The Smiley Smile Message Board

There's a whole lotta Mike bashing on this website. But afterall, we are all here because we love The Beach Boys, and Mike is one of the original members, and still plays The Beach Boys music to this day. Let's make a thread of the reasons why we appriciate Mike Love, even if some of us don't have very many reasons.  I'll start us off...

1. Big Sur is a beautiful song
2. His vocals on Fun, Fun, Fun
3. His endurance and ability to perform well even after 50+ years.
4. His lyrics on Warmth of the Sun

That's just to get the ball rolling, but I think there is too much Mike bashing here. I love every Beach Boy, and at the end of the day I think Mike is a pretty talented guy.

(OSD might murder me for this post!!!!)

--Mike Love was instrumental in the Beach Boys' early success.
--He was a good lyric writer for the early phase of their career, including moments of impressive sensitivity.
--He demonstrated some ability, up to 1977, to adapt his lyrics from the original context of the band.
--He is a much better singer than he's often been given credit for being.
--He discovered TM and it has quite probably kept him from doing things that would dwarf those actions that have created so much controversry over the years.
--Regardless of how one might interpret the source of it, he has an incredible work ethic.

Now, that said:

--I don't think BIG SUR is all that great, I think folks throw Mike a bone here because the squeaky wheel eventually gets the grease.
--Mike's vocal on ALL I WANNA DO is much more laudable than FUN, FUN, FUN. There are many other tracks where he is more expressive, interesting, and just as much "in the pocket" as FFF and I'm sure many folks--even OSD--will name many of them here.

I appreciate Nate's idea, even if I don't necessarily agree with some of his points. Of course, others may very likely disagree with the points I've made above.

There are lots of things for which we can appreciate Mike Love. The trouble is, for every good lyric he's written or nice lead he's sung, he's said/done at least twice as many idiotic or reprehensible things. That's the problem.

All I Wanna Do is my favorite song and Mike vocal of all time. Fun, Fun Fun just popped into my head because I think it's one of his great rock n roll lead vocals, with that classic BBs sound

Dancing and playing the tambourine on stage with the long beard and white robe in the late 60s making him the first member of the Polyphonic Spree!

His bottom, so to speak, is virtually flawless in the harmony stack (or paired in duets, like "Devoted to You") throughout their career.

Uncanny, really...(pun intended)

Please Let Me Wonder turned out to be possibly the best song in the entire catalog, IMHO. I cannot say one single thing about it that didn't turn out to be absolute perfection.

Good idea, Nate.

- Mike's ability to work his ass off to support himself and those in his life. The man plays like 100+ shows every year, he interacts with the audience (as he always has from the get go) and always puts on a show that the crowd enjoys.

- the lyrics to Good Vibrations are iconic, and some of the best he ever wrote...some of the best The Beach Boys came out with.

- Mike's bass vocal is a staple to so many Beach Boys songs, I mean, it's what makes me really love some songs....Help Me Rhonda, Cherry Cherry Coupe, She Knows Me Too Well. Without his vocals these songs would be missing something - no doubt they'd still be beautiful, but he adds another element that elevates some songs to another level.

- Mike's stage presence. There was a story about Bono in the early days of U2 when they weren't getting any press at all, no one was listening to their albums apparently, then Bono climbed a wall of amps or something during a Farm Aid tour (?) soon after every rock magazine was talking about them. Then their music started getting real attention. Point being, a frontman can really help bring in an audience and attention. Each of these guys brought something to the stage, and though we make fun of Mike for the chicken dance and other things, he was always interacting keeping the audience laughing. I myself find some live albums annoying because of his stage talk, but without some element of that their shows would be lacking a certain charm.

- 'I Know There's An Answer', probably the one time I am thankful that Mike stepped in to show Brian a way a song could be better. 'Hang Onto Your Ego' - it makes sense as a drug reference, but it is really forced. 'I Know There's An Answer' - there's an answer out there to something. It sounds perfect, and fits the chorus vocals flawlessly. With this as an example I can see why he'd think Brian working with outside writers was an irritation - Mike was perfectly capable of bringing incredible stuff to the table. In Brian's defense, working with other artists is a way to expand creativity, so that makes perfect sense, but it's also easy to see why Mike was angered over it.

- "It's no wonder the Pacific Ocean is blue" - ok, this is how Mike should write songs. Dennis sang this thing with conviction, like you can hear the pain in his voice when he sings about the slaughter of animals in the ocean. Its a shame those two didn't collaborate more.

- Mike's genuine love for Brian's 'I'll Bet He's Nice' demo on the piano demo tracks. I wish there were more moments like this recorded to tape from their writing days together. I mean, what we would all give to hear the two of them writing 'Keep An Eye On Summer' in that hotel room together.

- 'Getcha Back' - okay, it's pretty much a rip off of 'Hungry Heart' but it sounds so damn good that I don't care, Brian's falsetto is great, and that outro is really kickass.

- that Mike was even willing to consider the C50. Whatever the intentions were, these guys got together and made one last truly phenomenal album and did a ton of shows together. Mike's 'Daybreak' is probably the most harmony oriented track on the album, and it's nothing groundbreaking but it's not trying to be, it fits on that album nicely, imo.

- I know this has nothing to do with the real Mike Love, but I love that scene in Love and Mercy when Mike's character seems to want to apologize to Brian then Brian interrupts him with the piano riff to GV. It portrayed Mike as someone who was sorry for always getting on Brian's ass about this or that, but he's never given the chance to apologize in that moment. I'm really not sure what Pohlad intended with that. Anyways, not a real Mike Love moment, but one that I really like seeing on the big screen.

One thing I'd like to say. I remember a while back when someone talked about how some here would heap fake praise on Mike then rip him apart for something. I hope people here realize that most of us irritated at Mike are annoyed because we know he has the capability to do better these days. I and others don't heap "fake" praise on the guy. I genuinely love many of his contributions to the band (and have posted as much across the board, especially in the "specific BB moment kicking your ass" thread). It's unfortunate that he does things that genuinely irritate fans, but it happens...often. We can still appreciate the good while calling out the bad. He has done so much good and that's why we're here. His contributions helped make this band what it became in its heyday....I don't think anyone here denies that.

Good thread idea, Nate.

Gonna pass on this one folks.

He get's loads of rebounds!

Nice change of pace, Nate:

1.  Too many great leads to name, especially in the early years.  I Get Around, All Summer Long, When I Grow Up, come to mind.

2.  The lead and lyrics to perhaps the most iconic BB song - California Girls.

3.  Heck, I even like Beaches in Mind. 

Ya know I used to abhore ‘Beaches in Mind’ but relistening lately I’ve found I really like it. The harmonies are pretty cool and it is catchy, even if it’s kinda cliche.

His contributions to the Wild Honey album!

It's a fine topic to start and there are many highlights to highlight...but Nate, why include the lines in your post in bold instead of just letting people post what they think are highlights and good things to celebrate? There's been enough attempts to paint this community and members overall who participate here as nothing but Mike Bashers, and in doing so diminish and dismiss everything about this forum. They've failed miserably so far, the board is still active and running much better since the real problems left, so it doesn't make sense to have an active member add fuel to a fire that hasn't burned here for a long time instead of just letting people talk. No need to take shots at this place or anyone here.

I'd also ask if all of the negative comments in the past week showing up many places online are all examples of "Mike Bashing", or if they're people voicing opinions on something they don't like. And I'd also add that among the people who have been tagged as the bashers (up to and including attempts to have their backgrounds checked and have them removed by interests no longer here...) are some very passionate and long-time fans who can both walk the walk and talk the talk about the band, the music, and the history. So I'd reconsider those few lines and perhaps let things roll. 

On topic, back to topic, etc...

I think that voice Mike used which I think Brian described as "guttural" on tracks like Papa Ooo Mow Mow was pure punk/rock and roll. Awesome sound, it gave a rawness and a rock and roll vibe to those songs, especially the Party album versions. That is some good stuff.

Then the same voice can do the bass vocals "whoa baby..." on Kiss Me Baby, which i think are indeed some of the most smooth bass vocals in the whole catalog, and put a new spin on what was by 1964 a pretty stale genre...doo wop. It wasn't all the same chord progressions and Blue Moon/Goodnight Sweetheart cliches when you heard Kiss Me Baby.

And the same voice on Wild Honey...Aren't You Glad, Let The Wind Blow...then Meant For You...absolutely the opposite of Mike's heavier sounds, not a trace of doo wop cliches or the usual bass sounds, just a very intimate vocal timbre that worked perfectly for that era.

