It is strange, isn't it?

I've brought up "Aren't You Glad" to Mike several times, and he never really has anything to say about it.
I've also never heard him talk about "I'd Love Just Once To See You," or "Here Comes The Night," or "Mama Says," or "A Thing Or Two,' or "She Knows Me Too Well," or "Please Let Me Wonder," or "In The Back Of My Mind," or really anything other than "Do It Again," "Good Vibrations," and the five words to "Wouldn't It Be Nice."

For a guy who SEEMINGLY is all about "I did THAT," there's not a lot he deems discussion worthy from his illustrious catalogue.
That said, I did notice on C50 that Jeff took the liberty of including the final lyrics Mike wrote for the second verse -- which Brian nixed -- during "Vibrations."
(Ever the fan. . . )

Maybe the upcoming book will talk about those breathtaking Wilson/Love teamups.

I just don't get why that is. So odd. If any of those songs had been a hit, I think the opposite would surely be true.

If solo stuff is included (not sure of the rules here) then there's always Cameron Diaz...

I'll include her on the list of people I question whether or not they have been informed of their BB lyric reference or not. Did Brian ever personally know Diaz? Or was it a random surprise to one day hear a lyric stating that she's having lunch with a celebrity she's met?

I think it's the pro-Brian camp of late that's trying desperately to cling to absurd notions. I can't believe there are actually people who think BRI or someone around Michael Love are paying members here to post positive stuff about him. There's retarded conspiracism, and then there's that.

More than that, it's actionable as libellous.

It is,  which is why I'd suggest anybody making such claims should tread lightly.

Understood. It was a facetious remark that went too far.

There are lots...

Any documented reactions from any of them to being immortalized in lyrics by the BBs?

Does anyone think Sonny Liston knew of being referenced? How about Muhammad Ali? Would love to see what Ali's reaction would be to being handed a copy of Shut Down Vol. 2 to autograph when sitting at a sports memorabilia autograph show

Neither Liston nor Ali (as Clay) were the topic of a BB track: they were just referenced in a title.
I still ponder the same question though...

True. I guess they were the only people with that unique distinction.

Real people (and groups*) actually mentioned by name in BB songs:

(J. S.) Bach
Beach Boys*
Chuck Berry
Judy (Bowles)
Craig Breedlove
Chuck (Britz)
Johnny Carson
Susie Cincinatti (= Joellyn Lambert)
Dick Clark
Danny & The Juniors*
(Robert) Fulton
Four Seasons*
(Nick) Grillo
Alan Jardine
Lynda (Jardine)
Jesus
(Steve) Korthof
Earl Leaf
Anna Lee
Lenin
Mike Love
Maharishi (Mahesh Yogi)
Country Joe (McDonald)
Ed McMahon
David Marks
Mrs. O’Leary
Patti Page
(Jon) Parks
Little Richard (Penniman)
Elvis Presley
Dick Reising
Diane (Rovell)
Joe South
Phil Spector
(John) Steinbeck
Dean (Torrence)
Gary (Usher)
George Washington
Brian Wilson
Carl Wilson
Dennis Wilson
Marilyn Wilson

Thanks for the research, AGD!

There are lots...

Any documented reactions from any of them to being immortalized in lyrics by the BBs?

Does anyone think Sonny Liston knew of being referenced? How about Muhammad Ali? Would love to see what Ali's reaction would be to being handed a copy of Shut Down Vol. 2 to autograph when sitting at a sports memorabilia autograph show

This may be THE funniest thread in the history of this board.

And every post is conjecture.

Do you think anyone would honestly question that Brian's no-show at Mike's ELLA award was motivated by anything *but* sending a message, or basically just out of feeling hurt? C'mon. Yeah, anything could be considered conjecture... But obviously it was for those reasons, just as it should be obvious that Mike's non-appearance had to be influenced by similar reasons. I might add: I can understand how hurt/scorned people often don't show up at events. Understandable. If there's anything to debate, it's perhaps if we feel the respective people's reasoning for feeling the way they feel is off-kilter or not.

 

CD is a level headed guy!

Muchas gracias, amigo.

[That doesn't negate the fact that there are people (and one person in particular) who are going way too far and claiming absurd things which are an attempt to rewrite history in a grossly inaccurate way.]

