a compilation album with some unreleased tracks to coincide with his book.  Elvis Costello did the same thing when he released his book.  I was thinking  how cool it would be if Brian and Mike did this too.  Probably wouldn't happen but it's fun to dream.

That would be brilliant

Unbelievable Cam, seriously I have asked you this half a dozen times. What is at your center what motivates you to post the way you do?
I try to remain fairly impartial but come on that was ridiculous!

too late now...he's gone like the wind.

He will find a way

Out of curiosity, what was the banable offense?

Maybe I missed something. Why did he get banned?

Beat me to the punch, I had to leave before following up. The point is made in the chapter discussing the 1969 sale, as I laid out point by point short of copying the whole text, where the book says clearly that "Murry and Brian" signed the papers to liquidate Sea Of Tunes.

The book then contradicts itself (as outlined verbatim in the excerpt published in the mail, copied above) stating that all band members had to sign and agree to the sale, including Mike.

So the one reference says Murry and Brian signed it away, and another in the same book says all band members had to sign and agree as well.

Readers will come away thinking, perhaps, was it Murry and Brian who signed as noted in that chapter, or did all band members sign as noted in a later chapter? Obviously it wasn't just Murry and Brian who signed away Sea Of Tunes as the book stated. So there was some fact-checking or something that slipped through the cracks unless the idea was to imply Murry and Brian were the ones who f***ed over Mike and the band even though Mike and the band signed too, under duress or not.

Contradiction?

Besides the constant trolling? Continuously spamming my PM box trying to get someone banned?The posts on the last page  were  the last straw.  He's been taking swipes at me for years (going on 20) ; this is nothing new. I had asked him to knock it off via PM and he kept at it.

What posts on the last page?

Whatever you say Marty. I posted my take on the book based on an advance read, and when others get their copies of the book they can read for themselves and make up their own minds, either disagree or agree with my impression that various points made, defenses, and the ways some topics were addressed had a familiar ring to them, as in I had seen and read similar things said here by specific posters on this board. I was asked to clarify, and did.

So the ball will soon be in everyone's court, everyone can read the book and have their own take on it and post those observations just as I did. If something sounded familiar to me, that's what I said in my post about the book. No starting garbage fires or trying to extinguish them, just posting my initial take on what I had read. No accusations of anything, just my take on the book.

Well, I should wait till I read the book before chiming in, but Contradiction? Not necessarily. Could Al and Mike have decided to sell Sea of Tunes? I imagine not. So if what Mike is claiming, which is that if they didn't sign they would lose rights to other royalties, all members signing was done with the figurative 'gun to the head'. So yes, potentially Mike might feel he was sewered by Murray, and by extension Brian.

The contradiction is simple: One chapter says Murry and Brian signed the papers. Another says all band members signed the papers.

Trying to provoke Craig with the whole 'credit' thing.

Oh, and http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,24284.msg587411.html#msg587411   He's periodically called me 'Billie' ( which is the female version of Billy)  because one time years ago on another board that we both belonged to  somebody( not Cam)  used to taunt me with that because  they thought I was gay and calling me such would offend me. I'm not and it didn't, but the bigotry did. *

I'd asked him to stop that too.

*thankfully most of us have moved out of the 1950s since then.

Cam's gone!?? Praise be!

Too bad there's still a place as the Pet Sounds Forum for him to continue to spread his drivel.

And learning why he called you "Billie" is sure interesting. What a fucking prick.

I echo those sentiments.

Thanks guys.
Now...back to the book!

I'm still skeptical of Mike or anyone losing "credit" on songs due to not agreeing to the sale of the publishing. Here are his words:

If I signed, I’d lose the chance to claim them. But if I didn’t, he said, I might lose credit for Good Vibrations, Surfin’ Safari and The Warmth Of The Sun, which did bear my name.

I'm skeptical of how they legally could have taken his royalties away, and even more so about how they could have taken his credits away. His writing above says "might lose credit", as in the credit on the label.

I'm curious if there's any more detail or context to this. Someone just blankly told them "If you don't agree to this sale, you might lose your credits on the songs you wrote?" This threat seems odd. It's a textbook example of duress, it's a threat that doesn't carry equal weight towards all of the members (e.g. by 1969 Carl, Dennis, and Al all had very few if any songwriting credits, so threatening to take away credits was an empty threat to them), and even if the apparent *verbal* threat itself wouldn't have been provable, Mike would have had pretty strong evidence of retribution having taken place against him if he didn't agree to the sale and then all of a sudden had his royalties cut off and name removed from 80 BB songs.

The "I might have lost my existing credits" argument kinda smells to me more like a latter-day excuse to explain the revelation that *Mike* may have been one of the people who signed the agreement to sell the catalog. And one would think that this "threat" would have been applicable to Brian as well. But Mike doesn't seem to excuse Brian's role in the saga in the same way that he excuses his own. I think Mike has said in the past that Brian was essentially under various forms of legal or at least psychological duress from Murry at the time. But Mike has also still not been shy about shunting some level of blame or at least anger towards Brian specifically regarding the sale of the catalog.

I was skeptical - and have been - of that claim as well. Publishing royalties and songwriting royalties are what I thought to be separate entities, in a business and credit sense. Mike would have been getting the royalties through BMI as he was listed as a BMI writer on those songs. No matter what happened with the publishing "commodity" trading hands or ownership, that wouldn't affect the royalty checks he'd be getting from BMI if he was listed as co-writer. meaning if he already was registered on BMI as a writer on GV, no matter who bought the publishing catalog from 1969 until eternity, those BMI payments would still be Mike's.

I remember John Fogerty - whether he was ASCAP or BMI I don't remember - saying his writing royalties kept him afloat financially while he was going through that mess with Fantasy and Zaentz over his song catalog. No matter what went down with publishing and those legal issues, the writing royalties still went to him through either BMI or ASCAP for the use and play of those Creedence songs.

Another hypothetical - Michael Jackson may have bought the Beatles song catalog in a publishing sense, but he had absolutely no ability to change anything about the "Lennon McCartney" writing credit and the usage and royalty payments applied to said credit. He'd get a cut as publisher, and had more control over the catalog, but it had no bearing on the songwriting credit. Meaning, Michael Jackson could not have stripped the "Lennon" credit off yesterday on a whim. It wasn't part of the publishing wheelhouse.

At least that's my understanding.

And it may well be that Mike's point is essentially that he was young and naïve and easily fooled when the deal came down. But a quick aside mentioning that the threat leveled against him was an empty threat (or an illegal threat) would help clarify that.

But I again have to wonder how much of that specific detail, of having been allegedly under duress, is meant to absolve him of blame in relation to the potential revelation that his signature was required *and* obtained in the sale of the catalog.

So much of his animus these days seems to stem for the one-two punch of a bad sale deal on the catalog and his not receiving credits. That he may have been a needed and obtained signature in that sale would tend to possibly undercut the justification for at least that degree of animus. 

Back to the book, maybe someone else who has read an advance copy can help me fill in the gaps in case I missed it or am overlooking it...but I was hoping Mike would have addressed the issue of him giving seed money to fund the PMRC in the mid 80's. Most people - music fans - remember this as a pretty big issue overall, and it became part of the national dialogue if not a rallying point against music censorship which even led to documentaries and other films being made about the music community fighting back against the politicians who were advocating warning labels on albums for explicit lyrics and censorship in general.

Again, maybe I'm missing it, or it simply wasn't addressed. It wasn't a popular decision to fund the PMRC, and I would have liked to read Mike's thoughts on that decision after 30 years and whether he took any heat personally for giving them seed money when the majority of the rock community was strongly against what the PMRC was trying to do with censorship and labeling albums for "explicit lyrics".

In case anyone isn't familiar with this story, I took this from the online Billboard archives, September 1985, and that's why the highlights are on the article.

(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/pmrc1_zpsws7tyvne.jpg)
(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/pmrc2_zpsq07zwtky.jpg)


And again, if I missed where the book did address the PMRC seed money topic, please let me know.

John Denver testified against the PMRC. John Freakin' Denver! The guy who hung out with the Muppets was on the opposite side of a censorship issue from Mike.

GF - as I look at this, it was a non-partisan effort [Tipper Gore is married to Al Gore a Dem VP.](Dems and Republicans) and deals with labeling standards that have been in existence for year in the motion picture industry for viewing.  The G, PG, etc have been in existence for years.  

