Recent Mike Love Interview - Bakersfield Californian

[HeyJude]

Agreed, there's nothing new here in the interview. I don't see people taking sides so much as reacting to these interviews. If Mike would stop saying this stuff, that might go a ways towards stopping critical commentary. It's not a big story or anything. But we're at three years now since the end of C50, so it's not out of line to just check in to see that Mike is *still* implying people around/controlling Brian are doing, well, something Mike disagrees with.

I would also say that implying people around Brian are keeping Brian from writing with Mike (and also seemingly implying Brian *wants* to write with him) goes beyond just mentioning that Brian has a "team" around him that helps him with stuff. Again, both guys have agents/managers, etc.. Brian has never given an interview claiming that Mike *totally* wants to continue the reunion but people around Mike are keeping Mike from doing it.

[CenturyDeprived]

Agreed, there's nothing new here in the interview. I don't see people taking sides so much as reacting to these interviews. If Mike would stop saying this stuff, that might go a ways towards stopping critical commentary. It's not a big story or anything. But we're at three years now since the end of C50, so it's not out of line to just check in to see that Mike is *still* implying people around/controlling Brian are doing, well, something Mike disagrees with.

I would also say that implying people around Brian are keeping Brian from writing with Mike (and also seemingly implying Brian *wants* to write with him) goes beyond just mentioning that Brian has a "team" around him that helps him with stuff. Again, both guys have agents/managers, etc.. Brian has never given an interview claiming that Mike *totally* wants to continue the reunion but people around Mike are keeping Mike from doing it.

I'm honestly baffled by what I interpret Mike's intentions are in his regular interviews. I'm trying to understand what he would truthfully want people to take away from his words. Does Mike desire for regular readers of his interviews to deduce some (or one) of the following?:

1. Brian wants to write some songs solely with Mike, but is being forceably not "allowed" to by mysterious handlers

2. Brian is being influenced by mysterious handlers to not want to work with Mike, and has been brainwashed to agree with them (or Brian is afraid to stand up to them, and do what his heart truly desires which is to write some songs solely with Mike)

3. Is there a 3rd option which I'm not able to see here?

I would think that if a reader is unable to objectively say a remotely critical thing about Mike's interviews, that the reader would be saying that one or more of these options is, in fact, correct.

Because I've never seen Mike say a peep about acknowledging the possibility that Brian actually didn't desire in his own heart to regularly work with Mike in that one-on-one capacity... I'm assuming that Mike considers that scenario to be an impossibility.

To give Mike the benefit of the doubt, maybe it's because Brian said nice things and made promises to Mike about songwriting in 2011/2012 (much like in '66/'67) that aren't/weren't always kept (instead of outright saying something more truthful along the lines that in all probability, some people, perhaps including psychologists in Brian's sphere may have advised him it's best to not work one-on-one with a sometimes pushy collaborator who may be prone to occasionally laying guilt trips, and that Brian, now more focused on his own mental health, may actually agree with that conclusion (or he may have reached it on his own), and that having another person around playing interference is the best option. Will anyone on this board really say that this is such an outlandish theory? I certainly don't think it is.

IMHO, that's what's actually happened (or not far from the truth), but Mike doesn't want to think it's remotely possible, or he just wants to publicly grumble in a way that garners sympathy for himself, hoping that Brian will "see the light".

Maybe Mike thinks that Mike himself is never a person who gives guilt trips, communicates unhealthily, and that he is the world's foremost authority on the nuance of mental health matters for Brian simply because he grew up with him (regardless of what professionals who help Brian these days would say). Yes, professionals' views are not always right, they can be wrong... but so can Mike. Doesn't Brian generally seem outwardly happier, more productive, and sober these days than he has in many years past, and wouldn't that be an indicator that Brian's support system works?

If I didn't know better, I'd assume that Mike seeing Brian aligning with a mental health group would feel that it's a bunch of hippy-dippy bullsh*t - I say this because he seems to imply he knows the ins and outs of Brian's illness solely out of his experience years ago, likely without any more recent nuanced booksmart education on the matter which might lead him to understand that Mike's own personality could sometimes (not always, but sometimes) have inadvertent, unintended negative implications for Brian. I'd love to see Mike say that it's cool that Brian is working with a mental health organization, but I won't hold my breath.

If Mike poo-poos Brian's support system, the only conclusion I can draw is that he thinks that everyone is somehow magically out to get him, or that he thinks that psychologists' opinions are a bunch of hooey unless they are the same as his own. Because I cannot see any psychologist knowingly recommending that an emotionally fragile guy like Brian in his 70s continue to regularly work one-on-one with a collaborator such as Mike, especially at minimum considering the negative stuff Mike says in the press when Mike doesn't get his way. That alone should be a hint of the negative way Mike reacts when Mike doesn't get his way... and that mindset would in some way surely find its way into the recording studio if a one-on-one collab happened - how would it not? If creative conflicts were to happen in a one-on-one collab, why would Brian think that Mike would act any differently than the negative manner that has become Mike's norm post C50?

[Cam Mott]

To be fair, in this interview Mike says he and Brian each have a "side", nothing about handlers (unless I missed it).

What in the world do you think the word "side" meant?? The only thing you missed was the point. 

So you think Mike meant he and Brian both have "handlers"?

[Emily]

To be fair, in this interview Mike says he and Brian each have a "side", nothing about handlers (unless I missed it).

What in the world do you think the word "side" meant?? The only thing you missed was the point. 

So you think Mike meant he and Brian both have "handlers"?

