The Smiley Smile Message Board

This article dates back to 2001 and be warned, the writer goes out of his way to slaughter sacred cows with a most contentious piece. It does not reflect my opinion on the Beach Boys, but I think it contains enough home truths that it should be posted here. Bagge is very tongue-in-cheek and deliberately tries to provoke. But I admire his singular stand in some ways, flying in the face of popular opinion. If nothing else, perhaps it can redress the imbalance of negative bias against Mike Love. Have at it: http://www.mbird.com/2012/05/beach-boys-101-peter-bagges-in-defense-of-and-praise-for-mike-love/

f*** Mike Love.... ;)

Not a fan of the article. It seems to have strange motives. It doesn't even work well as a "contrarian" or "slaughtering sacred cows" type of piece.

It's too long, it meanders, and has the same tone as those "Sgt. Pepper is actually the WORST ALBUM EVER!!!!" sorts of articles.

There are also numerous factual errors, especially when it gets down near the end where it gets kind of "meh, whatever" about the numerous BB-related lawsuits, etc.

If the point of the article is simply that Mike was an important part of the band, especially during it's heyday, then I don't think anybody but a few anti-Mike internet trolls ever contended otherwise. But all of the band politics (lawsuits, business maneuvers, personnel changes, etc.) are part of the story, and in some cases did impact the music. The writer of that article seems pretty quick to dismiss a TON of Mike's "flaws."

The article is especially laughably out of date and non-applicable in light of the events of the 2012 reunion.

Probably not a good idea to lead off early with a paragraph like this:

It’s Brian’s story that so many poor, misunderstood, hyper-sensitive idealists can’t get enough of. Not only was Brian the main musical genius behind all those great records, but he’s also that most romantic type of Genius: the Idiot Savant, the Tortured Soul. He’s become the straight male nerd’s Judy Garland. Hey, who DOESN’T love a gifted re tard (assuming you don’t have to live or work with one, that is)? This Lovable Eccentric (so the legend now goes) was only interested in expressing himself through his music, ma-an, only people around him couldn’t leave this Goose who Laid the Golden Records alone and nearly killed him because of it. He “just wasn’t MADE for these times,” MA-AN! He’s too maldito BEAUTIFUL for this world! *Sob!*

Now, an insightful look at how Brian has at various points been overly-romanticized, or an look at how Brian fans can be overly-forgiving at times and/or too defensive, is something worth writing about. I've done it myself. But the stuff above is just hack, masturbatory writing. He probably thinks the Judy Garland analogy is *genius*, but it's actually off the mark because the reason his stereotypical view of a "Garland fan" actually enjoys Judy Garland is *far* different than even his exaggerated stereotype of why Brian fans like Brian.

The paragraph above ironically probably *does* give a bit of a sense of how Mike Love has felt about Brian at various times over the years. Hopefully not in those precise words, but I'm sure he's been frustrated by the "tortured genius" trope for nearly his entire life.

I thought it was a pretty interesting read.   Offers a different POV that's often dismissed. 

Please note that in the above excerpt of the piece in my previous post, for some reason this board's software edited the content. For the sake of specifically quoting this guy's article, I'm going to try to point out that what the guy says sarcastically about Brian in the article is:

"who DOESN'T love a gifted re tard (assuming you don't have to live or work with one, that is)?"

Yeah, that *sure is* a "different" POV.

It's a hack, self-pleasuring piece that, within the BB world/realm, strikes me as *very* early 2000s, during that era where there were ill feelings in the aftermath of the breakup of the band in 1998 and Carl's death, where the "beefs" with Mike at least kind of *seemed* a bit more apocryphal or kind of visceral (e.g. "he's a jerk", with no specific reason stated).

What's sad about the BBs story, and Mike, and what also severely dates this article is what has occurred *since* 2001. 17 more years of inflammatory interviews, insulting comments about the Wilsons, rolling his eyes at Brian's new music for the BB album (or, to be more specific, miming suicide), and Mike *walking away* from the reunion. Not to mention a nasty 2004 lawsuit that said *awful* things about Brian and Al (even though Al wasn't even part of the lawsuit). 17 more years of Mike putting band politics and resentment ahead of the music, ahead of keeping the band together, and ahead of the fans.

This article was questionable in 2001. In 2018, it's borderline useless.

As I said previously, an insightful look at how some fans are too forgiving of Brian, and/or too hard on Mike, could be an informative, thought-provoking topic. That 2001 article is *not* such a piece.

I will admit that calling Brian a mentally handicapped person was taking it too far. 

One point where I do agree with Bagge, though, is when he postulates that the Wilson brothers wouldn't have made it without Mike. The oft-repeated cliché in BB fandom is that "Mike would still be pumping gas, if it hadn't been for Brian". The Wilson brothers were gifted alright, but I don't think they would have become America's band without (1) the initial thrust of Murry, and (2) Mike's lyrics, vocals, and showmanship. They'd have been some best kept secret like Millennium or Curt Boettcher. Just my opinion.

I think Mike's lyrics and showmanship, particularly during the early years, often get overlooked. 

