New Mike interview...

[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!

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.

Consider that so many of Mike's interviews that get clipped and posted here as a "new interview" tend to come from these promotional junkets when he's promoting a concert in the area. Not all the time, but a lot of the time.

I don't know what your area has, but many in the US have newspapers which put an insert in the Thursday or Friday editions usually called "Weekender" or something similar. They list all the events, concerts, food fairs, whatever...and they often have interviews with artists playing the major venues that week in the area.

The interviews usually play to the lowest common denominator, and I don't mean that as a knock or anything, but it's far from the questions or information those artists' fans might want to read. And it's often information which the fan base knows - the fan base which has already bought tickets - and it's information that's usually been hashed out many times. Sometimes not.

Now consider Beach Boys concerts this summer. I *do* blame some of the interviewers for simply being lazy or not researching the band, but I mostly blame the whole system of interviews promoting concert events. They're not for the fans who already have tickets, they're for casual fans or even non-fans looking for something cool to do on Friday night.

In other words, lowest common denominator for the readership they're targeting.

For BB's fans, we don't need to read another version of how Mike wrote those lyrics in a car on the way to the studio. But at the same time, how many casual fans would care at all if Mike were asked something about Craig Vincent Smith and "Salesman" or memories of touring with the Buffalo Springfield? The interviews don't go there.

My own take: Someone posted an interview Mike gave leading up to the July 5th Jones Beach show, the one where Al wasn't there. I would have liked to read at least a question about why Al wasn't there. It's as if Al was never even billed to play that show, and we know some fans bought tickets because having Al and David there was a bigger draw than the average package show.

But not a word about Al. I understand that, though - Most readers browsing for that kind of interview might not care. And do we think we'd get anything resembling a straight, definitive answer if Mike were asked point blank "What happened with Al?". We'd get a political-style brush-off, or a simple reply far short of info we all were curious about.

So there is a disconnect. There are lazy interviewers who don't know much about Beach Boys history enough to ask the deeper questions. And there is a system of promoting shows where such questions simply aren't asked, aren't really on the agenda, or simply don't make the final cut for whatever reason.

That's specific to Mike and his Beach Boys related promotional interviews. What I said earlier covers a majority of artists doing these regional promotions.

[guitarfool2002]

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.

It depends on the station, the outlet, and the artist. Most if not all interviews you see on the late night talk shows are worked out and even rehearsed in advance of what we see on the broadcast. There are situations where the writers and producers have even "punched up" a guest's story by adding elements or lines to make it more funny for the air. When I heard that, I was disillusioned by the whole thing and after Carson left the air my interest in late night shows dropped considerably.

There are situations where the questions are either suggested or sent in advance for these promotional things. Not all of them, not every one, but if a movie company for example sends some actor to some random major-market place called KISS 106 or something, on a wacky/zany morning show kind of deal to promote a new film, they expect at least some talk of the actual film. And if that same guy got busted with a hooker in the Village 25 years ago, and is now out promoting a family comedy, don;t you think the hooker talk would be made off-limits before the show? Or would the show hosts risk offending the guy and having him walk out if they asked him "So what happened with that hooker you got busted with?" after he just got done promoting a family comedy? 

All i can suggest is it depends on the medium, the people involved, and other variables when these things happen.

[Cam Mott]

So Mike can be asked anything and he seems to answer everything so again the problem seems to be the questions.

[guitarfool2002]

So Mike can be asked anything and he seems to answer everything so again the problem seems to be the questions.

Has anyone asked him about Al since July 5th?

[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.

Consider that so many of Mike's interviews that get clipped and posted here as a "new interview" tend to come from these promotional junkets when he's promoting a concert in the area. Not all the time, but a lot of the time.

I don't know what your area has, but many in the US have newspapers which put an insert in the Thursday or Friday editions usually called "Weekender" or something similar. They list all the events, concerts, food fairs, whatever...and they often have interviews with artists playing the major venues that week in the area.

The interviews usually play to the lowest common denominator, and I don't mean that as a knock or anything, but it's far from the questions or information those artists' fans might want to read. And it's often information which the fan base knows - the fan base which has already bought tickets - and it's information that's usually been hashed out many times. Sometimes not.

