gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
665677 Posts in 26693 Topics by 3823 Members - Latest Member: BeachBoysTalkonTwitch January 17, 2021, 05:27:48 PM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 10 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Mike's leadership of the band  (Read 39869 times)
Jim V.
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2929



View Profile
« Reply #50 on: May 06, 2013, 09:45:35 PM »

From my perspective, it's pretty simple.  Carl is present, if not dominant, as a songwriter, musician and/or producer (whether credited or not) on every single album through BB'85, including the BW-produced ones, with one glaring exception:  the Al- and Mike-dominated M.I.U.

After 1985, he's gone in all three capacities.  Carl shows up, sings and leaves.  That's a pretty drastic change to how things were before.  With Brian and Dennis out of the picture because of Landy and death, that pretty much leaves Mike and Terry Melcher in charge.  I don't see how you can argue otherwise.  We can quibble over whether it was something that Mike wanted or was forced by circumstances to do, but a quick comparison of the credits to BB'85 and KTSA vs. every album thereafter says it all.  Mike was in charge, by choice or by default, take your pick.

Exactly. Right on. Cam's obsession with this is a little odd, and he shrugs off any evidence we try to throw his way. Kinda reminds me of the birthers here in America. They refuse to accept to the truth for whatever reason.
Logged
Shady
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6244


I had to fix a lot of things this morning


View Profile
« Reply #51 on: May 06, 2013, 10:42:53 PM »

Couldn't they have done what they had been doing since 1996 (until 2012 obviously): Release no new material, tour constantly. No one seems to have cared about the paucity of new material for those 16 years, and everyone would've been spared those presumably horrible (I've never listened to them) post-1985 albums.

You know you should really listen to "Still Cruisin". It's a great album.
Logged

According to someone who would know.

Seriously, there was a Beach Boys Love You condom?!  Amazing.
Bean Bag
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1177


Right?


View Profile
« Reply #52 on: May 06, 2013, 11:30:21 PM »

I'll take Summer In Paradise over that song any day as well......  Evil

That AND his acoustic Layla cover.... I'd rather put Summer Of Love on 24/7  rotation for a whole summer than have to suffer that crap.
Absolutely.  Even the leanest of Beach Boy harvests is where I'd rather be.  It's about escapism and joy.  Soothing and enchanting and escapist -- whether involved and diving in -- or leaving the scene with overripe metaphors.  While Clapton's more-personal and sensitive work may be more acceptable in general company ...I'd rather get lost in a Beach Boy coconut-fantasy than Clapton's small, polite universe.

And I don't know why.
Logged

409.
MBE
Guest
« Reply #53 on: May 07, 2013, 02:08:55 AM »

Cam's a good poster, he brings up a lot of good points normally, but the theory in this thread is out and out wrong. Leading a band isn't a official title necessarily, but by 1986 it was the Endless Summer Beach Band led by Mike Love in all but name. 

Bruce, Al, Dave, Ricky, and Blondie never lead the band in any fashion. MIU was produced by Al but I think Mike and even Brian shared a lot of the load so it's not his album entirely.

Brian was their firm leader through mid 1968, and still was a part of many crucial decisions through the Sunflower/Surf's Up period. He has said several times that it wasn't until 1971 that he felt they could make records without his input. Of course they did a fair share of work without him on 20/20, and Dennis in particular worked alone at times, but I think the use of Surf's Up against Brian's wishes was the first time his word wasn't final. After that his mental health never permitted him to be in complete control like the old days, but he did take a leadership role of sorts from 1976 to mid 1977 and again in the reunion.

Manson was why Dennis never was the leader. Despite the fact that he easily showed the most promise as a writer, and certain television appearances like David Frost in 1971 and Mike Douglas in 1969 were dominated by him, that alone cost him a lot of the say and respect he had previously. Once drinking and hard drugs began to really effect his performances on stage circa 1977-78 his opinion mattered even less. I don't think Dennis would ever have been able to take charge on any practical matters, but I do think he would have played a bigger role in the post Sunflower albums. He left the group for a few weeks in 1971 (the Surf's Up album arguments and his hand injury made him question his desire to stay), and his work on So Tough was basically solo. On Holland he did write more for the group but he disliked the proceedings so much he basically had Carl finish them. He had no real say in the 1976-77 sessions, and though he put a good deal of work into LA Light, his compositions were actually much more reflective of the Bambu sessions, no wonder given their origin.