Yes, it depends on what "made it" constitutes. If you read Mark Lewisohn's "Tune In", you learn that the Beatles wouldn't have made it without talent and skill, but that they also experienced a number of fortunate turns, luck, happenstance, etc.

I don't think much of anyone would ever argue that the BBs would have been the exact same popular group in the 60s if you just erased Mike Love from the picture. His lyrics and stage presence were important, no question. As was his voice, both lead and backing vocals.

When someone makes some reference to how the Wilsons (especially) Brian, would have "made it" without Mike whereas Mike would not have "made it" without Brian, to me that pertains more to having some sort of career in music, or attaining some level of success or notoriety in that field. I do think the Wilsons, especially Brian, would have carved something out in the music field. Brian had too much music running through him to not.

I do not believe Mike would have done much if anything in the music business had Brian and the BBs not come along. I suppose I could envision him pulling a bit of a Gary Usher/Roger Christian solely in the lyric department had he maintained enough of an interest in music to be a lyrics guy for someone else. But Mike has said that even within the huge level of success the BBs attained, he didn't enjoy working in the studio. He never really truly learned to play an instrument, and his "composing" skills were mainly in the lyric department. So he had little in the way of the skills or talent or training, nor the drive, to even go for a big music career.

Whether Brian could have put together a band on the level of the BBs without Mike, or if instead he had attained a sort of cult "Emitt Rhodes" level of success, it's hard to say.

I don't think so these days, especially when it comes to commentators, journalists, writers, and experts whose opinion matters. Anyone trying to write about the band while trying to say Mike's role in those early years wasn't a key to their success would (or should) not be taken seriously.

But I think the "Mike is underrated" argument is at least partially a straw man. There are a few tiny elements of his story that (ironically) parallel George Harrison in the Beatles. Mike had talent, but was in a group with a guy with immensely more talent. Mike still played a *key* role in the band and its success. Similarly, George Harrison was talented (and actually was a *bigger* part of the Beatles' act pre-EMI), but was in a band with two of the most talented composers/singers/musicians/people on the planet. It's impossible to not be overshadowed. But, just as any Beatles commentator/biographer would be dismissed if they argued George was a talentless hack who rode the coattails of Lennon/McCartney, the same goes for Mike Love.

When we look at the later years of the BBs, the discussion and the band dynamic change. As they created less and less and capitalized more and more on their back catalog and legacy (both via reissues of old music and concert setlists), the Brian-Mike thing took on a different element, one that often ends up drawing in personal viewpoints/politics/ethos. Namely, who is more important, the guy that dreamed all of that music up and created it, or the guy that schlepped it on his back and took it to the masses in concert.

My position is that, as long as we're not being held to sum up the band in one sentence, then there is plenty of room to highlight all of their contributions. And Mike's were very important. To this day, his presence is important. (As I often say, lost on those who take my criticism of Mike ending C50 as being dismissive of Mike, it's actually the opposite; I'm saying Mike *needs* to be a part of it!).

But, if cornered and forced to put it into one sentence, if forced to name the most important lynchpin of the whole thing, I'm happy to go back to Dennis Wilson's artful quote, which shows Brian the ultimate respect and also displays the appropriate (if extreme) level of humility on the part of Dennis:

"Brian is The Beach Boys. He is the band. We're his f***ing messengers. He is all of it. Period. We're nothing. He's everything"

Of all the existing examples from the early years, where are the examples of Mike's showmanship on display that we can see for ourselves? I agree on the vocals, naturally - His bass voice was a key element in the blend. I somewhat agree on the lyrics, but in the early years there were at least three or more (some uncredited) people contributing lyrics to those key early-years songs that put the band on the charts, namely Gary Usher, Roger Christian, Brian Wilson, and uncredited folks like the girlfriend's brother who listed all the hot surfing spots...and I think Dennis to some degree (uncredited).

But I'm genuinely curious to see examples of Mike's showmanship in the early years on display if it is as big a factor in the band's success as is being mentioned here and previously in other sources.

The "Lost Concert" and the TAMI Show offer pretty good examples as do the many TV appearances that are floating around on the You Tube or the secondary DVD market. 

And it's subjective opinion whether Mike's showmanship is or was as big of a factor in the band's success based on what film or video exists. I've seen pretty much everything that exists in terms of film, and if we're talking stage presence or "showmanship" there are some appearances where Mike doesn't do much of anything beyond what anyone else in the band is doing on stage. And in the really early years, apart from being told how much of a showman he was, I've yet to see any evidence to suggest his showmanship was anything beyond the norm, or proof that Mike on stage at those early shows was as key a factor as anything else, namely the music.

If anyone was a dynamic stage performer who seemed to elicit the biggest responses from the crowd on nearly every live clip or film I've seen or heard in the early 60's to mid 60's, it was Dennis. And he was behind the drums at the back of the stage.

Well, then we'll agree to disagree.   

I'm curious where the notion that Mike's showmanship was such a key factor in the band's early success is coming from. It's been written and is being repeated, but I've yet to see anything overwhelming (even on the film that exists) that puts Mike's stage presence and showmanship on such a high level of importance in the band's early success and climb up the charts.

That's your opinion, but I think Mike had a certain charisma that comes across on these old concert films and TV appearances. 

