One thing I'll say... if the shoe was on the other foot, and this was about a different band that was very, very dear to Reynaldo's heart... not just a band he simply "liked" and was familiar with... but a band he had many years of *real* emotional investment in as a huge superfan, and a deep familiarity of the history (the good and the bad)... if a book like this was written about that band, he'd probably probably pick it apart just as much and grumble a ton at the author, if he read a chapter that he believed grossly distorted the truth, and if said chapter appeared completely and utterly inconsistent with the original message postings by the person from whose perspective the book was from.

It'd be nice for him to just admit that's the case, because it would at least add a touch of honesty to this whole thing. However, I can understand he's been put in a position to defend the indefensible, and is trying to push a damaged product (by reasons that are presumably not his fault or doing).

I'm betting that everyone associated with the book wishes that Rocky had never made those posts on this board. I mean they really, really must wish that hadn't happened. If those posts had never been made, and this book just suddenly appeared out of the blue, it'd still be thought of as a gross distortion of facts by most fans (albeit still probably a book with some interesting never-before-heard anecdotes)... but absent those posts, we wouldn't have had a peek behind the curtain to know that there's absolutely no logical way in the universe that some major behind-the-scenes hijinks didn't occur to allow a book to be released with content that in no way, shape or form resembles what it was originally purported to be by Rocky.

I mean not even a little.

That's the thing that people can't wrap their heads around.  It's not just that the "I've got dirt on Mike" stuff simply vanished from the book, but the additional factor that takes it to the next level is that it takes the next step to overtly praise Mike at every twist and turn, all while smack talking all other members. I mean, c'mon. We're not born yesterday.

Sort of reminds me of the Lance Armstrong documentary "The Armstrong Lie", where the filmmaker started out making a benign documentary chronicling the life and times of Armstrong, only to have the entire focus shift to his lies that became an unfortunate public reality during the filming of the doc. None of that could have been predicted at the onset of filming. The doc was newly framed as not just a doc about Lance that happened to have this lie be a small part of the story, but the lie became THE story of the doc.

In this case, there are reasons (which we can hypothesize about, but don't anyone say it simply just happened for no reason) that THE story of this book completely changed from its original intent have caused the book to be something 100% different than it once was. Rocky's original intent as evidenced by his posts on this board was obviously *completely* inconsistent with what has been released from this book so far. Yes, legal threats are a real thing. I doubt there's a person here who doesn't get that concept. But so should an understanding (by the author) also be a real thing, where he should understand that fans aren't gonna be oblivious to the ridiculously changed tone of the book, and won't take it seriously as a result. It falls under an "it is what it is" umbrella, and there's no real way to defend the change of tone.

At best, the book can be pushed as a "the vast majority of what the original intent was has been completely changed for legal issues that cannot be discussed, please put horse blinders on and don't look at Rocky's original posts when reading the many chapters of the book... but hey, at least there's some new pictures and anecdotes that might make some hardcore fans want to shell out some coin to see". I mean, that's not being harsh, that's an honest assessment of the best case scenario for anyone to push this book as.

It truly just is what it is. Ultimately I'm very much okay with never hearing these awful stories that Rocky apparently had to tell. Sometimes the less you know, the better. I continue to enjoy Mike's work as an artist, and I'll defend his talent to those who hate him so much they are blind to conceding he contributed some amazing stuff to the band.

But all the same, I cannot truly respect a book which has content that's obviously been essentially tampered with. And it blows my mind that anyone - even the author himself - would continue to defend it, even if it's simply his job. I have no ill will towards Reynaldo, hopefully he will understand why fans' grumbles are legit, and why the endless defending is a fruitless endeavor.

Well said.
Re: Reynaldo, You can sort of piece together how this all unfolded. Maybe he's a guy who gets brought in to work on this book. He has a basic knowledge of the band, but now he is working with people who 'were' part of the inner circle, so he makes the assumption that they have all the facts. Then he gets pointed to this site (I'm envisioning Rocky telling him how he had '100,000 followers' here) He starts realizing something isn't right, but what can he do? To discredit the book at this point is not a great marketing move..he's basically screwed.