Now consider Beach Boys concerts this summer. I *do* blame some of the interviewers for simply being lazy or not researching the band, but I mostly blame the whole system of interviews promoting concert events. They're not for the fans who already have tickets, they're for casual fans or even non-fans looking for something cool to do on Friday night.

In other words, lowest common denominator for the readership they're targeting.

For BB's fans, we don't need to read another version of how Mike wrote those lyrics in a car on the way to the studio. But at the same time, how many casual fans would care at all if Mike were asked something about Craig Vincent Smith and "Salesman" or memories of touring with the Buffalo Springfield? The interviews don't go there.

My own take: Someone posted an interview Mike gave leading up to the July 5th Jones Beach show, the one where Al wasn't there. I would have liked to read at least a question about why Al wasn't there. It's as if Al was never even billed to play that show, and we know some fans bought tickets because having Al and David there was a bigger draw than the average package show.

But not a word about Al. I understand that, though - Most readers browsing for that kind of interview might not care. And do we think we'd get anything resembling a straight, definitive answer if Mike were asked point blank "What happened with Al?". We'd get a political-style brush-off, or a simple reply far short of info we all were curious about.

So there is a disconnect. There are lazy interviewers who don't know much about Beach Boys history enough to ask the deeper questions. And there is a system of promoting shows where such questions simply aren't asked, aren't really on the agenda, or simply don't make the final cut for whatever reason.

That's specific to Mike and his Beach Boys related promotional interviews. What I said earlier covers a majority of artists doing these regional promotions.

I completely agree that these interviews are going to cover just the basics for their readership.

[Cam Mott]

So Mike can be asked anything and he seems to answer everything so again the problem seems to be the questions.

Has anyone asked him about Al since July 5th?

Not that I've seen and I wish someone would. I also wish they would dig harder about how the end of C50 was such a cluster F.

[guitarfool2002]

So Mike can be asked anything and he seems to answer everything so again the problem seems to be the questions.

Has anyone asked him about Al since July 5th?

Not that I've seen and I wish someone would. I also wish they would dig harder about how the end of C50 was such a cluster F.

That's another great example! It's been two years since that happened. Has it been asked or answered beyond a basic mention of that tour? Even in that specific case mentioned above, where Mike replied to the interviewer by saying they were hung up on that tour or something, do you think we'd get more than a brush-off answer? I wish we would. I also wish someone would ask!

It's the lack of asking that kind of question about C50 that makes reading another variation on the drugs-writing with my cousin-California Girls lyrics topics and answers seem so banal. But then again I'm - we're - fans and the interviews Mike seems to give most often aren't designed for us.

[NHC]

Keep in mind that we read ALL the interviews and follow EVERYTHING the band does.  For many people, the casual fan or perhaps not even a real fan at all, they may only see the one interview when the band is coming to their town, or similar situation, so it doesn't seem so repetitive and old news like it does to us. But it would be nice if a) Mike weren't asked the same questions over and over, or given the opening, and b) when he is, he chose to say "asked and answered, nothing new to say".

[Jim V.]

Gosh guys, I wish we had somebody on this board who has or was going to interview Mike...hmm...shoot....wait....

it's a guy named ANDREW G. DOE!

I don't know if it would work, but wouldn't it be swell if we all (with Andrew) came up with an interesting list of questions and got Andrew to ask those? And maybe a similar interview for Bruce? Eh? Anybody??

[urbanite]

A question I would like asked of ML, why don't you and Al Jardine get along?

[Micha]

Maybe I'm naive, but I don't have the impression that Mike accuses the Wilsons for their drug use, butv rather regrets they having done it. Maybe I just project my own feelings onto Mike, but he doesn't say "it's their fault, those dumbasses". Mike's own addiction (TM) is indeed much less harmful to the body.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Gosh guys, I wish we had somebody on this board who has or was going to interview Mike...hmm...shoot....wait....

it's a guy named ANDREW G. DOE!

