Why do you hate Mike Love?

[filledeplage]

It seems Mike's speech doesn't even register on lists of "best"/"worst"/"awkward" Rock and Roll Hall of Fame moments, so maybe there is a little unjustified hand wringing over it by just a few of us fans as a supposed embarrassment.   The only embarrassment was Mike's struggle to pronounce "internecine" which would rank very low in the list of public embarrassments by a Beach Boy I would think.

Pretty rock and roll to stick it to the industry's elite establishment right in their face on national TV imo.

Really? A quick google popped up quite a few. This one had Mike at number 2:

http://www.etcanada.com/music/photos/most_awkward_rock_and_roll_hall_of_fame_moments.aspx#!516dc39b761521b43b59ce6e78f0dc7a

And this Billboard article on the subject leads off with Mr. Love

http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/6091860/shut-up-and-play-a-brief-history-of-rock-and-roll-hall-of-fame-induction

Rolling Stone ran a auricle about it in 2014.

RS? - I'd "consider the source."  Sure looks like the alter ego of the HOF.

Seems there has been a "ballot box" problem.

Why isn't Brian inducted for his solo composition work yet?

Just sayin' 

[KDS]

It seems Mike's speech doesn't even register on lists of "best"/"worst"/"awkward" Rock and Roll Hall of Fame moments, so maybe there is a little unjustified hand wringing over it by just a few of us fans as a supposed embarrassment.   The only embarrassment was Mike's struggle to pronounce "internecine" which would rank very low in the list of public embarrassments by a Beach Boy I would think.

Pretty rock and roll to stick it to the industry's elite establishment right in their face on national TV imo.

Really? A quick google popped up quite a few. This one had Mike at number 2:

http://www.etcanada.com/music/photos/most_awkward_rock_and_roll_hall_of_fame_moments.aspx#!516dc39b761521b43b59ce6e78f0dc7a

And this Billboard article on the subject leads off with Mr. Love

http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/6091860/shut-up-and-play-a-brief-history-of-rock-and-roll-hall-of-fame-induction

Rolling Stone ran a auricle about it in 2014.

RS? - I'd "consider the source."  Sure looks like the alter ego of the HOF.

Seems there has been a "ballot box" problem.

Why isn't Brian inducted for his solo composition work yet?

Just sayin' 

Realistically, his solo career is somewhat inconsistent until we get to TLOS.  To me, that's the only solo record of his I can listen to without skipping any tracks. 

But I think he should be separately as a producer. 

[filledeplage]

It seems Mike's speech doesn't even register on lists of "best"/"worst"/"awkward" Rock and Roll Hall of Fame moments, so maybe there is a little unjustified hand wringing over it by just a few of us fans as a supposed embarrassment.   The only embarrassment was Mike's struggle to pronounce "internecine" which would rank very low in the list of public embarrassments by a Beach Boy I would think.

Pretty rock and roll to stick it to the industry's elite establishment right in their face on national TV imo.

Really? A quick google popped up quite a few. This one had Mike at number 2:

http://www.etcanada.com/music/photos/most_awkward_rock_and_roll_hall_of_fame_moments.aspx#!516dc39b761521b43b59ce6e78f0dc7a

And this Billboard article on the subject leads off with Mr. Love

http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/6091860/shut-up-and-play-a-brief-history-of-rock-and-roll-hall-of-fame-induction

Rolling Stone ran a auricle about it in 2014.

RS? - I'd "consider the source."  Sure looks like the alter ego of the HOF.

Seems there has been a "ballot box" problem.

Why isn't Brian inducted for his solo composition work yet?

Just sayin' 

Realistically, his solo career is somewhat inconsistent until we get to TLOS.  To me, that's the only solo record of his I can listen to without skipping any tracks. 

But I think he should be separately as a producer. 

Brian belongs in there.  There's no excuse. 

[KDS]

It seems Mike's speech doesn't even register on lists of "best"/"worst"/"awkward" Rock and Roll Hall of Fame moments, so maybe there is a little unjustified hand wringing over it by just a few of us fans as a supposed embarrassment.   The only embarrassment was Mike's struggle to pronounce "internecine" which would rank very low in the list of public embarrassments by a Beach Boy I would think.

Pretty rock and roll to stick it to the industry's elite establishment right in their face on national TV imo.

Really? A quick google popped up quite a few. This one had Mike at number 2:

http://www.etcanada.com/music/photos/most_awkward_rock_and_roll_hall_of_fame_moments.aspx#!516dc39b761521b43b59ce6e78f0dc7a

And this Billboard article on the subject leads off with Mr. Love

http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/6091860/shut-up-and-play-a-brief-history-of-rock-and-roll-hall-of-fame-induction

Rolling Stone ran a auricle about it in 2014.

RS? - I'd "consider the source."  Sure looks like the alter ego of the HOF.