Re: 180. Stan's contribution obviously is the window into the 'why' I suppose. Stan was getting skewered as much if not more by Rocky in his final postings. So something changed in the last couple of years.

Just rambling here, but if Brian's people really wanted to look under a few 'rocks' (pardon the pun) could they look at Rocky's original posts? Yes they would surmise he might be nuts, but he seemed pretty adamant Stan had taped Mike, and made reference I believe that Stan taped many conversations (might lend some credibility) Is that in itself enough to start to dig and see if such a tape did at one point exist. Could people be made to testify under oath?

Is it possible that it was in the queue to be the next single? I base this on the end of the Video for It's Getting Late, where Brian picks up the shell and hears the song. Maybe the momentum had died too early for CC.

I couldn't find a Beach Boys 2019 Tour thread, so I'll just post this here.


The Beach Boys at Silver Creek Event Center

The Beach Boys perform live at Silver Creek Event Center at Four Winds Casino New Buffalo on August 2.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3pY50TPIQw

I just lazily changed the 8 to a 9 lol

Interesting. I got to spend a week in Nash's house on Weke Road near Waioli Beach Park, Hanalei Bay in the late 90s - it was stunning home and the influence of it haunts me today as I am renovating and fitting out my new property where there will be some pretty strong Nash house influences. At the time I was working as a senior executive of a large surfwear company and we were holding a global design conference and wanted to get everybody in the groove to be creative so we rented three houses on the beach front at Hanalei Bay. Having flown in from Australia to Oahu and then island hoped to Kauai we arrived to find our surfboards still on Oahu so we had to kill time waiting for the previous tenant to vacate the Nash house so we just hung around the property and beach and eventually got chatting to the guy and his family that were renting it, a really nice guy called Matt who told us the trick to get access to the locked cupboard that held Nash's music collection. On getting into the property somebody was looking at the visitors book and the last entry was a drawing of the Simpsons naked and waving from a bathtub ... yep ... Matt was Matt Groening ... and the previous visitor was David Crosby with the Nashs. The place has been sold now and no longer for rent. Oh yeah ... the music collection was great and mostly CSN ... it was pretty special to sit on the lanai staring across the vast manicured lawn with ebony dolphins jumping out of it while watching waves pour across Hanalei Point and downing a beer and listening to Suite Judy Blue Eyes. Hanalei Bay is easily one of the most beautiful places on the planet!

UPDATE: Having written the above I did a quick google and came up with the following info - interestingly the article says the Nash's built the house and I recall a well known Hawaiian surfer telling us about the hurricane that wiped out Hanalei Bay a few years beforehand and that he and his friends experienced with tripping on LSD so maybe it was a rebuild. BIZARRE! Anyhow, so maybe not the property one of the Beach Boys was looking at unless they were looking at the land.

Here's the link: http://islandermagazinehawaii.com/nash.html

Great story! Thank's for sharing.

If I recall, the Nash's spent a lot of time there, and I think, had a house in Encino as well. I wonder did they sell as a result of the divorce or sometime before.

Haha...maybe Mike will get a Presidential pardon?

Off topic, a bit, but does anyone know how Dean had done, financially, over the years.

I have a lot of respect for the guy, as it seems he always hustled, not relying on being a 'rock star'. He made use of his education with Kitty Hawk, and I seem to remember an interview where he said he was buying and selling real estate.

Just curious if he is well set up on the $ side.

I think the point that there are probably large numbers of people who go to The Beach Boys concerts, not really knowing, or caring about who's on stage, might be the very reason adding Dean as a regular to the roster might not make sense. This from a purely financial, as opposed to any artistic or 'credibility' angle.

If Mike is running a fairly lean operation, what kind of compensatory agreement would Dean be looking for. If Dean can book his own shows under the J&D banner, can he take home more than being part of The Beach Boys touring outfit?

Personally, I'd be good with Dean in the band!!

