After 50+ years, what's the final verdict on Mike Love?

[JR]

Again, consider this everybody: Andrew's only source is from the Mike camp. All he'll get is information from their perspective, or miss out on stuff from the other side. That's also why he can't tell us anything as far as the next album is concerned. Right, AGD?

[NHC]

When evaluating Mike, an important point to consider is that The Beach Boys are unlike any other band in that the creative force behind the band is not the dominant figure in the group. Think of the contemporaries of the BB's--Beatles, Rolling Stones, The Who, etc. In each of those bands, the chief creative figures--Townshend in The Who, Jagger and Richards in the Stones, Lennon and McCartney in the Beatles--also controlled the band for the most part, meaning that most if not all of the important decisions were determined by those individuals.

With the Beach Boys, it is entirely different, as the main creative force behind the band--Brian--after the early days was not really the leader of the band. That left a void, which Mike, and Carl when he was alive, had to fill. As a result, you have Mike, who has a "leader" type personality--arrogant, brash--without having the so-called creative "chops" to back it up. (We forgive a lot of our creative types). I have heard just as many stories of bad behavior from the likes of Jagger, Richards, Lennon, Townshend, etc., (worse in fact) than from Mike, but because they also were the creative forces behind their respective bands, much of that behavior is forgiven by the media and the general puiblic. As an example, Richards trashed Jagger in his autobiography, but instead of public outrage--as there was say at Mike's Rock 'n' Roll HOF speech--it was just "Keef being Keef." Imagine if Mike had said the same kinds of things about Brian!

In addition, Mike does not possess some of the qualities of other "subordinate" band members, such as Roger Daltrey, who, unlike Mike, literally wrote almost nothing for The Who, but still became the long blonde-haired amazing interpreter of Pete Townshend's music. The general consensus about Mike is that he is nothing special as a singer, is off putting as a frontman (I have shown people who know nothing about the BB's clips of the band, and most take an immediate dislike to Mike's stage presence), and that the band could have easily been successful without him. Compare Mike to Dennis, for example--though Mike wrote some of the most well regarded and famous lyrics in rock history, he is considered by many to be dispensable to the band, while Dennis, based on just a handful of songs, was this amazing talent whose greatness was cut short. Stories of Dennis's behavior are far worse than anything Mike ever did, but because Dennis is perceived as talented--and good looking and cool--while his sins are acknowledged, he is also called things like big hearted and sensitive, while Mike is just some ass. I know that people on this board know better than this, but I think these factors I cited are why Mike doesn't have a good rep, and never will. 

Well said.

[Shady]

"The Beach Boys" are performing at seaworld in a month.

That is all.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Again, consider this everybody: Andrew's only source is from the Mike camp. All he'll get is information from their perspective, or miss out on stuff from the other side. That's also why he can't tell us anything as far as the next album is concerned. Right, AGD?

Always good to start the morning with a laugh. As my father used to say, can't tell someone something they don't want to hear. But... one more time: Bruce is not my only contact within the BB world. Far from it. Go back to the Smile box, or last years album. All that info come from one source ? Here's another thing to consider: my contact with Bruce is well known in the BB fan world, and beyond. Mike knows about it. Thus, it would be pretty dumb of me - and irresponsible in the extreme - to have just that one source and say what I have on these boards in the past.

As for the hypothetical new album that people here seem to think exists/will exist/is being considered, maybe I'm saying nothing because I've been asked to keep quiet... or maybe, and I understand that this is hard from some folk here to get a handle on, but indulge me and try, please, maybe it's because right now there IS no 'new record'. Brian's been talking about making a rock & roll record since 1998: it's just something he says to get interviews over quickly. Yes, there's a stockpile of songs, some of which are pretty good (but not, IMHO, as good as most of TWGMTR) and yes, given current recording techniques, they could have a set out by summer. I somehow doubt that'll happen. Would be pleasantly pleased if it did, as well as being simultaneously disappointed that the magic of Radio had been diluted. As for other albums, well there was talk of a live set, and of course there's the MiC box.

