interesting article: "Mike Love states his case"

[SMiLE Brian]

Pinder is just derailing the thread to get it locked so Mike can't be bashed anymore.

[elnombre]

For quick reference:

R.E. letting Mike have his opinion: "He's had it. No one stopped him having it. Who was trying to censor Mike? Not me. I simply came to a fan forum to give my opinion on his as a fan. Seems fair to me. Although tellingly, either David Beard or Mike has apparently chosen not to stand by said opinion given that the article has been removed."

Where did you address that?

R.E. dubbing me a 'religious cultist': I love Brian and Mike for all they've given us. If Mike called Brian an asshole, I'd think Mike was being an asshole. Same goes the other way. I'd argue perhaps Brian has more reason to say that, but I'd still be immensely disappointed by him doing so.

And "In what way as a fan of both Brian and Mike am I 'religious cultist' based on my posts? And in what way are you addressing the big picture? I'm all ears."

Where did you address that?

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Pinder is just derailing the thread to get it locked so Mike can't be bashed anymore.

Ok, If pleading the benefit of doubt for a fellow human being is what passes for derailing a thread: I'm guilty as charged.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

For quick reference:

R.E. letting Mike have his opinion: "He's had it. No one stopped him having it. Who was trying to censor Mike? Not me. I simply came to a fan forum to give my opinion on his as a fan. Seems fair to me. Although tellingly, either David Beard or Mike has apparently chosen not to stand by said opinion given that the article has been removed."

Where did you address that?

R.E. dubbing me a 'religious cultist': I love Brian and Mike for all they've given us. If Mike called Brian an asshole, I'd think Mike was being an asshole. Same goes the other way. I'd argue perhaps Brian has more reason to say that, but I'd still be immensely disappointed by him doing so.

And "In what way as a fan of both Brian and Mike am I 'religious cultist' based on my posts? And in what way are you addressing the big picture? I'm all ears."

Where did you address that?

I've been addressing the interview in question the whole time ... I'm under no obligation to address your comments

[elnombre]

For quick reference:

R.E. letting Mike have his opinion: "He's had it. No one stopped him having it. Who was trying to censor Mike? Not me. I simply came to a fan forum to give my opinion on his as a fan. Seems fair to me. Although tellingly, either David Beard or Mike has apparently chosen not to stand by said opinion given that the article has been removed."

Where did you address that?

R.E. dubbing me a 'religious cultist': I love Brian and Mike for all they've given us. If Mike called Brian an asshole, I'd think Mike was being an asshole. Same goes the other way. I'd argue perhaps Brian has more reason to say that, but I'd still be immensely disappointed by him doing so.

And "In what way as a fan of both Brian and Mike am I 'religious cultist' based on my posts? And in what way are you addressing the big picture? I'm all ears."

Where did you address that?

I've been addressing the interview in question the whole time ... I'm under no obligation to address your comments

Then don't call me a religious cultist, don't say I'm not listening and don't lie like you did below when the truth is blatantly that you're too spineless to respond.

No, you're not all ears. I've done all you pretend to be asking of me yet will never dare acknowledge when I do ... An ages old tactic on this board.

I asked you to cite examples of you having done what you said. You couldn't. You have made a fool of yourself.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

For quick reference:

R.E. letting Mike have his opinion: "He's had it. No one stopped him having it. Who was trying to censor Mike? Not me. I simply came to a fan forum to give my opinion on his as a fan. Seems fair to me. Although tellingly, either David Beard or Mike has apparently chosen not to stand by said opinion given that the article has been removed."

Where did you address that?

R.E. dubbing me a 'religious cultist': I love Brian and Mike for all they've given us. If Mike called Brian an asshole, I'd think Mike was being an asshole. Same goes the other way. I'd argue perhaps Brian has more reason to say that, but I'd still be immensely disappointed by him doing so.

And "In what way as a fan of both Brian and Mike am I 'religious cultist' based on my posts? And in what way are you addressing the big picture? I'm all ears."

Where did you address that?

I've been addressing the interview in question the whole time ... I'm under no obligation to address your comments

Then don't call me a religious cultist, don't say I'm not listening and don't lie like you did below when the truth is blatantly that you're too spineless to respond.

