Al joining Mike and Bruce for Jones Beach show

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

I wonder if Bruce has an assistant put his shorts on for him.

[Mikie]

All I know is that Brian isn't God and Mike isn't Satan. They are just talented guys who happen to put their pants on one leg at a time, just like the rest of us. I love and get frustrated with the both of them.

As a side note, I often deliberately put my pants on BOTH legs at once...

I put my pants on one leg at a time; first the left leg, second the right leg, and then the third leg.

[Mikie]

Just wondering where was all of this openness and tolerance for guesses and speculations and opinions when topics like, oh, the lyric credits for "Wouldn't It Be Nice" were being discussed?

Yeah, like..........did Mike Love really contribute lyrics to the song? Tony Asher said he did not - that Mike would have had to have "phoned in" the last words "good night, oh baby, sleep tight, oh baby" to Brian the last few minutes before the recording session without his knowledge.

Nuthin' like openness and tolerance for guesses.......and we can guess and tolerate 'till the cows come home and we'll probably never really know for sure.

I believe those "Good night, sleep tight" lines were ad libbed by Mike at the vocal session; they are not present on the Brian-only vocal demo for the song.

So Craig, is that an educated guess, speculation, or an opinion?  If you'll just be open about it, I'll be tolerant.

[MyDrKnowsItKeepsMeCalm]

I bought my Jones Beach ticket in the excitement of Al and David being added to the show. Despite my disappointment that Al is not attending, I was planning to go see Mike and Bruce anyway, but now I'm back on the fence. Will Live Nation give me a refund on account of Stamos?

[HeyJude]

I bought my Jones Beach ticket in the excitement of Al and David being added to the show. Despite my disappointment that Al is not attending, I was planning to go see Mike and Bruce anyway, but now I'm back on the fence. Will Live Nation give me a refund on account of Stamos?

If you’re serious, then I would definitely contact Ticketmaster and/or the venue and/or Live Nation. I would think/hope they would offer a refund, especially if the report that it was Live Nation that pursued getting Al on the bill are accurate. If they make all the decisions as far as promotion, then they would be more familiar with the situation and also more culpable.

I still question how many people bought ticket specifically because of Al’s participation, who would otherwise not buy a ticket to the show. To the determent of Al, I would guess his name didn’t add a lot of sales, especially if reports are accurate from those who have gauged still-available tickets on the Ticketmaster website.

I doubt the venue or Live Nation is getting a bunch of angry fans on the order of what would happen if an entire band pulled out of a multi-band show or something. I would be highly unlikely to buy a ticket for a show with only Mike and Bruce, and if this had been a local show for me, I would have likely bought tickets due to Al’s name, and even in this scenario, I’m not sure I would ask for a refund. I’d be very conflicted, but I might well go out of curiosity if I had already bought the tickets.

I actually wouldn’t be surprised if the vast majority of ticket buyers weren’t aware of Al’s participation, or even aware of his name for that matter. Tickets were sold before Al’s name was advertised, right? So all those folks could be proven to have bought tickets for reasons other than Al. So Live Nation would only have to offer refunds for the group of fans who bought tickets after Al’s name was publicized, and who desire a refund because he’s not going to be there.

[HeyJude]

Just wondering where was all of this openness and tolerance for guesses and speculations and opinions when topics like, oh, the lyric credits for "Wouldn't It Be Nice" were being discussed?

I'm also waiting to see all of this welcoming spirit for random speculations and guesses when the next person posts any topic on this board with the words "Smile" and "Mike" in the subject line.

 

Oh, wait...those involve settled "facts" that can't be discussed or speculated on. What was I thinking?  

Have you read the board in the last half-decade or so? I would say that the vast majority of posters here are decidedly pro-Mike, and a sizable chunk of them are actively anti-Brian. The few out-and-out Brianistas have generally been shouted off this forum or insulted so grievously they choose not to post.

Oh, please. Many of the posters here are Brianistas. A handful of Mike extremists. Lots of people in the middle, like me. I used to be  a sort-of Brianista, but the attitude of some of his fans is a turn-off.  There's also the matter that the Beach Boys were a band, and all the members put in sweat equity, whether they had as much talent or not. In fact, they put in more sweat equity in terms of being on the road, which I think many Brian fans underestimate in terms of keeping Brian's music out there to the public, even if it has included car songs and even cheerleaders on stage at times.

