New Mike interview in HuffPost

[Iron Horse-Apples]

I don't care how horrible a father Murry was-- I have no sympathy at all for the Wilson brothers for their drug use and its results.  

Remind me not to hire you to run my homeless shelter. A seriously harsh viewpoint there. Chronic addiction is an illness.

[SMiLE Brian]

Whenever Mike has an interview there's controversy. What's bothering people now?

Its just Mike's continuing denying of his bandmates problems being deeper than drug addiction thats annoying.

[runnersdialzero]

Oh, Jesus Christ.

[filledeplage]

Whenever Mike has an interview there's controversy. What's bothering people now?

Its just Mike's continuing denying of his bandmates problems being deeper than drug addiction thats annoying.

On the contrary, that is exactly what he did in the CalSaga clip on YouTube.  It was acknowledged and confronted.  
And, frankly, the CityYear program that the Touring Band supports, works with high risk kids from many homes where grandparents stepped up to raise their grandchildren, exactly for this reason.  Their parents are incapable because of addiction or are dead from it.  And, I taught in housing project areas where this was exactly the case, where CityYear was an ancillary part of the staff.  

So, Mike is giving support via the Touring Band to these kids who, if they are lucky, have a family member who gives a damn enough to raise them in a family setting and not let them slip into foster care.  He is doing something positive.

Very often the most creative people in society have issues, that predispose them to addiction or they had other reasons to self-medicate.  When you have people with quasi-medical credentials, such as Tim Leary espousing LSD, and it might have a valid place under controlled medical conditions, and where, it was used, unbridled, with permanent brain damage (and purported "mind expansion") and life long damage, there is a problem.  

His Harvard project was called the Harvard Psilocybin Project.  It was picked up by the "beat poets" (Allen Ginsberg) who began a campaign to introduce artists and other intellectuals to psychedelics.  This was no controlled setting which resulted.  That would be for individual study. It used prisoners as subjects.  

A black market for these drugs sprung up.  And the rest is history.  

So, Mike is doing something positive, in my opinion, helping the kind of kids that I taught and witnessed, raised by aunts and grandparents, just the "collateral damage" of their parents drug use.  

[guitarfool2002]

Just wanted to confirm that it was indeed in the Carlin book that Tony Asher recalled Brian telling him about the "don't f*** with the formula" discussion with Mike.

In fact, I'd recommend reading that entire "Pet Sounds" section of the Carlin book to get a perspective that's somewhat deeper than most accounts, related to the interpersonal conflicts around the "new" kind of music Brian was creating, a lot of the conflict centered around the themes of the lyrics.

It's enlightening to read how a scenario very, *very* similar to what would happen with Smile less than a year later played out with Pet Sounds. To sum up:

There was Brian working with a new collaborator pulled from his new circle of friends, specifically from those who knew and hung out with Loren. Tony Asher and Loren were friends from school, very close. Tony already had a few strikes against him, first that he was from the "Loren group" and an outsider brought in by Brian to write lyrics for the Beach Boys to sing, remember he was considered an "outsider" like Gary Usher had been earlier but unlike Roger Christian who was brought in by Murry, and who wrote hot-rod themed songs which fit Murry's plans for bringing him into the fold.

Call that point #1.

So the Boys leave on a tour outside the US, and Brian and Tony are hammering out a batch of new songs with no input from Murry or the Boys, as well as cutting a bunch of the backing tracks with session players as they're touring Asia and whatnot.

The Boys return, Brian brings them in to hear what they'll be singing over and what words they will be singing.

According to Carlin's accounts, it was Al, Mike, and *Dennis* who balked at some of the lyrical content. They said it wasn't them, it wasn't their bag, all of that if they weren't being outright hostile and calling some of it sh*t. This is "Pet Sounds", remember, one of the all-time greats.

Call that point #2.