He was also a very good emcee.   In fact, he still is IMO. 

In my experience going back, well, let's just say a number of decades, Mike's on-stage shtick has *always* had a very MIXED reception.

In the earliest days when the BBs were experiencing their mini version of "Beatlemania", you can see the screaming is happening for everyone. Indeed, watch them do "Wendy" on Sullivan in '64, and you can see the level of enthusiasm for each member. As I recall, it pans to Al who gets a few squeaks from the audience (poor Al), then to Carl who gets a bit more of a response, then Brian who gets more, then Mike who gets more, culminating in Dennis who was by far the most "popular" member of the band on stage.

But even by '66 or so, when the screaming died down and they were doing something closer to "regular" shows, Mike's on stage shtick has always had a mixture of laughs and groans, of tolerance and eye rolling. Mike has *always* been the guy in the room doing the jokes and telling the stories that ride the edge of funny vs. annoying.

Just as Stamos and Full House, or Mike's "wheeeeeeeeeeen" bit on "Be True to Your School", or having cheerleaders on stage, and a bunch of other stuff, his on-stage persona has seemed to be amusing to some, tolerated by others, along with a healthy helping of eye-rolling and groans. Look at his bit on "Cool Cool Water" on David Frost (I think) from 1970. Is that funny and cool, or totally ridiculous and groan-worthy?

We can actually go all the way back to the David Marks era. Watch Mike dance during "Surfin' USA" on that TV appearance seen in "Endless Harmony." I mean, they *all* look like dorks in those outfits, but then Mike goes into his dancing bit. Even in the day when that was "cool", I sense his shtick wore thin on audiences. Especially non-screaming girls.

He's a bit like Bob Hope. Some remember his USO shows and bits fondly, while others *always* had nothing but disdain for the guy. I asked a guy who was in the Army in that era what people actually thought of Bob Hope, and ton of them *hated* the guy.

Similarly, even *years* before Mike's Rock Hall speech and all of that, he had a huge reputation for being one of the major a-holes of rock and roll. Some of it was based on incorrect info or improper context. But much of reputation was well-deserved. He's had *that* reputation since the 60s to some degree.

People think it gets rough for Mike on boards online and stuff, and I can tell you I've heard *far* worse things uttered about Mike from people in the industry and non-fans. All weighed accordingly of course.

But as with the Jan & Dean stuff, it's important to not let history be rewritten. Mike being marginalized as if he played no role in the band's success is absolutely wrong. But Bruce Johnston's "Mike is just as important as Brian" thing is not really quite accurate either, especially if we're taking a broad historical view of the band.

Regarding Mike's showmanship: It is true that Dennis was the main attraction in the early years, all he had to do was shake his head and wave those blonde locks and the girls would scream. The whole thing was more democratic in the live shows back then, more evenly split. I still think Mike's showmanship was part of the equation for the early success, though. Can't imagine any of the others handling that many leads and still entertain at that level back then. In the following decades, of course, his mc role became more and more crucial to the success of the live shows.

I've seen Brian and band over twenty times, and the BB's seven, four with only Mike and Bruce. Both at C50 and at the other shows, Mike was the main focus. I enjoyed all the Brian concerts on an artistic and musical level, but there was one key ingredient missing, one that Foskett couldn't pull off.

On a side note, I always liked the cheerleaders.   ^-^

The sheer audacity that they would have cheerleaders come on stage at a rock and roll concert, dancing to a song which features in a build in cheerleader vocal response.   

 :lol

It did reach the point where I just couldn't read on any further as the author here was going to make his point ... bound and determined ... right or wrong ... no matter what ... and to hell with anything that didn't fit perfectly into his little descriptive baskets of 1/2 truths and banality.  The 'KISS' effect was set at maximum.

Here's the tip-off...

"The thing is this: most of us will never have the opportunity (let alone the desire or intention) to hang out with either of these two fellows, so what they’re like as people is ultimately meaningless to us as far as their musical legacy is concerned."

How they affected those closest to them had everything to do with how it all turned up/down, left/right, inside/out, over, under, sideways, down and back again.  So?  "The thing is this: most of us will never have the opportunity (let alone the desire or intention) to hang out with either of these two fellows, so what they’re like as people is ultimately meaningless to us as far as their musical legacy is concerned." is a wonderful apple basket...or case [if you will]  full of road apples.

Like many here...and along the way...I have always been a fan of the Beach Boys...at least since the late spring of 1963 when I first heard Surfin' USA and then Shut Down...and then Surfer Girl and Little Deuce Coupe followed by Be True to Your School and In My Room...and Fun x3 and Why Do Fools Fall in Love and all of the wonderful albums these songs came from.  The Surfin Safari album?  No...sorry ... Not so much.  Then  or  now.

Mike was OK back then.  NOT GREAT...but OK.  Generally it was either him or Brian up front.  Brian's voice soared and intermingled and rose up above and over then back through the entire production.  Mike's just kind of sat there...'foundationally' sneering at anyone who didn't 'get it'.  And there were still plenty who DIDN'T primarily because right from the start they did NOT like his 'nasality'.   Mike's sound was NEVER the best part of the sound for me.  I 'got' the ying and yang 'thing' and that was effective short term.  But even Brian saw and heard the need to expand away from that.  Brian always got that the band HAD to expand, mature and grow or their 'time' would come to an end.  Mike just wasn't made for THOSE times.

