Why do you hate Mike Love?

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

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?

Unfortunately, you'll never convince them. No matter how logical and should-be-obvious your points. They want to pretend everything he does is excusable and hoist some kind of victim complex on him. I think it's funny one person even used the point that Mike comes here to suggest we should ease up on him and walk on egg shells about these topics.

Mike, if you're reading this...we want to like you. But you really don't do yourself any favors. It's probably too late now but you seriously could benefit from an attitude adjustment. Just being brutally honest

[Emdeeh]

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

But Brian and Ringo were already in the RnRHoF, inducted in 1988. I'm not in favor of double (triple or more in some cases) inductions to the RnRHoF -- and that includes guys named John, Paul, George, Ringo, and Eric who have already been inducted, reinducted, re-reinducted -- until AFTER the huge backlog of deserving artists who have never been inducted get in.

Once that backlog gets cleared out, then I'm in favor of Brian going in -- again -- as a producer/songwriter.

As to the original question: I do not hate Mike Love, so the question is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.

Sheesh, eight nine pages of this so far....

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

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.

According to whom, exactly? And you'd call it rock n roll even if he sh*t his pants, picked his nose and cried for mommy I'll bet.

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

Just jumping in here to say (off-topic) that Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is a shining example of pop art while on the other hand, Their Satanic Majesty's Request is a dated, gooey mess and SMiLE is unfulfilled genius potential. These are just my opinions of course... But overall I really love that era of music!

I think all three albums here are a bit overrated.  The Boys, Beatles, and Stones are released better albums before and after said albums. 

You can't call Satanic Majesties overrated. It's one of the most maligned albums of the 60s. It's anything *but* overrated.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

My issue, more than attacks OR defenses of Mike, has to do with the inevitable attacks on each other here. I've never met Mike. I don't know him. I don't think we'd get on if we actually did meet, but I respect his contributions to the band. Therefore, I don't 'hate' him. However, I know people that post here, several of them I'd consider close friends. So, yeah, I have way more of an issue with people here jumping on each other than criticizing someone who has made far more money than I ever will in 5 lifetimes. If you're in the industry, you have to have thick skin.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

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.

you'd call it rock n roll even if he sh*t his pants, picked his nose and cried for mommy I'll bet.

That'd be more country, I reckon.

[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.

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.

What is also unnecessary to some, I think, is how sometimes like in this thread, someone will ask (ignoring the legitimacy or not of the request for a moment) for opinions on why fans feel a certain way about Mike. Summer In Paradise might invariably come up, which some fans thought was a frozen turkey of a Beach Boys album, and that gets called "bashing" too. Again it comes down to soliciting opinions but also being prepared to handle what will be delivered in return. Some of the other issues are the nature of open forums, just like you get opinions of who sucks and why they suck on any sports talk program or fan page. Ask fans in Dallas what they think of the Eagles, see if Buddy Ryan comes up, and though he hasn't coached the Eagles for many years and at this point is a moot point, it will still cause a flurry of groans and insults. It's the nature of fans in general.

[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?

Unfortunately, you'll never convince them. No matter how logical and should-be-obvious your points. They want to pretend everything he does is excusable and hoist some kind of victim complex on him. I think it's funny one person even used the point that Mike comes here to suggest we should ease up on him and walk on egg shells about these topics.

Mike, if you're reading this...we want to like you. But you really don't do yourself any favors. It's probably too late now but you seriously could benefit from an attitude adjustment. Just being brutally honest

Well I don't know about that I'll never convince them. When the point gets made clear as day, the same microscopic defensive contingent seems to just get quiet, ceases responding to the most logical posts, and outright will not admit - even slightly - that there's a point that was made. That doesn't necessarily mean they aren't internally convinced a little bit, only that they (much like the person they are defending) are somehow incapable of publicly admitting such. Maybe seeing it as a sign of weakness or something, I dunno. I'm sure as hell glad I'm not wired that way; I can admit when someone with an opposing view has, nonetheless, made somewhat of a point.

