I think I can understand why Brian might not wanna write much with Mike...

[SurfRiderHawaii]

Not being a BB's fan until the late 90's, I still can't wrap my head around the fact that Mike Love was denied authorship of some major, major songs such as 409, Wendy, I Get Around, Help Me Rhonda, etc.  and had to sue to have his credit established  That's disgraceful, bush league and it's one of the reasons people think of the BB's as second rate to the Beatles.  I mean, imagine if Lennon had excluded Paul from having authorship of Can't Buy Me Love or Hey Jude??  This is BS.

It happened in the Stones quite a  bit. Brian Jones and Bill W contributed to songs uncredited. The Beatles had the opposite issue, sometimes Paul would write 100% of a song and John got 50% credit. And vice versa.

The elephant in the room is why it took Mike 30 years, on average, to speak up about his credits. The reason is Brian had sued over royalties/ownership and got a big check. So Mike smells $ and sues Brian. Thing Brian should have done is coordinated his legal actions with his songwriting partners.

and, also settle with Mike for the $750k that he was willing take before Brian's lawyers made decision to let it go to court.

Yup!

[Cam Mott]

Not being a BB's fan until the late 90's, I still can't wrap my head around the fact that Mike Love was denied authorship of some major, major songs such as 409, Wendy, I Get Around, Help Me Rhonda, etc.  and had to sue to have his credit established  That's disgraceful, bush league and it's one of the reasons people think of the BB's as second rate to the Beatles.  I mean, imagine if Lennon had excluded Paul from having authorship of Can't Buy Me Love or Hey Jude??  This is BS.

It happened in the Stones quite a  bit. Brian Jones and Bill W contributed to songs uncredited. The Beatles had the opposite issue, sometimes Paul would write 100% of a song and John got 50% credit. And vice versa.

The elephant in the room is why it took Mike 30 years, on average, to speak up about his credits. The reason is Brian had sued over royalties/ownership and got a big check. So Mike smells $ and sues Brian. Thing Brian should have done is coordinated his legal actions with his songwriting partners.

Mike has said that when he testified for Brian in Brian's case against Irving he found out he still had rights to reclaim his copyrights Brian never did anything about.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

All I'm saying is people are adding meaning to the quote that isn't there

You are the leading practitioner of doing that in this thread when you suggest that he's simply talking about fans having particular favourite members of the band. Talk about a counter-reading!

Surprise, I disagree.

I didn't say he is simply talking about favorite members, in fact I discussed two points. There are fallacies. People have favorites in bands.

I'm unclear on your point, then. Do you think when someone says, "The Beatles were John Lennon" that that's just code for saying, "The Beatles had a lot of great players. I can see how some would like Paul the best. I can see how some would like George the best. Personally, my favourite is John"?

I mean I said there were two points and not "simply talking about fans having particular favourite members of the band".

I think Mike said some people say the Beatles were John, he wonders if Paul is then "chopped liver", and people have favorites in bands.

I know what Mike said but I honestly haven't a clue as to what you are saying.

[Cam Mott]

All I'm saying is people are adding meaning to the quote that isn't there

You are the leading practitioner of doing that in this thread when you suggest that he's simply talking about fans having particular favourite members of the band. Talk about a counter-reading!

Surprise, I disagree.

I didn't say he is simply talking about favorite members, in fact I discussed two points. There are fallacies. People have favorites in bands.

I'm unclear on your point, then. Do you think when someone says, "The Beatles were John Lennon" that that's just code for saying, "The Beatles had a lot of great players. I can see how some would like Paul the best. I can see how some would like George the best. Personally, my favourite is John"?

I mean I said there were two points and not "simply talking about fans having particular favourite members of the band".

I think Mike said some people say the Beatles were John, he wonders if Paul is then "chopped liver", and people have favorites in bands.

I know what Mike said but I honestly haven't a clue as to what you are saying.

Back at ya. Oh well.

[Jim V.]

Cam since your such a very objective critic, and never resort to apologetics for Mike, what do you think are his three worst decisions during The Beach Boys career?

