Mike Love on Love & Mercy: ‘Poor Brian, He’s Had a Rough, Rough Time’

[Cam Mott]

That peculiar moment when Cam Mott becomes the topic of dicussion...

I guess the PM function of the board is not working or something....?....

[filledeplage]

Here's Brian's response to questions regarding Mike Love (from this interview: http://icondv.com/interviews/brian-wilson-06-2015.html):

Is it fair to say you’re done with the Beach Boys after that last tour, and with the way that Mike Love dismissed everyone, aren’t you glad to be rid of them?

Yeah, that’s true, we’re done with the Beach Boys for now. I mean we might make another album at some point, who knows, but for now we’re over.

Talking about the Boys, in the film Love & Mercy, Mike Love comes across as a controlling jerk. Did the director Bill Pohlad portray him accurately? Did actor Jake Abel?

I don’t think he’s a jerk. I do believe that he was portrayed very well in that movie.


He was always on your back, though, to tend to the commercial rather than the artistic.

He was an anchor. He wrote a lot of the words to songs like “Good Vibrations.” And he’s a good man.

Holy s**t, those are not only lucid, thoughtful answers, but they’re dignified despite baiting from the interviewer to say something bad about Mike.

Again, Brian is being both more dignified *and* smarter PR-wise in taking the high road.

The Beach Boys/Brother collectively need a manager to get *all* of the guys to take the high road like that. A manager should be there so that a Mike Love interview reads like this:

Question: The “Love & Mercy” film has been getting a lot of attention lately. Have you seen the film, and what do you think of it?
Answer: I haven’t seen the film. But I wish Brian all the best with this film and with his upcoming tour.

Question: Drugs quite negatively impacted you and the band over the years, yes?
Answer: Drug and alcohol abuse hurt a lot of people and a lot of musical acts over the years. Thankfully, all of the Beach Boys are well past that stage these days, and we’re all healthy and active.

Unless Mike is repeatedly misquoted, he is either badly advised or he doesn't listen to it. A few answers like your suggested ones and Mike would see a change in people's perception of him.

Ang - it is impossible to "script" someone else.  And the drug issue "poor outcomes" among the band was discussed and "agreed upon" by the BB kids during C50 during some performance with Cal Saga.  I think it is a "given" that the use negatively affected several band members.  One of the charities that the touring band supports is City Year.  These are young high school grads who take off a year and work as mentors in inner city schools, where a great deal of the kids are what I'd call "drug orphans."  Many of these kids are those whose parents OD'd and are living with grandparents or extended families, or are in foster care, in process of adoption.  

For example, if the kid doesn't show up to school, the mentor calls the home and encourages the child to come into school, late or not.  Then, they tutor them for tests or help them catch up to be on grade level.  Some of these kids have witnessed their late parents high, psychotic, or have woken up to find them dead.  That is the reality.  Having taught decades in this demographic, this program that Mike supports, for this fragile population of students, to give them a swing at future success, shows that it isn't just "lip service" about substance abuse.  These kids might otherwise be "throw away" kids, many of whom have been the "collateral damage" of drugs.  I'm not convinced that the position Mike appears to hold, is a bad one.  And I also think that, in seeing the potential of people evaporate, from drugs use, or other "self-medication" it is a real point of frustration. But Mike is showing financial commitment to a school program that I have seen firsthand, actually work, and not full of a bunch of fakers, and truly help some of the poorest kids I've ever seen.

In the ICON interview Brian calls Mike a "good guy."  He must know.  They share common ancestors.

[Niko]

What I think reading any of Cam Motts responses:

[Cam Mott]

Then, wouldn't that invalidate the 'probably ' part?

Not in my dictionary.

1. The interviewer uses a quote from a reviewer about the movie regarding bickering during PS, Mike has just said he hasn't seen the movie and can't comment on it so he comments on how untrue the reviewer's characterization (and others) is about how it was with him and Brian during PS.  Not ridiculous at all, on topic and in context.

2. I didn't say anyone here HAD said anything different, I didn't see where anyone mentioned it at all but I haven't read every post.