A thought - you're insistent that I spill the gen about the hyp[othetical new album, yet when it suits, use the "confidential information" gambit (as I do) regarding the 30-40 offers Mike personally declined last year. Do we detect a double standard here ? Do as I say, not as I do...

[Andrew G. Doe]

"The Beach Boys" are performing at seaworld in a month.

That is all.

They can't be - Bruce didn't tell me. 

[JR]

Again, consider this everybody: Andrew's only source is from the Mike camp. All he'll get is information from their perspective, or miss out on stuff from the other side. That's also why he can't tell us anything as far as the next album is concerned. Right, AGD?

Always good to start the morning with a laugh. As my father used to say, can't tell someone something they don't want to hear. But... one more time: Bruce is not my only contact within the BB world. Far from it. As for the hypothetical new album that people here seem to think exists/will exist/is being considered, maybe I'm saying nothing because I've been asked to keep quiet... or maybe, and I understand that this is hard from some folk here to get a handle on, but indulge me and try, please, maybe it's because right now there IS no 'new record'. Brian's been talking about making a rock & roll record since 1998: it's just something he says to get interviews over quickly. Yes, there's a stockpile of songs, some of which are pretty good (but not, IMHO, as good as most of TWGMTR) and yes, given current recording techniques, they could have a set out by summer. I somehow doubt that'll happen. Would be pleasantly pleased if it did, as well as being simultaneously disappointed that the magic of Radio had been diluted. As for other albums, well there was talk of a live set, and of course there's the MiC box.

A thought - you're insistent that I spill the gen about the hyp[othetical new album, yet when it suits, use the "confidential information" gambit (as I do) regarding the 30-40 offers Mike personally declined last year. Do we detect a double standard here ? Do as I say, not as I do...

My word, you are a delight. In the same breath, you say maybe you were asked to keep quiet about a record - then hint that there IS no record. That, my good man (and I use both of those terms VERY loosely) is double-talk. And hilariously wrong double-talk, at that.

And okay, fine. I give. I'll buy that Bruce is not your only contact. (From the Mike Love side of the BB world).

(Cue another smug response from AGD with no real substance and probably a quote from his Dad)

[Andrew G. Doe]

English not your first language, I take it. I'll make it simpler. There are two, no, three possibilities:

1 - there is an album and I've been asked to keep quiet about it.

2 - there is an album and no-one's told me about it.

3 - there is no album.

That's called considering all the alternatives. Double standards is asking me to break a confidence - assuming any such exists, of course - while saying you can't/won't do the same. Eeyore was of a similar mindset, as was Jock McSporran on the Bloo. As my ol' drinking buddy Oscar used to say, the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.  

But... people are getting bored with this: I know I am, as all we're doing is talking in circles. Final verdict on Mike Love ?  Flawed human being who could have made better choices in the past. Not unlike his cousin.

[JR]

English not your first language, I take it. I'll make it simpler. There are two, no, three possibilities:

1 - there is an album and I've been asked to keep quiet about it.

2 - there is an album and no-one's told me about it.

3 - there is no album.

That's called considering all the alternatives. Double standards is asking me to break a confidence - assuming any such exists, of course - while saying you can't/won't do the same. Eeyore was of a similar mindset, as was Jock McSporran on the Bloo. As my ol' drinking buddy Oscar used to say, the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.  

But... people are getting bored with this: I know I am, as all we're doing is talking in circles. Final verdict on Mike Love ?  Flawed human being who could have made better choices in the past. Not unlike his cousin.

In other words:

1) Andrew doesn't know.

2) Andrew should stop coyly acting like he knows.

3) Andrew's a fraud who's been cut out of the loop for leaking what little he knew in the past.


Glad that's settled. But have fun at Sea World with Mike, Bruce and Stamos. A "respected Beach Boys historian" cheering on that band calling itself "The Beach Boys." Yeah - that checks out. 

