Mike and Bruce Tour 2015

[guitarfool2002]

I want to add a few thoughts on the directions this discussion has taken, and in general some of the comments which have been posted.

I think one of the strengths of this board and the community that keeps the board active is the ability to discuss, debate, and fact-check when necessary issues that get put into the conversation. We have fans, historians, researchers, published authors, musicians on board...everyone knows that. Historians in most if not all fields tend to argue and debate each other! There are specific facts which are established, then after that it's open season. Look at any area of history, you'll find debate and disagreement among those who study it.

On this board, some of the history and fact-checking has been valuable beyond what I think we realize sometimes. If there are incorrect dates-places-credits, whatever the case, there are people on this board who have raised an eyebrow and said "that doesn't sound right", and the corrections have opened up and established a lot of solid information important to telling the history of this band and their music. In some cases it was widely held beliefs or "myths" which got busted. Case in point: How many classic 60's tracks were not played by the session musicians but rather played by the Beach Boys themselves. A widely held and reported factual error that board members here have corrected. That's a good thing.

What came up in this thread via some of those press releases and news articles related to promoting the current tour may have struck a similar chord among other members here. Some of the wording or claims didn't sound right, they didn't seem to agree with other published information including what some of the band members themselves have said. So we put it on the table, and pointed out the discrepancies. Endless Summer was one of those. Seeing a 2015 show billed as an anniversary show was another.

One of them turned into being an actual error, which was forwarded and will be corrected/addressed as necessary. The other, the Endless Summer issue, turned into something different. I'll use my own rationale on that one, and say when that link to the Ryman show was posted and the wording said the ES project was Mike's concept album, it didn't sound right to me. I had seen a similar article this fall saying Mike produced the album, it turns out I had posted that article among others in the thread which got locked down and didn't mention it there. Then I remembered Mike directly addressed it in that '92 Goldmine interview, and reposted all of them together to compare and open the discussion.

I thought that was or could be an error in what was written in those press releases and promotion. It didn't line up with what was known about that album previously. I even asked if there was new info to consider, and suggested again that the info in those PR writings didn't ring true.

If that kind of discussion and questioning is going to be labeled "bashing", what does that mean to any similar fact-checking, correcting, or just plain ol' discussing things like this going forward? Something gets published that a board member here feels isn't accurate, or even wants to explore further with an eye toward it being inaccurate, isn't that what the board has always done? We have dates fact-checked and corrected, we have events fact-checked and corrected, we have enough people who actively read and follow these things and have done so for decades on board to run these topics through the wringer and know enough about the history to decide what is accurate and to also call bullshit on something where it fits.

In the case of Endless Summer, the claims written in those releases doesn't agree with the history, at least to me, and I think it can be discussed here without being labeled "bashing". These are facts which can be researched and considered just like the Wrecking Crew-Beach Boys credit issues. Either the claims add up or they do not.

That contract issue with the billing and labeling: It's good it's being corrected. But when some previous documents or information related to this suggested a disagreement with what was said here, and some posters pointed that out, look what the reaction was. It reached a point of finger-pointing and requests to find other cases of "bashing" to compare or make relevant. What about the original issue from several pages ago, does that just disappear into all of the offshoot discussions and comments or is it a valid enough question to put on the table and discuss? How and why do these mistakes continue to happen if there are editorial controls in place within the system of marketing and promoting live shows? How and why does a band member who no longer plays in the band end up in promotional material for an upcoming show? How is a two-year old long-gone anniversary tour mentioned in promotions for a 2015 show? If anything, maybe fans genuinely care about the perception all of this might be sending out, or might want to suggest some controls need to be tightened or at least looked at so a band photo or a concert billing actually represents the current tour accurately and current to 2014-5 rather than several years old. Are some of the ways of expressing it and stating opinions on it sometimes a little too personal and passionate...I'd say yes. But it doesn't mean that simply pointing these things out equals bashing or anything like it as a general rule.

I like the debate, the discussion, the historians arguing the points, in anything I read or jump into. But maybe trying to deflect and distract and put the original issues into all kinds of subplots and subtexts and even totally unrelated stuff as a general rule when there are legitimate facts and points to consider does lead to some unnecessary interactions. However, pointing out various things said in PR releases or tour promotions or related media is part of what the board has always been and has always done.

The best rule of thumb, I think...offer up the facts. And it's said the character never said it directly, but there is really no substitute for "just the facts" according to Joe Friday. In a few of these cases in this thread, just as an example it's a simple case of did Mike produce Endless Summer or did he not, and instead of pinning a bashing label on the question, how about offering up some facts to agree or disagree with that statement taken from one of the news articles? It might uncover some interesting info, if we can get beyond trying to label someone anti-Mike or a hater for bringing it up.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

When's the last time someone called Brian Wilson a fucking slimeball on this board?