Has anyone here ever read Peter Bagge's defense of Mike Love? Peter is the guy who did the YouTube cartoons about Murry Wilson. He clearly is a big fan of Brian Wilson. He also once drew Mike Love wearing devil horns. Yet he wrote an entire essay defending Mike, and I think the only reason he wrote it was to be a contrarian and out of fatigue with all the Mike hate around the internet. I can see why he'd feel that way.

I don’t know what the breakdown is precisely, but I’d definitely say there are, very generally speaking, many more “anti-Brian” and “pro-Mike” folks posting now than there were five or ten years ago. Right or wrong, good or bad, it has shifted. There are a million variables that could be at play. But if we’re simply looking at what one can gaze their eyes up on this board, you’re much more likely to find relatively measurably “pro-Mike” commentary now.

I think the turning point, for me anyway, was the aftermath of the “C50” tour. Once I saw a seemingly large hunk of fans (and a few BB experts/scholars) react with variations of “meh, whatever”, if not actively sharing the glee about it ending or gleefully telling more hopeful fans that they were wrong, that made me re-evaluate what’s going on among fans. I have no particular conclusions from those evaluation unfortunately.   

[Nicko1234]

I don’t know what the breakdown is precisely, but I’d definitely say there are, very generally speaking, many more “anti-Brian” and “pro-Mike” folks posting now than there were five or ten years ago. Right or wrong, good or bad, it has shifted. There are a million variables that could be at play. But if we’re simply looking at what one can gaze their eyes up on this board, you’re much more likely to find relatively measurably “pro-Mike” commentary now.

I think the turning point, for me anyway, was the aftermath of the “C50” tour. Once I saw a seemingly large hunk of fans (and a few BB experts/scholars) react with variations of “meh, whatever”, if not actively sharing the glee about it ending or gleefully telling more hopeful fans that they were wrong, that made me re-evaluate what’s going on among fans. I have no particular conclusions from those evaluation unfortunately.   

But again the implication is that anybody who is making a `pro-Mike` comment is therefore anti-Brian which is palpably untrue.　There may be one or two oddballs who are fans of Mike who aren`t fans of the other Beach Boys, but they are very definitely a minority.

There was certainly plenty of negative comments about Mike after the C50 (with some even claiming that hatred for Mike had reached an all time high) but I think some people`s reaction was, and still is, that we had always been told that it was going to end by a certain point and we were lucky that it lasted as long as it did and as successfully as it did.

[JohnMill]

I don’t know what the breakdown is precisely, but I’d definitely say there are, very generally speaking, many more “anti-Brian” and “pro-Mike” folks posting now than there were five or ten years ago. Right or wrong, good or bad, it has shifted. There are a million variables that could be at play. But if we’re simply looking at what one can gaze their eyes up on this board, you’re much more likely to find relatively measurably “pro-Mike” commentary now.

I think the turning point, for me anyway, was the aftermath of the “C50” tour. Once I saw a seemingly large hunk of fans (and a few BB experts/scholars) react with variations of “meh, whatever”, if not actively sharing the glee about it ending or gleefully telling more hopeful fans that they were wrong, that made me re-evaluate what’s going on among fans. I have no particular conclusions from those evaluation unfortunately.   

But again the implication is that anybody who is making a `pro-Mike` comment is therefore anti-Brian which is palpably untrue.　There may be one or two oddballs who are fans of Mike who aren`t fans of the other Beach Boys, but they are very definitely a minority.

I agree in the strictest context and I think can be boiled down to the fact that it's certainly the minority that bears any degree of personal malice against Mike Love/human being or Brian Wilson/human being.  My take on it though is there are many here who abhor the business practices of one of the aforementioned parties and therefore tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the other on a consistent basis.  Basically you don't need to hate either party personally in order to be firmly entrenched in the opposite camp.  As I previously mentioned there are many who play the middle ground but the evidence doesn't lie in this case.  On this forum you have a pro Mike Love contingent and a pro Brian Wilson contingent.  From what I've seen however, you don't have an Anti-Mike Love contingent and an Anti-Brian Wilson contingent on this forum...of any significant degree anyhow.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Yeah, the anti-Mike contigent consisted of maybe 5 people, one of whom was perma-banned. I've never seen an anti-Brian person on this board, and only met one in person, ever.

I think the growing majority has a more balanced view of the band.

[SMiLE Brian]

I miss the perma-banned OSD.