[The Heartical Don]

I'd like to refer to a question that AGD put before us a month or so ago: how well do we really know Mike Love? IIRC it was around the time his piece on the passing of Ravi Shankar was published, and most of us here really liked that article.

The BBs fanbase has a habit of admitting that Brian is a mystery, a man whose innermost thoughts we often can only guess at; and this despite the fact that there's been so much information floating around about him. Yet the same fanbase frequently suggests that Mike Love is an open book - and this mostly in a negative context.

I think we shouldn't pretend to know more on Mike that we actually do.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Glad that's settled. But have fun at Sea World with Mike, Bruce and Stamos. A "respected Beach Boys historian" cheering on that band calling itself "The Beach Boys." Yeah - that checks out.  

Which statement just torpedoed the listing remains of your flimsy credibility.  You really don't know anything about me, do you ?

Just too precious. Oh my...  

[AndrewHickey]

As for the hypothetical new album that people here seem to think exists/will exist/is being considered, maybe I'm saying nothing because I've been asked to keep quiet... or maybe, and I understand that this is hard from some folk here to get a handle on, but indulge me and try, please, maybe it's because right now there IS no 'new record'.

That's what I've been suspecting all along -- the only thing that gives me the slightest cause to doubt my suspicions is that ESQEditor was *so* firm in his statement that there would be one.

JR -- think what you like about AGD, but I've known him sixteen years, off and on, and in that time I've had disagreements with him but have *never* known him to lie, or to make up anything about the Beach Boys. He's respected around here because if he says something is a fact, it's a fact. If he says something is probable, then it's probable. He's never mixed fact and speculation to my knowledge, and frankly it doesn't matter if his source is Bruce, Brian, bugs planted in the band members' telephones, or just voices in his head. What matters is that the information he does share is accurate.

Just looking at it from a purely evidential point of view, the prior probability that something AGD says is correct is pretty close to 100%. You have offered no evidence at all to prove your case -- to the extent that you even have one, other than "I don't like AGD" -- and so unless and until you establish a track record of actually knowing your stuff, you're just another anonymous troll.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Check's in the mail.  

Seriously, on a personal level I don't give a flying one if someone doesn't care for me personally - hell, I've been hated by Carol Kaye (pretty sure I still am) and she's damn good at that - because I know what I know (and more pointedly, what I don't) and that time will be my judge, as it has in the past. As The Croz said, I accept I have an ego, opinions differ as to its size and health. I find it mildly amusing that anyone is in any way envious of my shaky reputation in the BB cosmos - trust me, it's not all that - and of my alleged "access" to, er, whatever. What does, in the pungent words of a dear FB friend of mine, boil my piss is when perfectly decent threads such as this one get derailed purely because someone doesn't like me. If you feel the need to take a pop at me, please do it privately and not annoy the other good people of this forum (although you might like to consider what Voltaire said when challenged to a duel: "Very well, since I am challenged the choice of weapon is mine. I choose words: you're dead."). Not big, not clever.

Now, Mike Love - man, myth or monster ?

[SMiLE Brian]

"The Beach Boys" are performing at seaworld in a month.

That is all.

I will never understand why Mike lives for touring such crappy venues. Performing at sea world is really going to keep the BBs name valuable.

[AndrewHickey]

"The Beach Boys" are performing at seaworld in a month.

That is all.

I will never understand why Mike lives for touring such crappy venues. Performing at sea world is really going to keep the BBs name valuable.

It might not keep the name valuable, but it will entertain hundreds or thousands of people who otherwise wouldn't go to see the band and who will have a good time.

[Andrew G. Doe]

"The Beach Boys" are performing at seaworld in a month.

That is all.

I will never understand why Mike lives for touring such crappy venues. Performing at sea world is really going to keep the BBs name valuable.

Very simple answer: $$$$$$$$$$$. Just as Brian and Alan don't play for the yucks or the sheer altruism. It's called 'making a living'. Venue stumps up the fee requested and fulfills the terms of the contract, band'll turn up. Oddly, that's exactly how the C50 tour worked too.  