Seems there has been a "ballot box" problem.

Why isn't Brian inducted for his solo composition work yet?

Just sayin' 

Realistically, his solo career is somewhat inconsistent until we get to TLOS.  To me, that's the only solo record of his I can listen to without skipping any tracks. 

But I think he should be separately as a producer. 

Brian belongs in there.  There's no excuse. 

Strictly as a solo artist, I don't think Brian Wilson belongs in the RNRHOF any more than, say, Roger Waters, David Gilmour, Tony Iommi, Freddie Mercury, Mick Jagger, Pete Townshend, or any other key member of a legendary band that had a decent to OK solo career. 

But they did induct Ringo Starr, so all bets are off.   

But, as a producer / arranger / songwriter, yes absolutely.  110%. 

[filledeplage]

It seems Mike's speech doesn't even register on lists of "best"/"worst"/"awkward" Rock and Roll Hall of Fame moments, so maybe there is a little unjustified hand wringing over it by just a few of us fans as a supposed embarrassment.   The only embarrassment was Mike's struggle to pronounce "internecine" which would rank very low in the list of public embarrassments by a Beach Boy I would think.

Pretty rock and roll to stick it to the industry's elite establishment right in their face on national TV imo.

Really? A quick google popped up quite a few. This one had Mike at number 2:

http://www.etcanada.com/music/photos/most_awkward_rock_and_roll_hall_of_fame_moments.aspx#!516dc39b761521b43b59ce6e78f0dc7a

And this Billboard article on the subject leads off with Mr. Love

http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/6091860/shut-up-and-play-a-brief-history-of-rock-and-roll-hall-of-fame-induction

Rolling Stone ran a auricle about it in 2014.

RS? - I'd "consider the source."  Sure looks like the alter ego of the HOF.

Seems there has been a "ballot box" problem.

Why isn't Brian inducted for his solo composition work yet?

Just sayin' 

Realistically, his solo career is somewhat inconsistent until we get to TLOS.  To me, that's the only solo record of his I can listen to without skipping any tracks. 

But I think he should be separately as a producer. 

Brian belongs in there.  There's no excuse. 

Strictly as a solo artist, I don't think Brian Wilson belongs in the RNRHOF any more than, say, Roger Waters, David Gilmour, Tony Iommi, Freddie Mercury, Mick Jagger, Pete Townshend, or any other key member of a legendary band that had a decent to OK solo career. 

But they did induct Ringo Starr, so all bets are off.   

But, as a producer / arranger / songwriter, yes absolutely.  110%. 

Ringo is great, too! But Brian definitely belongs in there.

[KDS]

It seems Mike's speech doesn't even register on lists of "best"/"worst"/"awkward" Rock and Roll Hall of Fame moments, so maybe there is a little unjustified hand wringing over it by just a few of us fans as a supposed embarrassment.   The only embarrassment was Mike's struggle to pronounce "internecine" which would rank very low in the list of public embarrassments by a Beach Boy I would think.

Pretty rock and roll to stick it to the industry's elite establishment right in their face on national TV imo.

Really? A quick google popped up quite a few. This one had Mike at number 2:

http://www.etcanada.com/music/photos/most_awkward_rock_and_roll_hall_of_fame_moments.aspx#!516dc39b761521b43b59ce6e78f0dc7a

And this Billboard article on the subject leads off with Mr. Love

http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/6091860/shut-up-and-play-a-brief-history-of-rock-and-roll-hall-of-fame-induction

Rolling Stone ran a auricle about it in 2014.

RS? - I'd "consider the source."  Sure looks like the alter ego of the HOF.

Seems there has been a "ballot box" problem.

Why isn't Brian inducted for his solo composition work yet?

Just sayin' 

Realistically, his solo career is somewhat inconsistent until we get to TLOS.  To me, that's the only solo record of his I can listen to without skipping any tracks. 

But I think he should be separately as a producer. 

Brian belongs in there.  There's no excuse. 

Strictly as a solo artist, I don't think Brian Wilson belongs in the RNRHOF any more than, say, Roger Waters, David Gilmour, Tony Iommi, Freddie Mercury, Mick Jagger, Pete Townshend, or any other key member of a legendary band that had a decent to OK solo career. 

But they did induct Ringo Starr, so all bets are off.   

But, as a producer / arranger / songwriter, yes absolutely.  110%. 

Ringo is great, too! But Brian definitely belongs in there.

I think Ringo is in just because all of the other Beatles are in as solo artists.  He put out some good stuff in the 70s, but I think most of his solo work is middle of the road. 

You're entitled to your opinion, when I look at Brian's solo catalog, I see

One great album - TLOS

One very good album - NPP

One very good album that was based on an abandoned Beach Boys album, but still not as good as the unfinished Beach Boys album that was released seven years later  - BWPS

Three spotty albums - 1988, Imagination, GIOHM

One decent album where Brian Wilson sings songs by Van Dyke Parks - OCA

Two covers albums - BWRG, Disney

A Xmas album - also mostly covers 

On a side note, I think there's also a ton of artists that aren't in the RNRHOF at all that I feel deserve it over Brian Wilson, the solo artist. 

