New Mike interview...

[Nicko1234]

That interview did indeed at least elicit more of a substantive response concerning C50 than any of these other interviews we’ve been talking about. He still avoids addressing why he didn’t want to do more reunion shows and falls back on stating the obvious; that they did all the shows they agreed to do. But his verbiage concerning C50 is becoming almost comically more and more “bleh.” Now the best we get is that it was “interesting.” We don’t even get the “it was a fun and we had a good time” sort of response anymore.

It reminds me of one time I took a distant relative out to dinner. Afterward, their reaction started as “the food was great.” Then, once they got cues from others that they thought the food wasn’t that great, a few hours later the reaction had shifted to “it was okay.” By the end of the night, it had turned to “it wasn’t that great.” Weeks later, when the topic came up, it was “oh my god, that was the worst meal I’ve ever had, and here are the ten reasons it was so horrendous.”

But Mike is, sadly for fans of the band who want some sort of indication that the guys might do something together again, using even stronger, more pointed language concerning Brian. As I’ve often said with Brian, even if all these points are accurate, they’ve always been accurate. If you work with the guy and say everything’s a-okay, but then when things aren’t going the way you want, point out how f-ed up you think his situation is, it kind of undercuts credibility.

As for the “second album”, I view that as the same situation as “another tour.” There would never be another tour or album until they all agreed to do another one. I don’t think Fine or Brian have said Mike agreed to do another album and then backed out. I think what they’ve indicated is that Brian had more material ready to do another BB album, wanted to do another BB album, and Mike didn’t under those circumstances.

Same thing with the “fired” thing. Mike is now using the ignorant press comments as a straw man. Nobody is still asking or saying Mike fired Brian. Even Brian said he hadn’t been fired. The question concerns why Mike didn’t want to do more shows. The answer we have thus far is still nothing more than “we didn’t do more shows because we didn’t do more shows.”

Any comments about `Brian` always seem to be more about his people than the man himself. And I guess there have been numerous others over the past several years who have had issues working with them and have moved in and out of favour.

[guitarfool2002]

Feels like a "here we go again" situation with some of that MassLive interview.

[HeyJude]

That interview did indeed at least elicit more of a substantive response concerning C50 than any of these other interviews we’ve been talking about. He still avoids addressing why he didn’t want to do more reunion shows and falls back on stating the obvious; that they did all the shows they agreed to do. But his verbiage concerning C50 is becoming almost comically more and more “bleh.” Now the best we get is that it was “interesting.” We don’t even get the “it was a fun and we had a good time” sort of response anymore.

It reminds me of one time I took a distant relative out to dinner. Afterward, their reaction started as “the food was great.” Then, once they got cues from others that they thought the food wasn’t that great, a few hours later the reaction had shifted to “it was okay.” By the end of the night, it had turned to “it wasn’t that great.” Weeks later, when the topic came up, it was “oh my god, that was the worst meal I’ve ever had, and here are the ten reasons it was so horrendous.”

But Mike is, sadly for fans of the band who want some sort of indication that the guys might do something together again, using even stronger, more pointed language concerning Brian. As I’ve often said with Brian, even if all these points are accurate, they’ve always been accurate. If you work with the guy and say everything’s a-okay, but then when things aren’t going the way you want, point out how f-ed up you think his situation is, it kind of undercuts credibility.

As for the “second album”, I view that as the same situation as “another tour.” There would never be another tour or album until they all agreed to do another one. I don’t think Fine or Brian have said Mike agreed to do another album and then backed out. I think what they’ve indicated is that Brian had more material ready to do another BB album, wanted to do another BB album, and Mike didn’t under those circumstances.

Same thing with the “fired” thing. Mike is now using the ignorant press comments as a straw man. Nobody is still asking or saying Mike fired Brian. Even Brian said he hadn’t been fired. The question concerns why Mike didn’t want to do more shows. The answer we have thus far is still nothing more than “we didn’t do more shows because we didn’t do more shows.”

Any comments about `Brian` always seem to be more about his people than the man himself. And I guess there have been numerous others over the past several years who have had issues working with them and have moved in and out of favour.