At the very least the logical posts that you and I have made in this thread are due a "there may be some truth to that"  from the other side of the BB political spectrum, for the simple reason that there is logic behind them.  However, the same few people can never even seem to muster that much.

Ultimately, all I know is that logic will prevail in any debate or argument. And logic dictates that people who show regret for a widely-viewed-as-regrettable-action are invariably helped out, at least a little bit, in terms of their reputations. Even if they make the apology for damage control reasons as opposed to deep sadness or regret.  It still helps. Even a little. To deny that's true, even a little bit true, is baffling. That's why where are in fact PR companies that exist which specifically specialize in damage control for celebrities who run their mouths.

And as I've said before, lest there be any mistake about it... I do not hate Mike Love either.

[the captain]

I don't hate Mike Love. Sometimes I love his singing, sometimes not. Sometimes he's funny, sometimes not. Sometimes his lyrics strike me as great, sometimes not. Sometimes his reported behavior or quoted words strike me as annoying, sometimes not. But hate him? My life might not be the most thrilling in the world, but it would have to be pretty pathetic to spend it, to spend that energy, hating some pop singer I don't know personally.

[drbeachboy]

I don't hate Mike Love. Sometimes I love his singing, sometimes not. Sometimes he's funny, sometimes not. Sometimes his lyrics strike me as great, sometimes not. Sometimes his reported behavior or quoted words strike me as annoying, sometimes not. But hate him? My life might not be the most thrilling in the world, but it would have to be pretty pathetic to spend it, to spend that energy, hating some pop singer I don't know personally.

I agree, and even if someone doesn't like him, then say why and let it stand at that. This constant putting down, calling names stuff is juvenile. They do it here because they can or because (God forbid) they really don't know how to express what they feel without having to trash a person to get their point across. Over the years I have had a lot of issues with the things Mike has done and not done. Hell, for the first nine years that he & Bruce hit the road together, I wouldn't go see them. Still, I don't go around calling the guy names and putting him down just because I don't agree with everything he does or says.

[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.

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.

I didn't realize Stars and Stripes was Mike's plan ... I remember when that came out. I was floored with disbelief that Brian would involve himself in that. I saw the guys in 1996 (last time until 2012), and remember thinking it was kind of a downer of a show, going through the motions. I do recall my sort of jaded non-BB fan friend who was with me saying, "At least we got to see Carl Wilson sing 'God Only Knows'" ... we didn't know it would be the last time.

But somehow, I had heard about the Paley sessions and knew there was potential for something cool to be going on ... but just the stuff that would come out was bizarre.

That era is filled with horrible stuff that I don't think had much to do with Mike. Like the BB85 album ... I was there for this stuff (as a kid), bought Summer in Paradise the day it came out, etc. I went through High School in the '90s defending the Beach Boys, resenting Mike Love, wishing Brian Wilson would join the group and make them cool again. Then he did, and they were even worse! I bought Imagination the day it came out as well ... my heart sank, I hated it. I haven't really enjoyed any of his solo albums since, though Gettin In Over My Head has some nice moments. There's just this element of cheeziness (particularly on the production side, which is part of what makes the Beach Boys so great) in everything any of the group or the solo members have done since the '80s. The exception being the Paley sessions ...

I suppose my main point is that regardless of the origin of the idea (cheerleaders, Summer in Paradise, Full House), it's not like Mike Love was forcing anyone to go along with this stuff. Maybe he was domineering? I don't know, but I'm starting to feel like Carl was primarily commercially minded during this era, and sort of deferred to Mike. It seems like Al was maybe against some of the things the group was doing, and Brian didn't care ... so it came down to Carl going along with Mike. Does anyone else remember the interview with Sean O'Hagan, where he mentioned talking to Carl on a plane somewhere ... discussing records like Holland, and Carl saying something like, "We're not that kind of group any more; we don't have it in us to do an artistic record" (paraphrasing)? Carl's solo records, his material on the '85 album, and his apparent support of the '80s-'90s projects seem to support this. I suppose I really feel like the '90s were the group's last opporunity for true Beach Boys greatness, and they just didn't pull it together. I can't help but feel like maybe that was due to Carl. Don't get me wrong, I love Carl ... and he was always my favorite Beach Boy in those days (he was the only one to respond to a fan letter I sent all of the individual members in 1993). But I do think that at that point, that he probably was thinking of the band as either a business, or a creative entity of the past (possibly both). You have to wonder ... why did he veto the Paley stuff? Maybe he thought it was the Beach Boys 'trying' to be artistic, and they would fail?

