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

[guitarfool2002]

Thing is, you're wrong. Did you see the movie? Then don't say dumb sh*t like "from what I can gather is pretty much portrayed in the movie as the sole person responsible for ridding Brian of Landy."

That's just flat-out wrong. They indeed include Carl/Audree/Gloria and the ending text makes it clear what happened. Don't try to blur the lines and change facts to suit your argument.

Clearly I haven't seen the movie as it's not been released over in the UK yet. I have read that Carl is hardly in the thing and as he had a large part in removing Landy from the picture thought that maybe he might be glossed over somewhat.

Fact check: The only ones who could legally intervene in such a situation were family. After the issue of the changed will and estate of Brian Wilson was discovered as hard evidence, they did. And in that situation, again, they were the only ones who had a legal ability to take the matter to the courts.

[guitarfool2002]

My issue in all of this is a basic one. There have been several posts this past week about Evan Landy, with suggestions that his "perspective" should be considered equally alongside that of Brian's wife, or others who witnessed what went on. I'm kind of amazed to read that, and I might appeal to common sense at some point to look at the source.

On one hand, you cannot equate who was basically a paid employee tasked with keeping an eye on a doctor's patient with one's own spouse or family. No matter how close or personal some might suggest the employee (and doctor's staff in general) may have gotten to their patient (Brian Wilson, obviously), there is still a combination of medical, legal, and ethical guidelines in play as that doctor was paid to treat his patient. Anyone on that staff could have become as close to the patient as they might claim in a personal way, but they were still employees and bound to a certain set of ethical and legal codes of behavior that are strictly monitored and regulated by any number of overseers and legal authorities.

I've said before - the nuclear bomb of an issue that destroys each and every claim made by any Landy associates is the changing of that will. Under even the most forgiving standards, a doctor in this type of employ cannot change a patient's will as was attempted by Landy.

Consider Landy's son and this recent interview that mysteriously appears the very week the film has its premiere. And somewhat less mysteriously, the issue of the will was *never* mentioned in that interview and article. Instead, we get a defense of Dr. Gene Landy from his son. Spot the elephant in the room? It's sitting right there if you want to see it.

This man stood to become one of the benefactors of Brian's will and estate had Melinda Ledbetter and Gloria Ramos not intervened as they did. They needed proof, but did not have the legal authority to act on it - only the immediate family could take it further. And once they were contacted, they did through the legal system.

If anyone can show otherwise, put your cards on the table. [/color][/size]

So to see even a mild suggestion that a man's "perspective" who stood to benefit from what most would consider an immoral, unethical, and possibly illegal action of changing a patient's will to write out his own family and replace them with his doctor and his family (and associates)...it absolutely boggles the mind, or at least my mind. It makes no sense.

And to further see that a man's word who was defending such actions in a tabloid interview that appeared out of nowhere and ignoring the key issue that prevented him and his family from taking another man's estate and life's work is being *referenced* as something to consider in even a slight way...

It's maddening. And the reactions of fans and observers and anyone who knows the story beyond a tabloid article would seem to be expected, and not unjustified. Unless there are those who would place on an equal footing the words of a paid employee who was witness to all kinds of abuses of power and authority versus a man's own wife of several decades.

And it may suggest an extreme form of scraping the bottom of the barrel to hold up something like last week's tabloid interview as worthy of consideration.

It's worthy of scorn and dismissal.

[SMiLE Brian]

Repost as necessary to set everybody strait!

[Cam Mott]

Cam, what would you think of Evan Landy saying Gene "probably" went too far?
How about if Alexandra Morgan also said Gene "probably" went too far?
And lastly, what if Murry said that he (Murry) himself "probably" went too far in disciplining his kids?

Does the word "probably" strike you as perhaps a bit soft and inappropriate in any of those cases?

I would think they thought he went too far, especially if they had already gone public saying he went too far.

And you would not think that the term "probably" was objectionable, even for Murry talking about beating his kids?

Look CD, I am talking about this interview, I guess I didn't read your hypotheticals closely enough. Sorry.

When Mike says "probably" I think he means he thinks it happened, he thought it happened so much that he was publically denouncing it and still is denouncing it.