Yes, there have indeed been many things regarding this band that were previously widely regarded a certain way that were fortunately later proven wrong.

That doesn't negate the fact that there are people (and one person in particular) who are going way too far and claiming absurd things which are an attempt to rewrite history in a grossly inaccurate way. There is such a thing as bad and hare-brained history-rewriting attempts regarding this band, especially on the pro-Mike side.  That's a "thing"; it happens, as sure as the sky is blue.   Regardless of "political" affiliation or motive, learned BB fans should be bugged enough to point that stuff out, across the political spectrum.

It's so incredibly frustrating that while some people on the pro-Mike side are essentially willing to vaguely admit that there are some undeniably illogical and at times absurd pro-Mike ideas spouted on this board, the actual pointing out of that is seeminly *always* left to people like myself, guitarfool, heyjude, etc. It sucks, because it just furthers the divide, and makes it more about one side vs another side.

As I have pointed out before, I have defended Mike on numerous occasions, and have outright told people in person that they have the wrong idea about many things about him, whenever I hear things that are grossly inaccurate. I will swoop in to say so.  

Yep and you are one of them.

Umm... no, not really. But hey, it's cool if you think that. I'm happy to be proven wrong, and I'm happy to defend Mike on many, many points. But again - this appears to be a deflection from answering my query: why are people such as yourself not jumping in to call out BS on the pro-Mike side of the fence? And a polite request: is it possible to directly answer this question without answering with another question?

Mike was fasting!

Could it have been that the dinner was a Facebook invite only, and the invite inadvertently wound up in Mike's spam folder? It does happen sometimes.

Or maybe he received the Facebook invite, clicked on "Join", but not enough people clicked the "like" button for this action of his, causing him to be offended, and then he changed his reply to "Not Attending". Maybe then it's all Mark Zuckerberg's fault.

The negativity comes from both sides; let's not kid ourselves, man.

Yes, it does. But I think that one side has actually tried to make peace quite a bit more than the other side has.  Also, my Wilson-based negativity comment was a reference to a Facebook post which disproves the theory that the bandmates give zero shits about online opinions.

New conjecture: M&B didn't approve of the uncomfortable seating there.

New New conjecture: the restaurant didn't offer a vegetarian option for Mike. That's gotta be the reason.

I'm sure the first thing a Beach Boy thinks before going into an interview is "gee, I hope I don't rustle fanboy jimmies." That's the richest part of this whole thing...the band members most likely couldn't give less of a sh*t about what goes on here.

Wilson-based negativity... Cough cough.

But it's the history rewrite of events like Mike bullying BW at Wally heider that is most concerning to me. It's like some posters under the guise of being "neutral" historians are doing this.

The thought of any bandmate bullying another bandmate is not a pretty thought to have, nor an easy thing to reconcile. But I will never understand those who think it's impossible to believe that it ever could have happened in this band with Brian on the receiving end. Why is it such an absolutely, ridiculously preposterous notion that it could have happened at some point?  

And why do some posters fervently believe in 100% accuracy that Brian believed that musical ideas were actually, in fact, "inappropriate", while that term could never in a million years conceivably be applied to how he might have been treated at times by others?

I'm sure that I will get no actual direct response to this query from those posters whose actions I speak of, without there somehow answering a question with a question (in other words, a non-answer), or saying that nobody ever has the right to ever consider another person's actions as even slightly veering into bullying territory without medically quantifiable proof of physical harm. Amiright?

If we'd not rewritten BB history, then we'd still "know" that...

The band never actually played on their hits...
David was just a temporary replacement for Alan...
Dennis was a rubbish drummer...
Mike was married 8 times...
Alan left the band to go to dental college...
Brian stayed in bed 1971-76...
Carl's first lead vocal was "Girl Don't Tell Me"...
Murry smacked Brian in the head with a baseball bat in Little League...

Yup, gotta love them "facts".  

Yes, there have indeed been many things regarding this band that were previously widely regarded a certain way that were fortunately later proven wrong.

That doesn't negate the fact that there are people (and one person in particular) who are going way too far and claiming absurd things which are an attempt to rewrite history in a grossly inaccurate way.  There is such a thing as bad and hare-brained history-rewriting attempts regarding this band, especially on the pro-Mike side.  That's a "thing"; it happens, as sure as the sky is blue.   Regardless of "political" affiliation or motive, learned BB fans should be bugged enough to point that stuff out, across the political spectrum.