I don't know if it would work, but wouldn't it be swell if we all (with Andrew) came up with an interesting list of questions and got Andrew to ask those? And maybe a similar interview for Bruce? Eh? Anybody??

November.

[Andrew G. Doe]

So Mike can be asked anything and he seems to answer everything so again the problem seems to be the questions.

Has anyone asked him about Al since July 5th?

Kinda. My impression was, don't hold your breath.

[Cam Mott]

Maybe I'm naive, but I don't have the impression that Mike accuses the Wilsons for their drug use, butv rather regrets they having done it. Maybe I just project my own feelings onto Mike, but he doesn't say "it's their fault, those dumbasses". Mike's own addiction (TM) is indeed much less harmful to the body.

Agreed, the same sort of complicated feelings and regrets everybody else has in these situations.

[Sheriff John Stone]

Maybe I'm naive, but I don't have the impression that Mike accuses the Wilsons for their drug use, but rather regrets they having done it. Maybe I just project my own feelings onto Mike, but he doesn't say "it's their fault, those dumbasses".

You're not naive. I totally agree with you. While I do think Mike Love had an overall happy career and life, I also feel that there is an underlying sadness to him, and that is based on what happened to The Beach Boys, specifically what and who was lost. The song title/line, "God please let us go on this way" comes to mind. You know how Mike can become locked into specific time periods and styles. I often get the feeling that Mike wishes that the 1964 lineup would've stayed intact FOREVER. Hmmm, I wonder how many fans feel the same way? But, one by one, they were lost, specifically Brian, Dennis, and Carl. Of course the reasons weren't 100% attributed to substance abuse (did Mike say substance abuse was 100% responsible?), but it played a very, very large part.

I'm surprised (actually I'm not ) more people aren't more sympathetic to Mike's feelings about that subject, because many times I feel the same way. I'll think, "Damn, one of my favorite groups, and they could've made NEW music for 60 years, but one member dies at 39, another at 51, and another stopped geniusing around a long, long time ago. Such a tragedy." Feeling sorry for myself? Yeah. Selfish feelings? Hell yeah. But normal. And then, like Mike, I'll think, "If only they didn't...."

[Cabinessenceking]

A question I would like asked of ML, why don't you and Al Jardine get along?

my personal take:
with dennis and carl gone there was no longer anyone to unite againt and just like USA and USSR their alliance faltered 

[drbeachboy]

Maybe I'm naive, but I don't have the impression that Mike accuses the Wilsons for their drug use, but rather regrets they having done it. Maybe I just project my own feelings onto Mike, but he doesn't say "it's their fault, those dumbasses".

You're not naive. I totally agree with you. While I do think Mike Love had an overall happy career and life, I also feel that there is an underlying sadness to him, and that is based on what happened to The Beach Boys, specifically what and who was lost. The song title/line, "God please let us go on this way" comes to mind. You know how Mike can become locked into specific time periods and styles. I often get the feeling that Mike wishes that the 1964 lineup would've stayed intact FOREVER. Hmmm, I wonder how many fans feel the same way? But, one by one, they were lost, specifically Brian, Dennis, and Carl. Of course the reasons weren't 100% attributed to substance abuse (did Mike say substance abuse was 100% responsible?), but it played a very, very large part.

I'm surprised (actually I'm not ) more people aren't more sympathetic to Mike's feelings about that subject, because many times I feel the same way. I'll think, "Damn, one of my favorite groups, and they could've made NEW music for 60 years, but one member dies at 39, another at 51, and another stopped geniusing around a long, long time ago. Such a tragedy." Feeling sorry for myself? Yeah. Selfish feelings? Hell yeah. But normal. And then, like Mike, I'll think, "If only they didn't...."

I'll bet that you are not too far off the mark there. Great post!

[HeyJude]

So Mike can be asked anything and he seems to answer everything so again the problem seems to be the questions.

The interviewer certainly plays a large role in how the interview goes. In most cases, the same or very similar questions are indeed being asked, and follow-up questions are not pursued. I’m not even talking about Mike Wallace-style grilling or something, but just natural follow-up questions to steer the conversation.

