The Smiley Smile Message Board

Ever since I first got into the BB, which was @ '84, I have strongly disliked Mike Love. Why? Well, you all know the answer.  But now I'm starting to think I've been tricked. Leaf and Gaines were the first guys I read, and they paint a picture of Mike as a total ass. I agree that he seems extremely short-sighted, artisticly speeking, and comes across in interviews as an egomaniac and revisionist, which he probably is. Still, there is evidence that he at least thinks he is doing the right thing (Like in that Maury Povich piece from '91) and has genuine love for his cousins. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE BW and was even named after him by my all too cool mom, but I am wondering who is the real revisionist, Love or Leaf?

"Been tricked"...hmmmm...interesting theory.  Really attitudes toward Mike have changed a lot in the past few years.  I predict that trend will hasten with the release of the Marks' book. Maybe not.

Leaf and Gaines went for the easy answers. Whole lotta more answers elsewhere, but those are harder to stomach.

Life was more fun when you could freely bash Mikey without getting a reverse backlash.  :afro

Seriously, though, I'm still no fan of his but I do recognize his contributions which were considerable. I guess what I resent is his resentment.  As far as Leaf goes , I don't think he was neccesarily trying to trick you.  And I don;t think you or anyone else was tricked in any way.  David told a version Brian's story that  had validity for the time.  David's agenda  with Brian's legacy is not a bad agenda, IMO.  Brian's music and legacy needed to be stripped of the Hawaiian shirt cheesiness that became associated with the 1980's BB.  Where David has gone wrong, though is downplaying the actual contributions made by the BB. Mike and David have both done more than their fair share of revising.  Mike needs to take his own advice - cool head, warm heart and Leaf needs to step aside from the Brian world. California Myth is important, but I fear he's probably going to further undo the good work that he did do.  Having said all of that , the portrait of Mike that is painted in Catch a Wave might be the most fair done of him in the BB story

I think Leaf was well intentioned if a bit naive when he 'denounced' Brian's situation in the late 70s. Thirty years later he's at the other side of the fence and he knows things aren't as simple as 'Just let Brian do whatever he wants'.

That's why he should have known better when he made 'Beautiful Dreamer'.

I have a like / loath opinion when it comes to David and Mike, simply put below...

Mike (Pros) - Lead singer, excellent lyricist, upbeat, good frontman, positive
        (Cons) - TM, cheesy, revisionist, sold out, sleazy, narrow minded

David (Pros) -  Got Brian's career back again, loves the music, good PR / marketing man
          (Cons) - Sycophant, cheesy, narrow-minded, revisionist, sold out (the BW doll anyone?)

I think the problem as to why there hasn't been BB's reunion is because David & Mike are similar in their traits / cons, but, David's career now depends on Brian and Mike's doesn't in the sense he doesn't need new Beach Boys material to perform

I have some very strong feelings about this but I do want to maintain my tact. Let me just say that Mike's resentment of Brian was not nearly as present before 1978. Mike went down the wrong road artistically, but Brian isn't artistically infallible either. Brian sure has comeback since 1999, but before that there was 20 years where only the 88 LP really offered some hope. I think Leaf is a member of Brian's version of the Memphis Mafia. Malibu Mafia perhaps :P.  Seriously though he overreached and forgot that these are real people he is writing about with real feelings. Marilyn, Mike, Al, even Dennis and Carl didn't get a fair shake by the man.  Yes trotting Brian out on stage in the late 70s and early 80s was very much something that he was right to condemn. Yes Brian has had some very regrettable problems caused by a dysfunctional family, but his drug use, overeating, and lack of drive hurt him as much as anyone else ever could. He made the choice to do these things and one of the things I like about him is that he is willing to admit his fault in doing that. I think it's unfair for 1965 suburban kids and their wives to be condemned for not understanding what Brian was going through.

Zander's list is good though I have no problem with TM and would credit Brian and his band for the comeback more then Leaf.

Sorry, should have put "helped" get his career etc, I think TM was just as much a negative as the drugs scene was, i.e. Mike "Holier than Thou" image and attitude

Okay, I can understand his drug abuse having a negative effect, and the lack of drive was probably caused by a combination of his illness and his drug abuse, but seriously, what sorts of problems did his overeating cause in regard to making music?

Not that I'm doctor, but binge eating can't have done him any good. Was Brian morbidly obese? More than likely. Being that overweight would have made him lethargic and morose I would have thought, which wouldn't have been the ingredients needed to compose another Pet Sounds. Not to mention the manic depression and schizophrenia on top of that...