Brian Wilson has never been called a fucking slimeball because he isn't one.

Right, Mikie, and I highly doubt you ever will. In the case of Mike Love, it must be common knowledge that he is not held in high regard not only here, but other boards as well. youtube, Facebook, and various and sundry sites, such as I Hate Mike Love or Mike Love Is An Asshole, and so on. Are there sites or boards that follow suit about Brian, Carl, Dennis, Al, David or even Bruce? No. So then, why Mike and only Mike? Of course there have been negative, even bashing comments made over time about all of them but in the long run, it's clearly the lovester that draws far and beyond the bulk of the ire of fans and the general public as well. Look at his pathetic fan club site where he periodically gets bashed.
There has to be very strong, clear reasons for this type of  disdain for any individual. The answer? Simple-he's clearly earned this reputation by acts of greed and jealousy through time. He is, without a doubt, the most hated, laughed at performer in the music business. The list of reasons reads like a dictionary. He has supporters, but the general consensus is, no matter what is said in defense here or elsewhere, this individual sparks controversy and heated debate that has followed him throughout most of his career. This will never subside or ever go away. Look at me- I'm not a well liked poster on this board by quite a few members. I've earned that, but truth be told, it really doesn't matter. I'm not trying to alter anyone's opinion. It is what it is regardless of what those "defenders" say.  

Yeah, yeah! It's OK to call Mike Love a fucking slimeball because knuckle draggers all over the internet do it!

Typical bully defense of questionable actions..... Look at just about ANY YouTube video and you'll see haters bashing something/anything.... Try looking at any random U2 clips and scroll through the Bono bashing etc etc....

We're only responsible for our own actions though, and there comes a time when it needs to be questioned just why certain individuals will spend inordinate amounts of time discussing people they think are fucking slimeballs, trying endlessly to reinforce this view, and trying to drag a whole bunch of other people down the gutter with them along the way.... Other people who have a more nuanced and empathetic point of view regarding the members of a band we all purport to be fans of..... Mike may be guilty of some things, but after a while, when pointing out another human being's faults becomes one's mission in life, a long hard look in the mirror might be in order.

And GF, the debate about Endless Summer was not about any fact, but rather if the album could be considered a concept album or not.... but nice try.

[Mikie]

Yeah, yeah! It's OK to call Mike Love a fucking slimeball because knuckle draggers all over the internet do it!

"Knuckle dragger". Isn't that a derogatory racist term directed toward African Americans? Last time I checked it was.

To me, that's much worse than calling somebody a fucking slimeball. 

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Yeah, yeah! It's OK to call Mike Love a fucking slimeball because knuckle draggers all over the internet do it!

"Knuckle dragger". Isn't that a derogatory racist term directed toward African Americans? Last time I checked it was.

To me, that's much worse than calling somebody a fucking slimeball. 

Um, no, it is not ...... It's a term to describe less intellectually evolved people ....... in other words ..... idiots....

If it is used as a racist term, I was not aware, and therefore apologize for my ignorance .....

..... Now, what about the point I made?

[CenturyDeprived]

If one is to consider Mike the "producer" of Endless Summer, or if he at one point stated himself as such, it probably has about as much meaning as the "executive producer" credit on TWGMTR, meaning that it's a credit that doesn't ultimately mean very much. It seems like someone trying very hard to go out of their way to make a statement about how much they matter.

I'll throw a genuine bone of empathy Mike's way in that he surely was (and will probably forever be) scarred from the injustice of being denied proper co-writing credits during the 60s, and that really messed up his brain. It damaged him somehow, and I can understand that.

The fact that Mike somehow kept those feelings inside (unless one could consider other actions of his as passive aggressive venting over the real injustice) must have set off something in him to want to actively pursue and inflate credits, like the "concept album" nonsense, in the future. This is in stark contrast to Dennis Wilson's "You Are So Beautiful" crediting omission, which Dennis seemed to more casually brush off in his lifetime (although one must wonder how the official crediting for that song would have played out if Dennis had lived... would a cleaned-up Dennis at some point have tried to pursue a credit, especially at a time of financial hardships?)

[Cam Mott]

I would say that Mike's public and published witness that he had no input into ES beyond suggesting calling it ES instead of Greatest Hits No.? would settle it so far. I don't think it is trumped by a Capitol Records bio page which seems to be the source of the controversial concept album text which has now been repeated by some venues. Is there something I'm missing?

[CenturyDeprived]

I would say that Mike's public and published witness that he had no input into ES beyond suggesting calling it ES instead of Greatest Hits No.? would settle it so far. I don't think it is trumped by a Capitol Records bio page which seems to be the source of the controversial concept album text which has now been repeated by some venues. Is there something I'm missing?

