Why do you hate Mike Love?

[beatnickle]

Mike needs to let go of his ego or perhaps carve it up and share with those less fortunate..... there is plenty to go around.

[filledeplage]

I'm writing an article and I'd love to know your answers...

You might go see a few Touring Band shows and make an informed analysis.  That will help inform your research.

Good Luck!  

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

There is actually a Facebook page called " Mike Love Is A Douche." It has over a thousand members. It is very mean spirited. I joined for a week just to see what it was about. Just awful. I left after a week. I'd be ashamed to be a regular member there.

Hey, dude, don't be slammin' one of my favorite sites on the internet. It should be required reading for everyone including fuckwits, shitweasles and last but certainly not least by any stretch of the imagination, trolls.  

Do you have anything resembling an actual life?

My, oh my, it's so much damn fun watching the myKe luHv apologists getting their panties in an uproar!!  

  My underwear is fine thanks. Just genuinely wondering why you waste so much time banging on about how much you hate the dude?
Did he
(a) run over your dog
(b) stick it to your wife
(c) refuse to sign an autograph one time
(d) fleece you in a pyramid scheme?

Honestly, what's the deal?

Gosh, golly, and gee, too! I didn't know you cared so much about my time, so I'll ask you why you spend so much time defending the luhVster? Did he
a. point to you at a concert
b. sign one of your many copies of "First LuHv"
c. let you shine his sandals
d. let you join the Vibe Room.

Really, what's your deal?

[HeyJude]

Re: Mike’s 1988 R&R HOF speech, to try to defend it is pretty lame I think. I find it highly entertaining, but for all the wrong reasons. There most definitely *is* good reason to call out the industry both collectively and in some cases on an individual basis. But Mike’s not the guy to do it, and the way he did it was lame. His words carried no weight coming from a guy in a band who are famously (and infamously) litigious, who at times let various, to use his own words from the speech, “internecine squabbles” derail the band and/or lead to exiting members (s***-canning Al from the band a decade later, quitting the band in 2012, etc.), who made everyone in the band look like idiots by essentially challenging the dead John Lennon to “out-tour” the Beach Boys, who shamed McCartney and Diana Ross for not being there yet years later skipped the Hawthorne Landmark ceremony, and so on. Like I said, some of the stuff he said was important. It was just coming from the wrong guy, and done poorly.

Re: The David Leaf book. All I say is that internally I’m sure the other group members were not so hot on David Leaf, and it’s surely possible that contributed to Mike Love’s hyper-defensiveness in subsequent years. But the book has been out or print for decades now, right? As I mentioned, I’ve talked to people who have a visceral and contextual dislike for Mike in some cases, and they know nothing other than Mike’s persona in interviews, stage presence, and that’s about it. They’ve never read any biographies, never really read much of anything about the band. I’m not going to blame David Leaf’s book for Mike come across as a tool in an interview in 2014 or something. The other BB’s including, say, Al Jardine were also minimized by Leaf (arguably I suppose), and Al didn’t spend the next 30 years trying to tell every interview that he was a genius too. I’d say the Leaf book and Leaf in general may have impacted the group internally more than it did the public’s perception of Mike.

[Cam Mott]

Re: Mike’s 1988 R&R HOF speech, to try to defend it is pretty lame I think. I find it highly entertaining, but for all the wrong reasons. There most definitely *is* good reason to call out the industry both collectively and in some cases on an individual basis. But Mike’s not the guy to do it, and the way he did it was lame. His words carried no weight coming from a guy in a band who are famously (and infamously) litigious, who at times let various, to use his own words from the speech, “internecine squabbles” derail the band and/or lead to exiting members (s***-canning Al from the band a decade later, quitting the band in 2012, etc.), who made everyone in the band look like idiots by essentially challenging the dead John Lennon to “out-tour” the Beach Boys, who shamed McCartney and Diana Ross for not being there yet years later skipped the Hawthorne Landmark ceremony, and so on. Like I said, some of the stuff he said was important. It was just coming from the wrong guy, and done poorly.