Well it's not just Leaf who has an anti-Mike bias - virtually all of Brian's collaborators over the years have reported a dislike or negative interactions with him, Jack Riely, contemporaries (like Neil Young when he was in Buffalo Springfield and toured with the  Beach Boys).  Is Mike just misunderstood, by everyone?  When everyone's against you, maybe the problem is with . . . you!  Leaf overstated and oversiimplified his case and that has perhaps led to the revisionist backlash in support of Mike - it is certainly unfair to tell the BB story without giving Mike his due.  But Mike's anger/resentment towards Brian is clear even in recent balanced accounts by Peter Carlin who has no particular axe to grind in the Beach Boys story - just read the interview in the book!  I have no doubt that Mike believes he loves his cousin, and maybe he does - but his actions and words rarely show that love.  It's more a "tough love" for a misbehaving child than an accepting and supportive love.  Mike is not the sole villain in Brian's story and really is not an intentional villain at all, he believes he is doing the right thing when actually it is the wrong thing.

Mike Love's flaws are there for all to see. It's almost like from some point on he accepted that some fans would always hate him and then started to say the wrong things just to rub them off.

Brian's flaws aren't very apparent. He built the perfect victim character and manipulated Leaf into writing a book about this Brian. He's always doing that under that passive agressive persona, manipulating people, getting rid of best friends when he gets tired of them, making people do the dirty work for him. For example, if he doesn't have more contact with his first family it's because he wants it that way. Surprise! The fans think it's 'Melinda''s fault! Brian is a genius indeed.

Back to Leaf...
Beautiful Dreamer: the director didn't have to give the Beach Boys their due. If the focus was on BWPS as a solo project, fine. It's a great story, but if you're gonna do the laundry, be fair to everyone and don't whitewash only when it suits your agenda. 

I don't think Brian manipulated anyone into writing a book about him, that's pretty farfetched - the Brian as victim was Leaf's vision, not Brian's.

Agree 100%

Agreed, 110%!

I don't remember most of Brian's collaborators being too crazy about Brian's behavior and interactions.  I thought Young and Mike were buddies.  We're taking Jack Rielly's word without a block of salt?

One man's revisionist backlash is another man's inching towards reality I suppose.

I bet we'd all be surprised [if we asked] by how little contact or interaction many people who express opinions have had with the subject of their opining.

Anyway, looking forward to the Mark's book.

Man, I swear I've read in a BB message board someone blaiming Mike for the Buffalo Springfield split because he was always hanging out with Neil and giving him ideas when they toured together.   :smokin

Brian didn't force Leaf to write a book, sure. Pardon me for my poor writing skills. But when Leaf arrived at the scene Brian had already perfected his 'victim' act and Leaf bought it. That's what I meant.

Actually, you'd be surprised in some cases how much interaction  people who have expressed opinions have actually had with certain people. I know I was. :/

Don't forget the earlier Leaf:

Earl Leaf spoke about Mike in less than flattering ways in the early 1970s based on his experience with the band in Europe in the 1960s. (See Tom Nolan's Rolling Stone piece.)

On the later Leaf, one of the major flaws of "The Beach Boys and the California Myth" is that the author (like most people) seems to have had little or no knowledge of the real nature of SERIOUS mental illness in general and the specific diagnoses of Brian Wilson in particular.


If you think that Brian was choosing to be weird in 1967 or just doing too many drugs and don't have an understanding of schizoaffective disorder and other schizophreniform brain disorders, you are probably going to place the blame on outside agents, like Mike Love or Murray Wilson.

Certainly, their (Mike and Murray's) misunderstanding of Brian did nothing to help his situation and probably made it worse.

But without Mike Love, the Beach Boys would be, well, you can speculate all day on how  or whether Brian's music would have come to us, but the ONLY way we know of that it did come to us is with the contributions from and interference of Mike Love.

There were rumblings about The Beach Boys' lack of harmony in the 1976 People magazine cover story, and then again in the imfamous September 1977 Rolling Stone article. But David Leaf was the first to devote a BOOK to it. Well, not an entire book.

David Leaf succeeded in laying out the stereotype - Mike is the stick-to-the-formula "Fun Fun Fun" guy and Brian is the progressive tortured artist who was held back - better than anyone. And it stuck. And I believe Leaf's book did have an influence on the Beach Boys' career. Things probably would've eventually come out, but not as quickly.

