New Mike interview in HuffPost

[Gabo]

I think it was about the ten million dollars for Mike.

Keep in mind he went bankrupt in the early 1980s and didn't sue Brian then for credit.

My uncle says he saw Mike talking to a loan officer in Santa Barbara in the 70s... if only Brian remembered to put his name on California Girls... :/

[guitarfool2002]

What took Brian so long to sue Irving? What's the difference? He got the job done. Now we are suspicious of Mike for helping Brian in his suit against Irving. Man. Mike also tried to help Brian against Mike's own interest in Mike's suit against Brian/Irving. What a jerk.

My previous post: Suing for 50 million plus royalty/credit against a recent settlement of 10 million, naming 48 songs when it was more like 35 in question according to the court...on the surface would that look like someone trying to help?

[jamsvet]

"ML: I learned that when you do the best job that you can do, some people will idolize you, others won't care and some will vilify you. I believe it is important to remain humble and thankful for the blessings in our lives, for the tremendous opportunities that are a result of our musical success."


From this we have devolved into 13 pages of he said this, he said that.

[Nicko1234]

It's hilarious that this innocuous interview has sparked this debate again. With neither side listening to each other for a moment...

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

It's a lot easier just to consider all this stuff basically none of our business and to be a Beach Boys fan warts n all.

[Cam Mott]

What took Brian so long to sue Irving? What's the difference? He got the job done. Now we are suspicious of Mike for helping Brian in his suit against Irving. Man. Mike also tried to help Brian against Mike's own interest in Mike's suit against Brian/Irving. What a jerk.

My previous post: Suing for 50 million plus royalty/credit against a recent settlement of 10 million, naming 48 songs when it was more like 35 in question according to the court...on the surface would that look like someone trying to help?

Is the 50 million figure from court documents or speculation in an interview? But let's say it's true. It would neither help nor hurt since a jury set the award I believe and it wouldn't change the fact that Mike did the things I said.

[Cam Mott]

I don't understand why the fact that Mike didn't go after Brian earlier seems to matter. Mike had to prove his case and Brian has admitted Mike deserved it. Mike explained that he had been asking Brian about it all along and Brian put him off with broken promises to fix it. So Mike put his faith in Brian apparently. Later Mike testified for Brian in Brian's case against Irving. As a result of that Mike found out he still had an actionable claim. So are we supposed to be upset because Mike waited for Brian, helped Brian sue, and offered a low ball settlement?

Mike's explanation and using it here as a basis of fact for our discussion would be thrown out of any court testimony as "heresay", actually it's a classic definition of that legal term. So we're basing this point on the fact that Mike had been asking Brian about it all along and Brian put him off with broken promises to fix it? None of that holds up in court, it's Mike "explaining" that Brian told him something but never delivered on his words. You can't base a case or even a point on what someone says they were told (heresay) when contracts are involved.

I think you're connecting too many dots that aren't there. Let me understand the point, though, to be sure: Brian told Mike he'd fix it but never did. That point is heresay. Mike apparently put his faith in Brian to fix it because Brian told him he'd do it. That's heresay. Mike testified for Brian in Brian's case against A&M/Irving, was he subpoenaed as a witness for the party filing the claim or did he join forces to file the suit? Was Mike's case against Brian's collecting royalties Mike felt he was owed, or was it against A&M who owned the songs in question for not paying royalties he felt he was owed?

And how does Mike testifying in Brian's original case lead to the conclusion that from his involvement as a witness in Brian's case, Mike realizes that he too has a claim of his own to file? Against A&M/Irving for not paying, or against Brian for owing Mike based on faulty songwriting credits being filed decades ago? Is this a "chicken or the egg" scenario, where "first this, then that" needs to happen to move forward? Or did Mike decide to file his own challenge based on Brian's victory and collection of a 10 million settlement?

Or are we suggesting Mike and Brian were jointly filing the same case against A&M? Confused.

I share the same head-scratching question at this point: Which lawsuit is it?    Was Mike's formal legal complaint against Brian for his failure to ensure the songs were properly credited, was the legal complaint against Irving/A&M for not paying his money owed from those songs, or was it a lawsuit putting all of those elements into one catch-all legal case?

If Mike's claim hinged on Brian's perceived failure to get Mike properly credited, and the claim sought to collect that back money owed Mike, the claim gets filed against Brian and his interests based on the 10 million awarded Brian for not getting *his* money owed by A&M/Almo. Right?