3. See my post to EoL, please.

1. He doesn't comment on the reviewers perspective because he never denies the bickering. He just goes into a tangent about how he thinks people think he didn't want Pet Sounds released...and where he got that idea is beyond me.

2. Then why even bring it up?

3. Your post to EoL still makes no sense. You didn't need to be at a Landy therapy session to understand that changing your patients will to make you the main beneficiary is overstepping the bounds. Not to mention that Brian was visibly PHYSICALLY and more MENTALLY damaged under Landy's care. Saying "probably" to overstepping the bounds is ridiculous when faced with the obvious.

But defend away, Cam. As usual I was not disappointed by your solid logic and hard hitting points.

Well let me return the compliment because nothing you have said makes sense to me.

And, that, my friends, is why we're not getting anywhere. It's like describing a rainbow to Stevie Wonder...not going to happen no matter how hard we try. I don't know how else to spell it out aside from getting out the flash cards and sock puppets. My God, man...all the years I've known you on all the various BB boards. ...you used to be one of the most intelligent, well-spoken posters on any of the boards. Seriously...what the hell happened to you?  I'm seriously at a loss here.

And for the record, lest I be accused again of being anti-Mike, let me spell it out...I always give credit for credit is due. I'm on of the few people who *like* Looking back with Love, and I have an immense dislike of Imagination (although not as much as Orange Crate Art, which IMHO is the worst thing featuring vocals by a BB member apart from Going Pubic)

Oh I get everything you guys are saying but it makes as little sense to me as you fellas so graciously claim I make to you.

Stay classy fellas, once again making it personal. (slow clap)

Did I say you make no sense to me? Read my post again.

What makes no sense to me, is that the Cam Mott I used to know wasn't like this. I'm not being sarcastic when I say this, but I remember reading your posts discussing Smile back in the day and being quite impressed. I was like 'this guy really knows his sh*t'. That Cam Mott wouldn't be posting some of the stuff I've had the misfortune to read lately.  I'm not even convinced this *is* the same person, and not somebody using the same screen name.  But assuming it is...

You are seriously the only person on the board for whom Mike can do no wrong. He could go out and shoot video of him eating kittens alive, post it up on YouTube, and you would still think he walks on water. Even the biggest Mike defenders here can at least admit that this wasn't his best moment, and that he made a mistake in his comments. Except you. I get it...we have a few people here who are completely anti-Mike, and he can do no right in their eyes. So, you're the polar opposite. I get that. What I don't get is why. What makes Mike (or anybody) so special to you that you have to blindly worship him to the point where you can't admit his faults?  Or, is it just to be contrary, because you enjoy the debate and back-and-forth, and love see people get annoyed? I honestly want to know.

So yeah, I posted what I did, because you'd be surprised how many people here would throw a party if you weren't here, because they think you're just trying to start sh*t. I posted what I did to basically say 'guys, it's not that, it's that he just doesn't get it '

I'll get back to you on this.

Meanwhile, I have my days. I'm not published but I've done original research. Not just Google research and bloviating as fact but the kind where you write to courts and businesses for records and documents and talk to the actual people involved on the phone and by snail mail and e-mail and meet them for lunch in person. I've done my homework.  I'll put my contributions on the various iterations of this board up against any of you who so publically hold such strong and dismissive opinions of me.

OT, Mike has a public record of not being supportive of Landy but some how I'm supposed to twist the word "probably" into something contrary to his record on the subject. And I'm supposedly the revisionist.  

[HeyJude]

Again, Brian is being both more dignified *and* smarter PR-wise in taking the high road.

The Beach Boys/Brother collectively need a manager to get *all* of the guys to take the high road like that. A manager should be there so that a Mike Love interview reads like this:

Question: The “Love & Mercy” film has been getting a lot of attention lately. Have you seen the film, and what do you think of it?
Answer: I haven’t seen the film. But I wish Brian all the best with this film and with his upcoming tour.

Question: Drugs quite negatively impacted you and the band over the years, yes?
Answer: Drug and alcohol abuse hurt a lot of people and a lot of musical acts over the years. Thankfully, all of the Beach Boys are well past that stage these days, and we’re all healthy and active.

