They need a reality show with Mike and VDP making an album!

For once I'll agree with you, that would be pretty funny

Hear the title track here: https://soundcloud.com/theendrecords/mike-love-unleash-the-love/s-t7WXN

Hmmmm, not as bad as I thought it would be, nor as bad as it could be. It doesn't sound too much like a Mike song, but if the production and instrumentation are an indication of the rest of the album, it might actually be good. Fingers crossed

I'm surprised Magic Johnson recognized Brian! The biggest star I ever saw in person out of context was at work. I was delivering pool supplies at an athletic center in Dallas. I walked right by Michael Irvin of the Dallas Cowboys! I also cleaned Brad Sham's swimming pool, who does play by play for the Cowboys. I called him once concerning something with his pool and heard that familiar voice! Unfortunately, the connection was bad and he couldn't hear mine. So we had to text.

I also have a story about a famous Dallas Cowboy! I was walking back to the car with my dad after attending a football camp and a car drives by. Someone leans out of the passenger window, yells something ,and throws a water balloon us. I was just like "WTF?" and my dad goes "Holy hell, that was Tony Dorsett!" I think either one of his kids was attending the camp or he was there to help out or something.

2 things surprise me about leaving this town, the first being that he got a credit on it while doing nothing. Just seems like a strange song to just hand out credits on. The second thing is it being a Carl song, as it sounds exactly like something Blondie and Ricky would come up with.

This is one of my favorite jazz albums: https://youtu.be/xbZIiom9rDA

Getting off-topic here, but as a relative newcomer to this board, I'd be interested if you could expand on the Al getting sh*t-canned.  What exactly happened, and who was involved (ie was Mike the instigator or was Carl involved and if so, what was the falling-out between Carl and Al?)  I see references to this period but I don't know the whole story.  I have a hard time imagining tension between Carl and Al. 

It's a long story, and I don't think the entire story has yet been hashed out, at least in published/public form.

Short version is that Mike and Al seemed to have a number of "issues" brewing as the 90s progressed, and at some point, as related in the Marks/Stebbins book, Mike wanted to produce the BB tours himself with his company. Al disagreed, Carl didn't oppose it, and that among presumably other things caused a rift between Mike and Al. Apparently this caused some strain between Al and Carl as well, though nothing of a huge magnitude as far as I can tell.

Basically, Al saw it coming and nobody else cared or backed him up. With a setup that would essentially be (I'm guessing) pretty close to Mike's setup now, I'm guessing Al saw that he could more easily be edged out of the touring band if he became an employee of some other company.

Then, also as related in the Marks/Stebbins book, Mike started to track down David Marks to join the band. Contrary to the understandable assumption fans later made that Marks was brought in due to Carl's illness, the Marks/Stebbins books indicates Marks was being recruited as an eventual replacement for *Al*.

Throwing this whole (arguable) coup attempt for a loop was Carl's illness in 1997.

Carl took a break from the tour (and ultimately never was able to return) in later 1997, and soon after David Marks started touring with the band. In true "Spinal Tap" fashion, according to the Marks/Stebbins book, Mike didn't bother to tell Al that David was now in the band. Al's not a moron, and after a few shows where it was clear Marks was not simply "sitting in" but was a full-blown member of the band, this led up to a point where, again according to the Marks/Stebbins book, Al confronted David and basically asked him what was up and why was he back? David was at that point not privy to the machinations behind the scenes that had been brewing with the corporate stuff and Mike and Al and all of that, and David didn't have an answer for Al other than he was there to play with the band, etc. Al walked off and said something like "Well, that's it then. It's over."

What Al probably already knew was apparently confirmed for him at that point. David didn't know it. But Al knew that he was being edged out of the band.

At some point around this time, as detailed in some of the articles from around that time, Mike stated he no longer wanted to appear on stage with Al or with Carl. Ray Lawlor has mentioned that during that year at some point, Mike sent a letter to BRI stating, due to Carl's ailing health, he didn't believe Carl should be on tour anymore and that he (Mike) would quit if this wasn't rectified.

The Mike/Bruce/Dave/Al lineup of the band continued touring through 1997.

Mike, Bruce, and Dave appeared (not billed technically as "The Beach Boys") at a Super Bowl pre-show TV gig in January of 1998. Al was not invited and apparently wasn't aware of the gig until it was shown on TV.

Carl passed away in February 1998.

Al attended one or two "Beach Boys" shows with Mike, Bruce, and David in 1998, shows that presumably had been contracted already that Al was obligated to do, the last one being in May.

By that point, Mike was already back in the road but not yet cleared to use the BB name. I believe he did some 1998 tour dates under some variation of the "California Beach Band" name (not as "America's Band" as was previously mentioned in past years).