[SMiLE Brian]

"The Beach Boys" are performing at seaworld in a month.

That is all.

I will never understand why Mike lives for touring such crappy venues. Performing at sea world is really going to keep the BBs name valuable.

Very simple answer: $$$$$$$$$$$. Just as Brian and Alan don't play for the yucks or the sheer altruism. It's called 'making a living'. Venue stumps up the fee requested and fulfills the terms of the contract, band'll turn up. Oddly, that's exactly how the C50 tour worked too.  

Are Mike's personal finances so bad that he has to tour? I would not be suprised if he still has spendthrift habits left over from the glory days.

[Andrew G. Doe]

No, but touring is his #1 income stream. Plus, of course, it's what he lives for.

[SMiLE Brian]

"The Beach Boys" are performing at seaworld in a month.

That is all.

I will never understand why Mike lives for touring such crappy venues. Performing at sea world is really going to keep the BBs name valuable.

It might not keep the name valuable, but it will entertain hundreds or thousands of people who otherwise wouldn't go to see the band and who will have a good time.

They will have a good time, but some of those people won't see the full BBs because they already saw the "BBs" at Seaworld. Mike is contradicting himself about keeping demand down.

[Andrew G. Doe]

I'm willing to bet any sum you care to name that if it was Brian touring as The Beach Boys there would be no such problem. In fact, in a way he is - his songs are sung (kept in the public eye... ear... whatever) and he gets an income from every show.

[AndrewHickey]

"The Beach Boys" are performing at seaworld in a month.

That is all.

I will never understand why Mike lives for touring such crappy venues. Performing at sea world is really going to keep the BBs name valuable.

It might not keep the name valuable, but it will entertain hundreds or thousands of people who otherwise wouldn't go to see the band and who will have a good time.

They will have a good time, but some of those people won't see the full BBs because they already saw the "BBs" at Seaworld. Mike is contradicting himself about keeping demand down.

What 'full BBs'? The fiftieth anniversary tour ended months ago.
And even if there were any likelihood of another reunion tour, the vast majority of those people wouldn't be in the market for a ticket anyway. When my in-laws went to see Mike's band at the county fair in Albert Lea, Minnesota, where $9 gets you admission to the gig and also to the tractor show, in 2011, they didn't think "well, now we've done that, we'll not need to spend a hundred dollars a ticket to see the reunited band next year" -- the idea of doing so would never have entered their heads for a nanosecond. But they enjoyed the show they did see.
If Mike's band playing those sorts of venues did anything to lessen demand for shows featuring all five, then last year's tour would have been a massive flop, because he's been playing those venues for fifteen years or more. Either way, though, the idea that he shouldn't play those venues because it would stop the demand for something that isn't happening is an absurd one.

[SMiLE Brian]

I'm willing to bet any sum you care to name that if it was Brian touring as The Beach Boys there would be no such problem. In fact, in a way he is - his songs are sung (kept in the public eye... ear... whatever) and he gets an income from every show.

Andrew, I understand you are used to Brian not being there with the touring group very often throughout BBs history, but wouldn't you like to see the group touring consistently with their main songwriter in the twilight years.

[guitarfool2002]

Question, semi-related and probably answered here a dozen times before: Did the songwriting credit lawsuit restore Mike in a legal position of part ownership of the songs where he claimed co-authorship, so he would in effect be collecting a royalty too every time California Girls is played? Or was it a one time retroactive payment, or a settlement for a lump sum of his share on back royalties?

I'm just curious because of the notion Brian can sit back a collect money in royalties (which is true...) as Mike or whoever else performs the tunes live and gets paid for it: But If Mike agreed to a lump-sum settlement, a one-time payment on the royalties due, then that's Mike's fault for agreeing to it. But if the lawsuit put his name as co-writer entitled to future royalties, then Mike would also be receiving royalty checks for those songs listed in the case each time they're played. meaning, it isn't just Brian getting those checks on all the tunes.

