New Mike interview...

[bonnevillemariner]

And if you think mental illnesses are an "excuse," I would doubt you have much experience with people dealing with them. They can be utterly incapacitating.

I have heard many a fan excuse Brian's early drug abuse as an attempt to self-medicate the mental illness/Murry abuses.  I admire the man for having survived those illnesses and abuses.  Those are separate things that were not his will or choice.  But the drug use and whatever consequences they might have had on his health, his mind, and the band are on him alone.

[HeyJude]

And if you think mental illnesses are an "excuse," I would doubt you have much experience with people dealing with them. They can be utterly incapacitating.

I have heard many a fan excuse Brian's early drug abuse as an attempt to self-medicate the mental illness/Murry abuses.  I admire the man for having survived those illnesses and abuses.  Those are separate things that were not his will or choice.  But the drug use and whatever consequences they might have had on his health, his mind, and the band are on him alone.

The problem with saying this is it oversimplifies the issue severely. If it’s as clear cut as “it’s Brian’s fault, end of story”, then it’s fine to take that position, but then with no nuance left to discuss, there’s nothing left to talk about. You don’t have anyone else on the “other side” of the issue claiming it’s not Brian’s fault at all, and it’s everybody else’s fault. It’s more complicated, and those vague aspects and complicated nuances are what fuel a continued discussion that’s actually worth having.

More to the point, why does blame need to be ascribed at this point? I think that’s the only reason this stuff comes up anymore. Even if one can’t “get over” this or that, one can at least just stop fixating on it. I think it’s fascinating to see whom in the band continues to bring all that stuff up, and who continues to specifically assign blame to people or events.

[bonnevillemariner]

The problem with saying this is it oversimplifies the issue severely. If it’s as clear cut as “it’s Brian’s fault, end of story”, then it’s fine to take that position, but then with no nuance left to discuss, there’s nothing left to talk about. You don’t have anyone else on the “other side” of the issue claiming it’s not Brian’s fault at all, and it’s everybody else’s fault. It’s more complicated, and those vague aspects and complicated nuances are what fuel a continued discussion that’s actually worth having.

More to the point, why does blame need to be ascribed at this point? I think that’s the only reason this stuff comes up anymore. Even if one can’t “get over” this or that, one can at least just stop fixating on it. I think it’s fascinating to see whom in the band continues to bring all that stuff up, and who continues to specifically assign blame to people or events.

I've said it before- Mike's a vindictive, perpetually defensive jerk who can't get it thru his thick skull that the fans would give anything for the dust to finally settle and the invective between the camps finally cease.  Where I agree with Mike and even sympathize is his bringing up the drug thing.  I have compassion for the mental illness.  I have no compassion for the drugs.  That's my moral stance.  My selfish stance comes from an angry perspective.  It's rude, dispassionate, and frankly shallow.  It's that I was personally robbed of the enjoyment of several more decades of great BB/BW output due in no small part to a few of of them turning to drugs. 

It doesn't cause me to lose sleep at night.  I don't fixate on it.  But I will express my opinion on it when the subject arises. 

[KittyKat]

I read an interview with the MASH TV show actor Alan Alda where he discussed his mentally ill mother. He said he knew it was a brain disease,  that he read and researched everything on mental illness and knew that his mother couldn't help the way her illness made her act. But even knowing that, Alan said he still had a lot of anger towards his mother, and that the rational knowledge of her sickness couldn't eliminate his irrational dislike and anger for the way his mother behaved towards her family due to the illness. It's easier for people outside, who don't have to deal with it, to be able to have complete compassion.

[drbeachboy]

Mike does talk about the dysfunction every time he speaks about Murry. Which he did. Even mentioning how it affected David and him leaving the group.

It's kind of weird that, at this stage, he's the only one regularly, and semi-unprompted, bringing up all of this negative stuff from up to 50-plus years ago. It just reeks of holding a grudge. Which is weird, because Al has several times been pegged as the guy who stews on stuff for years and won't get over it. But here we have Mike still bringing up Murry, Murry's business deals, the songwriting issues, and Wilson substance abuse. Here's some breaking news: Murry is dead. Mike's name is on those songs and has been for 20 years, and he collects royalties now for those songs. Two of the three Wilsons are dead. These are all very old issues, and bringing it all up kind of undermines this "meditate every day" stuff. There were some clear wrongs done to him and others many years ago. But this is true of most of us in life. I'm not saying these things still shouldn't be discussed. In the proper forum (e.g. a nice epic documentary film or true, full biography on the band), all of these things should still be brought up in detail.

