New Mike Examiner interview

[Andrew G. Doe]

M&B just love dragging the BBs name to those sleazy casinos.  

That's one of the things that really bothers me.  He wants to use the Beach Boys name, that's fine but they shouldn't be accepting gigs at such unsophisticated venues.

Brian, of course, would never, ever play a casino. No sir, he would not. He certainly didn't play the Mohegan Sun on his birthday in 1999, or again July 11th the next year... or the Tropicana in Atlantic City three days earlier. He wouldn't dream of playing BWPS at Pala casino October 29th 2004, or at Boulder Station casino the next day. I could go on, but I think the point is made. More to the point, The Beach Boys played shitloads of casinos when Carl and even Dennis were still of this earth. I guess they started this dragging down you so deride, thus logically, they should be vilified for starting the custom. Do I hear a "f*** Carl and Dennis !" anywhere ?

[SMiLE Brian]

I feel impelled to point out that the only "acclaim" that Brian, Alan & David are currently "soaking up" is emanating from forums such as this (and of course The Bloo), more specifically from the Love-hating Brianista (current pejorative usage) contingent. No-one in the mainstream media has said anything one way or the other. For all we know, when push comes to shove they may suck royally.

I'd say the odds that they "suck royally" are very very very low. We will have Brian's band (with Brian), with the bonus of Al's voice and David's guitar and voice...should be an okay show.

I agree - odds on it'll be, at worst, adequate... but I like to cover all the bases.

I have never seem you "cover all the bases" for M&B. 

[SMiLE Brian]

M&B just love dragging the BBs name to those sleazy casinos. 

That's one of the things that really bothers me.  He wants to use the Beach Boys name, that's fine but they shouldn't be accepting gigs at such unsophisticated venues.

Brian, of course, would never, ever play a casino. No sir, he would not.

He isn't touring as "The Beach Boys".

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

I think the distinction is that there is a level of unpredictability with Brian that is not there with Mike. Like Mike or not, it's a given pretty much that he will show up, be a good frontman and deliver the goods, an audible Bruce or not, whereas Brian might have a meltdown or walk off or something.

[Jim V.]

I dunno man. Someone mentioned the term blowback earlier. It's like, you can't have stacks of books like Carlin's on the shelf talking about how post-Smile Brian didn't want to have anything to do with The Beach Boys and not liking them as people anymore and them being total assholes for wanting/wishing for him to contribute more and then turn around and bash Mike for basically saying the same thing, albeit in a kinder way.

Huh? So Mike's allowed to lie? Because him and Brian maybe sometimes didn't get along? Whatever the circumstances, Brian contributed to every album that the group did from 1964 til 1988. The facts are the facts. And Mike said something that basically was untrue.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

How is he lying? Because he made a general statement and didn't crack open the Badman book and give a rundown of details and dates?

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Rather, what I see here is people throwing around the term "Brianista" as a knee-jerk reaction because they really can't defend their own position. And it's applied to all sorts of positions - people who favour Smile and Pet Sounds over the early works, people who would prefer to see a Brian show over a Mike and Bruce show, people who like the way Brian looks in a picture even if though it was at a low point in his life. I don't particularly have much time for the belief that a person can do no wrong, but either way, the term is simply name-calling and as a result, it's puerile and always unnecessary.

I don't think that's the case. I've never been called a Brianista by anyone, and I'd *much* rather see Brian than Mike & Bruce, and I'd gladly trade in everything on the first five albums (except maybe Warmth Of The Sun and In My Room) for just one more song of the quality of Wonderful.

The term seems to me to be mostly (though not exclusively) used, on here at least, against those who won't let facts get in the way of bashing Mike Love

I only looked for one - it was easy. I typed in "Brianista" from user: The Real Beach Boy into the advanced search engine. I'm sure you can find a treasure trove there to reinforce my point. Here he is calling people Brianistas and stating that they lack integrity because they wanted to see The Beach Boys continue with the C50 lineup rather than see the groups split off as they have done now:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,14392.msg323474.html#msg323474

[Wirestone]

I think the distinction is that there is a level of unpredictability with Brian that is not there with Mike. Like Mike or not, it's a given pretty much that he will show up, be a good frontman and deliver the goods, an audible Bruce or not, whereas Brian might have a meltdown or walk off or something.

