I've never understood the notion that Brian "screwed" Mike with regard to Sea of Tunes. It seems that Brian and Mike had equal standing in their relationship to Sea of Tunes and were both screwed over by Murry. What did Brian do to Mike?

Brian let record after record be released with (B. Wilson) as the sole writing credit, knowing that he was depriving Mike not only of the royalties, but also of the glory. Yes it was Murry's doing, but Brian at the time was one of the most powerful people in the music industry. Did he fight to give Mike songwriting credit, or did he passively allow for an injustice to continue? This aspect of the group's history is still unclear. I hope Mike's book will tell us.

And yes Mike did get songwriting credit 30 years later. But it was too late. Mike wanted the glory, the respect, the acknowledgment of the public and his peers when, for instance, 'I Get Around' was #1, and not decades after it was on the charts, when no one but a few die hards would care who wrote what.

Mike is bitter. His bitterness does not reflect well on him, or on his decades of meditation. For his sake, I would hope he would find it within himself to move beyond it, to be at peace with the past. But his bitterness is understandable. It is human.

You can't be a Beach Boy fan and hate Brian. You can't be a Beach Boy fan and hate Mike.

Are there any Beach Boys fans still left on this board?

I don't agree with that at all. Do Yankees HAVE to love Derek Jeter? Do Penguins fans HAVE to love Sidney Crosby?  As a Monkees fan, I'm am a part of that fan world and I can definitely say that when he was alive, many Monkees fans considered Davy Jones an embarrassment for a variety of reasons.

So, are you saying that you can be a Beach Boys fan and still hate Brian? I don't see it. Maybe you might find him annoying sometimes, or disagree with some of his opinions or his actions -- but actual hate?

I love the Monkees but don't follow their fandom -- some Monkees fans hate Davy Jones? That strikes me as such an odd thing.

Theoretically, I suppose. But I was actually referring to disliking Mike.

And yeah, Davy was not that popular among some fans. A lot of the songs he sang are considered the worst of their canon. The fact that he was a shoo-in when the TV show was cast (because Davy was already a Columbia Pictures contract performer) didn't endear him to some. Personally, I was not cool with the fact that he sided with Don Kirschner in the battle between Donnie and Michael Nesmith and Raybert Productions. The cheesy infomercials and TV appearances in the 80's and 90's that make ML's FULL HOUSE appearances look like MAD MEN.  And every reunion ended with Davy being an entitled diva.

Ok, I guess it comes down to how you define "fan".

I mean, if for some reason a person hates John, Paul, George, and Ringo (anti-British, maybe?), but loves their records, I would not call that person a Beatles fan.

IMO, "fan" and "hate" are opposing terms.

You can't be a Beach Boy fan and hate Brian. You can't be a Beach Boy fan and hate Mike.

Are there any Beach Boys fans still left on this board?

I don't agree with that at all. Do Yankees HAVE to love Derek Jeter? Do Penguins fans HAVE to love Sidney Crosby?  As a Monkees fan, I'm am a part of that fan world and I can definitely say that when he was alive, many Monkees fans considered Davy Jones an embarrassment for a variety of reasons.

So, are you saying that you can be a Beach Boys fan and still hate Brian? I don't see it. Maybe you might find him annoying sometimes, or disagree with some of his opinions or his actions -- but actual hate?

I love the Monkees but don't follow their fandom -- some Monkees fans hate Davy Jones? That strikes me as such an odd thing.

You can't be a Beach Boy fan and hate Brian. You can't be a Beach Boy fan and hate Mike.

Are there any Beach Boys fans still left on this board?

Mike doesn't give compelling interviews. If only I could think of another Beach Boy who isn't a great interview subject.

Nope. None come to mind.

Two guys that both believe Mike has been victimized and unfairly criticized; I'd be shocked if it *didn't* make for a supremely agreeable interview.

Are you saying that Mike wasn't victimized?

This is a Beach Boys fan site. Mike Love is an important member of the Beach Boys. In fact, during their 1963-1966 glory years, his importance was second only to Brian.

Why, on a Beach Boys fan site, is it considered remarkable that some people would want to defend a Beach Boy?

Though I infinitely prefer Brian as a person and as an artist, I must say I'm looking forward more to Mike's book. I want to read about the band tensions, the little betrayals, the nitty-gritty politics of songwriting credits, the business double dealings, the ego trips, in short -- the gossip.