Anyway, sorry for sidetracking the thread ... but, back to the topic ... let's remember that love and hate go hand in hand, and hate is not the opposite of love ... indifference is.  

If anyone is looking for a reason to hate Mike Love, here ya go:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbX3rKMHYy4

[CenturyDeprived]

I suppose my main point is that regardless of the origin of the idea (cheerleaders, Summer in Paradise, Full House), it's not like Mike Love was forcing anyone to go along with this stuff. Maybe he was domineering? I don't know, but I'm starting to feel like Carl was primarily commercially minded during this era, and sort of deferred to Mike. It seems like Al was maybe against some of the things the group was doing, and Brian didn't care ... so it came down to Carl going along with Mike. Does anyone else remember the interview with Sean O'Hagan, where he mentioned talking to Carl on a plane somewhere ... discussing records like Holland, and Carl saying something like, "We're not that kind of group any more; we don't have it in us to do an artistic record" (paraphrasing)? Carl's solo records, his material on the '85 album, and his apparent support of the '80s-'90s projects seem to support this. I suppose I really feel like the '90s were the group's last opporunity for true Beach Boys greatness, and they just didn't pull it together. I can't help but feel like maybe that was due to Carl. Don't get me wrong, I love Carl ... and he was always my favorite Beach Boy in those days (he was the only one to respond to a fan letter I sent all of the individual members in 1993). But I do think that at that point, that he probably was thinking of the band as either a business, or a creative entity of the past (possibly both). You have to wonder ... why did he veto the Paley stuff? Maybe he thought it was the Beach Boys 'trying' to be artistic, and they would fail?

I think Carl just gave up fighting, because the internal emotional cost to himself would have been too high. Especially with the turmoil of his brother being in Landy's sick clutches at the time. Perhaps Carl just got more risk-averse the older he got, but ultimately I think his mindset was due to influence, and very likely pressure, by those around him, who actively desired to stay clear of more artistic material.

[Pretty Funky]

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.

you'd call it rock n roll even if he sh*t his pants, picked his nose and cried for mommy I'll bet.

That'd be more country, I reckon.

Yes!

[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.

I didn't realize Stars and Stripes was Mike's plan ... I remember when that came out. I was floored with disbelief that Brian would involve himself in that. I saw the guys in 1996 (last time until 2012), and remember thinking it was kind of a downer of a show, going through the motions. I do recall my sort of jaded non-BB fan friend who was with me saying, "At least we got to see Carl Wilson sing 'God Only Knows'" ... we didn't know it would be the last time.

But somehow, I had heard about the Paley sessions and knew there was potential for something cool to be going on ... but just the stuff that would come out was bizarre.

That era is filled with horrible stuff that I don't think had much to do with Mike. Like the BB85 album ... I was there for this stuff (as a kid), bought Summer in Paradise the day it came out, etc. I went through High School in the '90s defending the Beach Boys, resenting Mike Love, wishing Brian Wilson would join the group and make them cool again. Then he did, and they were even worse! I bought Imagination the day it came out as well ... my heart sank, I hated it. I haven't really enjoyed any of his solo albums since, though Gettin In Over My Head has some nice moments. There's just this element of cheeziness (particularly on the production side, which is part of what makes the Beach Boys so great) in everything any of the group or the solo members have done since the '80s. The exception being the Paley sessions ...