No, you're not all ears. I've done all you pretend to be asking of me yet will never dare acknowledge when I do ... An ages old tactic on this board.

Spineless to respond? What sort of a response would you accept? Exactly how needy are you in that department?

The responses in question are in this very thread. Take 5 minutes to research .

[elnombre]

For quick reference:

R.E. letting Mike have his opinion: "He's had it. No one stopped him having it. Who was trying to censor Mike? Not me. I simply came to a fan forum to give my opinion on his as a fan. Seems fair to me. Although tellingly, either David Beard or Mike has apparently chosen not to stand by said opinion given that the article has been removed."

Where did you address that?

R.E. dubbing me a 'religious cultist': I love Brian and Mike for all they've given us. If Mike called Brian an asshole, I'd think Mike was being an asshole. Same goes the other way. I'd argue perhaps Brian has more reason to say that, but I'd still be immensely disappointed by him doing so.

And "In what way as a fan of both Brian and Mike am I 'religious cultist' based on my posts? And in what way are you addressing the big picture? I'm all ears."

Where did you address that?

I've been addressing the interview in question the whole time ... I'm under no obligation to address your comments

Then don't call me a religious cultist, don't say I'm not listening and don't lie like you did below when the truth is blatantly that you're too spineless to respond.

No, you're not all ears. I've done all you pretend to be asking of me yet will never dare acknowledge when I do ... An ages old tactic on this board.

Spineless to respond? What sort of a response would you accept? Exactly how needy are you in that department?

The responses in question are in this very thread. Take 5 minutes to research .

Neediness has nothing to do with it. You're really reaching there. You're happy to put people in categories, namecall and so forth but when it comes to offering up responses or evidence you suddenly 'don't need to respond'. I don't need to take '5 minutes to research' anything from a guy who couldn't respond, had to invent a fictitious type of fan to win an argument against, claimed to have responded and then couldn't cite a single response addressing a single point made. Anyone with any balls who actually had a point would have responded to the handy dandy list of points I made in this thread with points of their own. You either can't or won't. I think it's pretty evident to everyone here what's what.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

For quick reference:

R.E. letting Mike have his opinion: "He's had it. No one stopped him having it. Who was trying to censor Mike? Not me. I simply came to a fan forum to give my opinion on his as a fan. Seems fair to me. Although tellingly, either David Beard or Mike has apparently chosen not to stand by said opinion given that the article has been removed."

Where did you address that?

R.E. dubbing me a 'religious cultist': I love Brian and Mike for all they've given us. If Mike called Brian an asshole, I'd think Mike was being an asshole. Same goes the other way. I'd argue perhaps Brian has more reason to say that, but I'd still be immensely disappointed by him doing so.

And "In what way as a fan of both Brian and Mike am I 'religious cultist' based on my posts? And in what way are you addressing the big picture? I'm all ears."

Where did you address that?

I've been addressing the interview in question the whole time ... I'm under no obligation to address your comments

Then don't call me a religious cultist, don't say I'm not listening and don't lie like you did below when the truth is blatantly that you're too spineless to respond.

No, you're not all ears. I've done all you pretend to be asking of me yet will never dare acknowledge when I do ... An ages old tactic on this board.

Spineless to respond? What sort of a response would you accept? Exactly how needy are you in that department?

The responses in question are in this very thread. Take 5 minutes to research .

Neediness has nothing to do with it. You're really reaching there. You're happy to put people in categories, namecall and so forth but when it comes to offering up responses or evidence you suddenly 'don't need to respond'. I don't need to take '5 minutes to research' anything from a guy who couldn't respond, had to invent a fictitious type of fan to win an argument against, claimed to have responded and then couldn't cite a single response addressing a single point made. Anyone with any balls who actually had a point would have responded to the handy dandy list of points I made in this thread with points of their own. You either can't or won't. I think it's pretty evident to everyone here what's what.

OK, then please ask me up front whet exactly it is you need addressed and I will do it right here and now. No games.

[elnombre]

The points I clearly made back here:

For quick reference:

R.E. letting Mike have his opinion: "He's had it. No one stopped him having it. Who was trying to censor Mike? Not me. I simply came to a fan forum to give my opinion on his as a fan. Seems fair to me. Although tellingly, either David Beard or Mike has apparently chosen not to stand by said opinion given that the article has been removed."