Those would be the answers of a respectable man. As many times as Mike has been interviewed throughout his career, it should be such a simple thing by now.

C'mon guys. This role playing is the ultimate BB-nerd trait. Devoting time to writing toy-scripts for Mike Love is a little too much. He's 74. Nobody changes at that age; he'll keep being like he is. Take it or leave it. He's capable of graciousness kindness and warm-heartedness too, as proven so many times. He's a cool guy by accounts of the many fans that meet him. But he'll rub these Brian-related topics on people's noses forever.

Um, yeah, I don’t think anyone is actually trying to roleplay or write scripts. But there are a small number of folks here who seem oddly incredulous about why most everyone else feels Mike comes across as a total tool in this recent interview (and many others). So, in a quick attempt to offer a vague idea of what *would* be a response that would theoretically be more agreeable, I offered the above.

And, the larger point was that if there was a MANAGER for the *entire* band, working to keep the band and brand in good standing, they’d ask or train Mike to give answers more like the above and less like the interviews he typically gives.

The thing is, I typically don’t enjoy answers that deflect and don’t answer anything. I’m actually *not* big on the “let’s just talk about positive stuff in the future” sort of responses. But Mike comes across so poorly in many interviews, I think such answers are the only way he could manage to not damage his own reputation to say nothing of damaging the band’s brand.  

[marcusb]

OT, Mike has a public record of not being supportive of Landy but some how I'm supposed to twist the word "probably" into something contrary to his record on the subject. And I'm supposedly the revisionist.  

I think it's more than just the "probably". It's that he entertains Evan Landy's viewpoint as being valid, is familiar with the article AND still hasn't seen L&M or heard NPP. It doesn't add up.

[Cam Mott]

OT, Mike has a public record of not being supportive of Landy but some how I'm supposed to twist the word "probably" into something contrary to his record on the subject. And I'm supposedly the revisionist. 

I think it's more than just the "probably". It's that he entertains Evan Landy's viewpoint as being valid, is familiar with the article AND still hasn't seen L&M or heard NPP. It doesn't add up.

But the context is the guy asked two questions about the story/portrayal in L&M and Mike hasn't seen the movie (he was in England it has been pointed out) and Mike comes back with a story related to the story/portrayal he has seen. How do we get from that to he suddenly is supportive of Landy contrary to his public stance. I suggest he is not and it is not in his words.

[marcusb]

OT, Mike has a public record of not being supportive of Landy but some how I'm supposed to twist the word "probably" into something contrary to his record on the subject. And I'm supposedly the revisionist.  

I think it's more than just the "probably". It's that he entertains Evan Landy's viewpoint as being valid, is familiar with the article AND still hasn't seen L&M or heard NPP. It doesn't add up.

But the context is the guy asked two questions about the story/portrayal in L&M and Mike hasn't seen the movie (he was in England it has been pointed out) and Mike come back with a story related to the story/portrayal he has seen. How do we get from that to he suddenly is supportive of Landy contrary to his public stance. I suggest he is not and it is not in his words.

Well, maybe he just shouldn't say anything at all then.

[Hank Briarstem]

Ah yes, which one of us hasn’t longed for the inevitable “Cam Mott” thread! Cam Mott, an anagram of “Tom M. Cat.” Coincidence? I think not.

Cam, as many of you aware – I restate for the young folks – was born in Dodge City during its raucous Old West heyday. Bill Hickock called Cam – then known as Doc Halliday – as the deadliest pistolero in the country. Cam became disillusioned with his life in Dodge and moved with his mongrel pup Bosco to Hutchinson, Kansas, where he first became acquainted with Bill and Edith Wilson and was to learn everything he would need to know about parsnip.

During the great California migration, Cam lived for a time on the beach, making a modest living reading palms and Tarot cards. His prediction to a very young Murry Wilson that the youngster would “take a side-step in the music business before enjoying greater success as a one-eyed jack of a business manager” had a great impact on the young Wilson and was instrumental in the latter’s relocation to Hawthorne, a move dictated by numerology.