Very true, he does that make distinction when discussing a lot of these things. But there's a point at which when you blame all the people "around" someone, and then state that that someone is "controlled and still medicated", and imply a correlation between the "street drugs" he used to take and the prescribed drugs he *currently* takes, that's a pretty strong litany of negative reflections of that person. Does Mike even know what specific medications Brian is taking? And why is he framing this "medicated" state in a negative light, but then still saying he would work with Brian if it was one-on-one?

And could someone send a memo to Mike and let him know that not much of anybody I know, even staunch John Lennon fans, are going around saying "John Lennon was the real powerhouse of the Beatles." Nobody is saying Paul McCartney or Harrison are "chopped liver" (another line Mike has used in previous interviews, by the way), nor is the Wilson/Love relationship creatively substantially similar to the Lennon/McCartney relationship.

Also, once again, when asked about what people don't know about *Mike*, he quickly mentions how the Wilson brothers did drugs. Why is he that fixated on this, especially now?

I also find it amusing that they all put aside "individual pursuits" to do the reunion tour. In this scenario, his "individual pursuit" is touring as "The Beach Boys."  

[Wirestone]

Any comments about `Brian` always seem to be more about his people than the man himself. And I guess there have been numerous others over the past several years who have had issues working with them and have moved in and out of favour.

Brian uses the people around him to control who he interacts with. It is his choice.

He has a complicated life, but he's no vegetable, and when he wants stuff he generally makes it known.

And as for "his people" -- once again, who are they? You have Melinda, who is his wife and who might be expected to take an interest (and is far from the only rock star spouse to manage her husband's career). And then you have ... hmm ...

Well, there's Jean Seivers, who is his publicist.

David Leaf isn't there.

Joe Thomas is there, but I doubt he wants to stick around for years and years. He's also not working in the studio with Brian these days, either.

So, Nicko, who are the people? Are we talking about Melinda? And if that's the case, let's just say that Brian's wife rubs some people the wrong way. It would probably be more accurate, and sound less conspiratorial.

[HeyJude]

Any comments about `Brian` always seem to be more about his people than the man himself. And I guess there have been numerous others over the past several years who have had issues working with them and have moved in and out of favour.

Brian uses the people around him to control who he interacts with. It is his choice.

He has a complicated life, but he's no vegetable, and when he wants stuff he generally makes it known.

And as for "his people" -- once again, who are they? You have Melinda, who is his wife and who might be expected to take an interest (and is far from the only rock star spouse to manage her husband's career). And then you have ... hmm ...

Well, there's Jean Seivers, who is his publicist.

David Leaf isn't there.

Joe Thomas is there, but I doubt he wants to stick around for years and years. He's also not working in the studio with Brian these days, either.

So, Nicko, who are the people? Are we talking about Melinda? And if that's the case, let's just say that Brian's wife rubs some people the wrong way. It would probably be more accurate, and sound less conspiratorial.

Also worth chewing on is that even observers like Howie Edelson have mentioned that Melinda is not the only wife who was involved in the whole C50 project. His commentary as well as the commentary of others seems to indicate Brian may have had room to say similar things about the people "around" another person in the band.

It's perhaps worth noting that I don't believe Brian has ever commented negatively in interviews about people "around" anyone else in the band (as in wives, handlers, etc.)

[HeyJude]

At the risk of this either being roundly ignored or inciting a bunch of repetitive argument, I'd like to remind us all of this snippet from an interview concerning the then-upcoming reunion tour, with Mike Love, published by Rolling Stone on December 19, 2011:

Is this just a one-off get-together for this tour? Or are the Beach Boys back together?

We're just approaching it a day at a time, one tour at a time. We're going to do some European stuff, it looks like. Right now, it's just offers. Other than three dates in Japan in August, that's confirmed. Everything else is subject to offers and negotiations.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/exclusive-mike-love-talks-beach-boys-50th-anniversary-tour-20111219#ixzz39YvFvnSk

Does that sound like someone who knows, unequivocally, that after the reunion tour they will not do anything else together? He literally says they're taking it "a day at a time." He's either bulls**tting, or he truly is undecided at that stage as to whether the band might continue together into the future.