Carl was the leader on the road as early as the non Brian shows of 1963. On the three Jack Rieley era albums, he was very much in charge of the group and from 1965-73 he was basically running the live show by himself. After Murry's death he seemed less powerful than before as far as the sets went. He still seemed to have more of a say so than anyone else through 1980, but his ideas met with more resistance over 1974-80. His hard drug use in 1977-78 only made things worse. After he came back in 1982 he seemed to have a lot of say initially, but from 1984 on, with rare exceptions like the rarities in the spring of 1988, and the 1993 box set tour, he doesn't seem to have much influence on the overall set. Of course he always ran the show until 1997 at a practical level as far as the music and musicians were concerned, but his touch was missed. The Steve Levine thing was his last real studio project, and seemed to have very little input in his last three Beach Boys albums, except maybe to act as mediator.

Mike did not have more control than anyone else until 1973 when his brother became their manager. Blondie would not have been out of the band with Jack still in charge and we know he left over Carl's objections. Mike doesn't seem to be directly involved but I am sure he backed up his brother instead of Chaplin. Of course we know the oldies got more and more prevalent each year after 1973 as well. I wouldn't call Mike a leader though until after the brief 1977 break up. The shape the Wilsons' were in made it so he almost had to step in more. Sadly that meant things like the 1977 Dennis tour was cancelled. Frankly that rash decision only made his abuse of drink and drugs worse, which in turn hurt the band. Once Carl got better Mike's role lessened slightly for a time, but after Carl left in 1981 Love was clearly was the only one with enough passion to try to lead. It was a disaster. Carl came back, the shows improved, but the format Mike came up with in 1981 was largely there to stay. After Dennis died, with the exception of the Steve Levine sessions, Carl just seemed to have his heart less in the group than Mike did. Thus Mike took full helm of the creative direction of the group from 1986 on, not without resistance, but his ideas were the ones that got done.

Sadly Mike's oldies attitude didn't change enough until early in this century, and for all of his fine qualities as an artist (through the early seventies), I must say he stunk at being a leader of the actual Beach Boys. He seems to be far better in situations like the post 1997 Beach Boys where he had ALL the final say.

From the mid eighties on, he seems to have had a major conflict with Al. Though they always had buddy moments, Brian and he did have a strained relationship during the Smile period. Mike should not take the blame at all for the album not coming out, but there were some new tensions. Their friendship did seem to recover for a while, but it was never consistent after the very early seventies. Since the mid eighties Brian's view on Mike seems to mostly be low and very publically so.

Carl and he fought a lot over the bands direction and management from 1973 on. Compared to the others they seemed to be able to co-exist mostly, but Carl did leave in 1981 because of where Mike wanted the group to go. All the group can be faulted for going along with the oldies deal at one time or another, but Mike was behind it.

Dennis and Mike had a fraught relationship from the late sixties on, but at least they seemed able to work together until  the late seventies where you basically had to keep them apart. Of course Dennis' absences from the band from 1979 on were largely caused by his own demons, but it was Mike who found it hardest to work with him and vice versa.

Commenting on the reunion, they all seemed to work at making it work, but unlike the others Mike didn't want to keep the original band together afterwards. I think he argued his feeling about it quite well in this case, but shouldn't the band have learned to talk to each other without the press being involved? This time though we should ask if Mike or the others were directly to blame. To me it feels like a big mistake from both "camps" so to speak. Mike got horrible press and backlash, but I don't think it was deserved in this instance.

As bad as I think Mike's leadership was due to his ego, or as much as I think his vision for the group from the mid seventies on was wrongheaded, I am only being fair. I am one of his biggest defenders when it comes to the qualities he added to the band from 1961-73, yet he has been the source of most real conflict within the group, was not able to keep the group together, nor did he seem to want to. I am not saying he is evil (he has some very good personal qualities along with some bad), or at this point even wrong at wanting to stay with
something that comes easier, but he was not the diplomat of the band.

How do I back this all up, reading a lot of articles and books, talking to people involved both before and after Carl died, and common sense. That they did a cover of Wipeout that Mike did not write, and which may only feature Brian (though I am not as convinced as Andrew), is not relevant. It was Mike's idea 100 percent. It's not a guess but a documented fact in the very accurate Wilson Project book. That means that even when it seemed Mike wasn't in charge, he very much was.   