And since Fall 2012 it has been a literal shitstorm of backpedaling, excuse-making, whitewashing, and even having supporters and defenders of Mike's taking to various outlets to reshape the history and accuse people of hatefulness and toxicity...when the real examples of that can be found by them looking in the mirror.

Can you give some specific examples?

Scoring that surf film would have been interesting.

It seems like there is a pattern throughout Bruce's career for starting projects that never see the finish line. Even in later years, where the motivation would surely have been even further diminished, There were supposed attempts at a follow up to Goin Public, (financed by Japanese investors I think?) Country Music songwriting in Nashville, a stab at writing for TV and Movies.

Maybe if Terry hadn't had so much going on in his life, managing his Mom's affairs etc, he could have been the guy to help Bruce follow through and get some stuff done. It would be awesome if Bruce surprised us with a late solo effort; something retro surf.

CONTROVERSIAL POST WARNING:

I will give Mike significantly more credit than most on this board for his *creative contribution* to the early '60s hits ... even go out on a limb and say his contributions to some of these hits were near-equal to Brian's from a *commercial* standpoint. I don't think Bruce was wrong in that doc when he said Mike "translated" Brian's tunes into something for the masses.

BUT -- Mike taking "The Beach Boys" on the road year after year, without the actual Beach Boys, does nothing to keep the "group" alive. I can't imagine it being anything but *bad* for their reputation, as noted above. I understand all involved parties benefit financially as a result ... and I'm fairly certain that is the main factor in why the enterprise continues.

-100 on the first paragraph. If that is what you believe then you are falling victim to what Mike has been trying in vain to do by rewriting history and convincing people that Brian relied on him to write the hits. It's hard to believe that anyone could ever fall for Love's ultimate goal in that he's as talented as Brian Wilson. But I do concur with your second paragraph wholeheartedly.

Hence the controversy -- that we can not play politics for once on this board, and give credit where credit is due ... while also calling out the parts that are shitty.

I'm not "falling victim" to anything except my own ears and understanding of the group, their music, and their history. Brian wrote plenty of hits without Mike ... and clearly, some may argue that Brian's artistry would have been better off without him. BUT let's not minimize the commercial value of a round-round-get-around-bom-bom-dip-di-dip ... those are the HOOKS ... let's not overstate the commercial value of the weirder aspects of the best creations from Brian. My opinion is Brian knew quite well his strengths and limitations, which is why he worked with Mike in the way he did. And the commercial success of the early records gave Brian an outlet for Pet Sounds to happen.

Additionally -- with all due respect, this is where you're a toxic poster man, and quite frankly why this place is the pits to visit these days. "If you believe this, you're brainwashed ..." HA gimme a break

You're baiting people into arguing by making it personal *RIGHT OFF THE BAT*

Sadly, Donny has yet to learn that message boards are dominated by opinions. No, I'm not looking for an argument or trying to make it personal even though you seem bruised by what I posted which was merely a disagreement with part of your post. If you were totally offended or thought I would bother to take the time to insult you or the board in any way, then I will apologize, however I stand by my comments concerning the Lovester which is in no way, shape or form toxic. I don't like the man and I have no regrets about posting that fact.

Just for fun, let's break down your "mere disagreement".  

1- -100 on the first paragraph.
Meaning: you turn a "+1" reference in a prior post into "-100".  So, not just "in my opinion you're wrong", but finding a way to immediately put him on his heels.
2- If that is what you believe then you are falling victim to what Mike has been trying in vain to do
Meaning: you are small-minded enough that you are unable to avoid being mentally manipulated by Mike Love's scheming.
3- by rewriting history and convincing people that Brian relied on him to write the hits.
Aside: Even the 2nd most virulent ML hater on this board wouldn't agree with you, that this what the Lovester was ever trying to accomplish.  That's really saying something.
4- It's hard to believe that anyone could ever fall for
Meaning: Only stupid people could fall for this.  ...Oh look, last sentence, I stated that you fell for this.  But hey, I'm just stating an opinion, and not calling you stupid!!  
5- Love's ultimate goal in that he's as talented as Brian Wilson.
Aside: Again, this is so wildly absurd.  But you're not joking?
6- But I do concur with your second paragraph wholeheartedly.
Meaning: Only friendly when you agree with him.