I actually hadn't gone back and read those pre-tour interviews for quite some time. How interesting and sad. What the f*** happened? 

[Pretty Funky]

At the risk of this either being roundly ignored or inciting a bunch of repetitive argument, I'd like to remind us all of this snippet from an interview concerning the then-upcoming reunion tour, with Mike Love, published by Rolling Stone on December 19, 2011:

Is this just a one-off get-together for this tour? Or are the Beach Boys back together?

We're just approaching it a day at a time, one tour at a time. We're going to do some European stuff, it looks like. Right now, it's just offers. Other than three dates in Japan in August, that's confirmed. Everything else is subject to offers and negotiations.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/exclusive-mike-love-talks-beach-boys-50th-anniversary-tour-20111219#ixzz39YvFvnSk

Does that sound like someone who knows, unequivocally, that after the reunion tour they will not do anything else together? He literally says they're taking it "a day at a time." He's either bulls**tting, or he truly is undecided at that stage as to whether the band might continue together into the future.

I actually hadn't gone back and read those pre-tour interviews for quite some time. How interesting and sad. What the f*** happened? 

Do we really need another C50 disintegration thread?

[HeyJude]

At the risk of this either being roundly ignored or inciting a bunch of repetitive argument, I'd like to remind us all of this snippet from an interview concerning the then-upcoming reunion tour, with Mike Love, published by Rolling Stone on December 19, 2011:

Is this just a one-off get-together for this tour? Or are the Beach Boys back together?

We're just approaching it a day at a time, one tour at a time. We're going to do some European stuff, it looks like. Right now, it's just offers. Other than three dates in Japan in August, that's confirmed. Everything else is subject to offers and negotiations.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/exclusive-mike-love-talks-beach-boys-50th-anniversary-tour-20111219#ixzz39YvFvnSk

Does that sound like someone who knows, unequivocally, that after the reunion tour they will not do anything else together? He literally says they're taking it "a day at a time." He's either bulls**tting, or he truly is undecided at that stage as to whether the band might continue together into the future.

I actually hadn't gone back and read those pre-tour interviews for quite some time. How interesting and sad. What the f*** happened? 

Do we really need another C50 disintegration thread?

Yep. 

I was at least making an attempt to relate it to this thread, which concerns recent interviews with Mike that, to my mind, pretty directly contradict what that December 2011 interview says.

There is always the option of not participating in the discussion if it's so objectionable. I believe there's still a button for that somewhere on this board...

Seriously, that's why I prefaced what I wrote by mentioning that my comment could well fall off into the ether without any response. I'm totally prepared for that. 

[KittyKat]

Why would Mike want to work with Brian when he knows that a movie and book are in the works where he's likely not going to come out very well. The movie was already written and in pre-production during the reunion, the book deal was announced shortly after. There's enough bad blood between both parties (Mike and his usual remarks, no surprise there) that I can't see how they would have wanted to stay together anyways. Didn't the Beatles break up over personal issues? It's not do-able to have two people who don't like each other, and really haven't for years, to continue working together.  I don't get the Brian-centric fans who don't even like Mike musically, who wanted the reunion to continue. Do you really enjoy hearing Mike singing with Brian? Or do you just like the spectacle of Mike being dominated by Brian? If Mike is such an asshole, in your opinion, do you really think it would have been healthy for Brian to continue to deal with him? There a million reasons why that reunion had to end, and it would have been well over by now, anyways.

[Wirestone]

I don't get the Brian-centric fans who don't even like Mike musically, who wanted the reunion to continue. Do you really enjoy hearing Mike singing with Brian? Or do you just like the spectacle of Mike being dominated by Brian?

I think most who wanted the reunion to continue felt like Mike was a great front man for the band (and still is), was enjoyable vocally on TWGMTR and wrote at least one decent set of lyrics for the record (Isn't It Time). The whole really was greater than the sum of the parts for much of 2012. Much was forgiven, certainly by me (I thought I was done with Mike after the nonsensical BWPS lawsuit).

There's enough bad blood between both parties (Mike and his usual remarks, no surprise there) that I can't see how they would have wanted to stay together anyways. Didn't the Beatles break up over personal issues? It's not do-able to have two people who don't like each other, and really haven't for years, to continue working together.