If Mike felt he was not properly credited as far back as 1965 for hits like "California Girls", and he was seeking what he hasn't been paid because of that improper credit all those years, whose financial burden does that fall on to pay him the back payments? The entity failing to pay out the royalties who was actually writing the checks, or the entity who in Mike's words failed to live up to a verbal agreement to make things right who was getting those checks for what Mike claimed he was entitled to a portion of?

So did Mike collect from Brian's 10 million award? Or did he collect from A&M?

I said what it was a claim by Mike. You will have to look up Mike's interview for his explanation. I don't know why Brian waited so long but Mike has given an explanation for his timing. Has or has not Brian admitted that it happened and Mike deserved the money?

Can't lawyers look up at least a description of suits back to that period on LexisNexis so we can know how many suits and who were the plaintiffs and defendants?

[Cam Mott]

It always devolves into this and name calling.

What it devolves into is that Mike was right, Brian knew Mike was right, Brian didn't do anything to resolve the situation, actually Brian fought it, Mike sues, Mike is the bad guy for suing, and oh whoa is Brian.

All these legal details do is detract from the issue which is Brian's character, or lack of, in handling the matter.

You're leaving out one crucial element. Brian in a legal ruling from December 1991 had his finances placed under the control of a conservator, it was instigated as part of the Landy debacles, and is a confusing chain of events and court battles which followed, from the Loves to his mother and his daughters to eventually Carl Wilson. But a judge did rule that Brian's affairs be placed in conservatorship.

And that essentially means Brian was not able under that ruling to make decisions on his financial or legal affairs without the conservator actually doing the decision-making.

And recall that something important happened in summer 1995, reported here:

More bad vibrations for Beach Boys founder Brian Wilson, 53. The singer-songwriter filed suit against lawyer Jerome Billet, his former court-appointed conservator, claiming negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, Sept. 19 in Los Angeles. Billet was assigned to represent Wilson's interests in all legally binding contracts from 1992 to 1995 because a court had deemed the singer ''mentally incompetent.'' Wilson, who contends Billet misrepresented him in a variety of business dealings resulting in the loss of millions, is asking Los Angeles Superior Court to award him unspecified damages of at least $10 million. David C. Nelson, a lawyer for Billet, says, ''We're confident that Mr. Billet acted in the utmost good faith. He intends to defend [himself] against these claims vigorously.''


So unfortunately for Mike and Brian and which events shaped our opinions of their actions, all of the above lawsuits came and went at the time Brian was deemed by a court ruling to be "mentally incompetent" and therefore all of the decisions relating to his financial and legal affairs went to the conservator. Whether Brian said "let's screw over Mike" or "let's settle this thing now", it simply wasn't his call under a court ruling to do so.

Now, would we still suggest Brian was malicious or showed a lack of character in his handling of these specific affairs when a court ordered that he could not legally make any decisions on his own in these affairs without his court-appointed legal counsel?

All of Brian's "malicious" happened long before any conservatorship or the lawsuit in a time when Brian was super competent.  He was competent to successfully sue Irving in the same period. On the other hand Mike and his lawyer argued for Brian against Brian's lawyers in Mike's suit against Irving/Brian.

[Cam Mott]

(sarcasm)-Big bad Brian Wilson has made Mike Love's life so hard being a genius songwriter and everything.

Classy.

[Cam Mott]

Mike's legal team *then* files suit against Brian's payment of 10 million...

Not quite so - the initial offer Mike's people made to Brian's management was for a $750k payment and future royalties & credits... which was dismissed out of hand as someone thought they would do better in court. That moment of excruciatingly poor judgement cost Brian something like $5 million, and with the legal costs means he essentially came out of the original case with pretty much nothing. Love Brian to death as a composer, performer, producer, you name it... but to have him as your #1 witness in a case like this in 1994 is essentially saying "you win, Mike".

Right, but as I just wrote as you posted this (I agree, BTW), how does an original offer of $750,000 and future royalties/credits change to a lawsuit seeking 50 million along with the royalties and credits? And involving what the jury or judge (or court in general) determined were 13 less songs than Mike originally claimed in the lawsuit he was entitled to?

I believe it went the other way, big suit, offer of tiny settlement, smaller jury award. To those blaming Mike for the percentage credit, didn't involve Mike. He didn't ask for a level of credit, that was all set by the jury/judge.

What about the 13 songs in question which Mike claimed he deserved credit for in the lawsuit and were eliminated from the final decision? Was Mike claiming credit for songs he didn't write, or could he just not prove in court that he was entitled to credit for those 13 songs?