Also, to the no one who agrees with or reads my posts, since when is thinking a point of view is interesting or worth hearing an endorsement or agreement with that point of view? Especially if one has denounced the subject of that point of view.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

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.).

Oh, so now you want to take a shot at me? You're picking the wrong person, son.  I happen to NOT be anti-Mike. Despite you wanting to throw '("I have defended Mike many times", "God knows I have a balanced view of things", etc.).' back at me, it happens to be true. My frustration happens to not be 'I'm trying to convince Cam Mott that Mike is the devil', but rather his complete unwillingness to admit that Mike made a mistake...like, ever.  Same frustration I've posted when certain people always criticize Mike to the point of never giving him any credit. So don't try to turn that against me. You're just making yourself look foolish. I mean, for f***'s sake, even in this very thread, I posted that maybe the way many of us are reading Mike's statement is wrong. Before you take a shot at me, make sure you know what you're talking about first.


Why is it people have to be 100% pro- or anti- anybody here? God forbid anybody respect both Mike AND Brian. God forbid someone criticizes either one of them when they deserve it.

[Mendota Heights]

Mott adds balance to anti-Mike threads.

If one needs to resort to asshat logic to defend something is that something really worth defending?

[Douchepool]

Why is it people have to be 100% pro- or anti- anybody here? God forbid anybody respect both Mike AND Brian. God forbid someone criticizes either one of them when they deserve it.

 

[Mike's Beard]

Mike's book is going to be pure gold. That thing will guarantee that this board doesn't run out of pissy, sniping threads for years to come.

[Douchepool]

Hope you guys have lots of Mountain Dew...the threads on here will go on far longer than a World of Warcraft raid.

[CenturyDeprived]

Cam, what would you think of Evan Landy saying Gene "probably" went too far?
How about if Alexandra Morgan also said Gene "probably" went too far?
And lastly, what if Murry said that he (Murry) himself "probably" went too far in disciplining his kids?

Does the word "probably" strike you as perhaps a bit soft and inappropriate in any of those cases?

I would think they thought he went too far, especially if they had already gone public saying he went too far.

And you would not think that the term "probably" was objectionable, even for Murry talking about beating his kids?

Look CD, I am talking about this interview, I guess I didn't read your hypotheticals closely enough. Sorry.

When Mike says "probably" I think he means he thinks it happened, he thought it happened so much that he was publically denouncing it and still is denouncing it.

Also, to the no one who agrees with or reads my posts, since when is thinking a point of view is interesting or worth hearing an endorsement or agreement with that point of view? Especially if one has denounced the subject of that point of view.

Cam: I am just trying to get an understanding of how anybody could find the term "probably" ok to use in context of talking about unarguably despicable actions.

For the record... I honestly, truthfully, do NOT think that Mike only "probably" thinks Landy went too far. I think 2015 Mike absolutely thinks Landy went too far.

But for whatever reason, be it politics, trying to throw a monkey wrench into the significant praise the film has been getting, or possible onset of senility (hey, it sadly happened to Glen Campbell - I would hate to think it could happen to another contemporary within his age bracket, but it's possible)... regardless of the reason why Mike changed his tone on Landy from his 1980s POV (where Mike seemed to have rage and tears, which I didn't/don't doubt for a moment were truthful) to a current 2015 lighter stance of using the term "probably"... he did in fact change that term.  

Just because he previously talked about Landy in a more stern way, he DID change the way he talked about him in 2015. THAT HAPPENED. And I'm not even trying to get into a discussion with you about why that happened. I'm trying to say that the word is not right to use.

The fact is that it's grossly inappropriate for a term to be used that could in any way, shape or form allow for interpretation that can even slightly excuse actions such as changing Brian's will.

-----------

I will ask you again:

if Murry Wilson were to have publicly said that his beating his sons was "probably" going too far (even if you believed that Murry actually had developed true regret, and really honestly inside believed 100% that he went too far, but for some reason only said the term "probably")... could you agree that in a circumstance such as that, that the term "probably" would not be an idea term to use?

Can you let me know what you think of that specific question?