[Wirestone]

I’d definitely say there are, very generally speaking, many more “anti-Brian” and “pro-Mike” folks posting now than there were five or ten years ago. Right or wrong, good or bad, it has shifted. There are a million variables that could be at play. But if we’re simply looking at what one can gaze their eyes up on this board, you’re much more likely to find relatively measurably “pro-Mike” commentary now.

Thank you. Yes. Much of it has to do with a number of knowledgeable, upstanding board members of long standing who were taunted and bullied off of the board over this time frame.

I think the turning point, for me anyway, was the aftermath of the “C50” tour. Once I saw a seemingly large hunk of fans (and a few BB experts/scholars) react with variations of “meh, whatever”, if not actively sharing the glee about it ending or gleefully telling more hopeful fans that they were wrong, that made me re-evaluate what’s going on among fans.

Indeed. I never understood the glee. Even if you had expected there to be an end point, why would you want it, especially if Brian Wilson was seemingly so excited and energized about making more records with the group?

I think some people`s reaction was, and still is, that we had always been told that it was going to end by a certain point and we were lucky that it lasted as long as it did and as successfully as it did.

Yes, because plans never, ever change in the entertainment world. Except when they do (like extending the C50 tour to begin with).

But the evidence doesn't lie in this case.  On this forum you have a pro Mike Love contingent and a pro Brian Wilson contingent.  From what I've seen however, you don't have an Anti-Mike Love contingent and an Anti-Brian Wilson contingent on this forum...of any significant degree anyhow.

Most Brian fans here bend over backward to talk about how they respect Mike's role in the band (if not his business decisions.) Mike fans, on the other hand, go out of their way to suggest that Brian is being manipulated, that other people write his songs, that he's a shell who should be staying at home, etc. Sure, that's not objectively "anti-Brian," but it basically posits that (as SJS posted earlier), anything done by BW after 1977 doesn't "count," and if you can't hear how obviously bad it is, you're some sort of brainwashed sheep.

That sure doesn't feel like balance to me.

[HeyJude]

But again the implication is that anybody who is making a `pro-Mike` comment is therefore anti-Brian which is palpably untrue.　There may be one or two oddballs who are fans of Mike who aren`t fans of the other Beach Boys, but they are very definitely a minority.

There was certainly plenty of negative comments about Mike after the C50 (with some even claiming that hatred for Mike had reached an all time high) but I think some people`s reaction was, and still is, that we had always been told that it was going to end by a certain point and we were lucky that it lasted as long as it did and as successfully as it did.

I've seen the implication both ways. There was recently a post referencing, and I'm paraphrasing, that the biggest problem some fans have with Mike is that he isn't Brian, which to me is a variation on "anti-Mike"="pro-Brian."

I can only speak to my own words, but when I say there is an uptick in anti-Brian and pro-Mike posts over the span of a number of years, I mean those two things separately (they can be inter-related, but they are not always). The awe and marvel of Brian that was around in 1999 and 2000 as he began touring is not there nearly as strongly, and as I said, that's the case whether it's justified or not. Separately, the anti-Mike stuff that was around on the net in 1998 and 1999 especially as he began touring under the name without Carl and Al is not there nearly as strongly, again right or wrong.

C50 was an anomaly, and clearly various sides or viewpoints are viewing even that episode dramatically different. As I mentioned, I was taken aback by the fact that such a large segment of fans were not disappointed.

As a partial aside, I also think C50 is an interesting case study in how quickly feelings can change. As I've opined in the past, when Mike agreed to C50, even some of the most grizzled, cynical, crusty, curmudgeonly fans of all time had their hearts warmed, and celebrated Mike's participation in the reunion. I don't know if Mike knows or cares, but he un-did A LOT of negative feelings from fans (again, whether their feelings were justified or not) in doing C50. How it so quickly was undone was something I was surprised by, and whose fault it is that those positive feelings were undone is of course open for debate. I think it's pretty clear in my opinion whose actions made *most* of that occur.

As for fans who felt we were lucky to get what we did with C50, I think we pretty much likely all agree on that. If it had simply ended, with a planned, graceful ending with all band members in agreement, it would have been easier for fans to digest. The problem was that it didn't end that way, and when some fans pointed out that it was unfortunate that perhaps certain band members were not allowing it to happen, and then others countered with variations on "set end date, set end date", with some I feel even basically implying that fans who wanted more reunion shows were ignorant or naïve, that's where the disconnect happened. We all agree we're lucky we got a reunion. We apparently don't all agree on whose fault that is. Now, some may say it doesn't matter whose fault it is, just suck it up and deal with it. That's fine, but the fans who make excuses for specific band members and imply it is NOT their fault, those fans clearly DO care, so their words undercut the "set end date, get over it" reasoning.