Where did you address that?

R.E. dubbing me a 'religious cultist': I love Brian and Mike for all they've given us. If Mike called Brian an asshole, I'd think Mike was being an asshole. Same goes the other way. I'd argue perhaps Brian has more reason to say that, but I'd still be immensely disappointed by him doing so.

And "In what way as a fan of both Brian and Mike am I 'religious cultist' based on my posts? And in what way are you addressing the big picture? I'm all ears."

Where did you address that?

You claimed to have already addressed these points. I'd like, since you're happy to dub me a 'religious cultist' for having made them, for you to either respond to said points, point to where you previously responded to said points (since you effectively said you had already done so) or apologise for calling me something I am not. Your call.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

The points I clearly made back here:

For quick reference:

R.E. letting Mike have his opinion: "He's had it. No one stopped him having it. Who was trying to censor Mike? Not me. I simply came to a fan forum to give my opinion on his as a fan. Seems fair to me. Although tellingly, either David Beard or Mike has apparently chosen not to stand by said opinion given that the article has been removed."

Where did you address that?

R.E. dubbing me a 'religious cultist': I love Brian and Mike for all they've given us. If Mike called Brian an asshole, I'd think Mike was being an asshole. Same goes the other way. I'd argue perhaps Brian has more reason to say that, but I'd still be immensely disappointed by him doing so.

And "In what way as a fan of both Brian and Mike am I 'religious cultist' based on my posts? And in what way are you addressing the big picture? I'm all ears."

Where did you address that?

You claimed to have already addressed these points. I'd like, since you're happy to dub me a 'religious cultist' for having made them, for you to either respond to said points, point to where you previously responded to said points (since you effectively said you had already done so) or apologise for calling me something I am not. Your call.

First off, I never said YOU were a religious cultist....

I've been pleading/preaching this whole time to just let Mike be Mike and maybe just learn to let things slide like we all do in our daily lives and accept that a man in his mid 70s is unlikely to change his tune regarding highly personal and emotionally charged topics and to perhaps not take his opinions on his family, band, and business quite so seriously .... Maybe pick our battles a bit better and not allow a stupid interview get us so worked up when its supposedly "all about the music"

As for Brian or Mike calling each other assholes: Brian's said he "can't stand Mike Love" so, I dunno where we can really go from there on such a topic.

I might not have addressed everything perfectly, but I appreciate you giving me the opportunity.

[CenturyDeprived]

There are no handlers, they are just Mike's boogeymen for why BW wants nothing to do with him.

Basically, yes.

That, and I strongly suspect Mike has a big problem specifically with Melinda, but won't directly say so. While Mike has said many, many things in the media that seem to lack self-awareness of how it will come off to others, even Mike knows that specifically badmouthing a bandmember's spouse would get him pure scorn from most every corner if he said so.

What I wonder is this:

a. Hasn't Mike repeatedly over the years mentioned Brian's emotional problems and the directly/indirectly associated issues that have resulted (not to mention Dennis')? Obviously, yes.

b. Since Mike hasn't (as far as I've seen) shied away from discussing the Wilsons' problems at length, has he ever in an interview acknowledged that Brian seems to be a type of guy who has a hard time standing up for himself, and directly confronting actions/words he doesn't like from others (and that this may be due to Murry's abuse)? Regardless, even if Mike hasn't talked about this publicly, SURELY he internally must know this is true on some level.

c. Pinder, other people who would disagree with this statement (and I'm not trying to be argumentative, but rather I'm trying to legitimately understand the mindset of people who think differently)... How has it not dawned on Mike that, even if there are other people playing interference for Brian, people that "get in Mike's way" of an old-days-style BW/ML in a room together... that perhaps, maybe... just maybe, the people who might be throwing up roadblocks to working with Brian the way that Mike wishes to work with Brian, are there by BRIAN'S OWN WISHES?

In other words, that Brian is fed up with many personal/artistic aspects of working with Mike, but has a very hard time verbalizing/communicating such?  I mean, Brian's the guy who put "Cassius Love vs. Sonny Wilson" on a record to diffuse and not directly deal with probable actual very serious stressors occurring in their relationship, and this was way back in the early days.