[guitarfool2002]

How much of the speech was really the kind of anti-establishment, shake-things-up with rock and roll attitude railing against a lame corporate event statement like some have always tried to portray it, when the most pointed criticisms in the speech were directed at those who did *not* show up to be inducted with their bandmates? The speech was calling out those who didn't show up to this so-called "lame" event, but if the event was so lame and corporate, and if the speech was such a bold rebellious statement by design against such an event...those who didn't show up should have been praised for not showing up? Or something.

Like or dislike the HOF stuff in general, it's still an opportunity to get into the public eye and add to the resume. An artist like Prince came out on stage when George Harrison was inducted and played a jaw-dropping guitar solo that people are still talking about and searching for on YouTube. The Beach Boys appearance is remembered for a speech that people seek out and watch to get a laugh or to see a jumbled trainwreck of a speech play out live, capped off by the house band being told to play up the music to drown Mike out after it got too loopy. Which option better serves/served both the artists and their fans?

[Robbie Mac]

How much of the speech was really the kind of anti-establishment, shake-things-up with rock and roll attitude railing against a lame corporate event statement like some have always tried to portray it, when the most pointed criticisms in the speech were directed at those who did *not* show up to be inducted with their bandmates? The speech was calling out those who didn't show up to this so-called "lame" event, but if the event was so lame and corporate, and if the speech was such a bold rebellious statement by design against such an event...those who didn't show up should have been praised for not showing up? Or something.

Like or dislike the HOF stuff in general, it's still an opportunity to get into the public eye and add to the resume. An artist like Prince came out on stage when George Harrison was inducted and played a jaw-dropping guitar solo that people are still talking about and searching for on YouTube. The Beach Boys appearance is remembered for a speech that people seek out and watch to get a laugh or to see a jumbled trainwreck of a speech play out live, capped off by the house band being told to play up the music to drown Mike out after it got too loopy. Which option better serves/served both the artists and their fans?

Yeah, well, any group that thinos that the Beatles are gods really are lame. Stick it to 'em, Dr. Love!

[HeyJude]

How much of the speech was really the kind of anti-establishment, shake-things-up with rock and roll attitude railing against a lame corporate event statement like some have always tried to portray it, when the most pointed criticisms in the speech were directed at those who did *not* show up to be inducted with their bandmates? The speech was calling out those who didn't show up to this so-called "lame" event, but if the event was so lame and corporate, and if the speech was such a bold rebellious statement by design against such an event...those who didn't show up should have been praised for not showing up? Or something.

Like or dislike the HOF stuff in general, it's still an opportunity to get into the public eye and add to the resume. An artist like Prince came out on stage when George Harrison was inducted and played a jaw-dropping guitar solo that people are still talking about and searching for on YouTube. The Beach Boys appearance is remembered for a speech that people seek out and watch to get a laugh or to see a jumbled trainwreck of a speech play out live, capped off by the house band being told to play up the music to drown Mike out after it got too loopy. Which option better serves/served both the artists and their fans?

As I’ve said many times, an anti-establishment speech at the R&R HOF is not a bad idea, and is probably needed. Mike's speech was NOT such a speech. Some folks in the past have tried to frame it as a “tellin’ it like it is” bold speech. But even setting aside the expected decorum for such an event and all of that (which I’m not concerned with), the speech comes across as scattered and unclear, and for those who know even a modicum of the history of the BB’s (to say nothing of reflecting on the speech in light of of subsequent events), also comes across as rather hypocritical.

It’s still entertaining, but it’s entertaining for the same reason that Brian in tight leather pants on Dick Clark’s primetime show in 1988 is entertaining. It’s a spectacle, another item for the blooper reel along with Dennis’s “Good Morning America” interview and Brian playing the entirety of “Surfin’ USA” in a different key than the rest of the band at that Don Was gig in 1991.

[drbeachboy]

How much of the speech was really the kind of anti-establishment, shake-things-up with rock and roll attitude railing against a lame corporate event statement like some have always tried to portray it, when the most pointed criticisms in the speech were directed at those who did *not* show up to be inducted with their bandmates? The speech was calling out those who didn't show up to this so-called "lame" event, but if the event was so lame and corporate, and if the speech was such a bold rebellious statement by design against such an event...those who didn't show up should have been praised for not showing up? Or something.

Like or dislike the HOF stuff in general, it's still an opportunity to get into the public eye and add to the resume. An artist like Prince came out on stage when George Harrison was inducted and played a jaw-dropping guitar solo that people are still talking about and searching for on YouTube. The Beach Boys appearance is remembered for a speech that people seek out and watch to get a laugh or to see a jumbled trainwreck of a speech play out live, capped off by the house band being told to play up the music to drown Mike out after it got too loopy. Which option better serves/served both the artists and their fans?