[Nicko1234]

Most Brian fans here bend over backward to talk about how they respect Mike's role in the band (if not his business decisions.) Mike fans, on the other hand, go out of their way to suggest that Brian is being manipulated, that other people write his songs, that he's a shell who should be staying at home, etc. Sure, that's not objectively "anti-Brian," but it basically posits that (as SJS posted earlier), anything done by BW after 1977 doesn't "count," and if you can't hear how obviously bad it is, you're some sort of brainwashed sheep.

That sure doesn't feel like balance to me.

Sorry but this is again completely wide of the mark.

If people feel that Mike deserves criticism for something then he`ll get it. Take a look at the comments on that Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous interview he did for one thing. And if people want to mock Mike then they can (see the weirdest photos of Mike Love thread).

But a lot of this is about shades of gray...

For example, after C50 there were some who claimed that Brian and Al were about to reclaim the Beach Boys name and go on tour to reclaim the band`s legacy. Now anybody (rightly) denying that came across as pro-Mike.

Similarly I remember one poster stridently claiming that Mike and Bruce should tour under their own names and give the Beach Boys name to Brian only agreeing to do what he wanted. Now this was clearly unrealistic but again when people reply to it then they are going to be viewed as pro-Mike.

When Cam made some of his comments about Mike never being the leader of the Beach Boys then obviously plenty were going to shout him down and they were going to be viewed as anti-Mike.

It seems to me that Brian has received almost universally good reviews for his live shows (except for a few famous exceptions) and that he received great reviews for TLOS and TWGMTR. I certainly haven`t seen people screaming that Pisces Brothers is better than the trilogy that ended TWGMTR. Have you?

Some people are obviously concerned that other people make decisions for Brian. But if Mike were recording duets with Lana Del Ray then you can be sure that people would be asking, `Does he even know who she is? Whose bright idea was that?`

[MyDrKnowsItKeepsMeCalm]

I bought my Jones Beach ticket in the excitement of Al and David being added to the show. Despite my disappointment that Al is not attending, I was planning to go see Mike and Bruce anyway, but now I'm back on the fence. Will Live Nation give me a refund on account of Stamos?

If you’re serious, then I would definitely contact Ticketmaster and/or the venue and/or Live Nation. I would think/hope they would offer a refund, especially if the report that it was Live Nation that pursued getting Al on the bill are accurate. If they make all the decisions as far as promotion, then they would be more familiar with the situation and also more culpable.

I still question how many people bought ticket specifically because of Al’s participation, who would otherwise not buy a ticket to the show. To the determent of Al, I would guess his name didn’t add a lot of sales, especially if reports are accurate from those who have gauged still-available tickets on the Ticketmaster website.

I doubt the venue or Live Nation is getting a bunch of angry fans on the order of what would happen if an entire band pulled out of a multi-band show or something. I would be highly unlikely to buy a ticket for a show with only Mike and Bruce, and if this had been a local show for me, I would have likely bought tickets due to Al’s name, and even in this scenario, I’m not sure I would ask for a refund. I’d be very conflicted, but I might well go out of curiosity if I had already bought the tickets.

I actually wouldn’t be surprised if the vast majority of ticket buyers weren’t aware of Al’s participation, or even aware of his name for that matter. Tickets were sold before Al’s name was advertised, right? So all those folks could be proven to have bought tickets for reasons other than Al. So Live Nation would only have to offer refunds for the group of fans who bought tickets after Al’s name was publicized, and who desire a refund because he’s not going to be there.

Thanks for the reply.    My 'refund' line was just an attempt at humor, as I do intend to go. A mini-reunion with Al would have been special, but I'm still in for Mike/Bruce/David, and I'm sure it will be a fun show.

[HeyJude]

Most Brian fans here bend over backward to talk about how they respect Mike's role in the band (if not his business decisions.) Mike fans, on the other hand, go out of their way to suggest that Brian is being manipulated, that other people write his songs, that he's a shell who should be staying at home, etc. Sure, that's not objectively "anti-Brian," but it basically posits that (as SJS posted earlier), anything done by BW after 1977 doesn't "count," and if you can't hear how obviously bad it is, you're some sort of brainwashed sheep.