Plus, at least one news report specifically mentioned Mike seeking 30% of the 10 million judgement Brian had just received from A&M the month before (June), which still doesn't come close to the 50 million which was the figure Mike's lawsuit was asking (July). Was the lawsuit then asking for 40 million more for Mike's lyrics than even the amount Brian's lawsuit agreed to value for his lost payments?

It doesn't add up. On the surface one could argue there is a difference between asking to reclaim what was rightfully yours and asking for something beyond what you'd be entitled to receive.

Mistaken reporting, exaggeration, some didn't make the pre-trial cut, didn't meet the standard of proof? Mike had to prove his claims and the ones they awarded had the proof.

[Cam Mott]

Hey, a quintuple! This is fun.

[guitarfool2002]

Would you accept the actual clippings of newspaper reports and wire service reports from the weeks in which these cases and suits were either filed or concluded?

Seriously, if you can't take my word for it as I can and will post the exact reports stating the exact numbers I've quoted, I'm sorry that it will have reached that point of suspending trust that I'm not making these things up and going from the exact reports of the details, but I'll do so.

Mike's claim of 48 songs in the initial lawsuit being pared down to 35, that's in the newspaper accounts.

Mike's 50 million lawsuit filing coming weeks after Brian's court victory over A&M settled for 10 million, that's in the newspaper accounts.

Mike's claim of 30% of 10 million from Brian's settlement with A&M based on a supposed agreement between legal teams, that's in the lawsuit.

That's all in the public record via wire reports and news accounts, again if you think I'm pulling this stuff out of thin air I'll copy-paste-post those exact articles.

Now there's this:

All of Brian's "malicious" happened long before any conservatorship or the lawsuit in a time when Brian was super competent.  He was competent to successfully sue Irving in the same period. On the other hand Mike and his lawyer argued for Brian against Brian's lawyers in Mike's suit against Irving/Brian.

Can you back up the "malicious" charge with a date, or an account of that which shows Brian acted maliciously in these affairs? Is it something Mike said in an interview?

Now, here's the contradiction I see in your statement.

You state Brian was competent to successfully sue Irving in the same period. Yet, Mike Love, Stan Love, Carl Wilson, Audree Wilson, Wendy and Carnie Wilson...they themselves were the ones arguing that Brian was not fit to make decisions on his own, that such a condition under Landy's care prevented him from making choices like this, and therefore filed to have a conservator appointed for him to oversee his affairs. That was granted by a judge in late 1991, a conservator was appointed and was there at least until 1995.

The Irving suit was filed in 1989, settled in June 1992. Stan Love filed the conservator petition in May 1990.

So is this the same Mike and Stan Love who petitioned the courts to appoint a conservator for Brian because he was not competent enough to handle his own affairs as shown by the recent history of his affairs and mental state both with and without Landy, yet that same man was competent enough to sue successfully, according to your suggestion?

So Brian was competent enough to file a lawsuit in 1989 and win that lawsuit in 1992, yet according to Stan Love and eventually Mike, his mother, brother, and daughters, he wasn't capable of making his own daily financial and legal decisions and required a conservator?

Which is it?

[Cam Mott]

Would you accept the actual clippings of newspaper reports and wire service reports from the weeks in which these cases and suits were either filed or concluded?

Seriously, if you can't take my word for it as I can and will post the exact reports stating the exact numbers I've quoted, I'm sorry that it will have reached that point of suspending trust that I'm not making these things up and going from the exact reports of the details, but I'll do so.

Mike's claim of 48 songs in the initial lawsuit being pared down to 35, that's in the newspaper accounts.

Mike's 50 million lawsuit filing coming weeks after Brian's court victory over A&M settled for 10 million, that's in the newspaper accounts.

Mike's claim of 30% of 10 million from Brian's settlement with A&M based on a supposed agreement between legal teams, that's in the lawsuit.

That's all in the public record via wire reports and news accounts, again if you think I'm pulling this stuff out of thin air I'll copy-paste-post those exact articles.

Now there's this:

All of Brian's "malicious" happened long before any conservatorship or the lawsuit in a time when Brian was super competent.  He was competent to successfully sue Irving in the same period. On the other hand Mike and his lawyer argued for Brian against Brian's lawyers in Mike's suit against Irving/Brian.

Can you back up the "malicious" charge with a date, or an account of that which shows Brian acted maliciously in these affairs? Is it something Mike said in an interview?