As far as the blow jobs, are any of you at all shocked that Mike Love would have at one time considered that a nice perk.

Logged
Nicko1234
Guest
« Reply #54 on: May 07, 2013, 02:19:02 AM »

MIU was produced by Al but I think Mike and even Brian shared a lot of the load so it's not his album entirely.


Al has said he only produced the vocals on MIU so certainly not 'his' album.
Logged
Cam Mott
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4171


View Profile
« Reply #55 on: May 07, 2013, 03:20:52 AM »

Yep the liner notes. There it is, Mike owns SIP and it explains how he produced without producing. So chalk one up to Mike. That leaves a whole lot of leadership for a couple of decades to spread around amongst the rest of the group.

Logged

"Bring me the head of Carmen Sandiego" Lynne "The Chief" Thigpen
Nicko1234
Guest
« Reply #56 on: May 07, 2013, 07:03:45 AM »

I must say he stunk at being a leader of the actual Beach Boys.

Artistically, yes.

But commercially, not really. Kokomo, Wipeout and the Still Cruisin' LP were all bigger hits than the band could realistically have expected at that point. And the concerts (even with the cheerleaders) continued to bring in the crowds.
Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9226


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #57 on: May 07, 2013, 07:43:09 AM »

So much to reply, so little time. I'll start with this one: "Tears In Heaven" and the quality/reception to that song.

I don't know who was alive or actively buying music in 1992, or who were the old-school 60's/70's fans who knew Clapton for Cream and Layla above the rest, but there seems to be no hint of the context surrounding "Tears In Heaven" that drove it to the top 10 on the singles charts, and which still has it firmly on the AC/soft pop format playlists to this day.

That song came in the wake of a terrible tragedy where Eric Clapton's son Conor was killed when he fell out of a city window. I remember listening to Howard Stern as the story broke, and when it turned out to be Clapton's son, it added another level to the tragedy as people felt more personally connected to an already awful event because they knew who was involved through his fame as a musician.

When Clapton released a song written in the wake of that tragedy, specifically for his deceased son, larger numbers of people connected with that song, perhaps heard elements of their own grief or tragedies in the words, and it became a "hit", which is always surreal in the wake of a very sad event but certain songs just connect at certain times. tears In Heaven is still played regularly at memorial services, funerals, and church services because the lyrics connect and transcend the song's surface status as another soft pop ballad on the charts in 1992.

So to hold out "Tears In Heaven" in some way as a comparison to what could have been with the Beach Boys releasing some fun in the sun romp, or whatever the case...

...it's missing the point, and the context of that song more than someone's perceived quality or lack thereof when hearing it in 2013 is ignoring what the public's reaction was in 1992 when the song came out. It hit people in an emotional way, and when a song does that, the "music critic" opinions of the validity, or artistic quality, or "lasting power" or whatever else makes music writers gush over stuff means nothing to people buying and feeling the record.

It may not be a favorite of some, but it can't be used to compare or contrast what else from the BB's or any other act could have been a hit on the same 1992 charts when the background and context of the song Tears In Heaven is considered, and that's not what was being done. If another artist with no personal connection or reaction to personal tragedy had released the same song, it would not have been as successful. IMO
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #58 on: May 07, 2013, 07:50:43 AM »

Kind of like Candle in the Wind 1997 on a smaller scale.
Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9226


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #59 on: May 07, 2013, 08:02:18 AM »

Kind of like Candle in the Wind 1997 on a smaller scale.

Exactly, and on a lesser scale the same with U2 who had a song like "Walk On" take on a different meaning and connect with listeners in the wake of 9-11, where the song's original release was fair-to-average reception. To be accurate, the how's-and-why's behind the success of those songs as future music fans see them on the charts have to be put into context to make any kind of a fair assessment beyond the surface or gut-level reactions to hearing those songs out of context.

Likewise there are holiday songs like "I'll Be Home For Christmas", "White Christmas", or even "Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas" which are well-regarded classics in their own right, but when put into the context of World War II when they originated (not even directly connected or written for that, just when they were released), hearing the lyrics in that context can be emotionally devastating.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3744



View Profile
« Reply #60 on: May 07, 2013, 11:51:05 AM »

Cam's a good poster, he brings up a lot of good points normally, but the theory in this thread is out and out wrong. Leading a band isn't a official title necessarily, but by 1986 it was the Endless Summer Beach Band led by Mike Love in all but name. 