No...Ol' Doofus here doesn't get that REAL fans made it their business to learn more about what made this musical 'unit' tick.  What was it that provided us with that aural magic and ethereal ambiance?  We were also interested in knowing what it was that impacted on it to slowly tear it apart and bring it down to some kind of ground level where growth and a grasp of a hithertofore undefined future became unattainable.

Mike's positive contributions will always be appreciated.  They were real, he was a part of it...sometimes a key and important part.  It doesn't excuse him for having had a hand in ruining a probable better outcome for me.  You don't have to know them.  You could hear it...every inch of the way.

Someone else a while back in an old thread tried to posit that having the cheerleaders on "Be True to Your School" wasn't a big deal. The problem was that they came on *multiple* times during the concert, dancing during a number of songs. In that old thread, some video links were posted pointing to some other songs they came on during ("Do You Wanna Dance", "California Girls", etc.).

One of the supposed sticking points for Al was apparently that the already stale setlist would have to be locked even tighter with even fewer variances because the show had to be timed out for costume changes for the cheerleaders.

The cheerleaders were embarrassing and they made the show look like a novelty act, as if their music wasn't enough. Mike eventually relented (I'm guessing either due to attrition due to resistance from within the band, and/or because it was a cost-cutting decision).

The idea of *occasionally* having cheerleaders in a town here and there, some local troop to come one for "Be True...." wasn't too bad. I still think even that was tacky (to anyone who likes looking at the cheerleaders, how about just watching the Beach Boys play and then go home and look at porn or whatever?), but one song at a show here and there, something like McCartney bringing on bagpipes for "Mull of Kintrye" when he plays Canada gigs or something, wasn't too awful.

But there was a point in the 90s where they had a full-time group of cheerleaders touring *with* the band from show to show. And every time I saw footage of it, I was embarrassed. It was dumb. Period.

Al mentioned in his 1999/2000 Goldmine interview that when he had, earlier in the 90s, criticized the cheerleaders being on stage in some interview, he got "in trouble" for it.

Bagpipes make a sound.  A sound indigenous to the place and the song.  Fitting for Sir Paul to use 'em.  Cheerleaders [at least some of them] make a sound too.  I think you can hear 'it' on 20/20.  Perhaps not quite as fitting.

[the old lech]

Yeah, I remember all those shows where McCartney went into "Magical Mystery Tour" and the full-size tour bus drove on stage. And those gigs where Ringo had a Yellow Submarine hoisted from up above, and sang "Yellow Submarine" INSIDE the actual Yellow Submarine.

What was that band that actually had a set on stage to re-enact one of their songs? Oh yeah, SPINAL TAP.

(https://media0.giphy.com/media/k0CrVcxzK7LEc/giphy.gif)

So the girls appeared during California Girls and showed up to dance during Do You Wanna Dance? 

I can kind of understand the issue if the cheerleaders came out during God Only Knows or In My Room. 

I saw the cheerleaders only twice, in 89 and ca. 92 (or whenever Crocodile Rock was on the setlist as the only new thing to push), and I enjoyed them. As they were my first BB concerts, they livened up the whole thing. I'll choose to overlook the porn/wank remark made earlier, but I found them to be no different than dancers at so many other arena size commercial affairs. A bit like Madonna's dancers, if you like. Don't recall them coming back on stage THAT often, but for a long setlist, why the hell not have a bit of fun. Others use back projection, inflatables,  pyrotechnics, this is showbiz, not a chamber concert.

Watch some videos like Philly July 4th 95, they were a team of dancers who changed outfits during the band's sets. Cheerleader outfits, hula girl outfits, maybe others I am forgetting.

I don't think anybody (either Al or fans) were objecting due to cheerleader imagery being inappropriate for a specific subset of songs. That's entirely missing the point.

The point is that it was tacky across the board. Imagine McCartney or Springsteen or Dylan having Cheerleaders on numerous songs.

A band with dozens and dozens of hits and hundreds of songs feeling the need to cheese up their show with dog-and-pony tricks was and is ridiculous. Jardine apparently felt this way but was shot down. I don't know if Carl was against it, or ambivalent, or had given up caring by that point.

But this all just becomes tiresome. It's like Stamos and Full House and all of that. You either get why it's tacky, or you don't (or a third option; being purposely obtuse for some reason).

Imagine playing a prestigious venue with dignitaries in the audience, and opening the set up with "California Girls" with a cheesy fashion show bit with girls in bikinis. It's tacky. And the creep factor of being backed by guys in their 50s, with Mike ogling, certainly didn't help.

The Beach Boys did not need dancers on stage. Especially if they had Mike's superior frontman skills.

Sarcasm....

It connotes that your music isn't interesting enough. And you know, the band were pretty tired and stale in the 90s. The criticism of the cheerleaders isn't just about their presence, it's about the band becoming tired and rote and lazy. How about put money into rehearsals to add more songs to the setlist, or add another band member or something?