Do you really think that the notion of Mike Love as the creator of the concept album Endless Summer could have been entirely created in a vacuum, by some anonymous Capitol suit, with neither Mike's input or approval whatsoever in that? Does that honestly seem likely to you? I find that mighty unlikely.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

If one is to consider Mike the "producer" of Endless Summer, or if he at one point stated himself as such, it probably has about as much meaning as the "executive producer" credit on TWGMTR, meaning that it's a credit that doesn't ultimately mean very much.

I'll throw a genuine bone of empathy Mike's way in that he surely was (and will probably forever be) scarred from the injustice of being denied proper co-writing credits during the 60s, and that really messed up his brain. It damaged him somehow, and I can understand that.

The fact that Mike somehow kept those feelings inside (unless one could consider other actions of his as passive aggressive venting over the real injustice) must have set off something in him to want to actively pursue and inflate credits, like the "concept album" nonsense, in the future. This is a stark contrast to Dennis Wilson's "You Are So Beautiful" crediting omission, which Dennis seemed to more casually brush off in his lifetime (although one must wonder how the official crediting for that song would have played out if Dennis had lived... would a cleaned-up Dennis at some point have tried to pursue a credit, especially at a time of financial hardships?)

I agree with you completely regarding Dennis..... It even hurts to imagine what that sort of good break could have done for him ..... Though Dennis was thrown some pretty amazing good breaks in his life, as it was ......

"concept album nonsense?" ...... See this is where there seems to be a schism between certain cabals of posters here .... Some take a silly PR fluff piece (the kind there is no shortage of in show biz) and go onto hysterics over something like "Mike Love's concept album" and then toss out their opinion on such a statement being so horrendous as basically evidence that the statement is unequivocally false ...... And then there are others who will read such a statement but then take a step back and think past their own emotional reaction and admit that, though the statement IS something of a stretch, there are still enough traces of logic to determine that reasons for getting upset over it are quite slim to none....

The idea that the "did Mike produce Endless Summer?" debate is a tale of one team standing on the side of hard facts and hard facts only, and another side grasping at the straws of opinion is false ...... The question "did Mike produce Endless Summer?" was put out there as if the obvious "No" answer would somehow settle something that the facts themselves would prove ..... Again, false .... The question was put out there to support an opinion and to somehow nullify further discussion...... A tactic seen at play often around here .... I presented logical reasoning to where the mere title offered by Mike somehow encapsulated the entire Endless Summer package into something of a (loose loose loose) concept album, aided by some clever sequencing ..... only to be ignored, and the tactical question repeated ...... as another tactic ....... Frustrating and silly.....

[CenturyDeprived]

If one is to consider Mike the "producer" of Endless Summer, or if he at one point stated himself as such, it probably has about as much meaning as the "executive producer" credit on TWGMTR, meaning that it's a credit that doesn't ultimately mean very much.

I'll throw a genuine bone of empathy Mike's way in that he surely was (and will probably forever be) scarred from the injustice of being denied proper co-writing credits during the 60s, and that really messed up his brain. It damaged him somehow, and I can understand that.

The fact that Mike somehow kept those feelings inside (unless one could consider other actions of his as passive aggressive venting over the real injustice) must have set off something in him to want to actively pursue and inflate credits, like the "concept album" nonsense, in the future. This is a stark contrast to Dennis Wilson's "You Are So Beautiful" crediting omission, which Dennis seemed to more casually brush off in his lifetime (although one must wonder how the official crediting for that song would have played out if Dennis had lived... would a cleaned-up Dennis at some point have tried to pursue a credit, especially at a time of financial hardships?)

I agree with you completely regarding Dennis..... It even hurts to imagine what that sort of good break could have done for him ..... Though Dennis was thrown some pretty amazing good breaks in his life, as it was ......

"concept album nonsense?" ...... See this is where there seems to be a schism between certain cabals of posters here .... Some take a silly PR fluff piece (the kind there is no shortage of in show biz) and go onto hysterics over something like "Mike Love's concept album" and then toss out their opinion on such a statement being so horrendous as basically evidence that the statement is unequivocally false ...... And then there are others who will read such a statement but then take a step back and think past their own emotional reaction and admit that, though the statement IS something of a stretch, there are still enough traces of logic to determine that reasons for getting upset over it are quite slim to none....

Mike Love has every right to call Summer In Paradise his "concept album"; it's his baby, through and through, and it was apparently written and conceived from the onset as the perfect summer record, or something to that effect.