Matt Jardine was a member of the touring band through 1997 and actually continued on for a short time after Al was gone in 1998 (one show without Al from May 1998 that includes Matt singing a number of leads circulates on video).

By later in 1998, according to court documents, non-exclusive licenses were offered to all three principal members and Mike pursued one and began touring again as "The Beach Boys."

At the end of 1998 and into early 1999, Al began touring with own band titled "Beach Boys Family & Friends."

David Marks left Mike's band in July 1999.

Al was barred by court order at the end of 1999 from using the "Beach Boys Family & Friends" name.

All of this ironically still doesn't really tell us whether Al was quit or he was fired. I suppose technically the band "broke up", and then reformed without Al and with Mike continuing to move towards getting the exclusive use of the name.

Al being "sh**-canned" is obviously just a colloquial way of saying he was certainly edged out of the band and his exit, at least the *way* the exit happened, was not of his own choosing.

I don't think Carl was involved in Al's exit from the band. His death hastened it I suppose. But Carl being around probably kept the peace as much as it could be. Had Carl died several years earlier or otherwise exited the band, I doubt Mike and Al would have stayed together into 1998 even.

What Carl (and probably Brian) didn't do was put up any opposition to Mike essentially (in my opinion) taking over the band both artistically and logistically/business-wise. I would imagine Al was understandably frustrated with this, but he has never spoken ill of Carl.

What we'll never know is what Carl would have done had he lived and Mike attempted to replace Al with David. Would Carl have gone along with that? I have no idea.

So do we know why Mike wanted to replace Al so badly with Dave? What sort of conflicts erupted in the 90's to make them so hostile to each other? Mike talks about Al a little in his book but basically leaves it at Al seems a little crabby and was an outsider in a family band. Do we have any specifics as to what caused this big divide?

[He was taking LSD, which I had never known before.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[He was taking LSD, which I had never known before.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm torn on this track. On one hand, I love the idea of Mike penning something a) new (novel freaking idea!), and b) sincere. He and the band played that live at a show I attended in SLC a few years ago and it was a touching performance.

On the other hand, the one aspect of Beach Boys/Mike Love history that I couldn't possibly care less about is TM and the Maharishi connection. I just don't care, and am thus quite nonplussed by a track about it.

I can't comment on the lyrics overall, as I can't understand most of them. The English lines are simplistic as always. The music and instrumentation are likewise simplistic and boring. It's not a great song.

And yet I bought the track yesterday when I heard this news. Probably because Mike's concert performance of the song seemed so genuine to me, and I've been longing to see something genuine from Mike for decades.

I feel the same way. People also harp on Brian's Back for being cheesy, but hell at least it seems sincere. Same with Pisces Brothers, we all know that him and George weren't "brothers," but at least he seems proud of an original song and he sings it with genuine emotion. That's a hell of a lot more than we can say about DIA'17 *shudders*

I think Dennis has to make an appearance somewhere, as he gave him and his followers his house pretty much and was pretty good friends with Manson for a while. He also stole his song which angered Manson greatly. Would be pretty cool to get an accurate representation of Manson's association with the band.

I can't imagine that anyone is going to like or buy this. In my curiosity, I went to Mike's Facebook page, where of course he's promoting the single. Unfortunately the comments won't load for me. I wonder what people are saying.

https://www.facebook.com/OfficialMikeLove/

Almost all of the comments are actually really positive and encouraging. Weird, I know

I have to admit guys, I'm kind of impressed. It only took 6 or 7 posts to start talking about Mike instead of the album cover. It's really amazing

Only in your world, which seems to be dominated by a neverending stream of perceived Mike Love trigger moments

Smiley Smile

Love You

Summer In Paradise

Is Summer in Paradise a joke? I thought it was universally panned even by the most ardent BB supporters.

Smiley Smile is definitely polarizing and always inevitably compared to Smile.

Exactly what I was thinking, on both counts.

Love You has its detractors, but overall I think it's got too many fans (particularly dedicated ones) to put it as one of the most polarising. For me, it's gotta be Smiley Smile, MIU, LA and the 85 album. Out of these only MIU I generally dislike..... the 85 album if you ask me is the most polarising given that it has its fair share of staunch defenders (including myself) and those that consider it among the Boys' worst efforts.