I just don't see how this can't be seen/acknowledged by Mike. At least on some level, there *has* to be some, some truth to this. It seems as though it's a strong case of denial. I should add that this probable (IMO) scenario doesn't mean that Brian still doesn't love Mike, and vice versa, either. I'm sure they still do. 
 

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

There are no handlers, they are just Mike's boogeymen for why BW wants nothing to do with him.

Basically, yes.

That, and I strongly suspect Mike has a big problem specifically with Melinda, but won't directly say so. While Mike has said many, many things in the media that seem to lack self-awareness of how it will come off to others, even Mike knows that specifically badmouthing a bandmember's spouse would get him pure scorn from most every corner if he said so.

What I wonder is this:

a. Hasn't Mike repeatedly over the years mentioned Brian's emotional problems and the directly/indirectly associated issues that have resulted (not to mention Dennis')? Obviously, yes.

b. Since Mike hasn't (as far as I've seen) shied away from discussing the Wilsons' problems at length, has he ever in an interview acknowledged that Brian seems to be a type of guy who has a hard time standing up for himself, and directly confronting actions/words he doesn't like from others (and that this may be due to Murry's abuse)? Regardless, even if Mike hasn't talked about this publicly, SURELY he internally must know this is true on some level.

c. Pinder, other people who would disagree with this statement (and I'm not trying to be argumentative, but rather I'm trying to legitimately understand the mindset of people who think differently)... How has it not dawned on Mike that, even if there are other people playing interference for Brian, people that "get in Mike's way" of an old-days-style BW/ML in a room together... that perhaps, maybe... just maybe, the people who might be throwing up roadblocks to working with Brian the way that Mike wishes to work with Brian, are there by BRIAN'S OWN WISHES?

In other words, that Brian is fed up with many personal/artistic aspects of working with Mike, but has a very hard time verbalizing/communicating such?  I mean, Brian's the guy who put "Cassius Love vs. Sonny Wilson" on a record to diffuse and not directly deal with probable actual very serious stressors occurring in their relationship, and this was way back in the early days.

I just don't see how this can't be seen/acknowledged by Mike. At least on some level, there *has* to be some, some truth to this. It seems as though it's a strong case of denial.
 

Good points all around.

All I can say is that I'd hazard to guess things run much deeper than Mike just wanting to get Brian alone with him in a room. But we all know Mike finds his line and repeats it endlessly. But this doesn't mean we don't look beyond that line.

[rab2591]

As for Brian or Mike calling each other assholes: Brian's said he "can't stand Mike Love"

Just for my own future reference, could you provide the source of this?

[elnombre]

The points I clearly made back here:

For quick reference:

R.E. letting Mike have his opinion: "He's had it. No one stopped him having it. Who was trying to censor Mike? Not me. I simply came to a fan forum to give my opinion on his as a fan. Seems fair to me. Although tellingly, either David Beard or Mike has apparently chosen not to stand by said opinion given that the article has been removed."

Where did you address that?

R.E. dubbing me a 'religious cultist': I love Brian and Mike for all they've given us. If Mike called Brian an asshole, I'd think Mike was being an asshole. Same goes the other way. I'd argue perhaps Brian has more reason to say that, but I'd still be immensely disappointed by him doing so.

And "In what way as a fan of both Brian and Mike am I 'religious cultist' based on my posts? And in what way are you addressing the big picture? I'm all ears."

Where did you address that?

You claimed to have already addressed these points. I'd like, since you're happy to dub me a 'religious cultist' for having made them, for you to either respond to said points, point to where you previously responded to said points (since you effectively said you had already done so) or apologise for calling me something I am not. Your call.

First off, I never said YOU were a religious cultist....

I've been pleading/preaching this whole time to just let Mike be Mike and maybe just learn to let things slide like we all do in our daily lives and accept that a man in his mid 70s is unlikely to change his tune regarding highly personal and emotionally charged topics and to perhaps not take his opinions on his family, band, and business quite so seriously .... Maybe pick our battles a bit better and not allow a stupid interview get us so worked up when its supposedly "all about the music"

As for Brian or Mike calling each other assholes: Brian's said he "can't stand Mike Love" so, I dunno where we can really go from there on such a topic.