He has never done that at any of his solo shows, to my knowledge. (Yes, he sat down on stage one time, but he was trying to get rid of Al back then. And he went ahead with the rest of the show)

[Jim V.]

I feel impelled to point out that the only "acclaim" that Brian, Alan & David are currently "soaking up" is emanating from forums such as this (and of course The Bloo), more specifically from the Love-hating Brianista (current pejorative usage) contingent. No-one in the mainstream media has said anything one way or the other. For all we know, when push comes to shove they may suck royally.

I'd say the odds that they "suck royally" are very very very low. We will have Brian's band (with Brian), with the bonus of Al's voice and David's guitar and voice...should be an okay show.

I agree - odds on it'll be, at worst, adequate... but I like to cover all the bases.

I have never seem you "cover all the bases" for M&B.  

Good point. Seems like Andrew gives Mike and Bruce the benefit of the doubt. But Brian, Al, and Dave, he thinks they might suck.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I feel impelled to point out that the only "acclaim" that Brian, Alan & David are currently "soaking up" is emanating from forums such as this (and of course The Bloo), more specifically from the Love-hating Brianista (current pejorative usage) contingent. No-one in the mainstream media has said anything one way or the other. For all we know, when push comes to shove they may suck royally.

I'd say the odds that they "suck royally" are very very very low. We will have Brian's band (with Brian), with the bonus of Al's voice and David's guitar and voice...should be an okay show.

I agree - odds on it'll be, at worst, adequate... but I like to cover all the bases.

I have never seem you "cover all the bases" for M&B.  

Actually, he was quite negative towards them before the band revamp several years back (when Kowalski, Baker, ect. were still in the picture).

I think the distinction is that there is a level of unpredictability with Brian that is not there with Mike. Like Mike or not, it's a given pretty much that he will show up, be a good frontman and deliver the goods, an audible Bruce or not, whereas Brian might have a meltdown or walk off or something.

Good point, although Brian hasn't had any issues like that solo aside from that weird thing in 2007 when he laid down onstage.

Edit

Wirestone beat me to the last point

[KittyKat]

I don't see why the interview is that controversial. Mike doesn't say anything new. He doesn't say he's against ever reuniting. He just says it's not happening right now. He may just have said that to be polite. Whatever.

The article was mostly David Beard's words. What scared me is he said Brian fell multiple times on one show day. Brian is a senior citizen and it's a big deal that that's happening. You can say his back problems are temporary, but usually back problems are not and falling at his age puts Brian at risk of injuries that are very serious. Multiple falls on one day are a really bad sign, even for a so-called temporary problem that supposedly can be solved with surgery, which Brian had twice in one year. I worry about Brian after reading that and perhaps Mike does, too. I don't think Brian should be out there touring to prove a point.  Just a few shows a year might be okay, but no more than that. The people around Brian need to look after him. Seriously.

[AndrewHickey]

Rather, what I see here is people throwing around the term "Brianista" as a knee-jerk reaction because they really can't defend their own position. And it's applied to all sorts of positions - people who favour Smile and Pet Sounds over the early works, people who would prefer to see a Brian show over a Mike and Bruce show, people who like the way Brian looks in a picture even if though it was at a low point in his life. I don't particularly have much time for the belief that a person can do no wrong, but either way, the term is simply name-calling and as a result, it's puerile and always unnecessary.

I don't think that's the case. I've never been called a Brianista by anyone, and I'd *much* rather see Brian than Mike & Bruce, and I'd gladly trade in everything on the first five albums (except maybe Warmth Of The Sun and In My Room) for just one more song of the quality of Wonderful.