One cannot call a greatest hits package, or what amounts to a prehistoric iTunes playlist, as a "concept album".  One cannot retroactively compile a list of pre-released (and previously re-released, and so on) songs and call it a concept album. If they could, then the random, anonymous Capitol suit who inexplicably put Frosty The Snowman on a late 60s BBs greatest hits LP should be able to proclaim himself as a concept album creator. It's absurd (even if Mike co-wrote a bunch of the old songs). It's a purely retroactive straw-grab at a credit simply because of the unexpected success of the album, and because of an insatiable desire by Mike to find ways of getting respect in a press release. I feel bad reading such text in a press release, because it's just nutty. Nuttier than Nutty Jerry's.

[guitarfool2002]

And GF, the debate about Endless Summer was not about any fact, but rather if the album could be considered a concept album or not.... but nice try.

Case in point. I asked you directly if Mike produced Endless Summer, you said this: "No..... But the title and sequencing and jacket do lend a coherence to the whole package.... The title is a good one....Who cares." Yet it was published as such: "Brian Wilson went onto a solo career, Dennis Wilson drowned and Carl Wilson died of lung cancer, but Mike Love, who produced the “Endless Summer” album in 1974"

And Mike himself said of the so-called "jacket" : "It was awful".

Who cares if something is published that doesn't agree with what you yourself said through a "no" answer? Then post 'who cares' in response to anyone on the board who steps in to correct anything, like, say, an erroneous concert date or even a news article that credits Hal Blaine for a drum track Dennis played. Since it's all "who cares" in the long run, right?

Example: Someone says "Glen Campbell played lead guitar on Help Me Rhonda", another corrects them by saying "No, Carl played lead on that song", then you can say "Who cares! The song is a good one." See how that goes over.

Case in point: It was published as such "In 1974 Mike Love’s concept album Endless Summer ignited a second generation of Beach Boys fans and stirred a tempest that rocked the music world."

Your reply to that was, quote: "The title IS the concept!", suggesting because Mike offered the title to Capitol, that means the whole album project in general was his concept, even though the songs and the greatest-hits package itself was already assembled by Capitol before Mike offered the name. And as another poster pointed out, by that logic Mike can take credit for the "concept" for Pet Sounds too because he suggested that title. Or is there a way to nuance that logic to fit however you want it to read?

Another case in point, this exchange:

Pages 1 and 2 do *not* predate Carl's passing, and if you think they do, it's simply not correct. And that can be proven. But what are you basing this on to say they come from the years before Carl passed away?

So someone in the post Carl touring Beach Boys camp SMOKES!!!!!! OMG!!!!!!! NOOOOOOOOO! ;o

Completely unrelated to what was being discussed, completely unrelated to the documents or pages in question which don't even mention this, completely unrelated to anything at all, but anyone reading this is welcome to scroll through both this thread and the previous related thread which got locked down, along with any number of others, and maybe they'll notice an M.O., a pattern, a common thread. Or maybe similar pure coincidences that have seen any number of threads spin off in wild directions and side-bar topics leading to arguments and statements which had nothing to do with what was being discussed or who was discussing them, and they might be able to pinpoint it. And it won't be hard to find, they're almost all similar to this one in subject matter and participation and they often end in shouting matches, which I have to think is the desired result. Old news, though.

 

[Cam Mott]

I would say that Mike's public and published witness that he had no input into ES beyond suggesting calling it ES instead of Greatest Hits No.? would settle it so far. I don't think it is trumped by a Capitol Records bio page which seems to be the source of the controversial concept album text which has now been repeated by some venues. Is there something I'm missing?

Do you really think that the notion of Mike Love as the creator of the concept album Endless Summer could have been entirely created in a vacuum, by some anonymous Capitol suit, with neither Mike's input or approval whatsoever in that? Does that honestly seem likely to you? I find that mighty unlikely.

Mike publicly proclaimed in his own words that he did not have input into the ES album so I do find it extremely unlikely that he is also responsible for Capitol Records' contradictory claims. According to the Earcandy article that was quoted earlier, the bio was only up for three days or something before being removed.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

And GF, the debate about Endless Summer was not about any fact, but rather if the album could be considered a concept album or not.... but nice try.

Case in point. I asked you directly if Mike produced Endless Summer, you said this: "No..... But the title and sequencing and jacket do lend a coherence to the whole package.... The title is a good one....Who cares." Yet it was published as such: "Brian Wilson went onto a solo career, Dennis Wilson drowned and Carl Wilson died of lung cancer, but Mike Love, who produced the “Endless Summer” album in 1974"

And Mike himself said of the so-called "jacket" : "It was awful".

Who cares if something is published that doesn't agree with what you yourself said through a "no" answer? Then post 'who cares' in response to anyone on the board who steps in to correct anything, like, say, an erroneous concert date or even a news article that credits Hal Blaine for a drum track Dennis played. Since it's all "who cares" in the long run, right?

Example: Someone says "Glen Campbell played lead guitar on Help Me Rhonda", another corrects them by saying "No, Carl played lead on that song", then you can say "Who cares! The song is a good one." See how that goes over.