Bruce, Al, Dave, Ricky, and Blondie never lead the band in any fashion. MIU was produced by Al but I think Mike and even Brian shared a lot of the load so it's not his album entirely.

Brian was their firm leader through mid 1968, and still was a part of many crucial decisions through the Sunflower/Surf's Up period. He has said several times that it wasn't until 1971 that he felt they could make records without his input. Of course they did a fair share of work without him on 20/20, and Dennis in particular worked alone at times, but I think the use of Surf's Up against Brian's wishes was the first time his word wasn't final. After that his mental health never permitted him to be in complete control like the old days, but he did take a leadership role of sorts from 1976 to mid 1977 and again in the reunion.

Manson was why Dennis never was the leader. Despite the fact that he easily showed the most promise as a writer, and certain television appearances like David Frost in 1971 and Mike Douglas in 1969 were dominated by him, that alone cost him a lot of the say and respect he had previously. Once drinking and hard drugs began to really effect his performances on stage circa 1977-78 his opinion mattered even less. I don't think Dennis would ever have been able to take charge on any practical matters, but I do think he would have played a bigger role in the post Sunflower albums. He left the group for a few weeks in 1971 (the Surf's Up album arguments and his hand injury made him question his desire to stay), and his work on So Tough was basically solo. On Holland he did write more for the group but he disliked the proceedings so much he basically had Carl finish them. He had no real say in the 1976-77 sessions, and though he put a good deal of work into LA Light, his compositions were actually much more reflective of the Bambu sessions, no wonder given their origin.

Carl was the leader on the road as early as the non Brian shows of 1963. On the three Jack Rieley era albums, he was very much in charge of the group and from 1965-73 he was basically running the live show by himself. After Murry's death he seemed less powerful than before as far as the sets went. He still seemed to have more of a say so than anyone else through 1980, but his ideas met with more resistance over 1974-80. His hard drug use in 1977-78 only made things worse. After he came back in 1982 he seemed to have a lot of say initially, but from 1984 on, with rare exceptions like the rarities in the spring of 1988, and the 1993 box set tour, he doesn't seem to have much influence on the overall set. Of course he always ran the show until 1997 at a practical level as far as the music and musicians were concerned, but his touch was missed. The Steve Levine thing was his last real studio project, and seemed to have very little input in his last three Beach Boys albums, except maybe to act as mediator.

Mike did not have more control than anyone else until 1973 when his brother became their manager. Blondie would not have been out of the band with Jack still in charge and we know he left over Carl's objections. Mike doesn't seem to be directly involved but I am sure he backed up his brother instead of Chaplin. Of course we know the oldies got more and more prevalent each year after 1973 as well. I wouldn't call Mike a leader though until after the brief 1977 break up. The shape the Wilsons' were in made it so he almost had to step in more. Sadly that meant things like the 1977 Dennis tour was cancelled. Frankly that rash decision only made his abuse of drink and drugs worse, which in turn hurt the band. Once Carl got better Mike's role lessened slightly for a time, but after Carl left in 1981 Love was clearly was the only one with enough passion to try to lead. It was a disaster. Carl came back, the shows improved, but the format Mike came up with in 1981 was largely there to stay. After Dennis died, with the exception of the Steve Levine sessions, Carl just seemed to have his heart less in the group than Mike did. Thus Mike took full helm of the creative direction of the group from 1986 on, not without resistance, but his ideas were the ones that got done.

Sadly Mike's oldies attitude didn't change enough until early in this century, and for all of his fine qualities as an artist (through the early seventies), I must say he stunk at being a leader of the actual Beach Boys. He seems to be far better in situations like the post 1997 Beach Boys where he had ALL the final say.

From the mid eighties on, he seems to have had a major conflict with Al. Though they always had buddy moments, Brian and he did have a strained relationship during the Smile period. Mike should not take the blame at all for the album not coming out, but there were some new tensions. Their friendship did seem to recover for a while, but it was never consistent after the very early seventies. Since the mid eighties Brian's view on Mike seems to mostly be low and very publically so.