This is a left field choice for sure...But when the live shows of the mid 70's were hitting on most cylinders, Mike's lead on Rock and Roll Music really delivered the goods. He wasn't trying to do Chuck Berry, but it worked. Never a fan of the backing vocal arrangement, which I thought was hokey as hell. But Mike sounds stoned as hell singing that lead, and damn it, it just fits the groove.

And finally, I've already written a dissertation on the qualities of California Girls, so I won't repeat what I already wrote. But the one line, the rhythm and phrasing of the line "I've been all around this great big world and I've seen all kinds of girls..." is perfect in every way. It flows effortlessly. Great stuff.

Same here, night OSD! :lol

Bash on Mike all you want, but I feel like the people who call him talentless are taking it a bit too far...

What a stretch.  What a pail of fly attracting BULL-sh!t.  THAT was then...and for these past 52 years...THIS is NOW.  The credit earned '62 - '65 has run out.

Time for OSD and yourself to collect! >:D

The last couple of days I have headed over the PS forum to read their take on the DIA single. I gotta say that community seems to be in some highly-strung distress over this forum. I went to four different pages there the other day (fairly random threads too) and I saw as many posts directly or indirectly mentioning this place in a negative light...funny that this place lives rent free in a lot of peoples' minds over there. Anywho, a lot of the comments were about Mike bashing here.

I'll take any of the rational discussion about Mike here over the fairytale world that goes on over there. I mean you exclude what, two posters here, and the "Mike bashing" is more what you got the past few days: discussions revolving around the history of the band, defining legacy, etc. Does it happen often? Yep, about as often as Mike does something blatantly ridiculous whether it be a tactless interview comment or a single that got primarily dreadful feedback from the fans, or a couple days later dropping a video for said single. I'm just glad we now have a forum where talking freely about band members doesn't elicit an IP address search for an interested party.

Sorry to veer the thread, Nate...but you did bring it up ;D

You can't get more beautiful than the Lovester wailing out "Hey Good Lookin"....Beth On the Mesa is another classic. Wrinkles has saved my life quite a few times and I will always be thankful to Mike for that.

Rab, I am NOT Melinda Wilson....  ;)

We can and should praise Mike for his contributions, and we have. See above and other various threads. Great vocals, decent lyrics, etc....But don't let that obscure you from the full spectrum of his "contributions" to the history and legacy of the Beach Boys.  While each member has had their share of mis-steps and bad decisions, few if any of these have been the result of pure jealousy and bitterness, as many of Mike's decisions have been the past 40 years. To top that off, there have been some genuinely dumb decisions he has made that reflect poorly on the group as a whole....e.g. DIA 2017, HOF speech, etc.

Am ***I*** one of the "two posters here"?  I hope so...'cause you ALL know that I would then represent millions who don't respect the 'props' mentioned in this thread.  The majority don't see OR HEAR them as props but rather as that annoying 'nose thing' that drove the MAJORITY away in droves and in spite of what the Wilsons [and Al] were trying to accomplish.

I am guilty.  I attempted, for years, to cut this asshole a break for his ongoing sh*t-headed indiscretions.  Buy he wouldn't stop.  So I did.  "Nourishment and revenge"....HIS words....were the final underlining truth.  The KING of the Surf Assholes is Michael Edwierd Love.  He has been for 50 years... ... ...and counting.  Anybody 'love' that hall of fame ramble?  Anybody?

Then sh*t the eff up.

I am the third! ;D

Well from my perspective... I realize I'm a fairly new member and expect to get basically zero response from this because I know better. But being a pretty neutral member of both boards, I have to say there is hate and love on both boards. Maybe I've just had too much whisky (which is usually the case when I type words on the internet) but I'm just gonna say it. This is a thread for Mike Love Love. So why does it have to turn into something else? There are plenty of threads that support the opposite view.

Alway's felt Mr. Love was like a Band-aid  sterile ones, plastic ,decorative yet around for wound care. In this case wound creator many a time.  Ever try to get one of these off once you've used one?  As the song says, I'm stuck on Band-Aid cause Band-aid is stuck on (with) me (us)  .   The darn metal box they used to come in rusted away in such a quick time.

"This is a thread for Mike Love Love. So why does it have to turn into something else? "

Because one wouldn't back a thread supporting the positive aspects of other historically challenged dick-weeds...so why, then, this particular one?  Do we really have to completely overlook the litany of offensive shyte this mother-f*cker has heaped on the band, the individuals, the legacy and dismiss his OWN reason for continuously doing it...year after fucking year/interview after fucking interview?

Really?

What's to love?

The funniest thing?  Many of us mud-wrasslin' to be one of the top 2.   :lol

No one's overlooking the litany. That's not what this thread is about. I acknowlegge the litany! *Hands in the air pushing upward.* But I have no problem with a thread that celebrates his good contributions. I mean, how can anyone be a fan of this band without acknowledging them? I mean, he's so much a part of this band, and many of its best moments. Maybe I'm too new a fan. But if I let his shortcomings get in the way of my enjoyment of the music, then what's the friggin' point?

If the issue and topic were just about celebrating good contributions, then why don't you also ask the original poster Nate why he took two swipes at this community where he posts instead of just starting a thread celebrating good contributions with no swipes against people here or the board in general? I already addressed it.

It's all been acknowledged before...time and time again.  YES...Mike sang lead on songs that drew me in as a fan.  TRUE!!!  Mike was a former part of this and that which worked sublimely.  Mike wrote some great lyrics.  And then he didn't.  Why?  Because he was stuck in the 50s and early 60s.  Brian wasn't.  Then Mike got bitter.  DO NOT forget that Gary Usher and Roger Christian wrote lyrics for at least as many MEANINGFUL songs as Chrome Dome did back in the 62-65 era.  Then that asshole HAD to insinuate himself into the 'compositional' mix for Pet Sounds.  REALLY???  What a fucking dink!!!  Then he had to whine and moan and whimper about Cabinessence...one of the top 10 VERY best songs the group EVER recorded?  And then it's Brian, Carl and Dennis drugs this and Brian, Carl and Dennis drugs that for ever and a gawd-dam fucking day...in every FUCKING interview ever?  Yes we can all agree that Mike was a gigantic DICK HEAD almost every inch of the way for these past 52 years...but...let's be nice to him in this thread?

f*** HIM!!!

Okay, I just went back and read the OP of this thread. There is no Mike-bashing. That's the point. There are no swipes in the OP of this thread. Regardless of what he's said in other threads, clearly the OP post in this thread is about celebrating the the good things Mike has done for the band.

You missed the parts in bold, even though you quoted and replied to my post where I put them in bold to address them.

Again, if the idea of this thread were solely to start listing positivity, then don't take two swipes at this board right out of the gate, in the first sentence no less, and the people here in the first post by saying there is too much "Mike bashing" here. Totally unnecessary and irrelevant swipes taken at this board if the idea is for people to list positives about Mike Love.

Which amount to almost sweet f*** all since [and I'm being mindful that Mike did do some stuff after 1965 which counts] 1967-70.  Come on.  Really?    There came a time when Mike Love's gawd-forsaken ego began to run the boat...into a sand bar.  It still does.  Except for the freak windfall John Phillips song we call Kokomo being augmented by TERRY MELCHER and then, subsequently, being included in the soundtrack of a somewhat popular movie indigenous to that specific moment 'HE' has s.f.a. to squawk about since California Girls.  He's done almost nothing truly important except for polishing and buffing the lyrics to Good Vibrations.  And truly...did the lyrics really make that song the major success that it was?  Or was it the vocal arrangements and group harmonies/performance with Carl singing out of the first chair which took kind of 'dorky' lyrics right smak-dab through the up-rights?  Carl saved Kokomo for that matter.

No.  Come on.  Let's not light a candle for a dick-head.  It's a waste of fucking wax.

It's a fine line between Mike bashing and just saying what you don't like, it looks like. There are many things I don't like. I'm not defending recent events in the Mike Love Universe (I haven't seen or heard DIA17 because why do that to myself? Everyone said it sucks so I have better things to do.) I'm sure I'd hate it, and I don't want to. Hating things is the worst. I just feel like the OP was trying to create a Mike Bashing Free Zone  and it quickly devolved into something else. Maybe in those bolded words he admitted what Mike's shortcomings,  but that's what you do in a thesis. You admit what the arguments against your point might be, but then he went ahead ahead and opened the floor to the pro side. I feel like that's what was trying to be attempted here, and I support it. Maybe I could just go and list my FAVE MIKE THINGS but most of them have already been listed (say what you want about that).  I just am defending the idealistic proposition behind a Mike Love Love Thread, because I'm apparently a hippie at heart, LOL.