What I can tell you is that when a Kindergartner comes into a class singing "Back that ass up; show me what you're working with..." - it is the beginning of "sexualizing" 5 year olds.  And, I think some controls (not censorship but perhaps labeling.) They don't even  realize what they are singing. I think a monetary contribution is pretty irrelevant when there was already a standard in place for labeling motion pictures for some time.  I look at it as a consumer labeling mechanism and a way of protecting children.  

Who cares what adults listen to?  It is their choice and should not be censored, but for kids, I disagree.    

I need to know what happened at the Porn Rock panel at the Radio '85 convention! What was the "very surprising" announcement?   :lol

 :woot :woot :woot :thumbsup :kiss :happydance :happydance :love :rock :h5 :pirate

As the PMRC was an issue that galvanized musicians and artists in general on the issues of censorship in the mid 80's (and still to this day), and again unless I simply passed over it but I don't recall the book discussing Mike's seed money and support given to the PMRC, I was hoping Mike in his book would have addressed it and given his point of view, or explained/clarified his support of a group and a campaign that the majority of musicians were fighting against.

OT I know but I wanted to chime in since I am a parent of a five year old. As a parent, I feel a responsibility over what my child listens to and I'm very careful to not expose her to something that is inappropriate. A label isn't going to prevent a five year old from listening to something inappropriate since as far as I know no five year old is out buying music. So the labels in practice do not function as warnings for children. Like the film ratings, they simply operate as condemnations from a body of people who are attempting to filter out works that do not fall in line with a particular moral vision. Rather than label something (which is always a slippery slope), people should be better educated on what is appropriate and inappropriate for children and parents should have that responsibility.

GF - I completely get the censorship thing and the positions which would likely clash.  But, when impressionable kids are singing sexualized lyrics or violent lyrics, (and do not even know what they are singing) there needs to be some reasonable safeguard in place to keep that from their ears.  Or at least guide purchases.  

And there are plenty of double entendres in BB music, which have been discussed, and that is fine, because most of that would be consumed by 13+ year olds, who are not little ones, and by the time you figure out what a double entendre is, you are old enough to be a consumer.  

But pre-school and grade school kids? A lot of cable companies and satellite companies have chips or blocks you can set to preclude that kind of viewing or music stations that broadcast x-rated stuff.  Is that so different?  

Lucky you - 5 years old is a magic time.  I agree that labeling can be a slippery slope.  It (the labeling) might not stop someone from smoking, but it is a reminder.   And of course some of the decisions could be arguably subjective. 

Even the US Supreme Court could not define pornography in some decision, but they did say, "you know it when you see it."

I agree - 5 is a magic time. In a week, she will be going into grade one. A whole different ballgame!

Cigarettes are not an act of expression, and music is, so I see a distinction there. I'm not entirely certain what the reference to pornography means. If you know it when you see it, then obviously I wouldn't need a label telling me that it's not something for children, which it most definitely is not. Despite the use of the term "porn rock," my hunch is that that term was used not to accurately describe music but rather as hyperbole to drum up support against the music.

I was more interested in the issue of Mike giving seed money to fund the PMRC and how and why it wasn't a topic of his book. But on the issue of defending or debating the PMRC and the issues in general, I also see something - maybe it's not the right term - "ironic" in the whole thing, with the timing. Just an observation.

Where do the lyrics of Kokomo fit into the issue? Just a few years after the PMRC issue was current, and into the era where 2 Live Crew, Dice Clay, and others were being labeled as explicit and censored, there is a song which is...to be blunt...about getting drunk, having sex, and using terms like "contact high" and "afternoon delight".

If the standards are extended to slang and double entendre, there is the hypothetical example of 5 year olds singing along to the song, reciting the lyrics "contact high" and "afternoon delight", and would they perhaps ask their parents "what is a contact high?"

Contact high was an old term used by stoners, obviously, to describe the effects of second hand pot smoke. Afternoon delight is obviously a sexual fling in the daytime. So what do the parents tell the kids?

the issue was the PMRC, and deciding what was or wasn't explicit. I'd have to think some on the committee might think references to pot smoke and drunken daytime sex might warrant a label.

And that was the slippery slope. So I would have welcomed reading what Mike's thoughts were 30 years after all of that was a raging issue, and after one of his own biggest hits could have come under the PMRC microscope.

First Grade is tough. Kindergarten, on the other hand, is the "child's garden," (German term.) It was more a consumer viewpoint, buying and labeling CD's, rather than strictly expression.

The expression is one of the most famous phrases from the US Supreme Court, came from an obscenity case, Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 U.S. 184 (1964.) It had to do with the Louis Malle film, Les Amants (The Lovers) being shown in Cleveland Heights, Ohio.  The quote came from Judge Potter Stewart.  Yes, it is vague.

You would probably have the discretion to know what is appropriate for your child, but, many of the parents of my students were still teens themselves, bringing their kids to school and whose education was interrupted at 14 or so, to become parents, so labeling I think could be a useful consumer tool for them to know what was appropriate listening for their kids.  

Yes, I know the phrase and its origins.

As to your final paragraph, I will repeat that I think proper education is better than labelling which as we agree is a slippery slope. I also think that proper education (which, in my view, is particularly lacking in the United States and England) is a good way to curb the teen pregnancy problem. But now this is way off topic so I think further discussion of this should occur in the Sandbox.

GF - I do get what you mean, about double entendre.  They don't know at 5 years old, what a "contact high" or "afternoon delight" is. But they do know "Back that ass up."

And, uncomfortable speech is protected.  The Miller test (Miller v. California) 1973 (413 U. S. 15) defines obscenity as "utterly without socially redeeming value" to that which lacks "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value."

But, I do think there need to be boundaries and I have no idea if this is addressed in Mike's book because I do not have it.   I do think that in life everyone should have the right to tell their story, from his/her own perspective.  What Mike included or left out will all be revealed, when it is formally released.  I don't have a punch list for what I think someone should include in "their book" - all of that is up to them.  I have a punch list for myself (not for a book.) An autobiography has that person's punch-list.  

And, besides, Kokomo was a surprise hit that arose from Cocktail the movie sound track, which was a Buena Vista (Disney branch) and it was rated "R."  

Summer of Love's lyrics reeks of parental advisory... ;D

The Muppets felt differently, and censored "contact high" from their cover of "Kokomo." Seriously.

I think your total guess as to what a five year old might know, or the degree to which they might understand various phrases, is just that, a total guess.

I would also suggest taking any discussion of the PMRC or music censorship, outside of how it pertains to Mike's position or non-position on it, to the "Sandbox."

The original post concerning the PMRC wasn't to argue its legitimacy or need or lack thereof, but rather concerned Mike's involvement and potential omission of such in his book.

I'm saying again, I did not see it in the book. Unless I simply glanced over it or missed it. But I did not see it in the book, and everything I've written comes from actually seeing the book. Just to clarify. And I was hoping Mike would address it, since it was a major issue in music and still resonates today, and Mike found himself seeding funding to an organization which I'd estimate an overwhelming majority of musicians opposed then and still opposed now.

It would have been interesting to hear Mike's take on funding the PMRC 30 years removed, but alas it doesn't seem to be the book to do that.

Yeh this scenario and the terminology doesn't make sense. Obviously, the main point is that the group's management and/or legal advisors recommended they sign for whatever reason, and the group (or at least Mike) just went along with it without understanding.

Maybe someone can fill in the blanks, but who actually owned SOT? Was it Murry? If so, the only thing I can think of is that the deal as negotiated by Murry to sell the publishing of SOT included some kind of cut or extra incentive for the writers, and they were advised to sign it because if that particular deal didn't go through, Murry could negotiate a new one that did not include them? Obviously, Mike using terms like losing "credit" is misleading at best. But it's obvious he and the group were not totally aware of the technicalities at the time.

Brian and Mike (and to a lesser degree, Dennis, Carl and even Al) got screwed by the deal. Not sure why anyone advised them to sign. Brian clearly got screwed in a bigger way that anyone else, and it seemed to affect him on a personal level to a greater degree also.

But the apparent fact is that the group DID sign it. The question is, why? And if the answer is that they were advised to, why would that advisor tell them to? Were they even required to sign for the sale to go through, or was it a goodwill gesture (or something to cover Murry's back)?

Ohhhhh my, said Mr. Takei.

There is also the leering lasciviousness of "Summer of Love".

This goes against what you said previously:

What I can tell you is that when a Kindergartner comes into a class singing "Back that ass up; show me what you're working with..." - it is the beginning of "sexualizing" 5 year olds.  And, I think some controls (not censorship but perhaps labeling.) They don't even  realize what they are singing.