Seriously, why care about this 27 years later? He can't take it back. Even if he apologized today it is not like they would attach an addendum to the video. What's done, is done. It's on record and nothing will ever change it. It's all part of the weird, yet fantastic voyage of the Beach Boys. I cannot get over how anal we are about this stuff.

[kermit27]

For clarity: Ringo was not inducted as a solo artist.  He received the "The Award for Musical Excellence" for his drumming and its influence.  It was the category created for session players, etc.

[KDS]

For clarity: Ringo was not inducted as a solo artist.  He received the "The Award for Musical Excellence" for his drumming and its influence.  It was the category created for session players, etc.

Thanks for clearing that up Kemit.  I didn't know that.  When I saw the RNRHOF headlines that once again didn't include Deep Purple, I didn't really dig very deep. 

Overall, I think the institution is an absolute joke.  Many deserving rock bands are excluded.  While rap groups, popsters, and disco queens are inducted. 

[guitarfool2002]

How much of the speech was really the kind of anti-establishment, shake-things-up with rock and roll attitude railing against a lame corporate event statement like some have always tried to portray it, when the most pointed criticisms in the speech were directed at those who did *not* show up to be inducted with their bandmates? The speech was calling out those who didn't show up to this so-called "lame" event, but if the event was so lame and corporate, and if the speech was such a bold rebellious statement by design against such an event...those who didn't show up should have been praised for not showing up? Or something.

Like or dislike the HOF stuff in general, it's still an opportunity to get into the public eye and add to the resume. An artist like Prince came out on stage when George Harrison was inducted and played a jaw-dropping guitar solo that people are still talking about and searching for on YouTube. The Beach Boys appearance is remembered for a speech that people seek out and watch to get a laugh or to see a jumbled trainwreck of a speech play out live, capped off by the house band being told to play up the music to drown Mike out after it got too loopy. Which option better serves/served both the artists and their fans?

Seriously, why care about this 27 years later? He can't take it back. Even if he apologized today it is not like they would attach an addendum to the video. What's done, is done. It's on record and nothing will ever change it. It's all part of the weird, yet fantastic voyage of the Beach Boys.

Why care about it? Why then are there still attempts to spin it and shape opinion of it into some kind of rebellious, punk rock attitude kind of throwdown against a lame event? It was a rambling, disjointed speech that overshadowed the band and the music for the wrong reasons. It wasn't punk rock attitude or rebellion against the establishment or railing against a lame event, it turned into an embarrassment.

[NHC]

I'm half tempted to move this sh*t to the Sandbox.

Best idea yet. (But I recommend not remaining "half" tempted.)

[guitarfool2002]

I'm half tempted to move this sh*t to the Sandbox.

Best idea yet. (But I recommend not remaining "half" tempted.)

Is the issue with the topic itself?

[drbeachboy]

How much of the speech was really the kind of anti-establishment, shake-things-up with rock and roll attitude railing against a lame corporate event statement like some have always tried to portray it, when the most pointed criticisms in the speech were directed at those who did *not* show up to be inducted with their bandmates? The speech was calling out those who didn't show up to this so-called "lame" event, but if the event was so lame and corporate, and if the speech was such a bold rebellious statement by design against such an event...those who didn't show up should have been praised for not showing up? Or something.

Like or dislike the HOF stuff in general, it's still an opportunity to get into the public eye and add to the resume. An artist like Prince came out on stage when George Harrison was inducted and played a jaw-dropping guitar solo that people are still talking about and searching for on YouTube. The Beach Boys appearance is remembered for a speech that people seek out and watch to get a laugh or to see a jumbled trainwreck of a speech play out live, capped off by the house band being told to play up the music to drown Mike out after it got too loopy. Which option better serves/served both the artists and their fans?

Seriously, why care about this 27 years later? He can't take it back. Even if he apologized today it is not like they would attach an addendum to the video. What's done, is done. It's on record and nothing will ever change it. It's all part of the weird, yet fantastic voyage of the Beach Boys.

Why care about it? Why then are there still attempts to spin it and shape opinion of it into some kind of rebellious, punk rock attitude kind of throwdown against a lame event? It was a rambling, disjointed speech that overshadowed the band and the music for the wrong reasons. It wasn't punk rock attitude or rebellion against the establishment or railing against a lame event, it turned into an embarrassment.

Because some guy comes in here to start sh*t and succeeded. Again, an embarrassment to who? Do you think AL & Brian dwell on the speech like we have for the past few days? What has the end result been in this forum? The same old people taking the same sides that have been taken time after time, year after year. I heard something on TV this morning that really rings true in here. They said humans are wired for negativity, that it is what we respond to the best. We have it in spades, here.