I agree on MIU, LA, and BB85. I don't think Smiley Smile counts because most people i have seen enjoy it. I also haven't heard of too many people that necessarily hate it. Those three albums each have their fair shares of supporters and detractors, but i do not know which one would be the most polarising. And in regards to SIP i do not think it has too many supporters but there are debates as to whether or not it has any redeeming qualities - which in my opinion it does

Bruce - the most Dad-ish

It's kind of funny to trace at least two watershed moments in the band's history in terms of something that happened out of the blue as a fluke or just one of those winning lottery ticket scenarios where a "comeback" happened, followed by Mike's desire to repeat it, followed by the ship hitting an iceberg. Endless Summer, Kokomo are the two most obvious I'd say. This is just my opinion of course, but both were taken as a mandate or considered the "formula" for sales spikes and popular success after a drought, and what followed in both cases pretty much almost sunk the band. Or in some ways the attempted follow ups did scupper what was built up in terms of public image. The captain of the ship, indeed. Move those deck chairs.

What did Mike do after Endless Summer to try to recreate the success? I don't think the "ship hitting an iceberg" after the comp. came out had anything to do with Mike.

NICE!!! I won't be doing Hagerstown...and I wouldn't hold my breath on "Friends"! 

I'm just spouting this off the top of my head without researching, but I think that might be the only album that Mike and Bruce haven't touched a single song from onstage with their band and without any other Beach Boys. Are there any others?

Hmmm, I didn't ever think about that but it does make sense. Mike was gone for most of the recording of the album and Bruce has voiced his displeasure with the album in the past.

Baseball's on. I said doesn't everybody in show business sign things, answer to fan questions, in regards musicians sing special favorites & other niceties? It may be genuine or to boost cred/ sales etc. which is OK. It's what's easily expected. In short, it isn't big news/ surprise as HeyJude said that Mike did the same. Not substantial to start topic to tell it imo.

Really dude? He's excited he got his book signed, as would anyone in my opinion, and decided to share it on a Beach Boys message board. Nothing in that seems like it would be unworthy enough to start a thread. I'm actually glad he started the thread because now that I know Mike does this I might get my book signed as well.

Lucky! Just might need to try that

Forever

Geez... all I'm saying is that the "liberal vs. conservative" gap is ever-widening.  And that the news media contributes to the widening of this gap by taking sides, usually blatently.  There is very little that could be considered "common middle ground".

They take sides on an extremely narrow political spectrum that excludes a significant aspect of political ideology. While it is a problem that the media are taking sides in the manner that they're taking them, it is not the central problem - the central problem is the exclusion of political ideologies by the media, especially when that exclusion means excluding the truth. Personally, I would not be comforted by center-right liberals and right-wing extremists finding "common middle ground" - that would not bring us any closer to the truth and would simply maneuver people into occupying a pretty lousy space on the political spectrum. Somewhere between center-right and extreme right should not be a goal.

EDIT: Just  made an edit from "While it is a problem that the media are taking sides" to "While it is a problem that the media are taking sides in the manner that they're taking them." The reason why I made this change is because I think it is important that the media does take a side - namely, the side that the truth is on. Unfortunately, when people make a call for unbiased, objective media they are not making a call for a more honest media but rather a media that balances the true information with countering false information in the name of balance and objectivity - as in presenting both the idea that climate change is man-made and the idea that it's not. This so-called non-biased perspective is in fact completely biased, and it is also presenting a false narrative and a distorted version of reality. So I do think that it is the responsibility of journalists to choose a side - namely the truthful side. But I do think that the theatrical and performative way that news outlets currently take sides is a problem too - namely because it perpetuates the sham that there is a significant divergence of opinion being given in the mainstream.

Unbiased media doesn't mean that it has to funnel in false information to keep everyone happy? People will always be upset at the news, I'm tired of "news" sources giving their own spins on news stories. Or, if these news outlets are going to be biased, they should explicitly state so and not present themselves as an actual news source. Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about: when Trump made the "convefe" typo. It's funny yes, but the left leaning news sites are harping on it and are just making fun it. That's fine yes, but does it really need to take up news time? And then, Fox News will say "liberal media focused on typo instead of real issues," which pisses off the right and further divides everyone.

It's like both sides think that they have to "never give an inch" to the other side, for fear that they'll look weak.  So the right acts like everything their side does is 100% right, and the left acts like everything their side does is 100% right. 

And the news media is largely responsible.  The news used to be presented factually, unbiased, which allowed the consumer to form their own opinion.  Now, the news media has a biased slant on every story.

And the left certainly does have a voice in the news media.

Right, and the lefty bias in most media outlets just makes the right angrier, making them feel like they are under attack. It just adds fuel to the fire.

America has not been this politically polarized ever before in my memory.  The left is WAY left and the right is WAY right.  I fear for the future. 

Personally I don't see much of a far left voice out there, unfortunately.

Really? You didn't see the support Bernie had? I agree with mtaber, both sides are drifting farther and farther apart and it's getting harder and harder for anything good to happen, especially in the future after Trump is gone.

Forever