I might not have addressed everything perfectly, but I appreciate you giving me the opportunity.

Appreciated your response. It sounds like we're pretty much on the same page anyway. I'd rather know who all of these guys are, especially at this stage in their lives, than have it filtered through some sort of antiseptic shield. I'm sure the last thing anyone wants Mike's book to be is some party-line towing 'fun in the sun, it was all great' tome. I legitimately am interested on hearing his take on the whole thing.

Bottom line is I thought Mike's comments here were uncalled for (the autotune quip strikes me as particularly cheap and unnecessary as I've mentioned), I don't deny or resent his right to make them. He's Mike Love, I'm not. I'm interested in what he says. This has been an interesting topic to discuss with people. I do not wish he'd never said them, and I wish the article hadn't been taken down because it's all pieces in a puzzle that as fans we can't help but want to figure out.

Yes in theory it should be all about the music, but the Beach Boys story is a compelling one of family, turmoil, anger, love, control etc. It's had too much impact on the music and the lineups and so on for us not to care. But - that said - the music is what will outlive us all.

Sorry if I came off as a dick to you. I don't like being pegged as being in one camp or the other, and as a humanist who came from a severely racist and abusive Christian background, I see the words 'religious cultist' and balk. Anyway, peace and love as Ringo would say (6 times a minute).

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

The points I clearly made back here:

For quick reference:

R.E. letting Mike have his opinion: "He's had it. No one stopped him having it. Who was trying to censor Mike? Not me. I simply came to a fan forum to give my opinion on his as a fan. Seems fair to me. Although tellingly, either David Beard or Mike has apparently chosen not to stand by said opinion given that the article has been removed."

Where did you address that?

R.E. dubbing me a 'religious cultist': I love Brian and Mike for all they've given us. If Mike called Brian an asshole, I'd think Mike was being an asshole. Same goes the other way. I'd argue perhaps Brian has more reason to say that, but I'd still be immensely disappointed by him doing so.

And "In what way as a fan of both Brian and Mike am I 'religious cultist' based on my posts? And in what way are you addressing the big picture? I'm all ears."

Where did you address that?

You claimed to have already addressed these points. I'd like, since you're happy to dub me a 'religious cultist' for having made them, for you to either respond to said points, point to where you previously responded to said points (since you effectively said you had already done so) or apologise for calling me something I am not. Your call.

First off, I never said YOU were a religious cultist....

I've been pleading/preaching this whole time to just let Mike be Mike and maybe just learn to let things slide like we all do in our daily lives and accept that a man in his mid 70s is unlikely to change his tune regarding highly personal and emotionally charged topics and to perhaps not take his opinions on his family, band, and business quite so seriously .... Maybe pick our battles a bit better and not allow a stupid interview get us so worked up when its supposedly "all about the music"

As for Brian or Mike calling each other assholes: Brian's said he "can't stand Mike Love" so, I dunno where we can really go from there on such a topic.

I might not have addressed everything perfectly, but I appreciate you giving me the opportunity.

Appreciated your response. It sounds like we're pretty much on the same page anyway. I'd rather know who all of these guys are, especially at this stage in their lives, than have it filtered through some sort of antiseptic shield. I'm sure the last thing anyone wants Mike's book to be is some party-line towing 'fun in the sun, it was all great' tome. I legitimately am interested on hearing his take on the whole thing.

Bottom line is I thought Mike's comments here were uncalled for (the autotune quip strikes me as particularly cheap and unnecessary as I've mentioned), I don't deny or resent his right to make them. He's Mike Love, I'm not. I'm interested in what he says. This has been an interesting topic to discuss with people. I do not wish he'd never said them, and I wish the article hadn't been taken down because it's all pieces in a puzzle that as fans we can't help but want to figure out.

Yes in theory it should be all about the music, but the Beach Boys story is a compelling one of family, turmoil, anger, love, control etc. It's had too much impact on the music and the lineups and so on for us not to care. But - that said - the music is what will outlive us all.

Sorry if I came off as a dick to you. I don't like being pegged as being in one camp or the other, and as a humanist who came from a severely racist and abusive Christian background, I see the words 'religious cultist' and balk. Anyway, peace and love as Ringo would say (6 times a minute).

And then Bono swoops in singing Peace On Earth!!!