[Cam Mott]

Cam since your such a very objective critic, and never resort to apologetics for Mike, what do you think are his three worst decisions during The Beach Boys career?

1. Going bald. 2. Trusting Brian to eventually do the right thing on the copyrights. 3. Viggie

[Heysaboda]

Not being a BB's fan until the late 90's, I still can't wrap my head around the fact that Mike Love was denied authorship of some major, major songs such as 409, Wendy, I Get Around, Help Me Rhonda, etc.  and had to sue to have his credit established  That's disgraceful, bush league and it's one of the reasons people think of the BB's as second rate to the Beatles.  I mean, imagine if Lennon had excluded Paul from having authorship of Can't Buy Me Love or Hey Jude??  This is BS.

I think that absolutely deserved the credit that he was owed. He wrote the lyrics to those songs!

However, Lennon excluding Paul for having authorship on "Hey Jude" would be an entirely different ball of wax. Difference being, while Mike wrote the lyrics to, say, "I Get Around", Paul wrote both the music and the lyrics to "Hey Jude". Lennon had zip to do with it, except supposedly for telling Paul to keep the line about "the movement you need is on your shoulder" or whatever.

True, and I agree, my analogy was flawed.  Still, wow.  No wonder Love was so PO'ed all the time.

[drbeachboy]

Cam since your such a very objective critic, and never resort to apologetics for Mike, what do you think are his three worst decisions during The Beach Boys career?

1. Going bald. 2. Trusting Brian to eventually do the right thing on the copyrights. 3. Viggie

[Heysaboda]

Not being a BB's fan until the late 90's, I still can't wrap my head around the fact that Mike Love was denied authorship of some major, major songs such as 409, Wendy, I Get Around, Help Me Rhonda, etc.  and had to sue to have his credit established  That's disgraceful, bush league and it's one of the reasons people think of the BB's as second rate to the Beatles.  I mean, imagine if Lennon had excluded Paul from having authorship of Can't Buy Me Love or Hey Jude??  This is BS.

The irony is that there are plenty of Lennon/McCartney credited songs where Lennon had bugger all to do with the writing and vice versa.

Yep - the fact is that songwriting credits are not as simple as the people who wrote it get the credit. Or, at least, that certainly wasn't the case in the 60s. Hell, didn't Mal Evans write most of Fixing a Hole?

Uh, no, he provided a couple of words.

okay I assume you were joking?   

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Not being a BB's fan until the late 90's, I still can't wrap my head around the fact that Mike Love was denied authorship of some major, major songs such as 409, Wendy, I Get Around, Help Me Rhonda, etc.  and had to sue to have his credit established  That's disgraceful, bush league and it's one of the reasons people think of the BB's as second rate to the Beatles.  I mean, imagine if Lennon had excluded Paul from having authorship of Can't Buy Me Love or Hey Jude??  This is BS.

The irony is that there are plenty of Lennon/McCartney credited songs where Lennon had bugger all to do with the writing and vice versa.

Yep - the fact is that songwriting credits are not as simple as the people who wrote it get the credit. Or, at least, that certainly wasn't the case in the 60s. Hell, didn't Mal Evans write most of Fixing a Hole?

Uh, no, he provided a couple of words.

okay I assume you were joking?   

Well, according to Mal, he had written enough that they were talking about royalties for him.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

However, this apparently isn’t the end of the story.  In the diary of roadie and friend Mal Evans, this entry is found for the day January 27th, 1967:  “Started writing song with Paul upstairs in his room, he on piano…Did a lot more of ‘when the rain comes in.’”  This insinuation that he co-wrote “Fixing A Hole” with Paul appears to be valid as substantiated by a taped interview Mal made shortly before his death in 1976.  There he staed:  “I stayed with (Paul) for four months and he had a music room at the top of his house with his multi-colored piano and we were up there a lot of the time.  We wrote ‘Sgt. Pepper’ and also another song on the album, ‘Fixing A Hole.’  When the album came out, I remember it very clearly, we were driving somewhere late at night…Paul turned round to me and said, ‘Look Mal, do you mind if we don’t put your name on the songs?  You’ll get your royalties and all that, because Lennon and McCartney are the biggest thing in our lives.  We are really a hot item and we don’t want to make it ‘Lennon/McCartney/Evans.  So, would you mind?’  I didn’t mind, because I was so in love with the group that it didn’t matter to me.  I knew myself what had happened.”