However, I’ve seen a pattern, particularly lately, of Mike providing near word-for-word identical responses, and not always to the same precise questions. It comes across as if he has the same half-dozen or so talking points, and he plans to run through those even if the questions don’t precisely match up. This pattern came come about for any number of reasons. Sometimes it’s simply to get through tedious interviews quickly. Sometimes it comes from defensiveness and insecurity. Sometimes it comes from deflecting the precise actual question. Sometimes it’s to convey a particular agenda. Sometimes, like McCartney, you can tell it’s simply a case of doing an interview on “autopilot.”

For instance, in that recent radio/audio interview that was posted here, Mike is asked about C50 and he immediately starts talking about his current band. It’s literally an answer to a question that wasn’t asked. That answering pattern, coupled with many of the precisely identical turns of phrase used in multiple interviews, screams “stock/scripted response” to a degree that goes beyond even classic repetitive interview subjects like Paul McCartney. The problem with McCartney interviews is about 80% the interviewers’ fault and 20% McCartney’s fault. He’ll actually answer unique and weird questions if they are posed, but he is often asked very specific repetitive questions.

I feel like with Mike, it’s about 50/50 or maybe 60% the interviewers fault, 40% his. Mike, especially lately, has a pattern of going into very stock responses, talking points essentially. Set end date, “there was a term”, “the reunion was for good for the fans”, “we’re doing what we’ve been doing”, “I was screwed on songwriting credits”, “Uncle Murry took advantage”, “the Wilsons abused drugs and alcohol”, “I meditate every day”, “We’re doing about 130 shows this year”, “I hung out with the Beatles in India in 1968”, etc. The interviewers are most definitely feeding into this pattern. But some of the stuff isn’t getting specifically asked, yet we’re getting the same answers. It’s too bad, because like McCartney, Mike has shown that he can under some circumstances do a good interview with non-stock responses. Listen to that Howard Stern interview from the 90’s. Stern did the same thing with McCartney when he finally got McCartney for an interview. Stern did the same interviewing Brian in 1998. One of the skills Stern had/has that he didn’t utilize nearly enough was to get guys like this out of their rut of answering the same questions with the same answers.

Howie Edelson has gotten some unique stuff out of these guys as well, no doubt because he’s a knowledgeable fan who also knows how to write and how to conduct interviews. Who else has been able to interview Mike and ask about their corporate set-up, suggest they use a Neil Aspinall-type to run their business and even float Jerry Schilling’s name?

Also, briefly addressing the issues surrounding how interviewers are or aren’t told what to ask or not to ask, Edelson has mentioned in the past that he has never been told what to ask or not to ask when interviewing these guys. Certainly, whatever is an artist’s new project will be a focus point. But I sense in most cases, especially with the BB’s, it’s interviewers just being either lazy or non-confrontational. It is true, if you grill someone and ask them stuff they don’t want to discuss, your chances of getting another interview could decrease.

[HeyJude]

Also worth mentioning is that when Mike is feeling feisty and the interviewer is willing to go to specific places, Mike can give an entertaining (if also sometimes disagreeable) interview. The best example I can think of is the 1992 Goldmine interview. He seems really agitated and feisty. Some of the answers seem ridiculous and don’t paint him in a very positive light, but at least they seem to be honest and passionate, and sometimes awesomely hilarious:  http://troun.tripod.com/mikelove.html

Some of my favorite bits from the interview:

On Brian's '88 solo album:

Did you like his first solo album?

No.

You didn't like it?

f*** no.

Asked about the impending songwriting lawsuit (remember, this is the guy that "meditates every day"):

So what will you be doing with this?

Suing his ass to pieces because he's hiding behind his lawyers and all that kind of stuff.

[Micha]

Also worth mentioning is that when Mike is feeling feisty and the interviewer is willing to go to specific places, Mike can give an entertaining (if also sometimes disagreeable) interview. The best example I can think of is the 1992 Goldmine interview. He seems really agitated and feisty. Some of the answers seem ridiculous and don’t paint him in a very positive light, but at least they seem to be honest and passionate, and sometimes awesomely hilarious:  http://troun.tripod.com/mikelove.html

Thanks a lot for posting that, that was important!