--

The point that I thought you were making is that it doesn't matter if the children know what they are saying or not - that the fact that they are singing these words despite not knowing their meaning has negative effects.

Also, I might add that my daughter would not know what the word "ass" meant whatsoever, thankfully so I'm skeptical that all 5 year olds would understand that line either.

GF - Do you have a copy of the book or just reading the extract on amazon?

GF already mentioned in a previous post that he has read a full advance copy of the book.

Why in the world would someone ask why something *isn't* in a book based on a few pages and excerpts?

"Filledeplage": If you had read my initial post,  I was able to read an advance copy of the book, as Iain Lee and apparently a number of others did as well, including the various reviewers who have already published reviews. I'm not speaking from ignorance of the book or the contents when I wrote all of this.

Does that clarify it? I know some are trying to twist and bastardize this into whatever flaming arrows they wish to fire, but that's the long and short of it.

Let's not parse.  A 5 year old, riding a school bus from a housing project in a city, knows what an "ass" is where the older kids are singing all this stuff.  They likely do not know what a "contact high" is.  

And, Kokomo was written for an R-rated movie.  But, I suspect your own child is being gently-reared, which many of my students were unfortunately, not.  

Well, GF - that puts me at a distinct and highly unfair, disadvantage, not having a copy of the book, in my hand. 

     

Found this in my morning newsfeed -- here's what People Magazine, which has long ago passed into the most shallow and frivolous of coverage, thinks about what's really important in Mike's book:

Beach Boy Book's Shocking Claim: Is There a New Charles Manson Murder Victim?
http://www.people.com/article/beach-boys-book-new-charles-manson-murder

This Friday's issue cover -- note the top headline:
http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2016/news/160829/blac-chyna-cover-1435.jpg

Also a story on the book, more Manson obsessing:
Behind the Scenes of Beach Boys Frontman Mike Love's Memoir, Good Vibrations
http://www.people.com/article/beach-boys-mike-love-memoir-good-vibrations

Unless GF is lying about Mike not mentioning the PMRC issue in his book, how does a discussion on this one single issue require having read the book?

Obviously, the question of why Mike wouldn't mention the PMRC is potentially a rhetorical question.

I don't have any problem saying if he didn't mention it, it's probably because it doesn't make him look particularly good. At best, he just didn't rate it worth mentioning.

Unfortunately, the cycle of cynicism and sensationalism that ends with these reports began with putting them in a book in the first place. As I've said many times, I would be surprised if one of the selling points to publishers on this book wasn't the Manson stuff, as it differentiates it from the million other rock and roll autobiographies.

I also doubt the veracity of the story itself for about fifty different and sometimes disparate reasons.

- That Manson story is in the Steven Gaines book!
- The PMRC controversy was inexcusable and a huge embarrassment to this country. Anyone defending Tipper and her cause should be ashamed of themselves.

Let me also clarify that it was ME who did it...since so many people on the other board like to pin everything on Craig ::)

Exactly, it's a team effort here despite the common "belief".

Behind the Scenes of Beach Boys Frontman Mike Love's Memoir, Good Vibrations...

http://www.people.com/article/beach-boys-mike-love-memoir-good-vibrations

Yes, the ever-insightful, in-depth coverage from "People" magazine.  I'll wait for the next review.  But thanks anyway. 

Is that a new version of the original version of "Big Sur" in the background ?!?

Whether it happened or not, this is not the first time Mike has mentioned this Dennis/Manson story - I recall he told the story on the Howard Stern show in either '88 or '92.

And who the f*** are you to say what a five year old child from a housing project knows? Why would they know what an "ass" is but not getting "high"? Both seem on the same level of figuring out. Seems like you're making an excuse for the lyricist of "contact high" fame?

Also, how about this lyric:

"First I'll get you on the beach
Or in a swimming pool
Doing unto others is the Golden Rule
But doing it with you would be so
Very cool"

Would you be okay with your child listening to lyrics about "getting" a female on the beach or in the pool? And then more about how cool it would be to "do it" with her?

Yep, which might explain, and I stress *MIGHT* explain why the track was left off the MIC set in 2013; perhaps Mike was already planning to re-cut it (and re-cut it in that alternate, early arrangement).

It seemed like a no-brainer to put on MIC. It would stroke Mike's ego by giving him another allotted track, and even the most crusty Mike critics often agree it's not only probably the best Mike outtake out there, but one of the best Mike tracks the group cut, period.

Seems kinda needless to essentially re-create that outtake when it's sitting there and ready to release (with pristine young BB backing vocals to boot).

Wow, yeah. Sounds like it. Wish he'd just release the original version, but that is a good tune (and a good version of it) to cover if he's gonna do a cover.

But... the autotune on the lyric "away" during an apparently newly (?) recorded version of Fun Fun Fun is really, really prominent at 0:47 in the video. I guess Mike makes fun of Autotune, but only on Wilson product.

And 1:52, the burned-in text "A STORY AS RICH AND LAYERED AS THE BEACH BOY'S HARMONIES"... they couldn't get someone with proper grammar to proofread that?  ::) Not blaming Mike for that, but this is a bit embarrassing.

(http://i65.tinypic.com/2mo8p00.jpg)

Truth.

Agreed...it's a lovely song and should've been released on MIC.

Just want to chime in for a moment, at my peril. A real shame that Mike felt the need to re-cut the backing vocal for the alternate Big Sur, and that may be the likely reason that it was left off MIC. That context for its release would have been ideal for any other reason than self-aggrandizement (the new chord twist on the backing vocals in the snippet of the re-done version is actually interesting, but the original was lovely and quite sufficient, although of course it is his prerogative to belatedly reconfigure a previously unreleased track no matter how much it's been booted or otherwise circulated). When Al did it with Loop De Loop, the result was solid, if a bit sterile.

As regards his alleged contribution of seed $ to the labeling effort, it is consistent with his conservative politics, but somewhat craven (surprise!) That John Denver was to his left on the issue is quite amusing, as was the post citing his banal and piggish lyrics about "doing it" etc. which is equally as boorish as "backing that ass up" IMO. And "Fille", not to be unduly "confrontative", but if a person needs a label to anticipate that a hip-hop song is more likely to contain lyrics potentially corruptive to young ears than a mainstream pop tune (the aforememtioned ML example notwithstanding), then perhaps they shouldn't be entrusted with the care of children. Which is not to say that labeling is all bad, but censorship is IMO.

One comment that I find irritating is that Dennis had "lasting guilt" over his Manson association, a somewhat uncharitable and self-serving re-phrasing and a dead horse which Mike seems determined to beat ad nauseum along with so many others. How about a more charitable view (what a concept) such as that Dennis's open heart, childhood emotional damage  and subsequent need for sensation resulted in some unfortunate, misguided choices which sadly ultimately led to an untimely end, but some forgiveness for his cousin rather than seemingly endless snarkiness and judgmentalism from the perspective of his more upper-class, Murry-less upbringing vantage point. Not forthcoming any time soon, methinks. I strive for objectivity and am not a gratuitous Mike-basher by any means BTW, appreciate his vocal, lyrical (when not in unbearable live self-parodying ultra-nasal mode) and yes, stage contributions (as far as keeping their music alive and in the public eye through the years) contributions very much, and I think see the totality of his various crosses to bear, both internally and externally created, as much as possible by anyone who is not himself him, he, hoo- hah!

All good points. Well put.

The specious guess or assertion that Dennis's death had directly much to do with the Manson saga reads more like what a novice biographer would say. Dennis died, and it was in that sort of "not a suicide, but could have been sorta a bit like that" fashion, and Dennis had a Manson connection, therefore a line is connected between the two.

I'm curious to read what Jon Stebbins might have to say about the theory that Dennis's death had any strong, significant tie to guilt related to the Manson case.

Classic case of 1+1=4.

This weeks People magazine , out Friday , will contain an excerpt from the book.

I'm not interested in any way whatsoever about the ML tree-killing effort. I read some excerpts, and they were more than enough. And thanks Billy for doing the right thing.

I wonder if there's going to something similar for Brian's book. I doubt it just for the simple fact that this one is more up People's alley. As the saying goes, Controversy Creates Cash.

Thanks Thorgil....appreciate it.

I did a whole post that disappeared into the SS-sphere.  Oops.  It's probably just as well.

I do make the assumption (possibly incorrectly, but it's him) that Brian's book will lack the salacious, regurgitated stuff that apparently pleases the "People" readers.  Poor marketing in some people's eyes, or preserving some degree of dignity in Brian's eyes, perhaps?  Time will tell.