What bothers me isn't so much that David Leaf made the first heroes and villains book. Like I said, one would've come eventually. What bothers me is that the stereotypes that Leaf laid out are going to last for a long, long time. Beyond all of our lifetimes. The history books that follow will publish these stereotypes. I don't think Mike Love's side will ever be heard. And Mike knows it. That might have a lot to do with his numerous lawsuits. He has/had something to prove. In a court of law, they're called facts. In Beach Boys' biographies, well...   

Mike is trying to save his legacy through the lawsuits, but obviously he would achieve that goal better by stopping the lawsuits, which only feed into the stereotype. If I had never read seen Beautiful Dreamer and had only read Mike's own quotes, I would still think he's a jerk. He comes off that way, whether it's true or not. And his actions in court make it worse. I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. I can totally see the BBs trying to stop Brian at that time, not because they were evil or vindictive, but because they were scared. And I can see Brian manipulating others and dropping friends, not because he's evil or vindictive, but because he's scared to lose control over people and what little control he still has over himself. There's this to be said about Brian-- I don't think he's ever purposely hurt anyone, has he? But I can only see a jerk suing his own mentally ill cousin and talking about his cousin's mental illness and living situation in interviews, as if he has any right to do that. Maybe it's just that Brian is smart enough to know that you catch more flies with honey, and that's why he'll actually defend Mike's character when asked.

I think it's great the Brian is getting help and seems healthier-- it makes it harder to question those around him. As for David Leaf, I think he's doing more good than harm. Although he may be a revisionist (intentionally or not, since he wasn't there when it happened), he has done a lot to further Brian's musical legacy, and Brian deserves to be celebrated as David presents him- as a great artist.
I also think that Mike needs to get some help. He has his own psychological issues that would be better played out in a therapists' office than on the pages of magazines.

I agree that Mike's, and also the other members' lawsuits, hurt the band's legacy. That stigma is also going to "stick", probably forever.


I agree again, and that's why I forgive 'em. If I was in their place in 1966-67, I KNOW I would've felt the same way. It's easy to look back at SMiLE with 20/20 hindsight.

Lennon thought Love was a jerk long before David Leaf - as did VDP and Jack Rieley, by all accounts.

I know I'm probably in the minority here, but the demise of SMiLE is nobodys fault except Brians. It was Brian who abandoned the project. Not Mike. If Mike had a problem with the music or lyrics Brian should have taken the time to explain things to him instead of letting other people do the talking (ala Van Dyke). Despite being a great producer and songwriter, I feel that the one thing that hindered Brian was is inabilty to assert his authority and rise to the occasion when the going got tough.

You're right. For whatever reason - drugs, illness or what - BW lost confidence in his ability.  However, for what it's worth, I don't think some of the people  around him helped, and that includes the heroes as well as the villains.

Sidewinder, you are totally right. Brian is THE reason for Smile's no-show. Five years ago I would have strangled anyone who said that, but it seems obvious now.

Hey, we should be tearing Leaf apart, not Brian and Mike!  ;D

But seriously, this and the last Smile thread have been surprisingly civil. Wow.

The think is, some people believe Mike - or the rest of them - were somehow obligated to automatically like SMILE, even if it made no sense to them, just because it was Brian's vision or whatever. This was a group and the rest of the members shouldn't have had to be forced into something they didn't believe in or understand.  Yes, we all know who the creative force was behnd the music and band but the other members were entitled to their own feelings about it, weren't they?  They did have a career at stake. It would be pretty easy to have heard the initial SMILE stuff and say "what?"  As it was, by many accounts, Mike and the others did their professional best with it. Maybe Brian could make the jump from Little Deuce Coupe to God Only Knows to Barnyard or even Cabinessence, but you have to admit it was a pretty wide jump that not everyone could be expected to envision, much less make.  That shouldn't diminish those who were hesitant to jump, nor does it diminish those who could. At least we have SMILE 2004, and that's nothing to sneeze at.

Good points.  In the Leafian school what gets glossed over is that the designated  heroes, ie Posse, were just as or more "resistant" than the designated villains, ie. Boys.

To me both the groups were working their hineys off to please Brian and get done what Brian wanted done even if they did have reservations.  I would put down most reservations as resulting from Brian's lack of explanation of what he/they were doing.

