New Mike interview in HuffPost

[Iron Horse-Apples]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgepFKVVKVE

Pretty one-sided if you ask me.

Just how the Mike bashers like it

And this is why I feel justified in calling you an apologist. You are creating a line with the language you use. Most of us, including you, are intelligent enough to know it's not black and white. You've said this yourself. Yet by using words like Mike basher, or hater, or Brianista, it creates a "them and us" situation. I don't think anyone on here is saying he is evil incarnate, but based on comments and actions he has made in the past, its hard sometimes not to see everything he does as negative.

I do get a lot of your your points, but if you're going to claim you're walking a middle ground, then you should try to stop being confrontational.

Personally I'm happy enough with my view that Mike, from everything I have ever seen and read about him, is not the worlds most pleasant individual. I have grudging respect for him, mainly for the fact he doesn't care what anyone thinks of him, rather than any talent he has. However, I'm pleased my family rows aren't played out in public, as I probably wouldn't come across much better than Mike.

If pressed I can find reasons and excuses for most of Mike's actions, but these sort of thoughts by myself and others are usually disregarded and drowned out by the shouting matches which  usually seem to be instigated by Mike's defenders

[ToneBender631]

Possibly helping to name Pet Sounds. - That's great, Mike, but you didn't write Pet Sounds.

Helping with the lyrical direction of the bridge to Back In The U.S.S.R. - That's great, Mike, but it's hardly Penny Lane. It's Paul McCartney doing a pastiche of an early, formulaic Beach Boys sound that Mike could write in his sleep.

Kokomo was a #1 record!!! - Okay, Mike was a co-writer (responsible for the chorus only) and it was on the soundtrack of a fairly successful movie (which it was written for) that helped propel it to #1. It's a good pop song, but not exactly a high watermark of creativity for the Beach Boys that we look back on. 

Now, those three accomplishments are significantly more impressive than anything I've ever accomplished and I don't mean to take anything away from his life's work. But, he tends to share these three accomplishments in interviews and on-stage as if they somehow put him on equal creative footing with Brian. It sounds ridiculous to anyone that has even a modicum of knowledge about the Beach Boys creative output and more importantly, makes Mike appear to be overcompensating.

If all he talked about was his commitment to touring 100+ shows a year, being one of the most recognizable frontmen in rock and roll history, regularly making himself available to fans, his considerable amount of charitable work and the attention that he has brought to environmental causes, no one would have any problem with that (provided he does so with humble tone!). He should be very comfortable and proud of his life's work. He's the lead singer (and occasional lyricist) on music that helped define a time and a place in history. He's one of very few people that can say that in this world. Isn't that enough? But don't talk about writing the chorus to Kokomo as your big life achievement. Don't talk about possibly naming Pet Sounds as though it's a great artistic achievement that we should be stroking our chins to and saying, "Ah, that Mike Love, he's pretty clever with the words."

His obsession with those accomplishments in particular often overshadows all of the other very impressive and respectable things that he has done in his career which is a shame.

Now, the way he talks about the Wilson's addiction problems to the point of disparaging them, while glossing over the underlying causes (mental health problems and abusive parenting), is a different conversation altogether...

[Micha]

I defend Mike only when the view someone shows is totally one-sided and/or mindlessly negative. So I consider myself a Mike apologist. That doesn't make me a Kokomaoist!

If someone criticizes Mike in a thoughtful way, and Mike DOES have many flaws, like everybody has, that's ok with me.

[Kurosawa]

I just don't think Mike is capable of getting it. Empathy is really not his thing.

How do you reckon something like that?

I think Mike feels bad that Brian was so messed up by drugs, and I think he blames a lot of his and Dennis' falling out and Denny's death on them, but he never seems to mention or recognize the other factors that led them to abuse drugs so heavily. And the reason, I think, that he doesn't mention those factors is he just doesn't think about them. To Mike it was just all the drugs. He can't put himself in their shoes and see why they turned to such a self-destructive lifestyle because they grew up dominated by such a bad person as their father.

I don't think that makes Mike a bad guy, just a guy with different experiences than his cousins.