[Paul J B]

Cam.....seriously....Mike's comments were lame and seemed to be intentionally meant to discredit the movie. There is no logical reason to bring up anything by Evan Landy and reference it in a question about the movie. None. If he knew that clown had come out of the woodwork and made comments about Gene in a tabloid rag then he knows the vast majority of people that have seen the film have immense praise for it. So why then does Mike have to say something that will obviously be taken as antagonistic? Most of the time when people go off on Mike around here it's unwarranted. In this instance he deserves the flak.

[SMiLE Brian]

Hope you guys have lots of Mountain Dew...the threads on here will go on far longer than a World of Warcraft raid.

Or the cassius vs. sonny thread here.

[Cam Mott]

My frustration happens to not be 'I'm trying to convince Cam Mott that Mike is the devil', but rather his complete unwillingness to admit that Mike made a mistake...like, ever.  

I guess you haven't read my numerous "Wrinkles" posts.

[Cam Mott]

Cam, what would you think of Evan Landy saying Gene "probably" went too far?
How about if Alexandra Morgan also said Gene "probably" went too far?
And lastly, what if Murry said that he (Murry) himself "probably" went too far in disciplining his kids?

Does the word "probably" strike you as perhaps a bit soft and inappropriate in any of those cases?

I would think they thought he went too far, especially if they had already gone public saying he went too far.

And you would not think that the term "probably" was objectionable, even for Murry talking about beating his kids?

Look CD, I am talking about this interview, I guess I didn't read your hypotheticals closely enough. Sorry.

When Mike says "probably" I think he means he thinks it happened, he thought it happened so much that he was publically denouncing it and still is denouncing it.

Also, to the no one who agrees with or reads my posts, since when is thinking a point of view is interesting or worth hearing an endorsement or agreement with that point of view? Especially if one has denounced the subject of that point of view.

Cam: I am just trying to get an understanding of how anybody could find the term "probably" ok to use in context of talking about unarguably despicable actions.

For the record... I honestly, truthfully, do NOT think that Mike only "probably" thinks Landy went too far. I think 2015 Mike absolutely thinks Landy went too far.

But for whatever reason, be it politics, trying to throw a monkey wrench into the significant praise the film has been getting, or possible onset of senility (hey, it sadly happened to Glen Campbell - I would hate to think it could happen to another contemporary within his age bracket, but it's possible)... regardless of the reason why Mike changed his tone on Landy from his 1980s POV (where Mike seemed to have rage and tears, which I didn't/don't doubt for a moment were truthful) to a current 2015 lighter stance of using the term "probably"... he did in fact change that term.  

Just because he previously talked about Landy in a more stern way, he DID change the way he talked about him in 2015. THAT HAPPENED. And I'm not even trying to get into a discussion with you about why that happened. I'm trying to say that the word is not right to use.

The fact is that it's grossly inappropriate for a term to be used that could in any way, shape or form allow for interpretation that can even slightly excuse actions such as changing Brian's will.

-----------

I will ask you again:

if Murry Wilson were to have publicly said that his beating his sons was "probably" going too far (even if you believed that Murry actually had developed true regret, and really honestly inside believed 100% that he went too far, but for some reason only said the term "probably")... could you agree that in a circumstance such as that, that the term "probably" would not be an idea term to use?

Can you let me know what you think of that specific question?

Nope.

[CenturyDeprived]

Cam, what would you think of Evan Landy saying Gene "probably" went too far?
How about if Alexandra Morgan also said Gene "probably" went too far?
And lastly, what if Murry said that he (Murry) himself "probably" went too far in disciplining his kids?

Does the word "probably" strike you as perhaps a bit soft and inappropriate in any of those cases?

I would think they thought he went too far, especially if they had already gone public saying he went too far.

And you would not think that the term "probably" was objectionable, even for Murry talking about beating his kids?

Look CD, I am talking about this interview, I guess I didn't read your hypotheticals closely enough. Sorry.

When Mike says "probably" I think he means he thinks it happened, he thought it happened so much that he was publically denouncing it and still is denouncing it.

Also, to the no one who agrees with or reads my posts, since when is thinking a point of view is interesting or worth hearing an endorsement or agreement with that point of view? Especially if one has denounced the subject of that point of view.

Cam: I am just trying to get an understanding of how anybody could find the term "probably" ok to use in context of talking about unarguably despicable actions.

For the record... I honestly, truthfully, do NOT think that Mike only "probably" thinks Landy went too far. I think 2015 Mike absolutely thinks Landy went too far.

