interesting article: "Mike Love states his case"

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

I think we are getting close to being on the same page finally. Like some were trying to say a bunch of pages ago, Mike is saying (in 2012 and 2015) there was a lot of talk without follow up, talk without discussion. He/they were open to more dates and albums but when the C50 agreement ended the talk never amounted to something in-writing/set-in-stone/concrete that came before them or was discussed.

One of the arguments that Mike brought up back in 2012 was to “give it a rest” for a year to build up demand. Whether he really was serious about the idea or was just trying to get people off his back about why they weren’t going right back out on the road and into the studio, I don’t know. But Brian was talking in his LA Times article about more show offers presumably in 2012, not 2014.  

If anything, perhaps Mike thought that he could use the “give it a rest for a year to build up demand" thing as an excuse, to buy time and hopefully get Brian to cave to Mike's demands in the meantime. It was really just a made-up excuse though. C'mon. There's no way you can tell me a guy like Mike Love ever actually wants to give anything a rest touring-wise. If he wrote songs with Brian in a room and got to remain the center of attention in C50, he'd not have wanted to give it a rest.

Mike can claim that, and it might make logical sense to some people reading his side of the story, and get some people behind him, but ultimately it fails as an excuse. It's not consistent with any of Mike's touring actions, ever.

While we as hardcore fans, as well as promoters, know the difference between Mike’s “Beach Boys” and the C50 “Beach Boys”, I think his “give it a rest” argument lost a lot of credibility when the concurrent discussion also involved that he was *immediately* going back out on the road as “The Beach Boys.”

I mean, wouldn’t it build up *even more* demand if you literally take the BB name off the market for even just one season?

These are obviously rhetorical questions that are even more meaningless in light of that fact that, in my opinion, factors such as “market demand” had little or nothing to do with the reunion’s demise.

let's be honest: he obviously was just doing the whole "take a year away" thing so people would be off of his back.

This.

As HeyJude has pointed out, Mike has to own it, take the criticism for his actions... but he never will. Somehow he thinks his actions are always justifiable.

Oh, he owns it .... He gets paid, goes out and travels the world singing to crowds, while you sit here dissing him on a message board.... I think it's more like Mike owns you!

[CenturyDeprived]

I think we are getting close to being on the same page finally. Like some were trying to say a bunch of pages ago, Mike is saying (in 2012 and 2015) there was a lot of talk without follow up, talk without discussion. He/they were open to more dates and albums but when the C50 agreement ended the talk never amounted to something in-writing/set-in-stone/concrete that came before them or was discussed.

One of the arguments that Mike brought up back in 2012 was to “give it a rest” for a year to build up demand. Whether he really was serious about the idea or was just trying to get people off his back about why they weren’t going right back out on the road and into the studio, I don’t know. But Brian was talking in his LA Times article about more show offers presumably in 2012, not 2014.  

If anything, perhaps Mike thought that he could use the “give it a rest for a year to build up demand" thing as an excuse, to buy time and hopefully get Brian to cave to Mike's demands in the meantime. It was really just a made-up excuse though. C'mon. There's no way you can tell me a guy like Mike Love ever actually wants to give anything a rest touring-wise. If he wrote songs with Brian in a room and got to remain the center of attention in C50, he'd not have wanted to give it a rest.

Mike can claim that, and it might make logical sense to some people reading his side of the story, and get some people behind him, but ultimately it fails as an excuse. It's not consistent with any of Mike's touring actions, ever.

While we as hardcore fans, as well as promoters, know the difference between Mike’s “Beach Boys” and the C50 “Beach Boys”, I think his “give it a rest” argument lost a lot of credibility when the concurrent discussion also involved that he was *immediately* going back out on the road as “The Beach Boys.”

I mean, wouldn’t it build up *even more* demand if you literally take the BB name off the market for even just one season?

These are obviously rhetorical questions that are even more meaningless in light of that fact that, in my opinion, factors such as “market demand” had little or nothing to do with the reunion’s demise.

let's be honest: he obviously was just doing the whole "take a year away" thing so people would be off of his back.

This.

As HeyJude has pointed out, Mike has to own it, take the criticism for his actions... but he never will. Somehow he thinks his actions are always justifiable.

Oh, he owns it .... He gets paid, goes out and travels the world singing to crowds, while you sit here dissing him on a message board.... I think it's more like Mike owns you!

