Add Spirit of RNR too.

Still waiting for Still Cruisin/Summer in Paradise 2fer.

AGD did his best to give diplomatic, not overly gushing, but still praiseworthy liner notes to the KTSA/BB85 2-fer. It would be amazing to see someone pull that off for the  Still Cruisin/Summer in Paradise 2-fer. I like a chunk of the songs on both albums as guilty pleasures, but to publicly in liner notes write good stuff about SIP would be challenging (and humorous to read) at best.

The author would simply have to spend the bulk of the space praising Carl's vocals, as well as...well, Al's vocals.

This is very true. Carl is so ridiculously out of sight awesome, vocally speaking, on all of his stuff from the 80s/early 90s, even the biggest turds are elevated sooo much with his voice. Al too.

I wonder; could Kokomo have been the hit it was with anyone else singing the Carl parts? I think it's one of Mike's best leads, but Carl really brings it over the top. Would it have hit #1 with a 1988 Al, Bruce, or Brian singing the Carl parts? I'm not sure it would have.

I doubt it.  Carl's vocal is so strong on the chorus chant (Aruba, Jamaica) as well. He's just all over that song.

Agreed. Carl makes it. I cannot get into any live version without Carl present, all due respect to Jeff.

Add Spirit of RNR too.

Still waiting for Still Cruisin/Summer in Paradise 2fer.

AGD did his best to give diplomatic, not overly gushing, but still praiseworthy liner notes to the KTSA/BB85 2-fer. It would be amazing to see someone pull that off for the  Still Cruisin/Summer in Paradise 2-fer. I like a chunk of the songs on both albums as guilty pleasures, but to publicly in liner notes write good stuff about SIP would be challenging (and humorous to read) at best.

The author would simply have to spend the bulk of the space praising Carl's vocals, as well as...well, Al's vocals.

This is very true. Carl is so ridiculously out of sight awesome, vocally speaking, on all of his stuff from the 80s/early 90s, even the biggest turds are elevated sooo much with his voice. Al too.

I wonder; could Kokomo have been the hit it was with anyone else singing the Carl parts? I think it's one of Mike's best leads, but Carl really brings it over the top. Would it have hit #1 with a 1988 Al, Bruce, or Brian singing the Carl parts? I'm not sure it would have.

I have answered your questions like this all the time, but your right I'm going to stop.

Its' you're right two do so if you feel its' necessary.

CP, so you can't think of anyone else doing this so-called "extreme defense" for any other Boys? Fascinating.

And I don't have to answer your hypothetical questions but, if I don't, I must have "something to hide" with "Swiss cheese holes" in my "logic"? Super fascinating.

Have you ever considered just giving your opinion without all of the personalized insinuation or the hypothetical demands?

"Do you think your extreme defense angle absolutely has a reverse effect on others at a certain point? I don't know what your thoughts would be on that, other than to yet again deflect blame onto those persons, instead of looking at your own argumentative tactics a bit. Just a bit."

Back at ya.

Cam - as evidenced by my ability to easily say that Brian has exhibited some undeniably sh*tty parenting behaviors, and I say that honestly...  how does that show me as having any kind of extreme defense angle? You have the inability to say something similar about Mike, except to say you don't like Wrinkles (thus avoiding dealing with any substantive topic). And it's remarkable that instead of addressing my italicized sentence, you found a way to avoid answering that question too.

Is it ridiculous, utterly crazy of me to think that when a hypothetical question I pose is avoided, that it means the recipient perhaps, just maybe knows there's some truth in what I'm getting at, but doesn't want to admit it? And is it possible for you to actually answer this question without your answer simply being another question?

So have you taken anyone to task with all of the personal insinuation and hypothetical questions for their extreme defense in these cases ?

You are welcome to your opinion, I don't agree with your premise. That is my answer.