[LostArt]

I just don't think Mike is capable of getting it. Empathy is really not his thing.

How do you reckon something like that?

I think Mike feels bad that Brian was so messed up by drugs, and I think he blames a lot of his and Dennis' falling out and Denny's death on them, but he never seems to mention or recognize the other factors that led them to abuse drugs so heavily. And the reason, I think, that he doesn't mention those factors is he just doesn't think about them. To Mike it was just all the drugs. He can't put himself in their shoes and see why they turned to such a self-destructive lifestyle because they grew up dominated by such a bad person as their father.

I don't think that makes Mike a bad guy, just a guy with different experiences than his cousins.

Mike has talked about Murry's affect on the Wilson brothers, but I can't remember which of the many DVDs it's on.  He says that Murry's abuse affected Brian in one way, Dennis in another, and Carl in yet another.  Anyone remember this quote (or something like it) and where it comes from?

[leggo of my ego]

Hypothetically...
If one didnt trust Michael's motives one might think he keeps bring the "drug thang" up with his cousins
to drive a certain narrative.

Kinda like the mainstream media does. Repetition of the same subject might lead one to think its a subtle way to keep reminding Brians fanbase he a mental case. If so its a stupid manuever -- most likely to just generate more sympathy towards the Wilsons.

 But no one but him knows his true motives.

Maybe Mike should hire a publicist and keep his pie hole shut; but then we wouldnt have these entertaining discussions would we?

[Iron Horse-Apples]

The thought police on this board have very predictable tactics. At the slightest hint of a deviation from the party line, they label said individuals haters or bashers, then try to claim  they're the ones with the well rounded, tolerant views.

I'll happily read a defense of Mike, and take those things on board, but when the whinging about  Mike bashers and Brianistas starts, then it really destroys any meaningful discourse.

The fact that the guy causes so much controversy should tell us something. These criticisms of Mike don't come out of nowhere.

[guitarfool2002]

If someone has a running tally of how many times I've repeated this point, it might help discourage me from restating it again...

It's the drug issue again. Putting it bluntly, if you were a musician at a certain time or place, and remember the drugs of choice varied by era as to which were the preferred choices among musicians, you were more often consumed and surrounded by a drug culture in your business and your peer group.

It gets ridiculous to have the "drug thing" brought up ad nauseum in so many of these interviews, discussions, written histories, and all of that, especially surrounding the Beach Boys.

Do we need to list...I mean do we *really* need to list all of the examples of drug excess in the music community in the 60's and 70's?

Remember the character Roth in Godfather 2 telling Michael "This is the life we've chosen". This was the music business, not even mentioning the jazz scene since the 20's and 30's which was consumed by heroin and marijuana: It was the LA scene in 1966, it was the New York scene in 1967, it was most of music in the 70's which calmed down after Belushi died, it was Seattle in the 90's that has now filtered down to high schools in 2013, it's kids raving throughout the 90's and beyond all E'ed up wearing Glo-Stix and sucking pacifiers, it's freakin' Miles Cyrus name-dropping a trendy club drug like it's cool to f*** one's self up on stupid sh*t for no reason.

How many people have sung along with Cab Calloway when he did Minnie The Moocher...which was a song about someone who got the name trying to mooch smack from everyone? Oh, but that's a fun singalong, it's Cab Calloway, c'mon, it's a legend! Yes, about drugs.

Enough examples?

How about the record company meetings in the 70's where the boardroom table would have a tray in the middle with a heaping pile of coke for everyone to help themselves? How about the "custom" mixing boards in the disco era and culture where they'd have a mirror installed directly on the mixer for convenience during a long session?

How about several Beach Boys including Mike paying visits to and partying with the Manson "family", whose daily existence was in part fueled by acid trips?

Now some might say "Oh, bringing all that up, that's condoning drug use!", but I'm doing nothing of the sort. In fact it gets to a level where even mentioning the name "Loren" or trying to tie the drug use into the creative process in the history of the Beach Boys - which as hard as that may be to accept *is* part of the historical record necessary to tell the story - is akin to putting a stamp of approval over the behavior. Not quite - it's part of the story, part of the history, it needs to be told. Telling it is not endorsing it, condoning it, or waving a banner in favor of it.