Case in point: It was published as such "In 1974 Mike Love’s concept album Endless Summer ignited a second generation of Beach Boys fans and stirred a tempest that rocked the music world."

Your reply to that was, quote: "The title IS the concept!", suggesting because Mike offered the title to Capitol, that means the whole album project in general was his concept, even though the songs and the greatest-hits package itself was already assembled by Capitol before Mike offered the name. And as another poster pointed out, by that logic Mike can take credit for the "concept" for Pet Sounds too because he suggested that title. Or is there a way to nuance that logic to fit however you want it to read?

Another case in point, this exchange:

Pages 1 and 2 do *not* predate Carl's passing, and if you think they do, it's simply not correct. And that can be proven. But what are you basing this on to say they come from the years before Carl passed away?

So someone in the post Carl touring Beach Boys camp SMOKES!!!!!! OMG!!!!!!! NOOOOOOOOO! ;o

Completely unrelated to what was being discussed, completely unrelated to the documents or pages in question which don't even mention this, completely unrelated to anything at all, but anyone reading this is welcome to scroll through both this thread and the previous related thread which got locked down, along with any number of others, and maybe they'll notice an M.O., a pattern, a common thread. Or maybe similar pure coincidences that have seen any number of threads spin off in wild directions and side-bar topics leading to arguments and statements which had nothing to do with what was being discussed or who was discussing them, and they might be able to pinpoint it. And it won't be hard to find, they're almost all similar to this one in subject matter and participation and they often end in shouting matches, which I have to think is the desired result. Old news, though.

 

Mr. Guitarfool ...... Sir..... I don't care what Mike said about producing the album. It's a non-issue ....

What I was speaking to was the "can Endless Summer be considered a concept album?" debate ...... and I offered my reasoning as to why my opinion is, sure it can.

You can call anything whatever you want. What rule is there that a packaging of old hits can't be considered a concept album? Who wrote that in stone? No one..... And in the case of The Beach Boys early hits and the entire Endless Summer package being something of a conceptual whole, ESPECIALLY with the title being what it is...... Yeah, it works, if you want it to..... So, in my opinion, the PR release, though silly, is a non-issue.

[SMiLE Brian]

Quit derailing the thread, it's three pages and counting.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Quit derailing the thread, it's three pages and counting.

Oops sorry! Should I get back to calling people I don't know fucking slimeballs?

[guitarfool2002]

If one is to consider Mike the "producer" of Endless Summer, or if he at one point stated himself as such, it probably has about as much meaning as the "executive producer" credit on TWGMTR, meaning that it's a credit that doesn't ultimately mean very much.

I'll throw a genuine bone of empathy Mike's way in that he surely was (and will probably forever be) scarred from the injustice of being denied proper co-writing credits during the 60s, and that really messed up his brain. It damaged him somehow, and I can understand that.

The fact that Mike somehow kept those feelings inside (unless one could consider other actions of his as passive aggressive venting over the real injustice) must have set off something in him to want to actively pursue and inflate credits, like the "concept album" nonsense, in the future. This is a stark contrast to Dennis Wilson's "You Are So Beautiful" crediting omission, which Dennis seemed to more casually brush off in his lifetime (although one must wonder how the official crediting for that song would have played out if Dennis had lived... would a cleaned-up Dennis at some point have tried to pursue a credit, especially at a time of financial hardships?)

I agree with you completely regarding Dennis..... It even hurts to imagine what that sort of good break could have done for him ..... Though Dennis was thrown some pretty amazing good breaks in his life, as it was ......

"concept album nonsense?" ...... See this is where there seems to be a schism between certain cabals of posters here .... Some take a silly PR fluff piece (the kind there is no shortage of in show biz) and go onto hysterics over something like "Mike Love's concept album" and then toss out their opinion on such a statement being so horrendous as basically evidence that the statement is unequivocally false ...... And then there are others who will read such a statement but then take a step back and think past their own emotional reaction and admit that, though the statement IS something of a stretch, there are still enough traces of logic to determine that reasons for getting upset over it are quite slim to none....

Mike Love has every right to call Summer In Paradise his "concept album"; it's his baby, through and through, and it was apparently written and conceived from the onset as the perfect summer record, or something to that effect.

One cannot call a greatest hits package, or what amounts to a prehistoric iTunes playlist, as a "concept album".  One cannot retroactively compile a list of pre-released (and previously re-released, and so on) songs and call it a concept album. If they could, then the random, anonymous Capitol suit who inexplicably put Frosty The Snowman on a late 60s BBs greatest hits LP should be able to proclaim himself as a concept album creator. It's absurd (even if Mike co-wrote a bunch of the old songs).