Cam was a restless man, though, and moved to San Francisco, where he became a much-praised haberdasher. His insistence that striped ties could work well with checked shirts at first drew him derision but later caused him to be celebrated throughout the San Francisco fashion scene.

Cam became acquainted with Jerry Garcia and invented a tie-dye process that was to become quite the rage. The Grateful Dead often called Cam “our fifth Beatle,” though Cam misunderstood and became enraged at being considered an insect.

But Cam’s contacts in the fashion and music businesses brought him to the attention of Mike Love, and he designed the Beach Boys singer’s first turban. Mike was quite impressed and invited him on a band tour where he lectured on the benefits of pure cotton as a warm-up “act” for the Boys. The tour was unsuccessful as the “hip crowd” was deeply into polyester and saw Cam as “square” and the Beach Boys as “out of it.” The Beatles’ “Polythene Pam” is widely seen as a caustic answer to Cam’s – and by extension, the Beach Boys’ – love of cotton. Al Jardine’s “Cottonfields” re-make was cited as evidence by the cognoscenti that the striped-shirt surfers and their fashionable guru were “no more with it than an accountant from Schenectady (see Dylan’s “Ballad of a Thin Man.”)

Cam calmly invented the cooking spray “Pam,” subtly but devastatingly answering the Beatles and becoming a billionaire. This dagger is often cited as the true reason for the break-up of the Beatles, and Cam lived with Yoko for a time during Lennon’s affair with May Pang.

Brian Wilson loved Cam, who taught him how to tie a proper Windsor knot, and it was Cam who boxed Gene Landy during a charity event at the Hollywood Bowl, blacked his eye and caused Brian to tell friends, “This Cam is some fellow.”

Cam disappeared from the music scene for a time – some think he was in Tibet, gaining enlightenment, but there are credible reports of his having been spotted in Vegas with Maureen McCormack, the erstwhile Marcia Brady. We might never know, though his influence on the lyrics of “Brian is Back” are clear, so he wasn’t as absent from the Beach Boys scene as some have suggested.

At any rate, I find the Cam story fascinating, and I find his contributions to the message board immensely valuable. The idea that he is a Mike Love apologist is, of course, absurd. Courage is required to take an unpopular position, and every conversation benefits from balance and the ability to consider all sides. That we do not agree with a position does not force us to slough it off as being invalid.

An old man and incontinent, my viewpoints in recent years have moderated on many subjects, and I am far less likely to joke about the invaluable product “Depends.” I have the silly notion that the word “probably” is creating entirely too much angst. I am far more troubled by the seeming support of the younger Landy’s contentions.
 
The nuance of meaning of the tricky little adverb “probably” is worth recalling – a definition that encompasses the words “very likely.” I doubt that Mike Love has significantly changed his position regarding the elder Landy. I do, however, think that by pointing out the younger Landy’s interview Mike is making an attempt, perhaps unconsciously, to create some doubt about the accuracy of the film’s viewpoint. I find that understandable.

Mike Love is neither absolute saint nor absolute sinner. Ironically, his cousin Brian seems most to understand this. The Wilson brothers weren’t alone in being damaged by Murry Wilson.
Cam’s comments – whether we agree are disagree with them – add value to any discussion of the Beach Boys history. His is a great reservoir of knowledge and insight. If he is absent from the mainstream in his views, the value certainly increases. The mainstream would have demanded more songs such as “California Girls” and “Salt Lake City.” Cam finds himself in the “Heroes & Villains” camp, and I say bully for him.

The fact that Cam makes this time while also working for the CIA as an Arabic interpreter only adds to my admiration. Tom M. Cat indeed!

[Cam Mott]

OT, Mike has a public record of not being supportive of Landy but some how I'm supposed to twist the word "probably" into something contrary to his record on the subject. And I'm supposedly the revisionist. 

I think it's more than just the "probably". It's that he entertains Evan Landy's viewpoint as being valid, is familiar with the article AND still hasn't seen L&M or heard NPP. It doesn't add up.