Re: The David Leaf book. All I say is that internally I’m sure the other group members were not so hot on David Leaf, and it’s surely possible that contributed to Mike Love’s hyper-defensiveness in subsequent years. But the book has been out or print for decades now, right? As I mentioned, I’ve talked to people who have a visceral and contextual dislike for Mike in some cases, and they know nothing other than Mike’s persona in interviews, stage presence, and that’s about it. They’ve never read any biographies, never really read much of anything about the band. I’m not going to blame David Leaf’s book for Mike come across as a tool in an interview in 2014 or something. The other BB’s including, say, Al Jardine were also minimized by Leaf (arguably I suppose), and Al didn’t spend the next 30 years trying to tell every interview that he was a genius too. I’d say the Leaf book and Leaf in general may have impacted the group internally more than it did the public’s perception of Mike.

I think the point is no matter how long Leaf's (and Priore's) book(s) has been out of print, the legacy of the books  is the problem.

[Cam Mott]

I'll bet a donut that if Dennis had given that same speech this board would be falling all over itself praising Dennis for the balls to give it.

Yep there it is, the token "compare Mike to Dennis" or vice versa in a Mike love thread!

My donut bet still stands and is relevant to the question of the OP and not really about Dennis.

[filledeplage]

Re: Mike’s 1988 R&R HOF speech, to try to defend it is pretty lame I think. I find it highly entertaining, but for all the wrong reasons. There most definitely *is* good reason to call out the industry both collectively and in some cases on an individual basis. But Mike’s not the guy to do it, and the way he did it was lame. His words carried no weight coming from a guy in a band who are famously (and infamously) litigious, who at times let various, to use his own words from the speech, “internecine squabbles” derail the band and/or lead to exiting members (s***-canning Al from the band a decade later, quitting the band in 2012, etc.), who made everyone in the band look like idiots by essentially challenging the dead John Lennon to “out-tour” the Beach Boys, who shamed McCartney and Diana Ross for not being there yet years later skipped the Hawthorne Landmark ceremony, and so on. Like I said, some of the stuff he said was important. It was just coming from the wrong guy, and done poorly.

Re: The David Leaf book. All I say is that internally I’m sure the other group members were not so hot on David Leaf, and it’s surely possible that contributed to Mike Love’s hyper-defensiveness in subsequent years. But the book has been out or print for decades now, right? As I mentioned, I’ve talked to people who have a visceral and contextual dislike for Mike in some cases, and they know nothing other than Mike’s persona in interviews, stage presence, and that’s about it. They’ve never read any biographies, never really read much of anything about the band. I’m not going to blame David Leaf’s book for Mike come across as a tool in an interview in 2014 or something. The other BB’s including, say, Al Jardine were also minimized by Leaf (arguably I suppose), and Al didn’t spend the next 30 years trying to tell every interview that he was a genius too. I’d say the Leaf book and Leaf in general may have impacted the group internally more than it did the public’s perception of Mike.

Hey Jude - lame or not, one issue that I've always had with these megastars is that, they have been isolated from their fan base in a way that is not the M.O. of the Boys.  This has baffled me.  How many people ever had the chance to see The Beatles? The Stones? Diana Ross? Not many.  

Do you think it is even fathomable had the Stones been in the same boat that the Boys found themselves in would have gone to the same lengths to seek out new markets for fans, or would have humbled themselves to perform in front of very small crowds, to "stay in the game?"  I'll opine none of them.  The Touring Band took risks that few took, to take the music out there (and in Brian's behalf, in his absence.) Prague Spring.

In terms of "litigious" all I'll say is that it was long overdue for a copyright owner to assert his rights.  Had Murry been a stranger, rather than a blood relative, that suit would have been filed long before, in my opinion.  

Some author's opinion is of little interest to me.  I like photographs, concert dates, audios or videos (unvarnished) which tell their own story, that I can filter for myself.  In this journey, so many have "hitched their wagons to a star"and ended up presenting a side representing a "special interest" and "back-burnered" the music.  Landy's book - numero un.  

[filledeplage]

I'll bet a donut that if Dennis had given that same speech this board would be falling all over itself praising Dennis for the balls to give it.