Now, here's the contradiction I see in your statement.

You state Brian was competent to successfully sue Irving in the same period. Yet, Mike Love, Stan Love, Carl Wilson, Audree Wilson, Wendy and Carnie Wilson...they themselves were the ones arguing that Brian was not fit to make decisions on his own, that such a condition under Landy's care prevented him from making choices like this, and therefore filed to have a conservator appointed for him to oversee his affairs. That was granted by a judge in late 1991, a conservator was appointed and was there at least until 1995.

The Irving suit was filed in 1989, settled in June 1992. Stan Love filed the conservator petition in May 1990.

So is this the same Mike and Stan Love who petitioned the courts to appoint a conservator for Brian because he was not competent enough to handle is own affairs as shown by the recent history of his affairs and mental state both with and without Landy, yet the same man was competent enough to sue successfully, according to your suggestion?

So Brian was competent enough to file a lawsuit in 1989 and win that lawsuit in 1992, yet according to Stan Love and eventually Mike, his mother, brother, and daughters, he wasn't capable of making his own daily financial and legal decisions and required a conservator?

Which is it?

I was just asking where it came from.

Maybe Mike got the 50 million figure from Brian's suit against Irving. According to the LA Times Brian sued Irving for 50 million royalties and 50 million punitive and filed a second suit in US District Court. Mike won what he won and still did offer a lowball settlement and advocated for Brian in his own trial in which Brian was at least an "et al" so what did not happen seems irrelevant.

Malicious was a word you used and I used it to describe the behavior in the past that Irving/Brian was convicted of in court in the 90s.

OK, Brian's conservator was competent to sue Irving. Perhaps Mike's lowball offer and his advocacy for Brian against Brian's lawyers in his trial explains it. It all happened so it explains itself I guess.

[Sheriff John Stone]

I keep trying to bite my tongue, go to another thread, turn off the computer, watch TV, but I can't. I can't help it.

guitarfool2002, you keep doing it. Your facts - and yes I consider them to be facts - are impressive. But they continue to be irrelevant to the debate, as stupid as the debate is I will grant you. Now you're onto the conservatorship. Totally irrelevant.

NOBODY IS ARGUING THAT BRIAN IS INCOMPETENT. He cannot handle his finances. He cannot adhere to a healthful diet. He is an addict who needs his medication monitored. And on and on. But, Brian Wilson is not insane. I don't think he is insane. Do you? I believe Brian Wilson knows right from wrong on MANY issues. Do you?

Forget any and all of the lawsuit details. That are totally irrelevant. Correction - not totally irrelevant. The lawsuit was necessary to get Brian to act, because he had proven that he was not going to act voluntarily. For the sake of THIS thread, for THIS discussion, anything past 1990 is irrelevant. Focus on the period 1965-1990, a quarter of a century before any lawsuit was settled, Mike Love was cheated out of songwriting credits and songwriting royalties. And Brian Wilson knew it. No, I can't give you a specific date or article or interview that will state that, but I believe that Brian knew that Mike was NOT receiving proper credit. And, for the ensuing approximately 25 years, Brian Wilson did nothing about it. It took a lawsuit to get any results. If the lawsuit hadn't been filed, Brian STILL wouldn't do anything about it and Mike still wouldn't have gotten credit. And why did the lawsuit have to be filed anyway. Why couldn't Brian be a good and fair man and settle it on his own, with Mike, one on one.

It's very simple. it's not complicated at all. If you can, please, please, please try to focus on the 25 years, a quarter of a century, when Brian did nothing. BEFORE THE LAWSUITS. That is the debate. That is the point. The lawsuit is all after the fact, after the fact that Brian wasn't gonna do or say a damn thing to make things right. That's the issue - right from wrong. If you or anybody else can't admit that, then I think that is very sad.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

I'm still amazed that I have to actually defend liking a member of my favorite band and liking what he's contributed. It seems insane to even think that my personal taste has to be taken so deeply into question because I think some of his contributions were highlights of some particular album or whatever. I can't see why it can't just be accepted that some fans really really dig the whole enchilada and not just Pet Sounds/Smile with all the rest up for heated debate..... And yet again, I ask: is Mike Love an asshole? Sure, maybe. But so what? I can still be a Beach Boys fan knowing this just as I can still enjoy Phil Spector tracks: and he likely SHOT A WOMAN IN THE FACE! ... This is rock n roll, not a courtroom and being a rock star is not tantamount to applying for Priesthood.