It's so incredibly frustrating that while some people on the pro-Mike side are essentially willing to vaguely admit that there are some undeniably illogical and at times absurd pro-Mike ideas spouted on this board, the actual pointing out of that is seeminly *always* left to people like myself, guitarfool, heyjude, etc. It sucks, because it just furthers the divide, and makes it more about one side vs another side.

As I have pointed out before, I have defended Mike on numerous occasions, and have outright told people in person that they have the wrong idea about many things about him, whenever I hear things that are grossly inaccurate. I will swoop in to say so.  

We are both stubborn SOBs (not an insult; I'm throwing myself in with that label too), and of course fans of this band. The big difference being that one is making futile moves to try to rewrite history, and one isn't.

Well, Cam`s position is always to consider Mike in a positive light and obviously he is wrong a fair amount of the time. Your position, when you are posting your frequent speculations about the band, is always to paint Mike in a negative light. Different sides of the same coin.

Now all of us, myself included, post nonsense at times and I certainly don`t agree with everything that I have posted over the years. But when you post your suppositions the one thing that they have in common is always to see Mike in the worst possible light:-

-   Mike is paying people on this board to post.
-   Mike forced Al to say “One final time” during the C50 so that he might use it for legal reasons later.
-   Mike was the sole cause of VDP not being involved with the release of The Smile Sessions.
-   Mike included a reference to Helter Skelter on LBWL (even though he didn`t write it) as a dig at Dennis.
-   Mike should have given complete control of The Beach Boys name to Brian and his management in 2012 and have been willing to go out under his own        name.
-   NPP took so long to complete because Mike hurt Brian`s feelings.
-   Mike wanted to issue Santa Goes to Kokomo under The Beach Boys name.
-   Mike using videos of Carl and Dennis is exploitation.
-   Mike is emotionally ill.

Now, let`s face it, if even half these things were posted about certain other band members we would have cries of “agenda” or “fight back” across the board.

I'll at least state that my opinions are hypotheses, and not necessarily outright truths, and I'm happy to be proven wrong, as I have been about matters relating to Mike and other band members in the past (and I've happily admitted to such). I hope you don't doubt that, because it's absolutely the truth. I also have a good deal of empathy for the man, whether I've made that clear enough or not.

And if Cam, for example, as you say, is obviously wrong a fair amount of the time, I sure don't see people who typically defend Mike on this board (and who should know better) chiming in and letting him know that he is wrong. 

Absolutely, I agree that you have admitted to being proven wrong on numerous occasions... But your response is inevitably to start another thread which posts another hypothesis which assumes Mike to be the villain.   

Cam is not going to change his mind so why would people bother to chime in? His posts are normally polite to other board members, are pretty innocuous and are easy to ignore. Plus, you show me any fansite where there isn`t a person who thinks the sun shines out of a singer`s behind. It`s normal.

Somebody misunderstanding fandom so much that they believe this can only happen if they are being paid isn`t. 

I don't know, man.  The payroll thing may be absurd in this instance, although I wouldn't discount it from being an actual circumstance which happens with a small handful of some entertainers/celebs/musicians... would you? And separately from that discussion, I would be willing to bet money that at least one, if not more of those line items of mine which you posted above have *some*, at least partial truth in them.  I think you would be hesitant to bet any significant amount of money that they are all entirely outright false! Of course, we would need both a time machine and an invisibility cloak in order to prove anything.

By the way....it's in a terrible neighborhood. Lots of disrepair and apparent poverty. This house is actually the most well-kept on the block. The others are falling down.

Do you think there's any chance the current owners have any idea of its history?

I give reasons, you give reasons, you think I'm full of sh*t, I think you're full of sh*t. Why not just leave it there, agree to disagree. Why not just say our peace without all the personalized accusations, insinuations, name calling, even libel. Unless that is OK on this board.

I never meant to let things get to name calling, and if I ever went too far in that, I am sorry.

Bruce killed a man in Iowa in 1995 for sleeping during Kokomo.

Can't. Stop. Laughing. 

We are both stubborn SOBs (not an insult; I'm throwing myself in with that label too), and of course fans of this band. The big difference being that one is making futile moves to try to rewrite history, and one isn't.