May this month be over soon, so that we can get to something inspiring, hopefully.

I think you're right.

Meanwhile,  the other guys are convinced we're delusional liars.  AGD says the ghostwriter visited SS once for correction on audio engineering lingo.

Really?

Man that place makes me glad GF and Billy cleaned up our board!

Might have...don't know for sure. For all we know, he could've interviewed Cam  off the board. Or Cam could've sold him a sign...

 :lol  Yeah, no one ever said that the author copied and pasted stuff from here - just that the talking points were remarkably familiar between certain posters here over the past few years and what apparently is in the book.  That could mean a number of things, or be a stunning, remarkable coincidence.  Who knows?

I do want one of those Mott signs.  Well, maybe I don't.  All I know about Emporia, KS is that I have to endure thunderstorms that pop up there, b*stards!  Well, and then there is their Governor and Atty Gen'l, but that's Sandbox material.

Or Litterbox material...

I think it's been well established that he felt fundamentally ruined and destroyed by the experiences, which began a spiral of self-destructiveness exacerbated by his already free-wheeling and adventurous personality :'(  Maybe not guilty per se, but possibly that as well, which doesn't mean that Mike should characterize it that way in the absence of his having gone on record as saying so.

Cam is the delusional liar out of everybody. But what can you expect out of someone who posts like Van Dyke Parks writes lyrics, and comes across as a wannabe lawyer (not the good kind..the Saul Goodman kind)?

Better Call Van. You don't want a criminal lyricist, you want a CRIMINAL lyricist.

:lol

Another thread totally turned to sh*t.

Considering the first was about Mike teaching Dennis oral, well...

I don't post often but I have to say it's going to be nice not dealing with Mottism anymore!

A point was raised in Mike's book which I'd like to address and discuss, as it has been discussed and debated quite a few times through the years. What happened to Bruce when Jack Rieley was managing the band and he ended up no longer in the band?

In Mike's book, the claim is made that Bruce was voted out of the band by the Wilsons with help from Jack Rieley.

What struck me is how that contradicts not only what several researchers here had posted about that situation, and I'll post the relevant quotes from this board's archives, but also what Mike himself told Keith Altham in a New Musical Express interview from June 1972 where he said "The Beach Boys never threw Bruce out...", "...Bruce said 'If that's the way you feel about it maybe I should just leave - I don't want to leave but maybe it's for the best!'. It was very amicable." And further "...when Bruce was confronted with it, he took it subjectively and he over-reacted, and said he would split."

That suggests pretty clearly that Bruce left, as reported by Mike, and according to Mike it was an amicable split.

Here are the relevant quotes from the archives on this issue:




Other sources say Rieley fired Bruce, Rieley in a 2013 Record Collector interview says he was asked to fire him by The Wilsons, yet others report that Jack hated Bruce, and Brian's quote in Ian's post above describes a blow-up between the two...

Needless to say, there is a lot going on here.

But again, what jumped out of the book as of 2016 was the claim that Bruce was voted out (essentially fired) by the Wilsons and helped by Jack Rieley, while Mike himself in 1972 told Keith Altham it was Bruce who left and it was amicable, and I think some of the writers quoted above and others took that NME interview as at least one of the official versions of events since it was coming from Mike himself. Now that narrative seems to have changed.

A bit confusing.

Huh. You'd think he could've just asked Bruce, seeing as how they spend half the year together on the road.

There's a John Tobler book on the Boys in which neither Mike nor Dennis are particularly flattering about Bruce when he left (interviews taken from press cuttings around the time, I think) - of the course, the fact he was in the studio with them the next year makes you wonder. I have to say that reading between the lines from various things and comments here over the years, I can't help but think that Carl was the one who wanted to replace him with Billy Hinsche in the late 60s, so who knows - and I'm sure I read on here that it was Carl's decision not to have him in the group photo on Ten Years of Harmony, though there's only one studio album from that period he isn't on - even if he's not officially a BB on some of the others.

It is, to be blunt, confusing as hell.

The book suggests the Wilsons helped by Jack Rieley voted Bruce out.

C-Man referenced and Earl Leaf gossip column that reported Carl, Mike, and Al "voted unanimously" to oust Bruce.

Ian Rusten, C-Man, and Andrew Doe posted what they had researched, including comments from individual band members, and with the statement that Bruce was not fired.

Jack Rieley as recently as discussions here from the past few months has had his credibility challenged, and doubt cast on his word in general on the basis of certain "lies" he told being outed and disproven. With the implication that his word isn't trustworthy because of his lies in the past. So there is Jack's 2013 Record Collector interview saying "The Wilsons" were behind Bruce's removal. Do we trust him on that? Is that the source cited for the book's version of events?

But the main point seems to come back to Mike's own interviews. In the 1972 interview in NME, he specifically said Bruce was the one who walked away, in an amicable split, and gave further details which line up with several other quotes turned up by the researchers. He was also quoted in Record Mirror as saying Bruce "left".

We realize fact-checking and researching these things requires a lot of weighing of sources and trying to determine what is the most on-point version of events.

In this case, Mike's book in 2016 looks to be in direct conflict with what Mike himself said in 1972 when Bruce's departure was current news. Perhaps more of a clarification was necessary, because it doesn't add up as written. And the researchers quoted above, as well as their sources, paint a different picture than is presented in 2016 where "the Wilsons" are reported to be the ones who voted for Bruce's ouster.

Sorry if this has already been discussed but there is an awesome (ahem) video on the Beach Boys' page on Facebook promoting Mike's book.  It's touted as a look at "one of the most misunderstood individuals in the music industry". 

:lol

You know what's kind of funny (in a not really funny way); I've never posted much, but I've been around the boards forever. I was on the PSML, I remember reading the Cabinessence board, I was a regular visitor to the SMiLE shop. And even though Cam has always been a Mike Love lean, he always seemed to be a decent guy. And I know that a lot of people respected him. Back on the SS, he always had a lot of info on session sheets, and was willing to share any kind of info he had. Even his Mike Love defenses seemed to come off more as him just trying to get people to see things in a different light, like maybe not everything is "Brian is perfect and Mike is an asshole". The last couple years though, his posts seemed hellbent on just being Mike's defense lawyer, no matter how ridiculous he sounded. Sometimes, I don't even know if he believed some of the stuff that came out of his mouth. It's weird.

Yeah, I've noticed that too.

That said, not our problem anymore.

 :lol  Just watched it.  Enough said.

The 1988 rock and roll hall of fame speech removed all doubt about Mike. ;)

I don't know why Mike won't fully own up to this being a low point and embarrassment that he regrets. You could be sure that if Denny had made some bizarre, egotistical (good luck at that!) rant at such an important induction, that Mike would be glad to criticize it and point it out in his book!

For the third time lately, I have bought a book at the Indigo book store in Montreal nearly two weeks before the official publication date. The latest book-the one under discussion in this thread. About to start reading!

Update: Just finished Chapter 1. A very engaging history of the Love family. Great so far!

Mike's 1972 interview just after Bruce left has to be taken with a grain of salt - I'm not surprised that IF Bruce was fired, Mike and the Wilsons would want the parting to appear as amicable as possible and try not to sabotage Bruce's reputation and spare him the humiliation of being "fired."  Plus if he was fired the press would of course want to know why - would Mike want to get into why Bruce didn't like the direction they weregoing and that he got into a big fight with our manager?

The key is the "solo"artist thing - Bruce wasn't making music that the group felt was relevant to the Beach Boys musical direction, he was doing his songs essentially solo and not collaborating with Jack or the other members of the group, which apparently Jack wanted, and he wasn't close to any of the band members and didn't hang out with them.

Someone needs to ask Bruce for his take today - was he voted out or was there a confrontation and he agreed to leave?  I suspect for obvious reasons he would take Mike's current version of the story.

D'ya think?  I doubt that it matters at this point.  Things are always more complicated than they appear, and much simpler in a different perspective. Blaming it on the Wilsons - that doesn't make a lot of sense.  I doubt that Brian was interested in ousting Bruce by all indications, so there's a little something missing here, I'm thinking - like votes? But I wouldn't know.

Does anybody know what the band voting system was, prior to the infamous airplane tarmac incident?

Not me.  In the old days I was "outside the vault."  Later I knew essentially nothing.

Finished Chapter 2-portrays an idyllic friendship between Mike and Brian and the angry relationship between Mike's father and a Murry jealous of the Loves' comparable financial success. Reading on, historical info about Al Jardine and his family, and the Mike and Dennis fishing trips and their sex and surfin' subject matter.