I do think there's a lot of truth here, though. These are old rock stars, and this is what their relationships are like. Fraught, with years of not communicating or sniping broken up by short-lived reunions. Page and Plant anyone?

[guitarfool2002]

The appeal wasn't focused on Mike and Brian appearing together, the appeal was all surviving band members together performing. That's why the demand was so high, that's why more shows were added to the original plan, that's why more shows were offered beyond that, that's why people brought kids and grandkids to the shows because it was an event that transcended just having Mike and Brian on the same stage.

[guitarfool2002]

And these kinds of discussions will probably continue appearing as long as Mike continues to give interviews like this brand new one from MassLive. Just commenting on this yet again: I don't know why he has to "go there" time and time again with certain topics and comments, it doesn't sell more Beach Boys tickets and it probably won't win him any more fans. If there were a diplomatic kind of answer to some of these questions, perhaps that would be the better route to take.

Now what if folks here read this interview, disagree or even have another issue with something that was said, should they or should they not voice an opinion on it, if not a challenge where appropriate?

[Cyncie]

This Mike interview was just published in my local paper, it's pretty much the same stuff as always, but there's some bits about Brian at the end that people may find interesting: http://www.masslive.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2014/08/the_beach_boys_to_turn_tanglew.html#incart_river

See, this is an example of what I've been saying all along.  Mike Love is his own worst enemy.

Mike always complains that he's got the "Villain" reputation in the Beach Boys saga.  It's true that public sympathy leans in Brian's favor because of his personal struggles and Mike's predilection toward lawsuits. But, instead of recognizing the need to use some finesse when discussing "Cousin Brian," he goes on record complaining about how he's "medicated" and "controlled," equates the use of "street drugs" with "prescribed drugs" (seriously! Does he really think taking medication for an illness is the same as taking LSD?), and yammers on about how Brian's people are tearing him down to build Brian up. Interestingly enough, Brian isn't the one saying this. He's clear about that point. But, in the process of pointing out what a robotic vegetable Brian apparently is, he has just torn Brian down in order to build Mike Love up. Which does nothing to improve his image or change people's opinion of him or Brian.

Mike needs to spend some time with the voices of Murry Wilson and Phil Spector in his head so he can gain a little empathy for what Brian deals with every day. But, since that won't happen, he should at least hire a good PR guy to tell him when to shut up.

[startBBtoday]

At the risk of this either being roundly ignored or inciting a bunch of repetitive argument, I'd like to remind us all of this snippet from an interview concerning the then-upcoming reunion tour, with Mike Love, published by Rolling Stone on December 19, 2011:

Is this just a one-off get-together for this tour? Or are the Beach Boys back together?

We're just approaching it a day at a time, one tour at a time. We're going to do some European stuff, it looks like. Right now, it's just offers. Other than three dates in Japan in August, that's confirmed. Everything else is subject to offers and negotiations.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/exclusive-mike-love-talks-beach-boys-50th-anniversary-tour-20111219#ixzz39YvFvnSk

Does that sound like someone who knows, unequivocally, that after the reunion tour they will not do anything else together? He literally says they're taking it "a day at a time." He's either bulls**tting, or he truly is undecided at that stage as to whether the band might continue together into the future.

I actually hadn't gone back and read those pre-tour interviews for quite some time. How interesting and sad. What the f*** happened? 

As someone who covers a professional sports team for a living, "one day at a time" is code word for, "I'm not going to say anything interesting or answer this question." Mike might or might not have known at the time that there were 50 dates and that's it, but saying so unequivocally could have painted him as a bad guy, thus "one day at a time."

[SurfRiderHawaii]

I found Mike's comment about BW current use of medication unnecessary and a little offensive.  Let it go man.

Agree! Mr. Positivity just can't stop himself from going negative.

Some good questions here, he doesn't dance around the C50 split. Mike gives good answers there.

Yet, when asked what people might not know about Mike Love, Mike almost immediately goes  into the Wilson brothers use of drugs. That be my question to Mike, why do you bring it up  in every interview?

[Nicko1234]

Brian uses the people around him to control who he interacts with. It is his choice.