Yep there it is, the token "compare Mike to Dennis" or vice versa in a Mike love thread!

My donut bet still stands and is relevant to the question of the OP and not really about Dennis.

You got a point - "Elton John - Eat your heart out!" Dennis in Knebworth...

[ontor pertawst]

Great. Now all you have to do is invent a time machine or learn how to raise the dead so we can take your bet. Otherwise it sounds like the typical "bring up the Wilsons to distract from dumb sh*t Mike Love does."

[Cam Mott]

Great. Now all you have to do is invent a time machine or learn how to raise the dead so we can take your bet. Otherwise it sounds like the typical "bring up the Wilsons to distract from dumb sh*t Mike Love does."

Looks like I'll be holding on to that donut.

[ontor pertawst]

Looks like it. Or you could really, really, REALLY apply yourself to this time machine problem. It'll mean less posting here, but think of the greater good....

[Cam Mott]

Looks like it. Or you could really, really, REALLY apply yourself to this time machine problem. It'll mean less posting here, but think of the greater good....

No, no need really because it wasn't about Dennis, it was about bias.

[filledeplage]

Looks like it. Or you could really, really, REALLY apply yourself to this time machine problem. It'll mean less posting here, but think of the greater good....

No, no need really because it wasn't about Dennis, it was about bias.

Nah, this is a different or double standard.  

[Cam Mott]

Looks like it. Or you could really, really, REALLY apply yourself to this time machine problem. It'll mean less posting here, but think of the greater good....

No, no need really because it wasn't about Dennis, it was about bias.

Nah, this is a different or double standard.  

How so?

[HeyJude]

Every iteration of the “touring band” has toured to make money above all else. It’s why they never took a break, and one of the reasons Al was edged out of the operation in 1998. When the fork in the road came in 1998 to either take some time off, even maybe just six months or a year, from touring (no income), or continuing touring (some income), or continue touring under the band’s name (even more income), or continue touring sans Al Jardine (even *more* income), we can see which roads were chosen.

Various rockstars and the industry should have and still should be called out on a lot of things, but Mick Jagger and the Stones not playing enough shows, or enough small markets (or whatever the assertion is; and I don’t follow the Rolling Stones so I don’t even know how true any of that is) compared to the Beach Boys is not anywhere near the top of things anyone in the industry should be criticized for. I don’t like stadium and arena shows, but the Stones probably play to as many people in one stadium show as Mike does in 10 or 20 “small market” shows. I’m not sure why this ends up having to come back to some sort of culture war thing where playing the Beau Rivage in Biloxi and a bowling alley in Anchorage is somehow more noble than the Rolling Stones (or C50) playing a run of shows at Madison Square Garden or Wrigley Field or whatever.

I can go see an indie band play at a club in Santa Cruz and after the show I can talk to them, get an autograph, and go eat dinner with them. So what? That doesn’t mean Mick Jagger (or whomever you dig) isn’t as impressive, just in a different way. All of these guys, whether Jagger or McCartney or Brian Wilson or Mike Love, all lead the same relatively cloistered, rich guy life style. As I said, Mike’s ’88 speech was the *type* of speech that might be needed, but it had zero credibility coming from him.

I’ve never *once* heard anyone say “You know, Mick Jagger is just too distanced and inaccessible for his fans. But Mike Love on the other hand truly cares about his fans.”

[filledeplage]

Looks like it. Or you could really, really, REALLY apply yourself to this time machine problem. It'll mean less posting here, but think of the greater good....

No, no need really because it wasn't about Dennis, it was about bias.

Nah, this is a different or double standard.  

How so?

Dennis is always judged less harshly...that charming impish manner...

[Cam Mott]

Looks like it. Or you could really, really, REALLY apply yourself to this time machine problem. It'll mean less posting here, but think of the greater good....

No, no need really because it wasn't about Dennis, it was about bias.

Nah, this is a different or double standard.  

How so?

Dennis is always judged less harshly...that charming impish manner...

Ah, got it.