And the dancers at BB concerts were nothing like what you see at a Madonna (or Britney Spears, etc.) show. That's an *entirely* other deal. Those are single artists performing under their own name, singing and (usually) not playing an instrument, and with the main artist in question (Madonna, etc.) dancing themselves.

If the BBs had always been a "dancing" band (and no, their lame bit on "Barbara Ann" doesn't count), then adding more dancers wouldn't create such dissonance with the rest of their setup.

But certainly some people have the "I like looking at cheerleaders, and got a beer in my hand, and somebody's up there singing some sort of Beach Boys song, so it's all good!" sort of attitude.

To suggest a troop of traveling dancers coming and going on stage during the show is tacky is not to suggest the BBs need to be dressed in tuxedos nightly while the audience looks on with opera glasses.

Again, imagine Springsteen or CSNY or McCartney adding that to their shows. They KNEW better. And their music is the focus of the show, not dancers.

Here you get Stamos AND dancers!:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCAtrNXm-D0

I think they were gone by the time the guys were past fifty. BB's were at times high art, other times very commercial, so you can't really liken their material to Dylan's beard-stroking stuff. Or Bruce's raucous blue collar anthems. I'll concede that if they dominated as much as has been reported here, that would be off-putting. But bringing them on for a few uptempo numbers, the way I recall it, can't see any harm in that. A BB setlist would always straddle high art and commercial entertainment.

The cheerleaders were there until at least 1995, at which point Mike was 54, Al and Bruce were around 53.

And whether or not we should consider the BB and their catalog as worthy of having Dylan and Springsteen as peers, that pretty much cuts to the heart of the Brian/Mike, art/commerce thing that fans have been hashing out for eons.

Of course the BBs, and especially Mike, veered more toward the tacky, novelty shtick. Adding cheerleaders was just extra salt on the wound.

Watch some of that mid 90s stuff, where Mike is leering at the dancers, Al looks disengaged if not pissed off, Carl looks blank, and compare that to a great C50 show.

And we saw what happened when a bit of Mike's "flavor" of stage shtick was attempted during C50, when Stamos was brought in while they played NYC. Most of the band was off-put, as was much of the audience and the reviewer for one of the NY papers. Imagine if they had added cheerleaders.

I think you may have misunderstood me here, I rate BB's much higher than Dylan, and consider their art/commerce dichotomy one of their strengths. Springsteen doesn't even come into consideration for me, other than what he did for Gary US Bonds.

Regardless of how we precisely rate these artists, I'm simply talking about similar popular artists (e.g. generally identified "rock" artists) who regularly tour, and who want to be taken seriously.

The art/commerce dichotomy only works when everybody is the same page and it's making for a better product. 1965 Beach Boys would be an example of this.

What *isn't* functional is a band who disagrees on whether to have cheerleaders on stage. What isn't good is one guy writing the ending suite to TWGMTR while the other guy pantomimes suicide by gunshot. What isn't good is one guy writing "'Til I Die" and the other guy having apprehension because the song is a "downer."

And these are the cases where at least the product *did* make it out. It's more a cautionary tale of how the "commerce" mindset could have derailed great art.

With the BBs, we also have a case where the "commerce" guy who pushes for cheerleaders and palm trees and "Summer in Paradise" is actually ultimately often if not usually proven to be wrong about his commercial instincts. "Summer in Paradise" sprung from the "palm trees and cheerleaders on stage" mindset, and it bombed.

Nobody watches C50 shows (or even Mike's modern day shows) and longs for the schlock of a 1994 Beach Boys concert with the guys in baseball caps and board shorts, surf boards and palm trees all over the stage, John Stamos and Mike Kowlalski trading off on drums, and dancers.

I may have missed it. Did they every add the Capital City Goofball to the touring lineup?

(http://static-media.fxx.com/img/FX_Networks_-_FXX/14/551/Simpsons_07_20.jpg)

That looks like it was taken from the Philly July 4th '95 show. The whole show used to be up on YouTube. I still have it on VHS, direct source.

I was hoping the entire show could be viewed for reference of what this band was on stage in '95. You get everything. Sound gremlins. Mike's schtick. Dancers changing outfits. Shaky drumming. Then-Mayor Ed Rendell and his wife on stage with Mike. A version of "Summer In Paradise" that felt as long as the full album version of In A Gadda Da Vida. Gaudy stage sets. Carl looking kind of bored. Stamos running around playing guitars, drums, conga, etc. No Brian.

But back on track:

I'm still waiting for someone to offer an example to see Mike in the "early days" and his frontman routines acting as one of the driving forces behind the band's success.

This may be unpopular to say, but if anyone was driving the band's success in the early days it was Murry Wilson with his old-fashioned salesman's hustle, schmoozing, pounding the pavement, working the phones,  and persistence. The fact a band of kids with no track record was able to get as many key bookings and radio play as they did is credit mostly to Murry and the fact they were making records that the kids were digging, especially around their home-base area.

I still can't see where a guy emceeing or telling jokes on stage was in any way on par with the way Murry was hustling any number of DJ's, promoters, and record biz people in those early days. And if the music sucked, it wouldn't have mattered anyway.