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

The point he is raising is that how could people possibly say The Beatles were John Lennon when someone like Paul McCartney contributed so much to what The Beatles were. He is drawing that comparison to himself - how can people say The Beach Boys were Brian Wilson when someone like Mike Love contributed so much to what The Beatles were. The difference, of course, is that Lennon and McCartney were far more equal contributors to The Beatles than Brian Wilson and Mike Love were.

Yes, but: as I've pleaded feebly before: Mike is (Love him or hate him) roughly 50 per cent of what The Beach Boys are. The template that was struck 50 years ago has really never wavered. And that template i:s Mike's voice with the counterpoint (or Mike's voice as the counterpoint to) the sensitive and more overtly emotive voice of Brian Wilson, and then when Brian went to bed, Carl stepped in with Al, Bruce and Dennis (who was the band's only real ringer) stepping up when/as needed..... That's The Beach Boys!!!! and Mike makes up basically half of if all by himself. Add to that, numerous writing credits and live frontman status: yes, he is as important to The Beach Boys as McCartney to The Beatles, IF in a different, though no less important way.

I hope you don't mind me jumping in here and prolonging or extending this discussion but I'm quite surprised by the "roughly 50 per cent" comment.  I generally find your posts to be very reasonable and fair, even though I might not agree with some of the conclusions - but this surprised me quite a bit. I think it significantly overplays Mike's contribution to the Beach Boys and I can't see that the 'template' is anything like as simple or as steady as you suggest. The Mike/Brian vocal counterpoint was just one element in the story / image /sound and it only lasted in any meaningful sense for 3-4 years. Mike doesn’t make up anywhere near half of ‘it’ in any way that I can see. Perhaps I’ve misunderstood the point, so apologies if that’s the case but I’m genuinely interested understanding this a bit more.

I’d argue that the two almost unique and irreplaceable features of ‘the Beach Boys’ are the compositional talents of Brian Wilson and the incredible vocal blend of the core members. Beyond that, I’d say that Brian’s production and arranging talents are the next most important elements. The closest thing to a template was Brian Wilson writing, producing and arranging music to sing with Carl, Mike, Dennis, Al etc.

That said, Mike took a key role in lead vocals on the first 8/9 albums, contributed lyrics to a large number of songs and is still the front man of the live shows after 50 years of touring. He’s a hugely important figure in the story of the band. But given the dominance of Brian’s contributions to new music up to the late 60’s (and sometimes beyond), the importance of multi-part harmony involving all of the principle members and the instrumental contributions of most of them, the continual reliance on Brian-centric material in the live shows for over 50 years and I really can’t see how anyone could reasonably say that Mike is roughly 50% of what the Beach Boys are. Add to all of that Carl’s increasing importance through the years (instrumentally in the studio, leading the live band, increasingly as a lead vocalist, leader producer for ten years for a significant number of albums, maybe the most consistently important voice in the blend) and the many contributions of Dennis, Al, Bruce and others and I start to think you’re significantly off with your assessment of Mike’s importance.

When Carl died, the Beach Boys only continued as a touring band drawing largely on older material and thereby demonstrating the importance of Brian Wilson’s talents even in his continuing absence. The only change was for the C50 last year, and that just reinforces Brian’s dominance to what the Beach Boys are.

I don’t want to downplay Mike’s role at all, it’s just that I think you’ve significantly overstated it with the 50% comment. Mike role was crucial to the band in many ways, but there were plenty of others hugely important roles and I find it very hard to accept that any other members contributions come anywhere near to matching Brian’s. Again, if I've got the wrong end of the stick - sorry!

I stand by my 50% comments.....