You're entirely missing my point, Pinder. Yes, he is traveling around having a ball, this is indisputable. But it's the inexplicable attempts to rewrite history that makes people like myself want to chime in, not to mention the inexplicable handful of defenders (and the quantity of people who would defend him is probably only a handful) that I can't wrap my head around, no matter how hard I try.

If, however, you want to say "he's a crazy, out-of-touch-with-reality rock star who is grasping at straws to try and deflect legit flak about things which should justifiably be criticized/questioned more, but he's a member of our favorite band and I'll forgive him more than I would virtually anyone else in a similar situation, simply because I love and am deeply emotionally attached to the music", well, then I could understand that point of view, even if I'd disagree with parts of it. 

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

I think we are getting close to being on the same page finally. Like some were trying to say a bunch of pages ago, Mike is saying (in 2012 and 2015) there was a lot of talk without follow up, talk without discussion. He/they were open to more dates and albums but when the C50 agreement ended the talk never amounted to something in-writing/set-in-stone/concrete that came before them or was discussed.

One of the arguments that Mike brought up back in 2012 was to “give it a rest” for a year to build up demand. Whether he really was serious about the idea or was just trying to get people off his back about why they weren’t going right back out on the road and into the studio, I don’t know. But Brian was talking in his LA Times article about more show offers presumably in 2012, not 2014.  

If anything, perhaps Mike thought that he could use the “give it a rest for a year to build up demand" thing as an excuse, to buy time and hopefully get Brian to cave to Mike's demands in the meantime. It was really just a made-up excuse though. C'mon. There's no way you can tell me a guy like Mike Love ever actually wants to give anything a rest touring-wise. If he wrote songs with Brian in a room and got to remain the center of attention in C50, he'd not have wanted to give it a rest.

Mike can claim that, and it might make logical sense to some people reading his side of the story, and get some people behind him, but ultimately it fails as an excuse. It's not consistent with any of Mike's touring actions, ever.

While we as hardcore fans, as well as promoters, know the difference between Mike’s “Beach Boys” and the C50 “Beach Boys”, I think his “give it a rest” argument lost a lot of credibility when the concurrent discussion also involved that he was *immediately* going back out on the road as “The Beach Boys.”

I mean, wouldn’t it build up *even more* demand if you literally take the BB name off the market for even just one season?

These are obviously rhetorical questions that are even more meaningless in light of that fact that, in my opinion, factors such as “market demand” had little or nothing to do with the reunion’s demise.

let's be honest: he obviously was just doing the whole "take a year away" thing so people would be off of his back.

This.

As HeyJude has pointed out, Mike has to own it, take the criticism for his actions... but he never will. Somehow he thinks his actions are always justifiable.

Oh, he owns it .... He gets paid, goes out and travels the world singing to crowds, while you sit here dissing him on a message board.... I think it's more like Mike owns you!

You're entirely missing my point, Pinder. Yes, he is traveling around having a ball, this is indisputable. But it's the inexplicable attempts to rewrite history that makes people like myself want to chime in, not to mention the inexplicable handful of defenders (and the quantity of people who would defend him is probably only a handful) that I can't wrap my head around, no matter how hard I try.

If, however, you want to say "he's a crazy, out-of-touch-with-reality rock star who is grasping at straws to try and deflect legit flak about things which should justifiably be criticized/questioned more, but he's a member of our favorite band and I'll forgive him more than I would virtually anyone else in a similar situation, simply because I love and am deeply emotionally attached to the music", well, then I could understand that point of view, even if I'd disagree with parts of it. 

well, I've asked the question many times: why on earth would you expect a guy like Mike Love to not be batshit insane in the first place, after being in The Beach Boys for over 50 year???

[CenturyDeprived]

well, I've asked the question many times: why on earth would you expect a guy like Mike Love to not be batshit insane in the first place, after being in The Beach Boys for over 50 year???

Well yeah, totally. And I respect that you can say that because it's true! I'm just saying that sometimes it's ok to back off a bit and admit that there's some behavior going on which is probably not particularly defensible.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

well, I've asked the question many times: why on earth would you expect a guy like Mike Love to not be batshit insane in the first place, after being in The Beach Boys for over 50 year???

Well yeah, totally. And I respect that you can say that because it's true! I'm just saying that sometimes it's ok to back off a bit and admit that there's some behavior going on which is probably not particularly defensible.