Now a key point: Brian would come back at them with a challenge, actually a devastating right-hook in boxing terminology to counter all of the complaints. He'd appeal to their musician egos in a way by suggesting they couldn't sing it, or they weren't up for the job, or couldn't cut it...so Brian at that time had the balls for lack of a better term to hit them in the musical gut while they were criticizing if not mocking the lyrics and songs they were given to sing. There were compromises through changes like "Hang On To Your Ego", sure, but overall Brian held his ground as the three Boys out of four were raising a fuss.

The roots of this were Pet Sounds.

Now consider Smile - you could argue it was nearly the exact scenario playing out again. Brian working with someone from Loren's circle, whom the Boys or Murry didn't trust. An outsider, again, not "invited" by Murry but rather by Brian himself to create music for the group. The Boys leave the country to tour, Brian goes to the studio to start cutting backing tracks. Lyrics are being hammered out at Brian's piano, no input from the Boys. The Boys return from the tour, hear the music and the lyrics created with an outsider from Loren's circles...some of them again say "it's not us", "it's not our image", just like they did earlier that year returning from a tour to Asher's lyrics and Brian's studio tracks.

Consider it's nearly the exact same scenario as Asher faced only Van Dyke is the outsider musician this time versus Asher. Yet even the two of them were connected through Loren's social circles. And with Smile, despite riding high on the strength of a global #1 smash hit single that was also considered "fucking with the formula" by Murry who openly trashed the song.

Keep in mind the "fucking with the formula" notion went deeper than Mike pulling Van Dyke aside one night to question a Cabinessence lyric, and may have had roots in the family's mistrust of "outsiders" working with Brian and influencing his musical directions dating back to the Usher conflicts with Murry.

And keep in mind it was several more key players than just Mike alone doing the questioning and challenging.

[runnersdialzero]

I find it hard to believe anything Carlin has said or written after seeing him on the Brian Wilson: Songwriter DVDs. Holy sh*t.

[leggo of my ego]

Whenever Mike has an interview there's controversy. What's bothering people now?

Its just Mike's continuing denying of his bandmates problems being deeper than drug addiction thats annoying.

Not too far a reach to say the Mikester has undealt with addictions himself.

Of this sort: addiction to ego, addiction to litigation, make up some of your own! 

[guitarfool2002]

I find it hard to believe anything Carlin has said or written after seeing him on the Brian Wilson: Songwriter DVDs. Holy sh*t.

There it is again - the idea that we should just throw away everything related to the message based on one's opinions of the messenger. That's convenient but not valid. It seems to be most prevalent surrounding the Beach Boys' story in 1966-67.

Consider who some of the sources in the book were, consider who they had access to and what they heard and/or saw firsthand, rather than scrapping the whole thing based on the messenger relating those accounts.

I suppose, then, that a better account of what happened can be seen in those promotional packages that we got around the PS Sessions release and the Smile box YouTube "webisodes" where the band was literally gushing with praise and saying how much they loved all of it?

It's simply not the case. But commerce and self-promotion always wins out over historical accuracy in the entertainment business.  

[bonnevillemariner]

I don't care how horrible a father Murry was-- I have no sympathy at all for the Wilson brothers for their drug use and its results.  

Remind me not to hire you to run my homeless shelter. A seriously harsh viewpoint there. Chronic addiction is an illness.

I get that the propensity for addiction is inborn, but I personally have a hard time considering drug addiction as an illness because it involves a choice on the part of the potentially afflicted.  I can live a healthy lifestyle and still get cancer or the flu.  I can be born with a debilitating disease.  But addiction is a condition brought on by choice.  

I would love it if I could be assured that if I avoided a certain set of foods, I would be guaranteed never get cancer.  But that isn't the case.  But with drug addiction, if I avoid drugs I'm guaranteed never to be afflicted with this illness.

[SMiLE Brian]

Whenever Mike has an interview there's controversy. What's bothering people now?

Its just Mike's continuing denying of his bandmates problems being deeper than drug addiction thats annoying.

Not too far a reach to say the Mikester has undealt with addictions himself.

Of this sort: addiction to ego, addiction to litigation, make up some of your own!  

Addiction to hanging with Groupies on the road.

[leggo of my ego]

Whenever Mike has an interview there's controversy. What's bothering people now?