I'm not trying to stir the pot. I just feel like there are a number of threads about recent Mike-related events that have leaned toward the yuck, and the point of this thread  was to offset that, and I think that's... well, good.

Fine... all of that, valid. Not saying I disagree. But does it have to be all hate all the time? There's nothing good to be said?

I hope this thread does go back to what the thread intended originally. But I think Guitarfool and I just wanted to clear the record about the “Mike Bashing” that goes on here. And Add Some, I totally thought of you when I wrote that ;D Hey, you and OSD have seen more sh*t come from this band than I can imagine. I remember a couple years ago when you tried to give Mike the benefit of the doubt often, I know you legitimately tried for a long while to see the good over the bad...it’s gotta be tough with this band! Anyways, cheers :beer :)

To get back to the spirit of this thread:

- his lead on ‘That’s not me’

- I know I mention it often, but I thought his Rock Cellar magazine (I think it was that mag) interview was really well done - gave me a sense of why he works hard as hell and thinks commercially. Makes it a lot easier to understand his actions over the years.

Just a reminder. Read any website not even related to the Beach Boys in the past week where Mike's new video was posted or linked and note the reader comments. Read Facebook and note the comments to Mike's video. Read anything that shared the DIA song or video this week and note the comments. It's a disaster for Mike. And it's not relevant to trying to list positives about Mike by telling everyone who reads the initial post how this board is full of Mike bashing. News alert: So is 99% of the internet population that has come into contact with Mike's latest offering and offered negative comments about it. So it's hardly worth saying this board has a whole lotta Mike bashing as if the market is cornered by people here deemed to be the bashers. It's irrelevant, unless someone wanted to try taking a few cheap shots at this place. That's not cool.

That hotel deserves major kudos for offering such clean bedsheets and drapes to their guests.

(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/20157302_1430260240386146_5153448510949735905_o.jpg?oh=3bc934d736bf60b3ec51f72b7da2ea4d&oe=59F2E4B6)

I will say that I didn't actually think there was a ton of Mike bashing going on, just people saying what they didn't like about DIA17. I was just disappointed to see a thread titled "A little love for Mr Love" get the yucks. I appreciate that OSD said he would not be participating, that's cool, I respect that.

In light of rab's post, I will list something that I have yet to see... posted in this thread relevant to it's point:

Mikes eventual recording of vocals that he didn't necessarily get or agree with during Pet Sounds and Smile. Some of the most wonderful vocals on record.

I was actually going to mention his vocals on Cabinessence - I friggin love how his voice melds perfectly with the sitar-sounding instrument in the tag...someone here knows what the actual instrument is.

Edit: I think there’s a “roll your own” version of Smile where this tag really shines. I’m wondering if it’s JMZ’s mix, maybe it is AlternateBWPS. I gotta dig all my Smile boots out and listen to them soon.

The timing for this thread is not good, Nate.

It was "All I Wanna Do", sung and co-written by Mike, that made me fall in love with the Boys' music in 2003. 

He had a beautiful voice (when he wasn't exaggerating the nasal thing).

Without his bass vocals we wouldn't have the blend we all love so much.

I know just about any fun in the sun songs post Pet Sounds are usually frowned upon, but I'm a big fan of summertime fun music.  That's kinda what drew me to The Beach Boys in the first place. 

Pet Sounds is Brian's baby as we know, but Mike's vocals on WIBN, That's Not Me, SJB, and Here Today are some of the best of his career, and one of the reasons that I love listening to the album so much. 

GF, I think you raise a good point about the OP. 

However, the thread didn't make it past one page before the bashing started.  So, the OP's point was kinda proven. 

Love his bass vocal on You're Still A Mystery.

I loved when Mike stepped back and became a relatively less integral part of the band in the early 70s. That was great. Mike is always best utilized when he contributes a bit, but is largely used as a vocal instrument in the manner of choosing of the Wilsons, and is largely politically neutered from a power position. It's a lovely thing indeed when that happens. That's something to love about Mike, right? Or at least a scenario in their actual history where I love his contributions and am mostly not put off by his actions.

It's what drew me to them in the first place too. Pet Sounds really enveloped me in the band, but I became a fan listening to some fun-in-the-sun compilation many years prior to hearing Pet Sounds in full.

With that said, post-Pet Sounds 'It's Ok' is a powerful lead by Mike that harkens back to the classic days.

Another, 'Bop-Bop on the Beach' which was featured in the original Karate Kid was always catchy to me when I watched that movie. Years later I learned Mike composed it for Jan and Dean (and I think he even sings on the chorus - but I could be mistaken about that).

I was trying to build a collection of summer music about a decade ago, so I got a copy of Sounds of Summer and Pet Sounds.  I didn't really "get" Pet Sounds at first.  Took me a few years.  But I was more into the early 60s stuff. 

It really wasn't until I saw one of the C50 shows in 2012 that I dug deeper into the late 60s / early 70s stuff, and later the rest of the catalog. 

I do like the lead on It's OK, and I think that should've been the lead single for 15BO over RNR Music.  To me, their version of RNR Music is limp, and I think Mike's lead in It's OK is much better. 

The first time I ever heard “I Know There’s An Answer” I flipped and within months I had spent so much money on albums and books about the band. In my initial post in this thread I praise for Mike for convincing Brian to change the lyrics of this. “I Know There’s An Answer” was the turning point for me and is one of their most special songs to me - without Mike’s involvement it would’ve been a tune I wouldn’t have cared too much for.

It’s funny how there is so much good stuff from this band that any number of things pulled us into this fandom. As an aside, ‘Don’t Worry Baby’ from the movie De Ja Vu jostled my memory of that Beach Boys comp I had as a kid, within days of seeing that movie I had bought Pet Sounds.

And totally agreed about ‘It’s Okay’ over RnR Music - that was a major lost opportunity imo.

Yeah, as I recall, Its OK was released as a single in October.  It's a freakin summer song. 

Funny who mention I Know There's an Answer.   Upon many listens, that's the first track outside of the big three hits that really grabbed my attention.  Mike's lyrics definitely turned a good song into a great song. 

I think you can say that say for GV.  The original lyrics seem clunky to me. 

I think it's a bit of a mixed thing with that song.

On one hand, I think the final lyrics on I Know There’s An Answer are great; I have no issue with them, I think they flow well/work well, and that the final product is a superb song.

On the other hand, I think it's possible the band might have gotten a bit more cred from the circles where it might have mattered most at the time, had they released a song as Hang On to Your Ego with subtle, yet obvious LSD references. It might have been a moment where people could've thought that this band maybe wasn't just a bunch of squares; that they were dudes who weren't afraid to push boundaries and talk about drug use/mind expansion. Let's face it: the band suffered greatly for their image not evolving fast enough at that time, so they needed all the help they could get.

On the third hand, while I do agree that the lyrics to Hang On to Your Ego are a bit more clunky from a sonically flowing perspective, and that ultimately, the final lyrics on I Know There’s An Answer flow better... I could be ok with Mike having had objections over the song's lyrics simply for that flowing/sonic reason... but the actual truth, as we all know, is that Mike specifically had a bug up his butt regarding the band taking chances and writing about drug use in a manner like that. And ironically, of course, being as Mike is widely regarded as a guy with massive ego problems (Brian's own words, mind you); it's quite funny how a guy who couldn't/can't let go of his ego specifically objected to a song about letting go of one's ego.

So I can partially praise Mike for intervening since we probably got a better flowing song out of it, but it came from some of the wrong reasons IMO. It's not like Mike said that he was ok with a song about letting go of one's ego, but that he thought the lyrics needed to be tweaked to flow better. That did not happen. Had that happened, I could respect it totally.  Sort of like how I can be very happy that we have Time to Get Alone as a BBs song, and I'm grateful it's available with Carl's vocal and BB harmonies for us to enjoy, but I can't at all respect the ugly circumstances of how it came to be in its final form (Brian bullied into giving it back to The BBs).

