We've gotten to a point here where Mike can do no good anymore. This ended up looking like Mike Wheeler's forum ca. 1997.

You say that like that's bad.

Yeah. The one difference being that way back then it was Billy who was being chased and bullied for trolling.

We've gotten to a point here where Mike can do no good anymore. This ended up looking like Mike Wheeler's forum ca. 1997.

Mike gets topical in interviews aimed at newer audiences, yet fans who read every single little interview he gives, post the same fucking comments about them every time. Talk about being repetitive and not being able to let go... The comments about how the interviewer should have posed the questions in order to obtain certain answers are as hilarious as they are pathetic.



The interview was lovely, by the way.

This thing of people taking turns to bring up a ML quote and proceeding to criticise the man is getting tiresome. And before anyone comes out with a "he brings it upon himself", everybody here, and most specially the moderators, is responsible for the seemingly unredeemable shitty turn this board has taken this last year.

My observations were how some of the passages reminded me of things I have seen posted on this board, and in Cam's case, points and debates going back to the Smile Shop, "Sunshine Pop", and even forums prior to those.

So far I have accused no one of plagarism, or anything of the sort.

The Smile chapter was something of a letdown, because I was hoping to read some new firsthand insights from Mike regarding Smile that we've not heard before especially related to personal interactions during this period, but instead a lot of the chapter was Mike voicing what felt like his opinions and defenses of various issues or incidents. So to my eyes it read as if I had already read very similar "opinions" over a decade or more of reading Cam Mott's posts. From the drugs to the apparent degradation of having the band lie on the floor to cut vocals and make animal noises, to the notion that the Beach Boys were doing the heavy lifting on the road spreading the gospel while Brian stayed home in LA acting silly, it has all been offered previously. And in a few specific cases, it really did feel like I've read the same defenses offered by Cam Mott, and others.

No accusation of plagarism, just noting the similarity.

For the record, and not wanting to review per se, the Smile chapter felt disjointed and out of chronology. There were events and scenes described that actually happened during the making of Smiley Smile, the timeline jumped back and forth from December 66 to April 67 to Smiley Smile summer 67 and back to February and March 67. There was no flow to the timeline, and some events told out of order seemed to be done to make a point rather than present the actual timeline of events. The band was recording in an empty swimming pool at Brian's house for SS, not the Smile sessions.

Fact checking 101.

It also felt more like Mike was defending accusations and charges made against him than trying to tell the story. Again, more of the usual points from years past. And in this case, to do so, there are quite a few excerpts used as quotes from Brian that came from various depositions Brian gave in lawsuits in the 90's, alongside the familiar 70's interviews where Brian would mention hashish and other points.

If I'm reading Mike's book, I'm more interested in what Mike has to say versus reading transcripts of what Brian testified in legal depositions from the 90's, pulled out of whatever context those depositions were pulled in order to do what looked like bolster Mike's opinions and defenses against the attacks.

Anything positive to say about the book so far?

Seems like a great read. The excerpt must be 5 pages from a 300-page tome. Looks good to me. Personally, I hope the book reflects Mike's POV, his own take on things, and not my own opinions or the things fans would rather Mike say. The writing style seems to follow Mike's straightforward yet lively prose of his recent FB posts.

Thing is: Anderle, who worked for the BBs, did have a great career at A&M, a company that benefited from the SOT deal. No lie there. And Anderle was a very nice man as per many of those who met him.

Has anyone here read the book yet? What does Mike imply/say? Must it be pure bullshit beacause Anderele was a great guy? I mean: it could be bullshit for other reasons. Or maybe he has a point. Could he?

Hey guys, take a bath in reality:


https://youtu.be/J4_W2kCBhKY

He has made jokes about being bald in some of his recent FB posts. He's also posted several photos sporting his bald head (and looking pretty handsome). He seems to take it gracefully- at least in old age.

I am loving this thread. So what if Mike's book is better than Brian's? The mere fact that such possibility is drivig some fans crazy is indicative of the reality of BB fandom.

Had he lived, I can picture Carl attending a Brian solo concert and almost cringing at their live arrangements.

This is an interesting point. If you transported 90s Carl into later Brian shows, you could well be right.

While Carl on occasion seemed to work "original arrangement" bits back into the show (the main example being the sort of staccato bit on "God Only Knows" that was added back during the mid 90s or so), he did have a "live arrangement" mindset and probably wouldn't have wanted a lot of the sometimes slower, plodding "play it like the record" arrangements for things like "California Girls."

I don't know. He favored an extremely slow Fun Fun Fun, and dragged many other fast songs too.

Ahhh...


Nevermind. This board's half dead now anyway.

I find it remarkable that Mike is singing lead to Rhonda now.

I'd REALLY love to see that as a mini-medley in the middle of the set. I don't know if Michael can still hit the notes on I Know There's An Answer, though.

You mean his part in the song? Doesn't he only sing the first line of each verse?