[ontor pertawst]

Well, you're just as obsessive about defending it 27 years later. You're hardly in a position to lecture people about it or sniff about negativity, especially when being so hostile about it. You're just the other side of the same fannish coin! Or are you not noticing that?

[guitarfool2002]

How much of the speech was really the kind of anti-establishment, shake-things-up with rock and roll attitude railing against a lame corporate event statement like some have always tried to portray it, when the most pointed criticisms in the speech were directed at those who did *not* show up to be inducted with their bandmates? The speech was calling out those who didn't show up to this so-called "lame" event, but if the event was so lame and corporate, and if the speech was such a bold rebellious statement by design against such an event...those who didn't show up should have been praised for not showing up? Or something.

Like or dislike the HOF stuff in general, it's still an opportunity to get into the public eye and add to the resume. An artist like Prince came out on stage when George Harrison was inducted and played a jaw-dropping guitar solo that people are still talking about and searching for on YouTube. The Beach Boys appearance is remembered for a speech that people seek out and watch to get a laugh or to see a jumbled trainwreck of a speech play out live, capped off by the house band being told to play up the music to drown Mike out after it got too loopy. Which option better serves/served both the artists and their fans?

Seriously, why care about this 27 years later? He can't take it back. Even if he apologized today it is not like they would attach an addendum to the video. What's done, is done. It's on record and nothing will ever change it. It's all part of the weird, yet fantastic voyage of the Beach Boys.

Why care about it? Why then are there still attempts to spin it and shape opinion of it into some kind of rebellious, punk rock attitude kind of throwdown against a lame event? It was a rambling, disjointed speech that overshadowed the band and the music for the wrong reasons. It wasn't punk rock attitude or rebellion against the establishment or railing against a lame event, it turned into an embarrassment.

Because some guy comes in here to start sh*t and succeeded. Again, an embarrassment to who? Do you think AL & Brian dwell on the speech like we have for the past few days? What has the end result been in this forum? The same old people taking the same sides that have been taken time after time, year after year. I heard something on TV this morning that really rings true in here. They said humans are wired for negativity, that it is what we respond to the best. We have it in spades, here.

But it's not limited to this topic on this board in the past 48 hours, I remember years ago on other now-defunct forums this same thing coming up with some fans who thought it was a great moment of punk attitude and non-conformity kicking the establishment in the ass (or similar bloated wording, in those cases you had to consider the source(s) )...and it's still going on. It has been a topic for over 25 years because the speech itself got into the pop culture as one of those infamous moments in media that people would see and talk about. That's the nature of the beast. Fans want to talk about it, and discuss it. If it happens to show things that some might not want seen, then the response might be too bad. Which is also why i think there are attempts to portray it as something more cool or hip than what the tape itself actually shows, and unfortunately that tape is in permanent circulation for everyone to see and make up their own minds. Most have already no matter how it's spun after the fact.

My issue was stating my opinion how I always did and always will disagree with the attempts to spin or nuance this speech into something other than what it actually was.


On the other issue: The poster who started this is on the board, I'd suggest if there is an issue, take it up with that poster and ask the questions or ask for clarifications. If they choose not to reply after openly soliciting opinions from board members, then I agree it's not on the level. There have been other cases where opinions were openly sought, then when those opinions came in that may not have been what was being sought, the dust started to kick up. It's an open forum, if someone wants and asks for opinions then be prepared to read things you might vehemently disagree with.

[drbeachboy]

Well, you're just as obsessive about defending it 27 years later. You're hardly in a position to lecture people about it or sniff about negativity, especially when being so hostile about it. You're just the other side of the same fannish coin!

Not defending. I DON'T F**KING CARE! Taking sides and fighting about this accomplishes nothing. It seems though that there are more people like you that rather come here and argue and trash Mike than talk about the band and the music. BTW, I am not surprised that you confuse common sense with lecturing and hostility. It's just you being you, huh?

[ontor pertawst]

You do care. You post repeatedly. Not caring would mean shrugging, skipping the threads, and not getting angry about it and using caps. Talk about the music, post some threads with some interesting thoughts on the music if that's what you're into. If this isn't accomplishing anything, why waste your time stirring the flames and being antagonistic?

Yeah, sorry. I don't think your posts are filled to the brim with nutricious common sense, no matter how many insults you sprinkle in. Hope that's ok.

[CenturyDeprived]

How much of the speech was really the kind of anti-establishment, shake-things-up with rock and roll attitude railing against a lame corporate event statement like some have always tried to portray it, when the most pointed criticisms in the speech were directed at those who did *not* show up to be inducted with their bandmates? The speech was calling out those who didn't show up to this so-called "lame" event, but if the event was so lame and corporate, and if the speech was such a bold rebellious statement by design against such an event...those who didn't show up should have been praised for not showing up? Or something.