In defense of Mike, I don't see why being against drug references in music for a band he was a member in is a negative thing. He had every right to fight his case given he would have his name on this album. Mike had likely seen firsthand how drugs had possibly changed Brian. The 'California Girls' LSD story was probably something that wasn't kept a secret from Mike during that time. Jon Stebbins writes in the FAQ book "...for Brian the danger of taking [LSD] even once was genuine because of the extreme sensitivity and apparent instability of his psyche." No doubt by this point Mike had seen Brian on drugs enough (seen his changed behavior on those drugs) that denying support for references to these same drugs was only logical to him.

And by allowing these references in the music it would possibly influence their own fans to take the same substances that were clearly changing Brian for the worse. If anything standing up to the culture that was clearly becoming popular at that time was a noble thing to do.

One thing I have to give credit Mike for is that he is normally commercial as hell and looking for profit (always following trends and rarely treading new ground) yet drug culture was clearly huge after '66 and yet Mike never pushed the band toward those profits. Hell, he basically went the opposite direction with TM. So yeah, it sucks that Monterey never worked out and The Beach Boys were regarded as squares after '66, but I can't and don't blame Mike at all for lobbying to ditch the drug references given all he had heard and possibly seen firsthand up to that point with the drugs Brian was taking.

Thank goodness Brian didn't take the amount of LSD taken by Syd Barrett.

Personally I think the song with the Ego lyrics would've sounded very out of place on Pet Sounds.  Maybe if they held it for Smiley Smile, or even Friends. 

Speaking of Friends, while we're patting Mike on the back - Meant For You.  I wish Mike used his Meant for You, All I Wanna Do, Big Sur voice more often.

I can understand this point of view too. And I can empathize to a point also. Yet even though the drug thing was still lingering in the background of the song (and the "trip through the day" lyric still made it through, either suggesting that Mike maybe didn't realize that line was about LSD, or that it was less an objection to the drug references, and more an objection to the idea of singing about losing one's ego), I still can't help but laugh at the irony that the song was about ego, and subtly about how people need to take check of their own ego and not get their heads too far up their own asses... and how the guy who needed to take that message to heart the most was the guy who simply had to make that song lyric go bye-bye.

Brian had to have seen the irony in that. You can't make stuff like that up.

Yet as I said earlier, I think the final product rules, so I can praise Mike for the song getting to a very good place in the end, even though I inherently have some issues with a guy with a huge ego not wanting to sing a song about taking stock of one's ego. That is simultaneously both problematic and laughably funny to me.

They come on like they're peaceful
But inside they're so uptight
They trip through their day
And waste all their thoughts at night

Now how can I come on
And tell them the way that they live could be better

I know there's an answer
I know now but I have to find it by myself

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the narrator seems to be speaking to people who trip through their day, the narrator says to these people that they could be living better (which isn't endorsing drugs at all, the opposite in fact). Then the chorus says that you can find the answer to how to live better, but you have to do it by yourself (implying without the aid of drugs).

Imagine you see in person your lead bandmate have a nervous breakdown on a plane...this eventually leads to your bandmate quitting touring. You see him then start smoking pot/eating special brownies. You see him take LSD, amphetamines. You see his behavior change, you hear stories about him on acid screaming into a pillow crying about his mom and dad. He becomes more paranoid about things, perhaps he has told you he's been hearing voices in his head. Keeping all that in mind, I highly doubt Mike was upset more about a possible check of his own ego over keeping pro-drug references out of The Beach Boys music.

Edit: wanted to clarify that I didn't mean to imply that all drug references were erased from the song (I even read the section of Lambert's book while typing the post above where he clearly states there are still drug references in the song...my bad). From my standpoint any reference to drugs in the song are negative and it's more of an anti drug song in its current form...which just exacerbates their square image.

'Meant For You' is one of my favorites. Embarrassed to admit that at one point I thought it was Brian singing (I don't think I was used to Mike's voice being that soft at that point). Especially love the Pony version on the MiC set.

Pretty much everything Mike contributed to was great until the Surf's Up album.

I LOVE MIKE LOVE

I agree, I see the fad in the 60's of making things drug related as just that: a fad. I don't think the Beatles are any cooler because Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds spells out LSD. I'm glad that for the most part The Beach Boys stayed out of that drug culture. They walked a fine line between being hip with the drug scene and being "squares," and for the most part I'm okay with that. They had other chances to be seen as cool and mainstream, such as playing the Monterrey Pop Festival. Mike had seen first hand what those drugs that were glorified in some sub-groups can actually do, and I don't blame him for being against it and certainly don't see it as him being stuck up or being a "square."

Fact: "It's OK" was released on August 9, 1976. There are many discussions here on the bord about why the BBs released "Rock'n'Roll Music" first--in fact, releasing it before the 15 BIG ONES LP itself. While many (including myself) consider it to be a flawed piece of work (including Mike's vocal, which is the point where he begins to ratchet up his nasality to heretofore unmeasurable levels...), someone's instincts were correct in that the song did become a Top 5 hit and helped drive the sales of an LP that--let's face it--had some serious issues.

Opinion: "It's OK" didn't have a memorable chorus--as discussed in a number of threads elsewhere on the board--and it was dismissed by many critics and listeners at the time as "Do It Again Again." (Keep in mind that it took 15-20 year for "Do It Again" to escape its stigma of being a "retrograde" song--as has been noted earlier, it didn't chart higher than "Darlin'".) "It's OK" is part of a group of songs that get somewhere in the neighborhood of the band's classic old sound, but somehow miss the mark. That's why none of them could push higher on the charts--in their varying ways, they all sounded like a rehash of something much better. We'll never know if it would have cracked the Top 20 if it had gone first--but there is some evidence that the song was reworked in the time between the release of "Rock'n'Roll Music" and the 15 BIG ONES LP, which would have made it impossible to release as a 45 very much earlier than what was the case.

Opinion: Mike's lyrics did help GV, but what really puts the song over from the opening measure is Carl's brilliant vocal. Follow that up with Mike's  "I'm picking up good vibrations" and you have art and commerciality in transcendent co-existence, followed by a perfectly fractured "mosaic" form that captures a deep emotional experience in 3:35. The lyric change is 5%, Carl is 20%, Mike's bass line (in conjunction with the chorus) is 25%, and the amazing carry-through of the song through its various sections is 50%.

That's an interesting take on things, but it doesn't quite jibe with what I hear. Call me crazy, but I've always thought the lyrics about uptight people were intended as a slightly veiled reference to squares like Mike... I certainly think Brian certainly thought that Mike was uptight at the time. To think that Brian thought otherwise doesn't seem to add up.

The other interesting thing to consider about the song's lyrics is how little they actually changed from Hang Onto Your Ego -> I Know There's An Answer. I mean, the only changes are the line about being "guilty", and the title line.

So now that I think about it when comparing the two, I don't necessarily see how changing the title suddenly makes the song *not* an LSD type song at all *whatsoever* anymore. I mean, the song doesn't (in either of its forms) have to - by necessity - be just only about taking drugs, but it could just be about dealing with/coping with difficult people in one's life.

I feel like on the final version of the song, the line "I have to find it by myself" is a reference akin to the message Brian says on I Just Wasn't Made For These Times, where the uptight people who don't want to push boundaries are determined to be thorns in the side of the protagonist of the song, and how that protagonist has to find answers/meaning/truth by themselves without anyone necessarily there amongst their buddies to really help them along the way.

I stand by my assumption that the "ego" line bugged Mike not *solely* because it conjured up images of LSD usage, but *also* because he didn't want to be indirectly called out on having a massive ego on a song, and indirectly told that he needed to get it in check. I think it's a bit reaching to think that this was completely irrelevant to why he wanted that one lyric gone, since most of the other lyrics in the song stayed put, even "drugged-out" ones like "trip through the day". I am certain that by 1966, Mike was told by some people that he had a massive ego. And for good reason; he did! He may have brushed it off and pretended he didn't care what anyone thought... but I don't think the idea of people thinking that Mike had ego problems was absolutely off Mike's radar at the time. No way.  

However we personally interpret the lyrics, I still feel like Mike had every right to challenge the lyrics as they were, as you say, obvious but subtle drug references. I just found a quote that actually backs up your point about the ego line, and it's by Mike Love himself:

"I was aware that Brian was beginning to experiment with LSD and other psychedelics...The prevailing drug jargon at the time had it that doses of LSD would shatter your ego, as if that were a positive thing...I wasn't interested in taking acid or getting rid of my ego."

So definitely a case of both ego and drugs. And again I say Mike, as a prominent member of The Beach Boys, had every right to challenge the lyrics as they were, given their subject matter.