Its just Mike's continuing denying of his bandmates problems being deeper than drug addiction thats annoying.

Not too far a reach to say the Mikester has undealt with addictions himself.

Of this sort: addiction to ego, addiction to litigation, make up some of your own!  

Addiction to hanging with Groupies on the road.

Bingo! and that opens the possibilities that Mike DID come up with additional lyrics for the White Album! 

[leggo of my ego]

Whenever Mike has an interview there's controversy. What's bothering people now?

Its just Mike's continuing denying of his bandmates problems being deeper than drug addiction thats annoying.

Not too far a reach to say the Mikester has undealt with addictions himself.

Of this sort: addiction to ego, addiction to litigation, make up some of your own!  

Addiction to hanging with Groupies on the road.

You did mean to say Banging... didnt you?

[Wirestone]

I find it hard to believe anything Carlin has said or written after seeing him on the Brian Wilson: Songwriter DVDs. Holy sh*t.

This is nuts. Carlin is a serious, professional journalist, and his book is the best currently available about Brian (buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Catch-Wave-Redemption-Beach-Wilson/dp/1594867496). But it is a biography of Brian, and written from his perspective. It's not a history of the Beach Boys.

Peter obviously has some opinions of his own. But I wouldn't confuse those opinions, especially when delivered in an off-the-cuff way in an interview, with a book that was the product of years of research.

[Dancing Bear]

I find it hard to believe anything Carlin has said or written after seeing him on the Brian Wilson: Songwriter DVDs. Holy sh*t.

What does he say?

[Cam Mott]

I find it hard to believe anything Carlin has said or written after seeing him on the Brian Wilson: Songwriter DVDs. Holy sh*t.

There it is again - the idea that we should just throw away everything related to the message based on one's opinions of the messenger. That's convenient but not valid. It seems to be most prevalent surrounding the Beach Boys' story in 1966-67.

Consider who some of the sources in the book were, consider who they had access to and what they heard and/or saw firsthand, rather than scrapping the whole thing based on the messenger relating those accounts.

I suppose, then, that a better account of what happened can be seen in those promotional packages that we got around the PS Sessions release and the Smile box YouTube "webisodes" where the band was literally gushing with praise and saying how much they loved all of it?

It's simply not the case. But commerce and self-promotion always wins out over historical accuracy in the entertainment business.  

But on the other hand we aren't going to disregard the words from the horses' mouths in favor of the impression of their words/actions from a bystander either are we?

[Wirestone]

As for Mike : He has done more than enough to deserve his reputation. You don't have to resort to rumors or bad history to think ill of the man. You just have to read his on-the-record interviewers and study his actions in public.

[guitarfool2002]

I find it hard to believe anything Carlin has said or written after seeing him on the Brian Wilson: Songwriter DVDs. Holy sh*t.

There it is again - the idea that we should just throw away everything related to the message based on one's opinions of the messenger. That's convenient but not valid. It seems to be most prevalent surrounding the Beach Boys' story in 1966-67.

Consider who some of the sources in the book were, consider who they had access to and what they heard and/or saw firsthand, rather than scrapping the whole thing based on the messenger relating those accounts.

I suppose, then, that a better account of what happened can be seen in those promotional packages that we got around the PS Sessions release and the Smile box YouTube "webisodes" where the band was literally gushing with praise and saying how much they loved all of it?

It's simply not the case. But commerce and self-promotion always wins out over historical accuracy in the entertainment business.  

But on the other hand we aren't going to disregard the words from the horses' mouths in favor of the impression of their words/actions from a bystander either are we?

I am not going to take what gets edited into a promotional video designed to sell box sets over the accounts of people who were actually there and relating what they saw, definitely not.

Tony Asher was not a bystander. Nor was Michael Vosse, Van Dyke Parks, etc. Yet we'll conveniently throw away what they have said they experienced, because of someone's opinion of the author whose book the stories appeared in?

[Wirestone]

I find it hard to believe anything Carlin has said or written after seeing him on the Brian Wilson: Songwriter DVDs. Holy sh*t.