You probably will not answer this question too, but I will ask you one more thing. In the world, in all of humankind, beyond message boards and the interwebs, do you think there are people (not necessarily yourself) who have ever avoided answering a question, or answered a question with another question,  *for the primary reason* of avoiding dealing with what they know is the truth?

Beyond the bounds of this conversation, does that *ever* happen between humans?  

CP, so you can't think of anyone else doing this so-called "extreme defense" for any other Boys? Fascinating.

And I don't have to answer your hypothetical questions but, if I don't, I must have "something to hide" with "Swiss cheese holes" in my "logic"? Super fascinating.

Have you ever considered just giving your opinion without all of the personalized insinuation or the hypothetical demands?

"Do you think your extreme defense angle absolutely has a reverse effect on others at a certain point? I don't know what your thoughts would be on that, other than to yet again deflect blame onto those persons, instead of looking at your own argumentative tactics a bit. Just a bit."

Back at ya.

Cam - as evidenced by my ability to easily say that Brian has exhibited some undeniably sh*tty parenting behaviors, and I say that honestly...  how does that show me as having any kind of extreme defense angle? You have the inability to say something similar about Mike, except to say you don't like Wrinkles (thus avoiding dealing with any substantive topic). And it's remarkable that instead of addressing my italicized sentence, you found a way to avoid answering that question too.

Is it ridiculous, utterly crazy of me to think that when a hypothetical question I pose is avoided, that it means the recipient perhaps, just maybe knows there's some truth in what I'm getting at, but doesn't want to admit it? And is it possible for you to actually answer this question without your answer simply being another question?

There are quite a few interviews of late where Mike, for example, throws what *could* be perceived by some people as insults or back-handed compliments directed towards his former BB bandmates.  Not trying start a debate about whether or not they are actual insults or not, this is a different question.

I'm wondering if such an occurrence ever happened during an interview where, for example, Mike was in the same room as Brian, during a band interview at some point? Or have all of the potentially inflammatory statements directed toward other members (that are often debated on this board) occurred only during times when it was a one-on-one interview with the BB insulter (without the potential BB insultee being present)? It seems to me those are instances where it's easier to say stuff without the other person being present.

Not just about Mike/Brian, I should add. Dennis of course was probably the most famous/infamous with his outbursts at some late shows he played, though I'm more talking about the context of proper interviews with multiple BBs present.

I guess you could add the joking ribbing that Brian gave Mike about Looking Back with Love at the Campfire sessions.

Concerning "In My Car" (Wilson, Landy, Morgan), I consider ti a prime example of Brian Wilson turned into a musical zombie by Dr. Eugene E. Landy. But the number one example of zombie like crap during that period of BW's life is Landy's ill conceived idea for "Smart Girls". More than any other BW song during the Landy era, Smart Girls exemplifies the toxic effect Landy had on Brian Wilson's creative endeavors. "In My Car", while not nearly as cringeworthy as "Smart Girls", is yet another example of Eugene E. Landy spewing his own personal brand of garbage all over Brian Wilson's musical undertakings.

Totally 100% agreed about Smart Girls.

But what about IMC seems so specifically stinking of a Landy touch? If you hate the production or lyrics, I can understand that - but Landy had nothing to do with the awesome chord changes (especially in the choruses/bridge).

Also... since Mike spoke of the song being "forced" upon the band by Dr. Landy... I wonder if the lyric in In My Car "still crusin' after all these years" was there all along? Or if it was put into the song at a later point? I would think that, especially with that lyric specifically, the song would be in keeping with the title theme, even if it's a non-soundtrack tune.

I guess I missed all of your accusing and complaining about and must-be-answered hypothetical "gotchas" of those in "extreme defense" of the other Boys.