[guitarfool2002]

Now I'm supposed to have a conversation on issues within certain boundaries? Not gonna happen. Look, with all due respect, any opinion can be debated into becoming a fact if the parameters are restricted to what the person with the opinion says they should be. The lawsuit isn't relevant, the conservatorship isn't relevant, nothing after 1990 is relevant. That's a convenient way of shutting down anyone who disagrees with whatever the topic is or was, and if the facts that surrounded the lawsuit which was supposed to bring the "25 years" of wrongs to a fair legal conclusion aren't allowed to be mentioned...not quite.

About those 25 years before 1990: What kind of power are you assuming Brian Wilson had over the catalog of songs which would have made it possible to put Mike's name on them? He was 50% of Sea Of Tunes, Murry the other 50%, after 1969 when Murry sold the entire thing to A&M neither controlled anything! The rights to the songs went to Irving/A&M, simple as that.

Tell me what legal power Brian would have had in 1973, or 1981, or even 1986 to file such a suit based on the valuation of that song catalog? Future earnings? The band was in a black hole of popularity from 1969 to 1990 more often than when they were successful.

Why didn't Mike file something against the owners of the song catalog, A&M, in those 25 years when he had as much ownership of what used to be called "Sea Of Tunes" after 1969 as Brian had? Which was nil, nothing. If we're talking strictly about the case brought against Irving Almo and A&M, Brian controlled as much in that area as Al Jardine.

So he'd sue A&M in 1981, let's say, based on a valuation of a band in ruins with future earning potential far less than it would be less than a decade later.

It's a two-way street as everything usually is: If Mike felt he wasn't getting the credit he deserved, why wouldn't he go after those who actually owned the songs at anytime within those 25 years instead of waiting for Brian to act, or expecting Brian to act?

Mike won the case based on 35 songs written before 1969 that he could prove he deserved a credit and payments: He could have filed the case at any time against the owners if his case was that open-and-shut, so the songs could be properly credited.

Brian did not have the ownership or legal control over those songs to simply order that Mike be cut in after Murry sold all of them for 700,000. Everything went to A&M for that lump sum.

In fact, it was STEVE LOVE who delivered the papers to Brian and watched as Brian signed the papers in 1969. If it was an issue with Mike, and he was not only losing income but potentially losing all future interests in the songs as well, why didn't he fight it legally at that time? Did Mike even challenge Murry? Did he confront "Uncle Murry" about selling all the songs?

sh*t, did Mike do anything at all when Murry pocketed the full 700,000 lump sum payment for the songs and shared none of it, and his own brother working for Nick Grillo delivered those contracts to Brian personally?

Did everyone agree with Murry except Brian on this one, since no one seems to have fought him or his decision except Brian? Or something else?

So many facets to all of this, yet we want to set parameters and guidelines and all sorts of limitations on discussing it. That's not possible. There are no simple answers, surely not one that suggests Brian should shoulder the lionshare of the blame for fucking Mike out of the songs.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

The lawsuits(s) should really be something of a non-issue for us fans. Bands gets screwed out of what they're due all the time. Don't the Kinks still get zero from all their pre-RCA stuff? Or something like that? Most bands we love have sued each other too many times for too many reasons to ever list and for much sillier things than rightful or even arguable credit owed (Roger Waters anyone?) .... In the end, it's a personal and business matter between professionals. Maybe we can try leaving it at that. I dunno.

[startBBtoday]

Asked this in the thread for various questions, but it fell on deaf ears. So, since Mike brings up TM in this interview (like all interviews), I figured it was applicable to pose it in here too:

In the Gaines book, it says the Maharishi suggested the Beatles tithe 10-25% of their earnings into a Swiss bank account in his name. Does anyone know if Mike has been doing any of this since the late-60s? How heavily involved is Mike into TM? He seems to mention it in almost every single appearance, concert, interview, etc. And in this article (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-512747/Lennon-right-The-Giggling-Guru-shameless-old-fraud.html) it says Mike is a teacher of TM, so he must have some investment in the movement.

Is there any possibility that TM and Mike's involvement has more to do with some of the disagreements within the band than anyone may surmise from the surface? It's entirely possible I'm completely off base in this question, but I felt it was worth hearing what others had to say.