There it is again - the idea that we should just throw away everything related to the message based on one's opinions of the messenger. That's convenient but not valid. It seems to be most prevalent surrounding the Beach Boys' story in 1966-67.

Consider who some of the sources in the book were, consider who they had access to and what they heard and/or saw firsthand, rather than scrapping the whole thing based on the messenger relating those accounts.

I suppose, then, that a better account of what happened can be seen in those promotional packages that we got around the PS Sessions release and the Smile box YouTube "webisodes" where the band was literally gushing with praise and saying how much they loved all of it?

It's simply not the case. But commerce and self-promotion always wins out over historical accuracy in the entertainment business.  

But on the other hand we aren't going to disregard the words from the horses' mouths in favor of the impression of their words/actions from a bystander either are we?

Well, when the bystander is a professional journalist who has done interviews with those same folks and research on his own, then maybe! Especially if you're contrasting that work with a bunch of 70-year-olds spouting a PR line.

[Sheriff John Stone]

Just wanted to confirm that it was indeed in the Carlin book that Tony Asher recalled Brian telling him about the "don't f*** with the formula" discussion with Mike.

In fact, I'd recommend reading that entire "Pet Sounds" section of the Carlin book to get a perspective that's somewhat deeper than most accounts, related to the interpersonal conflicts around the "new" kind of music Brian was creating, a lot of the conflict centered around the themes of the lyrics.

It's enlightening to read how a scenario very, *very* similar to what would happen with Smile less than a year later played out with Pet Sounds. To sum up:

There was Brian working with a new collaborator pulled from his new circle of friends, specifically from those who knew and hung out with Loren. Tony Asher and Loren were friends from school, very close. Tony already had a few strikes against him, first that he was from the "Loren group" and an outsider brought in by Brian to write lyrics for the Beach Boys to sing, remember he was considered an "outsider" like Gary Usher had been earlier but unlike Roger Christian who was brought in by Murry, and who wrote hot-rod themed songs which fit Murry's plans for bringing him into the fold.

Call that point #1.

So the Boys leave on a tour outside the US, and Brian and Tony are hammering out a batch of new songs with no input from Murry or the Boys, as well as cutting a bunch of the backing tracks with session players as they're touring Asia and whatnot.

The Boys return, Brian brings them in to hear what they'll be singing over and what words they will be singing.

According to Carlin's accounts, it was Al, Mike, and *Dennis* who balked at some of the lyrical content. They said it wasn't them, it wasn't their bag, all of that if they weren't being outright hostile and calling some of it sh*t. This is "Pet Sounds", remember, one of the all-time greats.

Call that point #2.

Now a key point: Brian would come back at them with a challenge, actually a devastating right-hook in boxing terminology to counter all of the complaints. He'd appeal to their musician egos in a way by suggesting they couldn't sing it, or they weren't up for the job, or couldn't cut it...so Brian at that time had the balls for lack of a better term to hit them in the musical gut while they were criticizing if not mocking the lyrics and songs they were given to sing. There were compromises through changes like "Hang On To Your Ego", sure, but overall Brian held his ground as the three Boys out of four were raising a fuss.

The roots of this were Pet Sounds.

Now consider Smile - you could argue it was nearly the exact scenario playing out again. Brian working with someone from Loren's circle, whom the Boys or Murry didn't trust. An outsider, again, not "invited" by Murry but rather by Brian himself to create music for the group. The Boys leave the country to tour, Brian goes to the studio to start cutting backing tracks. Lyrics are being hammered out at Brian's piano, no input from the Boys. The Boys return from the tour, hear the music and the lyrics created with an outsider from Loren's circles...some of them again say "it's not us", "it's not our image", just like they did earlier that year returning from a tour to Asher's lyrics and Brian's studio tracks.

Consider it's nearly the exact same scenario as Asher faced only Van Dyke is the outsider musician this time versus Asher. Yet even the two of them were connected through Loren's social circles. And with Smile, despite riding high on the strength of a global #1 smash hit single that was also considered "fucking with the formula" by Murry who openly trashed the song.