I suppose my main point is that regardless of the origin of the idea (cheerleaders, Summer in Paradise, Full House), it's not like Mike Love was forcing anyone to go along with this stuff. Maybe he was domineering? I don't know, but I'm starting to feel like Carl was primarily commercially minded during this era, and sort of deferred to Mike. It seems like Al was maybe against some of the things the group was doing, and Brian didn't care ... so it came down to Carl going along with Mike. Does anyone else remember the interview with Sean O'Hagan, where he mentioned talking to Carl on a plane somewhere ... discussing records like Holland, and Carl saying something like, "We're not that kind of group any more; we don't have it in us to do an artistic record" (paraphrasing)? Carl's solo records, his material on the '85 album, and his apparent support of the '80s-'90s projects seem to support this. I suppose I really feel like the '90s were the group's last opporunity for true Beach Boys greatness, and they just didn't pull it together. I can't help but feel like maybe that was due to Carl. Don't get me wrong, I love Carl ... and he was always my favorite Beach Boy in those days (he was the only one to respond to a fan letter I sent all of the individual members in 1993). But I do think that at that point, that he probably was thinking of the band as either a business, or a creative entity of the past (possibly both). You have to wonder ... why did he veto the Paley stuff? Maybe he thought it was the Beach Boys 'trying' to be artistic, and they would fail?

Anyway, sorry for sidetracking the thread ... but, back to the topic ... let's remember that love and hate go hand in hand, and hate is not the opposite of love ... indifference is.  

If anyone is looking for a reason to hate Mike Love, here ya go:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbX3rKMHYy4

I experienced the same things during this same era from the late 80's into the 90's. Pre-internet for the most part, when you had to actively seek out material and it wasn't a case of instant gratification via downloads and YouTube. Traveling to record shops, video stores, scanning Goldmine and Discoveries, going to record collector conventions and paying inflated prices, mailing lists, all of that stuff. It was that time when you take the plunge into a band's material, when it really starts becoming a near obsession to find new stuff to experience, albums, videos, books, whatever.

And speaking from experience, it was a tough time to be that deep into the Beach Boys. I'd see ads and listings that they would be making a TV appearance, playing this or doing that, and nearly every time it felt like they weren't fucking delivering the goods. I'm sorry to say that, but that's how it felt. Here I was being moved to tears and poring over this music and going all in, and you'd see some concert or TV clip and it was a letdown. beyond that, it felt like they just didn't *get it* on a basic level. There was an underground buzz, there were younger musicians namechecking the music in all kinds of 'zines and even mainstream music mags, yet you'd get a chance to see the band carrying the name (and history) on TV and it felt like you were watching a bizarro version of it. How could the same band release things like that horrible Problem Child song? That f***ed-up Super Bowl warmup show with Ruth Buzzi...seriously?

So i took refuge in the original records, looked for the underground and unreleased material, read books and mags and all of that which helped stoke the fire rather than throw buckets of water on it. Because *that* was what it felt like whenever they'd come on TV.

Baywatch was the absolute nadir. Blown opportunity times 1,000. Hot show, promoted in the press, some buzz in music mags that Brian and Mike had written a new song for one of the Baywatch shows...that's how popular it was, there were spinoffs too...and instead we get Mike rapping a song several years old over a video that Hasselhoff couldn't even be bothered to appear in. They had to cut footage of the show's opening credits footage showing him into the "video". You have Brian and Carl there...and we got Mike rapping instead?

That's bad. And it's not about hating or reasons to hate, but for the sake of all things good in music, WHY?

And further...we know who was calling the shots. Knowing that, is it hard to suss out whose call it was to feature Mike rapping on a hit TV show instead of something, anything else to spotlight the band instead of Mike? Something that took advantage of the fact that BRIAN AND CARL were there?

Stars & Stripes...same deal, same letdown. I bought a high quality VHS blank tape to record Letterman when it was announced they'd be on with Brian. Holy f***, that just doesn't happen, right? big deal, big news. As I've said before, watching that show...another clusterfuck. Brian, Carl, Al, Mike...singing BACKUP for an unknown minor league country singer. A "reunion" of the Wilson brothers and the surviving band members on a TV show, performing together, and they're holding wireless microphones on the backline behind a guy no one even knew at the time? Seriously?