Like or dislike the HOF stuff in general, it's still an opportunity to get into the public eye and add to the resume. An artist like Prince came out on stage when George Harrison was inducted and played a jaw-dropping guitar solo that people are still talking about and searching for on YouTube. The Beach Boys appearance is remembered for a speech that people seek out and watch to get a laugh or to see a jumbled trainwreck of a speech play out live, capped off by the house band being told to play up the music to drown Mike out after it got too loopy. Which option better serves/served both the artists and their fans?

Seriously, why care about this 27 years later? He can't take it back. Even if he apologized today it is not like they would attach an addendum to the video. What's done, is done. It's on record and nothing will ever change it. It's all part of the weird, yet fantastic voyage of the Beach Boys. I cannot get over how anal we are about this stuff.

Because if there had been an apology the day after, the week after, or even the month after the event, people would perhaps view him as 5% less of an assclown. And that is sadly a widely-held view. And if you think that percentage is somehow off, it would still be a quantifiable percentage. And that's better than nothing.

You do realize that is a widely-held view at least in part because of the man's defensiveness, don't you?

It wouldn't negate the speech from having happened, anymore than Carl's apology negates his instance of drunken/high slurred singing from being on compilations like Endless Bummer, which people get unintended amusement from.

Do you think Carl's apology *hurt* his reputation or the band's? At the very least it helped undo the damage… somewhat. Whether it was his own idea to apologize, or if the idea was forced upon him by management… The bottom line is that he did it, and soon after.  

The point of this thread is discussing why Mike has the reputation he has… And like it or not, there are things he does, and followup things he doesn't do which are in part responsible for that reputation.  Do you think the reputation just comes out of thin air? Is it so impossible to see how an apology, if voiced soon after the fact,  even if it was said simply to show that he cared for having embarrassed his mates, could have helped even just a little bit?

[DonnyL]

How much of the speech was really the kind of anti-establishment, shake-things-up with rock and roll attitude railing against a lame corporate event statement like some have always tried to portray it, when the most pointed criticisms in the speech were directed at those who did *not* show up to be inducted with their bandmates? The speech was calling out those who didn't show up to this so-called "lame" event, but if the event was so lame and corporate, and if the speech was such a bold rebellious statement by design against such an event...those who didn't show up should have been praised for not showing up? Or something.

Like or dislike the HOF stuff in general, it's still an opportunity to get into the public eye and add to the resume. An artist like Prince came out on stage when George Harrison was inducted and played a jaw-dropping guitar solo that people are still talking about and searching for on YouTube. The Beach Boys appearance is remembered for a speech that people seek out and watch to get a laugh or to see a jumbled trainwreck of a speech play out live, capped off by the house band being told to play up the music to drown Mike out after it got too loopy. Which option better serves/served both the artists and their fans?

Hey Craig,

These are valid points, and of course you're right ...

The thing is, I don't think the speech stands as some great testament against the Hall of Fame or anything. It was obviously an emotionally charged, apple juice-fast, spontaneous thing ... it's not a great speech, but it is a cool moment in my view. I wouldn't really call it 'punk rock' ... more like Mike was probably putt off because the Beach Boys were never considered to be part of that scene, and he was ruffling feathers.

The Hall of Fame is an institution that I think is pretty much a joke, and is sort of run by this kind of baby boomer/Rolling Stone establishment. I personally don't care for Jann Wenner, Bruce Springsteen, the Stones (aside from Between the Buttons   ), etc ...

I some people dislike Mike Love because he's an easy target for all of the embarrassing things the group has done. I mean, Summer in Paradise was the nadir of the group's recorded output ... until Stars and Stripes, that is ... wow, I remember the feeling in my gut when that thing came out. Like, "wow, Brian is back with the Beach Boys?!?" ... then we get that. It's stuff like "Crocodile Rock" and "Problem Child" ... Full House, etc ... the whole group was involved with that stuff. Maybe Mike was 'leading' them at the time, so there could be some validity there, but I'm not sure.

But I don't know. I have to think some of these decisions came down to Carl and the other members. I single out Carl because of the stories of him being opposed to the Paley tracks, etc. ... And his taste certainly leaned toward bland MOR kind of stuff since the '80s.

There are distasteful things that Mike's done, and unappealing personality traits I'm sure he has (many of which are detailed in this thread), but in truth, they are not likely any more questionable than any other band members' if you were to actually make a list and compare them side by side.

Personally, I think the most distasteful thing he's done for the Beach Boys' career is to tour "The Beach Boys" since 1998 without the Beach Boys. The lawsuits, etc. were not pleasant, and I do think he's had a chip on his shoulder, but who knows how valid that is.

I think Mike probably was the odd man out in the Smile era. I don't think the people around Brian liked him very much. But it's hard for me to discuss personal things within the group, because I really don't know. I have known some people who were there at the time, and I have heard crazy stories ... but really, it's hard to know what angle to take with that stuff. Those were heady times.