I'm not talking about who wrote what, who's the genius, who's the asshole, who it's OK to worship, etc etc: I'm talking about public perception and simply what is on recorded proof! Mike is half of what The Beach Boys are. Sorry. Not saying he's a great guy or deserves more acclaim than Brian or anyone else, or that Carl isn't the greatest singer who ever lived. The Beach Boys are Brian and Mike!!!! Post Brian breakdown, the others stepped up to fill his spot in various ways. Mike didn't have to be the lead singer on anything and everything. No matter how advanced Pet Sounds was, when Mike comes in on the bridge (ignoring the 5.1 mix) IT'S THE BEACH BOYS! No doubt about it..... Same thing with so many other songs. Yes, it's not quite as simple as I'm making it out to be ...... yet it also is.

[Jim V.]

Cam since your such a very objective critic, and never resort to apologetics for Mike, what do you think are his three worst decisions during The Beach Boys career?

1. Going bald. 2. Trusting Brian to eventually do the right thing on the copyrights. 3. Viggie

You got me. Except I suppose the balding thing he had no choice in.

[Cam Mott]

Cam since your such a very objective critic, and never resort to apologetics for Mike, what do you think are his three worst decisions during The Beach Boys career?

1. Going bald. 2. Trusting Brian to eventually do the right thing on the copyrights. 3. Viggie

You got me. Except I suppose the balding thing he had no choice in.

OK, fair enough. 1a. Trying to catch up to Denny in alimony payouts.

[Micha]

Personally, I think the Endless Harmony doc quotation is far more reflective than just about anything else he's said. It was that rare moment where I go, "Aha! Well, that explains a lot."

I read that: Ah! This quote matches my pre-conceived opinion best. Now I can forget all other quotes, now I know I'm right.

It's like if you want to prove that Brian hates Van Dyke and obsess on Brian's quote that VDP is the biggest asshole in the world.

It often comes down to "Brian can do no wrong, Mike can do no right", while of course both of them do right and wrong. Mike probably does wrong more often than Brian, but he's far from being all evil.

[Micha]

11 more pages of mental masturbation. Pathetic.

Hey, what's wrong with mastubation?!?

[El Molé]

The point he is raising is that how could people possibly say The Beatles were John Lennon when someone like Paul McCartney contributed so much to what The Beatles were. He is drawing that comparison to himself - how can people say The Beach Boys were Brian Wilson when someone like Mike Love contributed so much to what The Beatles were. The difference, of course, is that Lennon and McCartney were far more equal contributors to The Beatles than Brian Wilson and Mike Love were.

Yes, but: as I've pleaded feebly before: Mike is (Love him or hate him) roughly 50 per cent of what The Beach Boys are. The template that was struck 50 years ago has really never wavered. And that template i:s Mike's voice with the counterpoint (or Mike's voice as the counterpoint to) the sensitive and more overtly emotive voice of Brian Wilson, and then when Brian went to bed, Carl stepped in with Al, Bruce and Dennis (who was the band's only real ringer) stepping up when/as needed..... That's The Beach Boys!!!! and Mike makes up basically half of if all by himself. Add to that, numerous writing credits and live frontman status: yes, he is as important to The Beach Boys as McCartney to The Beatles, IF in a different, though no less important way.

I hope you don't mind me jumping in here and prolonging or extending this discussion but I'm quite surprised by the "roughly 50 per cent" comment.  I generally find your posts to be very reasonable and fair, even though I might not agree with some of the conclusions - but this surprised me quite a bit. I think it significantly overplays Mike's contribution to the Beach Boys and I can't see that the 'template' is anything like as simple or as steady as you suggest. The Mike/Brian vocal counterpoint was just one element in the story / image /sound and it only lasted in any meaningful sense for 3-4 years. Mike doesn’t make up anywhere near half of ‘it’ in any way that I can see. Perhaps I’ve misunderstood the point, so apologies if that’s the case but I’m genuinely interested understanding this a bit more.