I already know everything I need to know about Brian -- it's all there in the music. Not saying I won't read his book with interest, but I suspect it will be little more than an addendum to his true autobiography, the records he made.

(Though maybe I'm wrong, and it will offer new insight and enrich what we know about his art. We'll see.)

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

I've just skimmed through all the Anderle mentions in Mike's book. (You can do a word search through the book on Amazon). I missed whatever it is that Jonathan is referring to.

Maybe someone else can give it a shot.

I think this interview doesn't bode well for the book. Mike sounds like he wants to settle past scores instead of telling his life story.

My worry is that Mike seems to think that people want to read about how TM saved him, and that that's going to be the book's main takeaway.

I don't mind a chapter devoted to the subject ("Maharishi, India, Back in the USSR blah blah"). That I can just skip. And I suppose we'll have to have some Love family stuff. But what I really want is the inside dope on the Beach Boys -- the personalities, the clashes, the tours, the songwriting, the recording.

He was losing his hair at the same time he was losing his role as main lead singer.

What function does Mike serve when he's only doing 2-3 leads per lp and doesn't play an instrument? Looking prematurely middle-aged while trying to maintain his front-man status, in what was still a young person's game?

Must of been an insecure period for Mike. Wonder if it will get a mention in his autobiography.

  What function did Mike serve? He sang his parts under Brian's direction, just like Carl, Dennis, Al, and Bruce. In his spare time he also wrote the lyrics to "Good Vibrations."

I think he meant during that specific period when he seemed to take a less active role and Carl was running the show

Yeah, I meant that from 'Sunflower' thru 'Holland', especially, Mike's role in the band seemed as diminished as his hairline. 2-3 leads and a couple of co-writes per lp would be fine if Mike played an instrument, but if the band had continued playing mostly the new material in its live act, Mike would have been in an awkward position. How can you still be front man if the other guys are singing lead on 3/4 of the songs?

Mark Volman played sax back when the Turtles were a surf instrumental band. When they turned to folk rock, he became this fat guy banging a tambourine in back while Howard Kaylan sang lead and the rest played instruments. Volman didn't even write. You'd watch the Turtles perform and think, what the hell is that guy doing with the band? Is he a fan who won a contest, or something?

Some different turns of fate in the 70s, and Mike might have become a Mark Volman figure, a bald guy banging a tambourine, singing background and trying to look like he belonged there while Brian, Carl, Al, Dennis, and Bruce took their turns singing the bulk of the leads.

He was losing his hair at the same time he was losing his role as main lead singer.

What function does Mike serve when he's only doing 2-3 leads per lp and doesn't play an instrument? Looking prematurely middle-aged while trying to maintain his front-man status, in what was still a young person's game?

Must of been an insecure period for Mike. Wonder if it will get a mention in his autobiography.

Late 60s, Carl mastered Brian's production and arranging techniques. Early 70s, Carl seemed really tuned in to the best of what was happening musically at that time, and was able to extend the band's sound into fresh, exciting new directions.

Then came the long silence, and when he re-emerged in 1979, he had seemingly lost touch, lost his ear, his good taste. There was no drop-off in the quality of his songwriting ( he was never prolific), but his 80s/90s arrangements seemed to default to Adult Contemporary of the cheesiest, blandest sort.

I can see how this happened in the 80s -- Carl going in for the smooth, synthetic sound that was fashionable in the pop mainstream. But that style had become dated by the late 80s, early 90s, and for some reason, Carl never caught up to what was happening.

You're conflating so many styles together that it's meaningless to state "mid-60s" when these are separate influences. If anything, LOVE YOU moves in a direction that would become popular later--synth-based pop. But would I try to say that BW's "farting synts" were the "inspiration" for all that 80s music? No. I would be making the same overly generalized, meaningless comparisons that you are. Patti Smith's hit ("Gloria") is Them, sure, but just how is Them part of the garage rock in America? Answer: it ain't. And Welshman art-rocker John Cale produced Patti's first LP, Lenny was just the guitarist.

Dave Edmunds' name-checking of the BBs in that song is great...except that the song was written in 1994. Rockpile was an extension of what he'd been doing for several years after debuting as a flashy instrumentalist. Sure, Edmunds and Nick Lowe (an original member of Brinsley Shwarz, the first pub-rock band, first LP in 1971...) glommed onto "new wave"--who didn't in 1977-79? Even Bill Nelson broke up Be-Bop Deluxe and went "new wave" for an LP.