I seriously doubt the appeal of the band in those days was wanting to hear Mike's frontman schtick on stage, if he even had it in full flight in 61-62-63. It was the music.

Just trying to put things into perspective a bit.

Weren’t you at that show? ;D

There was a lot more to that show before and after, but I think all fans should watch the full video of the complete performance just to get a perspective of what it was really like in '95. It's right there on full display and that concert circulated on the old tape trading circuits more than others because the local ABC station in Philly broadcast the whole thing in hi-fi stereo that night of the 4th.

I'll put it this way. Usually if a band is doing a higher-profile gig that is being broadcast live on TV to potentially millions, they would play up to it and try to exceed their capabilities in terms of putting on a kick-ass show for the audience watching. So in theory you would get the best the band can offer in that situation, pulling out all the stops. I won't comment any more on the quality, but again try to seek out the full show and everyone can judge for themselves after seeing it.

I did mention upthread that Murry was the main driving force in the beginning, Mike second. But, for all of Murry's hustling and promotion, the band still needed Mike to hold those shows together, however short they were in the beginning.

I guess that's my question too, how did Mike hold those shows together exactly? I'm talking about the early years in particular. I just can't see in those days, at the kind of shows they were doing, what Mike could have been doing outside of being a member of a band that elevates him second to Murry as a driving force for the band's climbing the ladder of success before they really broke out nationally. I think it's been overstated.

I think Mike's front man routine was essential in the early years because the rest of the band just didn't have it socially or was too shy to actually talk. They had little stage presence except for Mike They still didn't have much and boy by 67 Mike's shtick got old fast which makes the banter in those late 60s show just completely cringeworthy. Bruce and Dennis stepped it up by the 70s and there was no need for Mike to be a frontman as the music filled more of the void. Mike wa awful then too. He hit a second stride in about 76-80 when they did the arena rock and is listenable  and then the shtick just got tired and old since the early 80s

The cheerleaders began as a way to feature local schools. Al mentions this in the Goldmine article and you can see it done in the 88 Arizona concert.  At some point that changed to a permanent hiring and an ever increasing roll.  Eventually, they had to plan the set list around their costume changes. They never should have lasted that long.

I agree - it wasn't just a case of cheerleaders, this was a group of dancers who came to the band's stage act complete with choreography and costume changes that went beyond adding a bit of schtick to "Be True To Your School". They'd dress in hula-style outfits, bikinis if I recall, and whatever else I guess the PTB thought would add to the experience of seeing a Beach Boys show. The fact there was tension among band members specifically because of adding those dancers beyond "Be True..." and the school schtick speaks volumes.

Let me rephrase or clarify or whatever:

Does anyone know what Mike was doing even before 1963, in terms of being a "frontman"? Is there any record of Mike doing something beyond being a band member that we can reference?

All I have been hearing is how crucial and essential Mike's role as frontman was in building up the band's cache, some placing him equal to or second to Murry Wilson who was doing the real hustling at that time to boost the band, yet I don't see any actual accounts of him doing something extraordinary on stage that would warrant such credit and praise as being essential to the band's success.

And in terms of being an emcee, a lot of the early gigs had their own emcee who was either some local DJ or personality or someone bigger in that market who would host these concert bills with multiple acts playing the same gig, maybe getting 30-45 minutes each if that. It's hard to place where Mike's frontman duties would even have room in such a set where they would have the impact we're being told he had on those early gigs.

I could make a crude generalization about why people were going to see a band like the Beach Boys beyond the music itself, but I won't - Yet I'd seriously like to know if any original fans were so impacted by Mike's stage act that they came back to see the band again because of that element in the shows.

Most people go to shows to hear the band play, to dance, maybe to hook up, and in the case of bands with dynamic and good-looking guys like Dennis Wilson, they may go to see them for the same reasons thousands of women will still follow John Stamos wherever he plays. Note - That is not meant to be a sexist comment if anyone tries to say it is. But Stamos' appeal is what it is, as was Dennis' I'm sure in the early days. The music was good, people could dance to it, and there were cute guys in the band. Simple as that. What does an emcee matter after those elements are in place?

Kds, sometimes I have agreed with you. But I can't ever ever agree with a "POV" which calls Brian "a gifted re tard". That's hateful beyond words, and it saddens me that you can defend that piece of trash, though you admitted that "it went too far".
It didn't go too far, shouldn't even have started.

No McGrath? :'(

I think acknowledging but then kind of ignoring the insulting, inflammatory stuff in that piece kind of goes along with the ethos of the piece itself, which is to acknowledge Mike's downside to some degree but then just kind of ignore it, use some elements of false equivalency, etc.

If there was *nobody* else online or out in the field of journalism/writing who was writing thoughtful pieces about the BBs, including looking hard at how justified Mike's reputation is, then maybe it would be worth excising the ugly stuff from this Bagge piece and then consider the potentially salient points.  

But as I've said, Bagge's piece is sub-par and now also out of date. There are others writing better and more thoughtfully about the subject, and with more expertise.