That sure doesn't feel like balance to me.

Sorry but this is again completely wide of the mark.

If people feel that Mike deserves criticism for something then he`ll get it. Take a look at the comments on that Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous interview he did for one thing. And if people want to mock Mike then they can (see the weirdest photos of Mike Love thread).

But a lot of this is about shades of gray...

For example, after C50 there were some who claimed that Brian and Al were about to reclaim the Beach Boys name and go on tour to reclaim the band`s legacy. Now anybody (rightly) denying that came across as pro-Mike.

Similarly I remember one poster stridently claiming that Mike and Bruce should tour under their own names and give the Beach Boys name to Brian only agreeing to do what he wanted. Now this was clearly unrealistic but again when people reply to it then they are going to be viewed as pro-Mike.

When Cam made some of his comments about Mike never being the leader of the Beach Boys then obviously plenty were going to shout him down and they were going to be viewed as anti-Mike.

It seems to me that Brian has received almost universally good reviews for his live shows (except for a few famous exceptions) and that he received great reviews for TLOS and TWGMTR. I certainly haven`t seen people screaming that Pisces Brothers is better than the trilogy that ended TWGMTR. Have you?

Some people are obviously concerned that other people make decisions for Brian. But if Mike were recording duets with Lana Del Ray then you can be sure that people would be asking, `Does he even know who she is? Whose bright idea was that?`

I actually think it's (sometimes) interesting and constructive when we don't agree. I for instance don't agree with a lot of these assertions.

For instance, anybody actually suggesting that Brian and Al "were about" to take back the BB's name would have been basing that off of almost no actual data. Everything we know about the license, as well as Brian and his camp's attitude towards the whole thing, and the history of the group, would be a pretty firm indicator that that would be EXTREMELY unlikely to happen. That I believe that was always VERY unlikely to happen does not strike me as "pro-Mike." It's a statement, a supposition about whether something will happen or not. One doesn't have to like Mike or anybody else to suggest that Brian and Al taking the name is unlikely.

Years ago I think a fair amount of fans used to make a futile attempt to suggest Mike should tour under his own name. I think most of those fans gave that up years ago, and folks like me knew back then it was hugely unlikely and virtually impossible now.

I don't recall many fans going so far as to suggest Mike should be stripped of the name, and it should be given solely to Brian to allow him to do whatever he wanted. I think most fans, who would prefer the name not be used unless all willing, extant members are present, have usually suggested just that, that all willing members be included.

There are always weird fringe fans and comments, and even some of those (but not all) are purposely hyperbolic.

I recall a lot of fans back in 1998 making a suggestion the name be retired altogether once Carl was gone.

As for Brian's live shows, I've seen fans and critics alike give middling or negative reviews. Yes, critics and especially fans cut Brian A LOT of slack when it comes to his live appearances (and a lot of other things), but all the way back in 1999 there were huge Brian fans wondering out loud if he should even be touring, criticizing the teleprompter, the lack of actually playing the keyboard, and so on. I'm a huge Brian fan and have always enjoyed his shows. But I'll call a stinker of a performance when I see or hear one. I laughed out loud at some of the hyperbole back then (e.g. The 2000 Pet Sounds performances being "better" than the original album, etc.)

As a humorous aside, in all good fun, I would humbly suggest that the reason few if any are suggesting "Pisces Brothers" is better than the ending suite of "TWGMTR" is because most fans recognize it is not better. If Mike had given "Pisces Brothers" to Brian or Al for their solo albums, I would say the same thing.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Most Brian fans here bend over backward to talk about how they respect Mike's role in the band (if not his business decisions.) Mike fans, on the other hand, go out of their way to suggest that Brian is being manipulated, that other people write his songs, that he's a shell who should be staying at home, etc. Sure, that's not objectively "anti-Brian," but it basically posits that (as SJS posted earlier), anything done by BW after 1977 doesn't "count," and if you can't hear how obviously bad it is, you're some sort of brainwashed sheep.

That sure doesn't feel like balance to me.

Sorry but this is again completely wide of the mark.

If people feel that Mike deserves criticism for something then he`ll get it. Take a look at the comments on that Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous interview he did for one thing. And if people want to mock Mike then they can (see the weirdest photos of Mike Love thread).

But a lot of this is about shades of gray...