"Garage-rock" ain't the BBs, and "new wave" didn't even dominate the airwaves in the USA in the time frame. Face it, the BBs tried nostalgia, milked it for a hit, but the LP was mostly a steaming pile and that cost them a great deal with the record-buying public. A lot of buyer's remorse with that record--and yes, I was there and I was one of them! Something that bridged the gap, songs that broke new ground while still keeping a significant flavor of the vocal blend, was what they needed in the long in-between from Holland to 15BO. They didn't deliver it, they became slaves to their past, and the factions in the band became permanent and insurmountable--except when there's big enough bucks in it (50th anniversary) for them to get back together and "do it again."

According to your logic, the BBs should have released "Sea Cruise" in early 1977. I would love to go back in time and wager some big bucks with you on whether that track would have gone even Top 40 if they'd done so. It certainly was a better overall record than any of the oldies they put out on 15BO. "R&R Music" made it because the pump had been primed for any BB product in the summer of '76 and the clever strategy of covering Chuck Berry got them a lot of airplay--until people eventually came to their senses and realized what an clunky track it was. The backlash was pronounced that even through the most of the critics praised LOVE YOU, fans were confused, leery and weren't ready to embrace "teenage Brian Wilson."

We're talking at cross purposes.

In 1977, the future of rock lay not in the white boy funk, blues, and r&b of Little Feat or Bambu, but in the New Wave reprise (with a contemporary edge) of the catchy, bright, melodic pop of the mid-sixties. Nothing to do with a 50's song like 'Sea Cruise'.

Now, that was a road down which the Beach Boys would never pull off (though I'd argue that LOVE YOU was an accidental, Modern Lovers-type New Wave record). I'm not saying that the band should have pursued making New Wave records, no more than Paul McCartney, say,  should have. It would have been forced and embarrassing.

What I am saying is that commercial/critical salvation would have not laid in giving Carl and Dennis carte blanche to follow their "progressive" muses. Progressive rock, or whatever you want to call it, was dead in the water by the end of the 70's.

But, regardless of political affiliation, bands should not have to tiptoe around what fans think as to whether they accept a gig.  

Except in the case of if someone like David Duke invited The BBs to play a David Duke rally gig, right? Would the band taking such a gig be objectionable to you?   Wouldn't that be worth tiptoeing around?

Godwin's Law peeping just around the corner. Sandbox this thread.

BBs had one hit in this time frame. "Rock and Roll Music." The next single "It's OK," despite two years of insanely great press and massive hype, got to #29, then sank--and, after a late-summer run-up into the Top 10, 15BO sank right with it. It was a hollow comeback that started to come apart at the seams even as it was happening, and it's unimaginable that any of the other oldies could have done better than "It's OK." You really see "Still Of The Night" or "Palisades Park" leaping up the charts?

Dave Edmunds was not "new wave." He was part of the pub-rock scene that began in 1972-74 with British "back to the roots" bands such as Brinsley Schwarz, Man, Ducks Deluxe. And he didn't do BBs-inspired stuff, he covered Spector tunes. The rest of the US "new wave" omitted in that oversimplified statement--Patti Smith, Television, Blondie, etc.--had absolutely zero to do with mid-60s music. The analogue for that is "power pop", which recycled the Beatles and Elvis (Dwight Twilley) and the Byrds (early Tom Petty) rather than the BBs. On the Brit side, XTC broke on the scene doing music that bore little resemblance to the BBs...that was a later manifestation of the band when Andy Partridige became the dominant force. The vast majority of the English new wave was punky and arty, but not in ways that quoted pre-PS BBs.

As noted before, the band needed a hit that didn't lock them into the oldies trap that only looked like a return to success. They didn't do that. The wave of nostalgia lasted long enough for them to capitalize on it, but no one sustained oldies success in 1977-80 (aka the "age of disco").

Though Dave Edmunds had roots in pub rock (as did Joe Strummer, btw), Rockpile was definitely New Wave. And how can you say he didn't do BB- inspired stuff? He made a record with Gary Usher, Terry Melcher, Curt Boecher, and Bruce Johnston!