Well, Cam`s position is always to consider Mike in a positive light and obviously he is wrong a fair amount of the time. Your position, when you are posting your frequent speculations about the band, is always to paint Mike in a negative light. Different sides of the same coin.

Now all of us, myself included, post nonsense at times and I certainly don`t agree with everything that I have posted over the years. But when you post your suppositions the one thing that they have in common is always to see Mike in the worst possible light:-

-   Mike is paying people on this board to post.
-   Mike forced Al to say “One final time” during the C50 so that he might use it for legal reasons later.
-   Mike was the sole cause of VDP not being involved with the release of The Smile Sessions.
-   Mike included a reference to Helter Skelter on LBWL (even though he didn`t write it) as a dig at Dennis.
-   Mike should have given complete control of The Beach Boys name to Brian and his management in 2012 and have been willing to go out under his own        name.
-   NPP took so long to complete because Mike hurt Brian`s feelings.
-   Mike wanted to issue Santa Goes to Kokomo under The Beach Boys name.
-   Mike using videos of Carl and Dennis is exploitation.
-   Mike is emotionally ill.

Now, let`s face it, if even half these things were posted about certain other band members we would have cries of “agenda” or “fight back” across the board.

I'll at least state that my opinions are hypotheses, and not necessarily outright truths, and I'm happy to be proven wrong, as I have been about matters relating to Mike and other band members in the past (and I've happily admitted to such). I hope you don't doubt that, because it's absolutely the truth. I also have a good deal of empathy for the man, whether I've made that clear enough or not.

And if Cam, for example, as you say, is obviously wrong a fair amount of the time, I sure don't see people who typically defend Mike on this board (and who should know better) chiming in and letting him know that he is wrong. 

Well, what do you consider pro-Michael extremism? Give us something to go by.

An inability to conceive to say a bad thing about him except that he wrote Wrinkles, or something similarly lightweight/ innocuous. 

As someone who admittedly defends Michael more than most, I'm not crazy enough to deny that he's made more mistakes than that. More notable and far-reaching mistakes at that.

Which is why you have my respect, good sir.

[15 Big Ones]

Also, this:

I also have to question why some middle-aged guy who lives in Nowheresville, USA is so incredibly obsessed with standing up for Mike Love, someone he's likely never met, and likely has next to nothing in common with.

Excellent question, but let's modify it a little:

"I also have to question why some middle-aged guy who lives in Nowheresville, USA is so incredibly obsessed with vilifying Mike Love, someone he's likely never met, and likely has next to nothing in common with."

Equally excellent question, no ?

I have no interest in vilifying Mike Love though Andrew. And I think you'd know this. My beef is with a poster on here who is incapable of admitting the man has ever done wrong. I personally find Mike extremely interesting and I'm super excited for his book. And his solo album, if it happens. Though I'm extremely doubtful.

I mean, if there's a poster around here saying that because "Song A" (let's say "Kokomo") sold more than "Song B" (let's say "This Whole World), that makes it a better song, I'm gonna challenge said poster on that assertion. And when said poster doesn't have the guts to hold his equation to it's logical conclusion (like, for instance the "Macarena" with four million sold, is four times the song "Kokomo" is, with one million sold), it seems like he's either just bullshitting us all, or likes to twist things to always glorify Doctor Love. So really, the fact that any of this is even about Mike Love is wrong. It's to stop these people on this board from peddling bullshit. I mean, it's obvious that you've come to see things more from Mike's perspective lately due to access, but you still wouldn't make asinine statements that would say 15 Big Ones is better than Sunflower simply because it sold more copies. You wouldn't say stuff like TWGMTR and "Summer's Gone" is Brian Wilson and Joe Thomas *pretending* to be The Beach Boys, while defending Summer In Paradise.

And somebody will jump in and say, but...but...but..."OldSurferDude is mean to Mike!" And to that I'd say, why yes he is. But he almost comes off as cartoonish in his Doctor Love insults. Whereas Cameron Mott is actually trying to rewrite history with Mike Love as the John Lennon to Brian's Paul McCartney (or vice versa). And instead of having that sh*t peddled I think we'd be much better served without absolute crap being peddled like that.

This, times several hundred thousand.

Well, what do you consider pro-Michael extremism? Give us something to go by.

An inability to conceive to say a bad thing about him except that he wrote Wrinkles, or something similarly lightweight/ innocuous.