Yeah, I can't help but feel like, if I'm going to justify (to myself at least) doing so, I shouldn't stop with Mike to be fair, and I really don't want to sit here and bitch, moan and speak ill of members of my favorite band.

I've also been a lifelong suspect of those who will endlessly cry over something someone has said while ignoring what others have DONE.

[ESQ Editor]

David -- I know you love the Beach Boys. I've never doubted that (at times I think you've been far more enamored of the striped shirts and Fat Boys era than the Riley era -- but that's preference not a ranking of love.)  And I say this as a friend -- I don't want to hurt your feelings. I know that ESQ, which more often than not features a ton of great stuff -- new research, cool photos, etc. -- takes up a lot of time for very little reward.

But you gotta do better.

Listen to what I say: This Mike thing wasn't good journalism, wasn't spreading the "word" of this band, and was PR for Mike's bulls hit/pain.
I NEVER do email interviews with anyone, because you lose the give and take and it turns into crafted diatribes. You need a statement or a single quote -- fine.
I'm not saying you in anyway strategized to make it so, but you ran an '88 Rock Hall speech.

You can't post stuff and take offense at criticism. You can't ask for suggestions how to make ESQ better and take umbrage at the valid suggestions people take time out to give you.

And for the record -- "Cabinessence" has never been a favorite.
Give me "Walkin' On Water" any day.

Enamored with the music?  Yes.  I mentioned two songs that I love: "Cabin Essence" and "All This Is That."  Of those two songs, how on earth did you derive that I can even stomach that Fat Boys nonsense?  Carl was wise to not appear in that video.  A LOW POINT.  The only way the word enamored is applicable is to say that I am enamored with those voices, and Brian's amazing "kick ass" arrangements.  

As for the stripe shirts, I appreciate their attachment to the imagery they conjure up with The Beach Boys name, but that's all.  Your comments clearly illustrate that you don't know me.  And my thinking that you like "Cabin Essence" — because you suggested to Al that he perform it in NY — was my mistake.  I can react to anything that affects me in any way that I feel is fit.  That's my freedom.

Yesterday, because it was down, it was lame, today, it's Mike's '88 speech.  Again, write an article for ESQ.  Step up to the plate.

Who is it that you want me to do better for?  You?  ESQ's demographic is mostly male, but we do have female readers, and they need to be considered during the maintenance of content in the pub.  Why?  They are paying subscribers.  Part of my desire to make ESQ a valuable reading experience is to improve it with every issue.  I don't always succeed, but it's not from lack of trying.  

I've studied David Leaf's "Pet Sounds" newsletter, as well as BBFun, and feel that ESQ is a strong publication that balances itself steadily between the two (with more slant toward PS than BBF).  

[Howie Edelson]

Y’know what, dude - I don’t know you.
I wish the best of luck, though.

[Jim V.]

I do think that most of Howie's criticism on ESQ is actually pretty good, and I don't think too hurtful, and it would improve it. I also do think, from the issues that I've read, that it is a solid and informative addition to the Beach Boys world. And The Boys Of Summer is also pretty great, as David pulled off quite the feat, getting Mike Love to donate an new song, which isn't something that has happened much recently. I was very happy to have Brian's "The Spirit Of Rock & Roll" and Mike's "Cool Head, Warm Heart" and "Love Like In Fairytales" all on one official CD.

And as much as I agree with Howie, I wanna challenge him on something. If you think you can do it, why don't you get an interview with Mike Love and get us the hard-hitting facts. I will say this, if you had an interview with him and were as real with him as you are on this board, I think it would help immeasurably. Honestly, I couldn't think of a better person. Would it be possible for you to get some kind of sitdown with Mike, Howie? I surely wish it were so.

[Jim V.]

As for the Examiner article, Mike's response was emailed, and it was a "one time" statement.  Could I have gone back and picked at that emotional scab?  Sure.  But why would I do that to him?