Carl and he fought a lot over the bands direction and management from 1973 on. Compared to the others they seemed to be able to co-exist mostly, but Carl did leave in 1981 because of where Mike wanted the group to go. All the group can be faulted for going along with the oldies deal at one time or another, but Mike was behind it.

Dennis and Mike had a fraught relationship from the late sixties on, but at least they seemed able to work together until  the late seventies where you basically had to keep them apart. Of course Dennis' absences from the band from 1979 on were largely caused by his own demons, but it was Mike who found it hardest to work with him and vice versa.

Commenting on the reunion, they all seemed to work at making it work, but unlike the others Mike didn't want to keep the original band together afterwards. I think he argued his feeling about it quite well in this case, but shouldn't the band have learned to talk to each other without the press being involved? This time though we should ask if Mike or the others were directly to blame. To me it feels like a big mistake from both "camps" so to speak. Mike got horrible press and backlash, but I don't think it was deserved in this instance.

As bad as I think Mike's leadership was due to his ego, or as much as I think his vision for the group from the mid seventies on was wrongheaded, I am only being fair. I am one of his biggest defenders when it comes to the qualities he added to the band from 1961-73, yet he has been the source of most real conflict within the group, was not able to keep the group together, nor did he seem to want to. I am not saying he is evil (he has some very good personal qualities along with some bad), or at this point even wrong at wanting to stay with
something that comes easier, but he was not the diplomat of the band.

How do I back this all up, reading a lot of articles and books, talking to people involved both before and after Carl died, and common sense. That they did a cover of Wipeout that Mike did not write, and which may only feature Brian (though I am not as convinced as Andrew), is not relevant. It was Mike's idea 100 percent. It's not a guess but a documented fact in the very accurate Wilson Project book. That means that even when it seemed Mike wasn't in charge, he very much was.   

As far as the blow jobs, are any of you at all shocked that Mike Love would have at one time considered that a nice perk.




Yeah, it takes a total asshole like Mike to be into that sorta perk. Especially in the world of rock n roll!  Evil
Logged
Cam Mott
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4171


View Profile
« Reply #61 on: May 07, 2013, 04:07:20 PM »

Mike knows his stuff but I think I disagree somewhat. I think the decisions made from 1973 through 1997 were much more democratic than we like to shorthand it with everybody taking their turn at taking the lead but over it all was Brian when he was intersted but mostly Carl letting people or group approved outsiders take their turns and have their shot and occasionally pushing his perogative as the sort of consensus most equal among equals.
Logged

"Bring me the head of Carmen Sandiego" Lynne "The Chief" Thigpen
Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3744



View Profile
« Reply #62 on: May 07, 2013, 04:44:54 PM »

I must say he stunk at being a leader of the actual Beach Boys.

Artistically, yes.

But commercially, not really. Kokomo, Wipeout and the Still Cruisin' LP were all bigger hits than the band could realistically have expected at that point. And the concerts (even with the cheerleaders) continued to bring in the crowds.

I think we're looking at a situation of tempered expectations, a scaling back of ambition and a sort of resigning to a very positive fate of playing huge shows and living the lives of rock stars playing "oldies" (mainly) till the cows come home.... and maybe, if they were lucky, a minor hit or two every few years.... Can we really blame a bunch of middle aged guys who were probably tired, frankly of giving a damn? How many high highs followed swiftly by crushing lows can one group of massive egos handle? ..... After flop album after flop album (Love You through BBS85) and a near fatal creative suicide attempt (15 Big Ones)  is it really any surprise these guys made it a priority to live as peaceful a life as possible while still getting to be rock stars?
Logged
Lonely Summer
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3560


View Profile
« Reply #63 on: May 07, 2013, 11:42:10 PM »

If anyone doubts that Mike was pushing for control of the band during the 80's/90's, just read his 1992 interview in Goldmine. He talks about the concept behind Still Cruisin' - all BB's songs from movies - and complains how that got watered down because Al wanted to have a song on the album, and Brian had a song on the album, neither of which were from movies. He says there were too many cooks in the kitchen, diluting the final product. Thus, we get SIP - the end product being the vision of only 2 people, Mike and Terry. And at the time, he felt this made it a stronger album, and would be the raging success the band craved. He didn't want Carl's songs, he didn't want Al's songs....although Bruce did have one song on the album, presumably because, as always, Bruce was down with Mike's vision of the album.
Logged
MBE
Guest
« Reply #64 on: May 08, 2013, 12:21:31 AM »

I wasn't really saying anything about chart or concert success, I was talking about holding together the band. Without Carl around, Mike could not, and would not, do it. I know they appealed to the Full House crowd at the time, but I prefer to forget 90 percent of what they did since 1980, not counting the reunion.