I listened to the Howard Stern interview in which Mike is almost boastful about the Hall of Fame speech, not at all embarrassed.  Then I read something recently in which  he said that he hadn't meditated that day, in essence offering that up as an excuse for what happened.  So what is Mike's true feeling about the speech and why did he do it at what is normally an occasion to celebrate. 

Haven't read the whole thread so don't know if this has been mentioned, but the chapter on Carl getting punched by Rocky in '78 and other events in Australia is quite detailed as conversations were recorded, and the tapes were used by Mike for the book.

I wonder if Rocky knows this. Will Rocky read Mike's book?

Or, more importantly, will someone read it TO Rocky?

Well, there's always the audiobook

Failing that, sock puppets and flashcards can be used.

 :lol

 :lol :lol

Call it Mikes revenge. I'm sure that was going to be covered in Rocky's "book". ;)

Another interesting '76-'78 tidbit: Whenever Brian was engaged and put on a good show, Mike wept, according to the abovementioned '78 tapes and Mike himself. Those good shows prompted Mike to write the song Brian's Back.

Also something I didn't know-when Yetnikoff of Columbia Records told the BBs that he had been f--ked, it was said at the Columbia office in New York. To which Brian allegedly raised his hand and said "I think I have some good ideas for [L.A.}, let me record at Criteria in Miami."

Another tidbit-not long before he left in '72, Bruce-allegedly disgusted with the effect drugs had on the Wilson brothers-would post a sign "No Wilsons Allowed" on the door of Brian's home studio when he recorded.

See, while I understand why Bruce might have felt that way, I still think that's a pretty obnoxious thing to do. I'd kick him out of my family band, were that the case. HARUMPH!

From the book:

Mike gets a phone call following the Tale-LaBianca murders.

Person on phone:" Prepare to die, pig."
Mike:" F--k you! Come down to Manhattan Beach, and we'll see who dies!"
No one came to visit, and he never called again.

That's telling 'em, Mike!

Another case of myKe being real "brave" when her had Rocky and Stan at his disposal. ::)

To be fair, this is from the pre-Rocky era.

Rocky and Stan were merely terrorizing college sports team locker room at this point.

As stories go, beautifully unfalsifiable.  Has Mike ever mentioned this before?

I don't think that's the first person that, years later, made some sort of chest-puffing statement in relation to standing up to the some element of the Manson operation.

It's very convenient to say you told them all to go f**k themselves when they're all old, or dead, or jailed.

If there was indeed a draft of a Mike bio back in '92, it would be interesting to know how much stuff has been added (or changed) compared to the new bio, as many more people in the story are no longer living.

I don't doubt it. Herein lies the human part of Mike. I truly believe he loves Brian very much, and that he absolutely shed real tears back then. It's just that his jealousy and resentment has since taken over (it was there back then too), and it's as though he's gone to the dark side.

I believe there is a good person buried inside. I wish the yes-men and yes-women would go away and show him the light.

Regarding Mike broaching the topic of doing his own book, here's what he told Goldmine in 1992:

With the numerous Beach Boys books that have been published, have you thought about writing your own?

I don't think my ego is that strong in that kind of department. I mean, I have a strong ego in terms of competition and creativity and I'm proud of the contribution I made.

So I guess there's no chance for a book?

Who would want to take the fucking time to go through garbage like that just to rectify garbage.

If that had had the possibility of actually helping the Wilson brothers in any way, I'd maybe be able to ignore what an a-hole move that would be for about fifty different reasons. Hanging *that* sign in Brian's own house?

Can anyone point me to where I can order a "No Bruce Johnstons" sign to hang on my door?

I doubt he'd have written the book if not for the internet's existence.

Money changes everything especially with myKe luHv as it's always about the bottom line. Pathetic to have one's life rooted in the constant acquisition of money. It cancels out all those fake tears he sheds every ten years.

In the book, Mike says a young lady named Kay was hired to work at Brian's studio in 1990. Among other things, she was told to ignore any phone calls from Gary Usher. She eventually called him and he told her that Landy would kill her if he found out she was talking to him.  :o Kay also came across Brian's revised will. She also says she got creepy late nite calls from Landy goons after she left Landy's employ.

I wonder if this is the lady that had her identity hidden on the Diane Sawyer report about Brian and Landy.

More book tidbits:
Mike on Al-he could be prickly and rude, particularly to staffers or subordinates, with a grating sense of entitlement.

From the 1978 Australia tape, Rocky to Brian:
Look how much Mike Love loves you. He can't even sleep at night because he thinks (Carl and Dennis) are trying to give you heroin, and he wants to strangle Dennis-that's how much you mean to him. That's love.
Steve Love to Brian: Do you know Mike cries when you do a good show?
Rocky:...if your brothers are doing this to you in '78, what have they been doing to you all along-
Steve: in '66.
Brian: I'll never do it (heroin) again.

Popcorn time!

No, it isn't. The lady in the PrimeTime Live report was Melinda.

Another tidbit: At the time the BBs were doing the cover shot for Pet Sounds, Capitol's working title for the album was..... Our Freaky Friends.

But why would Mike have assumed this was Manson? There are quite a few people who could have made that call. He's not a universally popular guy lol!

Good point.

Quote function now seems to be messed up...

Sorry about that! I've managed to correct it now.

8)

Al mentioned this in an interview he did about 2001 or so,but he said the sign said "No Beach Boys allowed".
Speaking of Al, he's getting off easy if the only thing Mike is saying is that he's prickly sometimes and can be rude to subordinates.

This level of guilt-manipulating and isolating wedge-driving between him and his brothers is about as bad as the physical intimidation and control. It's carrying on the same kind of destructive manipulation that Murry practiced. And it seems Landy did the same. The whole "I love you so much that you have to do what I say and side with me against others that you care about or against your own wishes. Otherwise you are hurting me and betraying my love and - by extension - yourself because you're betraying the one who loves you most" power-trip pulled on BW for his first 50 years of life must have really messed with him.

Correct...psychological bullying is still bullying.

Without a doubt this was psychological bullying if it took place, and apparently it did?  I didn't observe this particular line of attack.  Let's just say, I'm not surprised from what I actually did observe.

The fact that Brian survived is remarkable.

And then Landy went out and did the same thing (plus overmedicating him). :(

Brian is one tough cookie psychologically, Billy, in the midst of all the sweetness in his soul and his music.  An impressive set of human characteristics.

That is true, and yet another reason why he is my hero...I don't just admire him for being a musical genius...I find him personally inspiring as well (for his strength and also for being a genuinely good person, which in this day and age is sadly increasingly rare).

Very true.  So happy you're here, ASM.  It takes guts to be on the internet these days, as well.

That is for sure! 8)

To the tune of "Barbie": My Billy, Billy....

:lol

♯♫♩'What is a message board made of...'♯♫♩♯♫♩

 :lol

The fear to stop sessions.... ;D

8)

Agree with this totally! Personallity wise his just very real, no bullshit. He has a very good heart, not hung up on ego. In my opinion Brian the human being is on the same level as Brian the musical genius.

Not sure if this is news, but there are excerpts from the book viewable at Amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/Good-Vibrations-Life-Beach-Boy/dp/0399176411/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1473324439&sr=8-1&keywords=good+vibrations

Book tidbit: Mike's so not-racist that black people don't mind it when he calls them ni**er (p. 16).

Mike Love Good Vibrations Book Trailer - Full Version
https://youtu.be/OutWymKjErk (https://youtu.be/OutWymKjErk)

Mike also spends a fair amount of words denying he ever stated the "don't f--k with the formula" quote. On the other hand, he uses plenty of f-bombs throughout the book.

SPOILER: He remade the early version of "Big Sur". Complete with autotuned vocals.  >:(

Whether or not he used those words, he has certainly lived by that principle.

One of the tactics I've seen Mike using, especially in recent years with the proliferation of internet criticism and repetitive, sometimes ignorant attacks, is that he sort of ends up creating a partial straw man argument.

With things like "don't f**k with the formula" and "Mike fires Brian", these things have long since been disproved by fans and scholars of the band.

In the case of the former, it's really at best an apocryphal story that can't really be disproved but can't be confirmed with solid evidence either. While some pieces on the band or Mike still mention the allegation that he said this, many of those pieces point out that Mike denies it. Also, as stated, fans and scholars long ago seemed to come to the conclusion that it's a "maybe" in terms of veracity at absolute best.