Keep in mind the "fucking with the formula" notion went deeper than Mike pulling Van Dyke aside one night to question a Cabinessence lyric, and may have had roots in the family's mistrust of "outsiders" working with Brian and influencing his musical directions dating back to the Usher conflicts with Murry.

And keep in mind it was several more key players than just Mike alone doing the questioning and challenging.

Excellent, well-written post, guitarfool2002.

Back to the McCartney/Lennon analogy and what Mike Love said in his answer regarding drugs/addiction....I find it to be apples and oranges, completely different circumstances to The Beatles. And, speaking of apples and oranges (pun intended), look at other rock bands with similar circumstances and what the survivors had to say.

For the last 25 years, while Syd Barrett was still alive, the surviving members of Pink Floyd repeatedly voiced their regret and pain at what happened to Syd. Certainly there were other areas where Roger, David, Nick, and Richard could've gone - death, divorce, inter-band hassles, etc. - but their biggest regret and what really seemed to linger with them was the tragedy that was Syd Barrett. And, they talked about it in numerous interviews.

There are numerous other examples. Not an interview went by where Ray, Robby, and John didn't "wish" that Jim Morrison could've worked out his demons. Do you think the biggest losses in Pete Townshend's life aren't Keith Moon and John Entwistle? Check out any Robbie Robertson interview over the last 25 years. The list goes on and on.

Yes, there have been times when Mike hasn't exactly been tactful in his interview answers, but I thought he handled this question appropriately. Sometimes the truth hurts. Mike could care less what people think of him. If criticism really bothered him, he would change his approach. But, he's true to himself. He has a loving family, a career that he truly loves, and he still has his health. That's what is really important.

[Robbie Mac]

I find it hard to believe anything Carlin has said or written after seeing him on the Brian Wilson: Songwriter DVDs. Holy sh*t.

Why?

[runnersdialzero]

I find it hard to believe anything Carlin has said or written after seeing him on the Brian Wilson: Songwriter DVDs. Holy sh*t.

This is nuts. Carlin is a serious, professional journalist, and his book is the best currently available about Brian (buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Catch-Wave-Redemption-Beach-Wilson/dp/1594867496). But it is a biography of Brian, and written from his perspective. It's not a history of the Beach Boys.

Peter obviously has some opinions of his own. But I wouldn't confuse those opinions, especially when delivered in an off-the-cuff way in an interview, with a book that was the product of years of research.

My problem was less with his opinion and completely with his telling of the history.

[Cam Mott]

I find it hard to believe anything Carlin has said or written after seeing him on the Brian Wilson: Songwriter DVDs. Holy sh*t.

There it is again - the idea that we should just throw away everything related to the message based on one's opinions of the messenger. That's convenient but not valid. It seems to be most prevalent surrounding the Beach Boys' story in 1966-67.

Consider who some of the sources in the book were, consider who they had access to and what they heard and/or saw firsthand, rather than scrapping the whole thing based on the messenger relating those accounts.

I suppose, then, that a better account of what happened can be seen in those promotional packages that we got around the PS Sessions release and the Smile box YouTube "webisodes" where the band was literally gushing with praise and saying how much they loved all of it?

It's simply not the case. But commerce and self-promotion always wins out over historical accuracy in the entertainment business.  

But on the other hand we aren't going to disregard the words from the horses' mouths in favor of the impression of their words/actions from a bystander either are we?

I am not going to take what gets edited into a promotional video designed to sell box sets over the accounts of people who were actually there and relating what they saw, definitely not.

Tony Asher was not a bystander. Nor was Michael Vosse, Van Dyke Parks, etc. Yet we'll conveniently throw away what they have said they experienced, because of someone's opinion of the author whose book the stories appeared in?

They were in that they are not the Boys. I wouldn't disregard their claims about what they felt or thought because of something the Boys said about them either. I'm saying both should be taken into account.

[Cam Mott]

I find it hard to believe anything Carlin has said or written after seeing him on the Brian Wilson: Songwriter DVDs. Holy sh*t.