I am sure things were put to a vote of some sort, yet I think it's clear Mike gradually held more and more sway until his was the dominant voice. Not the only voice, but he was the only one who had any desire to lead during the 1986-97 period. Carl still made sure the show ran correctly and worked closest with the musicians, but Mike was given the title of "recording captain" in 1986 and it's obvious he was calling the shots as far as image and any current music was concerned.
Logged
Cam Mott
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4171


View Profile
« Reply #65 on: May 08, 2013, 04:11:33 AM »

If anyone doubts that Mike was pushing for control of the band during the 80's/90's, just read his 1992 interview in Goldmine. He talks about the concept behind Still Cruisin' - all BB's songs from movies - and complains how that got watered down because Al wanted to have a song on the album, and Brian had a song on the album, neither of which were from movies. He says there were too many cooks in the kitchen, diluting the final product. Thus, we get SIP - the end product being the vision of only 2 people, Mike and Terry. And at the time, he felt this made it a stronger album, and would be the raging success the band craved. He didn't want Carl's songs, he didn't want Al's songs....although Bruce did have one song on the album, presumably because, as always, Bruce was down with Mike's vision of the album.

Where is this part about not wanting Carl and Al's songs on SIP?

So this is 1992ish and things are being done democratically and he has clearly not been in control [especially not of the albums] according to this interview. 
« Last Edit: May 08, 2013, 04:26:16 AM by Cam Mott » Logged

"Bring me the head of Carmen Sandiego" Lynne "The Chief" Thigpen
leggo of my ego
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1453


Beach Boys Stomp


View Profile
« Reply #66 on: May 08, 2013, 06:43:44 AM »

I can see Mike being the browbeating kinda guy to take control. And at that point in time nobody probably wanted to bother much to play "king of the hill".  Wink
Logged

Hey Little Tomboy is creepy. Banging women by the pool is fun and conjures up warm summer thoughts a Beach Boys song should.

Necessity knows no law
A bootlegger knows no law
Therefore: A bootlegger is a necessity
Cam Mott
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4171


View Profile
« Reply #67 on: May 08, 2013, 07:01:28 AM »

I can see Mike being the browbeating kinda guy to take control. And at that point in time nobody probably wanted to bother much to play "king of the hill".  Wink

Wouldn't he have browbeat Brian and Al's songs off of SC for being out of theme if that were true or he was in control and leading the group?
Logged

"Bring me the head of Carmen Sandiego" Lynne "The Chief" Thigpen
Jim V.
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2929



View Profile
« Reply #68 on: May 08, 2013, 08:30:00 AM »

OK. So here's the deal. Whether Cam wants to accept it or not, this was Mike's group by the late '80s/early '90s more than it had been at any point since the early days. Maybe he wasn't confirmed as the "boss/head guy/recording captain/oh captain my captain/what have you" but the facts are he was front and center, writing credit wise, stage show wise, appearances on Full House representing the band, etc. And the proof is in the pudding that during this time by and large the band sucked. They had some OK stuff on Still Cruisin', but it was obvious Mike especially just wants to write about summer and cars. And the liner notes to Summer in Paradise prove that it was his baby, and the result is not only The Beach Boys worst album, but one of the most embarrassing albums in music history. An album that sold under 10,000 copies. I think it would be fair to say that no Mike Love equals no Summer in Paradise. Which means I fault him (and Terry Melcher) more than anybody else for the debacle. Mike Love was an embarrassment during those years, and to an extent, the stench of that embarrassment still permeates to this day.

But anyways, yeah, all five of them are to blame. Mike, Bruce, Al, Carl, and even Brian. They all made the embarrassing choices. But we must note it's not Brian, Al, or Dave taking "Beach Boys" promo photos with John Stamos.