[filledeplage]

Every iteration of the “touring band” has toured to make money above all else. It’s why they never took a break, and one of the reasons Al was edged out of the operation in 1998. When the fork in the road came in 1998 to either take some time off, even maybe just six months or a year, from touring (no income), or continuing touring (some income), or continue touring under the band’s name (even more income), or continue touring sans Al Jardine (even *more* income), we can see which roads were chosen.

Various rockstars and the industry should have and still should be called out on a lot of things, but Mick Jagger and the Stones not playing enough shows, or enough small markets (or whatever the assertion is; and I don’t follow the Rolling Stones so I don’t even know how true any of that is) compared to the Beach Boys is not anywhere near the top of things anyone in the industry should be criticized for. I don’t like stadium and arena shows, but the Stones probably play to as many people in one stadium show as Mike does in 10 or 20 “small market” shows. I’m not sure why this ends up having to come back to some sort of culture war thing where playing the Beau Rivage in Biloxi and a bowling alley in Anchorage is somehow more noble than the Rolling Stones (or C50) playing a run of shows at Madison Square Garden or Wrigley Field or whatever.

I can go see an indie band play at a club in Santa Cruz and after the show I can talk to them, get an autograph, and go eat dinner with them. So what? That doesn’t mean Mick Jagger (or whomever you dig) isn’t as impressive, just in a different way. All of these guys, whether Jagger or McCartney or Brian Wilson or Mike Love, all lead the same relatively cloistered, rich guy life style. As I said, Mike’s ’88 speech was the *type* of speech that might be needed, but it had zero credibility coming from him.

I’ve never *once* heard anyone say “You know, Mick Jagger is just too distanced and inaccessible for his fans. But Mike Love on the other hand truly cares about his fans.”

Oh, Pa-leeze. I'm going way back to post-Smiley, when they were regarded as passé. I'm not talking about some impromptu Mick performance...

This isn't post-Carl...

Those megastars have been historically "inaccessible" both in terms of playing locales and as people.  

As private citizens they should be "cloistered" or "out there" as they choose.

[SMiLE Brian]

It's all about Mike making money, he couldn't give two craps about the fans or quality of the band. He is only concerned with booking smaller venues for a bigger cut, not the fans.

[MaryUSA]

Hi all,

I do enjoy being on this board.  It is great to read how people feel.  

The R&RHoF speech was a long time ago.  I say let Mike live his life.  Let Brian live his life.  To have Mike and Bruce still performing is great.  To have Brian still touring is great.  Hatred only hurts the person doing the hating.  Mike isn't hurting at all due to the hatted.  I don't understand the hatred for Mike.  Same as I didn't get the anger at Paul McCartney many years ago.  I am sure we have all said things we shouldn't have said.  We all know that Mike and Brian have been dueling since almost the start.  It is natural for people to take sides.  Me, I don't get involved.  Mike will do as he pleases.  Brian is doing what he likes.  Some people hate someone because they think it gives them power.  It is easier to hate Mike rather than to simpy let it go.  If one loves Brian they should buy his merchandise.  Does Mike comment on what all of us do?  No, he doesn't.  Did Brian ever ask us to get involved with his feelings?  No, he didn't.  To hate a long time memeber of the group you like is awful.  To question Mike is fine.  I will NOT take sides here.  I am Mom's caretaker and don't have the time to do that.  My answer here is to buy the merchandise both camps offer and leave it at that.  

I hope that everyone is having a wonderful summer or winter.  

[HeyJude]

Every iteration of the “touring band” has toured to make money above all else. It’s why they never took a break, and one of the reasons Al was edged out of the operation in 1998. When the fork in the road came in 1998 to either take some time off, even maybe just six months or a year, from touring (no income), or continuing touring (some income), or continue touring under the band’s name (even more income), or continue touring sans Al Jardine (even *more* income), we can see which roads were chosen.