As for the latter, as I've already mentioned in other posts, fans and scholars of the band knew from the outset that Mike can't literally "fire" Brian. That was lazy media pretty much just in late 2012. And again, if people didn't already know it wasn't true, Brian confirmed he can't be fired.

In both cases, the literal allegation has been debunked. But instead of acknowledging that both allegations spring from basic elements and concepts that *are* accurate (e.g. his apprehensive nature when it came to experimental lyrics, and his dismantling of a reunion and rejection of a willing and ready Brian), Mike hones in on proving why the literal core language of the allegation is technically untrue.

It's a common technique of deflection. I would always tell someone who wants to make a valid, cogent argument to explain some of the downsides to Mike that using the "don't f**k with the formula" or "Mike fired Brian" arguments is the wrong way to go, because it allows Mike to avoid answering the more fundamental questions (such as "Do you acknowledge that perhaps your being apprehensive about more progressive music ideas might have had a downside for Brian and the band?" or "You didn't fire Brian, but would you acknowledge that you did reject a willing and ready Brian in favor of your own tour?") and instead to simply play the victim by pointing out the technically incorrect verbiage being used in the criticisms.

Okay, so I'll put it this way, Mike kept Brian (and Al) out of the touring Beach Boys in the fall of 2012.

For all the interviews that Mike will sit for in the next few months, would someone please ask him some questions about Summer in Paradise and why it was a complete failure.

Is there really some underlying mystery as to why it was a complete failure? The facts as we know them seem to speak for themselves...

I think the idea is that an appropriate time to raise the issue of the utter failure of SIP would have been back a few years when Mike had a weirdly "Meh" reaction to the TWGMTR album hitting #3 on the charts and being #1 on some online charts.

He didn't say in interviews a year after SIP came out that it was a failure. He didn't indicate they had learned anything (though perhaps he would admit that they at least learned not to try to fund doing their own album).

I would guess that Mike let the SIP issue die a quiet death because admitting it was awful would mean admitting that many things he things are emblematic of what is awesome about him and the Beach Boys (his writing, his artistic vision, John Stamos) were a total failure in every measurable way. 

urbanite - IIRC Brian was unavailable to help with that album because of that maniac Landy.  I think (an observation) is that Lahaina Aloha was the strongest song with Carl's extraordinary yearning vocals and should have been the single released.  I do think that taken-as-a-whole, that SIP shows that they all needed each other.  I think they need Brian's production skills alongside their vocals.  

From the Endless Harmony DVD, it appears that really Brian really regretted (because he was locked away by Landy) that he was not involved with that era of work because he was forcibly separated from his bandmates.  

The music is not bad; it is the presentation that didn't work well. At the time, it didn't seem that bad but now sounds a little dated.  But, I still actually like that album just because it was something new and demonstrates that they were still trying to stay-in-the-game.

Guess I look at it differently.  ;)

You think Summer of Love, with its "doing it with you would be so very cool" barf-tastic lyrics is a good song, and that it's just production that is its problem?

I can't speak for urbanite, but I don't think questions as to the quality of SIP have much to do with whether Brian was participating or not.

When people say the album sucks, they're not saying it sucks solely or even much at all because Brian wasn't there. That certainly didn't help (especially with promotion and with critics, who could easily point out his absence).

The other band members were more than capable of doing some strong material without Brian. SIP just wasn't it. Just about any other artist with a modicum of humility would have spoken up about SIP being a humbling experience. Not Mike. He instead explains why TWMGTR hitting #3 was somehow an underperformance.

The problems with SIP definitely extend beyond the production (although that *is* a major hindrance as well). Most of the compositions and lyrics are vapid, soulless, and in some cases ("Summer of Love") embarrassing. The most interesting thing about "Summer of Love" is that it was yet *another* in the line of songs that cribbed the same motif used previously on "Child of Winter", "Mike Come Back to LA", and "Some of Your Love."

We all have our personal weird favorites that we know, objectively, are not that great.

Thankfully, some of us are able to make both subjective and objective observations about the band's music.

Summer of love with the wrecking crew... >:D

Hey Jude - I think that Brian's being "imprisoned" by Landy has everything to do with the direction SIP went.  There were some cool musicians (such as Parks on accordian) but it did not come together as well as it might have with Brian's direction.  For the time, it still was not bad because some stuff got airplay by other routes.  

Yes, they were well-able to strong material without Brian but, being a throw-back album - with retro stuff, going back to their genesis, Brian might have been able to approach the material differently and use less of the computerized stuff. (Even if at the time it was cutting edge. )

Mike thought BW was no longer needed in the BBs after Kokomo. Then reality set in... :bw

I disagree. Brian not being there didn't force Mike Love and Terry Melcher to hack out a bunch of sub-par songs. As I've already said, no Brian involvement certainly didn't help (the same can also be said for the reduced involvement of both Carl and Al as well), but it wasn't the downfall of that album.

People bought "Kokomo" without any Brian involvement; so they would have bought SIP too if enough people would have liked it.

Using Brian being held hostage by Landy as an excuse for SIP sucking is pretty lame, in my opinion. It also ignores the *complex* group politics at play both during and *after* Brian being extracted from Landy's control. Brian remained largely estranged from the band for several years after leaving Landy, and that was due to complex business, group, and personal issues and politics.

You all can also look forward to a few words on Mike's hair, or lack thereof. He explains that he chose hats over a hairpiece because the ones he chose were "stylish and fun" and the visors shielded his eyes from the bright stage lights.

And in terms of Brian's progressive songs, Mike wrote that he thought the music of Smile was "bizarre and beautiful," but that the lyrics were the main problem.

Hey Jude - if you think of the BB's as a unit, and I still do, regardless of where they are physically in the cosmos, and how they work together, it was a retro-feel album, maybe trying to tie the TV shows into some BB product.  Yes, Brian's absence as a result of Landy, did not help the band as a whole.  

SIP "live" on MIC is pretty universally regarded as awesome.  Kokomo had John Phillips (about 4 guys I think) working on that record.  I think they had to make some move, strategically.  And it was the first and only album to have no Brian work (wiki.) So, I consider that significant and apparently others do as well. It was their 30th year as the BB's and Brian was not there.  That speaks volumes.  I don't know how to work around that fact.  I don't think you can work around not having Brian for an album at the 30 year mark.  

"All of the surviving original band members except Brian Wilson (who was in the legal process of being removed from the care of Eugene Landy.)" (wiki)

That is a fact.  The ONLY BB album without any of Brian's work.  It sounds more processed, now, but did not impress me that way when I first bought it.  Maybe there was so much other music that was processed that you just get used to it.  But, now I think a second-look for some of the songs themselves, would not be a bad thing.  It is not the first time I felt that the wrong single was used.  I bet Brian would "re-imagine" SIP with a great, perhaps more accoustic approach.  

And,  I feel that Sunflower should have been Our Sweet Love with that as a the single release and think it would have been a big hit.  Nothing "dated" and a universal theme. Same for SIP;  I think Lahaina Aloha should have been the single.  My position.   ;)    

At the time it didn't sound bad ??? ??? ??? ?????? Yes, of course, just release any old slop they can come up with, slap the BB name to it all the while helping to annihilate  the legacy.  ::)

 :thumbsup :thumbsup Great point SB.

OSD - are you saying that Brian's guidance would not have made a difference? Brian appeared to regret not being on Kokomo and Landy made sure he was on the Spanish version. 

Slop in Paraguay was a myKe luHv ego project from the very beginning to it's dismal demise. True to form, he didn't wanr anyone fucking with his award winning *formula*.

You're shifting your position now. I already pointed out that Brian being absent certainly didn't help. But what you said in your previous post is:

Brian's being "imprisoned" by Landy has everything to do with the direction SIP went

*That* is, in my opinion, a gross exaggeration and oversimplification. "Didn't help" and "had everything to do" are two very different things.


I wouldn't go near that far. The title track is one of the lesser problematic moments on the album, and the live arrangements tended to be better than either studio iteration. But that live version is far from "universally regarded as awesome." I don't recall a bunch of fans losing their s**t over the live take of SIP on the MIC set. The first thing I thought when I saw it on the tracklisting was that it was likely a political concession to get Mike to warm more to the set. I doubt Al or Brian were asking for that track to be on the set.

SIP was a Melcher/Love helmed project from the outset.

Brian adding some vocals (as he did on the Spanish version of "Kokomo") wouldn't have been anything approaching "guidance."

If they had junked the album and started over from scratch, things could have been different. But just adding Brian to SIP the way Carl and Al were added wouldn't have made a huge difference. It would have helped marketing as far as precluding critics from pointing out Brian's total absence. Maybe Brian would have come up with some cool vocal arrangements or something. But it wouldn't have made "Summer of Love" suck any less, or make "Island Fever" any less cheesy, etc.