And yeah, I will in no way pretend that the interview being pulled hasn't put any undue weight behind the comments in question!   .... I guess my own religious cult is The Great Wall Of Kokomo! (Good one SB )

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

Pinder is just derailing the thread to get it locked so Mike can't be bashed anymore.

Ok, If pleading the benefit of doubt for a fellow human being is what passes for derailing a thread: I'm guilty as charged.

Pinder...are you Mike Love? Or a close friend or family member? This is getting ridiculous, and that scenario is the only thing that makes sense of your fanatical defense of him in the face of all facts or reason.

I'm not ganging up on you because you're taking heat on this thread. You went overboard on me before for having the audacity to praise Brian more than Mike, to dare to insinuate that Mike may have been in the wrong about various things throughout the history of the band, and you even made the unfounded accusation that Mike wrote Vega-Tables. You wouldn't back down in the face of all evidence pointing to the contrary and challenged me to harass vdp about it to disprove your wild accusation.

I really don't understand yyourneed to police all discussion that isn't 100% unquestionably positive regarding Mike. Can you explain it to me?

[Micha]

Guys, the original article is back online, that is, a slightly revised version of it at the place it originally was. Mike's statements were reformatted, but the contents are unchanged.

http://www.examiner.com/article/mike-love-states-his-case

Original version:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.examiner.com/article/mike-love-states-his-case

I must say, like Pinder I don't find Mike's statements not that outraging at all. Everybody makes contradictory statements once in a while. Mike's done worse stuff than this.

And there is no mentioning of "handlers". It is unclear whether Mike means to say the press release originates from some unnamed management, a wife Mike doesn't like or elusive evil people who keep Brian under control.

Some posters suggested that while the press release was certainly not written by Brian, it may still describe Brian's true feelings about the whole matter. That could very well be the case, and Brian may just not dare to confront Mike in person. So Mike's perception that Brian "is a kind, and gentle spirit without a bitter bone in his body", if this is is really Mike's honest opinion, may result from Brian just not showing his bitter bones in Mike's presence.

Human relations tend to be so complicated...

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Pinder is just derailing the thread to get it locked so Mike can't be bashed anymore.

Ok, If pleading the benefit of doubt for a fellow human being is what passes for derailing a thread: I'm guilty as charged.

Pinder...are you Mike Love? Or a close friend or family member? This is getting ridiculous, and that scenario is the only thing that makes sense of your fanatical defense of him in the face of all facts or reason.

I'm not ganging up on you because you're taking heat on this thread. You went overboard on me before for having the audacity to praise Brian more than Mike, to dare to insinuate that Mike may have been in the wrong about various things throughout the history of the band, and you even made the unfounded accusation that Mike wrote Vega-Tables. You wouldn't back down in the face of all evidence pointing to the contrary and challenged me to harass vdp about it to disprove your wild accusation.

I really don't understand yyourneed to police all discussion that isn't 100% unquestionably positive regarding Mike. Can you explain it to me?

Oh come on now, man! I never insinuated that Mike wrote Vegetables, and this is case in point for how maddening it can be to be a Beach Boys fan but not a raging Brianista ..... Was the issue something along the lines of Mike getting a portion of credit for Vegetables on the royalty breakdown? Or something like that? .... Well, I recall saying something like, if I write a song, I can put my mom down in there for a share if I feel like it, or maybe Mike did something during the recording of the song that prompted Brian to cut him in. I dunno .... Does that sound about right?  If not, please illuminate me..... I certainly would have never stated MIKE WROTE VEGETABLES ..... Why do you guys always take such maddeningly earnest offense against anything that contradicts your own version of evens to the point where you either make things up or turn innocent statements into B.S like me saying Mike wrote Vegetables? ......

And I've explained my defense of Mike endlessly on this board only to be met by the same old wind blasting in my face ..... Don't bother asking a question if no possible answer is comprehendible to you.

Don't mean to be an ass, but this is something I've tried my best to articulate many many times over .... and it doesn't seem like you guys really care to understand it.

And it's not, for me at least, an issue of IS Mike wrong or HAS Mike ever been wrong, but rather HOW wrong he's been and HOW upset/enraged any of it is worth getting over. When it comes to Mike's "wrongs" the horizon seems to go away and it's just an endless house of mirrors.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Wow... just, like... wow.