If there's anyone on this board who is defending actions by the other Boys to anywhere near the degree to the degree that you defend actions by Mike, I'd sure like to know who they are. Name em. Because I surely haven't seen that. They probably exist on the blueboard, but I'll freely admit that that's one end of the extreme spectrum, which can go to as laughable extremes as you yourself do. In fact, people do deeply and brutally pick apart the personal actions of ALL the bandmates; if someone called out certain behaviors of Brian or Denny as being highly questionable and/or indefensible, I for one would happily admit that sh*tty behavior (such as parenting) is in fact sh*tty, and I'll call it such. I'll also add that they were often high as f*ck, abused as kids, AND in Brian's case took the additional step of publicly stating regret and embarrassment over past parenting actions. But conversely, Shawn still doesn't publicly exist. That makes THE difference in the eyes of many people. That's just the tip of the iceberg why Brian's actions don't get picked apart to the same degree as Mike's.

It's sort of like, we can agree that Mike got screwed over regarding song credits by Murry and Brian. So we agree on that, right? We can say that Mike developed a complex about that, which is tragic, and has likely effected him emotionally for years. Agreed, right? But when it comes to saying (even if we can empathize for the underlying reasons), "yeah... that behavior he's doing regularly... that seems pretty sh*tty", you just cannot bring yourself to admit such, whereas as evidenced above, I am (and most logical people on this board are) capable of stating such for Brian/Denny. So there goes your argument out the window.

You can, of course, either directly answer (or not answer/avoid/find ways around directly answering) any hypothetical posed to you; it's your right, it's a free country. But if one has a point in a conversation, I do not for the life of me know why answering a hypothetical raised by someone with an opposing viewpoint is suddenly "out of bounds" to be avoided. When people suddenly refuse to answer something on the bounds that it's irrelevant, it certainly implies there's something to hide, Swiss cheese holes in the defensive person's logic, so to speak.  

And again, since you didn't address what I said in my last post, I'll state again to you that the extreme defense angle absolutely has a reverse effect on others (even those with an open mind about Mike) at a certain point. I don't know what your thoughts would be on that, other than to yet again deflect blame onto those persons, instead of looking at your own argumentative tactics a bit. Just a bit.

This board discovers practically everyday that what we thought we knew about the Boys is wrong to some degree or other. Do we really think that isn't true for Mike as well?

I have in fact learned that many negative things I thought about Mike were inaccurate, exaggerated, or outright wrong, as a result of this board. I would like to think you would think this is a very good thing. That doesn't mean that this extreme defensive mindset also can't be taken too far as to have an unintentional, reverse effect as well.

I don't think that the small group of people who defend Mike's actions to the far corners of the Earth have any kind of intended desire to turn people off to Mike, and to cause those whose views towards him have been positively modified to feel the opposite, but in fact, the extreme defense angle absolutely has a (presumably unintentional) reverse effect on others at a certain point.

I don't see it as a mindset or even a secret Illuminati pact; it's just a few people who seem to have similar ideas. I don't think there is an active plot to discredit Brian for the benefit of Michael.

I'm not sure where the idea for "an active plot to discredit Brian" came from; I certainly never implied such. My question to you: Are you of the opinion that extreme, off-the-chart/illogical, and at times absurd Mike defense never occurs by some people on this very messageboard? We know and both can agree that the opposite occurs to ridiculous extremes, but it's time to concede that this too is an actual "thing" that happens by some individuals as well.

I remember a while back I criticized some blueboarders who compared Michael to Hitler. Imagine my surprise when it didn't go over well because, well, who in his right mind would compare a rock frontman to a murderous dictator (but that's another THREAD)? Those of us who are currently being pigeonholed into the "pro-Michael" camp (we're not necessarily pro-Michael and anti-everyone else, by the way) aren't trying to excuse everything the man does.

Some people, however, appear to be trying to do *just* that. Not pointing my finger at you, but do you really think such a mindset doesn't exist among a select few? The Hitler analogy is miles beyond despicable and repugnant, but I think reading comments like that has warped some people's sense of logic in the other direction. Do you discount that from being a possibility?  If one side is going to have extremists who are illogically (to say the least) making a nazi comparison, why is it so hard for some people to see that there is a flipside to that in the form of another line of extreme ill logic?