I am thoroughly convinced that Brian was doing exactly what he knew he wanted to do and everyone else was trying hard to do their bit to get it done.  Brian's muse was the only "resistance" imo.

I feel conflicted about this. On the one hand, I agree that the group was being pretty considerate and amenable by agreeing to record pretty much anything Brian told them to record (although that attitude didn't last, did it?). On the other hand, I think, "Well, but of course they should be expected to. If they wanted Brian to be their creative force and weren't creating anything themselves, they had to do what he said. The only other choice would be for BRIAN to satisfy the band by creating something he didn't believe in, i.e., something more commercial. And that wouldn't be fair either."
I do agree that it's Brian who is ultimately responsible for the demise of Smile. But suppose Brian hadn't stopped wanting to do Smile, and the band had held its ground. What would be the options in 1967? Either throw away Smile, which wouldn't be fair, or let Brian do Smile as a solo project, which I can't see the band doing.  I can't even see the band letting Brian produce another band doing Smile.
So Brian doesn't throw it away or find another outlet for it. Instead, he waits until his ties to the BBs are pretty much cut, and then he does it. Fair, right? Given Mike's reaction, you wouldn't think so. He didn't even listen to the 2004 Smile and had no comment about it. That really got me. Here's someone who was musically invested in Brian Wilson for over 35 years. He's Brian's cousin and claims to care about him. Yet when asked about it, he claimed he didn't have time to listen to it, like he couldn't be bothered. He could have listened to Smile once (45 minutes out of his life) and politely said he was happy for Brian. But you get the sense that he resents Brian for recording it, as if the BBs should have done it. And that's just not fair, given what we know about how he felt about Smile.

Amy, you're thinking about the Beach Boys' career decisions in RATIONAL terms.

When Mike was pissed about being left off the songwriting team for the second album in a row he bitched like a girl about Cabinessence lyrics. When Brian lost interest in Brother Records he locked himself in his room and refused to speak to Anderle.

"I think you're overestimating the Beach Boys' capacity to make logical decisions in 1967"
Bruce Johnston, Male Ego Board

I think you can remove "in 1967" from that quote without invalidating it whatsoever.

Amen, Andrew.

Thanks for supporting what I wrote. I used to be afraid of stating my view of DL but I realise I have to be honest how I see things. I am not willing to involve myself in politics and speaking out here was very freeing.

I wasn't referring to David Leaf if that is the impression I gave or it makes any difference to anyone.

Cam I didn't think you were writing about David.  I was talking about The What Of Whom mainly but also others who generally have posted things that supported some or all of what I said

Lennon never was quoted as saying anything about Mike. VDP said it. He is REAL impartial. Mike and Brian both have flaws, both are human beings. I see the Leaf book as the non direct root of Mike's irrational actions in the 90s and beyond as far as quotes and lawsuits. He tried too hard to prove he wasn't a no talent and succeded in a way. His songwriting suit was valid, Brian says so I don't care what Asher says he was around six months tops. The Smile one Mike did is baloney. So Mike has been wrong and right like any other human being

Brian let people like David Anderle(who openly admits to doing this)  and Leaf lead him to hate the others at times too. Watch how he speaks of Mike in the UK doc from around 2002 that Stebbins did. Read how he spoke of Carl in Mojo. He can be mean but he and Mike have been very nice and complimentary to each other too. In person they come off as very good friends. That is why I think it is the people (legally and personally) around them that poisoned the waters. I have an interview where Brian says Mike hurt him a few times and Melinda chimes in and say how about a few hundred? Mike's treatment of Al is much more shady in my eyes, but he has his reasons.

I am not dumb enough to blame Leaf for all that is bad but he is someone who thinks other fans are beneth him (I know this first hand). He loves Brian's music but I think he just made a dysfunctional situation worse. He wrote himself into Brian's life and I wonder how ethical that is as his preformed opinions (right and wrong) were so strong. Sure he helped Brian get recognition but in doing so he hurt other people and I cannot get behind that.

 

MBE, you really hit the nail on the head with that! 100% agree!

Very well put Mike.  Too many people have this view that Brian was the only real talent of the group, or that the Wilsons were the only talented ones. Truth is, they *all* were talented; unfortunately, the book (and subsequent things like Beautiful Dreamer) tends to show Leaf's bias. See, ALL of the Beach Boys (and their family and friends, management, ect) have been both heroes AND villains, and to paint one as 100% one way or the other in not honest, or fair. Good point about Brian's comments about Carl, too.