How the project went from what Capitol had assembled and had plans to release as "Greatest Hits vol. 3" into becoming a "concept album" envisioned by Mike because he suggested a different title remains a mystery to me, at least. A Greatest Hits package is a Greatest Hits package, no matter what someone labels it. That's one of the points which I'd like to see at least expanded on a little, because at this point even the premise of the statement doesn't match what the album actually was or how it was created.

I suppose someone could take a 1/2 pound of raw ground beef, garnish it, put it on a plate and advertise it for $29.99 labeling it as "steak tartare", but that doesn't change the fact that it's still a 1/2 pound of raw ground beef on a plate surrounded by garnish and people would know the difference.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

If one is to consider Mike the "producer" of Endless Summer, or if he at one point stated himself as such, it probably has about as much meaning as the "executive producer" credit on TWGMTR, meaning that it's a credit that doesn't ultimately mean very much.

I'll throw a genuine bone of empathy Mike's way in that he surely was (and will probably forever be) scarred from the injustice of being denied proper co-writing credits during the 60s, and that really messed up his brain. It damaged him somehow, and I can understand that.

The fact that Mike somehow kept those feelings inside (unless one could consider other actions of his as passive aggressive venting over the real injustice) must have set off something in him to want to actively pursue and inflate credits, like the "concept album" nonsense, in the future. This is a stark contrast to Dennis Wilson's "You Are So Beautiful" crediting omission, which Dennis seemed to more casually brush off in his lifetime (although one must wonder how the official crediting for that song would have played out if Dennis had lived... would a cleaned-up Dennis at some point have tried to pursue a credit, especially at a time of financial hardships?)

I agree with you completely regarding Dennis..... It even hurts to imagine what that sort of good break could have done for him ..... Though Dennis was thrown some pretty amazing good breaks in his life, as it was ......

"concept album nonsense?" ...... See this is where there seems to be a schism between certain cabals of posters here .... Some take a silly PR fluff piece (the kind there is no shortage of in show biz) and go onto hysterics over something like "Mike Love's concept album" and then toss out their opinion on such a statement being so horrendous as basically evidence that the statement is unequivocally false ...... And then there are others who will read such a statement but then take a step back and think past their own emotional reaction and admit that, though the statement IS something of a stretch, there are still enough traces of logic to determine that reasons for getting upset over it are quite slim to none....

Mike Love has every right to call Summer In Paradise his "concept album"; it's his baby, through and through, and it was apparently written and conceived from the onset as the perfect summer record, or something to that effect.

One cannot call a greatest hits package, or what amounts to a prehistoric iTunes playlist, as a "concept album".  One cannot retroactively compile a list of pre-released (and previously re-released, and so on) songs and call it a concept album. If they could, then the random, anonymous Capitol suit who inexplicably put Frosty The Snowman on a late 60s BBs greatest hits LP should be able to proclaim himself as a concept album creator. It's absurd (even if Mike co-wrote a bunch of the old songs).

How the project went from what Capitol had assembled and had plans to release as "Greatest Hits vol. 3" into becoming a "concept album" envisioned by Mike because he suggested a different title remains a mystery to me, at least. A Greatest Hits package is a Greatest Hits package, no matter what someone labels it. That's one of the points which I'd like to see at least expanded on a little, because at this point even the premise of the statement doesn't match what the album actually was or how it was created.

I suppose someone could take a 1/2 pound of raw ground beef, garnish it, put it on a plate and advertise it for $29.99 labeling it as "steak tartare", but that doesn't change the fact that it's still a 1/2 pound of raw ground beef on a plate surrounded by garnish and people would know the difference.

I've used a tiny sliver of spare logical reasoning to explain how (not to everyone, sure) Endless Summer can be considered a concept album, but you choose to ignore it and continue with the wide-eyed exasperation tactic.

[SMiLE Brian]

*yawn*

[Cam Mott]

To me it seems this Capitol bio was the source of the claim and text. Maybe you could determine if that was the source and then contact Capitol records and see if they can illuminate where/who the text came from.

Have you contacted the venue(s) that published this claim to see where they got it? Off the internet or was it MELECO approved copy?

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

*yawn*

if you're tired, PLEASE go to sleep ......

Or head over to the "who wrote what" thread..... Plenty of opportunity to call Mike bad words over there.

[SMiLE Brian]

ZZZZZZZ

[guitarfool2002]

I would say that Mike's public and published witness that he had no input into ES beyond suggesting calling it ES instead of Greatest Hits No.? would settle it so far. I don't think it is trumped by a Capitol Records bio page which seems to be the source of the controversial concept album text which has now been repeated by some venues. Is there something I'm missing?