But to take the majority of a short promotional interview to bring up the same negative stuff, things that have mostly been corrected either via the courts or no longer an issue due to death, just seems unbecoming, and that's saying something when it comes to the BB's.

Wait a cotton pickin minute here. Wasn't somebody bitching that he doesn't do it, then when I prove that he does, now someone else bitches that he does. Which is it? See, this is the problem, Mike can never please anyone with what he says. This place frustrates me at times. I just want to be a fan of the band, yet I am always having to defend band members and take sides. This place drives me crazy sometimes. Oh, am I allowed to call myself driven crazy?

[HeyJude]

Mike does talk about the dysfunction every time he speaks about Murry. Which he did. Even mentioning how it affected David and him leaving the group.

It's kind of weird that, at this stage, he's the only one regularly, and semi-unprompted, bringing up all of this negative stuff from up to 50-plus years ago. It just reeks of holding a grudge. Which is weird, because Al has several times been pegged as the guy who stews on stuff for years and won't get over it. But here we have Mike still bringing up Murry, Murry's business deals, the songwriting issues, and Wilson substance abuse. Here's some breaking news: Murry is dead. Mike's name is on those songs and has been for 20 years, and he collects royalties now for those songs. Two of the three Wilsons are dead. These are all very old issues, and bringing it all up kind of undermines this "meditate every day" stuff. There were some clear wrongs done to him and others many years ago. But this is true of most of us in life. I'm not saying these things still shouldn't be discussed. In the proper forum (e.g. a nice epic documentary film or true, full biography on the band), all of these things should still be brought up in detail.

But to take the majority of a short promotional interview to bring up the same negative stuff, things that have mostly been corrected either via the courts or no longer an issue due to death, just seems unbecoming, and that's saying something when it comes to the BB's.

Wait a cotton pickin minute here. Wasn't somebody bitching that he doesn't do it, then when I prove that he does, now someone else bitches that he does. Which is it? See, this is the problem, Mike can never please anyone with what he says. This place frustrates me at times. I just want to be a fan of the band, yet I am always having to defend band members and take sides. This place drives me crazy sometimes. Oh, am I allowed to call myself driven crazy?

I wasn’t speaking so much to discussing how Murry impacted the Wilson’s later actions, or anything like that. I’m saying that the manner in which all of that was brought up was just a bit resounding ball of negative crap. As I’ve said, it’s not beyond the pale as far as a topic worth discussing. But interviews like this aren’t a discussion or a detailed, understanding case of delving into any intricacies. It’s the same litany of negative things, the same complaints, and a case of “correcting” misperceptions that barely exist anymore, if they exist at all. Nobody whose opinion matters doesn’t recognize the negative aspects of Murry, or of Mike not getting songwriting credit. My point is that these conditions don’t exist anymore, and even if belatedly, have been corrected.

Who still cares about or brings up the songwriting case? There’s only one guy, and he’s the guy who *won* the freaking case twenty years ago.

[drbeachboy]

Mike does talk about the dysfunction every time he speaks about Murry. Which he did. Even mentioning how it affected David and him leaving the group.

It's kind of weird that, at this stage, he's the only one regularly, and semi-unprompted, bringing up all of this negative stuff from up to 50-plus years ago. It just reeks of holding a grudge. Which is weird, because Al has several times been pegged as the guy who stews on stuff for years and won't get over it. But here we have Mike still bringing up Murry, Murry's business deals, the songwriting issues, and Wilson substance abuse. Here's some breaking news: Murry is dead. Mike's name is on those songs and has been for 20 years, and he collects royalties now for those songs. Two of the three Wilsons are dead. These are all very old issues, and bringing it all up kind of undermines this "meditate every day" stuff. There were some clear wrongs done to him and others many years ago. But this is true of most of us in life. I'm not saying these things still shouldn't be discussed. In the proper forum (e.g. a nice epic documentary film or true, full biography on the band), all of these things should still be brought up in detail.

But to take the majority of a short promotional interview to bring up the same negative stuff, things that have mostly been corrected either via the courts or no longer an issue due to death, just seems unbecoming, and that's saying something when it comes to the BB's.