Hey Jude - Melcher (talented as he was) - was not a BB.  Even if he was around during Pet Sounds.  There was no substitute for Brian and his regret was clear on the Endless Harmony DVD.   

Still waiting for FDP to respond to my question...

CD - I guess I have a problem with someone asking a question in a confrontational manner.   

The lyrics?  I did not write them.  You think they are barf-worthy?  That is your taste.  So what  - you don't like them.  That is your choice.  You you trying to censor Mike or whomever penned them?  Seriously.

Please *stop* with accusations of censorship. Nobody is trying to censor anything, nobody is claiming they want to censor anything, and nobody has the ABILITY to censor Mike's SIP lyrics unless they have a time machine as well as legal authority to keep Mike from penning lyrics.

Disagreeing with you is not being "confrontational", nor is saying lyrics suck a case of censorship.

If you want to engage in a debate, and then drop out of it when you reach a point where you can't or won't answer anyone's questions to explain your opinion, that's fine. But CD isn't being confrontational, but instead is simply asking questions. In many cases, these are questions that arise from *your* comments and posts.

Your accusations and mischaracterizations of other posters is becoming rather insulting in my opinion.

Terry Melcher had a bigger hand in SIP than any individual other than Mike. Doesn't matter whether he was an actual BB or not. I would never argue, for instance, that Joe Thomas wasn't a prominent player in TWGMTR. Much like Melcher, he co-wrote most of the tracks and was involved in the production side of things as well.

I also think you're overstating Brian's "regret" on the EH DVD. His comments were specifically about "Kokomo"; SIP isn't even mentioned in the documentary and the circumstances regarding his non-appearance on SIP are *not* necessarily the same as those for "Kokomo." Also, my own personal interpretation of his very brief comment on that one was that he was bummed, and that's about it. I don't think he loses sleep over it.

Kokomo was the biggest seller since GV.  That was the "era" of Kokomo.  SIP was important enough as a song performed live to be included in MIC.  I think that speaks for itself.

This is so very true. One can virtually guarantee that if asked this question by an interviewer:  "Do you acknowledge that perhaps your being apprehensive about more progressive music ideas might have had a downside for Brian and the band?", Mike's non-answer would probably be "progressive music ideas meant drugs, and drugs had a bad effect on Brian", as opposed to any acknowledgement of the actual question.

Maybe, just maybe Brian took drugs in part to cope with dealing with relatives (including, but also other than his dad) who dealt in guilt trips and psychological warfare.

I want to know why Mike thinks that Brian chose Tony Asher to write Pet Sounds, instead of sticking with Mike. Oh, I know: because all of the hipster douchebags coerced him to. It could never because Brian got tired of working with someone with a sh*tty attitude.

I'm asking you if you actually like the song (production values aside), and think there's some gem of a song lurking underneath the early '90s production, as you insinuate is the case with the album as a whole. I'm curious to know if you think that's true with regards to the song Summer of Love. That is all.

...there are no words...

 :o :o

CD - as a song, I think it is mezza-mezza.  How many songs that look so-so, end up as big hits because of the vocals or the arrangment?  

eg.  Help Me, Ronda on Today v. Help Me Rhonda on Summer Days.  I

And, I do think it depends on the vocals and arrangment. But also, that if Brian was a "free man" during that "era" because that TV time-span (Baywatch, Full House, You again) or (Cocktail) for Kokomo was an "era" for them and Brian's participation would likely have made a difference.  

We now know Brian was not "free" to work except for that poor-excuse-for-a-medical provider.  Brian's talents were being exploited elsewhere outside of his own corporation. BRI.  

I don't believe conflating "Kokomo" and SIP is appropriate when referencing Brian's statement in EH (made *specifically* about "Kokomo" only) or Brian's reasons for non-participation.

As far as track selection on MIC, a lot of different factors go into that. I wouldn't pretend to assume the precise reason for inclusion, or whether compilers thought it was an "important" song. I don't like to make those assumptions, because it then tends to imply they find other songs left off as less important. I don't think, for instance, that "SIP" needed to be on the set any more than "Still Cruisin'" as a random example.

My God...so fucking pompous. If someone was a brand new fan, they'd think he was the sole creative force behind the Beach Boys and Brian helped. I mean, sh*t, he deserves far more credit than history has given him, but this was going overboard. And of course, all of the music in the trailer was re-recordings with current band. Gotta erase those pesky Wilsons and Jardine!

Anything near SIP would have never happened if BW's input was welcome anymore in the BBs. SIP was Mike's dead on arrival product.

I think it was more Terry Melcher than anything else, who was out of touch by that point.

By whom?

Also, and I recognize this is my own personal opinion, but I prefer the original studio version to any of the live versions of the re-record!

Hey Jude - Kokomo and SIP are from the same era or body of work from late 80's early 90's. Conflating?  SIP is kick-ass live, as are Carl's vocals.  (My opinion.)

Still Cruisin' still had foisted on them, with Landy's forcefullness, "In My Car" (wife from Baywatch) or Make it Big from Troop Beverly Hills.  Same basic era.  

Found a quote on wiki..."Mike Love said, 'The theme of that album was to have been songs that have been in movies.  It was basically a repackage. But then it got watered down with politics, meaning Brian's Dr. Landy forcing a song called "In My Car,"  whch was never in a movie..."  

Did not know that Still Cruisin'  went gold in the US (and Austria) and gave them the best showing since 1976."  From Album Sales Records. (I am not familiar with this source.)  

Agreed.

Carl's vocals have nothing to do with conflating the two projects.

"Kokomo" is from 1988. "SIP" is from 1992 (with a partially remixed/rerecorded version coming in 1993).

Brian was firmly in the grip of Landy in 1988.

Brian was separated from Landy by court order on or around February 3, 1992.

SIP was still being recorded when Brian was separated from Landy, yet Brian didn't participate. The Landy saga certainly was *part* of the reason he wasn't there for those sessions, but there were other factors involved as well.

SIP was released in the US in August, 1992 and in the UK in May, 1993. That Brian never even made a cameo appearance on one single session through 1992 and into 1993 was due to more than the Landy situation.

Let's set the record straight on that, and yes I have looked at that era extensively and posted here about it.

The album that became Still Cruisin' was supposed to have been a new Beach Boys album to capitalize on the success and renewed exposure from Kokomo and Cocktail. There are quotes from Capitol execs who were banking on the talent in the band to come up with strong original material to fill an album, and gave them a record deal for new singles that had conditions based on the success of what they hoped would be follow ups to Kokomo.

Despite having a Grammy award winning songwriter in Bruce, and Mike, Carl, and Al as songwriters within the group, the band could not come up with a solid album of new material. Capitol still needed something to put Kokomo on under their own label to drive sales and make bank, as Kokomo came out on a soundtrack and under a one-off release under another label when the band literally did not have a label deal.

Despite articles and reports that had the band saying they wanted to make new music, they wanted to get on the charts, they didn't want to be a traveling oldies revue but instead focus on cutting new records...they simply did not or could not deliver.

Thus, Still Cruisin became more of a catch-all compilation rather than a solid album of new Beach Boys music, yet it sold exactly as Capitol probably wanted because fans could buy a "Beach Boys" album to get the song Kokomo, rather than having to buy the Cocktail soundtrack to have the song.

And since there was no follow-up of strong or successful original material as Capitol had put in their deal to the BB's, the label passed on releasing what did become their next album, SIP, and that had to be shopped to a lesser label because Capitol passed on the deal.

That's the brass tacks of the Still Cruisin album being a comp rather than a new album. For more info, search my posts in the archives here for even more detail. The band did not deliver when the market was hot for them to release a follow-up to a #1 single despite having four songwriters in the group and access to the same team that produced Kokomo.

Also, Mike's contemporary comments about the "Still Cruisin'" album suggest he felt the watered-down aspect of the album was *not* the oldies, but non-movie songs. That would have meant even *less* original material, as not only would that have dispensed with "In My Car", but also "Island Girl" and Mike's own "Somewhere Near Japan."