[stack-o-tracks]

Wow... just, like... wow.

What?

[Micha]

I don't get it either.

[Please delete my account]

I don't get it either.

I'm guessing he means it's an awful lot of pages of posts that could have been cut and pasted from any other Pinder-vs-the-Mikebashers thread.

[HeyJude]

Guys, the original article is back online, that is, a slightly revised version of it at the place it originally was. Mike's statements were reformatted, but the contents are unchanged.

http://www.examiner.com/article/mike-love-states-his-case

Original version:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.examiner.com/article/mike-love-states-his-case

I must say, like Pinder I don't find Mike's statements not that outraging at all. Everybody makes contradictory statements once in a while. Mike's done worse stuff than this.

And there is no mentioning of "handlers". It is unclear whether Mike means to say the press release originates from some unnamed management, a wife Mike doesn't like or elusive evil people who keep Brian under control.

Some posters suggested that while the press release was certainly not written by Brian, it may still describe Brian's true feelings about the whole matter. That could very well be the case, and Brian may just not dare to confront Mike in person. So Mike's perception that Brian "is a kind, and gentle spirit without a bitter bone in his body", if this is is really Mike's honest opinion, may result from Brian just not showing his bitter bones in Mike's presence.

Human relations tend to be so complicated...

While there is no mention of the word “handlers” in the interview, the whole idea that the press release *couldn’t* have actually come from Brian but rather from someone else is, in my opinion, a continuation of the sentiment and verbiage that has been continually used to refer to those “around” Brian acting for him and/or against his wishes.

As you say, the possibility that Brian actually feels the way his press releases/agents, etc. portray him but simply doesn’t say it to Mike’s face is something Mike doesn’t allow as a possibility apparently.

But more to the point, there is NOTHING confrontational in the NPP press release, whether Brian wrote it himself or Stephen King wrote it. It conveys that Brian was planning on working on another BB album, but that didn’t happen, so he cut a solo album.

Beard’s current “version” of the article that is up online excerpts the NPP press release, then vaguely references other media outlets and how they may have interpreted the NPP press release. Yet, in the interview, Mike references NOT those other articles, but the original NPP press release, but seems to react to the NPP press release as if it is some inflammatory piece that points the finger at Mike. Why was this not followed up on?

[The Shift]

All back to the lack of proper communications between band members and the lack of specific Beach Bous management referenced by Howie. Doesn't matter how many times they chatted about the prospects of another album in be C50 dressing rooms, it needed formalising into a contract and no one picked that up and went with it. When one member says "we didn't talk about" I feel that means "we didn't talk about it formally". When another says "we did talk about it" I reckon that, likewise, they mean it was discussed informally ("wouldn't it be nice if?) but nothing substantial was put on the table for a formal BRI or band member meeting. They're still talking round in circles and I still think it was an opportunity missed, with no individual party to blame. Brian's album will be a beauty, I'm sure; and I'm sure that at one stage it might have been a Beach Boys album, either "as well as", or "instead of".

No matter, life goes on… and we lap up whatever crumbs they throw our way.

[HeyJude]

Re: The article getting pulled.

If the interviewer in that Mike interview saw what the answer was to the supposedly innocuous (HEAVILY loaded) question regarding his opinion on his bandmates' (whom there is nothing but badmouthing and bad blood) new single -- he could've turned it, explored it, gone deeper, if for no other reason than to adhere to party line that ESQ is unbiased. Which, frankly, it is not. (The simple fact that Ian and Jon's book -- the most important tome of the past 15 years in BB-dom -- went all but unexplored while the Bamboo band got heavy coverage in ESQ as if it was an actual professional Beach Boys offshoot group proves that. ESQ was involved in one of those projects and not in the other.)

Okay Howie… I am answering these charges as ESQEditor because that's where you're carelessly swinging your high and mighty axe.
1)  You don't know what is happening with the article, do you?

2)  What are your sources that indicate that there isn't something happening right now that explores the topic deeper?  Content that appears on Beach Boys Examiner is often exclusive of ESQ, so the two are not a self-contained entity.  They share one commonality… me.    