But for whatever reason, be it politics, trying to throw a monkey wrench into the significant praise the film has been getting, or possible onset of senility (hey, it sadly happened to Glen Campbell - I would hate to think it could happen to another contemporary within his age bracket, but it's possible)... regardless of the reason why Mike changed his tone on Landy from his 1980s POV (where Mike seemed to have rage and tears, which I didn't/don't doubt for a moment were truthful) to a current 2015 lighter stance of using the term "probably"... he did in fact change that term.  

Just because he previously talked about Landy in a more stern way, he DID change the way he talked about him in 2015. THAT HAPPENED. And I'm not even trying to get into a discussion with you about why that happened. I'm trying to say that the word is not right to use.

The fact is that it's grossly inappropriate for a term to be used that could in any way, shape or form allow for interpretation that can even slightly excuse actions such as changing Brian's will.

-----------

I will ask you again:

if Murry Wilson were to have publicly said that his beating his sons was "probably" going too far (even if you believed that Murry actually had developed true regret, and really honestly inside believed 100% that he went too far, but for some reason only said the term "probably")... could you agree that in a circumstance such as that, that the term "probably" would not be an idea term to use?

Can you let me know what you think of that specific question?

Nope.

You've just officially outed yourself as a troll.

Absolutely amazing.

[Douchepool]

OFF WITH HIS HEAD!

[Cam Mott]

Mott adds balance to anti-Mike threads.

If one needs to resort to asshat logic to defend something is that something really worth defending?

Mr. Hero, if that really is your name, refresh my memory please: what is your "logic" on the subject again?

[Cam Mott]

Cam, what would you think of Evan Landy saying Gene "probably" went too far?
How about if Alexandra Morgan also said Gene "probably" went too far?
And lastly, what if Murry said that he (Murry) himself "probably" went too far in disciplining his kids?

Does the word "probably" strike you as perhaps a bit soft and inappropriate in any of those cases?

I would think they thought he went too far, especially if they had already gone public saying he went too far.

And you would not think that the term "probably" was objectionable, even for Murry talking about beating his kids?

Look CD, I am talking about this interview, I guess I didn't read your hypotheticals closely enough. Sorry.

When Mike says "probably" I think he means he thinks it happened, he thought it happened so much that he was publically denouncing it and still is denouncing it.

Also, to the no one who agrees with or reads my posts, since when is thinking a point of view is interesting or worth hearing an endorsement or agreement with that point of view? Especially if one has denounced the subject of that point of view.

Cam: I am just trying to get an understanding of how anybody could find the term "probably" ok to use in context of talking about unarguably despicable actions.

For the record... I honestly, truthfully, do NOT think that Mike only "probably" thinks Landy went too far. I think 2015 Mike absolutely thinks Landy went too far.

But for whatever reason, be it politics, trying to throw a monkey wrench into the significant praise the film has been getting, or possible onset of senility (hey, it sadly happened to Glen Campbell - I would hate to think it could happen to another contemporary within his age bracket, but it's possible)... regardless of the reason why Mike changed his tone on Landy from his 1980s POV (where Mike seemed to have rage and tears, which I didn't/don't doubt for a moment were truthful) to a current 2015 lighter stance of using the term "probably"... he did in fact change that term.  

Just because he previously talked about Landy in a more stern way, he DID change the way he talked about him in 2015. THAT HAPPENED. And I'm not even trying to get into a discussion with you about why that happened. I'm trying to say that the word is not right to use.

The fact is that it's grossly inappropriate for a term to be used that could in any way, shape or form allow for interpretation that can even slightly excuse actions such as changing Brian's will.

-----------

I will ask you again:

if Murry Wilson were to have publicly said that his beating his sons was "probably" going too far (even if you believed that Murry actually had developed true regret, and really honestly inside believed 100% that he went too far, but for some reason only said the term "probably")... could you agree that in a circumstance such as that, that the term "probably" would not be an idea term to use?

Can you let me know what you think of that specific question?

Nope.

You've just officially outed yourself as a troll.

Absolutely amazing.

Boy that really stings.  (yawn)

[Douchepool]

I'm going to call the cops.