Mike had every right to feel that way, and to voice his opinion about lyrics; my only issue is how that voicing exactly went down, which we'll never quite know. And of course, nobody should be forced to be totally down with the idea of personally taking LSD; my mom was around the drug culture in the '60s and intentionally avoided LSD, despite numerous chances to try it. And I get that Mike had witnessed some bad stuff by '66 with Brian that Mike could have attributed to drugs (I happen to think that Mike's incessant guilt trips and attitude issues highly exacerbated any issues that Brian would have had as a result of drugs alone, had he been surrounded by a hypothetical Mike that supported Brian the way, say Denny did).

That said, you can't really say that Mike's not a guy who wouldn't have greatly benefited from some self-awareness and tweaking in the ego department over the years, so I am still gonna ultimately say that it's absolutely unfortunate (although certainly unsurprising) that of all people, Mike took the stance of being incredibly overprotective of his ego. History has proven that to be the case, even if drugs might not necessarily have been the best way of achieving it. Mike being against a song lyric advocating drug use I suppose is an understandable thing for him to have taken, and I can't really knock him for that even if I disagree; I can knock him for being so close-minded that he clung to his ego so tightly (drugs aside), and, as you pointed out in the quote you shared, self-admittedly had no interest in the idea of personal reevaluation of his ego.

Maybe LSD wasn't the way to do it for Mike (we'll never know if it would have helped), but the general idea that squares in Brian's life might have benefited from an ego overhaul was not exactly a bad idea in and of itself. The fact that we even have to have a thread dedicated to talking about what good things that Mike has brought to the band (there are certainly many, and I apologize for the detour) is directly a result of his ego problems that led to decades of massively unpopular actions and toxic behavior on his part, which kinda proves my point.

Mike's ego is the real illness in the BBs...

Brian says himself, “It was an inappropriate lyric....I just thought that to say 'Hang on to your ego' was an ego statement in and of itself, which I wasn't going for, so I changed it. I gave it a lot of thought.”...even Brian himself wasn’t happy about the “ego” lyrics. So that can’t be all pinned on Mike. As for the way voicing his opinion went down, though there was admittedly controversy (so one could possibly conclude arguing did occur) I think after all of Brian’s drug use/experimentation Mike had witnessed and heard about he had every right to be confrontational about lyrics that perpetuated that lifestyle.

I won’t further rehash my points, because I think we both understand each other’s arguments. Tbh in the past I’ve argued against Mike regarding this very topic. But over the years I’ve kinda changed my perception about the drug culture in that era and its given me a new outlook on how Mike felt during this time. Don’t get me wrong, I realize that Mike has had a pattern of absolutely atrocious behavior when it comes to Brian (stemming from the mid-60s to today - and this is something that some fans just can’t seem to comprehend to point of irritation to the rest of us living in reality). But I really think that this is one instance where Mike had a legitimate gripe.

Can't say I see it the same way. I go on the basis of how many fans or listeners in 1966 would have heard anything in the original lyrics as an overt drug song. I'd even go as far as to suggest doing an experiment in the present day: Find some people who are not familiar with the song's original "Ego" lyrics or the backstory, and give them a lyric sheet to read through. Then see if anyone interprets the words as a drug song.

To add what is a direct parallel and comparison since the albums were released in the same general time period: Paul McCartney's "Got To Get You Into My Life".

I'd ask if *anyone* who heard that song without knowing what McCartney was singing about knew it was an overt and direct drug reference. It was Paul's ode to marijuana, a love song about smoking grass. I'd argue perhaps as large a number as 99% of listeners who liked that song since '66 thought it was a Motown style groove about digging a girl, not about Paul's love for pot.

Did it harm the band at all either in '66 or even now when the true meaning of the lyrics is more widely known? I'd argue no...no more than Ticket To Ride was a reference to hookers in Hamburg and Day Tripper was about a girl who never finished with the guys she was with. Both were smash hit records with illicit sex references, being bought by young fans in '65 and enjoyed by millions up to the present day.

Also adding this: What if Mike's objection was more that his writing credit and therefore his royalty percentages would be almost non-existent on Pet Sounds had he not raised a fuss about something to where he could "rewrite" lyrics as a contribution? Sounds a bit like what happened with VDP later that same year.

Didn't Mike smoke pot and dabble with LSD before his TM conversion?

You’re right that “Got To Get You Into My Life” is a song that 99% of people out there wouldn’t see as a drug song, even people hip to that culture...it really is obscure. But ego death is certainly something that is talked about in drug/LSD circles, especially back in the 60s when psychedelia/intellectualism met head on. So I think both aren’t really comparable as far as obscurity to the real meaning is concerned.

And also, I’m not arguing that the drug image would’ve hurt the band...I can’t say I’m sure that Mike thought that either. If anything I agree with CD that it would’ve helped their image. But I also think Mike had every right to challenge such an obvious shift in their image.

Good points Rab, I will take that over Mike's 2017 interviews trashing 30 plus years ago drug abuse by BW anyday!

Did fans object to John Lennon quoting Dr. Timothy Leary almost verbatim in 1966, same time frame as Pet Sounds? Tomorrow Never Knows was a direct rip from the Tibetan Book Of The Dead, which Leary rewrote in his guide to help LSD trippers navigate through their psychedelic experience when they dosed. I don't know if it did any harm at all to The Beatles or their music in 1966. Maybe what The Beatles realized, which is what Brian realized, which sadly Mike seemed to be oblivious of, was that 1966 was the year when the rules changed radically as to perceptions and reactions to music and artists.

Likewise I'd like to see an estimate of how many Beach Boys fans from the original run in 63-64 would have known what all the ego talk referred to or if it would have bothered them at all if it had come out on Pet Sounds and they heard those lyrics in '66.

I still have to come back to Mike wanting a piece of the pie in terms of the songwriting royalties for the next BB's album, Pet Sounds, and this was a gateway to do so. Find an issue with existing lyrics, even though it's doubtful most people hearing them would think it's a blatant drug song especially in mid 1966 outside of the most tuned-in circles, and rewrite them with the credit to go along with it.

I totally agree with all of this. However I’ll just quote what I wrote a slew of posts back:


Keeping all that in mind I think it is likely that Mike saw how drugs affected a very close person in his life and he didn’t want to encourage that same behavior in the fans of the band. To me, from Mike’s perspective it doesn’t matter what your average fan thinks about the “Ego” lyrics - whether they are cool or offensive, vague or direct, whether they would’ve made the band hip or tarnished their image. What matters is what Mike was exposed to during that mid-1960s period and how those experiences made him feel about drugs, in my opinion. Frankly, as I said above, this is the one time I feel Mike had a legitimate gripe.

You can argue that “Ego” words are vague and too subtle for your average Beach Boys listener, and I would agree. But those lyrics did lend support to a growing movement in pop culture at that time that was beginning to be less subtle about their drug influences. So vague or not, Mike knew the intent of the lyrics and it’s possible because he saw firsthand how drugs were changing Brian, he didn’t want to push that influence onto their image. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable position at all.

This I have no doubt. Mike admits himself that he was angered by Brian wanting to work with people other than himself. And this anger obviously manifested itself in jabs at the lyrics and lyricists (VDPs). In my opinion, this still doesn’t change the fact that he had a legitimate argument about this set of lyrics. And in Brian’s own words even Brian himself did not like the “Ego” lyrics. As a central figure of the band and as Brian’s go-to collaborator I don’t see why him voicing concerns about lyrics relating to drugs is even an issue.

I think we're on the same page but maybe just around the edges. I still have a hard time seeing Mike's objection to those specific lyrics as being what they're described as versus perhaps a more commercial if not (ironically) ego-driven, in terms of getting a cowriter credit and related payments.

I have in mind several things. First, Mike was cracking jokes about Brian and LSD on the Party! sessions. Maybe these didn't come out on the "official" sessions release but I know them well and heard them. Also, Mike cites regularly his work on California Girls, and Brian does as well - justifiably of course, because it's one of the best singles of the 60's, period. But consider that song was conceived and written under the influence of LSD. No secret there, no reason to deny it. The devil's advocate position could be taken to say had it not been for that LSD experience, there would be no track for California Girls and no music for Mike to write those lyrics to match. And it's not like Mike didn't know that. Same with "side 2" of the Today album - what some call a masterpiece, a precursor to Pet Sounds, and that was admittedly written under the influence of marijuana. Again, it wasn't a secret then around the band members and it isn't a secret now.