He has a complicated life, but he's no vegetable, and when he wants stuff he generally makes it known.

And as for "his people" -- once again, who are they? You have Melinda, who is his wife and who might be expected to take an interest (and is far from the only rock star spouse to manage her husband's career). And then you have ... hmm ...

Well, there's Jean Seivers, who is his publicist.

David Leaf isn't there.

Joe Thomas is there, but I doubt he wants to stick around for years and years. He's also not working in the studio with Brian these days, either.

So, Nicko, who are the people? Are we talking about Melinda? And if that's the case, let's just say that Brian's wife rubs some people the wrong way. It would probably be more accurate, and sound less conspiratorial.

 

No conspiracy theory here.

The reasons why I didn`t mention Melinda by name are twofold.

Firstly because I have no idea if she is all controlling and she may be wonderful for all I know.

And secondly because those that have had issues always talk about the people around Brian being difficult. Whether it was Al saying, `They won`t let me call him`, Mike`s complaints or VDP`s recent tweets, they never seem to criticize Melinda specifically. Now that maybe purely out of politeness or tact (something we all know Mike is famous for  ) but as they are talking about `people` it seems only sensible for others to do the same.

[Pretty Funky]

http://www.masslive.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2014/08/the_beach_boys_to_turn_tanglew.html#incart_river

What about the recent Rolling Stone report that Brian was deep into writing songs for a new Beach Boys album when you pulled the plug on the reunion tour? (Wilson told the magazine, "I was so proud of how the Boys were singing. Then it just ended.")

I saw what Jason Fine wrote. There never was a second album planned. I find it very disappointing that this information is being perpetuated. It’s erroneous and fallacious, but I suppose that is part of human nature.




That would have been news to Brian in May 2012. Shame he didn't ask him. Mike also indicates he's in for a longer haul.





http://tbo.com/arts_music/beach-boys-celebrate--years-with-tour-stop-in-tampa-399218?referer=None&shorturl=http%3A%2F%2Ftbo.ly%2FIMf8Fy

There is no definite plan beyond their current tour but Wilson would like to record another Beach Boy album. "This time I would like to do some rock n' roll," Wilson says. "I would like it to be a bit harder and faster."

So the future looks bright since Wilson and Love have been able to look past their differences and lawsuits filed against each other.

"That's all history," Love said. "It's all forgotten about. We're looking at our present and future. I think we're going to be doing this again with Brian for a long time."





http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/482551/beach-boys-talk-another-album-together

Love adds that Capitol/EMI, the Beach Boys' label, is "completely stoked about how well this whole project has gone, so they're very open to and enthusiastic about seeing what else we can come up with."




I guess it all comes down to your definition of 'planned'.

[Jim V.]

Just saw what Pretty Funky wrote, and I got a little something as well...

Mike claims that "there never was a second album planned", but he might wanna tell that to whoever operates his Facebook (which I'm pretty sure is actually him). Because...dig this:



So yeah, it's obvious Mike is very, very unhappy with Brian and his people. But why is he lying about stuff that is verifiable?

Also, it's interesting that he cited Jason Fine by name. I'm assuming he probably has beef with how he was portrayed in the Rolling Stone piece from 2012 and also probably has his lawyers ready on speed dial so he can "sue Brian's ass to pieces" is he says a cross word about Mike in the new autobiography.

And lastly, I am so sick of the people on here who say things like "why do you want Mike to reunite again with Brian if you hate him so much?" and that kinda stuff. What these people don't get is that yeah, a lot of us think Mike is a major egotistical asshole. I sure do. But at the same time, I recently paid twenty bucks to get the ESQ CD The Boys Of Summer just so I could have "Love Like in Fairytales" and "Cool Head, Warm Heart" legally in my collection, since I like those songs. So here's the thing guys....I think Mike's a pretty big jerk. But I also think he's a pretty great singer and occasionally a good songwriter. So get bent next time you wanna question why we'd want that jerk to reunite with Brian and Al.

[Nicko1234]

Personally I would say that years of nonsensical comments from the band members means that I don`t take what they say at face value anymore... A lot of the lovey-dovey quotes from the C50 tour were obviously guff.