But the context is the guy asked two questions about the story/portrayal in L&M and Mike hasn't seen the movie (he was in England it has been pointed out) and Mike come back with a story related to the story/portrayal he has seen. How do we get from that to he suddenly is supportive of Landy contrary to his public stance. I suggest he is not and it is not in his words.

Well, maybe he just shouldn't say anything at all then.

That is an option but maybe the problem is us.

[Cam Mott]

Ah yes, which one of us hasn’t longed for the inevitable “Cam Mott” thread! Cam Mott, an anagram of “Tom M. Cat.” Coincidence? I think not.

Cam, as many of you aware – I restate for the young folks – was born in Dodge City during its raucous Old West heyday. Bill Hickock called Cam – then known as Doc Halliday – as the deadliest pistolero in the country. Cam became disillusioned with his life in Dodge and moved with his mongrel pup Bosco to Hutchinson, Kansas, where he first became acquainted with Bill and Edith Wilson and was to learn everything he would need to know about parsnip.

During the great California migration, Cam lived for a time on the beach, making a modest living reading palms and Tarot cards. His prediction to a very young Murry Wilson that the youngster would “take a side-step in the music business before enjoying greater success as a one-eyed jack of a business manager” had a great impact on the young Wilson and was instrumental in the latter’s relocation to Hawthorne, a move dictated by numerology.

Cam was a restless man, though, and moved to San Francisco, where he became a much-praised haberdasher. His insistence that striped ties could work well with checked shirts at first drew him derision but later caused him to be celebrated throughout the San Francisco fashion scene.

Cam became acquainted with Jerry Garcia and invented a tie-dye process that was to become quite the rage. The Grateful Dead often called Cam “our fifth Beatle,” though Cam misunderstood and became enraged at being considered an insect.

But Cam’s contacts in the fashion and music businesses brought him to the attention of Mike Love, and he designed the Beach Boys singer’s first turban. Mike was quite impressed and invited him on a band tour where he lectured on the benefits of pure cotton as a warm-up “act” for the Boys. The tour was unsuccessful as the “hip crowd” was deeply into polyester and saw Cam as “square” and the Beach Boys as “out of it.” The Beatles’ “Polythene Pam” is widely seen as a caustic answer to Cam’s – and by extension, the Beach Boys’ – love of cotton. Al Jardine’s “Cottonfields” re-make was cited as evidence by the cognoscenti that the striped-shirt surfers and their fashionable guru were “no more with it than an accountant from Schenectady (see Dylan’s “Ballad of a Thin Man.”)

Cam calmly invented the cooking spray “Pam,” subtly but devastatingly answering the Beatles and becoming a billionaire. This dagger is often cited as the true reason for the break-up of the Beatles, and Cam lived with Yoko for a time during Lennon’s affair with May Pang.

Brian Wilson loved Cam, who taught him how to tie a proper Windsor knot, and it was Cam who boxed Gene Landy during a charity event at the Hollywood Bowl, blacked his eye and caused Brian to tell friends, “This Cam is some fellow.”

Cam disappeared from the music scene for a time – some think he was in Tibet, gaining enlightenment, but there are credible reports of his having been spotted in Vegas with Maureen McCormack, the erstwhile Marcia Brady. We might never know, though his influence on the lyrics of “Brian is Back” are clear, so he wasn’t as absent from the Beach Boys scene as some have suggested.

At any rate, I find the Cam story fascinating, and I find his contributions to the message board immensely valuable. The idea that he is a Mike Love apologist is, of course, absurd. Courage is required to take an unpopular position, and every conversation benefits from balance and the ability to consider all sides. That we do not agree with a position does not force us to slough it off as being invalid.

An old man and incontinent, my viewpoints in recent years have moderated on many subjects, and I am far less likely to joke about the invaluable product “Depends.” I have the silly notion that the word “probably” is creating entirely too much angst. I am far more troubled by the seeming support of the younger Landy’s contentions.
 
The nuance of meaning of the tricky little adverb “probably” is worth recalling – a definition that encompasses the words “very likely.” I doubt that Mike Love has significantly changed his position regarding the elder Landy. I do, however, think that by pointing out the younger Landy’s interview Mike is making an attempt, perhaps unconsciously, to create some doubt about the accuracy of the film’s viewpoint. I find that understandable.