[guitarfool2002]

See how it works? No cards to play, no hand to show, nothing to discuss the actual issues behind the discussion...so it reverts to filibustering and discussing/debating what amounts to nothing. Distraction. Jolly good show.

[Cam Mott]

Cam.....seriously....Mike's comments were lame and seemed to be intentionally meant to discredit the movie. There is no logical reason to bring up anything by Evan Landy and reference it in a question about the movie. None. If he knew that clown had come out of the woodwork and made comments about Gene in a tabloid rag then he knows the vast majority of people that have seen the film have immense praise for it. So why then does Mike have to say something that will obviously be taken as antagonistic? Most of the time when people go off on Mike around here it's unwarranted. In this instance he deserves the flak.

Paul, I understand your point of view, I just respectful don't agree for the reasons I've given.

[Mike's Beard]

I'm starting to think I need to spend my Friday night doing something else.

[Hank Briarstem]

Billy Castillo! Born to opulence in a Philadelphia gone by, when the waltz was king and young ladies and gentlemen of substance attended grand balls, often disguised as karaoke enthusiasts, Billy spent his school days starring both on the lacrosse field and in theater, once in the lead role of “The Music Man.”

Life has for us, of course, it’s peculiar turns, and Billy, embittered after receiving a B- in advanced calculus – he felt, probably correctly, that he had earned a B – decided to leave his posh boarding school to make a living as a stonemason. Here he learned that “probably” doesn’t cut it.

“Have you correctly set the stone, William the Rock Man?” a weary foreman asked him. “Probably,” Billy said, and he was relieved of his duties so quickly he wasn’t able to enjoy the salami and blue cheese sandwich in his lunch bag. And it was on pumpernickel!

Billy joined the surf circuit where he taught a young Dennis Wilson to “shoot the curl” and to do it again and again – an event that no doubt informed Mike Love’s brilliant lyrics to the song “Do it Again.” Billy is thought to be the inspiration for the timeless “Denny’s Drums.” In fact, there is some evidence that a portion of the drum solo was played on Billy’s chest. But he has been cagey when asked about this.

Billy and my third wife, whose name escapes me, were an item for a time, though most likely only in my fevered imagination. Paranoia is a sad and difficult condition.

As Evan Landy recounted in the recent biography of his father – “Only His Hair Was Unfair” – Billy confronted the corrupt doctor in Brown Derby, demanding that he reinstate the weekly McDonald’s Quarter Pounder to Brian Wilson’s sparse diet – a bold move that Carl Wilson immortalized in “What More Can I Say?” the opener of the youngest Wilson’s second album.

But Carl’s solo ambitions worried Mike Love who blamed Billy, at least in part. Carl tried to exonerate Billy in the song “If I Could Talk to Love,” but these were pressurized, suspicious times, and Billy was fully forgiven only when Mike happened upon him just as he was selecting “Looking Back with Love” from a cutout bin in a now-closed Target.

Billy began managing Love’s career and was largely responsible for the cut “Cam Mott” on the still unreleased “Country Love” album. “A man who sells trousers/philosopher, carouser/he’s everything that you’re not/the legend, the winner, the part-time muleskinner/the outwardly inwardly thinker of thoughts/the prophet and poet Cam Mott.”

Billy’s dalliance with Kathy Gifford provided fodder for the tabloids and prompted Love to sever their professional relationship. Love felt the publicity could harm the band’s commercial prospects. Still it was Billy to whom Love confided, “Man I could really go for a cold Jax beer.”

One can imagine Billy’s surprise when he and Cam Mott showed up at the same Beach Boys message board. The two agreed to hide their past relationship as they felt that it would cause too many threads to be devoted to their fascinating stories.

Consider their shock when Hank Briarstem – the man they both dismissed as “no more important to the Beach Boys’ career than ‘Santa’s Goin’ to Kokomo’” – found his way through a haze of booze to this gathering! The jig, as they say, was up!

Now I must have a nap.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

[Autotune]

In every possible interview Mike mentions:
1. Brian's drug-taking
2. His own lyrical input
3. Time in India with Maharishi and the Bealtes

In every possible thread some posters mention:
1. Mike ending the C50
2. Mike's lack of support for Smile
3. Wrinkles, or Kokomo, or the RRHF speech


Obsessions and fixations do that to you.