Okay, now of course I'm not Howie, but I have a major issue with this statement here. You basically say you wouldn't wanna go back and pick at that emotional scab? Here's the problem with that: the scab was ripped off, with blood pouring all over the floor, once Mike made the frickin' statement! He brought up all this stuff when asked an innocuous question about a new song by Brian Wilson with Al Jardine and David Marks! You asked him about a new song by three of his bandmates, guys he's known for over FIFTY years, and instead of commenting on the song* he decided to go on the offensive and do his sneaky little attack about the people around Brian writing the press releases and legal nonsense about how there were no "contracts for new shows" and how there wasn't "talk about a new album" even though he himself spoke about it before! So, sorry, I don't buy the whole "pickin' at a scab" thing. Mike opened up the scab himself, and proceeded to drive a knife into said scab. If he really didn't wanna discuss C50 type stuff, he could've easily just said, "no, haven't heard the song yet Dave! Excited to hear what Brian's got in store though," instead of diving into his usual melange of legalese and backhanded slaps at Brian (or at least Brian's team).

*While we're at it, let's be honest about Mike saying he hasn't heard "The Right Time" or to bring it back a bit, Brian Wilson Presents SMiLE. He's most likely full of sh*t. So apparently he does have enough time to surf the web and find the photoshopped picture that Bossaroo did and whatnot, but he doesn't have enough time to listen to a new song by a man he claims to love so much!? Bullshit. At least Bruce had the guts to both admit he listened to BWPS and the stuff for this new album, and to enter his own opinion while he's at it. Mike acts like he hasn't had the time or something, and it's absolute bull.

Lastly, Mike's comment about "autotune" really got me going, and I have a feeling I know who fed him that line. But I'm not gonna post it here, cuz I don't wanna start anything.

I stand by the statement, regardless of any issues you take with it.

Really, you won't even address what I said? I gotta say, while I think ESQ is good and I do plan on purchasing the next issue, I think it's a shame you're being so thin-skinned. We have an exchange of opinions on the board, and I just can't understand why you wouldn't do any followup with Mike. You argument for why you didn't has proven to be incredibly suspect and honestly, I don't see why you don't try to contact Mike for a followup now to be honest. You started this entire mess with your "review" of Brian's new song and then the "interview" with Mike, so why not try to get to the bottom of it by asking Mike to clarify some of his statements. It just seems to me you're trying to have it both ways. You've claimed on here in prior discussions with Howie that you basically aim to have both well-researched, hard hitting journalism and also to push the word of The Beach Boys. But in this case you just can't. And if you aren't interested in "the dirt" then you shouldn't had spread it all over the place. I'd say it were fine if you just never delved into these topics. But what you've done this time is akin to a kid emptying all the toys out of the toybox and then looking at their parent, and saying "well, clean it up" rather then cleaning it up themselves. I don't get why you'd open this whole mess and then say "well, I don't wanna be involved."

[elnombre]

Hey, no one's addressing what I last said. You get used to it.

[ForHerCryingSoul]

Really, you won't even address what I said? I gotta say, while I think ESQ is good and I do plan on purchasing the next issue, I think it's a shame you're being so thin-skinned. We have an exchange of opinions on the board, and I just can't understand why you wouldn't do any followup with Mike. You argument for why you didn't has proven to be incredibly suspect and honestly, I don't see why you don't try to contact Mike for a followup now to be honest. You started this entire mess with your "review" of Brian's new song and then the "interview" with Mike, so why not try to get to the bottom of it by asking Mike to clarify some of his statements. It just seems to me you're trying to have it both ways. You've claimed on here in prior discussions with Howie that you basically aim to have both well-researched, hard hitting journalism and also to push the word of The Beach Boys. But in this case you just can't. And if you aren't interested in "the dirt" then you shouldn't had spread it all over the place. I'd say it were fine if you just never delved into these topics. But what you've done this time is akin to a kid emptying all the toys out of the toybox and then looking at their parent, and saying "well, clean it up" rather then cleaning it up themselves. I don't get why you'd open this whole mess and then say "well, I don't wanna be involved."

I am not trying to tell you how to do your job ESQ Editor, I am merely arguing the following below to think about:

I don't have anything to really contribute other than I agree to what is quoted, but I think a journalist's main concern should be to address issues.  In this case, ESQ shares news about the Beach Boys, therefore, it must address happenings concerning that or the subscribers will be unsatisfied.  Based on what happened in the interview with Mike, if I am correct, some people, who may be subscribers of ESQ, want to have this issue addressed.

By deliberately avoiding the interview with Mike, it constitutes more controversy, and flack against ESQ itself, which may lead to frustrated readers and a loss of revenue due to lost subscribers.  If it were me, I would resolve this issue quickly, avoid the subscriber loss, and get back to detailing information about the Beach Boys!