And again, that was on Mike's initiative. Have the band sing backups for a parade of known and somewhat known and even totally unknown country singers. The best cut was Willie Nelson...I could be wrong but i think that may also have been the cut Brian was most invested in. Apparently the other sessions had the other Beach Boys almost patronizing him and overcompensating on the concern instead of rolling up the sleeves and getting into the trenches with him to cut records, which should have been the idea. It didn't happen. Again, who was the skipper of that boat?

Someone already beat me to it on the board, but the issue was deciding whether the success of Kokomo was one of those music industry flukes or a mandate. Some thought it was a mandate...and it drove most of the decisions from 1988 up to 1997.

That's my feeling in a nutshell. No hate, just remembering the time and time again feeling of "they blew it" during this era. they had the momentum, and it was bubbling up in places they ignored while the Kokomo momentum was as cold as leftover pizza. They chose the pizza too often. Going into 1998, it was in tatters.

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

I don't hate Mike Love. Sometimes I love his singing, sometimes not. Sometimes he's funny, sometimes not. Sometimes his lyrics strike me as great, sometimes not. Sometimes his reported behavior or quoted words strike me as annoying, sometimes not. But hate him? My life might not be the most thrilling in the world, but it would have to be pretty pathetic to spend it, to spend that energy, hating some pop singer I don't know personally.

I agree, and even if someone doesn't like him, then say why and let it stand at that. This constant putting down, calling names stuff is juvenile. They do it here because they can or because (God forbid) they really don't know how to express what they feel without having to trash a person to get their point across. Over the years I have had a lot of issues with the things Mike has done and not done. Hell, for the first nine years that he & Bruce hit the road together, I wouldn't go see them. Still, I don't go around calling the guy names and putting him down just because I don't agree with everything he does or says.

Good, solid and worthy advice for the one here who has absolutely no qualms about calling people here fuckwits, shitweasels, or trolls just because they have opinions about myKe luHv.   

[Cam Mott]

The S & S album liner notes show Mike as Executive Producer but thank "Eddie Haddad for the great idea" and "Dan Wojcik for introducing us to Joe Thomas", Brian is a Producer and all of the equal partners are all over everything about it.  Could Mike unilaterally pronounce himself EP?

How was Mike in control when someone else was Producer or when Carl had the power to stop production?    

[Cam Mott]

Looks like we all agree Mike's HoF speech is being spun but disagree about which way by who.

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

Looks like we all agree Mike's HoF speech is being spun but disagree about which way by who.

Umm, no Cam. We all agree it was a drunken embarrassment except you. To you, because it's Mike no doubt, it was some iconic Rock n Roll moment where the brave Mike put the big bad establishment in its place. And just a few posts ago you were claiming the moment "didnt register" in the media's radar. So which is it? You cant even keep your own interpretation straight. It's all about saving face. For Mike, and yourself. 

[Andrew G. Doe]

I don't hate Mike Love. Sometimes I love his singing, sometimes not. Sometimes he's funny, sometimes not. Sometimes his lyrics strike me as great, sometimes not. Sometimes his reported behavior or quoted words strike me as annoying, sometimes not. But hate him? My life might not be the most thrilling in the world, but it would have to be pretty pathetic to spend it, to spend that energy, hating some pop singer I don't know personally.

I agree, and even if someone doesn't like him, then say why and let it stand at that. This constant putting down, calling names stuff is juvenile. They do it here because they can or because (God forbid) they really don't know how to express what they feel without having to trash a person to get their point across. Over the years I have had a lot of issues with the things Mike has done and not done. Hell, for the first nine years that he & Bruce hit the road together, I wouldn't go see them. Still, I don't go around calling the guy names and putting him down just because I don't agree with everything he does or says.

Good, solid and worthy advice for the one here who has absolutely no qualms about calling people here fuckwits, shitweasels, or trolls just because they have opinions about myKe luHv.  

Seeing you've entirely missed the point of the two posters you've quoted, allow me to enlighten you:

" But hate him? My life might not be the most thrilling in the world, but it would have to be pretty pathetic to spend it, to spend that energy, hating some pop singer I don't know personally."