Lastly, who gives a f*** who was "officially" in charge. Whatever happened happened. It's really unimportant, even by Smiley Smile forum standards.
Logged
leggo of my ego
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1453


Beach Boys Stomp


View Profile
« Reply #69 on: May 08, 2013, 09:13:06 AM »

Well, I for one care. Mainly because I do not have the wealth of knowledge that most of the seasoned posters on the board do. I but I agree with the rest of what you said.  And even a novice (like me) knows that Mike waxed unpleasant to work with when upset.

In addition to my former post, the old saying "Power abhors a vaccum"

There is another old saying: The squeaky wheel gets the oil.  Wink

I think these could apply in the transistion of "power" to Mr. Love
Logged

Hey Little Tomboy is creepy. Banging women by the pool is fun and conjures up warm summer thoughts a Beach Boys song should.

Necessity knows no law
A bootlegger knows no law
Therefore: A bootlegger is a necessity
Cam Mott
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4171


View Profile
« Reply #70 on: May 08, 2013, 10:21:09 AM »

OK. So here's the deal. Whether Cam wants to accept it or not, this was Mike's group by the late '80s/early '90s more than it had been at any point since the early days. Maybe he wasn't confirmed as the "boss/head guy/recording captain/oh captain my captain/what have you" but the facts are he was front and center, writing credit wise, stage show wise, appearances on Full House representing the band, etc. And the proof is in the pudding that during this time by and large the band sucked. They had some OK stuff on Still Cruisin', but it was obvious Mike especially just wants to write about summer and cars. And the liner notes to Summer in Paradise prove that it was his baby, and the result is not only The Beach Boys worst album, but one of the most embarrassing albums in music history. An album that sold under 10,000 copies. I think it would be fair to say that no Mike Love equals no Summer in Paradise. Which means I fault him (and Terry Melcher) more than anybody else for the debacle. Mike Love was an embarrassment during those years, and to an extent, the stench of that embarrassment still permeates to this day.

But anyways, yeah, all five of them are to blame. Mike, Bruce, Al, Carl, and even Brian. They all made the embarrassing choices. But we must note it's not Brian, Al, or Dave taking "Beach Boys" promo photos with John Stamos.

Lastly, who gives a f*** who was "officially" in charge. Whatever happened happened. It's really unimportant, even by Smiley Smile forum standards.

You are entitled to your opinion about the embarrassment. Mike and his shenanigans would be down the list of legacy tarnishing embarassments in my opinion. I personally can't see how the videos and TV appearnaces did anything but help the group regardless of what I may think of them. A tanked album is just another of their tanked album and since it tanked it's hard to see how it might have had much impact, since almost no one heard it which is why it tanked.

Mike controlled an album, others in the group controlled more albums, lots of blame. Mike's album tanked, others' albums tanked. Mike sang lead and twisted around in a video, other sang and twisted around in videos. Mike appeared on Full House, others appeared on Full House. Still not seeing much evidence for Mike being in control or in leadership. Still looks more like a consensus thing through those years with all of the band taking leadership and personal opinions don't change it.
Logged

"Bring me the head of Carmen Sandiego" Lynne "The Chief" Thigpen
Nicko1234
Guest
« Reply #71 on: May 08, 2013, 10:36:53 AM »

A tanked album is just another of their tanked album and since it tanked it's hard to see how it might have had much impact, since almost no one heard it which is why it tanked.



On that point I agree with you. When people look at the legacy of The Beach Boys, the Summer in Paradise album won't mean a thing because so few people have ever heard it. 15 Big Ones on the other hand...
Logged
c-man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4789


View Profile WWW
« Reply #72 on: May 08, 2013, 10:40:12 AM »