Do you really think that the notion of Mike Love as the creator of the concept album Endless Summer could have been entirely created in a vacuum, by some anonymous Capitol suit, with neither Mike's input or approval whatsoever in that? Does that honestly seem likely to you? I find that mighty unlikely.

Mike publicly proclaimed in his own words that he did not have input into the ES album so I do find it extremely unlikely that he is also responsible for Capitol Records' contradictory claims. According to the Earcandy article that was quoted earlier, the bio was only up for three days or something before being removed.

So where did the info come from related to publicizing these recent gigs like the Ryman calling it Mike's concept album or saying he produced it if the production/PR company who handles the tours provides the venues and media outlets with "approved" information, according to what Andrew wrote earlier? If Mike said in his own words he did not have input into ES, then why is information that needs to be approved by the production company being published which contradicts Mike himself about his role with ES?

That's part of what triggered my questions to begin with, how is this stuff getting printed as recent as the Ryman press release if it is subject to an approval process, if it isn't accurate?

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Hey, I have an idea!

How about we wait till Mike's book comes about and see if he talks about Endless Summer! I can't imagine he'll make no mention of it.

That Goldmine interview is decades old, and we all know how these Beach Boys can change their tune about things!

[CenturyDeprived]

If one is to consider Mike the "producer" of Endless Summer, or if he at one point stated himself as such, it probably has about as much meaning as the "executive producer" credit on TWGMTR, meaning that it's a credit that doesn't ultimately mean very much.

I'll throw a genuine bone of empathy Mike's way in that he surely was (and will probably forever be) scarred from the injustice of being denied proper co-writing credits during the 60s, and that really messed up his brain. It damaged him somehow, and I can understand that.

The fact that Mike somehow kept those feelings inside (unless one could consider other actions of his as passive aggressive venting over the real injustice) must have set off something in him to want to actively pursue and inflate credits, like the "concept album" nonsense, in the future. This is a stark contrast to Dennis Wilson's "You Are So Beautiful" crediting omission, which Dennis seemed to more casually brush off in his lifetime (although one must wonder how the official crediting for that song would have played out if Dennis had lived... would a cleaned-up Dennis at some point have tried to pursue a credit, especially at a time of financial hardships?)

I agree with you completely regarding Dennis..... It even hurts to imagine what that sort of good break could have done for him ..... Though Dennis was thrown some pretty amazing good breaks in his life, as it was ......

"concept album nonsense?" ...... See this is where there seems to be a schism between certain cabals of posters here .... Some take a silly PR fluff piece (the kind there is no shortage of in show biz) and go onto hysterics over something like "Mike Love's concept album" and then toss out their opinion on such a statement being so horrendous as basically evidence that the statement is unequivocally false ...... And then there are others who will read such a statement but then take a step back and think past their own emotional reaction and admit that, though the statement IS something of a stretch, there are still enough traces of logic to determine that reasons for getting upset over it are quite slim to none....

Mike Love has every right to call Summer In Paradise his "concept album"; it's his baby, through and through, and it was apparently written and conceived from the onset as the perfect summer record, or something to that effect.

One cannot call a greatest hits package, or what amounts to a prehistoric iTunes playlist, as a "concept album".  One cannot retroactively compile a list of pre-released (and previously re-released, and so on) songs and call it a concept album. If they could, then the random, anonymous Capitol suit who inexplicably put Frosty The Snowman on a late 60s BBs greatest hits LP should be able to proclaim himself as a concept album creator. It's absurd (even if Mike co-wrote a bunch of the old songs).

How the project went from what Capitol had assembled and had plans to release as "Greatest Hits vol. 3" into becoming a "concept album" envisioned by Mike because he suggested a different title remains a mystery to me, at least. A Greatest Hits package is a Greatest Hits package, no matter what someone labels it. That's one of the points which I'd like to see at least expanded on a little, because at this point even the premise of the statement doesn't match what the album actually was or how it was created.

I suppose someone could take a 1/2 pound of raw ground beef, garnish it, put it on a plate and advertise it for $29.99 labeling it as "steak tartare", but that doesn't change the fact that it's still a 1/2 pound of raw ground beef on a plate surrounded by garnish and people would know the difference.

I've used a tiny sliver of spare logical reasoning to explain how (not to everyone, sure) Endless Summer can be considered a concept album, but you choose to ignore it and continue with the wide-eyed exasperation tactic.

I'm sure that the vast, majority of people, music fans, if you ask them what a "concept album" is, would not think this is a term that would apply retroactively to old songs being assembled together. I mean, you can call anything anything if you really want to, but what meaning does it have? You can call a burlap sack a dress suit, and why would I have the right to question you on that?  