Also, somewhat separately, I think anybody with a brain is going to question the motives of an article that mix two disparate points, namely pumping up Mike Love's role, while downplaying things that are known to be beloved by Brian and BB fans (e.g. "Love You."). It's not that the two points can't both be made, or that they aren't in some ways connected. But frankly, if someone writes a long piece that includes both defenses/trumpeting of Mike Love and *also* trashes "Love You", that's a huge "troll" warning sign.

I'm not saying people have to like "Love You." I'm not even as enamored with it as its most enthusiastic fans. But I also think "Love You" is a good litmus test for how closely a BB fan is listening to the *music* and is able to analyze and digest it. That is, there are *brilliant* compositions on that album, and often I find that people who dismiss it because it sounds clunky and has the blurting synths and all of that are fans that have a bit more of a superficial listening attitude towards their music.

Frankly, even if you *hate* the music on "Love You", it's an immensely important album and a *key* insight into Brian Wilson's frame of mind at that time in his life and in the band's history. Which also highlights that, I guess, some fans don't care about the history and the scholarship, don't care to listen to session outtakes, and it's just about putting the officially released core set of albums on and just giving thumbs up or thumbs down.

I think we need to get the viewpoint of people who were actually there more than those of us who are looking through 2010's lenses (or really through the lens of anything but the early to mid '60s). So for that maybe we could hear from Lee Marshall or Debbie Keil?

Anyways, I've spoken with my mom, dad, their friends, etc who were alive and aware in that era and most of them agreed that Mike Love was a bit of a dork. That's just what they said. And that's through the eyes of girls (and guys) who were from like seven to fifteenish years old at the time. Now they also thought Mike was a great singer and they all know his name still and when asked who the "lead singer" of The Beach Boys is, they'd say Mike Love and not Brian Wilson or Carl Wilson.

So I do think the whole, "he's been such a great entertainer since the beginning" thing is a bit shabby. I'd say he really only came into his own fully by the early '70s and peaked in the mid '70s while bottoming out whenever they brought the cheerleaders in.

Here's my thoughts on that:

Given the sheer amount of Beach Boys hits and their enduring and ongoing popularity, there is absolutely no reason why a front man for that band couldn't have the kind of legacy that someone like Mick Jagger has. I think the fact that Mike Love had the opportunity, not to be like Jagger, but to have his reputation as a frontman, speaks to his overall ineffectiveness as a person with stage presence. I think the face of a wildly popular band is going to inevitably be popular when you cut to him or her during a performance. But it's what one does from there that I think establishes your strength as a frontman, and I can't say that Mike built on it in any way.

The other issue, which many have noted here, is that Mike Love does not have the sense of humour to carry off his stage patter. I have used this example before but I feel like that very early home recording of the band doing Surfin' illustrates Mike's somewhat awkward social mannerisms. There's the bit where Dennis is fooling around and Brian to him, "If you laugh, I'm gonna pop you in the mouth! And if I laugh, you can pop me in the mouth!" And the response is laughter - because Brian adds the second sentence which deflates his first comment a bit, so that it comes off not as harsh but more playful. Then Mike says to Dennis, something like "And I'll pop you in the mouth so hard you won't be able to pop me." Followed by silence. To me, this was an early example where Mike just didn't get it. It really reminds me of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4jVLc3ylhw

I could see Zimmy doing it just to do it! Except maybe he'd have Victoria Secret models stalking the stage.

I've spoken to many folks who lived through the "original" era in the 60s. The Beatles were cool. A lot of people thought the BBs *music* was cool, but they were seen (to varying degrees) as kind of dorky, and in particular Mike was seen as kind of dorky and hammy. I think, especially in the early-mid 60s, the people who thought Mike was a dork didn't have any vitriol for the guy. It was just kind of an amused sort of "pfftttt, what a dork."

Where my questions come from seems to be getting further away in the discussions, but I'm genuinely interested so I'll try to focus them again...and perhaps no one has the answer anyway.

It comes down to being told and reading how vital Mike's "frontman" role was to the band's early success. I want to know what Mike was doing in the early days as some called it that would put his role equal to or second to Murry Wilson in terms of who played a key role in the early days of the band when they were playing in 61-62 and perhaps into 63.

I just watched an interview with Dean Torrence who described that early gig when J&D played on the same bill as the Beach Boys, and the BB's ended up backing up the duo at the gig. Dean described it just as I did earlier, this kind of early gig where multiple bands would be on the bill, and each would get a limited amount of time. I said 30-45 minutes per band which is still pretty standard even at venues in 2018, but Dean said it was more like 15-20 minutes per act at those shows. That lines up with alot of what I've heard, and it was not The Beatles playing 8 hour marathon gigs in Hamburg or long sets at the Cavern. It was a band like the BB's playing very short sets in the early days.

And my point is, how much impact would Mike's frontman bits have had in such settings to where it would be so fondly written about decades later by various historians and to the point where Mike's role gets elevated to being on par with Murry's work in hustling and dealing for the band in those years?

Just trying to figure out where all of the praise is coming from surrounding those early gigs, when no one seems to have a grasp on what Mike actually did at those early gigs beyond sing his parts as the band did their 15-20 minute sets or whatever they did.