[guitarfool2002]

The lawsuits(s) should really be something of a non-issue for us fans. Bands gets screwed out of what they're due all the time. Don't the Kinks still get zero from all their pre-RCA stuff? Or something like that? Most bands we love have sued each other too many times for too many reasons to ever list and for much sillier things than rightful or even arguable credit owed (Roger Waters anyone?) .... In the end, it's a personal and business matter between professionals. Maybe we can try leaving it at that. I dunno.

I'll go one further, if it's the lawsuits in question I'll place any blame for questionable actions or even the *appearance* of questionable actions on the legal teams involved in filing and arguing the cases rather than the guys named Mike and Brian. Clear enough?

What I won't let pass without debate is the notion that Brian Wilson should be shouldering most if not all of the blame for screwing Mike out of his due credits and money because he didn't do anything. I'd agree only if Brian Wilson or anyone involved was the only one who had direct legal authority over and enough control of the items in question to make such a change before 1992 when he won a settlement overturning the Sea Of Tunes sale to A&M.

And I'd agree too if there were any, I repeat *any* reports of Mike in any way challenging these wrongs against him with Murry leading up to the liquidation of all the songs in 1969. Nothing was said or done after California Girls or I Get Around started bringing in the cash?

Nothing? Or was Mike given the David Marks or Tony Asher ultimatum from Murry...play ball on these terms or hit the road. Brian's fault too, all of that?

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Asked this in the thread for various questions, but it fell on deaf ears. So, since Mike brings up TM in this interview (like all interviews), I figured it was applicable to pose it in here too:

In the Gaines book, it says the Maharishi suggested the Beatles tithe 10-25% of their earnings into a Swiss bank account in his name. Does anyone know if Mike has been doing any of this since the late-60s? How heavily involved is Mike into TM? He seems to mention it in almost every single appearance, concert, interview, etc. And in this article (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-512747/Lennon-right-The-Giggling-Guru-shameless-old-fraud.html) it says Mike is a teacher of TM, so he must have some investment in the movement.

Is there any possibility that TM and Mike's involvement has more to do with some of the disagreements within the band than anyone may surmise from the surface? It's entirely possible I'm completely off base in this question, but I felt it was worth hearing what others had to say.

It might help to point out that Mike used to have a meditation room set aside at whatever studio they were using and Dennis would make it a point to bang some girl in that room ahead of time to put his "stamp" on the place

And Guitarfool: the same benefit of doubt I give Mike, I give to Brian first and foremost. He was under immense pressure and Mike, unlike other "contracted" collaborators, was in the band/family and was likely free to speak up at any time. But he was under pressure too, so it is what it is and could ultimately be resolved only with legal action.

[Sheriff John Stone]

guitarfool, do you think Brian Wilson ever felt sorry or bad or sad that Mike Love did not get the credit and royalties for the songs that Mike contributed to?

[leggo of my ego]

And that kiddies, is why Lawyers love rock stars. 

[Wirestone]

Look, with all due respect, any opinion can be debated into becoming a fact if the parameters are restricted to what the person with the opinion says they should be. ... That's a convenient way of shutting down anyone who disagrees with whatever the topic is or was.

And that's the preferred tactic of Kokomaoists near and far.

You have to understand what a great guy Mike is -- as long as you use this special, narrow perspective that excludes the nonstop parade of shittiness he's pelted Brian Wilson and Carl Wilson and Dennis Wilson and Al Jardine with for the last 50 years.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Who's ever said Mike's a great guy?

No one other than maybe Bruce?

Mike is an asshole in a band full of assholes in a profession full of assholes. End of story. If you can't deal with that, Pet Sounds/Smile are there for you to focus on while I get 50 years of great stuff

[guitarfool2002]

guitarfool, do you think Brian Wilson ever felt sorry or bad or sad that Mike Love did not get the credit and royalties for the songs that Mike contributed to?

I'm a facts, figures, and useless bits of trivia kind of guy when it comes to the Beach Boys, or at least I'm trying to be. Without knowing Brian or Mike personally, and without the ability to pick up a phone and ask either one about it as an acquaintance, I'm not willing to offer an opinion on something like that in this case. When I've done so in the past I've regretted it.

I think everyone in the band and their acquaintances around the band have had moments of lousy judgement, selfish behavior that harmed others, and a general lack of compassion and understanding for people around them. But whatever I think of those missteps, I'm not going to assume or try to guess what they were thinking at the time or how they felt afterward.

If you take press accounts of what happened after the lawsuit was decided, Mike and Brian laughed and hugged one another. It sounds like they both perhaps were glad it was over.