[GhostyTMRS]

Man oh man! Mike was asked a question. He answered it. So some people here are unhappy with the answer. Big deal. Next.

[elnombre]

Man oh man! Mike was asked a question. He answered it. So some people here are unhappy with the answer. Big deal. Next.

How in the name of Satan's portion was what Mike answered a response to 'have you heard Brian's new single'?

[ForHerCryingSoul]

How in the name of Satan's portion was what Mike answered a response to 'have you heard Brian's new single'?

Thing is, it's not.  It's a stabbing, failed attempt at cleverness.  Mike is trying to dodge the question the only way he seems to know how, by attacking others.  Look at his Hall of Fame Speech.  Quite the nice guy.

[Jim V.]

Hey, no one's addressing what I last said. You get used to it.

Ha. I've been used to it for a while. And while we're at it, I will respond to your post!

Going back to the covers album which David B. claims was to be the follow-up to TWGMTR rather than what previous interviews have suggested - i.e. that it was the initial idea for the reunion album - well, how does this make any sense?

From what Mike has said it seems his involvement on a TWGMTR follow-up album was contingent on being given one on one writing time with Brian. Nothing would ensure zero writing time with Brian faster than making an album of cover songs, yet Mike was supposedly up for making just such an album....uhhh....?!?

Mike was 'enthusiastic' for an album which would ensure he did not get one single solitary writing credit? But an album where he is credited as a writer or co-writer on 1/3rd of the tracks was too much of a compromise? I don't get it. Unless the problem isn't that he particularly wants to write with Brian, but he also doesn't particularly want Brian to write with anyone else. Then the tone of sour grapes that permeates this interview starts to make a bit of sense.

Personally, I think the covers album thing is a bit of a red herring. What the "covers" album most likely is Brian and Mike in one of the few moments they had together saying something like, "hey, wouldn't it be cool to cover [insert doo-wop song here]? We should do an album like that."

While I don't doubt that it really was brought up between them, I can imagine how it probably was. And for context I'll use an example with myself for instance. I always talk with friends about how if I ever have a new band/musical project I'd really like to do some more ska/reggae stuff. Always really excited about doing that. But whenever I do end up doing new music, it always ends up sounding more dreamy, psychedelic, laid back. And that's how I feel like it was with Brian and Mike. But mostly Brian. He will say something like "I really wanna make a new album that's really rockin'. Something with a big rock 'n roll sound. Maybe do some good cover songs of my favorite songs." But when it comes time for him to do something new, it usually makes itself apparent that the new material he does is more laid back and reflective, less "rock 'n roll." So what I'm saying is that Brian probably pie-in-the-skies some ideas, but usually what he has to work with is a lot different. And he will probably get to his "rock 'n roll" when I get to my ska project. In other words, both cool ideas, but we just got other stuff that ultimately always seems to take precedent.

So yeah, anybody that says just because No Pier Pressure isn't a "rock 'n roll" album or a covers album doesn't mean it couldn't have been "the new Beach Boys album" is probably being a little ridiculous, especially if they've followed Brian for the past twenty years. He seems to always say that his next album will be like that.

Now, as for why Mike would be okay with a covers album? I really don't know why. Perhaps just because it's easy. Unlike most fans though, I do think an album by The Beach Boys with covers of a bunch of their favorites would actually be kinda great, as long as they let Brian really do his thing on production. I don't think it would be a big critical success, but I do think they would put a lot of care into the project as I'm sure they would truly love any material they'd be covering. And what's a shame to me is that, if they had stayed together, something like this coulda happened. You know maybe, while doing an album of originals, also doing some covers of their favorites when the mood struck. Kinda like how Eric Clapton did that Robert Johnson covers album in during sessions for what became his Back Home album. Then they'd have two albums. One to push big time, and the covers album to release while they were taking some time off. But alas, it looks like TWGMTR will be the last we get from the reunited Beach Boys. Whatever though, No Pier Pressure will be just fine with me next month!