Cam, by the '80s, I think Carl and Mike were both running the show, but in two very different ways:  Carl was the "musical leader" and Mike was the "business" leader.  I think they both recognized that and stayed out of each others' ways.  Mike's role as "business leader" included getting them a lot of high profile gigs, or at least collaborate with the band's publicity team to work the press in such as way as to maximize the opportunities from those.  Mike was very concerned with projecting the Beach Boys' "image" in just the right way, i.e. perpetuating the "fun in the sun" image.  After the 1985 album was a relative failure, I believe Carl lost some leverage in the artistic field, or at the very least lost interest in pursuing recording with the band:  he may have resigned himself to the belief that no matter what they tried, they weren't going to have hit records anymore, so why waste their time.  Instead, he turned to outside creative outlets...he tried to reactivate his solo career by recording some demos, but evidently couldn't get a deal, so he then formed a recording alliance with Beckley and Lamm...but again, I believe he gave up on the Beach Boys' recording career as far as contributing anything more than vocals as required.  Then, once "Kokomo" hit Number One, Mike had added leverage as far as their recording career went (especially in terms of his songwriting partnership with Melcher).  As far as "Still Cruisin'" goes, I think Mike had a big hand in getting them a sponsorship deal with Chevy that made the album possible (that, and Capitol's desire to release an album with their two recent hits, "Wipe Out" and "Kokomo", both hit singles for other labels).  It's clear from Mike's 1992 Goldmine interview that he believed the way to go was with "commercial"-sounding songs in the great hit-making "formula" tradition of the Beach Boys, and Carl and Al were either convinced of this, or they just went along with it without fighting.  Yes, Al was "furloughed" at the beginning of the "SIP" sessions, but came back at the tail end to add some parts...but whether he could have worked any leverage even if he had a song or songs ready to be included, I'm not so sure...again, the Mike and Terry partnership was a proven winning formula at that point, even on the basis of only one hit, but it was more leverage than the other guys could muster.  I believe that in the '90s, Mike's "leadership" in the business sense grew even more solid...as has been pointed out by a couple of writers documenting this time in the band's history, Mike was able to position his own production company as the producers of the band's shows.  Al apparently resisted this, but Carl gave in, and Brian either abstained or also voted in Mike's favor.  Either way, Mike won this important opportunity, and his "leadership" in the business sense became even more strongly solidified.  Carl still "ran" things onstage, Mike was "running" things in a business sense, and as far as their recording career went...Carl gave up after '85, Mike had the leverage to get "SIP" done HIS way (hence his executive producer credit...a title that usually goes to people who produce in a business sense, not in a musical sense), but after that bombed, they were dead in the water as recording artists...no one was willing to sign them unless they brought Brian along.  Make sense?
« Last Edit: May 08, 2013, 11:01:32 AM by c-man » Logged
Cam Mott
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4171


View Profile
« Reply #73 on: May 08, 2013, 10:58:18 AM »

Cam, by the '80s, I think Carl and Mike were both running the show, but in two very different ways:  Carl was the "musical leader" and Mike was the "business" leader.  I think they both recognized that and stayed out of each others' ways.
It's clear from Mike's 1992 Goldmine interview that he believed the way to go was with "commercial"-sounding songs in the great hit-making "formula" tradition of the Beach Boys.   

So Mike wasn't in charge of the music except for SIP I take it [between 1973 and 1997]?

I've heard that the songs for the setlists were sort picked democratically by the group under Carl's supervision and that Mike sort of set the order of the voted in songs. Do you or anyone know anything about that?

Bruce has said Carl was hands on with Kokomo. Do you know anything about whether that is true or not?
« Last Edit: May 08, 2013, 11:05:31 AM by Cam Mott » Logged

"Bring me the head of Carmen Sandiego" Lynne "The Chief" Thigpen
AndrewHickey
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1999



View Profile
« Reply #74 on: May 08, 2013, 11:02:30 AM »

Cam, by the '80s, I think Carl and Mike were both running the show, but in two very different ways:  Carl was the "musical leader" and Mike was the "business" leader.  I think they both recognized that and stayed out of each others' ways.
It's clear from Mike's 1992 Goldmine interview that he believed the way to go was with "commercial"-sounding songs in the great hit-making "formula" tradition of the Beach Boys.   

Craig, that I can see that. So Mike wasn't in charge of the music except for SIP I take it [between 1973 and 1997]. I've heard that the songs for the setlists were sort picked democratically by the group under Carl's supervision and that Mike sort of set the order of the voted in songs. Do you or anyone know anything about that?



I remember Billy Hinsche saying once that Sail On Sailor was added to the setlist in the 90s by either Carl or Al, and against Mike's wishes, so at the very least he didn't have complete veto power.
Logged

The Smiley Smile ignore function: http://andrewhickey.info/the-smiley-smile-ignore-button-sort-of/
Most recent update 03/12/15
gfx
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 10 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.175 seconds with 21 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!