Various rockstars and the industry should have and still should be called out on a lot of things, but Mick Jagger and the Stones not playing enough shows, or enough small markets (or whatever the assertion is; and I don’t follow the Rolling Stones so I don’t even know how true any of that is) compared to the Beach Boys is not anywhere near the top of things anyone in the industry should be criticized for. I don’t like stadium and arena shows, but the Stones probably play to as many people in one stadium show as Mike does in 10 or 20 “small market” shows. I’m not sure why this ends up having to come back to some sort of culture war thing where playing the Beau Rivage in Biloxi and a bowling alley in Anchorage is somehow more noble than the Rolling Stones (or C50) playing a run of shows at Madison Square Garden or Wrigley Field or whatever.

I can go see an indie band play at a club in Santa Cruz and after the show I can talk to them, get an autograph, and go eat dinner with them. So what? That doesn’t mean Mick Jagger (or whomever you dig) isn’t as impressive, just in a different way. All of these guys, whether Jagger or McCartney or Brian Wilson or Mike Love, all lead the same relatively cloistered, rich guy life style. As I said, Mike’s ’88 speech was the *type* of speech that might be needed, but it had zero credibility coming from him.

I’ve never *once* heard anyone say “You know, Mick Jagger is just too distanced and inaccessible for his fans. But Mike Love on the other hand truly cares about his fans.”

Oh, Pa-leeze. I'm going way back to post-Smiley, when they were regarded as passé. I'm not talking about some impromptu Mick performance...

This isn't post-Carl...

Those megastars have been historically "inaccessible" both in terms of playing locales and as people.  

As private citizens they should be "cloistered" or "out there" as they choose.

If what you're talking about (late 60's popularity envy) is what Mike was angling at with his '88 HOF speech comments about Jagger, then that makes his speech seem even less apt and even more motivated by jealousy and insecurity. That makes it seem even more like Mike was just bent out of shape that Jagger and McCartney and Springsteen and Billy Joel, etc. were perceived as cooler than Mike or the BB's, and had more industry clout, etc.

I think part of the problem is that even Mike didn't fully know what the hell he was talking about in that speech. I've seen his subsequent attempts to explain it, and it still doesn't really make sense. And theories about the speech being about how the Beach Boys did more touring and were more accessible during some unspecified era make even less sense, and make Mike look even *more* petty and whiney.

And, what Mike did post-Carl with the "touring band" is certainly worth examining when we're looking at a speech Mike gave and deciding how much credibility he had/has, especially in retrospect. 

[CenturyDeprived]

I don't recall Carl admitting he was off his face on smack in that particular interview. I do recall him being decidedly economical with the truth.

Good point, but the bottom line was that he recognized he screwed up and took actions to correct it, and IIRC apologized for letting everyone down.

Ummm... I think being royally chewed out by David Frost, whose company was promoting the tour, had a lot to do with the apology.  

That may be, but that doesn't negate the apology from being a good thing to have happened. I don't believe it was insincere either. Other than the understandable fact that the actual chemicals in question were minimized, there was nothing about the apology that seemed anything but legit. It was a reality check, where a band member with self-awareness realized they screwed up and publicly apologized for it. Isn't that apology ultimately a good thing to have happened? The only reason to say "no" would be to hold onto some strand of an argument that minimizes or eradicates any positive implications of public recognition of having screwed up big time, so that it makes it ok when Mike never apologized or realized he went too far and came out looking like a hypocrite with the speech for the many reasons HeyJude listed earlier in the thread.

[CarlTheVoice]

Good post MaryUSA. I don't know why it's the done thing on here to criticise the band we all love. We love them enough to sign up to be members of this forum so we can speak to like minded people. Yes there are always going to be some opinions on events that happened away from the music but come on, the music is by far the most important thing here and all we are doing is tarnishing the enjoyment of that.

Very few of us know the band members personally. Some who comment haven't seen either party live for years. So really, it's best to just talk about what you KNOW rather than what you think you know.

[tpesky]

Mike's HOF speech was not some well thought out masterpiece to show the R and R world how important the BB were. It was a guy having way too much to drink and shooting his mouth off. We all have probably been there ourselves or been witness to someone else doing it.  When people try to defend it, it is an example of how this board has too many extremists.