Mike Love is neither absolute saint nor absolute sinner. Ironically, his cousin Brian seems most to understand this. The Wilson brothers weren’t alone in being damaged by Murry Wilson.
Cam’s comments – whether we agree are disagree with them – add value to any discussion of the Beach Boys history. His is a great reservoir of knowledge and insight. If he is absent from the mainstream in his views, the value certainly increases. The mainstream would have demanded more songs such as “California Girls” and “Salt Lake City.” Cam finds himself in the “Heroes & Villains” camp, and I say bully for him.

The fact that Cam makes this time while also working for the CIA as an Arabic interpreter only adds to my admiration. Tom M. Cat indeed!

Now I have to kill you Hank.

[Hank Briarstem]

Would you perhaps consider instead sacrificing my fourth wife, Pearl? She has a particularly annoying hacking cough.

[Cam Mott]

Would you perhaps consider instead sacrificing my fourth wife, Pearl? She has a particularly annoying hacking cough.

I guessssssss.....

[Douchepool]

>TFW the last five posts of this thread have been more entertaining than the rest of the thread combined

[wilsonart1]

Like Brian said;, Itch my ass Mike, It's been bothering me for years. Cam it's suddenly gone!

[Wirestone]

Mike gives interview in which he makes himself look bad.

Cam turns it into a symposium on the definition of a word.

The only way to win is not to play.

[Doo Dah]

Cam Mott - the Baghdad Bob of the Beach Boys community.

[Ang Jones]

Here's Brian's response to questions regarding Mike Love (from this interview: http://icondv.com/interviews/brian-wilson-06-2015.html):

Is it fair to say you’re done with the Beach Boys after that last tour, and with the way that Mike Love dismissed everyone, aren’t you glad to be rid of them?

Yeah, that’s true, we’re done with the Beach Boys for now. I mean we might make another album at some point, who knows, but for now we’re over.

Talking about the Boys, in the film Love & Mercy, Mike Love comes across as a controlling jerk. Did the director Bill Pohlad portray him accurately? Did actor Jake Abel?

I don’t think he’s a jerk. I do believe that he was portrayed very well in that movie.


He was always on your back, though, to tend to the commercial rather than the artistic.

He was an anchor. He wrote a lot of the words to songs like “Good Vibrations.” And he’s a good man.

Holy s**t, those are not only lucid, thoughtful answers, but they’re dignified despite baiting from the interviewer to say something bad about Mike.

Again, Brian is being both more dignified *and* smarter PR-wise in taking the high road.

The Beach Boys/Brother collectively need a manager to get *all* of the guys to take the high road like that. A manager should be there so that a Mike Love interview reads like this:

Question: The “Love & Mercy” film has been getting a lot of attention lately. Have you seen the film, and what do you think of it?
Answer: I haven’t seen the film. But I wish Brian all the best with this film and with his upcoming tour.

Question: Drugs quite negatively impacted you and the band over the years, yes?
Answer: Drug and alcohol abuse hurt a lot of people and a lot of musical acts over the years. Thankfully, all of the Beach Boys are well past that stage these days, and we’re all healthy and active.

Unless Mike is repeatedly misquoted, he is either badly advised or he doesn't listen to it. A few answers like your suggested ones and Mike would see a change in people's perception of him.

Ang - it is impossible to "script" someone else.  And the drug issue "poor outcomes" among the band was discussed and "agreed upon" by the BB kids during C50 during some performance with Cal Saga.  I think it is a "given" that the use negatively affected several band members.  One of the charities that the touring band supports is City Year.  These are young high school grads who take off a year and work as mentors in inner city schools, where a great deal of the kids are what I'd call "drug orphans."  Many of these kids are those whose parents OD'd and are living with grandparents or extended families, or are in foster care, in process of adoption.  