THANK you. And you know what? People would respect him more if he took responsibility for his mistakes instead of always blaming others. It is his fault that the Beach Boys are  not looked at by the general public the way they should be. We should be able to turn on classic rock radio and hear Marcella or Sail On Sailor, in between ELO and the Doobie Brothers. But no, we had Full House appearances. We had lame ass guest appearances on record.  We had them doing sh*t like "Duke of Earl" live. Perfect opportunity comes along to reclaim their legacy with the C50. Tour was freaking awesome. TWGMTR was their best album in many, many years. Then what happens? Mike decides he wants to have a bigger piece of a smaller pie, Sea World is more attractive than Wembley, oh let's go back to how it was before. And here we are today.  Don't give me any crap about the 'set end date' and the bullshit about 'No More Wilsons' emails. From 'someone who should know' I can tell you that it's a load of crap. It's all about money, and Mike trying to keep the brand name the way he sees fit, which is find and dandy...but again the legacy is being pissed on and set ablaze. The book promo video is more of him erasing the band's contributions as much as possible and maximizing his own, to the brand's detriment. Of course, then the argument can be made that Brian could try to take what's rightfully his and would do the brand far more justice. That is true, but...at this point it is too late. The "Beach Boys" name is once again an albatross and he's better than that. No amount of spin from Mike's book, incredibly slanted promo videos, or nudge-nudge-wink-wink interviews by Ricky Gervais wanna-bes could ever change that.

And, yet, it is always noted that it (SIP) not Still Cruisin' was a Brian-less album while he was in the vise-grip of Landy.  I don't want to mix the two up.

Still Cruisin with sales did well with sales and got a lot of airplay on the radio alongside the ones used in the movies.

As for Still Cruisin'  - I do look at it as a semi-compilation with the oldies - still used in films as many still are.  Yes, Kokomo was on it and was a huge hit.  And saved people from buying that sound track as well as Troop Beverly Hills which was also huge with Make it Big. Or I Get Around from Robin Williams' Good Morning Vietnam.

Let's not blame individual people for not being Brian Wilson; no matter how talented they are in their own right.  They are not Brian.  They likely could never look at a song in the same way.  

Who is doing that?

Saying Mike and Terry Melcher put out a sub-par album is a criticism of *them*, not a criticism of who they're not.

Saying someone "isn't Brian Wilson", especially members of the BBs, does a disservice to them. There was enough non-Brian material in the BRI vaults in 1992 that they could have just pulled 10 or 12 outtakes with no Brian input from the 80s and put together a better album than SIP.

SIP was a ill-conceived choice when there were other options at their disposal. The same thing happened with "Stars and Stripes" versus working on the Andy Paley material.

Whether it was ill-conceived or not, it was an attempt to stay in the market.  They could not work with Brian because he was controlled by Landy.  Don't contort what I said.  Melcher did great work but was not Brian.  No it does not do a disservice.  It is like saying someone who is writing for The Beatles is not Lennon or McCartney. It is ridiculous.

I guess I'll bite and point out that you're contorting what I said, not the other way around.

Melcher may have done great work on other projects; SIP is not one of his shining moments. That has nothing to do with him "not being Brian" anymore than it does with him "not being Mozart."

Your Beatles comparison doesn't apply to anything I said, and doesn't make any sense to me regardless. If Ringo wrote some sucky songs, as he himself admits he did (his oft-cited story of re-writing Jerry Lee Lewis songs and everybody cracking up), they would suck because they suck, not because he's not Lennon or McCartney.

Back to the Landy point, Brian's non-appearance on SIP was caused by MORE than just the Landy factor, as I outlined in detail in a previous post. The timelines don't match up. The lingering effects of Landy were certainly a factor, but there were others.

We can agree to disagree.  It was my perception of the era, having lived through it.  I saw Brian for the first time in 1987, with Landy in the wings so I am in tune with that era.

There is likely overlap with this era as to actual dates.  But, I think it is a valid analogy.  Melcher (however close to the band he was and gifted he was) was not a BB.  He was not Brian Wilson. Brian Wilson makes BB albums.  Brian looks through a different lens that is unique to that band.  Unique is unique.  And not unlike the Beatles who have a unique sound, themselves. The 30th album.  The first 29 had Brian.  Just sayin'.   

Again, we can agree to disagree.

Missed every point. Oh well.......

Back to the actual topic of the thread, so is the assertion here that Yetnikoff responded in this fashion to recordings made *prior* to any sessions at Criteria in Miami?

In a recent post ( http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,4151.msg559026.html#msg559026 ), the reel Yetnikoff listened to was reportedly as follows:

California Feelin'
Santa Ana Winds (1st mix)
Love Surrounds Me (early mix)
Baby Blue (early Mix/Carl vocal)
I'm Beggin' You Please (Brian demo)
Lookin Down the Coast
Brian's Back
Calendar Girl (Criteria version - not the later, polished and unheard Bruce Johnston production)
Good Timin' (1974 with Carl scratch vocal)
Shortnin' Bread (I believe this was a new instrumental track... basic track for the released version without vocals - not the Adult Child version)

This included some things recorded in Miami I believe.

I was there when this happened, (in fact, I think I was the first one ever quoted on this), and it most definitely took place at Criteria in Miami.

That's what I thought. I recalled that you had commented a number of times over the years about that time period, and it didn't make any sense to me that he would be listening to recordings made prior to Miami.

Not a huge deal if it's portrayed incorrectly in Mike's book, but it's something worth clarifying and looking at.

To be honest...I would've much preferred that to what we got instead!

If they really played Yetnikoff the demo of "I'm Begging You Please" that circulates, I can understand how he'd have a lot of misgivings though. Yikes. I don't think the song is anything spectacular, but even if one loves the song, it's the very definition of a rough demo, with Brian hitting some pretty sketchy notes.

I wonder how much Yetnikoff's reaction wasn't down solely to the pure musical quality of the material, but to the idea that they would choose to put such a rough demo on the tape that's supposed to impress him. I realize if he comes down in the middle of sessions, he's invariably going to get some rough mixes and partial backing tracks and whatnot.

In all fairness, it's pretty dire, but my remix of it made it sound a little better....

The situation with "LA" reminds me a little bit of George Harrison's back and forth with Warner over his "Somewhere in England" album. They rejected his first version in 1980, and he removed four songs and added four different songs in their place. However, I would guess that the songs Warner wanted him to drop were the two weird, slightly self-indulgent Hoagy Carmichael covers ("Baltimore Oriole" and "Hong Kong Blues"), but instead he dropped some of his own tracks that were arguably better and kept the covers. Most likely because the revised version had the new "All Those Years Ago" Lennon tribute, Warner released it anyway. 

This depressed me when I did this yesterday.  I found out my local library was getting both the Mike and Brian books, so I decided to place holds on them both. Turns out, Mike's book already has more holds than Brian's.

Ugh.

One thing Mike's book does have going for it above Brian's is that Mike's never released an autobio under his name, nor has Mike had a biopic about himself (let alone one last year). Not to say Mike hasn't given more than his two cents in interviews, but at least I can understand from the aspect of fans clamoring for something new, that there may be more of a "new" angle or ideas to come from Mike's over Brian's.

Mike's book is coming out first, and has had a far greater promo push up to this point, because of its earlier release date. Plus, the Manson stuff hit the news.

I don't know what will sell what, but I would imagine books are like music and movies now to some degree in that the interest and sales and everything are all pretty front-loaded and concentrated pretty strongly on the week leading up to and after the release.

Assuming the publisher of Brian's book is going to put some effort and money into promotion, I think visibility and discussion of Brian's book will be heavier at the end of this month leading into early October.

I'm surprised cooler heads did not prevail, which would have caused the BB's to shelve Summer In Paradise.

The inclusion of the song Summer in Paradise on Made in California could only be because Mike Love wanted it.  It certainly did not deserve to be on a collection honoring the history of the Beach Boys. 

So I just wanted to share this.

As a long time Beach Boys fan, I was very disappointed by the unclean, disgusting message that the song "Summer of Love" sends out. I was teaching in '93 when I had my new copy of Summer in Paradise playing in the boombox while the kids were doing a coloring exercise. And while most of the album was inoffensive, I mistakenly let "Summer of Love" play on, not knowing what was coming...

And unfortunately, days later I had many of my students singing about gettin' it "in the swimming pool" and how "doing it with you would be so very cool."

Soon I had parents calling into the school complaining saying that their kindergarteners were being disgustingly sexualized.


I felt horrible and I was soon fired.

All this due to Mike Love's disgusting lyrics. If only we had the PMRC to stop such filth.

Crickets from you-know-who!  ;D

Oh sh*t,  man...that's jacked up

Its a tough break for sweetdudejim.... :o

This is classic  ;D

A man lost his fucking job, and you idiots can't see past your hatred of Mike to see the bigger issue.

Actually whole thing was a joke