The hit records, the classics which the band was enjoying and touring behind in 1965 and 1966 like California Girls and Please Let Me Wonder were written under the influence of drugs. You have to wonder if the band members, Mike included, were as concerned about the drugs impacting Brian negatively while all of this was happening if he was cranking out hit single after hit single for them. Like a machine.

And to top it all off, all the worries about the drugs - "Good Vibrations". #1 smash hit worldwide. If any song had the drug influence audible, I'd argue that may be the most prominent one. Again the conception of it, the symphonic nature of the song, the way the song form did the pocket symphony thing Brian has mentioned, the whole ebb and flow of it...for all the talk of the drugs in retrospect, the band didn't seem to mind the hit records that came from all of that.

It just makes Mike's complaints about this specific set of lyrics on an album track, not a single, seem a little suspect. Or overblown as far as what Mike's interests in even singling those lyrics out may have been. I don't think anyone would have noticed had it come out with the ego lyrics enough to negatively impact the band at all.

And to think Mike had these reactions to the drug culture...in 1966 Los Angeles, the music scene he was a part of, the drugs were ubiquitous. In more recent years Mike seemed to take on an even more pious attitude to the drugs, yet his entire professional world was surrounded by it especially in 1966. And the same Manson clan that Mike would hang out with a few years later was built in large part around drugs like LSD, STP, all of it. To levels that would make Brian's LSD experiences seem tiny. That didn't seem to bother Mike, though, or keep him away from "The Family".

I don't know about everybody else, but it seems to me, guitarfool, that you seem to put a lot of work into disagreeing with and generally disliking Dr. Love.

He gives us lots of reasons to think he's an asshole, but on something like this, it just seems you have to disagree with rab's assessment because it doesn't totally portray Mike negatively.

It's called discussing, debating, and offering opinions. Simple as that.

In looking up some stuff for this discussion I found this quote from Mike: “He was taking LSD, which I had never known before. I knew he had been doing various drugs, prior to that and subsequent to that.” Mike says this referring to the recording of ‘California Girls’. So there was only two months between the recording of the vocal track for CG and the Party! sessions. So it makes no sense to me that now he contends he knew nothing about it during this time yet he clearly jokes about Brian and LSD in the Party! recordings. Not sure what relevance this has to the topic at hand, but I thought I’d share it.

I think Mike’s record speaks for itself...he has primarily always been anti-drug...even if he did experiment with them it clearly didn’t take. And even if he hung around people who were acid heads it doesn't mean he himself supported the act of taking those drugs. Mike, too, hung out with Lennon and McCartney and Lennon was famous for taking acid constantly. The movie Love and Mercy shows Mike clearly uneasy with the drugs being used during that time. I have no doubt he had motivation to change the lyrics partially to regain some co-writer credit, but again, he had a legitimate gripe for not wanting the band’s image to start veering into territory of lyrics that were clearly inspired by drugs. I am sure he thought the backing tracks to ‘California Girls’, ‘Good Vibrations’, etc were off the charts great, and in time I’m sure he knew why things were getting more grandiose and experimental. But I’m sure he also saw what those drugs were doing to Brian and he became more vocal about his refusal to participate.

It certainly puts a different perspective on some of those comments. Anyone who has the Sea Of Tunes "Party!" sessions discs can hear the banter about LSD between Mike and Brian.

Another component to consider, one of a few more actually, is if this were such an issue than how would the Smiley Smile sessions be explained in terms of Mike participating in them? By most accounts, the sessions were full of hash and pot, and you can hear some of that haze on the final mixes...so how did Mike decide to be a part of that scene if his drug stance was so firm as to veto a lyric that had already been recorded and mixed for the PS album? I know that is an often asked question, but he did participate in what was the band's most overt "drug album" after raising such a fuss earlier about the drugs.

With this in mind your thoughts on Mike being motivated more by songwriter credit than anything would appear to be more on point. Given he, at that point, was Brian’s main co-writer again he didn’t appear to put up any fight against a record whose drug atmosphere is fairly blatant. So yeah, I gotta say that’s a good point.

At the risk of veering this thread further off course (though I have to say this discussion has been great) would you mind possibly transcribing some of the LSD banter between Brian and Mike? If it’s too much work no worries, I need to dig out my SOT boots soon anyways.

Mike made it pretty clear in his book that he used pot just like everyone else (I'm pretty sure, I don't have the book with me). I don't think that just because he's against LSD that he can't smoke pot. They are totally different drugs and he made it clear that he's against one, which he saw first hand how it affected his cousin, and used the other, which is mostly harmless.

According to Mike the problem was also the marijuana regarding this time period (from his book):

“The problem, of course, was the drugs – not just LSD, but large amounts of marijuana, hashish and amphetamines.”

Page 4, paragraph six of the playbook... ;)

There's certainly merit to the argument that he just wanted a writing credit, but it doesn't have to mean what you're saying is false.  Despite the drug atmosphere on SS, there are no lyrics that suggest drug use on it, or any of the next few albums.

I found the quote I was referring to: "We were stoned out of our heads. We were laughing our asses off when we recorded that stuff." I interpreted this as him saying they were having a good time with marijuana included, but it could be out of context.

Frankly, this is BS and constitutes "Mike-bashing." As with so many things that "float" around here, it is based on facts not in evidence and assumes that Mike's behavior in 1966 is on some linear point of connection with his actions in the 90s. Mike certainly became sour and cynical over time, but there is no evidence that he was overtly operating with the type of strategy outlined here at the time of PS. It's just plain irresponsible to say this, just as it was to extrapolate Brian's involvement with Redwood as a lost opportunity because a later incarnation of that group hit it big.

Aside from our assumptions of Mike's various forms of disgruntlement about the overall direction of PS, there is no evidence that he was trolling for songwriting credit in 1966. That came later, and is part of the terrible legacy in which he (rightfully) continues to marinate. But with respect to "I Know There's An Answer," he had a valid point--the original lyrics are obscure, they come out of left field, they reflect a persona who is resigned to failure. All of those flaws are there BEFORE anyone even gets to the so-called "drug references." In this instance, Mike was right to question the lyrics, and his substitution substantially improved the song--as well as (inadvertently, perhaps) creating a more overt thematic connection to "I Just Wasn't Made For These Times."

People will grasp at the line change in "Wouldn't It Be Nice" as "evidence" of Mike's need to horn in. Again, that is an artifact of a more aged, bitter individual who'd spent the previous twenty-five years being identified as the group's albatross and as an unrepentant schlockmeister. That's a long time to have to be aware of a lingering negativity--and it continues to plague him, since even his legitimate claims are generally seen as part of his bitter, self-serving modus operandi. He's made that bed, and he's going to have to lie in it forever. But in this case, there is not a scintilla of evidence that songwriting credit was his motivation.

Don: Find the lyrics for both Hang On To Your Ego, and I Know There's An Answer. Look at them side-by-side and note which lines stayed and which were changed after Mike's objections. I also note that a line which *could* be interpreted perhaps most obviously as an LSD reference "they trip through the day..." was left intact.

Percentage wise, as far as what stayed and what was changed apart from the title, what percentage of the words were actually changed by the time the song reached it's final mix for the album? Offer an estimate after looking at both lyric sheets, just out of curiosity.

Back to the lyric change, and again just my opinions on "what if?"...

I'm not that into interpreting lyrics into a bigger analysis, as some really enjoy doing and in some cases like with the VDP lyrics for Smile some are really, really perceptive and I enjoy reading the various interpretations. But consider what could be an overreaching narrative or story arc that the various singers are reciting throughout the album.

Specifically on a song that Mike himself sang so well, That's Not Me, there is a sense of self-doubt in what he's saying. He's unsure, or was unsure who he is or what he's doing...and why he may be doing it. You Still Believe In Me, again there is a sense of the narrator's self-doubt, in this case the guy is trying to be what his girl wants him to be, but he's reverting back to his old behavior patterns, and yet this girl loves him so much she still believes in him. What keeps him going is she believes in him even though he is doubting himself and his behaviors...yet he has someone to believe in him when he's unsure why he does what he does or even who he is.

Now take Freud's concepts of ego. It's the sense of "I", of self-worth, or knowing who "I" really is. Whether the psychedelic culture adapted it in their own explorations, at heart the "ego" is a Freudian concept related to personality and behavior. Knowing who you are, as in ego = "I am."