[AndrewHickey]

Question, semi-related and probably answered here a dozen times before: Did the songwriting credit lawsuit restore Mike in a legal position of part ownership of the songs where he claimed co-authorship, so he would in effect be collecting a royalty too every time California Girls is played? Or was it a one time retroactive payment, or a settlement for a lump sum of his share on back royalties?

I'm just curious because of the notion Brian can sit back a collect money in royalties (which is true...) as Mike or whoever else performs the tunes live and gets paid for it: But If Mike agreed to a lump-sum settlement, a one-time payment on the royalties due, then that's Mike's fault for agreeing to it. But if the lawsuit put his name as co-writer entitled to future royalties, then Mike would also be receiving royalty checks for those songs listed in the case each time they're played. meaning, it isn't just Brian getting those checks on all the tunes.

Mike gets his full songwriting royalties. However, when people talk about Brian sitting back and collecting the money, they're referring more to the licensing fee that Mike pays to BRI for the use of the Beach Boys name -- both Brian and Al receive that money independent of what songs Mike chooses to perform.

[Ian]

My view of Mike is complicated (Like everyones I guess);  He wrote some good lyrics in the 1960s and I question seriously if the band would still be around to celebrate their 50th anniversary without him.  I think his commercial instincts probably aided the band's early success as did his strong work ethic.  I have also heard from a number of people who've met him that he is actually the most approachable member of the group and can be extremely fun company if you catch him at the right moment.  On the less positive side:  I believe he is perhaps too commercial minded.  I think Mike honestly believes Kokomo is just as good a song as Good Vibrations-since he equates popularity with artistic quality.  They were both number ones yes, but I just can't agree with that view.  I also believe and have seen nothing to change this view that he was behind the crass directions the band went in circa 1987 onwards (though others agreed to do it)-wipe out, problem child, cheerleaders, Summer in Paradise, Stars and Stripes-etc-that did little to enhance the band's reputation.

[guitarfool2002]

Question, semi-related and probably answered here a dozen times before: Did the songwriting credit lawsuit restore Mike in a legal position of part ownership of the songs where he claimed co-authorship, so he would in effect be collecting a royalty too every time California Girls is played? Or was it a one time retroactive payment, or a settlement for a lump sum of his share on back royalties?

I'm just curious because of the notion Brian can sit back a collect money in royalties (which is true...) as Mike or whoever else performs the tunes live and gets paid for it: But If Mike agreed to a lump-sum settlement, a one-time payment on the royalties due, then that's Mike's fault for agreeing to it. But if the lawsuit put his name as co-writer entitled to future royalties, then Mike would also be receiving royalty checks for those songs listed in the case each time they're played. meaning, it isn't just Brian getting those checks on all the tunes.

Mike gets his full songwriting royalties. However, when people talk about Brian sitting back and collecting the money, they're referring more to the licensing fee that Mike pays to BRI for the use of the Beach Boys name -- both Brian and Al receive that money independent of what songs Mike chooses to perform.

Ok, so Mike's name was properly added to the credits so he gets what he's entitled to as co-author going forward, and it wasn't just a lump-sum payout. Thanks for clearing that up!

As far as the other deal with BRI, that doesn't seem to be a bad deal at all. I definitely don't begrudge Al or Brian for asking for and getting part of the revenue since what Mike asked for and received amounts to exclusive rights to use the Beach Boys name when touring. And that effectively shuts Al out of potentially larger sums of money he could be making on similar tours, along with Brian...so they get something in return for not being able to use a name which is a profitable trademarked entity. Sounds fair to me and all parties agreed to it.

As I said jokingly in another thread, it would be funny if Al and Brian showed up with lounge chairs and a cooler of beers to one of Mike's mid-summer sweltering hot outdoor festival shows, set themselves up in the front row, and heckled him as they cracked open beer after beer. "Work harder Mike, dance and sweat some more, we're almost out of beers, we need another BRI check immediately, haha!" Shake up a can, spray it towards the stage, light up a big cigar with a royalty check from "Summer In Paradise", all that fun stuff.