There is *no other group* of obvious "defenders" of any person or faction of this group that go to this length to never admit "their guy" is wrong (and lumping him in with the entire group and saying "they were all to blame" about something doesn't count). Even hardcore Brian apologists will usually admit when some Brian interview doesn't make a lick of sense, or when Al says one of those random "Wtf?" things in an interview. Fans who think Dennis was the "coolest" BB will admit to his mistakes. But with Mike, the defenses eventually just start sounding like Jeremy the Boob from Yellow Submarine.

As I've pointed out before, I honestly think that there are people who have almost made some kind of pact (maybe literally, though probably not actually) that since Mike has unfairly been publicly judged for a number of things he is not necessarily guilty of, and because he is not respected for lots of great things he has brought to the table, that it is somehow necessary to never admit things that are actually very hypocritical or just outright poor behavior/treatment of others, are in fact such. That some "big picture" goals of Mike gaining more respect for what he deserves respect for history's sake for will somehow be compromised. I cannot conceive of any other motivation other than actual secret payroll status.

That'll be me then.  . Never ceases to amaze (and amuse) me that otherwise sensible posters can unexpectedly spout fluent bollocks.  

My payroll comment was admittedly facetious, but the "big picture" mindset I think is not far off from some people's way of thinking, even if it's possibly subconscious. Particularly those who won't a budge an inch from an extreme point of view, or who will only chime in regarding the defense of one particular individual. An opposition to that extremism in fact is the only real thing that keeps certain conversations going on this board. And AGD - Just because there admittedly ARE a hoard of people who very unfortunately say awful things on Youtube and Facebook comment sections and the like (which I honestly shake my head at when reading, too), doesn't mean that equally inaccurate, illogical, and frankly in some cases, laughable extremism isn't being spouted by a select few online on the other side of the BB "political" spectrum. Let's not deny that that in fact exists and is an actual occurrence. And that kind of extremist talk doesn't right any wrongs, so to speak.

Resurrecting this topic, I hope that's okay…

Was Denny still in a relationship with Christine when this song got recorded?

It was right around the time they split...varying reports say they broke up in late '80 or early '81. The "Stevie" sessions were 1/9 and 1/14 of '81.

Wow. Timeline-wise, that is just so bizarre for Denny to produce a track specifically about a Stevie, a bandmate of the girl who just broke up with him (I'm assuming that's how it went down?), just weeks before (or right during) the time of the breakup. I'm wondering if maybe it was some sort of odd attempt at keeping a relationship going with Christine, or with Fleetwood Mac in general, in some fashion - or perhaps a love letter to Stevie, since Dennis was the guy who initially (pre-Christine) had hit on Stevie Nicks, right?  Almost like Dennis' version of My Diane, with the other brother singing.

Also odd to think of what must have been going through everyone's minds while being in the studio just weeks after Lennon was shot.

I think it was just an attempt to help his brother Brian lay down a new song he'd written. So happens it was about Christine's bandmate.

Maybe was as simple as that. I can't imagine the irony was lost on them at the time though!

Add Spirit of RNR too.

Still waiting for Still Cruisin/Summer in Paradise 2fer.

AGD did his best to give diplomatic, not overly gushing, but still praiseworthy liner notes to the KTSA/BB85 2-fer. It would be amazing to see someone pull that off for the  Still Cruisin/Summer in Paradise 2-fer. I like a chunk of the songs on both albums as guilty pleasures, but to publicly in liner notes write good stuff about SIP would be challenging (and humorous to read) at best.

Any time from the Uncle Jessie bullshit until about the time of the 70's reissues. God, that Home Improvement embarrassment. Well vocally it sounded ok but image wise it was a wet shame. Brian though was considered  cool in 1995 and for a few years after by my age group  (and most of us ended bitterly disappointed by imagination ), so I'd refer to myself as a BW fan first back then.