[guitarfool2002]

How much of the speech was really the kind of anti-establishment, shake-things-up with rock and roll attitude railing against a lame corporate event statement like some have always tried to portray it, when the most pointed criticisms in the speech were directed at those who did *not* show up to be inducted with their bandmates? The speech was calling out those who didn't show up to this so-called "lame" event, but if the event was so lame and corporate, and if the speech was such a bold rebellious statement by design against such an event...those who didn't show up should have been praised for not showing up? Or something.

Like or dislike the HOF stuff in general, it's still an opportunity to get into the public eye and add to the resume. An artist like Prince came out on stage when George Harrison was inducted and played a jaw-dropping guitar solo that people are still talking about and searching for on YouTube. The Beach Boys appearance is remembered for a speech that people seek out and watch to get a laugh or to see a jumbled trainwreck of a speech play out live, capped off by the house band being told to play up the music to drown Mike out after it got too loopy. Which option better serves/served both the artists and their fans?

Hey Craig,

These are valid points, and of course you're right ...

The thing is, I don't think the speech stands as some great testament against the Hall of Fame or anything. It was obviously an emotionally charged, apple juice-fast, spontaneous thing ... it's not a great speech, but it is a cool moment in my view. I wouldn't really call it 'punk rock' ... more like Mike was probably putt off because the Beach Boys were never considered to be part of that scene, and he was ruffling feathers.

The Hall of Fame is an institution that I think is pretty much a joke, and is sort of run by this kind of baby boomer/Rolling Stone establishment. I personally don't care for Jann Wenner, Bruce Springsteen, the Stones (aside from Between the Buttons   ), etc ...

I some people dislike Mike Love because he's an easy target for all of the embarrassing things the group has done. I mean, Summer in Paradise was the nadir of the group's recorded output ... until Stars and Stripes, that is ... wow, I remember the feeling in my gut when that thing came out. Like, "wow, Brian is back with the Beach Boys?!?" ... then we get that. It's stuff like "Crocodile Rock" and "Problem Child" ... Full House, etc ... the whole group was involved with that stuff. Maybe Mike was 'leading' them at the time, so there could be some validity there, but I'm not sure.

But I don't know. I have to think some of these decisions came down to Carl and the other members. I single out Carl because of the stories of him being opposed to the Paley tracks, etc. ... And his taste certainly leaned toward bland MOR kind of stuff since the '80s.

There are distasteful things that Mike's done, and unappealing personality traits I'm sure he has (many of which are detailed in this thread), but in truth, they are not likely any more questionable than any other band members' if you were to actually make a list and compare them side by side.

Personally, I think the most distasteful thing he's done for the Beach Boys' career is to tour "The Beach Boys" since 1998 without the Beach Boys. The lawsuits, etc. were not pleasant, and I do think he's had a chip on his shoulder, but who knows how valid that is.

I think Mike probably was the odd man out in the Smile era. I don't think the people around Brian liked him very much. But it's hard for me to discuss personal things within the group, because I really don't know. I have known some people who were there at the time, and I have heard crazy stories ... but really, it's hard to know what angle to take with that stuff. Those were heady times.

Well-said, Donny - In my opinion there are some absolutes, some things that did happen or some opinions that people who were actually there may have. If those opinions are asked for and given, whether by an author doing research or among a fan community online, at some point certain absolutes can't be nuanced if the results aren't what some would prefer to see. Yet that shading and nuancing and explaining away happens regularly with things like the HOF speech or even the Smile history. If someone who was there says "this is what I saw", how much nuancing or spinning is warranted versus putting what they remember into the data bank along with all of the other records and documents and interviews as part of the story to be factored in?

The attempts to deny or even whitewash some of these things is what can be troubling. If people are seeking opinions, again it's a case of be prepared to not like what might be said in return. It can be debated, argued, etc but to try to shade and spin or reshape something to fit especially in the extreme cases of defending the HOF speech seems a fool's errand beyond regular debates.

The 80's-90's era - Mike was the primary skipper of that boat more or less. The career path that the band took after Kokomo was primarily on his shoulders, and the results are there for anyone to hear and see. What comes out as well is how Carl did in fact shut down or even veto certain plans that for fans would seem almost no-brainer positive things for the group...a Pet Sounds orchestral tour, the Paley material, the list can go on. There was a dynamic in play there which has only been scratched on the surface. Speculations why or why not things happen are just that unless someone who knows decides to offer more details. But overall, the fact is that post-Kokomo era was primarily under Mike's direction, and again the results of those decisions are all there for the fans to base opinions on.