[ESQ Editor]

Really, you won't even address what I said? I gotta say, while I think ESQ is good and I do plan on purchasing the next issue, I think it's a shame you're being so thin-skinned. We have an exchange of opinions on the board, and I just can't understand why you wouldn't do any followup with Mike. You argument for why you didn't has proven to be incredibly suspect and honestly, I don't see why you don't try to contact Mike for a followup now to be honest. You started this entire mess with your "review" of Brian's new song and then the "interview" with Mike, so why not try to get to the bottom of it by asking Mike to clarify some of his statements. It just seems to me you're trying to have it both ways. You've claimed on here in prior discussions with Howie that you basically aim to have both well-researched, hard hitting journalism and also to push the word of The Beach Boys. But in this case you just can't. And if you aren't interested in "the dirt" then you shouldn't had spread it all over the place. I'd say it were fine if you just never delved into these topics. But what you've done this time is akin to a kid emptying all the toys out of the toybox and then looking at their parent, and saying "well, clean it up" rather then cleaning it up themselves. I don't get why you'd open this whole mess and then say "well, I don't wanna be involved."

I am not trying to tell you how to do your job ESQ Editor, I am merely arguing the following below to think about:

I don't have anything to really contribute other than I agree to what is quoted, but I think a journalist's main concern should be to address issues.  In this case, ESQ shares news about the Beach Boys, therefore, it must address happenings concerning that or the subscribers will be unsatisfied.  Based on what happened in the interview with Mike, if I am correct, some people, who may be subscribers of ESQ, want to have this issue addressed.

By deliberately avoiding the interview with Mike, it constitutes more controversy, and flack against ESQ itself, which may lead to frustrated readers and a loss of revenue due to lost subscribers.  If it were me, I would resolve this issue quickly, avoid the subscriber loss, and get back to detailing information about the Beach Boys!

The article appeared on Examiner.com.  It won't be appearing in ESQ.  Mike has said all he has to say about subject. 

[elnombre]

Really, you won't even address what I said? I gotta say, while I think ESQ is good and I do plan on purchasing the next issue, I think it's a shame you're being so thin-skinned. We have an exchange of opinions on the board, and I just can't understand why you wouldn't do any followup with Mike. You argument for why you didn't has proven to be incredibly suspect and honestly, I don't see why you don't try to contact Mike for a followup now to be honest. You started this entire mess with your "review" of Brian's new song and then the "interview" with Mike, so why not try to get to the bottom of it by asking Mike to clarify some of his statements. It just seems to me you're trying to have it both ways. You've claimed on here in prior discussions with Howie that you basically aim to have both well-researched, hard hitting journalism and also to push the word of The Beach Boys. But in this case you just can't. And if you aren't interested in "the dirt" then you shouldn't had spread it all over the place. I'd say it were fine if you just never delved into these topics. But what you've done this time is akin to a kid emptying all the toys out of the toybox and then looking at their parent, and saying "well, clean it up" rather then cleaning it up themselves. I don't get why you'd open this whole mess and then say "well, I don't wanna be involved."

I am not trying to tell you how to do your job ESQ Editor, I am merely arguing the following below to think about:

I don't have anything to really contribute other than I agree to what is quoted, but I think a journalist's main concern should be to address issues.  In this case, ESQ shares news about the Beach Boys, therefore, it must address happenings concerning that or the subscribers will be unsatisfied.  Based on what happened in the interview with Mike, if I am correct, some people, who may be subscribers of ESQ, want to have this issue addressed.

By deliberately avoiding the interview with Mike, it constitutes more controversy, and flack against ESQ itself, which may lead to frustrated readers and a loss of revenue due to lost subscribers.  If it were me, I would resolve this issue quickly, avoid the subscriber loss, and get back to detailing information about the Beach Boys!

The article appeared on Examiner.com.  It won't be appearing in ESQ.  Mike has said all he has to say about subject. 

You know what you should ask him next though? What he thinks of 'The Right Time'. Would make a good question I think.

[tpesky]

They already did the covers album, it's called 15 Big Ones.

[Micha]

The bashing is boring, if you feel the hate so strongly about someone you don't even know, who has never done anything personally to you,  you have issues.

Exactly.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions about an interview or a statement or a comment. But the severity with which some people judge this ML statement is astonishing. The level of ad-nauseam, relentless scrutiny tells more about those who judge and are unable to cope with the guy's comments than it illuminates ML's point of view. Empathy is lacking these days.

Exactly.

Mike seems to acknowledge that that album, in Brian’s mind, was going to follow the TWGMTR format of more Brian/Joe songs forming the basis. Mike has also said in the past that he didn’t find that Brian/Joe songwriting basis as his preference, and has also stated his preference both in the past and going forward is to write songs from scratch, and alone, with Brian.