Dude, no, that Home Improvement bit was AWESOME. Full House was wack, but Home Improvement was one of the better crappy 90s sitcoms. And who'da thunk Tim Taylor's neighbor's cousins were THE Wilsons?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6j0Dom1mUM


The only bad things in my opinion are the fact Brian's not there, and Matt's ponytail. But hey, can't blame him, the 90s were crazy times.

Home Improvement is a show that, to me, have aged much much better than Full House.  

And I did find that bit entertaining as Tim Taylor thought Little Old Lady from Pasadena was a Beach Boys song, but didn't think Little Deuce Coupe was.  

Couldn't get into Home Improvement. It was funny at first, but two major problems developed.

1). It became so formulaic. Something dangerous happens at Tool Time, Tim fucks up somehow, Jill gets pissed, Tim talks to Wilson, Wilson says some intellectual stuff, Tim apologizes to Jill while butchering Wilson's saying, roll credits.
2)  My God, Jill Taylor had to have been the biggest bitch in sitcom history.

I attended audience tapings of both Home Improvement, as well as Full House... but alas, neither of the episodes I was at were the BBs eps. I wonder if anyone who attended any of those BB in-studio tapings has ever been on a messageboard to relay their experiences. Sitcom tapings are sometimes pretty boring and brutal for the audience, especially when "special guests" are on the show (who aren't proper actors and thus necessitate many retakes).

I imagine Landy was hanging out just off camera, trading jokes (and girls' phone numbers) with Dave Coulier, and fending off leg humps from Comet the Dog between Full House takes. At the Home Improvement set, I hope Tim the Toolman Taylor got Mike to try making the "whaaa"-sounding Home Improvement grunt. Maybe Tim Allen could be a special guest at a future M&B show, and do an extended "whaaa" sound in unison with Mike's long "wheeeenn"...

Be my guest.

Here's my list:
_______
_______
_______

where's yours?

and last but certainly not least, Carl's premature death and the wretched situation we find ourselves in today: Mike Love controlling the rights to the band name...

[sigh]

The legal right to tour as The Beach Boys resides with BRI. They license Mike to do so. As a voting member of BRI he controls exactly 25% of the band name.

*sigh*
thanks so much for the clarification. again.  
we all know that Brian and Al wished to continue touring as Beach Boys in 2012 but Mike prevented it. Mike has somehow thwarted or bullied the other rightful members of BRI out of sharing the license, and if Carl were still with us... God rest his soul... we can all be fairly certain that would not be the current situation in which we find our favorite band.

I think Mike was genuinely into the C50 celebrations, unlike it's been said by some insiders (i.e. that he was lukewarm about it). His comments in interviews, his teary introduction of Cal Saga, his top-notch performances... all point towards it. He was fully involved. He addressed issues candidly and embraced his band partners. Something broke his heart along the way, rightly or wrongly.

 where is Mike Love in this picture?     http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,20778.25.html

Don't you know? Mike and Bruce were the lucky test recipients of an invisibility spray that allowed them to invisibly attend that all-important and heartfelt C50 Set End Date Dinner Celebration (or C50SEDDC for short). M&B are both still there in that pic! You just can't see them. There's a Get Smart episode about that very invisibility spray... but it turns out that it's actually real.

It would have been a better album absolutely.  I'm not sure how much more it would have sold, though.  It sold completely on the back of Kokomo's success and of its presence on that album, it was absolutely huge at that time.  To be honest, for the casual fan the ability to get Kokomo and 3 classics on the same album may have been a bigger sales draw. Additionally, I don't think you could have had a stronger single than SNJ, which did not garner any success (although had that been the first single, rather than Still Cruisin', with the stronger corporate push...)

Wipeout would have to be dropped too. I actually like The Fat Boys, I owned their album Crushin' when I was a kid - but that track doesn't belong on anything masquerading as a proper BB album.

That's the thing: is Still Crusin' masquerading as a proper album? It almost wants to be (even though it's a comp), it's sorta almost in that 20/20 type of mode (80s style), but then it abandons that idea and goes off a cliff entirely with Wipeout and the oldies. So, so, so odd.