The term seems to me to be mostly (though not exclusively) used, on here at least, against those who won't let facts get in the way of bashing Mike Love

I only looked for one - it was easy. I typed in "Brianista" from user: The Real Beach Boy into the advanced search engine. I'm sure you can find a treasure trove there to reinforce my point. Here he is calling people Brianistas and stating that they lack integrity because they wanted to see The Beach Boys continue with the C50 lineup rather than see the groups split off as they have done now:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,14392.msg323474.html#msg323474

The Real Beach Boy was one of the people I was thinking of when I said "not exclusively"...

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Haha. Fair enough.

[Andrew G. Doe]

I think the distinction is that there is a level of unpredictability with Brian that is not there with Mike. Like Mike or not, it's a given pretty much that he will show up, be a good frontman and deliver the goods, an audible Bruce or not, whereas Brian might have a meltdown or walk off or something.

He has never done that at any of his solo shows, to my knowledge. (Yes, he sat down on stage one time, but he was trying to get rid of Al back then. And he went ahead with the rest of the show)

Brian walked off stage at the Kenwood House gig in London 2008. I understand it took the band 15 minutes of concerted persuading to get him to continue.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

I think the distinction is that there is a level of unpredictability with Brian that is not there with Mike. Like Mike or not, it's a given pretty much that he will show up, be a good frontman and deliver the goods, an audible Bruce or not, whereas Brian might have a meltdown or walk off or something.

He has never done that at any of his solo shows, to my knowledge. (Yes, he sat down on stage one time, but he was trying to get rid of Al back then. And he went ahead with the rest of the show)

Has Mike, or Bruce or Al ever walked off a gig? It's a good question. We all know Dennis could wander off at any time after a certain point and Carl did quit the band for a while!

Brian walked off stage at the Kenwood House gig in London 2008. I understand it took the band 15 minutes of concerted persuading to get him to continue.

[SMiLE Brian]

Bruce would only walk off the stage with Mike's permission.

[Andrew G. Doe]

M&B just love dragging the BBs name to those sleazy casinos. 

That's one of the things that really bothers me.  He wants to use the Beach Boys name, that's fine but they shouldn't be accepting gigs at such unsophisticated venues.

Brian, of course, would never, ever play a casino. No sir, he would not.

He isn't touring as "The Beach Boys".

As I pointed out, The Beach Boys - the real ones - were playing casinos in the early 80s and late 70s, thus Mike & Bruce - who btw are not The Beach Boys - are hardly setting a precedent. Carl was happy enough to play Tahoe and the like.

[SMiLE Brian]

M&B just love dragging the BBs name to those sleazy casinos.  

That's one of the things that really bothers me.  He wants to use the Beach Boys name, that's fine but they shouldn't be accepting gigs at such unsophisticated venues.

Brian, of course, would never, ever play a casino. No sir, he would not.

He isn't touring as "The Beach Boys".

As I pointed out, The Beach Boys - the real ones - were playing casinos in the early 80s and late 70s, thus Mike & Bruce - who btw are not The Beach Boys - are hardly setting a precedent. Carl was happy enough to play Tahoe and the like.

Not in 1981 when he left the group over the many casino shows and only came back when they agreed to play fewer casinos.

[AndrewHickey]

I worry about Brian after reading that and perhaps Mike does, too. I don't think Brian should be out there touring to prove a point.  Just a few shows a year might be okay, but no more than that. The people around Brian need to look after him. Seriously.

The people around Brian are, for the most part, good people who care about his welfare. Certainly enough of them are that if touring was harming Brian, it wouldn't be happening.

They know Brian, they know what medical advice he's had. We don't (and nor should we). Whatever health problems Brian is having didn't prevent him from playing more than seventy gigs last year and giving every appearance of enjoying them.

Brian's health and well-being should *absolutely* come first, but I don't think that we've got any evidence that that's not the case.