Wait a cotton pickin minute here. Wasn't somebody bitching that he doesn't do it, then when I prove that he does, now someone else bitches that he does. Which is it? See, this is the problem, Mike can never please anyone with what he says. This place frustrates me at times. I just want to be a fan of the band, yet I am always having to defend band members and take sides. This place drives me crazy sometimes. Oh, am I allowed to call myself driven crazy?

I wasn’t speaking so much to discussing how Murry impacted the Wilson’s later actions, or anything like that. I’m saying that the manner in which all of that was brought up was just a bit resounding ball of negative crap. As I’ve said, it’s not beyond the pale as far as a topic worth discussing. But interviews like this aren’t a discussion or a detailed, understanding case of delving into any intricacies. It’s the same litany of negative things, the same complaints, and a case of “correcting” misperceptions that barely exist anymore, if they exist at all. Nobody whose opinion matters doesn’t recognize the negative aspects of Murry, or of Mike not getting songwriting credit. My point is that these conditions don’t exist anymore, and even if belatedly, have been corrected.

Who still cares about or brings up the songwriting case? There’s only one guy, and he’s the guy who *won* the freaking case twenty years ago.

Also, how about we get on the stupid ass interviewers who ask these same questions over and over again. These are all stock answers for Mike. Maybe some interesting questions will yield more interesting answers.

[HeyJude]

Mike does talk about the dysfunction every time he speaks about Murry. Which he did. Even mentioning how it affected David and him leaving the group.

It's kind of weird that, at this stage, he's the only one regularly, and semi-unprompted, bringing up all of this negative stuff from up to 50-plus years ago. It just reeks of holding a grudge. Which is weird, because Al has several times been pegged as the guy who stews on stuff for years and won't get over it. But here we have Mike still bringing up Murry, Murry's business deals, the songwriting issues, and Wilson substance abuse. Here's some breaking news: Murry is dead. Mike's name is on those songs and has been for 20 years, and he collects royalties now for those songs. Two of the three Wilsons are dead. These are all very old issues, and bringing it all up kind of undermines this "meditate every day" stuff. There were some clear wrongs done to him and others many years ago. But this is true of most of us in life. I'm not saying these things still shouldn't be discussed. In the proper forum (e.g. a nice epic documentary film or true, full biography on the band), all of these things should still be brought up in detail.

But to take the majority of a short promotional interview to bring up the same negative stuff, things that have mostly been corrected either via the courts or no longer an issue due to death, just seems unbecoming, and that's saying something when it comes to the BB's.

Wait a cotton pickin minute here. Wasn't somebody bitching that he doesn't do it, then when I prove that he does, now someone else bitches that he does. Which is it? See, this is the problem, Mike can never please anyone with what he says. This place frustrates me at times. I just want to be a fan of the band, yet I am always having to defend band members and take sides. This place drives me crazy sometimes. Oh, am I allowed to call myself driven crazy?

I wasn’t speaking so much to discussing how Murry impacted the Wilson’s later actions, or anything like that. I’m saying that the manner in which all of that was brought up was just a bit resounding ball of negative crap. As I’ve said, it’s not beyond the pale as far as a topic worth discussing. But interviews like this aren’t a discussion or a detailed, understanding case of delving into any intricacies. It’s the same litany of negative things, the same complaints, and a case of “correcting” misperceptions that barely exist anymore, if they exist at all. Nobody whose opinion matters doesn’t recognize the negative aspects of Murry, or of Mike not getting songwriting credit. My point is that these conditions don’t exist anymore, and even if belatedly, have been corrected.

Who still cares about or brings up the songwriting case? There’s only one guy, and he’s the guy who *won* the freaking case twenty years ago.

Also, how about we get on the stupid ass interviewers who ask these same questions over and over again. These are all stock answers for Mike. Maybe some interesting questions will yield more interesting answers.

Very true. It's a bummer we've had so few substantive interviews with these guys.

[Nicko1234]

This is another completely innocuous interview that people have chosen to slate. Nothing to see here.

[kermit27]

[/quote]
Also, how about we get on the stupid ass interviewers who ask these same questions over and over again. These are all stock answers for Mike. Maybe some interesting questions will yield more interesting answers.
[/quote]

Q: I understand addiction looms large in the Beach Boys' story.  Is it true you are addicted to baseball hats?

Q: Does Bruce Johnston have a set end date?

Q: Is it true that Brian Wilson is your cousin?  Why do you not mention it?