We all know Mike reads this forum, or at least knows what's going on. Bossaroo knows it perfectly well, just like all those who asked for ALL I WANNA DO to be included in the setlists. Mike went out of his way to accomodate this wonderful song, Scott produced a beautiful arrangement, and they played and sang their guts out night after night.

For this Pet Sounds album anniversary, wouldn't it be great if Mike gave us That's not me? That song, with its straightforward rhythmic thrust and unexpected key changes, features the ultimate Mike Love lead vocal. While it's true that the youthful exuberance of Mike's 1966 vocal cannot be matched by anybody, there is a wistful quality to his current mellow singing style that makes up for and resignifies it.  Having said all this:


PLEASE MIKE, MAKE ROOM FOR THAT'S NOT ME IN THE 2016 SETLIST!!!

Not sure why they need Stamos to rock the electronic bongos though.     

Don't know if John C. is involved. Stamos probably does it for free.

Nothing will get in the way of my enjoyment of Brian's work with Scott. Nothing will get in the way of my enjoyment of Chuck Berry's music. Good or great artists are, alas, capable of pretty shitty stuff.

Emily,

I would say that Mike is the "primary" lead singer for a good portion of The Beach Boys career.  He didn't do as many leads from Pet Sounds to Holland, but on the albums prior to PS, and the albums that came after Holland, there's a lot of Mike.  

I think Mike is also referred to as "the" lead singer because, in concert, he's the frontman, and for the most part, the face of The Beach Boys.  

Well, again, the numbers don't really add up to him being the primary lead pre-Pet Sounds. One can argue about leads on a number of songs in which leads are shared, so one could edge either him or Brian into technically a higher number, but that would be ridiculous. If the numbers are that close, then there is no lead.
I agree people may think of him as the lead singer because of the MCing and chatty stage presence, but that's an impression, not a reality.
I haven't really looked at the latter 70s and 80s (and 90s) because I don't care so much about that and it may well be that he is the lead singer during that time.
It just seems to me that for a lot of people who talk about wanting to eliminate the mythology and recognize the reality, there's a lot of twisting to accord Mike a role that he didn't actually have. I didn't realize until I saw it on this board that anyone considered Mike the lead singer. I always assumed people thought of it like the Beatles - a lead singerless band. Which is what it was.
To say otherwise, to me, is either mythologizing or politics. Because it's counterfactual.

Mike himself also largely contributes to the oft-repeated, but not entirely factual, ideology that Mike is the lead singer, because Mike himself will typically state such in M&B press releases, etc (which I imagine the verbiage is Mike-directed). He seems to really, really wants people to think he's THE lead singer of the band even if the facts don't always quite support that. If Mike himself were more humble and didn't actively repeatedly push that ideology for decades, I'm not sure it would be quite as widespread. I imagine Mike feels if Brian has the "genius" tag, that Mike must latch onto something that puffs up his own role as much as possible, and the "lead singer" tag can sorta kinda be stated without much argument, until one looks at the numbers and sees that it's not quite clear cut.

I like your posts and most of the threads you start, but I think you tend to read and guess too much into Mike's mind and intentions, and you become judgemental without probably intending to. I recall Mike downplaying his lead-singing role during C50 interviews, and other fairly recent interviews, while stressing that he mostly enjoys and sees himself as a bass harmony singer. He did this whie praising his bandmates' vocal contributions, including Al's.

Initially the BBs were a Brian/Mike-led group. Hence, they took most leads.

Not being a family member may be a factor.

Another one is that Al took some time to develop his own lead-singing style. There is nothing special about his lead on Christmas Day-- other than it's a pleasant lead that could have been sung by any of the guys. It probably took some time for Al to develop confidence and sound as a lead singer.

Will they autotune Mike's voice like the Christmas single?

They'll try to but we'll still get a nasty, high pitched, nasal bleating sound regardless.  

To paraphrase Brian fans when the autotune issue is brought regarding new releases, I only hear a multiple-stacked vocal with lots of echo and possible an effect like chorus.
👹👹👹

I thknk that if issues regarding PM's are brought to the forum, then people need speak up and call things by their name. Otherwise it becomes confusing for readers who don't know what's going?

Just who wrote what?

This "how dare SJS" sentiment is puzzling. There's topics he comes back to, and he says things that annoy some people. But hey, I've just endured the Love-Vegas thread where 5 or 6 posters pile up crap comment upon crap comment on Mike Love. These crocodile tears on SJS seem laughable.

It starts with just a little glance now
Right away you're thinking 'bout romance now

 

Mike would have excelled at it. There is nothing disappointing about Mike's previous lyrics-- including Don't Run Away. And as much as Brian could want a departure from Mike's lyricism and seek respect as an author, Mike showed he was capable of relating to Brian's more introspctive ideas, writing some killer love and relationship lyrics both before and after PS.

25th Anniversary Special. Brian squinting and reading Mike's cue cards along with Love himself.

25th Anniversary Special. Belinda's dress.

25th Anniversary Special. Carl's pants

25th Anniversary Special. Joe Piscopo

25th Anniversary Special. Mike's outfit


This was watched by 8 million viewers.