I’d argue that the two almost unique and irreplaceable features of ‘the Beach Boys’ are the compositional talents of Brian Wilson and the incredible vocal blend of the core members. Beyond that, I’d say that Brian’s production and arranging talents are the next most important elements. The closest thing to a template was Brian Wilson writing, producing and arranging music to sing with Carl, Mike, Dennis, Al etc.

That said, Mike took a key role in lead vocals on the first 8/9 albums, contributed lyrics to a large number of songs and is still the front man of the live shows after 50 years of touring. He’s a hugely important figure in the story of the band. But given the dominance of Brian’s contributions to new music up to the late 60’s (and sometimes beyond), the importance of multi-part harmony involving all of the principle members and the instrumental contributions of most of them, the continual reliance on Brian-centric material in the live shows for over 50 years and I really can’t see how anyone could reasonably say that Mike is roughly 50% of what the Beach Boys are. Add to all of that Carl’s increasing importance through the years (instrumentally in the studio, leading the live band, increasingly as a lead vocalist, leader producer for ten years for a significant number of albums, maybe the most consistently important voice in the blend) and the many contributions of Dennis, Al, Bruce and others and I start to think you’re significantly off with your assessment of Mike’s importance.

When Carl died, the Beach Boys only continued as a touring band drawing largely on older material and thereby demonstrating the importance of Brian Wilson’s talents even in his continuing absence. The only change was for the C50 last year, and that just reinforces Brian’s dominance to what the Beach Boys are.

I don’t want to downplay Mike’s role at all, it’s just that I think you’ve significantly overstated it with the 50% comment. Mike role was crucial to the band in many ways, but there were plenty of others hugely important roles and I find it very hard to accept that any other members contributions come anywhere near to matching Brian’s. Again, if I've got the wrong end of the stick - sorry!

I stand by my 50% comments.....

I'm not talking about who wrote what, who's the genius, who's the asshole, who it's OK to worship, etc etc: I'm talking about public perception and simply what is on recorded proof! Mike is half of what The Beach Boys are. Sorry. Not saying he's a great guy or deserves more acclaim than Brian or anyone else, or that Carl isn't the greatest singer who ever lived. The Beach Boys are Brian and Mike!!!! Post Brian breakdown, the others stepped up to fill his spot in various ways. Mike didn't have to be the lead singer on anything and everything. No matter how advanced Pet Sounds was, when Mike comes in on the bridge (ignoring the 5.1 mix) IT'S THE BEACH BOYS! No doubt about it..... Same thing with so many other songs. Yes, it's not quite as simple as I'm making it out to be ...... yet it also is.

That's fair enough and I think I understand your point if it's just about public perception. I disagree completely though or at least I can't recognise or relate well to that public perception. Thanks for elaborating though, I do find it an interesting view-point.

If we're talking about Wouldn't it Be Nice then it's the Beach Boys from the moment you get to the multi-part "wee-ooo". I think the Beach Boys are far less identified with one or two particular individuals than many other groups, maybe because the brothers/cousins aspect was so important or maybe they just didn't have anyone with the right image and personality. I think they are more identified with both musical and familial harmony as brothers and cousins (however fractious the reality was/is). Mike was visible and prominent in the early years, but I think only Brian comes close to being an identifiable name and none of them really had an identifiable image. I think you might be right about early Mike and Brian having identifiable voices, but I think Brian's early high parts are the really distinctive elements (and actually Bruce's high parts slotted in very well in place of Brian's). Mike played a part in creating and maintaining the public perception but I don't think that that perception relates particularly to Mike more than to any other member.

I think public perception would be much more about the Beach Boys songs, vocal harmony and the surf/summer/car image they fostered rather than Mike and/or Brian. To all of their credit, the music was always the star of the show.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

The point he is raising is that how could people possibly say The Beatles were John Lennon when someone like Paul McCartney contributed so much to what The Beatles were. He is drawing that comparison to himself - how can people say The Beach Boys were Brian Wilson when someone like Mike Love contributed so much to what The Beatles were. The difference, of course, is that Lennon and McCartney were far more equal contributors to The Beatles than Brian Wilson and Mike Love were.