[CenturyDeprived]

The only new thing in the interview is framing Brian’s statement that he “felt like” it was being fired as a “false” statement. How could how Brian *felt* be a false statement?  

Exactly. A given person's feelings are never, ever "false".  There needs to be a modicum of acknowledgement. And this is the exact reason why it's so frustrating for me to try and sympathize with Mike. I wonder if he'd ever be willing to sit down and do an on-camera interview with a reporter of prestige who would actually ask him a question like this. He'd probably walk off, because there's no rational way to defend saying/implying something like that, when it's examined under a microscope.

Using Mike’s logic (Mike basically saying “I call no changeees!”), Mike never ever has the right to complain about Murry or the bad deals he was handed years ago… because he (Mike) himself agreed to something at one time – so regardless of whether or not there were regrets about having done so later on, Mike has no right to feel screwed over or hurt.  Crazy talk. Things can't be simplified the way he tries to do.

[drbeachboy]

You are right. We all know Brian knows he was not fired. He was laid-off along with Al and Dave.

[Shady]

It's boring and arrogant like every Mike interview

[Cam Mott]

Exactly what do you think a man over 70 years old that has been doing the same thing for the past 52 years is going to have to say that is new and surprising? Interviewing any of these guys is pretty much pointless. You will always get the same information, same responses, same recall.

That was my point too. They only have one life so if they get asked about the same things we are going to hear the same things. Brian talks about the same things over and over too because he is asked. He is always lamenting his drug abuse too. Geez, get over it.

[SMiLE Brian]

Why is Mike is miserable?


He has 50 million dollars from a lifetime of hard work and a loving family/friends.

[drbeachboy]

Why is Mike is miserable?


He has 50 million dollars from a lifetime of hard work and a loving family/friends.

Is he? I thought he was Mister Positivity.

[guitarfool2002]

The issue of getting the same answers to the same or similar questions is something I mentioned in another thread. In the case of Mike's various interviews, a lot of these are done when he's coming to an area and a promotional interview is arranged through the local press by the PR staff working for the tour. Often the interviewer is given a set of topics to discuss, which means the answers can always come around to promoting the event and selling more tickets. It's just the way it is done and has been done for decades. It's done by many major artists who simply don't sit down for the in-depth, long interviews that we might want to read.

And the kind of information that gets printed is pretty controlled, so you get repetition and stock answers across the board, no matter who it is.

One of the other untold aspects which i think we all hope is a rare thing but which actually may not be depending on the people involved is that an interviewer who gets the assignment might get a backlash if something negative or "off limits" makes the published version. In many cases they're acting in a promotional role and they simply cannot or will not ask the tough questions.

It might explain how it seems repetitive when most of Mike's interviews are done in a promotional capacity, and short on anything new other than trying to hype the upcoming appearance.

At the same time, and speaking in my own opinion here, I don't see the benefit or the advantage of bringing up drug use and all the other elements we almost expect to read at this point when he's promoting shows and trying to sell more tickets. At that point I can see where some fans reading it might react negatively, especially since it has been a common theme for years now in these interviews, and ultimately it really has nothing to do with getting people excited for an upcoming concert.

The old song: "Accentuate The Positive". It plays better in the press and among fans.

[Nicko1234]

I`m not sure the questions are quite that controlled. Sure they want to promote the touring but Mike is still asked questions about Smile, the Hall of Fame speech, Manson etc. from time to time.

When he was promoting the Hyde Park appearance last year, for example, he was asked: `You once said The Rolling Stones were too chickensh*t to get on the same stage as The Beach Boys. Does that mean JLS are braver than The Rolling Stones?` 

[Kurosawa]

I used to always take Brian's side (or the Brian group side) in these things, but I've learned that I just don't know enough to have an informed opinion. I do applaud Mike for trying to work in some new songs. My main wish is Mike would write more and not try to write what he thinks would be commercially viable, but write about what he cares about, even if it is stuff like TM that I personally have no interest in.

That's also what interests me most with Brian-that he is writing and recording new material on a decently regular basis, even if some of it is cover albums.

[Cam Mott]

If the questions are asked they get answered. If it is unpleasant stuff, it is still the answer. They could could be evasive or unresponsive or lie or all three. The problem is not the answers, it is the questions imo.

[guitarfool2002]

If the questions are asked they get answered. If it is unpleasant stuff, it is still the answer. They could could be evasive or unresponsive or lie or all three. The problem is not the answers, it is the questions imo.