Equally bizarre is your contention that Blondie had nothing to do with mid-sixties music. They were hugely influenced by the Brill Building girl groups. Television, Patti Smith? Inspired by mid-sixties garage rock. Lenny Kaye, Patti's guitarist, compiled Nuggets, for Christ sake. She covered Them!

New Wave flourished into the 80's, and in the 80's XTC did take on a notable Beach Boys influence.

What was New Wave but a (then) contemporary take on the pop rock of 1963-66? The Ramones, Dave Edmunds, and XTC, for instance, were deeply influenced by mid-sixties Beach Boys.

It was Carl and Dennis who were out of step with the times, not Mike. Mike had the right instinct -- that the way back to 1964 was the way forward to 1977-- he just didn't have the ability to pull it off.

The first person speaker in Hey Little Tomboy is deliberately doubled-voiced. That is, he is at once meant to be heard as a teenage boy and also, leering and leching behind the teenage persona, adult men. They are the equivalent of a middle-aged film director making a raunchy movie about high schoolers : Fast Times at Ridgemont High, say.

This song exemplifies the odd position the Beach Boys found themselves in in the late 70's, post Endless Summer. It's right there in their name : Boys. And in their set list : Be True to Your School, Surfer Girl, Fun Fun Fun etc. Who are they when they are playing those songs? Men in their 30s? Teenagers? Should their new songs be about adult concerns, or should they return to their old subjects? What does their audience want?

Carl definitely had his hands full. I still think the weight of these responsibilities eventually contributed to his early death. And I agree that Carl's personality was more like his mother's than his father's. Brian and Dennis seemed to take after their father more - minus the physical abuse. instead, they took the abuse out on themselves.
I've seen a lot written in recent years about Carl's later songs being less adventurous than the early 70's stuff. I think part of that was, that's just where mainstream rock and pop had gone by the late 70's. A friend of mine had the honor of Carl sitting in with him as guest dj in 1977 or 78. The stuff he picked was the Rolling Stones, Chicago,  Little Feat, Bee Gees, Emmylou Harris, very mainstream for FM rock stations in the late 70's. He wasn't asking to play punk and new wave stuff. The "Youngblood" album rocks pretty good, but in a Doobie Brothers way, not a Clash way, or a AC/DC way.

Perhaps too much to ask, but there was a path forwards for Carl and for the band in the late 70 s that didn't involve remaking themselves into a New Wave or avant garde act a la Rust Never Sleeps or Bowie's Berlin trilogy.

And that was the path Lindsey Buckingham took with TUSK. Mainstream rock, but with adventurous, inventive production and arrangements, an organic outgrowth from the seeds Brian had planted a dozen years previously.

Another mystery : why did Carl step back from the leadership position post-Holland? It was 7 years before he recorded another self-penned song, and when he did begin to write again his songs and arrangements seemed to have lost their adventurous edge.

He also handed off the main production duties to Al, Bruce, and sundry others, even when Brian was not interested or capable. Did Carl, like Brian before him, just grow tired of being the main guy in the studio?

Some 60's acts had accumulated enough momentum to carry them on to some early 80's chart success -- the Who, the Stones, the Moody Blues, Stevie Wonder, McCartney. Sort of the equivalent of Elvis, Chuck Berry or Roy Orbison having chart success in 1964/65. Basically, running on fumes.

If the Beach Boys had had a big album in 1977 or '78, and then had followed up with some strong early 80's work, then their career might have had enough impetus to take them into the early MTV era. But even then, would they have been able to compete with Duran Duran? Prince? Michael Jackson? Any residual success would have been short-lived.

Their time was just over. It happens to everyone. Jack Rieley -- or any other manager -- couldn't have re-established their relevance.

Having successfully guided the band into a place in the early 70's "progressive rock" scene, or whatever you want to call it, could Rieley -- if he had remained -- likewise transition the Beach Boys into the late 70's, early 80's New Wave era?

I think it highly unlikely. Which "dinosaur" acts did make that transition? Paul Simon? Fleetwood Mac, to a minor extent?

An interesting case is 'Every Breath You Take' by the Police. Though Sting wrote the melody and the lyrics, it was Andy Summers who came up with the guitar riff. And it is that guitar riff which made the record a huge hit.

Now, when Puff Daddy sampled EBYT for his song 'Missing You', he didn't use Sting's lyrics or melody -- only Andy's riff. And yet Sting, not Andy, received the royalties for 'Missing You'.