Overall: You weren't outwardly "making it personal" or an argument, but your post was steeped in bullying, as also shown in your reply when you passively say things like "you seem bruised" (Meaning: You are weak) and "or thought I would bother to take the time to insult you" (Meaning: You are worthless).  What you absolutely were doing, is stating the same broken record, obvious opinion that you have tens of thousands of times on various internet sites, semantically phrased like a total jerk and/or liar and/or actual crazy person.  With the background premise that you then retreat behind the internet's general inability to convey the semantics that you often show on here to many people, and hide behind "this is a place for opinions" and the cloud covering that it offers.  The problem is, it's not a place for everything else that you accidentally allow to slip out on a semi-regular basis, yet nobody here has ever really made efforts to stop you.  When people complain, that's what they are really complaining about.  

I would be interested in reading the Record Collector review if you can post.

AGD has reviewed the book on the other site, and basically came to the conclusion that there are many, many factual errors. I guess that is a risk when writing about a band who's history has been thoroughly scrutinized!!

If someone had the facts on their side, and did indeed go up against Mike Love with all his "well earned wealth and stardom" behind him, the court of public opinion would side with whoever that person might be, and if there were a backing for that person and the story, the facts would win out over litigious nonsense. As long as their story is factual and true, despite Mike's and his more ardent supporters' and water-carriers' attempts to rehab his image, that image is still what it is and has been for a long time. Actions have consequences.

With that said, Steve Love called it just over 3 years ago when he said this:

>>>>"Thank you for your kind thoughts and generous offer of help. Any form of self-publishing for Rocky will not work for the very reason that he needs a publisher with a strong legal arm who won’t be cowed by ML’s reputation for litigiousness. Mike is revealed to be not such a great guy in “WIPEOUT.”

I have read Rocky’s book and it is indeed fascinating. He is patiently biding his time until some book publisher wakes up and realizes that his entertaining memoir has the potential to be a hot property. Aloha."
Steve<<<<


It's a shame the publisher Steve had in mind hasn't been found.

What about 'Surfgate' could these issues be addressed in a work of fiction without fear of reprisal?

Surfgate,” five years in the making, is a fictionalized account of a copyright ownership dispute that occurred between two high profile rock stars that led to a music publishing lawsuit.

Al is such a competent vocalist, and Blondie is great as well (not to mention the rest of the band)
Would it help to just retire Brian from leads? Have him on piano and throwing in some background vocals when he feel up to it.

It’s about the 1994 lawsuit....

Oh lordy, I hope there’s tapes. 

If there are, there's probably as good a chance as hearing them as we'd have of ever hearing the Brian/Carl-produced Manson tapes.

The tape that is discussed in the Pamplin book is the audio recording of the Australian punch-out conference with David Frost. According to the book, Stan Love secretly taped that meeting. No mention of whether or not that recording has survived. 
FYI.

That is not the tape we're thinking of and also not the tape Rocky mentioned here which was potentially explosive.

Ok... I went back and hacked through the RockRush thread for context.  Having read this work, I'll confirm that there's no smoking gun on the songwrtiting credits front.  Based on the nature of the earlier Rush thread, it would have been silly for me, as a reader, to expect anything of that sort in the book.  In my case, that had no bearing on the decision to read the book.  The book is not a pro-Mike book; it is, among other things, a "let's steer clear of Mike" book. What it is, in the end, is an anti-Dennis Wilson book, and perhaps also an anti-Wilson brothers book.  This is because what comes across in the book – per Rocky’s opinions, perhaps influenced by Reynaldo/Ron – is that as of the late 1970s, the Wilson Bros. were, each in his own way, obstructing the continued success of the Beach Boys and therefore had to be dealt with in different ways. 