Stars And Stripes was Mike's plan as well, it was Mike who (I believe) brought in Joe Thomas to pull it together, and it was an attempt to jump on the "country tribute" bandwagon that was a reaction to an Eagles tribute album selling massive amounts in the years before. Call in a group of guest country artists to re-record a band's "classic" hits, tap into the Nashville mass-media country market for a whole new demographic, and watch the sales pile up. Unfortunately, Stars and Stripes didn't work out like the Eagles or other "tributes" had done in that same era. But that was one of Mike's ideas, again if anyone calls that bashing for pointing out a fact, we have some issues...

I share the opinions of the R&R HOF especially in who has been excluded versus who has gotten in via threadbare credentials, but at the same time it's like the Oscars - No matter how much certain actors might dislike the spectacle and politics of the process and event, it's still a major media and PR thing that I believe many of them suck up the pride or opinions and go for the optics of it. Except Brando - now *that* was a moment, lol.

[drbeachboy]

You do care. You post repeatedly. Not caring would mean shrugging, skipping the threads, and not getting angry about it and using caps. Talk about the music, post some threads with some interesting thoughts on the music if that's what you're into. If this isn't accomplishing anything, why waste your time stirring the flames and being antagonistic?

Yeah, sorry. I don't think your posts are filled to the brim with nutricious common sense, no matter how many insults you sprinkle in. Hope that's ok.

I'm sorry too, you know? It's Ok, I'm glad you recognize an insult when you see it. See, this my forum too, and if I read something that I don't like, then I am going to speak out. So, as long you do what you do, I will do what I do. Got it? I am glad we are both on the same page, now.

[drbeachboy]

How much of the speech was really the kind of anti-establishment, shake-things-up with rock and roll attitude railing against a lame corporate event statement like some have always tried to portray it, when the most pointed criticisms in the speech were directed at those who did *not* show up to be inducted with their bandmates? The speech was calling out those who didn't show up to this so-called "lame" event, but if the event was so lame and corporate, and if the speech was such a bold rebellious statement by design against such an event...those who didn't show up should have been praised for not showing up? Or something.

Like or dislike the HOF stuff in general, it's still an opportunity to get into the public eye and add to the resume. An artist like Prince came out on stage when George Harrison was inducted and played a jaw-dropping guitar solo that people are still talking about and searching for on YouTube. The Beach Boys appearance is remembered for a speech that people seek out and watch to get a laugh or to see a jumbled trainwreck of a speech play out live, capped off by the house band being told to play up the music to drown Mike out after it got too loopy. Which option better serves/served both the artists and their fans?

Seriously, why care about this 27 years later? He can't take it back. Even if he apologized today it is not like they would attach an addendum to the video. What's done, is done. It's on record and nothing will ever change it. It's all part of the weird, yet fantastic voyage of the Beach Boys.

Why care about it? Why then are there still attempts to spin it and shape opinion of it into some kind of rebellious, punk rock attitude kind of throwdown against a lame event? It was a rambling, disjointed speech that overshadowed the band and the music for the wrong reasons. It wasn't punk rock attitude or rebellion against the establishment or railing against a lame event, it turned into an embarrassment.

Because some guy comes in here to start sh*t and succeeded. Again, an embarrassment to who? Do you think AL & Brian dwell on the speech like we have for the past few days? What has the end result been in this forum? The same old people taking the same sides that have been taken time after time, year after year. I heard something on TV this morning that really rings true in here. They said humans are wired for negativity, that it is what we respond to the best. We have it in spades, here.

But it's not limited to this topic on this board in the past 48 hours, I remember years ago on other now-defunct forums this same thing coming up with some fans who thought it was a great moment of punk attitude and non-conformity kicking the establishment in the ass (or similar bloated wording, in those cases you had to consider the source(s) )...and it's still going on. It has been a topic for over 25 years because the speech itself got into the pop culture as one of those infamous moments in media that people would see and talk about. That's the nature of the beast. Fans want to talk about it, and discuss it. If it happens to show things that some might not want seen, then the response might be too bad. Which is also why i think there are attempts to portray it as something more cool or hip than what the tape itself actually shows, and unfortunately that tape is in permanent circulation for everyone to see and make up their own minds. Most have already no matter how it's spun after the fact.

My issue was stating my opinion how I always did and always will disagree with the attempts to spin or nuance this speech into something other than what it actually was.


On the other issue: The poster who started this is on the board, I'd suggest if there is an issue, take it up with that poster and ask the questions or ask for clarifications. If they choose not to reply after openly soliciting opinions from board members, then I agree it's not on the level. There have been other cases where opinions were openly sought, then when those opinions came in that may not have been what was being sought, the dust started to kick up. It's an open forum, if someone wants and asks for opinions then be prepared to read things you might vehemently disagree with.

Agreed, but if I don't like what I read, then expect me to speak up. Again, it is one thing to criticize, it is quite another thing to trash a person for it. These threads become Mike bashing threads, because some people don't know how to speak to a subject without making insults. It really is unnecessary and very tiresome.