I guess that's basically it. Mike wants to be treated as an equal, but Brian likes to use him as a commodity. Hey, I need some petty lyrics finished, here, you can do that. Sing your parts, and let me create. That would bruise my ego, too. Of course, Mike could show greatness and say, all right, I'll do it anyway because it's my genius cousin, but Mike's human, and I can absolutely understand him not willing to once more bowing to Brian's wishes. And I can understand too that he's not publically admitting being hurt. It's Mike's misfortune that he contradicts himself in interviews trying to conceal that.

Kokocop Pinder on patrol.

It's better to be a Kokocop than being a hate preacher - with issues.

[Mike's Beard]

I guess that's basically it. Mike wants to be treated as an equal, but Brian likes to use him as a commodity. Hey, I need some petty lyrics finished, here, you can do that. Sing your parts, and let me create. That would bruise my ego, too. Of course, Mike could show greatness and say, all right, I'll do it anyway because it's my genius cousin, but Mike's human, and I can absolutely understand him not willing to once more bowing to Brian's wishes. And I can understand too that he's not publically admitting being hurt. It's Mike's misfortune that he contradicts himself in interviews trying to conceal that.

I think he's also tripping over himself inventing/focusing on issues rather then just admitting he doesn't like dealing with Melinda Wilson.

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

I guess that's basically it. Mike wants to be treated as an equal, but Brian likes to use him as a commodity. Hey, I need some petty lyrics finished, here, you can do that. Sing your parts, and let me create. That would bruise my ego, too. Of course, Mike could show greatness and say, all right, I'll do it anyway because it's my genius cousin, but Mike's human, and I can absolutely understand him not willing to once more bowing to Brian's wishes. And I can understand too that he's not publically admitting being hurt. It's Mike's misfortune that he contradicts himself in interviews trying to conceal that.

I think he's also tripping over himself inventing/focusing on issues rather then just admitting he doesn't like dealing with Melinda Wilson.

You both summed it up very well in those statements. Honestly, if Mike would just be more honest and vulnerable he'd come off a lot better. But it's like he thinks doing so would make him look weak, so he tries to pretend he isn't bothered, but compensates by trying to bruise *Brian's* ego with his usual talking points, which just backfires and makes him look like an insensitive jerk.

Pinder, I owe you an apology. The whole "maybe Mike wrote Vega-Tables" theory came from Cam it seems. But in any case, surely you can admit Mike's behavior is flawed at times? I call Brian out on his faults too, like not being an interesting interview and never listening to his own brother's album all these years as well as screwing Mike out of song credits for decades. I don't hate Mike either, or blame him for all the ills of the band, but surely some things, like this interview, are out of line? Just a tad?

[Micha]

I guess that's basically it. Mike wants to be treated as an equal, but Brian likes to use him as a commodity. Hey, I need some petty lyrics finished, here, you can do that. Sing your parts, and let me create. That would bruise my ego, too. Of course, Mike could show greatness and say, all right, I'll do it anyway because it's my genius cousin, but Mike's human, and I can absolutely understand him not willing to once more bowing to Brian's wishes. And I can understand too that he's not publically admitting being hurt. It's Mike's misfortune that he contradicts himself in interviews trying to conceal that.

I think he's also tripping over himself inventing/focusing on issues rather then just admitting he doesn't like dealing with Melinda Wilson.

You both summed it up very well in those statements. Honestly, if Mike would just be more honest and vulnerable he'd come off a lot better. But it's like he thinks doing so would make him look weak, so he tries to pretend he isn't bothered, but compensates by trying to bruise *Brian's* ego with his usual talking points, which just backfires and makes him look like an insensitive jerk.

Plausible scenario. Nice calm conversation too!

[Cam Mott]

Pinder, I owe you an apology. The whole "maybe Mike wrote Vega-Tables" theory came from Cam it seems.

It was "Mama Says", not "Vega-Tables".

[HeyJude]

I guess that's basically it. Mike wants to be treated as an equal, but Brian likes to use him as a commodity. Hey, I need some petty lyrics finished, here, you can do that. Sing your parts, and let me create. That would bruise my ego, too. Of course, Mike could show greatness and say, all right, I'll do it anyway because it's my genius cousin, but Mike's human, and I can absolutely understand him not willing to once more bowing to Brian's wishes. And I can understand too that he's not publically admitting being hurt. It's Mike's misfortune that he contradicts himself in interviews trying to conceal that.