Yes, but: as I've pleaded feebly before: Mike is (Love him or hate him) roughly 50 per cent of what The Beach Boys are. The template that was struck 50 years ago has really never wavered. And that template i:s Mike's voice with the counterpoint (or Mike's voice as the counterpoint to) the sensitive and more overtly emotive voice of Brian Wilson, and then when Brian went to bed, Carl stepped in with Al, Bruce and Dennis (who was the band's only real ringer) stepping up when/as needed..... That's The Beach Boys!!!! and Mike makes up basically half of if all by himself. Add to that, numerous writing credits and live frontman status: yes, he is as important to The Beach Boys as McCartney to The Beatles, IF in a different, though no less important way.

I hope you don't mind me jumping in here and prolonging or extending this discussion but I'm quite surprised by the "roughly 50 per cent" comment.  I generally find your posts to be very reasonable and fair, even though I might not agree with some of the conclusions - but this surprised me quite a bit. I think it significantly overplays Mike's contribution to the Beach Boys and I can't see that the 'template' is anything like as simple or as steady as you suggest. The Mike/Brian vocal counterpoint was just one element in the story / image /sound and it only lasted in any meaningful sense for 3-4 years. Mike doesn’t make up anywhere near half of ‘it’ in any way that I can see. Perhaps I’ve misunderstood the point, so apologies if that’s the case but I’m genuinely interested understanding this a bit more.

I’d argue that the two almost unique and irreplaceable features of ‘the Beach Boys’ are the compositional talents of Brian Wilson and the incredible vocal blend of the core members. Beyond that, I’d say that Brian’s production and arranging talents are the next most important elements. The closest thing to a template was Brian Wilson writing, producing and arranging music to sing with Carl, Mike, Dennis, Al etc.

That said, Mike took a key role in lead vocals on the first 8/9 albums, contributed lyrics to a large number of songs and is still the front man of the live shows after 50 years of touring. He’s a hugely important figure in the story of the band. But given the dominance of Brian’s contributions to new music up to the late 60’s (and sometimes beyond), the importance of multi-part harmony involving all of the principle members and the instrumental contributions of most of them, the continual reliance on Brian-centric material in the live shows for over 50 years and I really can’t see how anyone could reasonably say that Mike is roughly 50% of what the Beach Boys are. Add to all of that Carl’s increasing importance through the years (instrumentally in the studio, leading the live band, increasingly as a lead vocalist, leader producer for ten years for a significant number of albums, maybe the most consistently important voice in the blend) and the many contributions of Dennis, Al, Bruce and others and I start to think you’re significantly off with your assessment of Mike’s importance.

When Carl died, the Beach Boys only continued as a touring band drawing largely on older material and thereby demonstrating the importance of Brian Wilson’s talents even in his continuing absence. The only change was for the C50 last year, and that just reinforces Brian’s dominance to what the Beach Boys are.

I don’t want to downplay Mike’s role at all, it’s just that I think you’ve significantly overstated it with the 50% comment. Mike role was crucial to the band in many ways, but there were plenty of others hugely important roles and I find it very hard to accept that any other members contributions come anywhere near to matching Brian’s. Again, if I've got the wrong end of the stick - sorry!

I stand by my 50% comments.....

I'm not talking about who wrote what, who's the genius, who's the asshole, who it's OK to worship, etc etc: I'm talking about public perception and simply what is on recorded proof! Mike is half of what The Beach Boys are. Sorry. Not saying he's a great guy or deserves more acclaim than Brian or anyone else, or that Carl isn't the greatest singer who ever lived. The Beach Boys are Brian and Mike!!!! Post Brian breakdown, the others stepped up to fill his spot in various ways. Mike didn't have to be the lead singer on anything and everything. No matter how advanced Pet Sounds was, when Mike comes in on the bridge (ignoring the 5.1 mix) IT'S THE BEACH BOYS! No doubt about it..... Same thing with so many other songs. Yes, it's not quite as simple as I'm making it out to be ...... yet it also is.