Would he be willing to do that?  Wait for years to finally realize a solo effort and turn the spotlight over to other people?  Is that Mike Love?

It would seem so.

Unleash the Love featured other vocalists on Too Cruel, I Don`t Wanna Know, Love Foundation and Only One Earth.

And Looking Back with Love back in the day had Joanie Sommers as a guest.

It's worth noting, though, that the 2004-ish Love solo "album" that floated around is likely not any sort of finished, banded album master that just wasn't released. Seemed much more like a rough compilation of stuff. I always got the sense back then that the stuff with Christian singing was targeted at a possible release of Christian's music, not Mike's. Mike doesn't do any lead vocal part on a couple of those songs as I recall, even though they're obviously re-makes of his '70's solo stuff. It's all guesses of course as to what could have or would have happened with the material.

They almost certainly would *not* have gotten a clearance to use Mike's home-made recording of Paul McCartney in India in 1968, so that was always the giveaway to me that this thing was more like a rough compilation.

Does anyone know who made that home-made recording of Paul McCartney in India? Was it Mike himself who brought a tape recorder?

“But how come he didn't mention that his song was guilty of the same things as theirs? Why did "In My Car" and "Island Girl" feel the wrath of Dr. Love, but "Somewhere Near Japan" was alright?”

“I was not happy” is wrath? No.  Explaining how a themed repackage broke its theme and came to be a mixed album, which is what he is explaining.  

That doesn't answer the first sentence in sweetdudejim's question.

It does.

Cam, let's go ahead and make a long list of times that Mike has said something self-deprecating in an interview, without deflecting onto others, and I'll go ahead and turn on the TV, because there's a special on CNN where Kirk Cameron will be announcing he's embracing atheism.   

Would he be willing to do that?  Wait for years to finally realize a solo effort and turn the spotlight over to other people?  Is that Mike Love?

It would seem so.

Unleash the Love featured other vocalists on Too Cruel, I Don`t Wanna Know, Love Foundation and Only One Earth.

And Looking Back with Love back in the day had Joanie Sommers as a guest.

The real question is can Mike resist using his last name as a pun on a future album, either as a title or a song? I'm gonna go ahead... and say that urge will prove to be irresistible.

...honestly and seriously, what guest singers would (and could) Mike get for his album if he went that route?

Brian recorded with Carnie and Wendy Wilson, maybe Mike could record with Christian and Ambha Love.

I think many people would genuinely like that, and it would make it harder for people who just want to bash anything that Mike releases to do so. He should consider it.

“But how come he didn't mention that his song was guilty of the same things as theirs? Why did "In My Car" and "Island Girl" feel the wrath of Dr. Love, but "Somewhere Near Japan" was alright?”

“I was not happy” is wrath? No.  Explaining how a themed repackage broke its theme and came to be a mixed album, which is what he is explaining. 

That doesn't answer the first sentence in sweetdudejim's question.

1. If Cool Head had been on TWGMTR instead of Daybreak, they would have destroyed him yet once again on this board  because Cool Head had been released and performed live many times previously.

2. If Mike invited guest lead singers for his new solo album, he'd be destroyed here once again for following Brian's footsteps.

Umm...  Cool Head is a solid tune, and if it was re-released as a BB tune on a BB album of new songs, it would get a similar amount of people being annoyed as would people if Brian released a previously-released song (and same recording) on a new BB album. 

And, Brian's use of guest lead singers wasn't entirely thought of as a good thing. The impression you make is that everyone is hailing Brian's use of guest lead singers as a completely great decision. There are a good deal of detractors regarding that decision, and while there are times when I think the guest vocalist thing works great on NPP, I don't like all of them. Secondly, honestly and seriously, what guest singers would (and could) Mike get for his album if he went that route?

Brian's "Believe in Yourself" comes to mind.

Good one, forgot about it.