What were Brian's comments about Carl?

"I see the Leaf book as the non direct root of Mike's irrational actions in the 90s and beyond as far as quotes and lawsuits. He tried too hard to prove he wasn't a no talent and succeded in a way."

What?  You're blaming the Leaf book for Mike's subsequent lawsuits against Brian and his irrational behavior?  What's your source for this?  If Mike had a problem with Leaf's book, he would have sued Leaf - he's never hesitated to sue anyone else.  Leaf's book, which has its' faults and biases, is not to blame for Mike's anger and resentment towards Brian - that long predated the book's publication.

True, but it also perpetuated the myth of Mike as the "untalented" one. I don't think that was the impetus behind any of the suits, per se, but I do think that did strain the relationship further.

We're not able to know what would be the Beach Boys universe like if the Leaf book never existed.  Yes, certainly there was animosity and agression between Mike and Brian before 1978. But after the book there was this myth of the untalented asshole and the genius victim. The first thing I read about the Beach Boys was an early eighties abreviated bio of the band - there it was, the Leaf vision of their history. I'm sure this kind of stuff reached Mike's eyes and ears and being who he is - the typical Beach Boy with a lack of communiction skills - he reacted as he deemed proper.

Let it be known that I, sadly, had bought into that myth for years until relatively recently.

I regret that.

C'mon, fellas, don't keep me in suspense!

Doesn't a lot of the antagonism towards Mike also spring from his relationship with Dennis?

I think it was something like "Carl can't sing for sh*t". That may be an "Uncut" magazine article though from memory...

"Doesn't a lot of the antagonism towards Mike also spring from his relationship with Dennis?"

And with Blondie... and Jack Rieley... and from his dancing... and his first solo album...
Is it really down to Leaf and BW that Love is considered something of a joke?

That post got fubar'd. This is what I was trying to say


Yeah...I think that was it. It's been a few years and I don't remember the exact quote. I do remember everyone on the old Wheeler board (or was it the PSML?) kinda reacting to that with some surprise. Hindsight being 20/20 and all that, that was around the time period where Carl walked out of the sessions for what would've been a new BB album with Brian, which means Carl was either already sick or on the verge.

I never thought Leaf's book characterized Mike as untalented - just as conservative and resistant to Brian's desire to pursue his muse which would affect Mike in the pocketbook where it would hurt him the most.  Where does it say anything about Mike's talent?

Yes.

Rubbish. I think a case ought to be made for Mike being a key figure in the development of rock in the 60s; his lyrics and  vocals were great until the early 70s and he was an entertaining (if occasionally embarrassing and self-consciously unhip) front man.  Regardless of his stance on SMiLE (and I suspect it was no more negative than most of the rest of the band, simply because it was too far out), he contributed to some of their best albums (and songs) throughout the late 60s and early 70s. After that, however, it's another matter. The disintegration of the band was hardly his fault, but dragging out the formula fun stuff has whittled away the integrity the band ought to have.  Leaf maybe the reason a lot of "newer"  fans (especially those who adhere to the BW is practically God view) feel this way, but Mike's got only himself to blame for a lot of other merda.  Was "Don't foda with the formula" a Leafism?

Mr. Rushdie  :)

You asked a question, I answered. In my opinion those threads are going great if we don't kick the dead horse for pages and pages. let's agree to disagree about what happened from the late 70's on.

Bullcrap, Rushdie's absolutely right. There's nothing in his post that is remotely contentious in any way.  Mike can blame a lot of sh*t on Leaf but  there's some things that he can't.

I think you're missing the point. This isn't bullcrap, just OPINIONS.  ;)

Now who's gonna say that the Who are the greatest live band of all time and anyone who thinks differently hasn't been paying attention?  :lol

Now that IS a fact. ;D

Mike Love has one person to blame for the public perception of him and that's Mike Love.  If Mike had half the business acumen and capacity for self-promotion that Jimmy Buffett has, he wouldn't be in the spot he's in today.

I personally agree that Mike's vocals are indispensible to the Beach Boys sound.  Mike should go down as one of the best front men in rock history.  He won't (and that's unfortunate) but that hasn't nothing to do with what David Leaf wrote about him. 

For those of us who haven't read David Leaf's book, what exactly DID he write about Mike Love?