I think having a song titled "Hang On To Your Ego" coming near the close of the album which had already seen various narrators expressing self-doubt or trying to figure out who they are actually would have fit quite well, if we see such a story arc in Pet Sounds' lyrics. It's a reassurance, it's either the narrator or those around him saying "stay true to yourself", "be yourself", hang on to that which makes you "you" and use it to make things better. Of all the lyrics that have that self-doubt element on the album, here is one title which is reassuring for the narrator.

As a title, how is it less effective to say "hey man, be yourself and hang onto it." than saying "I Know There's An Answer" when both of the lyrics are basically saying 'find the answer within yourself'.?

I’ll just leave a quote here from Mike himself: “But at that point in time, there were so many drugs being taken by Brian and other members of the group, and there was a lot of collaborating with people other than myself. I had literally nothing to do on anything on the SMiLE album, so naturally I was a little upset.”

He was admittedly upset about having nothing to do with SMiLE (even though he wrote the lyrics to the hit lead single from the album). Here we are just months prior with Pet Sounds and Mike had main involvement lyrically with just one minor song on the album (the other two songs he contributed only a couple lines). I would find it hard to believe that Mike wasn’t also angry about his lack of participation in this album as well which possibly manifested itself through irritation about some of the lyrics (“Don’t f*** with the formula” and Tony Asher swears that Mike said this)...like he did with Smile, it would make sense he would take up beef about lyrics he found objectionable (partly grounded in his confusion/dislike of the lyrics, which is perfectly reasonable, but also having a jealousy, which he admits, for being kicked to the curb as Brian’s co-writer).

Again, I still feel he had every right to complain about the ‘Ego’ lyrics. They are directly inspired by LSD use and frankly at that time I can see him having a problem with the band shifting their image to that scene. He was also a main member of this group (having contributed to many of their hits thus far) so his input, from his perspective, was indeed warranted. But Guitarfool has a great point about Smiley Smile. I really don’t know what to make of it, but from the quotes above he seems adamant that part of the problem during this era was the marijuana use, yet once Van Dyke was booted from the scene Mike had no objection to getting stoned off his ass recording with Brian (and recording an album that is so clearly bathed in marijuana and acid inspiration). Again, I can’t stress enough that I feel he had every right to complain about pro-drug language being put in their songs, but at the same time his complaints seem less genuine given that their next studio album (recorded just a little over 12 months after the IKTAA session) is obviously so inspired by the drugs they were all taking.

I don’t see Guitarfool’s (or CD’s) comments as Mike bashing. It’s getting down to the root of the matter of what made this band tick. Even if Mike was looking for a co-writer credit, who could blame him!? He saw his band going in a direction that he didn’t like, and he didn’t even have his hand on the helm. Discussions like these help us dig further back into the past and get to the root of the issue. I may not fully agree with Guitarfool’s thoughts on the matter, but I also don’t fully agree that Mike was completely content to sit on the sidelines while Brian used other writers (ei, he probably was looking for excuses to complain about the lyrics) and from his perspective his actions are understandable, imo. Edit; just wanted to add that there is some obvious hypocrisy or lack of genuine motivation behind Mike’s complaints about the lyrics, and I think it warranted a discussion.  

....”but I know that you’re gonna lose the fight”

I think your theory makes perfect sense if the songs chorus didn’t end with an inevitable ego death from taking LSD. And these lyrics are further visible proof about how clunky the song was prior to the lyric change. “I know now but I had to find it by myself” flows perfectly.

But how much more clunky are they if you put them side by side and see what was changed, as I suggested to Don? Flowing better is more of an aesthetic opinion, to me at least. The overall theme is practically the same and not all that much was changed. I've also read a published analysis of the final lyrics which suggested the "new" title is a contradiction within the narrative of the song.

Adding this to the discussion, which has been quoted and published previously...

Al Jardine: "He (Brian) wanted to know what we thought about it. To be honest, I don't think we even knew what an ego was... Finally Brian decided, 'Forget it. I'm changing the lyrics. There's too much controversy.'"

In Al's recollection, the "ego" reference as a direct drug reference doesn't seem to have been on Al's radar, along with whoever else the word "we" includes.

Yet Mike's recollections include this: "I was aware that Brian was beginning to experiment with LSD and other psychedelics. The prevailing drug jargon at the time had it that doses of LSD would shatter your ego, as if that were a positive thing... I wasn't interested in taking acid or getting rid of my ego."

Might be worth adding to the earlier timeline we were looking at regarding CG, the Party! sessions, and Mike's awareness of the LSD experimentation.

Aesthetics were a huge part of Beach Boys music up to that point though, with the exception of a few filler songs...so I could see this being really important to both Mike and Brian (and I quoted earlier where Brian said even he wasn’t happy with the “ego” lyric). And in HOTYE the person the narrator is talking to won’t keep their ego because they are going to “lose the fight” (a direct nod to ego death). Whereas in IKTAA there is absolutely no mention of an ego death. In regards to drug language the two songs are strikingly different.

I too read Lambert’s take on this song, in the book (which I don’t have on me) at the end of the lyrical analysis I think he also alludes that it depends on how you interpret the song. I can check on this later, because I could be misremembering.

In Al's quote, though, he clearly says Brian changed them due to too much controversy. As in, it's too much of a pain in the ass to argue so we'll scrap those few lines, perhaps? Decades later Brian said they were inappropriate, but that's in retrospect...maybe at the time he just wanted to eliminate the tension and arguments. Just a thought.

And the same Brian Wilson has said the Smile lyrics and music were also "inappropriate" for the band decades after the fact, yet they like Pet Sounds have received what could be the most scholarly attention and analysis as would be given poetry or art in general. Maybe "inappropriate" is a convenient out for him to get off the topic. Again, just opinion.

Yeah, that is very likely the case. Another thing I’d like to add to the discussion:

According to Carlin’s book, Mike at first “mocked the lyrics for what he perceived as their intellectual pretentions.” So it appears that it wasn’t the drugs he was miffed about at first but the overall intellectual style of the lyrics (which seemed to be the common trend until Mike got let back into the writers fold in ‘67). So it does appear he was just looking for ways to change lyrics from the get-go, even before he was clued into what the ego chorus actually meant.

Ha! Some people didn't get ::) - the issue is with NateRuvin using boring stereotypical trendy banal really dumb description "Mike bashing". NOT with the positive ML thread idea. If NR didn't start bitter like that, instead were positive thru & thru - there wouldn't be any problem & everybody'd be happy. Really funny few posters didn't get such easy reason disliking NateRuvin's post. As usual, jumped to misguided conclusions about disallowing to praise Mike yada yada. Hey I just replied, the thread wasn't even locked.

Huh?  :brow

Mike has never been my favorite Beach Boy, but he has brought me many hours of listening pleasure, in concert and at home on my hi fi. I guess it's easy now to forget how animated he used to be onstage. I remember him jumping on top of Brian's piano in 1983 at the Kingdome. He really was THE showman of the band. Oddly, just one year later when friends and I saw them at the Puyallup Fair, Mike seemed to have slowed down quite a bit.

I've never understood how or why Mike's entire demeanor changed onstage. Very weird, indeed.

More than just Mike. Between 83 and 84 the whole band changed. Dennis died. They dropped the tempos, the arrangements became slathered in keyboards , and everything just slowed down. The polished, sleek, trimmed down package shows of the 80s and 90s began.   Carl was more the cause than Mike. Carl was amazing but like all the BB made some mistakes. Changing the arrangements was one.  Not doing more in the late 90s was another with the cheerleaders.

Why are we even wasting time with this thread? Aside from his vocal and lyrical contributions up until the mid-'70s or so, which I am very appreciative of and thankful for, the guy is just a totally worthless, annoying dick. End of story IMO.

The time wasted, as I said, due to few folks who didn't read with great attention the initial post. It's NateRuvin's fault & nobody. He brought up the same boring narrative about Mike-bashing. It really annoys people & doesn't look too positive for positive ML thread. It's easy like this - if you create positive good-natured thread for fans to say nice things about Mike, accentuate the positive START to FINISH. Repeat - easy. like. this. I'm sure NateRuvin will accept this good advice & use in future. Ditto everybody else.

I heard Kokomo while I was grilling out yesterday evening, and its a damn fine summertime pop song. 

Not only can I not love anything Mike Love after 1974, I can't stomach Mike Love after 1974.

Just watched Love and Mercy again for the first time since soon after it became available on disc.  This movie is one Brian calls a pretty accurate rendering of what really happened.