For example, after C50 there were some who claimed that Brian and Al were about to reclaim the Beach Boys name and go on tour to reclaim the band`s legacy. Now anybody (rightly) denying that came across as pro-Mike.

Similarly I remember one poster stridently claiming that Mike and Bruce should tour under their own names and give the Beach Boys name to Brian only agreeing to do what he wanted. Now this was clearly unrealistic but again when people reply to it then they are going to be viewed as pro-Mike.

When Cam made some of his comments about Mike never being the leader of the Beach Boys then obviously plenty were going to shout him down and they were going to be viewed as anti-Mike.

It seems to me that Brian has received almost universally good reviews for his live shows (except for a few famous exceptions) and that he received great reviews for TLOS and TWGMTR. I certainly haven`t seen people screaming that Pisces Brothers is better than the trilogy that ended TWGMTR. Have you?

Some people are obviously concerned that other people make decisions for Brian. But if Mike were recording duets with Lana Del Ray then you can be sure that people would be asking, `Does he even know who she is? Whose bright idea was that?`

I actually think it's (sometimes) interesting and constructive when we don't agree. I for instance don't agree with a lot of these assertions.

For instance, anybody actually suggesting that Brian and Al "were about" to take back the BB's name would have been basing that off of almost no actual data. Everything we know about the license, as well as Brian and his camp's attitude towards the whole thing, and the history of the group, would be a pretty firm indicator that that would be EXTREMELY unlikely to happen. That I believe that was always VERY unlikely to happen does not strike me as "pro-Mike." It's a statement, a supposition about whether something will happen or not. One doesn't have to like Mike or anybody else to suggest that Brian and Al taking the name is unlikely.

Years ago I think a fair amount of fans used to make a futile attempt to suggest Mike should tour under his own name. I think most of those fans gave that up years ago, and folks like me knew back then it was hugely unlikely and virtually impossible now.

I don't recall many fans going so far as to suggest Mike should be stripped of the name, and it should be given solely to Brian to allow him to do whatever he wanted. I think most fans, who would prefer the name not be used unless all willing, extant members are present, have usually suggested just that, that all willing members be included.

There are always weird fringe fans and comments, and even some of those (but not all) are purposely hyperbolic.

I recall a lot of fans back in 1998 making a suggestion the name be retired altogether once Carl was gone.

As for Brian's live shows, I've seen fans and critics alike give middling or negative reviews. Yes, critics and especially fans cut Brian A LOT of slack when it comes to his live appearances (and a lot of other things), but all the way back in 1999 there were huge Brian fans wondering out loud if he should even be touring, criticizing the teleprompter, the lack of actually playing the keyboard, and so on. I'm a huge Brian fan and have always enjoyed his shows. But I'll call a stinker of a performance when I see or hear one. I laughed out loud at some of the hyperbole back then (e.g. The 2000 Pet Sounds performances being "better" than the original album, etc.)

As a humorous aside, in all good fun, I would humbly suggest that the reason few if any are suggesting "Pisces Brothers" is better than the ending suite of "TWGMTR" is because most fans recognize it is not better. If Mike had given "Pisces Brothers" to Brian or Al for their solo albums, I would say the same thing.

Why does there have to be any comparison? Pisces Brother is a completely different song than the suite at the end of TWGMTR. Is anyone sitting here comparing that suite to In My Car or Smart Girls? No. Such a comparison only serves to slam Mike for having the nerve write a new (and not half bad) song.

[KittyKat]

It's not anti-Brian to suggest he doesn't always write all the music to his own songs. Both Andy Paley and Joe Thomas have said they wrote part of the music in their collaborations with Brian. Were they lying? It is important because Brian's music has a distinct stamp and that gets watered down if other people are writing music with him. It may also be unnecessary because Brian wrote the music for TLOS without help, other than lyrics. It was a critical success for him, too, if not a mega-seller.

[HeyJude]

Why does there have to be any comparison? Pisces Brother is a completely different song than the suite at the end of TWGMTR. Is anyone sitting here comparing that suite to In My Car or Smart Girls? No. Such a comparison only serves to slam Mike for having the nerve write a new (and not half bad) song.

I only brought that up because it was suggested that a lack of fans saying Mike's song was better was some sort of indication of a lack of "pro Mike" fans.

I also don't think comparing his songs to others only serves to slam him. Not saying his songs are as good as Brian's also isn't a slam.