But to look back and suggest the broad topic of "drugs" is to blame for many issues and problems which plagued this and many other bands is more akin to looking for a scapegoat or a punching bag than it is to really dissecting and searching for the specific answers and reasons.

I'm just suggesting if you were a musician in those eras, in places like LA or London or wherever, you were surrounded if not consumed by the drug culture. It was part of the musician lifestyle for so many of your peers and friends. It was destructive, it was silly, it was selfish, it was reckless and harmful, but all of the problems you might want to find an answer for the question "why did that happen?" cannot be narrowed down to the catch-all answer "drugs".

And I'd suggest by doing so, it might be missing some very valuable key points in the history, washed out of the history for the convenience of pinning all the blame on drugs.

Now if anyone would suggest I'm "condoning" drugs or drug use in this post, first you don't know me and second you're barking up the wrong tree. So let's just not even go down that road.

[KittyKat]

The thought police on this board have very predictable tactics. At the slightest hint of a deviation from the party line, they label said individuals haters or bashers, then try to claim  they're the ones with the well rounded, tolerant views.

I'll happily read a defense of Mike, and take those things on board, but when the whinging about  Mike bashers and Brianistas starts, then it really destroys any meaningful discourse.

The fact that the guy causes so much controversy should tell us something. These criticisms of Mike don't come out of nowhere.

It's the same cr** over and over and over and over again. I get tired of reading it. I don't like Mike but I start feeling like that crazy guy who did the "Leave Britanny aloooone!" clip.  Even though Mike is more than big enough to defend himself and there is some truth in what people say about him. Why do people keep bringing it up? You don't like Mike, you know exactly what he's going to say, if he said something different you'd accuse him of lying.

Seriously, it's bad for people's health to keep reliving stress. If you have Mike Love PTSD, why give yourself an ulcer by reading an interview with him and then getting angry all over again as you list reasons as to why he's SO WRONG! yet again.

[Mike's Beard]

I think it's helpful to remember that for us Brian Wilson's drug addictions amount to a few pages in a book or a few interviews in a documentary mentioning it. For Mike it was watching a family member and bandmate self destruct for the best part of 20 years. For every horrific Brian story any of us has heard, Mike has probably seen much, much worse, up close and in person, unfolding in real time. Cut the guy some slack.

[Micha]

Mike has talked about Murry's affect on the Wilson brothers, but I can't remember which of the many DVDs it's on.  He says that Murry's abuse affected Brian in one way, Dennis in another, and Carl in yet another.  Anyone remember this quote (or something like it) and where it comes from?

It's on Endless Harmony.

[Iron Horse-Apples]

The thought police on this board have very predictable tactics. At the slightest hint of a deviation from the party line, they label said individuals haters or bashers, then try to claim  they're the ones with the well rounded, tolerant views.

I'll happily read a defense of Mike, and take those things on board, but when the whinging about  Mike bashers and Brianistas starts, then it really destroys any meaningful discourse.

The fact that the guy causes so much controversy should tell us something. These criticisms of Mike don't come out of nowhere.

It's the same cr** over and over and over and over again. I get tired of reading it. I don't like Mike but I start feeling like that crazy guy who did the "Leave Britanny aloooone!" clip.  Even though Mike is more than big enough to defend himself and there is some truth in what people say about him. Why do people keep bringing it up? You don't like Mike, you know exactly what he's going to say, if he said something different you'd accuse him of lying.

Seriously, it's bad for people's health to keep reliving stress. If you have Mike Love PTSD, why give yourself an ulcer by reading an interview with him and then getting angry all over again as you list reasons as to why he's SO WRONG! yet again.

Not sure if you're criticising or agreeing with me  

But I agree wholeheartedly with you. It's a pointless, tiring, circular argument. This is what I mean when I say the controversy doesn't come from nowhere. The huge arguments stem from the fact though that there is a contingent on here who don't seem to be able to accept the slightest criticism of Mike, which is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

Conversely though, I think there are very few people on here who hate Mike. Frustrated by Mike, exasperated by Mike, embarrassed by Mike maybe.