With that in mind it would lump Mikey right in there with Murry and Eugene.  3 blind idiots.  See how they ran Brian into a deep freekin' hole?  A pox on their contributions. 

Murry was a jealous wart.  Landy was lost in the clouds of illusion formed only for himself and that 'love' character was just a sniveling, whining little beeyatch.  Ya Brian plummeted...pushed over the edge and left to wallow by deaf, dumb and blind.

Is THAT enough "love" for ya?

But he could grow a heck of a beard, though, right?

They all could back in the day.  Mike's the only one rocking facial hair these days.

Yeah, well, what about those hats? Ain't nobody who rocks a hat better than the Lovester (especially ones with his name on it).

Al had some pretty boss hats in the late 70s / early 80s.

Bruce and David Marks have followed Mike's lead in recent years with wearing ballcaps.

Yup. Mike Love. Always a trendsetter, a true pioneer.  :hat

And just to show that I'm not just here to be sarcastic about Mike Love, I really do enjoy 'Kokomo'. lol

I kinda view Mike like that cheesy uncle we all have (or I might be).

Yeah, I like a lot of later BB Love songs like Kokomo, Still Cruisin, Beaches in Mind, etc

Who again?   ::)  The cheesy 'uncle' who's always trying to 'make it' with your wife?  :o  I want OUT of THAT family photo.  Seems Brian sent him packing too.  There are no pics of dirty Mikey over at BW dot calm on the one  and only page dedicated to Beach Boys music.  'Lovey-dovey' is gone.  Toast.  Struck from the register.  Can't say he doesn't deserve it either.

Is THAT  enough ''love' for ya?

KDS and I like 'Kokomo' and several other later Beach Boy songs written by Mike.

What's your favorite Mike Love song? So many to choose from!  :hat

I love everything about Mike except his lyrics that reference other Beach Boys lyrics and his dislike of Brian's musical direction at certain times (which I really dislike about him but it's over now I guess. I just wish he would've kept his mouth shut at certain points, that's about it really). I think Mike is amazing and even though I very much get why a lot of people hate him, I can't imagine the Beach Boys without him and I wouldn't want a Beach Boys without him. And I'm sure after reading this you'll wonder why I bothered posting such a generic post that anyone could've written. I have no answer.

What does Donald Trump and Mike Love have in common?

Wearing kitsch caps with their name or brand on it. Both of them equally hideous individuals.
I never understood how the cap became acceptable public wear in America outside of sports...I guess it says something about Americans (?)

So many?  Not really.  The nasal thing gets really off-putting way too often.  Let's see... ... ...Lyrically?  That's easy. Warmth of the Sun.  Vocally?  Maybe Here Today?  I've always preferred Brian, Carl, Al, Denny and Blondie lead vocals by a wide and substantial margin.  If Mike sang all of the leads...and if Mike wrote all of the lyrics?  I wouldn't be here.  I'd have been jettisoned by Shut Down Vol 2 or All Summer Long and criminally would have missed Pet Sounds, Friends, 20/20, Sunflower, Surfs Up, Carl and the Passions and Holland...not to mention Good Vibrations/30 Years and eventually SMiLE.  Mike's involvement on TWGTR almost ruins it for me.

And as for Kokomo... ... ...Carl's performance is what makes and saves THAT song.  Yes Terry and Mike lifted it up beyond where John Phillips initially left it gasping for air but it's all about Carl stepping up to the plate and bashing that so/so song out of the park.  

That 'love' guy's nose has been "on the critical list" since day 1.

So there ya have it.  A tiny bit of love for the guy who does it for his "own nourishment and revenge."

There are plenty of other threads on here for you to make your points about your dislike of Mike Love.  Why not let just one thread about him be positive? 

Because I don't believe that ignorance is bliss.  Besides I just gave him a wee kiss.  [just above your most recent contribution to the 'love fest'.]   OK...maybe it was more of a smack.  He is who he is.  He says what he says.  He's done what he's done.  So let's ignore all that and give him a hug?  f*** THAT!!!  For the grief he slathered all over Brian...over and over and over again...I'm not gonna turn away and let this 1/2 miler do a victory lap.

I never said that we should be 100% ignorant to what Mike has done.

But, I don't see the harm in a thread that that focuses on his positive contributions. 

I hadn't noticed different arrangements for the songs in '84, but Mike seemed to have slowed down a lot in one year. My best friend noticed it, too and said "I think Michael is drunk".

Could it be that after Denny passed away, it subconsciously made Mike feel less competitive with any other remaining band members for attention/adulation from ladies in the audience, and this led to him behaving differently (more low-key) onstage?   That seems plausible.

Why does Mike always have to have an ulterior motive?  ::) Maybe losing a cousin, brother, and friend was very sobering and gave the entire band a wake up call?

Ya...maybe Jay.  And maybe Mike blew up the 50th anniversary and continued in his quest to bad-mouth the Wilsons...and Al too...interview after interview after interview just to help sell a few more books.  Maybe as the completion of said book approached and an actual publishing date drew more into frame he stepped up the campaign just to put a few more greenbacks in his pocket.

Maybe indeed.

What in the flying f*** does that have to do with the topic being discussed? Take your predictable hate speech somewhere else.

Or maybe he hurt his back or something. I never hear about Mike having health problems, but i'm sure he's had a few. He's got a great work ethic, though.

Some of us who have been pushed over the edge by his latest outrage i.e. the ill-timed, solo(!) McGrath-blemished DIA, right on the heels of the glorious Sunshine Tomorrow, are reacting to this equally ill-timed thread with a NIMBY attitude. Yes, we could just refrain from comment and let you ML deniers pat him and each other on the back ad nauseum, or we can express a dissenting opinion. That is what some of us are choosing to do, here and now. If you don't like it, lump it.

I thought this thread was supposed to highlight positive aspects of Mr. Love and his contributions to The Beach Boys, not to start a new Love bashing thread.  We have multiple threads for that - see the "does Mike Love realize he's despised by millions" thread above.  Because this thread focusses on positive things about Mike doesn't mean anyone has forgotten or forgiven his bad behavior or past transgressions or personality faults.  It's more like, we all know Mike is a **** but for something different what good things can we say about him?  C'mon, it's a fun fun fun intellectual exercise - rack your brains and come up with something.  Something nice, if you dare.

Man, I was listening to Surfin' the other night.

How did Mike love think of the "Bom bom dit di dit dip" bass part? So creative. Really carries the tune, actually.

Get ahold of yourself if you can. Preferrably in a private area where no one else has to watch you! Honestly, Sunshine Tomorrow is not going to sell millions of copies and win the group countless new fans; I think it was on the Billboard album chart for 1 week. It's manna from heaven for us diehards, that's all. And Mike's DIA single has already been forgotten everywhere but here.
Seriously. There are other things in this mixed up muddled up world in which we live in to be worried about.

I have very firm hold of "myself", thank you. I just had an overdue reaction to some of the blinder-wearing ML defenders here over the years whom I have never addressed. Also, just because most of the world may be oblivious to DIA, it was another nail in the cumulative coffin of the BB brand's respectablilty as has been said before, and just because most people are not passionate or perceptive enough to care (arguable) doesn't affect me, my opinions or my desire to express them, one way or another. It's fine to have positive opinions about his contributions, which I share, but this thread is ill-timed and there is going to be pushback from some.

Granted the song if pretty primitive now, but for a band's first try, not too shabby. 

JL:

"Man, I was listening to Surfin' the other night.

How did Mike love think of the "Bom bom dit di dit dip" bass part? So creative. Really carries the tune, actually."

This predecessor came to mind (among countless other doo wop bass variations)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq2XyiuarTw

Doowop 101! :lol

Good catch. If you're going to be influenced, might as well be influenced by the best. That music savvy Mike Love.  :hat

Pick up some best of doo-wop collections, then work back into the vocal group R&B records Alan Freed was spinning in the early and mid 50's on his radio show, then go back even further to The Mills Brothers and other vocal groups from the 40's, and also listen to Arthur Smith's 1945 record "Guitar Boogie" - There is a rich legacy of that kind of bass line used to drive many records before Surfin' and Jan Berry, and you'll find a lot of classic tunes in the process! The Surfin vocal bass line is just one in a long string of those bass patterns.

Reaching the apotheosis of the "Bassman" ethos the next year:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZr8iReEqMQ

And we must also account for the Bomp from the year before:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXmsLe8t_gg