For example, if the kid doesn't show up to school, the mentor calls the home and encourages the child to come into school, late or not.  Then, they tutor them for tests or help them catch up to be on grade level.  Some of these kids have witnessed their late parents high, psychotic, or have woken up to find them dead.  That is the reality.  Having taught decades in this demographic, this program that Mike supports, for this fragile population of students, to give them a swing at future success, shows that it isn't just "lip service" about substance abuse.  These kids might otherwise be "throw away" kids, many of whom have been the "collateral damage" of drugs.  I'm not convinced that the position Mike appears to hold, is a bad one.  And I also think that, in seeing the potential of people evaporate, from drugs use, or other "self-medication" it is a real point of frustration. But Mike is showing financial commitment to a school program that I have seen firsthand, actually work, and not full of a bunch of fakers, and truly help some of the poorest kids I've ever seen.

In the ICON interview Brian calls Mike a "good guy."  He must know.  They share common ancestors.

I'm not seriously suggesting that we provide Mike with a script.  I just think that if he had worded his remarks in the way suggested he'd have irritated fewer people. Nor am I endorsing drugs. But it isn't necessary to mention what Brian did years ago in every interview. Brian doesn't go over Mike's failings on a regular basis and I am sure  there are many things Brian could say if he wished. In fact by coming across as jealous of his cousin, Mike arouses a lot of hostility towards himself. He might be able to raise even more money for charity if he had a more charitable attitude  towards his cousin. The  'he partly brought it upon himself' implication in that interview was IMO ill considered.

[Autotune]

Mott adds balance to anti-Mike threads. He's respectful and well-informed. The frustration in the anti-Mike crowd because they cannot convice him that Mike is the devil is highly amusing. So are the self-praising introductions before spilling crap on Mike ("I have defended Mike many times", "God knows I have a balanced view of things", etc.).

Turning a thread about the greatness of a UK tour setlist into an anti-Mike raid was one thing; turning one a about an interview into a Cam Mott chase is way too much.

[Autotune]

Here's Brian's response to questions regarding Mike Love (from this interview: http://icondv.com/interviews/brian-wilson-06-2015.html):

Is it fair to say you’re done with the Beach Boys after that last tour, and with the way that Mike Love dismissed everyone, aren’t you glad to be rid of them?

Yeah, that’s true, we’re done with the Beach Boys for now. I mean we might make another album at some point, who knows, but for now we’re over.

Talking about the Boys, in the film Love & Mercy, Mike Love comes across as a controlling jerk. Did the director Bill Pohlad portray him accurately? Did actor Jake Abel?

I don’t think he’s a jerk. I do believe that he was portrayed very well in that movie.


He was always on your back, though, to tend to the commercial rather than the artistic.

He was an anchor. He wrote a lot of the words to songs like “Good Vibrations.” And he’s a good man.

Holy s**t, those are not only lucid, thoughtful answers, but they’re dignified despite baiting from the interviewer to say something bad about Mike.

Again, Brian is being both more dignified *and* smarter PR-wise in taking the high road.

The Beach Boys/Brother collectively need a manager to get *all* of the guys to take the high road like that. A manager should be there so that a Mike Love interview reads like this:

Question: The “Love & Mercy” film has been getting a lot of attention lately. Have you seen the film, and what do you think of it?
Answer: I haven’t seen the film. But I wish Brian all the best with this film and with his upcoming tour.

Question: Drugs quite negatively impacted you and the band over the years, yes?
Answer: Drug and alcohol abuse hurt a lot of people and a lot of musical acts over the years. Thankfully, all of the Beach Boys are well past that stage these days, and we’re all healthy and active.

Unless Mike is repeatedly misquoted, he is either badly advised or he doesn't listen to it. A few answers like your suggested ones and Mike would see a change in people's perception of him.

Ang - it is impossible to "script" someone else.  And the drug issue "poor outcomes" among the band was discussed and "agreed upon" by the BB kids during C50 during some performance with Cal Saga.  I think it is a "given" that the use negatively affected several band members.  One of the charities that the touring band supports is City Year.  These are young high school grads who take off a year and work as mentors in inner city schools, where a great deal of the kids are what I'd call "drug orphans."  Many of these kids are those whose parents OD'd and are living with grandparents or extended families, or are in foster care, in process of adoption.  