I find it funny rather than stressful, however I will take your advice  KK, and bow out of this rather pointless discussion.

[CenturyDeprived]

The thought police on this board have very predictable tactics. At the slightest hint of a deviation from the party line, they label said individuals haters or bashers, then try to claim  they're the ones with the well rounded, tolerant views.

I'll happily read a defense of Mike, and take those things on board, but when the whinging about  Mike bashers and Brianistas starts, then it really destroys any meaningful discourse.

The fact that the guy causes so much controversy should tell us something. These criticisms of Mike don't come out of nowhere.

It's the same cr** over and over and over and over again. I get tired of reading it. I don't like Mike but I start feeling like that crazy guy who did the "Leave Britanny aloooone!" clip.  Even though Mike is more than big enough to defend himself and there is some truth in what people say about him. Why do people keep bringing it up? You don't like Mike, you know exactly what he's going to say, if he said something different you'd accuse him of lying.

Seriously, it's bad for people's health to keep reliving stress. If you have Mike Love PTSD, why give yourself an ulcer by reading an interview with him and then getting angry all over again as you list reasons as to why he's SO WRONG! yet again.

The huge arguments stem from the fact though that there is a contingent on here who don't seem to be able to accept the slightest criticism of Mike, which is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

This is an honest question: Do you think it's possible that ML employs a small contingent of people to defend him online? To 100% stick up for what he does/says when criticism happens? Obviously he knows that he has a rabid anti-fanbase of haters. I'm not pointing the finger at anybody specifically, just wondering if this is a conceivable scenario.

I've heard of other major artists who read messageboards and get royally pissed over internet sh*t-talkers, and sometimes personally even get into online pissing matches with random haters in cyberspace. I don't think ML would bother with getting involved himself, but I just wonder if he has ever slipped a few bucks, or leaned on people in a "favor" capacity to be his uber defenders.

And yes, I know that some people just respond with a knee-jerk reaction to defend him, to counter the oodles of ML misinformation that has permeated for years. And they have the right to do that, if they feel that his actions can be found to be legitimately defensible.

But that being said... I still ask my above question.

[Mike's Beard]

One or two of the more informed posters have said before that Mike honestly doesn't give a sh*t what people have to say about him.

[ontor pertawst]

People who REALLY give a sh*t love saying that, tho. I sure know I do!

[KittyKat]

The thought police on this board have very predictable tactics. At the slightest hint of a deviation from the party line, they label said individuals haters or bashers, then try to claim  they're the ones with the well rounded, tolerant views.

I'll happily read a defense of Mike, and take those things on board, but when the whinging about  Mike bashers and Brianistas starts, then it really destroys any meaningful discourse.

The fact that the guy causes so much controversy should tell us something. These criticisms of Mike don't come out of nowhere.

It's the same cr** over and over and over and over again. I get tired of reading it. I don't like Mike but I start feeling like that crazy guy who did the "Leave Britanny aloooone!" clip.  Even though Mike is more than big enough to defend himself and there is some truth in what people say about him. Why do people keep bringing it up? You don't like Mike, you know exactly what he's going to say, if he said something different you'd accuse him of lying.

Seriously, it's bad for people's health to keep reliving stress. If you have Mike Love PTSD, why give yourself an ulcer by reading an interview with him and then getting angry all over again as you list reasons as to why he's SO WRONG! yet again.

The huge arguments stem from the fact though that there is a contingent on here who don't seem to be able to accept the slightest criticism of Mike, which is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

This is an honest question: Do you think it's possible that ML employs a small contingent of people to defend him online? To 100% stick up for what he does/says when criticism happens? Obviously he knows that he has a rabid anti-fanbase of haters. I'm not pointing the finger at anybody specifically, just wondering if this is a conceivable scenario.

I've heard of other major artists who read messageboards and get royally pissed over internet sh*t-talkers, and sometimes personally even get into online pissing matches with random haters in cyberspace. I don't think ML would bother with getting involved himself, but I just wonder if he has ever slipped a few bucks, or leaned on people in a "favor" capacity to be his uber defenders.

