That whole Brian/Mike/Murry credit dynamic is still a mystery, to be explained (I've been assured by one in the know) in Mike's book. It has never made sense to me why, for instance, Mike would trust that he would receive credit for writing the lyrics to Calfornia Girls after being denied credit for I Get Around ( and many other songs).

The basic premise is way off-base. Mike, Carl, Dennis, Al, and Bruce were not creatively stifled -- post-1967, they were given every opportunity to write, produce, and arrange.

The notion that including 2 or 3 songs from Brian per lp meant that the rest of the band were unable to flourish as songwriters is nonsense.

Trump has a 56 percent negative rating, Hillary Clinton's is 61 percent. I'd say each is equally divisive.

Would those pearl-clutchers offended by Mike appearing in the same photo as the dreaded Donald be as offended if it were Hillary instead? In other words, is the objection politically neutral ("It's bad for the BB brand to be associated with any divisive politician"), or is it partisan ( "Republicans bad, Democrats good")?

I like NPP much more than do B&J, but I'm not so emotionally invested in my opinions that I can't appreciate a well-articulated contrary position, which B&J's review provided.

Pet Sounds might be my favorite record. Yet I would be interested in a highly detailed, song-by-song analysis by someone who was disappointed in the lp.

But that is just me and my own (sometimes) dispassionate nature. There should also be room in this whole world for more passionate, guitarfool-ish responses. And who wouldn't appreciate having a friend like Debbie?

B&J's review was fair ( though wrong-headed in my view), and not a cheap shot. But, some of the passionate disagreement it inspired was also fair.

It's crazy to realize that Dave had just turned 15 when he quit. If he had stayed, he might well have developed into a songwriter on a par with Carl and Al.

Brian's arrangements were very different from Spector's. Phil went, famously, for a Wall of Sound, while Brian's sound was translucent -- a complex and varied array of sometimes unusual instrumentation yes, but you can hear space around each instrument, and Brian makes clear the relationships between instruments.

In general, Brian goes for clarity, Phil goes for energy and power.

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

Bruce was never a full-time professional session player -- he started out making records when he was a 15 year-old high school student, and then continued in the surf/hot rod genre while attending UCLA.

I believe he only worked with Spector while Spector was himself a teenager just starting out -- Bruce wasn't a Wrecking Crew/Wall of Sound guy.

Leave personalities out of it for the moment. Say that writer A and writer B collaborate on a number of songs over a number of years. The music publisher systematically leaves writer B off the credits, with writer A then getting all the money and all the acclaim.

Does writer A have a moral responsibility to writer B to do all that is in his power to rectify the situation? If so, in this case is there evidence that Brian made serious efforts to rectify the ongoing situation?

Yes, read that interview critically.

 Mike would complain to Brian -- in 1963, 1964, and 1965, the years in question, when Brian was at the height of his influence and power, producing, arranging, and writing not only for the Beach Boys but for other acts as well, and Brian would shrug, take the royalty checks and credit due Mike, and say yeah, Dad messed up, sorry about that.

Are we really saying that there was no way that Brian could have insisted on Mike getting credit, while Gary Usher, Roger Christian, and others were getting their due? Was Brian already so mentally disabled, even in 1963, that he could not have fought for Mike if he were determined to?

I'm not saying that Brian was acting in bad faith, only that he was, in these instances, weak. Being weak and not standing up for those you should stand up for is a betrayal. Brian betrayed Mike out of weakness, and not just once but every time Mike contributed significantly to a song and Murry left Mike's name off the publishing.

Brian was too intimidated by his father to fight him. I understand that, I don't think less of him because of that -- his sensitivity, his vulnerability contributed to making him a great artist -- but let's call a spade a spade. Brian wronged Mike.

Brian is a sympathetic character, Mike is unsympathetic. But take the personalities out of it for the moment, and look at who has wronged who.

Brian cheated Mike out of money, and out of the accolades that Mike deserved. It is those lost accolades that pains Mike the most. Think of it as if an Olympian was cheated out of a gold medal, and then 30 years later had the medal restored to him. At that point, who notices? Who cares? The glory train has long left the station.

Brian betrayed Mike over and over, reneged on promises he had made. What black marks are on Mike's record in his dealings with Brian?

Voicing a perfectly valid opinion about a group project that had his name on it? He didn't sabotage Smile. Smile's failure was down to Brian.

The only major black mark on Mike's record is that ill-advised 2005 lawsuit. And a black mark it is, undeniably, both in the fact that it was filed in the first place, and in the statements it contained.

Still, in balance, Mike was more sinned against than sinner.

I'm looking forward to Mike's book -- there are still mysteries on how that whole Mike/Brian/Murry dynamic worked. I always envision Lucy yanking away the football each time Charlie Brown, trusting as always, tries to kick it. "I know we denied you credit on the last 4 hit singles you co- wrote, but just give us the lyrics to 'California Girls' and your name will be on the record label for sure this time, promise!"