[dwtherealbb]

i sometimes wish that Carl would have followed through with his threats to leave the group and start a new one with Blondie and Ricky.

[KittyKat]

I worry about Brian after reading that and perhaps Mike does, too. I don't think Brian should be out there touring to prove a point.  Just a few shows a year might be okay, but no more than that. The people around Brian need to look after him. Seriously.

The people around Brian are, for the most part, good people who care about his welfare. Certainly enough of them are that if touring was harming Brian, it wouldn't be happening.

They know Brian, they know what medical advice he's had. We don't (and nor should we). Whatever health problems Brian is having didn't prevent him from playing more than seventy gigs last year and giving every appearance of enjoying them.

Brian's health and well-being should *absolutely* come first, but I don't think that we've got any evidence that that's not the case.

I base my opinion on have some elderly relatives and acquaintances over the years who were stubborn. I do understand it can be difficult for family members to get a person to realize they're not as young as they used to be, though, so maybe it's Brian himself that needs to pay attention to his own needs. He's not that old, but for some people 70 can be old. His back problem is something that may need rest and healing time. If he had to get the same surgery twice in one year, that may indicate he didn't allow himself proper rest and healing time the first time. Given that the 50 tour was part of that time it may have impeded his healing.  His multiple falls are concerning because it can indicate a problem with everything from the type of shoes he wears (not enough traction) to how his medications are affecting him (some cause low blood pressure when standing after sitting) to his back to any number of things. He may even need to be using a cane at this point. Lots of older people are very resistant to making adaptations that can keep them healthy, such as using canes or wearing different types of shoes, because of pride or vanity. It's not always easy for family members to convince them.

[Andrew G. Doe]

M&B just love dragging the BBs name to those sleazy casinos.  

That's one of the things that really bothers me.  He wants to use the Beach Boys name, that's fine but they shouldn't be accepting gigs at such unsophisticated venues.

Brian, of course, would never, ever play a casino. No sir, he would not.

He isn't touring as "The Beach Boys".

As I pointed out, The Beach Boys - the real ones - were playing casinos in the early 80s and late 70s, thus Mike & Bruce - who btw are not The Beach Boys - are hardly setting a precedent. Carl was happy enough to play Tahoe and the like.

Not in 1981 when he left the group over the many casino shows and only came back when they agreed to play fewer casinos.

But they didn't. By the time Dennis died they were playing as many if not more, and Carl was going along with it. My point still stands - Mike did not instigate playing casinos post spring 1998: it had already been happening for close on 20 years.

[Sheriff John Stone]

Wow, Mike sure makes it sound like Brian rarely contributed anything to the band from '64 to 2013.

Absolutely. I'd LOVE somebody to defend the "Occasionally, during the last 45 years, he has gotten together with us to do things like the 15 Big Ones album" quote. It is just intellectually dishonest the way Mike talks. Yes, Brian didn't tour all that much, but apparently Mike also forgets stuff like Pet Sounds or the fact that even from 1964 to 2012, Brian wrote almost every one of their hits.

Pet Sounds was released in 1966, 47 years ago. "Barbara Ann", "Sloop John B", "Then I Kissd Her", "I Can Hear Music", "Cottonfields", "Rock And Roll Music", "Come Go With Me", "Getcha Back", "Wipe Out", and "Kokomo" were hits NOT written by Brian Wilson. However, I agree with your overall point. Mike is not being totally honest.

What I feared the most is now happening. Actually, two things are happening. First, it's payback time. For 51 years, Mike and the others kissed Brian's ass. And, deservedly so. Brian made them all millionaires. Brian wrote the music to the songs on the records and Brian wrote the music to the songs that they performed live. And, Mike acknowledged that many times. Mike used to say at every concert, "Brian Wilson is the reason we are here tonight, musically". I believe that was captured on film somewhere. Not only did they thank him, they PAID him, even when he wasn't there, for 50 years. I'll let that up to you to decide if that was right or not.