[filledeplage]

Every iteration of the “touring band” has toured to make money above all else. It’s why they never took a break, and one of the reasons Al was edged out of the operation in 1998. When the fork in the road came in 1998 to either take some time off, even maybe just six months or a year, from touring (no income), or continuing touring (some income), or continue touring under the band’s name (even more income), or continue touring sans Al Jardine (even *more* income), we can see which roads were chosen.

Various rockstars and the industry should have and still should be called out on a lot of things, but Mick Jagger and the Stones not playing enough shows, or enough small markets (or whatever the assertion is; and I don’t follow the Rolling Stones so I don’t even know how true any of that is) compared to the Beach Boys is not anywhere near the top of things anyone in the industry should be criticized for. I don’t like stadium and arena shows, but the Stones probably play to as many people in one stadium show as Mike does in 10 or 20 “small market” shows. I’m not sure why this ends up having to come back to some sort of culture war thing where playing the Beau Rivage in Biloxi and a bowling alley in Anchorage is somehow more noble than the Rolling Stones (or C50) playing a run of shows at Madison Square Garden or Wrigley Field or whatever.

I can go see an indie band play at a club in Santa Cruz and after the show I can talk to them, get an autograph, and go eat dinner with them. So what? That doesn’t mean Mick Jagger (or whomever you dig) isn’t as impressive, just in a different way. All of these guys, whether Jagger or McCartney or Brian Wilson or Mike Love, all lead the same relatively cloistered, rich guy life style. As I said, Mike’s ’88 speech was the *type* of speech that might be needed, but it had zero credibility coming from him.

I’ve never *once* heard anyone say “You know, Mick Jagger is just too distanced and inaccessible for his fans. But Mike Love on the other hand truly cares about his fans.”

Oh, Pa-leeze. I'm going way back to post-Smiley, when they were regarded as passé. I'm not talking about some impromptu Mick performance...

This isn't post-Carl...

Those megastars have been historically "inaccessible" both in terms of playing locales and as people.  

As private citizens they should be "cloistered" or "out there" as they choose.

If what you're talking about (late 60's popularity envy) is what Mike was angling at with his '88 HOF speech comments about Jagger, then that makes his speech seem even less apt and even more motivated by jealousy and insecurity. That makes it seem even more like Mike was just bent out of shape that Jagger and McCartney and Springsteen and Billy Joel, etc. were perceived as cooler than Mike or the BB's, and had more industry clout, etc.

I think part of the problem is that even Mike didn't fully know what the hell he was talking about in that speech. I've seen his subsequent attempts to explain it, and it still doesn't really make sense. And theories about the speech being about how the Beach Boys did more touring and were more accessible during some unspecified era make even less sense, and make Mike look even *more* petty and whiney.

And, what Mike did post-Carl with the "touring band" is certainly worth examining when we're looking at a speech Mike gave and deciding how much credibility he had/has, especially in retrospect. 

What someone else says nearly 30 years ago, requires context.  Who really cares now? It is of little consequence except to those who want some fodder for a "hate" discussion.  And, I think that it was likely meant as a joke. How do you know he didn't have his stats correct? Those guys didn't tour as often. The Beatles "retired." Or broke up, or whatever.

We aren't (or I'm not talking about post-Carl.) I'm talking what I saw happen over decades; especially the struggle post 1967, in the States.  How many similarly talented 1960's era fell off the planet because they didn't "stay in the game?" And, it is the disrespect for that effort they all put forth.  

Do you think they didn't have to agree to stay out there, and move out to other locales to keep the music alive, in the face of someone like Hendrix saying, "Surf music was dead?" Even though he didn't get the memo that Pet Sounds had landed. And they had become more progressive and experimental into their work?  They had reinvented themselves.  Some people didn't want to accept that they grew out of that mode.  And Capitol was the biggest factor. They had a niche band who made them millions.

They used Brian's empty pool as an echo chamber. Does this show they didn't all work cooperatively with Brian for Smiley after Brian "shelved" Smile? Seriously.  

Why do you assume "popularity envy?" They were more popular than The Stones for a time in the UK.  I think at the HOF Mike was razzing them and it backfired.  But haters will interpret this and continue a narrative that self-perpetuates.