Unfortunately, while Mike *thinks* he has the evidence/track record backing his theory that a BB album needs to be Wilson/Love co-writes, I don't think the evidence supports that.

First of all, everybody was apparently aware that they scored the record deal based on some Wilson/Thomas songs. Mike signed on for that. Additionally, it seems as though the whole C50 thing happened on a relatively accelerated timeframe. Once they signed the deal, they couldn't then hold sporadic songwriting sessions and *hope* something good comes out of it. They had more than an album's worth of good material ready to go, and that material was what got them the record deal and was what Capitol was probably expecting them to produce.

I don't mean this as a little swipe at Mike, but maybe some execs at Capitol were aware of Mike's recent songwriting proclivities, maybe they had listened to "Summer in Paradise", and maybe they didn't want an album FULL of Mike Love lyrics.

There's also the issue of whether, perhaps, Brian just didn't want to write with Mike in the "old style." For whatever reason, whether it makes him uncomfortable or he feels it's not going to produce the best results, or whatever. At that stage, what's more important? To help Mike's ego and force a collaboration, or to let Brian do what he needs to do to make an album happen?

It should be about producing the best music, the best album.

In the case of what we’re discussing, and what Mike was discussing in this recent piece, I don’t think the specific problem is that he’s not telling us he’s hurt. If he did feel that way and expressed it in a humble way, that might help to humanize him a little more. That’s a separate issue worth exploring.

But in the case of the C50 stuff, I find it interesting that a small group of folks seem to feel that “hey, he’s just telling it like it is; he’s just being honest”, because I think it’s the exact opposite, and in my opinion it all boils down to not wanting to take responsibility. He’s clearly sensitive about the (technically/legally) incorrect statements that he “fired” Brian; I think he didn’t expect those types of reports. So then the explanations become more convoluted in my opinion, more off-topic. You get stuff like Mike being asked if he’s heard the new Brian/Al track, and the response is essentially “I didn’t break up the Beach Boys!!!!”  

All of the qualifications and explanations obscure the main issue. All of the “set end date”, “we needed to play small markets”, the band was too expensive, there were “too many musicians and singers competing for parts on stage”, the “a #3 album is okay, but……”, it all obscures the issue. I think, just my opinion, he doesn’t want to just say “I don’t want to work with Brian Wilson or the Beach Boys under the conditions that were present during the 50th anniversary.” Because, if he says that, then he’s the one that broke the thing up. It doesn’t matter how valid or invalid his reasons are. He then is the one that broke it up. So we get the list of those “conditions” that he didn’t like, slowly, over the course of numerous interviews, and we get a bunch of other peripheral factoids that don’t particularly matter (the pre-reunion “oldies” album discussion), but no verbiage that says “The other guys wanted to keep going and I didn’t. It was my decision, and I had my reasons.”

Why is it so hard to actually say the words? I don’t ask this as a rhetorical question. Really, why is it so hard? I can only guess. I think the HUGE success both critically and commercially of the reunion was at least part of the reason. If ticket sales had been poor, if critics had said the live shows blew, if the album had tanked, then I think it’s possible Mike would have much easily just said at the end “Yeah, it didn’t do that well. Brian wanted to do more shows and an album, but I thought it was better to end it and go back to my own thing.”

[HeyJude]

The article appeared on Examiner.com.  It won't be appearing in ESQ.  Mike has said all he has to say about subject. 

Which is one of the reasons both the context of this article and its response have done nothing but made things worse. To slip in with such an inflammatory piece and then say “that’s all I have to say” does nobody any favors, including Mike.

Perhaps next time somebody (whether Mike or somebody else) starts citing the “Mr. Positivity” character, we can point to this article, which takes the seemingly innocuous question “Have you heard the new Brian song?” into a negative diatribe filled with insinuations and backhanded compliments.

I guess I’m citing some very obvious irony in pointing out that this article itself has become a bit like Mike’s position within the article. Some would offer that Mike needs to really just plainly admit that, whether justified or not, he put the brakes on the reunion. Similarly, with this article, I think it needs to be acknowledged that it did nothing but make things worse for fans, for Mike, for the other band members, for ESQ, for everybody, and also that it was poor journalism.

Seriously. I would certainly assume and hope that one little article wouldn’t really have an impact on Mike and Brian’s relationship, but how could an article like this do anything but even very slightly in the short term hurt their relationship, even if just their professional relationship?