This probably accounts for why fans object to the book and to Rocky and all that, but it should be obvious (even before this book came out) that Rocky had the implicit backing of the Beach Boys organization to do whatever it was he was doing. 

And - apologies for getting didactic -  but it's worth keeping in mind that the BB story is about a number of different things. Overall, there's (I) Music (art, creativity, expression); (II) Business (how to make money in the rock 'n' roll business; and (III) Family.  So any potential reader ought to know that the RockRush book has nothing whatsoever to do with music.  By the time Rocky enters the picture in the 1970s, there is no more music in the Beach Boys. It is a business, and a family business at that.  Therefore, you get a viewpoint which portrays certain people as "good guys" and certain people as "bad guys". It is basically the flip-reversal of how story of the Beach Boys in the mid-60s  is commonly told. Dyuring the Pet Sounds/Smile era, the artist is the good guy, the hero, while the money guy is the bad guy.  As of the mid and late 1970s, the organization has turned 180 degrees and the roles are reversed. It is now a 100% commerce organization, and the messed-up, chaotic artsy types are getting in the way of what "Beach Boys" had come to represent.  This in my opinion is why some fans object to Reynaldo and Rocky and that whole mentality - because we fans like the Beach Boys because of their music - the art - and have no interest in their later efforts to stay in business.  So the book is yet another reminder - "this is a business"

I will also say that this book is a bit strange in that it appears to be a case in which the co-writer came in not just to shape the grammar and syntax, etc., but actually to impact the substance of what the primary author wanted to say.  Also, based on the previous RockRush thread, it appears that the draft excerpts Rocky posted remain more or less unchanged in the final version.  That is, in the end, it may be that Rocky did more of the writing than might otherwise be assumed, and that Ron/Reynaldo did more of the interpretation of the material than might otherwise be assumed.

There's a lot of water under those bridges.

...and as Bob Dylan sang, "a lot of other stuff too..."

Thoughtful take.

Ron, forgive me if this has already been asked, but did Rocky ever mention Mike’s early 90’s lawsuit against at all?

Yes, there is quite a bit more about that lawsuit that I have heard about, but some non disclosure agreements prevent a commercial product with that information on display, so to speak.

I have also seen the docs regarding Stephen Love's exoneration of all embezzlement charges against him. I actually have copies of those docs.
 

Ron, what do you know of the current relationship between Rocky and Stan? Are they on friendly terms? Seems like Stan was a big help with the book. And are Stephen and Stan also on good terms?

"And we come full circle returning to what was said a few pages ago: If Rocky and/or Stephen Love had the facts and the truth on their side when they were sharing details of various issues and lawsuits and whatnot involving Mike, there would be *no grounds to sue*. That's as simple as it can get. Or even more simply, the burden of proof for someone suing for libel or slander depends entirely on first proving that lies and falsehoods were told about that person or persons enough to damage them personally or in a business sense."

It's never as simple as that.  Even if the truth is on your side, the cost of defending yourself from a lawsuit is enormous.  Most people will give it up rather than face the time and costs of attorneys' fees in defending themselves from a lawsuit.  If you are sued and you win, you don't get your attorneys' fees back, they are down the drain.  And if a judge makes a decision that turns a case upside down, even if that decision is wrong, that is one of the risks of a lawsuit.  The road to good intentions is paved with all kinds of bad and incorrect outcomes in lawsuits, especially in sunny California.

Side note: this is also probably why the brand licensing issue will never be touched with a ten foot pole.

Also - I'm sure I've seen dozens tv shows/movies of people getting paid off and contracts drawn up in exchange for silence and photos/video to simply vanish, etc. Feels like we're in a Dallas or Columbo episode or something. We'll certainly never know the real story here, but it would seem that an about face and change of tone doesn't just happen out of the blue for no reason. I'll just have to assume the tape (and Rocky's original intentions/tone as stated in his messages on this board) went into the void of the "lost chapter" in Mike's bio where Mike -with great sincerity and conviction - talked about regretting filing the failed 2005 lawsuit against Brian and all the embarrassing details of that.