Do you accept that many of these questions, not specifically where Mike is involved but across the board with musicians promoting stuff in general, have been either suggested or even screened before the interview, and then beyond that in some cases reviewed before they get published? There are some things which are, simply put, "off limits" compared to what the person being interviewed wants to promote or wants to say.

This ties in specifically to issues of Facebook and Twitter messages from various public figures that get them into trouble. When they're not controlled, when they're not scripted to some degree, when they're not "on message", when they're not filtered, they get into all kinds of trouble by what they say off the cuff.

And when that hurts their income, their marketability, or their image, it can explain why these 15 minute interview junkets while promoting something are more controlled both before and after.

[Nicko1234]

Do you accept that many of these questions, not specifically where Mike is involved but across the board with musicians promoting stuff in general, have been either suggested or even screened before the interview, and then beyond that in some cases reviewed before they get published? There are some things which are, simply put, "off limits" compared to what the person being interviewed wants to promote or wants to say.

This ties in specifically to issues of Facebook and Twitter messages from various public figures that get them into trouble. When they're not controlled, when they're not scripted to some degree, when they're not "on message", when they're not filtered, they get into all kinds of trouble by what they say off the cuff.

And when that hurts their income, their marketability, or their image, it can explain why these 15 minute interview junkets while promoting something are more controlled both before and after.

But Mike does get asked questions about Smile, the Hall of Fame speech, Manson etc. occasionally so they are not that controlled surely.

[guitarfool2002]

Do you accept that many of these questions, not specifically where Mike is involved but across the board with musicians promoting stuff in general, have been either suggested or even screened before the interview, and then beyond that in some cases reviewed before they get published? There are some things which are, simply put, "off limits" compared to what the person being interviewed wants to promote or wants to say.

This ties in specifically to issues of Facebook and Twitter messages from various public figures that get them into trouble. When they're not controlled, when they're not scripted to some degree, when they're not "on message", when they're not filtered, they get into all kinds of trouble by what they say off the cuff.

And when that hurts their income, their marketability, or their image, it can explain why these 15 minute interview junkets while promoting something are more controlled both before and after.

But Mike does get asked questions about Smile, the Hall of Fame speech, Manson etc. occasionally so they are not that controlled surely.

I don't want to specifically point to Mike and his interviews with what I said earlier, but take a look through those interviews where he was asked about those specific points: Does it feel like he had or even still has a standard set of replies to them? I don't think those would be off-limits anyway, he's been asked about them in much the same way for the better part of the last 25 years or so!

[Nicko1234]

Do you accept that many of these questions, not specifically where Mike is involved but across the board with musicians promoting stuff in general, have been either suggested or even screened before the interview, and then beyond that in some cases reviewed before they get published? There are some things which are, simply put, "off limits" compared to what the person being interviewed wants to promote or wants to say.

This ties in specifically to issues of Facebook and Twitter messages from various public figures that get them into trouble. When they're not controlled, when they're not scripted to some degree, when they're not "on message", when they're not filtered, they get into all kinds of trouble by what they say off the cuff.

And when that hurts their income, their marketability, or their image, it can explain why these 15 minute interview junkets while promoting something are more controlled both before and after.

But Mike does get asked questions about Smile, the Hall of Fame speech, Manson etc. occasionally so they are not that controlled surely.

I don't want to specifically point to Mike and his interviews with what I said earlier, but take a look through those interviews where he was asked about those specific points: Does it feel like he had or even still has a standard set of replies to them? I don't think those would be off-limits anyway, he's been asked about them in much the same way for the better part of the last 25 years or so!

What would be off limits then? A genuine question... Mike obviously has developed set answers to many questions because he is so used to being interviewed now.

Last year he was asked a lot about C50 and one of his responses of, `you sound like you are hung up on that tour` to the interviewer didn`t suggest that the questions had exactly been all vetted in advance.

Obviously, as I`ve said, they do want to promote the touring and doubtless Mike`s management makes that clear to the interviewer in advance. But if they were going to be controlling the questions then I would expect them to be vetoing plenty of stuff that does get asked.

[GhostyTMRS]

I don't know if there's a difference between print and radio. I can tell you from my experience interviewing Mike on the radio that no questions were vetted by management first. They didn't even ask about what I planned to ask. Same with Brian actually.