[Nicko1234]

So Mike can be asked anything and he seems to answer everything so again the problem seems to be the questions.

The interviewer certainly plays a large role in how the interview goes. In most cases, the same or very similar questions are indeed being asked, and follow-up questions are not pursued. I’m not even talking about Mike Wallace-style grilling or something, but just natural follow-up questions to steer the conversation.

However, I’ve seen a pattern, particularly lately, of Mike providing near word-for-word identical responses, and not always to the same precise questions. It comes across as if he has the same half-dozen or so talking points, and he plans to run through those even if the questions don’t precisely match up. This pattern came come about for any number of reasons. Sometimes it’s simply to get through tedious interviews quickly. Sometimes it comes from defensiveness and insecurity. Sometimes it comes from deflecting the precise actual question. Sometimes it’s to convey a particular agenda. Sometimes, like McCartney, you can tell it’s simply a case of doing an interview on “autopilot.”

For instance, in that recent radio/audio interview that was posted here, Mike is asked about C50 and he immediately starts talking about his current band. It’s literally an answer to a question that wasn’t asked. That answering pattern, coupled with many of the precisely identical turns of phrase used in multiple interviews, screams “stock/scripted response” to a degree that goes beyond even classic repetitive interview subjects like Paul McCartney. The problem with McCartney interviews is about 80% the interviewers’ fault and 20% McCartney’s fault. He’ll actually answer unique and weird questions if they are posed, but he is often asked very specific repetitive questions.

I feel like with Mike, it’s about 50/50 or maybe 60% the interviewers fault, 40% his. Mike, especially lately, has a pattern of going into very stock responses, talking points essentially. Set end date, “there was a term”, “the reunion was for good for the fans”, “we’re doing what we’ve been doing”, “I was screwed on songwriting credits”, “Uncle Murry took advantage”, “the Wilsons abused drugs and alcohol”, “I meditate every day”, “We’re doing about 130 shows this year”, “I hung out with the Beatles in India in 1968”, etc. The interviewers are most definitely feeding into this pattern. But some of the stuff isn’t getting specifically asked, yet we’re getting the same answers. It’s too bad, because like McCartney, Mike has shown that he can under some circumstances do a good interview with non-stock responses. Listen to that Howard Stern interview from the 90’s. Stern did the same thing with McCartney when he finally got McCartney for an interview. Stern did the same interviewing Brian in 1998. One of the skills Stern had/has that he didn’t utilize nearly enough was to get guys like this out of their rut of answering the same questions with the same answers.

Howie Edelson has gotten some unique stuff out of these guys as well, no doubt because he’s a knowledgeable fan who also knows how to write and how to conduct interviews. Who else has been able to interview Mike and ask about their corporate set-up, suggest they use a Neil Aspinall-type to run their business and even float Jerry Schilling’s name?

Also, briefly addressing the issues surrounding how interviewers are or aren’t told what to ask or not to ask, Edelson has mentioned in the past that he has never been told what to ask or not to ask when interviewing these guys. Certainly, whatever is an artist’s new project will be a focus point. But I sense in most cases, especially with the BB’s, it’s interviewers just being either lazy or non-confrontational. It is true, if you grill someone and ask them stuff they don’t want to discuss, your chances of getting another interview could decrease.

Is there a link to this interview?

[guitarfool2002]

Also worth mentioning is that when Mike is feeling feisty and the interviewer is willing to go to specific places, Mike can give an entertaining (if also sometimes disagreeable) interview. The best example I can think of is the 1992 Goldmine interview. He seems really agitated and feisty. Some of the answers seem ridiculous and don’t paint him in a very positive light, but at least they seem to be honest and passionate, and sometimes awesomely hilarious:  http://troun.tripod.com/mikelove.html

Thanks a lot for posting that, that was important!

In one of the threads earlier this year I tried to place that specific interview into context, and if it's been forgotten since I'll try to sum it up! 

That interview has everything to do with both *timing* and *context*. This was a classic case of catching Mike - well, possibly anyone - at one of the worst times for an interview about the Beach Boys.