There it is again - the idea that we should just throw away everything related to the message based on one's opinions of the messenger. That's convenient but not valid. It seems to be most prevalent surrounding the Beach Boys' story in 1966-67.

Consider who some of the sources in the book were, consider who they had access to and what they heard and/or saw firsthand, rather than scrapping the whole thing based on the messenger relating those accounts.

I suppose, then, that a better account of what happened can be seen in those promotional packages that we got around the PS Sessions release and the Smile box YouTube "webisodes" where the band was literally gushing with praise and saying how much they loved all of it?

It's simply not the case. But commerce and self-promotion always wins out over historical accuracy in the entertainment business.  

But on the other hand we aren't going to disregard the words from the horses' mouths in favor of the impression of their words/actions from a bystander either are we?

Well, when the bystander is a professional journalist who has done interviews with those same folks and research on his own, then maybe! Especially if you're contrasting that work with a bunch of 70-year-olds spouting a PR line.

I wasn't referring to Carlin as a bystander, he wasn't standing by in 1966/67.

[Robbie Mac]

I find it hard to believe anything Carlin has said or written after seeing him on the Brian Wilson: Songwriter DVDs. Holy sh*t.

This is nuts. Carlin is a serious, professional journalist, and his book is the best currently available about Brian (buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Catch-Wave-Redemption-Beach-Wilson/dp/1594867496). But it is a biography of Brian, and written from his perspective. It's not a history of the Beach Boys.

Peter obviously has some opinions of his own. But I wouldn't confuse those opinions, especially when delivered in an off-the-cuff way in an interview, with a book that was the product of years of research.

My problem was less with his opinion and completely with his telling of the history.

And again, what do you dispute?

[CenturyDeprived]

Whenever Mike has an interview there's controversy. What's bothering people now?

Its just Mike's continuing denying of his bandmates problems being deeper than drug addiction thats annoying.

Not too far a reach to say the Mikester has undealt with addictions himself.

Of this sort: addiction to ego, addiction to litigation, make up some of your own! 

IMO...Mike is addicted (in a bad way) to *constantly* being on the road, and to fulfill a desperately needed amount of adulation while being in the spotlight. I am saying this honestly not in an attempt to "bash", but in an attempt to understand an individual (who I do not know personally), and to wrap my head around behavior that most people just brush off as him being simply "a jerk".  I think ML is emotionally ill.  People are who they are for certain reasons, and I believe "the road" is something that has long ago turned into an addiction/escape of sorts for him. When a person's priorities get as screwed up as I believe Mike's are (and I see parallels of priorities being screwed up for other addicts, like BW + DW back in the 70s/80s), the "important" things in life fall by the wayside.

I understand that at the end of C50, if Mike were to continue to reunion, he was put into a position of having to have made big changes to his comfortable way of life on the road (the M&B way) in order to acquiesce to “BW’s way” or to the needs of the then-current reunion lineup.  Nevertheless, I think that a person with their priorities set straight (my idealistic way of hoping that ML would’ve acted) would have realized that burying the hatchet, and compromising/being willing to lose some of your “battles” (like he surely did during C50), is truly worth it for the greater good of the band, and what it stands for. SEEING THE BIG PICTURE. This would be called an act of being selfless. I just wish he could’ve been that way.

Doesn’t the fact that ML knows how sensitive a person BW is (even with his current emotional support system) mean that he would think about how much stress/grief/hurt feelings he’d be putting a person through (with known mental issues) by making BW feel as though he was "fired"? Even if this "fired" speak was only a feeling, it's still putting someone through emotional anguish. Part of me wonders if ML actually thinks the mental illness that BW has is actually an act, because ML’s actions make me think these thoughts never went through his mind.

IMO, ML’s addictions to the road/his lifestyle, and what he’ll do to achieve what he wants (no matter how that hurts others), are just as destructive in their own, different way, as the addictions that the Wilson brothers suffered.

Now I await a bunch of people to tell me how off-base I am.