So the suggestion is, and it's no surprise for those who have followed this band's history, that anyone who might have something to share or publish or write in general has to walk on eggshells out of fear that Mike Love and his lawyers will start throwing lawsuits and c&d orders at them to try to stifle anything he doesnt want to have made public.

That's nice, isn't it? Avoid things by having an atmosphere of fear and discourage people from talking by threatening them through the legal system instead of dealing with the issues like a man.

Real class, there. Positivity personified.

I am interested in whether it's
Threat of Litigation
Or
Reconciliation

If Stephen was reconciled with Stan and Mike, he would certainly have enough influence to 'flip' Rocky.
A pro Mike book could be an Olive branch to Mike from Steve.

I've asked Ron the same thing about the 180 degree flip multiple times - Maybe there is no "reasonable" answer or maybe it's something that got designated not fit for public consumption.

To be honest, Ron seems to be ignoring the questions about that specific topic, which for some of us is the most baffling and most obvious point of the whole saga. And it goes against everything Rocky wrote and said when he was posting here at the end of 2015 into 2016. We see a total, complete, 180 degree, Jekyll and Hyde style flip in roughly two years. No idea why these questions are being ignored, especially when they're asked respectfully and without name-calling and the like.

Ron? What gives?

He's answered it a few times. The publisher didn't want to go that route.

But does that really make sense, in terms of completely changing the take on two of the major characters? I can see, perhaps, a publisher wanting to tone down the characterization of Mike and Stan. But to completely change it? It opens the author up to a huge credibility problem, can't see how that's of benefit to either author or publisher.

It just seems to me, like there is more to this than 'the publisher wanted to go another route.'

I've asked Ron the same thing about the 180 degree flip multiple times - Maybe there is no "reasonable" answer or maybe it's something that got designated not fit for public consumption.

To be honest, Ron seems to be ignoring the questions about that specific topic, which for some of us is the most baffling and most obvious point of the whole saga. And it goes against everything Rocky wrote and said when he was posting here at the end of 2015 into 2016. We see a total, complete, 180 degree, Jekyll and Hyde style flip in roughly two years. No idea why these questions are being ignored, especially when they're asked respectfully and without name-calling and the like.

Ron? What gives?

It really is the most interesting angle to this story.
We know 100% that Steve and Rock were close, in around the 2016 postings, and I assume still are.
There was some speculation of a possible reunion between Steve and his brothers when Milton passed away?
Steve's criticism of Mike on 'Man vs Clown' seemed to have let up around the time Rocky was banned here.
So if the tension thawed between Steve, Mike and Stan, would Steve, have then influenced Rocky to completely flip the narrative that was on display here, which was more, or less;
Stan=traitor
Mike=Evil
While keeping the theme of
Steve=Great, betrayed by the band
Rocky=purveyor of tough love needed to save Brian

Just curious GF if there was something specific that got Rocky banned, or was it just a general sense that he was getting out of hand?

Wow the craziest thing is reading this posted chapter, and then going back to the Rocky thread of 2016, especially near the end where it becomes so nonsensical. Rock is just spewing out hatred towards Mike and Stan.

It would be really interesting to know what changed. Was there a reconciliation between Stephen, and Stan and Mike? This would have changed the tone 180 degrees?

When you read Rocky's posts, there is just no reasonable answer as to why he would be writing a book that cast Mike and Stan in a positive light. So what transpired??

I haven't read the book. I read the chapter posted here.

There were no doubt, neccesary, logical and perhaps even ethical and legal reasons for tidying up Rocky's narrative as was on display here back in the day.

But when the book starts coming at the story from a historical perspective, and the facts are at worst incorrect, and at best biased, then the book will have a hard time standing up, especially in places like this where a lot of people can be described as experts on the band.