But, Brian came and went. He started missing shows in 1963! He left the road in 1965. He came back in 1976 for five years more or less and that was it. From 1968 - 2013 (45 years) he produced three albums - Friends, 15 Big Ones, and Love You. Frankly, I'm not sure about his contribution, production-wise, on TWGMTR. On the albums that he did not produce, Brian contributed anywhere from one to four new songs. All the while, Mike welcomed Brian back at any time. Mike mentioned it in several interviews. Brian's response was usually that he didn't like Mike Love, didn't like The Beach Boys, didn't want to work with Mike Love, didn't want to work with The Beach Boys, and didn't even want to TALK to Mike Love. Brian continued to have a solo career, recording albums that easily could've, and in most cases, should've been Beach Boys' albums. Mike and the other Beach Boys patiently (or not) waited out the Landy period, only to have Brian begin another solo phase after he married Melinda. After Brian exhausts every kind of way to record a solo album, he decides that he now wants to be a Beach Boy again. Hmm.....

All those years, 1967- whenever, the Beach Boys were fu--ed. Personally and professionally. Guys were coming in and out of of the group. Drugs, mental illness, Murry, Manson, death, bankruptcy, solo careers, lawsuits, you name it. They had terrible managers, they made terrible decisions. You know who made some of the most terrible decisons? Mike Love. The first one was that tour with the Maharishi; cost them a fortune. There were others. What was that Celebration thing about? The cheerleaders. Stars And Stripes. Summer In Paradise. And many more. But you know what? At least he was trying something. Anything. I can name some other Beach Boys who spent a lot of 60's, 70's, and 80's stoned. They were not dependable to lead the band; they were having trouble leading their own lives. They weren't fighting for the band. They were fighting their own demons. They weren't offering any ideas. They were working on their own music or producing outside acts. They were following, not leading. Mike was left to lead. Well, he ain't marching anymore.

Mike Love is done going out on a limb, trying to pull it all together, kissing asses. Let somebody else do it. I think Mike's burned out. He's waiting for somebody else to organize it. He's waiting for another offer like Capitol Records gave them for C50. If he/they get another offer like that, we'll see more Mike, Brian, Al, Bruce, and Dave. If they don't, we won't.

[SMiLE Brian]

M&B just love dragging the BBs name to those sleazy casinos.  

That's one of the things that really bothers me.  He wants to use the Beach Boys name, that's fine but they shouldn't be accepting gigs at such unsophisticated venues.

Brian, of course, would never, ever play a casino. No sir, he would not.

He isn't touring as "The Beach Boys".

As I pointed out, The Beach Boys - the real ones - were playing casinos in the early 80s and late 70s, thus Mike & Bruce - who btw are not The Beach Boys - are hardly setting a precedent. Carl was happy enough to play Tahoe and the like.

Not in 1981 when he left the group over the many casino shows and only came back when they agreed to play fewer casinos.

But they didn't. By the time Dennis died they were playing as many if not more, and Carl was going along with it. My point still stands - Mike did not instigate playing casinos post spring 1998: it had already been happening for close on 20 years.

That period was the BBs lowpoint with fans and critics alike. The part of Carl that cared about the casino shows arguably died with Dennis. My point is this, The Beach Boys shouldn't play casinos, period.

[AndrewHickey]

Not in 1981 when he left the group over the many casino shows and only came back when they agreed to play fewer casinos.

Yes, because of course that was the reason he left, and not his desire to have a solo career, the upheavals in his own personal life over the previous years, the continued musical degeneration of the band, the discomfort from performing with his two brothers when neither were capable of functioning at even the most basic level, being sick of playing Barbara Ann every night of his life for sixteen solid years... it was just that they played casinos. Just that and nothing else.

And I presume that's why in the year after he came back to the band, they played such utterly classy venues as Six Flags, Astro World Houston, the Hart to Hart Hollywood High Homecoming Hop, Billy Bob's Texas Stockyards...