In many ways the group did well [to start] because of Mike's role...more as the main singer back then.  He wasn't the main guy writing with Brian.  Roger and Gary contributed to the body of work too.  Love stepped up as the thing picked up momentum and because he was HANDY.  Roger and Gary didn't travel.  Murry hustled gigs.  He did it the old fashioned way...and for a short time it worked and got the band rolling with enough gigs to establish a foundation.  Fred Vail turned it into a money maker.

Love?  As a frontman?  Pitiful.  His patter was corny and his lilting, lisping 'gay' thing was so off-putting in every way.  How would gay guys have felt?  Set upon?  And for what reason?  Then there was Mike the 'go-go' dancer.  What a stupid lookin' buffoon.  His dancing was very distracting and anything but cool.  It was like...Hey!!!  I can't play an instrument unless you want a 2 note sax solo.  So watch this!!!   NO!!!

How many songs did love co-write on the 1st album...5?
On Surfin USA?  3.
Surfer Girl?  4.
LDC? 4...but 3 of them had been used on the first and then 3rd albums so really?  Just 1.
Shut Down 2...with that glorious 2 note sax solo...3...and to be fair...2 of them are classics [for the first time]  Fun Fun Fun and Warmth of the Sun.  THAT is where it BEGAN.  THAT is where Mike became Brian's collaborator...for All Summer Long,  Today and it began to tail off after just 3 albums with Summer Days and Summer Nights.  THAT'S IT!!!

After that...it was more occasional with Mike attempting to insinuate himself where he was no longer really wanted...or needed.  AND THIS is where it all slowly began to fall apart.  The always oh-so-seedy "Nourishment and revenge" has been a problem FAR longer than many here would care to admit.  But that's been a problem now for 52-53 years.  Repeat...an up front/front man PROBLEM.

Front man?  When it comes to being a startlingly HUGE arsehole...he's been way out front for over half a bloody century.  Where he stands as a songwriter [lyricist that is] and as the bottom of the vocal stack and for adding little nuances and the odd catchy idea is one thing...but as a front man?  Carl led the live band.  He directed the whole show.  Now Scott does it.  Mike can't lead the Beached Boys any more than he could lead the Beach Boys.  He's a one trick pony.  Someone get a pail and the shovel.

I interpreted it as the writer lampooning some extreme perceptions of Brian.   I honestly don't think it was meant to be hateful. 

I think that's making too many excuses for an a-hole article. I don't know that the guy was trying to be hateful, but I also don't buy that he doesn't hold the views/sentiments that he's conveying, including the inflammatory language. Looking at Wiki, the guy is apparently a staunch Libertarian, which explains the dispassionate, blunt nature of his writing and the penchant for being skeptical of the "tortured artist" motif vis-à-vis the "hard working guy who front the band" motif.

If he was using the inflammatory language in his article to somehow subvert an argument or something, then perhaps I'd buy he was "lampooning" extreme perceptions. But the points he makes that includes the over-the-top, inflammatory stuff, actually supports the thesis of his argument.

If it was an article about how people wrongly assume Brian is a "re tard", then I'd take his language as sarcastic/sardonic/lampooning. But his article implies he *agrees* with such an assessment.

Again, articles looking at the over-deification of Brian or fans being too overly-forgiving, and/or articles about Mike Love's role being excessively minimized, are all good ideas for articles. But this article is just sub-par. I could make this guy's argument for him better than he did, and I don't even agree with his thesis/supposition.

Apparently, the guy should stick to comic books.

I hate to go there, but am I the only one who finds it odd that usually those who are much more forgiving to Mike and Bruce's f***ed up behavior seem to be on the far right side of the political spectrum?

There's no way to not get into politics to get into this area. Theoretically, I think we could objectively point out the similar politics of Mike and Bruce and a lot of their ardent supporters, regardless of whether one agrees with those politics or not.

To answer the question, it's a resounding yes. Many of the ardent Mike supporters (meaning the extreme folks who rarely if ever admit to *any* fault on his part) seemed to share many of Mike's personality traits and some of Mike and Bruce's political proclivities. It absolutely makes sense. Thankfully, the most extreme fans who seemed to display this tendency are no longer on this board.

I don't think Mike is 100% right is everything he does, but I really don't see the problem with leaning a little to the right. 

Never paddled a canoe KDS? :lol  Of course there's a problem leaning to the right.  And that's not the only place.  What side of the bed do you sleep on?  And what if 3 Russian hookers start peeing on you?  ;)

B :hat :police:

Seems noboby's familiar with Petter Bagge's work. For the last 30 years, he's been one of the main artist working on independent comics. His HATE series is a must. And he's the author of a web series dedicated to Murry Wilson, Rock 'n' Roll Dad. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVrydhy-YZ4

Wow!!!  How cripplingly mean-spirited that is for the survivors...and for their off-spring.  If you know the story...or even if you don't...who's this aimed at?  What's the real target?  And there are more of them?  Easy to see why these 'cartoons' continue to 'live' in the shadows.

Nope, I was aware from the outset that he's a comic book artist. His art isn't my thing either, but perhaps he's well respected in that field. But his writing on the BBs is hackneyed and click-bait-ish.

If a well-respected BB author/researcher/expert tried to draw a comic book, maybe that would come out awful too. I dunno.