I can believe that there were some comments along the lines of, `It would be cool to do another album` but I would guess that the negotiations behind the C50 tour, TWGMTR and TSS were complicated. Doing all over again would have been a huge undertaking...

[guitarfool2002]

Whatever happened to the follow-up question? Like this last interview, the statement is made that Brian is being "controlled"...then you ask a follow-up: "Who is controlling him?"...or "What exactly are they controlling?"...

And much like happened here a lot in the past months, someone makes that charge of Brian being controlled, or of Brian's people doing this or that...the simple question is asked: "Who are these people?"...and no one seems to know.

Everyone knows Brian is under control...yet the people controlling him cannot be ID'ed. But there are managers, agents, PR staff, travel staff...the same business structure a touring musician or artist has making certain decisions and handling business the artist doesn't do, including Mike.

Another follow up:

The statement is made that "Brian's people" or a variation thereof are somehow tearing Mike down.

Simple follow-up: "Who is doing this, and where is it being done?"

***Someone please find me an interview or a public statement of recent years where Brian has spoken negatively about Mike.***


And the ultimate follow-up: "Who are your people, Mike?"

[Nicko1234]

Whatever happened to the follow-up question? Like this last interview, the statement is made that Brian is being "controlled"...then you ask a follow-up: "Who is controlling him?"...or "What exactly are they controlling?"...

And much like happened here a lot in the past months, someone makes that charge of Brian being controlled, or of Brian's people doing this or that...the simple question is asked: "Who are these people?"...and no one seems to know.

Everyone knows Brian is under control...yet the people controlling him cannot be ID'ed. But there are managers, agents, PR staff, travel staff...the same business structure a touring musician or artist has making certain decisions and handling business the artist doesn't do, including Mike.

Another follow up:

The statement is made that "Brian's people" or a variation thereof are somehow tearing Mike down.

Simple follow-up: "Who is doing this, and where is it being done?"

***Someone please find me an interview or a public statement of recent years where Brian has spoken negatively about Mike.***


And the ultimate follow-up: "Who are your people, Mike?"

Wouldn`t the answer simply be, `his management` though? Certainly when they had the rooftop reunion that was Mike`s half-jokey comment.

[guitarfool2002]

Every major artist has managers, agents, and various staff. If it were a case of joking around, the one-liner reply could be "ask my managers, they tell me what I'm going to do next..." or "ask his managers...", etc. The kind of thing old-timers like George Burns or Bob Hope used to say in interviews when asked "What is your next project?", or when someone asked Jerry Lewis about Dean Martin or something similar.

Maybe I'm out of line for even bringing it up again, but why use such a loaded word as "controlled", and if that choice is made to use a word with a stronger meaning like that, is it out of line to be asked to back up such a statement with something/anything? In this case, from this interview, someone reading this on MassLive is expected to take at face value the statement about someone or anyone being "controlled"...simply because the statement has appeared in the publication?

[Nicko1234]

Every major artist has managers, agents, and various staff. If it were a case of joking around, the one-liner reply could be "ask my managers, they tell me what I'm going to do next..." or "ask his managers...", etc. The kind of thing old-timers like George Burns or Bob Hope used to say in interviews when asked "What is your next project?", or when someone asked Jerry Lewis about Dean Martin or something similar.

Maybe I'm out of line for even bringing it up again, but why use such a loaded word as "controlled", and if that choice is made to use a word with a stronger meaning like that, is it out of line to be asked to back up such a statement with something/anything? In this case, from this interview, someone reading this on MassLive is expected to take at face value the statement about someone or anyone being "controlled"...simply because the statement has appeared in the publication?

I don`t think it would be out of line at all but I can also understand why an interviewer might think, `if he wanted to specify he would have done`.

Similarly when VDP made his `release Brian` tweet he didn`t elaborate further when he obviously could have done if he`d wanted to.

[Gohi]

I feel the need to remind Mike Love that he is not even close to being on the level of McCartney, let alone George Harrison.

[Nicko1234]

I feel the need to remind Mike Love that he is not even close to being on the level of McCartney, let alone George Harrison.

So George Harrison was on a higher level than Paul McCartney?