That's fair enough and I think I understand your point if it's just about public perception. I disagree completely though or at least I can't recognise or relate well to that public perception. Thanks for elaborating though, I do find it an interesting view-point.

If we're talking about Wouldn't it Be Nice then it's the Beach Boys from the moment you get to the multi-part "wee-ooo". I think the Beach Boys are far less identified with one or two particular individuals than many other groups, maybe because the brothers/cousins aspect was so important or maybe they just didn't have anyone with the right image and personality. I think they are more identified with both musical and familial harmony as brothers and cousins (however fractious the reality was/is). Mike was visible and prominent in the early years, but I think only Brian comes close to being an identifiable name and none of them really had an identifiable image. I think you might be right about early Mike and Brian having identifiable voices, but I think Brian's early high parts are the really distinctive elements (and actually Bruce's high parts slotted in very well in place of Brian's). Mike played a part in creating and maintaining the public perception but I don't think that that perception relates particularly to Mike more than to any other member.

I think public perception would be much more about the Beach Boys songs, vocal harmony and the surf/summer/car image they fostered rather than Mike and/or Brian. To all of their credit, the music was always the star of the show.

Well put, but I have a feeling public perception regarding The Beach Boys is: the fat crazy guy with the beard and the asshole with the baseball cap....

[El Molé]

Well put, but I have a feeling public perception regarding The Beach Boys is: the fat crazy guy with the beard and the asshole with the baseball cap....

Ha ha! That's far too close to the truth!

[Micha]

I've finally rewatched the footage of Mike claiming that the reason for the Beach Boys meaning so much to people was the positivity which was him.

Well, he's obviously wrong. Without the quality of Brian's music the positivity wouldn't be so compelling.

But when Mike says that, he seems unusually upset and aggressive, as if the interviewer had just downplayed Mike's role in the success of the Boys in a way that made him really angry.

As most of us will agree, the reasons for the BBs being so good are Brian's compositions, his arrangements, the singing abilities of the band members and their vocal blend. That's what makes the music so beautiful.

But I think the point Mike tries to make here is that it might mean less to many people if the lyrics were all the lonely sea, heads you win tails I lose, or love is here today tomorrow it's gone. As Mike seems very upset here I give him the benefit of the doubt that just before Mike's claim the interviewer had done Brian's merits justice extensively and Mike wanted to get his piece of the cake by that claim. Isolated as it's edited into the documentary it makes it seem like he wants all the cake.

Of course, this is just my assumption from Mike's agressiveness when he says this phrase, he's much calmer in other segments. What do you think?

[leggo of my ego]

Well put, but I have a feeling public perception regarding The Beach Boys is: the fat crazy guy with the beard and the asshole with the baseball cap....

Ha ha! That's far too close to the truth!

IN the 40 some odd years of my knowledge concerning the Beach Boys, that is, before I started to investigate what "Pet Sounds & Smile" was about "the crazy one" was the only BB I knew by name.

For the most part I really knew zippo about their output besides car, surf & chicks on the beach type tunes. A friend of mine in the 6th grade had "Smiley Smile" when it was released and that was the last I heard of the Beach Boys for years. I remember when "Sail On Sailor" got airplay but never knew who the band was - it sure didn't sound like Beach Boys to me.

When Endless Summer hit I looked at the record and said - Huh, so those clean-cut dudes all grew beards? Just another record in the stores that held zero interest to me at the time. Beach Boys LPs of the late 60's early 70's was stuff I flipped past in the cut-out bins.

Shoot, it wasn't that long ago I thought "Little Old Lady" or "Dead Man's Curve" were also the Beach Boys (who's Jan & Dean?) 

But, as ignorant I was concerning the career of the band known as The Beach Boys -- I knew who Brian Wilson was and could even share rudimentary information about him in conversation. Definitely, he has been the main focal point whether by virtue of his contributions, his notorious actions/ history, or because the journalistic community has devoted more coverage to him. 

I would wager the name of Brian Wilson was, is and always will be the most commonly associated with the band.