AHAHAHA. I've never heard Jimmy Buffet used as a good example of anything, and I don't know exactly how to respond. So I won't. But...oh, it's funny. Next good examples: Kenny G, John Tesch, and some other boring, watered-down white-bread sh*t.

Mike WISHES he was as successful a singing businessman as Jimmy Buffett. Knock Buffett as an artist  all you want, but he's built himself a nice  little empire of Margaritaville restaurants. And he has a fanatical and loyal audience that sell out every tour and will still buy his new records with little radio support.

As far as "giving the devil his due", Leaf  actually praises the other BB in his book for their talents and their contributions. Leaf was quick to point out that the band's early 70's touring should be credited for  the artistic reappraisal  that BB/BW received starting in the mid-70's. But Mike and certain members of the Wilson and Love clan are also given several brickbats for their behavior towards Brian.

No one here 'blames Mike for everything bad that happened to Brian' or 'blames Leaf for everything that went wrong with Mike's credibility'. The matter is, we are dealing with 45 years of facts and no one is able to write a post where everyone and everything is given its due, so we'll always swing between arguments from both camps.

At least it's better than in the late nineties when there was only one camp.  ;D

Wasn't Nick Kent, among others, writing less than hagiographic stuff about Mile before Leaf?  Leaf's book was, what, 1978?  Kent's article was a few years earlier.

Let's hate Nick Kent. [frowny face in Nick's direction]

Kent's a sleaze. Oh, and more proof that he doesn't know jackshit...remember his claim that nobody else was on Love you other than Carl and Brian (I think he left out Dennis...I got rid of the book a few years ago). Hmm...I wonder who sang Airplane, Roller Skating Child, and Honkin' Down the Highway...

Oh yea, let's hate Kent.  Any more critics to add to this list?  I nominate Dave Marsh. 

At least Marsh bashed the Beach Boys as a band, everyone included.  :-D

He also made a point of rubbishing Bruce's rightful claim that he's on Pet Sounds by saying, "Well, I can't hear him." - Er, end of God Only Knows, Nick?

I just wanna say: I think the title of this thread is very clever.  PongHit appreciates puns.

I actually thought of the title before the topic, that's how twisted my mind is...

Hence, your username :lol

I'd just like to say, Mike Love Has The Greatest Beard EVER, at least on tha DGNTW video on YOUTUBE!

One thing that's stunned me  is how many people who live in L.A. have personally interacted with the Beach Boys.  I'm not talking about people I've met through Darian or Alan or music circles, but just random people I work with.  I bring this up because there were two people at the law firm I work at who mentioned that they knew Dennis Wilson personally at one time in their life and both spoke warmly about what a cool guy he was.  One of them also knew Mike Love and volunteered, without any provocation from me whatsoever, "he's an a**hole."  So, obviously, strong impressions were formed about each man.

Another person I know through non-Beach Boys associations but who was around the Beach Boys in the '70s commented to me, again without any provocation, that any time there was trouble in the band, it seemed to come from Mike Love.

I don't know Mike Love, never met him, but the impressions of people who do know him dovetail rather well with each other, as well as with the impressions I've gathered from watching interviews with him.  I think he's done his own legacy and that of his band tremendous damage over the years and he doesn't really "get" his own band, and he's solely focused on the commercial aspect of making music.  If it makes money, it's good.  If it doesn't, it's bad.  With the exception of his narrow philanthropic endeavors and interests (which, in general, don't translate well into song lyrics), that's where it begins and ends with him.

That said, I will offer up one defense of Mike Love:  it has to be difficult to be the one guy that shows up for work every day without fail, and gets the job done, and see all the love and affection being showered on the guys that are, from your perspective, the biggest fodaups and slackers in the band.  Since Mike has, from what I can tell, no real artistic sense whatsoever, that's all the equation is for him.  And it had to be very difficult to be in a band with the Wilsons (and probably with Mike Love, too).

Still, the Mike Love vibe is one I cannot get behind in any way, shape or form.  His cocky vibe was great on the early '60s records, but past that, neither the public or private persona are ones I can relate to at all.

I'm afraid there won't be a "BIG SUR: THE SONGS OF MIKE LOVE LIVE" any time soon.  :P

interesting post, Adam!

but I think we need the names and addresses of those people who told you Mike was an a**hole ( really??) and exactly what they said before we can believe stories so contrary to revisionist history!!  8)  (sarcasm alert, in case you missed it)

might be worth a lawsuit, too ...