When he did this interview, Brian had just won his lawsuit awarding him millions in back payments from the Murry-led Sea Of Tunes sale debacle. It was an amazing amount of money.

Trace the backstory of what happened, I won't recap that here, but Mike at this specific time felt that he was due money from Brian via that deal and the legal teams involved, and that he was also unable to reach or contact Brian directly to discuss it. It was all going through "have my lawyer call your lawyer" for specific legal reasons.

So in that Goldmine piece, you get Mike at perhaps his most angry, most bitter, most confrontational, and most unguarded. Read what he says: He's basically unloading years of baggage and perhaps pent-up anger on the Goldmine interviewer, and throwing darts wildly around all sorts of topics.

It's pure frustration, and again consider this was at one of the worst times they could have had Mike sit down for an "extensive" interview about the Beach Boys and specifically Brian. He was as angry in the interview as you'll see in any of his history of interviews.

Perhaps for PR reasons someone should have cancelled it in light of the timing. 

[Micha]

Maybe I'm naive, but I don't have the impression that Mike accuses the Wilsons for their drug use, but rather regrets they having done it. Maybe I just project my own feelings onto Mike, but he doesn't say "it's their fault, those dumbasses".

You're not naive.

Thank you!

[HeyJude]

So Mike can be asked anything and he seems to answer everything so again the problem seems to be the questions.

The interviewer certainly plays a large role in how the interview goes. In most cases, the same or very similar questions are indeed being asked, and follow-up questions are not pursued. I’m not even talking about Mike Wallace-style grilling or something, but just natural follow-up questions to steer the conversation.

However, I’ve seen a pattern, particularly lately, of Mike providing near word-for-word identical responses, and not always to the same precise questions. It comes across as if he has the same half-dozen or so talking points, and he plans to run through those even if the questions don’t precisely match up. This pattern came come about for any number of reasons. Sometimes it’s simply to get through tedious interviews quickly. Sometimes it comes from defensiveness and insecurity. Sometimes it comes from deflecting the precise actual question. Sometimes it’s to convey a particular agenda. Sometimes, like McCartney, you can tell it’s simply a case of doing an interview on “autopilot.”

For instance, in that recent radio/audio interview that was posted here, Mike is asked about C50 and he immediately starts talking about his current band. It’s literally an answer to a question that wasn’t asked. That answering pattern, coupled with many of the precisely identical turns of phrase used in multiple interviews, screams “stock/scripted response” to a degree that goes beyond even classic repetitive interview subjects like Paul McCartney. The problem with McCartney interviews is about 80% the interviewers’ fault and 20% McCartney’s fault. He’ll actually answer unique and weird questions if they are posed, but he is often asked very specific repetitive questions.

I feel like with Mike, it’s about 50/50 or maybe 60% the interviewers fault, 40% his. Mike, especially lately, has a pattern of going into very stock responses, talking points essentially. Set end date, “there was a term”, “the reunion was for good for the fans”, “we’re doing what we’ve been doing”, “I was screwed on songwriting credits”, “Uncle Murry took advantage”, “the Wilsons abused drugs and alcohol”, “I meditate every day”, “We’re doing about 130 shows this year”, “I hung out with the Beatles in India in 1968”, etc. The interviewers are most definitely feeding into this pattern. But some of the stuff isn’t getting specifically asked, yet we’re getting the same answers. It’s too bad, because like McCartney, Mike has shown that he can under some circumstances do a good interview with non-stock responses. Listen to that Howard Stern interview from the 90’s. Stern did the same thing with McCartney when he finally got McCartney for an interview. Stern did the same interviewing Brian in 1998. One of the skills Stern had/has that he didn’t utilize nearly enough was to get guys like this out of their rut of answering the same questions with the same answers.

Howie Edelson has gotten some unique stuff out of these guys as well, no doubt because he’s a knowledgeable fan who also knows how to write and how to conduct interviews. Who else has been able to interview Mike and ask about their corporate set-up, suggest they use a Neil Aspinall-type to run their business and even float Jerry Schilling’s name?