[HeyJude]

It's not anti-Brian to suggest he doesn't always write all the music to his own songs. Both Andy Paley and Joe Thomas have said they wrote part of the music in their collaborations with Brian. Were they lying? It is important because Brian's music has a distinct stamp and that gets watered down if other people are writing music with him. It may also be unnecessary because Brian wrote the music for TLOS without help, other than lyrics. It was a critical success for him, too, if not a mega-seller.

I think the comments being cited were more of the "Joe Thomas wrote most of the album" variety, extreme and unprovable comments, as opposed to simply suggesting that Brian has cowriters.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

It may also be unnecessary because Brian wrote the music for TLOS without help, other than lyrics.

Ehhhh...not exactly. Brian did have 'help' with some of the music...of course, it'd be better termed a collaboration. He did provide some lyrics as well.

[Robbie Mac]

Just wondering where was all of this openness and tolerance for guesses and speculations and opinions when topics like, oh, the lyric credits for "Wouldn't It Be Nice" were being discussed?

I'm also waiting to see all of this welcoming spirit for random speculations and guesses when the next person posts any topic on this board with the words "Smile" and "Mike" in the subject line.

 

Oh, wait...those involve settled "facts" that can't be discussed or speculated on. What was I thinking? 

Have you read the board in the last half-decade or so? I would say that the vast majority of posters here are decidedly pro-Mike, and a sizable chunk of them are actively anti-Brian. The few out-and-out Brianistas have generally been shouted off this forum or insulted so grievously they choose not to post.

 Few of them have also been outright banned.

[SMiLE Brian]

*insert OSD plea for unban meant*

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Why does there have to be any comparison? Pisces Brother is a completely different song than the suite at the end of TWGMTR. Is anyone sitting here comparing that suite to In My Car or Smart Girls? No. Such a comparison only serves to slam Mike for having the nerve write a new (and not half bad) song.

I only brought that up because it was suggested that a lack of fans saying Mike's song was better was some sort of indication of a lack of "pro Mike" fans.

I also don't think comparing his songs to others only serves to slam him. Not saying his songs are as good as Brian's also isn't a slam.

Yeah, I can see the logic here.... Well put!

The hardest thing about being a Beach Boys fan (to me) who loves both Brian and Mike is having to witness folks constantly trying (and nearly managing the should-be-impossible task) to overrate one while underrating the other.

[Robbie Mac]

Most Brian fans here bend over backward to talk about how they respect Mike's role in the band (if not his business decisions.) Mike fans, on the other hand, go out of their way to suggest that Brian is being manipulated, that other people write his songs, that he's a shell who should be staying at home, etc. Sure, that's not objectively "anti-Brian," but it basically posits that (as SJS posted earlier), anything done by BW after 1977 doesn't "count," and if you can't hear how obviously bad it is, you're some sort of brainwashed sheep.

That sure doesn't feel like balance to me.

Sorry but this is again completely wide of the mark.

No, it isn't.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Most Brian fans here bend over backward to talk about how they respect Mike's role in the band (if not his business decisions.) Mike fans, on the other hand, go out of their way to suggest that Brian is being manipulated, that other people write his songs, that he's a shell who should be staying at home, etc. Sure, that's not objectively "anti-Brian," but it basically posits that (as SJS posted earlier), anything done by BW after 1977 doesn't "count," and if you can't hear how obviously bad it is, you're some sort of brainwashed sheep.

That sure doesn't feel like balance to me.

Sorry but this is again completely wide of the mark.

No, it isn't.

It's off the mark, and this is where the Brianista's really get me, in that it cuts out a whole third sort of Beach Boys fan ...... Those who accept a more "realistic" (in quotes because this is still subjective) view of the band and Brian where pointing out facts and situations regarding the subject in no way threatens their own love or appreciation for Brian, nor their agreement on his genius-ness and musical hugeness. Therefore accepting and praising Mike (on the crazy occasion) means absolutely nothing in terms of chipping any gold plating off Brian...... And if a Brian fan chooses to feel that nothing post 77 matters, that's their right .... What's the big deal? Lots of people think anything George Harrison did solo post 1971 isn't up to snuff. I could go on and on with such examples. If the facts we know of Brian's life past that period hurts someone's view of his output, that sucks, and I don't agree, but they are free to feel that way. How many people regularly bash anything/everything Mike's done post 73? Lots of it seems to hinge on things he did that weren't even related to anything musical anyhow.