And yes, I know that some people just respond with a knee-jerk reaction to defend him, to counter the oodles of ML misinformation that has permeated for years. And they have the right to do that, if they feel that his actions can be found to be legitimately defensible.

But that being said... I still ask my above question.

No, I doubt it. Mike has fans. There are people who love the Beach Boys based on seeing them for decades, with and without Wilsons or Al Jardine, but Mike is always there. They enjoy the show he puts on.  The people on here who are the most consistent defenders of Mike have been posting on Beach Boys boards as long as I've been reading and lurking on them.  They don't seem to be "official" Mike Love publicity people and in fact one of them used to co-run a message board devoted to "Smile," believe it or not.

[Paul J B]

I just don't think Mike is capable of getting it. Empathy is really not his thing.

How do you reckon something like that?

I think Mike feels bad that Brian was so messed up by drugs, and I think he blames a lot of his and Dennis' falling out and Denny's death on them, but he never seems to mention or recognize the other factors that led them to abuse drugs so heavily. And the reason, I think, that he doesn't mention those factors is he just doesn't think about them. To Mike it was just all the drugs. He can't put himself in their shoes and see why they turned to such a self-destructive lifestyle because they grew up dominated by such a bad person as their father.

I don't think that makes Mike a bad guy, just a guy with different experiences than his cousins.

Brian and Denny both had addictive personalities. There are plenty of people who turn to drugs, OD on drugs, and die from drugs that have decent families and decent parents. Blaming an abusive father (and I'm not saying he wasn't) is an easy out that has always gotten way too much blame for Brian and Dennis having made really poor decisions.

[Bicyclerider]

This is an honest question: Do you think it's possible that ML employs a small contingent of people to defend him online? To 100% stick up for what he does/says when criticism happens? Obviously he knows that he has a rabid anti-fanbase of haters. I'm not pointing the finger at anybody specifically, just wondering if this is a conceivable scenario.

Mike was paying me $5,000 a year to rabidly defend his every action on every Beach Boys website, and label anyone who didn't agree with everything he said "Mike bashers" and to point out that he wrote Kokomo without Brian and that any Beach Boys song without Mike lyrics was too melancholy and needed the upbeat emotional connection to the listener that only Mike's words could provide.  But I decided the money wasn't nearly enough to spread those lies and I broke the contract.  I'm now being sued by Mike for $100,000 for breach of contract and for using the name Beach Boys in a message board post without his permission.

[ontor pertawst]

Still, at least you get to keep his soiled hats.

[TimmyC]

It's amazing to me to how angry people get on this board. We're talking about the BEACH BOYS for God's sake. Why can't we all get along? But then I realize that's probably not fair to expect or ask since the Beach Boys have done anything but.  

Now if only Brian, Mike, Al, Bruce, and Dave (and Blondie!) could get their asses back into the studio....

[SMiLE Brian]

A quote from Oldsurferdude:

wanna stay on this board? It's easy-just don't say anything negative about the lovester. He is a wonderful man who has a great voice and and is a true artist. He will go down in history as one of the greatest entertainers of all time far surpassing Frank Sinatra in phrasing, voice and charisma. Really.



                                                                            

[SIP Mike]

It's true 
Glad you've come around

[SurfRiderHawaii]

A quote from Oldsurferdude:

wanna stay on this board? It's easy-just don't say anything negative about the lovester. He is a wonderful man who has a great voice and and is a true artist. He will go down in history as one of the greatest entertainers of all time far surpassing Frank Sinatra in phrasing, voice and charisma. Really.

                                                                             

Yup! And now OSD is permanently banned for criticizing the luvster.

[Emdeeh]

Now if only Brian, Mike, Al, Bruce, and Dave (and Blondie!) could get their asses back into the studio....

...TOGETHER.


 

[Jim V.]

Now if only Brian, Mike, Al, Bruce, and Dave (and Blondie!) could get their asses back into the studio....

...TOGETHER.


 

However, first Brian and Mike need to get IN A ROOM together to write.