No ? OK, try this (emphasis added for clarification):

"I agree, and even if someone doesn't like him, then say why and let it stand at that. This constant putting down, calling names stuff is juvenile. They do it here because they can or because (God forbid) they really don't know how to express what they feel without having to trash a person to get their point across. Over the years I have had a lot of issues with the things Mike has done and not done. Hell, for the first nine years that he & Bruce hit the road together, I wouldn't go see them. Still, I don't go around calling the guy names and putting him down just because I don't agree with everything he does or says."

I may be wrong here, but my feeling is that those comments are directed at... well... you and your minions. I've stayed out of this particular bit of nonsense - been having way too much fun watching holes being dug ever deeper, tbh - but felt I had to correct the impression given that I pepper every post I make with name-calling. I don't. Don't have to. Used the term selectively a few times, and seems it's stuck. It's comforting to see a backlash against the "constant putting down, calling names stuff".  

Oh, and a PS: on this and other threads on the same topic (and the usual suspects ensure they mostly devolve to that anyway), there's a huge mount of rank nonsense spouted. On both sides of the argument. Or rather, two monologues.

[Cam Mott]

Looks like we all agree Mike's HoF speech is being spun but disagree about which way by who.

Umm, no Cam. We all agree it was a drunken embarrassment except you. To you, because it's Mike no doubt, it was some iconic Rock n Roll moment where the brave Mike put the big bad establishment in its place. And just a few posts ago you were claiming the moment "didnt register" in the media's radar. So which is it? You cant even keep your own interpretation straight. It's all about saving face. For Mike, and yourself. 

You might want to reread because I'm not the only one.

Imo, the HoF speech was both at the same time: not on the radar of the world in general and also a Rock and Roll moment challenging and criticizing his peers.

[Andrew G. Doe]

The S & S album liner notes show Mike as Executive Producer but thank "Eddie Haddad for the great idea" and "Dan Wojcik for introducing us to Joe Thomas", Brian is a Producer and all of the equal partners are all over everything about it.     

Well that's him on my shitlist and no mistake...

[Cam Mott]

The S & S album liner notes show Mike as Executive Producer but thank "Eddie Haddad for the great idea" and "Dan Wojcik for introducing us to Joe Thomas", Brian is a Producer and all of the equal partners are all over everything about it.     

Well that's him on my shitlist and no mistake...

Which "him", ol' pal?

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

Looks like we all agree Mike's HoF speech is being spun but disagree about which way by who.

Umm, no Cam. We all agree it was a drunken embarrassment except you. To you, because it's Mike no doubt, it was some iconic Rock n Roll moment where the brave Mike put the big bad establishment in its place. And just a few posts ago you were claiming the moment "didnt register" in the media's radar. So which is it? You cant even keep your own interpretation straight. It's all about saving face. For Mike, and yourself. 

You might want to reread because I'm not the only one.

Imo, the HoF speech was both at the same time: not on the radar of the world in general and also a Rock and Roll moment challenging and criticizing his peers.

Ok, one or maybe two other posters. Still...the point remains that any reputable source and the vast majority of fans see it as an outright embarrassment or something to laugh *at* Mike for. So...maybe there are a few outliers but the overwhelming read on it is the opposite of what you're saying. You're objectively wrong about the media ignoring it too, and we all know you'll continue to blindly defend this and everything else Mike has ever done so your opinion is hardly unbiased

[Komera]

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

Ask the people flaming him on YouTube.  They call him all sorts of delightful things.

I don't hate him.  I don't think we'd be the best of buddies, though.

[Andrew G. Doe]

The S & S album liner notes show Mike as Executive Producer but thank "Eddie Haddad for the great idea" and "Dan Wojcik for introducing us to Joe Thomas", Brian is a Producer and all of the equal partners are all over everything about it.     

Well that's him on my shitlist and no mistake...

Which "him", ol' pal?

Errr... the dude I highlighted in my repost ?