For example, if the kid doesn't show up to school, the mentor calls the home and encourages the child to come into school, late or not.  Then, they tutor them for tests or help them catch up to be on grade level.  Some of these kids have witnessed their late parents high, psychotic, or have woken up to find them dead.  That is the reality.  Having taught decades in this demographic, this program that Mike supports, for this fragile population of students, to give them a swing at future success, shows that it isn't just "lip service" about substance abuse.  These kids might otherwise be "throw away" kids, many of whom have been the "collateral damage" of drugs.  I'm not convinced that the position Mike appears to hold, is a bad one.  And I also think that, in seeing the potential of people evaporate, from drugs use, or other "self-medication" it is a real point of frustration. But Mike is showing financial commitment to a school program that I have seen firsthand, actually work, and not full of a bunch of fakers, and truly help some of the poorest kids I've ever seen.

In the ICON interview Brian calls Mike a "good guy."  He must know.  They share common ancestors.

I'm not seriously suggesting that we provide Mike with a script.  I just think that if he had worded his remarks in the way suggested he'd have irritated fewer people. Nor am I endorsing drugs. But it isn't necessary to mention what Brian did years ago in every interview. Brian doesn't go over Mike's failings on a regular basis and I am sure  there are many things Brian could say if he wished. In fact by coming across as jealous of his cousin, Mike arouses a lot of hostility towards himself. He might be able to raise even more money for charity if he had a more charitable attitude  towards his cousin. The  'he partly brought it upon himself' implication in that interview was IMO ill considered.

Ang, you recently derailed a thread about the UK tour with ill-informed comments. It's easier to expect greatness from other people, I know, but you didn't come out too good yourself either.

[Mike's Beard]

Mott adds balance to anti-Mike threads. He's respectful and well-informed. The frustration in the anti-Mike crowd because they cannot convice him that Mike is the devil is highly amusing. So are the self-praising introductions before spilling crap on Mike ("I have defended Mike many times", "God knows I have a balanced view of things", etc.).

Turning a thread about the greatness of a UK tour setlist into an anti-Mike raid was one thing; turning one a about an interview into a Cam Mott chase is way too much.

True. Challenge and debate Cam all you want but there's no need to attack him on a personal level. Speaking of which, Cam it's clear that Mike has always loathed Landy for what he did and I don't believe that he no longer does BUT if I'd never have heard of The Beach Boys or Landy or Mike Love before yesterday and I'd gone in cold and read that interview, I honestly would have thought that Mike was at least open to the possibility that Landy has been painted in too harsh a light.

[Douchepool]

Mott adds balance to anti-Mike threads. He's respectful and well-informed. The frustration in the anti-Mike crowd because they cannot convice him that Mike is the devil is highly amusing. So are the self-praising introductions before spilling crap on Mike ("I have defended Mike many times", "God knows I have a balanced view of things", etc.).

Turning a thread about the greatness of a UK tour setlist into an anti-Mike raid was one thing; turning one a about an interview into a Cam Mott chase is way too much.

Attacking the person making the argument is a logical fallacy. Prime fodder for the Brianistas.

[Mike's Beard]

Also no one seems willing to mention the elephant in the room so I might as well. Does anybody else think it might not be so much a case of Mike softening his stance on what Landy did and more a case of him unwilling to publicly give too much credit to Melinda, who from what I can gather is pretty much portrayed in the movie as the sole person responsible for ridding Brian of Landy?

[Douchepool]

That's another way to think about it. Gotta give Carl (especially Carl) his own due for trying to get the situation resolved. The other Beach Boys, of course. Audree as well.

[ontor pertawst]

publicly give too much credit to Melinda, who from what I can gather is pretty much portrayed in the movie as the sole person responsible for ridding Brian of Landy?

She's not. The movie shows Carl and Audree involved and the closing text makes it clear the Wilson family intervened. Let's not pretend the film is something easier to knock down and attack, ok? Maybe Mike and some of you guys should watch it first before jumping to conclusions based on trailers and weird obsessions with Melinda Wilson.