Dish the dirt, Mike. I meditate myself, and I know TM has been very important in your life, but reading about it in detail is dull. Cover the subject in your Maharishi/India/Beatles chapter, then keep any further mentions brief and to the point.

What are the possibilities for lab-grown fish and could this provide a counter to our overexploitation of the oceans?

Well, if all that people are saying is that Carl might have had a successful 80's Adult Contemporary Radio solo career not unlike those of Olivia Newton John, Barry Manilow, or Kenny Rogers -- well yeah, maybe, with a lot of luck, hard work, catchy shlock written by outside pros, and great management.

A more likely road for success might have been with a sort of supergroup, formed with guys from Chicago and America. Maybe such a group could have eked out a couple of hit records, who knows?

What evidence is there that Carl ever had the writing chops for a successful solo career? I mean, he wrote some good songs, but 10 good songs written over a 30 year period does not a solo career make.

Mike has in past interviews been pretty explicit about what he desires. In his view, Wilson/Love should be regarded as one of the great 60's songwriting teams, alongside such teams as Goffin/King, Bacharach/David, Jagger/Richards. 

He was cheated of this recognition during the band's mid-60's heyday, and he feels his contribution is still not given the public and critical recognition it deserves. Granted he is going about seeking this recognition in an abrasive, clumsy way -- but is trying to cement his popular music legacy really so beyond the pale?

Trying to think of a case equivalent to Mike's : closest I can come up with is Johnnie Johnson, Chuck Berry's pianist and uncredited co-writer on most of Berry's classic tunes.

Of course, Mike wound up in a mansion, Johnson wound up driving a bus.

One of the more interesting aspects of Mike's character is the contradiction between his almost 50 years practice of TM, and his proudly professed materialism coupled with his seeming lack of introspection. Not to mention the bitterness.
 
Where is the insight? The perspective? Where is the young man who wrote the lyrics to 'The Warmth of the Sun'? I hope we see this side of Mike in his upcoming book.

Mike was ripped off, but that injustice has been redressed, or as redressed as it is possible to be without rewinding history. He's almost 75. Time to let go of his grudges, however justified, and be thankful for all that life has given him.

Thankful for the genius of Brian, and the brilliance of Dennis and Carl, without whom Mike would now be at best a retired small business owner. And even thankful for Uncle Murry, who cheated him of credit and money but who was instrumental in allowing Mike to live a life of wealth, fame, and creative fulfillment.

I wish Mike the peace of releasing his grudges, his anger, his pride, and his hurts.

About the writing credits : yes, Mike eventually received justice, but 30 years after the time it mattered most to him. When 'California Girls' was a hit  -- that is, when it mattered most -- Brian was the credited lyricist. That will embitter a man.

One thing that this interview demonstrates one again about Mike is his total lack of charm. The guy comes across as completely graceless. Dennis was a far, far bigger a**hole than Mike ever was, but Dennis had charm. Screwing the wives of your brothers, cousins, and bandmates, and everyone is like, "that Dennis, what a rogue!"

'Progressive' implies progress. But progress towards what end? Where is the journey's end for pop music? We know what progress looks like in science, or in medicine, and even politics has a theoretical end point -- the achievement of utopia. But what would be the musical equivalent of utopia?

The concept of progress in rock music was an illusion of the late 60's/early 70's. In 1965 pop music absorbed folk, then blues. 1966/67, rock began to tackle classical, experimental, jazz, and world music. A total music, absorbing and transcending all genres, seemed to be within reach. But rather than produce an all-encompassing, totalizing, mega-music, what we got was ELP doing Copeland with a rock beat.

To the punks, progressive rock was conservative.

Ultimately, it's about whether or not your music lasts. Not so much timeless -- nothing is timeless -- but time-resistant. A progressive rock group is one whose music holds up, is listened to by succeeding generations and influences succeeding generations of artists -- and by that criterion, the Beach Boys are progressive.

1966 was the last year that pop music was a cohesive whole, with Dylan, the Supremes, James Brown, the Beach Boys and Andy Williams all co-existing within the same milieu.

In 1967 the pop world began to split into the FM-radio, album-oriented counter-culture bands, and the AM-radio, singles- oriented artists. Some fantastic music resulted, but something essential -- a common experience?-- was lost forever.

I think that Carl would have been the more likely Scientology convert.

Brian would have become a behind-the-scenes writer/ arranger /producer. Carl and David would have formed a surf instrumental band. Mike become a small business owner, Dennis a bartender.

The Wrecking Crew are way overrated in the 1st place, especially as compared to the Muscle Shoals or Stax session guys, who actually wrote, arranged, and produced the records.

Who, besides Leon Russell, Glen Campbell, Jim Gordon, and maybe Billy Strange, actually made important independent  contributions to the music of the day?

Lousy keyboard playing, but lovely singing.