Also, briefly addressing the issues surrounding how interviewers are or aren’t told what to ask or not to ask, Edelson has mentioned in the past that he has never been told what to ask or not to ask when interviewing these guys. Certainly, whatever is an artist’s new project will be a focus point. But I sense in most cases, especially with the BB’s, it’s interviewers just being either lazy or non-confrontational. It is true, if you grill someone and ask them stuff they don’t want to discuss, your chances of getting another interview could decrease.

Is there a link to this interview?

I think all of that info is found through Howie's posts. He mentioned that he discussed this with Mike when talking with him during the 2012 tour. I do not know if the discussion of Schilling, the touring production setup, etc. and whatnot ended up in any printed article/interview. I would suspect not, as it's pretty "inside baseball" sort of stuff for fans.

But he has been able to wring more information out of these guys by virtue of asking fan-oriented questions rather than softball, "asked a million times already" questions. I believe some of Howie's posts also have some insight into the process of interviewing these guys. I remember him mentioning that he was never told that a topic was "off limits", or otherwise told what to ask or not ask. He also had some interesting insights into the guys in the band and how they approach interviews and hardcore fans, etc. I remember Howie's impressions of Bruce in particular being interesting.

[HeyJude]

Also worth mentioning is that when Mike is feeling feisty and the interviewer is willing to go to specific places, Mike can give an entertaining (if also sometimes disagreeable) interview. The best example I can think of is the 1992 Goldmine interview. He seems really agitated and feisty. Some of the answers seem ridiculous and don’t paint him in a very positive light, but at least they seem to be honest and passionate, and sometimes awesomely hilarious:  http://troun.tripod.com/mikelove.html

Thanks a lot for posting that, that was important!

In one of the threads earlier this year I tried to place that specific interview into context, and if it's been forgotten since I'll try to sum it up!  

That interview has everything to do with both *timing* and *context*. This was a classic case of catching Mike - well, possibly anyone - at one of the worst times for an interview about the Beach Boys.

When he did this interview, Brian had just won his lawsuit awarding him millions in back payments from the Murry-led Sea Of Tunes sale debacle. It was an amazing amount of money.

Trace the backstory of what happened, I won't recap that here, but Mike at this specific time felt that he was due money from Brian via that deal and the legal teams involved, and that he was also unable to reach or contact Brian directly to discuss it. It was all going through "have my lawyer call your lawyer" for specific legal reasons.

So in that Goldmine piece, you get Mike at perhaps his most angry, most bitter, most confrontational, and most unguarded. Read what he says: He's basically unloading years of baggage and perhaps pent-up anger on the Goldmine interviewer, and throwing darts wildly around all sorts of topics.

It's pure frustration, and again consider this was at one of the worst times they could have had Mike sit down for an "extensive" interview about the Beach Boys and specifically Brian. He was as angry in the interview as you'll see in any of his history of interviews.

Perhaps for PR reasons someone should have cancelled it in light of the timing.  

The interview does indeed seem to be fueled by that songwriting issue/case being a fresh issue at the time.

But it is rather interesting that Mike *still* brings it up in an interview in 2014, after it has been resolved resoundingly in his favor. Yes, he's less fired up about it now. But he still seems just as annoyed that it happened in the first place. I just find that funny in light of the same 1992 interview referencing Al getting hung up on old issues and not being to get over stuff.

The songwriting stuff in that 1992 interview isn't nearly as interesting as the fact that his being all worked up about that issue seemed to lead to offering more unvarnished opinions on other stuff having nothing to do with the songwriting lawsuit. We're unlikely to see Mike saying this about a Brian album in 2014:

In reference to the '88 album:

What didn't you like about it?

First of all the lyrics. Second of all the arrangements weren't commercial enough. Third of all it sounded like sh*t compared to what he could sound like.

If that's how Mike really feels about something, I do truly want to know it. It's extremely refreshing. And yes, it's also fun to read this commentary from the guy who, in the same year, spearheaded the "Summer in Paradise" album. We can then weigh the opinions on lyrics, arrangements, and commerciality accordingly.