3)  You're wrong, ESQ — the magazine — is unbiased.  Unless you have read every edition of ESQ since 1993, then how could you comment on such a topic?  To make it easy for you, go to http://esquarterly.com/buy-ESQ.html and look at the contents.  Have there been more interviews recently with Mike (in 2014)?  Yes.  About the Beach Boys albums, and concert memories.  As you know, I also interviewed Al.  Brian's unavailability is why he did not appear, and the door is ALWAYS open to David.  Plain and simple.  Making anything more of it than that is simply untrue.  Don't believe me?  Ask them.  And I know you can.

4)   Jon and Ian's book is astounding, and I'm currently working with Ian to continue the discussion in ESQ since more information has come to light since the book was published.  I felt my four-star two-page spread review (Spring 2014 issue of ESQ) was ample space upon its release.  You could have very easily submitted an extended review of the book to run in ESQ.  That would have been fascinating.  The door remains open.  

5)   You really have a splinter up your ass about The Bamboo Trading Company.  I am sorry you didn't enjoy it.  I take that very seriously.  But please don't make a broad stroked comment about ESQ, because it is not fair to Lee Dempsey.  So it's, David Beard, not ESQ, that was extremely proud of his little pet project with a group of really gifted artists.  Unless, of course, you're saying that Gary Griffin, Randell Kirsch, Philip Bardowell, Matt Jardine, Probyn Gregory, Dean Torrence and David Marks are unfit for coverage, because that is who appears on the album.  There were two other members — Miami Dan Yoe and Chris English — who also had a chance to fulfill a lifelong wish of working with top drawer musicians.  But I get it, it isn't for you.

I don’t think it’s fair to post vague, open-ended questions to readers of your article suggesting they don’t know what you have planned for the article in question, or future articles.

I would suggest that *nothing* should be happening with the article now. That is, present tense, nothing should be happening. Maybe that’s part of what’s throwing some people off, and causing some questions in terms of journalistic methods. Typically, articles are written/composed, then published. The end. Whether nobody reads the article or a million people do and they’re all angry about it. It shouldn’t be pulled, or reformatted, or altered. It shouldn’t be suggested to readers that something *else* could still be happening to the article, or that the article shouldn’t be criticized because future unknown potential articles *may* shed additional light on the topic.

The article that was published should (and does) stand on its own. The article is an invitation to an unchallenged monologue/diatribe presented as some sort of interview or editorial. That the article was also pulled and reformatted is just more bizarre and rather unsettling from the point of view of a reader not to mention any historians/scholars of the group.

The point isn’t whether there is something *else* at some point coming that you feel will more deeply explore the topic. The article as it is has to stand on its own, and it comes across as a soap box opportunity for Mike to speak unchallenged. If there is more to this, if follow-up questions WERE asked *at the time* (not follow-up questions weeks or months later due to the uproar caused by the article), then that should have been included in the article.

As a reader and fan of this group, I was beyond perplexed that an interviewer would allow such a blatantly contradictory thing to be said (namely, that there was never any discussion of another BB album) without even attempting to challenge it. Why was there not at the *very* least a quick follow-up that went something like “Thanks for your thoughts Mike. Now, I do recall that back in 2012 you mentioned in some interviews that there had been discussions of another album, a return to the Grammies, etc. Can you clarify this?”

Given the style of ESQ articles and editorials in the past, I don’t think it’s unfair for readers/fans/scholars to assume or least wonder if a future editorial/piece will not necessarily appropriately and deeply address this whole reunion/C50/NPP issue in a hard-hitting fashion.

Further, I would also offer that while there isn’t much meat to the article outside of Mike’s monologue, I would strongly disagree with the commentary that there is “no real substantiation to the accusations” that a “30th Beach Boys album did not happen because of actions taken (or not taken) by Mike Love.” While it is a complex issue in many ways, there are plenty of indicators based on interviews/comments from many of the parties involved that there is plenty of substantiation. In fact, pretty much everything *but* this recent Mike commentary, including past interviews from Mike himself, substantiate that story to varying degrees. That doesn’t mean it was the *only* factor involved, and as the “set end date” thing proves, there are apparently widely differing opinions as to whether “inaction” is an action in and of itself. But to frame the story as if there is *nothing* to the story that indicates this is truly bizarre.