I'm so fuckin' tired of the Brian-bashing, revisionist crap that takes place on the Boards these days.  Mike's not the devil, but he ain't the saint Cam's been telling stories about for ten years either.  Why is it hip to downplay Brian's role these days? What a twisted view; guess he's just lucky Mike let him come along for the ride.

Cam has his flaws, but if not for him we wouldn't have reached a point where even those who have a negative opinion about Mike will say "well, Mike's not the devil, but...". Cam has been shouted at for ten years but he soldiered on and now it's possible to have a dissent opinion without being ganged up by 'those who know better', at least in the Smiley Smile Board. If anyone who thinks there is too much 'Brian-bashing, revisionist crap' feels he's being disrespected by those who disagree, they should notice the moderators, because it ain't cool.

BTW, I have this impression that adamghost is the Adam from the 'Long Promised Road' project. If he's not, I guess my post made no sense whatsoever.  ;D

I try to flaws daily.

At least 3 guys here think I'm an a**hole so it must be true.

Cam is not an a-hole.  He's just a hard working guy.

I don't think you are, dude.

I dont think you're an asshole either, Cam.  I just think your desire to give Mike his due has gotten out of hand to the point that you give him credit he doesn't deserve AND you try to discredit Brian in the process.  Just my opinion.  But I really don't think you're an asshole.  You take a lot more abuse than just about anyone in BB fandom without getting nasty back, and I commend you for that.

You're still wrong about Mike though.   :-D

"he doesn't really "get" his own band"

Kinda sums it up, really.

I know this is late in the thread, but I don't think what kind of person Mike Love is is that pertinent.  Well, it is, but in many ways, not so.  Mike brings people in the tent, and even Brian would say that, even now, with all the hard feelings that have been built up on both sides.   I've only seen the Beach Boys once live, and it was several years ago at a county fair, with just Mike and Bruce in the line-up.  Both the band and Mike gave very subpar performances.  But it didn't matter a whit to the people in the audience.  Plus, Mike's performances on record and his lyrics made a tremendous contribution to spreading the word for Brian Wilson.

Mike isn't necessarily the devil, he just is what he is.  He brings both bad and good to the equation.  I wouldn't want Beach Boys history without him, in spite of his stupid actions at times, or even the fact that he has contributed a lot of bad taste to both the Beach Boys' records and stage act.  When Dennis spoke of the Beach Boys being Brian's messengers, he was including Mike.  And you can't deliver a message without messengers.  Brian would never have done it alone, he doesn't do it alone even now.

In large part, I agree, forget marie.

Nobody is the devil. Nobody is god. As much as creating legends out of pop musicians (or writers or actors or painters or anyone else) seems to be something we like to do, simplifying them into somewhat two-dimensional, if super-human or sub-human, characters, it just isn't real. None of it is real. Granted, that is hard to remember when you get quotes in books, documentaries and so on that seem to tell a different story, but nobody is really two dimensional. Not Mike Love, not David Leaf, not Brian. When the story they tell is two dimensional, it is to sell records, books, and DVDs.

Great reply, forgetmarie. Im with you!

Agree entirely.

To add to the above, Brian is a very kind man in 90 percent of the interviews I have heard, read, or seen.
Joel I don''t think anybody wants to bash him, he just isn't qute the victim Leaf protrays him as. He's too smart for one thing. My point hs been that you don't need to put the others down to love Brian.

Re: David Leaf-- He loves to add to the myth of Brian Wilson, but this is what many writers do. It's like Peter Schaeffer and Mozart. The difference is that Brian is still alive, and so are many other people in the story.

I recently watched the BW biography that someone posted on Youtube. I think it's the A&E one. Anyway, David Leaf talked about that photo of Brian on Senior Ditch Day in his high school. As Peter Carlin says, Brian was upset in the picture because he didn't realize that the ink on his shirt was disappearing ink, so he's standing a bit apart from everyone and staring at the friend with a bemused expression on his face. Cute story.
But David Leaf points out the photo as a symbol of Brian's place in the BBs and in the world... "He wanted to be part of the group, but he just didn't quite fit in," or whatever he said. He didn't mention the ink on Brian's shirt. That's very writerly of David, I think. He takes material from real life and twists it to fit the symbolism that he has, to some degree, created.  But you know, the documentary makers used that comment. It does make the story more compelling!

Thank you, Adam.  That's exactly my feeling on Mike Love, only much more articulate.

You're correct, that post was from Adam Marsland.