It's a big stretch to use the term... and for the term to be used, it would in my estimation be more geared toward less discriminating people who might read such a press release (ie. people who wouldn't fact-check what that album actually was/is), and would just read it and think it adds a layer of legitimacy to the person they reading about. And hell, I suppose that constitutes a large swath of the M&B crowd anyway (people who don't even really know/care about the names of the BBs onstage, past or present). It just seems like a paper-thin argument to call it a concept album, and under close examination, it feels a bit like false advertising.

[SMiLE Brian]

Keeping going Pinder, someday you will convince somebody.....

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

If one is to consider Mike the "producer" of Endless Summer, or if he at one point stated himself as such, it probably has about as much meaning as the "executive producer" credit on TWGMTR, meaning that it's a credit that doesn't ultimately mean very much.

I'll throw a genuine bone of empathy Mike's way in that he surely was (and will probably forever be) scarred from the injustice of being denied proper co-writing credits during the 60s, and that really messed up his brain. It damaged him somehow, and I can understand that.

The fact that Mike somehow kept those feelings inside (unless one could consider other actions of his as passive aggressive venting over the real injustice) must have set off something in him to want to actively pursue and inflate credits, like the "concept album" nonsense, in the future. This is a stark contrast to Dennis Wilson's "You Are So Beautiful" crediting omission, which Dennis seemed to more casually brush off in his lifetime (although one must wonder how the official crediting for that song would have played out if Dennis had lived... would a cleaned-up Dennis at some point have tried to pursue a credit, especially at a time of financial hardships?)

I agree with you completely regarding Dennis..... It even hurts to imagine what that sort of good break could have done for him ..... Though Dennis was thrown some pretty amazing good breaks in his life, as it was ......

"concept album nonsense?" ...... See this is where there seems to be a schism between certain cabals of posters here .... Some take a silly PR fluff piece (the kind there is no shortage of in show biz) and go onto hysterics over something like "Mike Love's concept album" and then toss out their opinion on such a statement being so horrendous as basically evidence that the statement is unequivocally false ...... And then there are others who will read such a statement but then take a step back and think past their own emotional reaction and admit that, though the statement IS something of a stretch, there are still enough traces of logic to determine that reasons for getting upset over it are quite slim to none....

Mike Love has every right to call Summer In Paradise his "concept album"; it's his baby, through and through, and it was apparently written and conceived from the onset as the perfect summer record, or something to that effect.

One cannot call a greatest hits package, or what amounts to a prehistoric iTunes playlist, as a "concept album".  One cannot retroactively compile a list of pre-released (and previously re-released, and so on) songs and call it a concept album. If they could, then the random, anonymous Capitol suit who inexplicably put Frosty The Snowman on a late 60s BBs greatest hits LP should be able to proclaim himself as a concept album creator. It's absurd (even if Mike co-wrote a bunch of the old songs).

How the project went from what Capitol had assembled and had plans to release as "Greatest Hits vol. 3" into becoming a "concept album" envisioned by Mike because he suggested a different title remains a mystery to me, at least. A Greatest Hits package is a Greatest Hits package, no matter what someone labels it. That's one of the points which I'd like to see at least expanded on a little, because at this point even the premise of the statement doesn't match what the album actually was or how it was created.

I suppose someone could take a 1/2 pound of raw ground beef, garnish it, put it on a plate and advertise it for $29.99 labeling it as "steak tartare", but that doesn't change the fact that it's still a 1/2 pound of raw ground beef on a plate surrounded by garnish and people would know the difference.

I've used a tiny sliver of spare logical reasoning to explain how (not to everyone, sure) Endless Summer can be considered a concept album, but you choose to ignore it and continue with the wide-eyed exasperation tactic.

I'm sure that the vast, majority of people, music fans, if you ask them what a "concept album" is, would not think this is a term that would apply retroactively to old songs being assembled together. I mean, you can call anything anything if you really want to, but what meaning does it have? You can call a burlap sack a dress suit, and why would I have the right to question you on that?

I'm just saying that it's a big stretch to use the term, and for the term to be used would, in my estimation, be more geared toward less discriminating people who might read such a press release (ie. people who wouldn't fact-check what that album actually was/is), and would just read it and think it adds a layer of legitimacy to the person they reading about. And hell, I suppose that constitutes a large swath of the M&B crowd anyway (people who don't even really know/care about the names of the BBs onstage, past or present). It just seems like a paper-thin argument to call it a concept album, and under close examination, it feels a bit like false advertising.

Yeah, you're right. It is odd and rare and a stretch, but since someone DID call it such, then it's worth examining as such.

I remember David Gilmour referring to the "Echo's" double CD "best of" thing as something of a concept album since the songs had been partially re-edited and mixed to flow from one to another as a continuous experience.....

At the time I took it as the Floyd just being a bit leery of and generally disliking greatest hits albums, but I have come to consider the package as having something of a concept ..... I see no reason to be angry with The Floyd for this.