I think the sweet spot for a book from Rocky, would have been in those intimate moments where he was travelling with Brian, or that story when they went to a bar (and I think Dylan was there??) These stories, or stories of clowns being beaten, could be entertaining, and could be taken with a grain of salt for Rocky's creative license. Any attempt to try and manipulate facts about the general history of the band is a losing proposition.

One thing, I do want to say, even though It's unlikely I'll purchase the book. Rocky said he was going to write a book, and he did. I can imagine it's a challenging task, so good for him for getting it done.

Very cool. Nice to know it's there!

Meaningless post, really. I was looking at some Google Earth images of Paradise Cove, where the cover to SS (and Surfer Girl) were shot. Based on the rather high bluffs along the beach there, is it possible that if the Surfin' Safari cover was taken today, it would be nearly identical, in terms of background?  Anyone familiar with the area?

Interesting, if indeed the case, given the massive development of SOCAL in the last 50 plus years.

Is the clown beating covered in the book?

Interesting take on the article. I see major anti-Mike bias, for no good reason in this instance.
Pretty irresponsible journalism, really.
If he wants to make a point that it's either odd, or disappointing that Mike and Brian are doing seperate tours, that's fine. But this article shapes a narrative that Mike is touring in 'response' to Brian.  And he pushes the agenda of bad blood between cousins, while failing to, say, mention that as recently as this summer,  the band presented a unified front during the Sirius Q&A

There is certainly major anti-Mike bias, but much of it is not unwarranted IMHO. Very opinionated piece, no doubt. I would certainly say it is not out of line to point out the hypocrisy in Mike going on and on about family unity, etc with regards to this Christmas album of his, all the while essentially also quietly saying "pay no attention to the fact that I won't play onstage with or record music with my own cousin - who's family too - and who is a person wants/wanted to do both of those things with me".

That's an inconvenient truth, and I don't see how Mike doesn't realize the irony of the fractured cousin relationship due to his own refusal to play live with/record with Brian, despite promoting some "family unity" image. Can't have it both ways, and the writer of the piece would be biased in a different direction to be aware of this situation and *not* point it out.

Well we can agree that he is heavily biased against Mike.
Mike's immediate family is all over Reason For The Season, so I don't think it is in anyway inappropriate to be mentioning family and Christmas in the same breath.

You won't admit to just a smidge of hypocrisy there with Mike? Brian is not only his family, but by far his most famous and famously-related family member.

I just don't get the point here I suppose. It's not hypocritical of Mike to link Christmas and family, even if he has a strained relationship with a brother or a cousin. Hell, half the country would have to attach a caveat to their Christmas proclamations!!

Really, to me, the article reads as though Mike is a bad guy, and he's doing a Christmas tour to compete with Brian. If the author wants to paint Mike as a bad guy fine, but he is trying to manipulate reality here.

Interesting take on the article. I see major anti-Mike bias, for no good reason in this instance.
Pretty irresponsible journalism, really.
If he wants to make a point that it's either odd, or disappointing that Mike and Brian are doing seperate tours, that's fine. But this article shapes a narrative that Mike is touring in 'response' to Brian.  And he pushes the agenda of bad blood between cousins, while failing to, say, mention that as recently as this summer,  the band presented a unified front during the Sirius Q&A

There is certainly major anti-Mike bias, but much of it is not unwarranted IMHO. Very opinionated piece, no doubt. I would certainly say it is not out of line to point out the hypocrisy in Mike going on and on about family unity, etc with regards to this Christmas album of his, all the while essentially also quietly saying "pay no attention to the fact that I won't play onstage with or record music with my own cousin - who's family too - and who is a person wants/wanted to do both of those things with me".

That's an inconvenient truth, and I don't see how Mike doesn't realize the irony of the fractured cousin relationship due to his own refusal to play live with/record with Brian, despite promoting some "family unity" image. Can't have it both ways, and the writer of the piece would be biased in a different direction to be aware of this situation and *not* point it out.

Well we can agree that he is heavily biased against Mike.
Mike's immediate family is all over Reason For The Season, so I don't think it is in anyway inappropriate to be mentioning family and Christmas in the same breath.