Sorry for jumping in, but I think it's less a problem with the clause about 'sides' but more with the surrounding bits, that it wasn't "allowed" and finishing with the very clear implication that Brian W. didn't make his own decision.
"... but it was not allowed — by his side, not my side. So I don’t think it has anything to do with Brian himself"

[Cam Mott]

So Mike is saying he and Brian both have "sides" which make decisions without them.

[ontor pertawst]

I dunno, Cam. You tell us. You seem to know what he's thinking at all times past, present, and future.

[CenturyDeprived]

So Mike is saying he and Brian both have "sides" which make decisions without them.

Are you implying Mike is saying he himself is being manipulated and controlled to do things that he (Mike) doesn't want to do?

[Emily]

So Mike is saying he and Brian both have "sides" which make decisions without them.

I'm not sure what his intent is, but if we parse it literally it means:
1. they both have 'sides'
2. Brian's 'side' did "not allow" them to work together
3. Mike doesn't think that the lack of allowance had "anything to do with Brian himself"

So, his words communicate that they each have a 'side' but that Brian's side makes rules for Brian's behavior independent of input from Brian. He does not comment on how his side operates.

Again, that's what his words say, regardless of his intent.

"... but it was not allowed — by his side, not my side. So I don’t think it has anything to do with Brian himself"

[MikestheGreatest!!]

Hasn't it been well established that the C50 ran the whole dates it was scheduled for and that the Mike and Bruce Band had other dates lined up that they were committed to?

In any event, it was a long tour and most folks who really wanted to see them were probably able to do so.

Its unfortunate that Brian decided at the end that he wanted the tour to continue.  He probably should have requested a longer tour prior to the beginning of the tour.

Having said that, I still don't know why NPP could not have been a "BB's" album.  How long would it have taken to get the guys into the studio to sing on at least some of the songs.  Far as I'm concerned, they could have called it a Boys album anyway with the inclusion of Al/Blondie.

Yes, I know, legalities, realities....sigh

[HeyJude]

Hasn't it been well established that the C50 ran the whole dates it was scheduled for and that the Mike and Bruce Band had other dates lined up that they were committed to?

There are about ten trillion posts on this subject spread out over the last three years. Nobody has ever said any C50 dates were cancelled. The argument that they couldn't do more reunion dates because Mike had other commitments makes no sense and never has; it implies someone was forcing him to book dates. He didn't fail to continue on the reunion tour because he had his own dates booked. He booked his own dates because he didn't want to continue the reunion.

Anyone in that organization who actually wanted to continue the reunion would not have begun booking non-reunion shows while the reunion tour was still going.

[CenturyDeprived]

Hasn't it been well established that the C50 ran the whole dates it was scheduled for and that the Mike and Bruce Band had other dates lined up that they were committed to?

There are about ten trillion posts on this subject spread out over the last three years. Nobody has ever said any C50 dates were cancelled. The argument that they couldn't do more reunion dates because Mike had other commitments makes no sense and never has; it implies someone was forcing him to book dates. He didn't fail to continue on the reunion tour because he had his own dates booked. He booked his own dates because he didn't want to continue the reunion.

Anyone in that organization who actually wanted to continue the reunion would not have begun booking non-reunion shows while the reunion tour was still going.

And if anyone doubts any of what HeyJude said above, just try to imagine a scenario where Mike "got his way" with writing with Brian in a room, and felt that the C50 situation suited his needs/ego/etc... does anyone think that Mike would simply have sneakily started to book M&B shows right in the middle of the C50 tour (in the same manner that it actually happened)? Not in a million years, of course.

Booking those M&B shows was a reaction to absolutely ensure he would get back all the power and control that he felt was slipping away from him during C50 due to the pesky (and apparently, as he proved, soon-to-be-avoidable) problem of having other actual official BB members onstage and part of the band. What a gnarly problem to have, good thing he fixed it.

[Sheriff John Stone]

Far as I'm concerned, they could have called it a Boys album anyway with the inclusion of Al/Blondie.

I'm not singling you out, MikestheGreatest, but since you mentioned this...it's something I've wanted to address for awhile.

It was advertised and promoted extensively that Brian Wilson "reunited" with ex-Beach Boy Blondie Chaplin on No Pier Pressure. Does anybody know if, as Beach Boys, Brian Wilson and Blondie Chaplin ever shared the same stage live? And, does anybody know if Brian Wilson and Blondie Chaplin ever attended the same recording session during the CATP and Holland sessions? I'm just curious but that's not really my point.

Please correct me if I'm missing a part, but the only song on No Pier Pressure that Blondie Chaplin sings on is "Sail Away". On the song he sings four lines totaling 25 seconds. For some reason - and I'm not questioning Joe Thomas' and Brian's artistic decision - Blondie only sings the first verse and disappears. Brian sings the other verses and Brian and Al Jardine are both featured on the choruses. Blondie is listed on background vocals but I'll be darn if I can hear him. I guess my point is, yeah, factually, Brian and Blondie, two ex-Beach Boys, did reunite on the No Pier Pressure album. But, damn, if you sneezed you might've missed it. OK, sorry to hold you up. Go back to hammering Mike Love. The thread is still young...

[Cam Mott]

So Mike is saying he and Brian both have "sides" which make decisions without them.

I'm not sure what his intent is, but if we parse it literally it means:
1. they both have 'sides'
2. Brian's 'side' did "not allow" them to work together
3. Mike doesn't think that the lack of allowance had "anything to do with Brian himself"

So, his words communicate that they each have a 'side' but that Brian's side makes rules for Brian's behavior independent of input from Brian. He does not comment on how his side operates.

Again, that's what his words say, regardless of his intent.

"... but it was not allowed — by his side, not my side. So I don’t think it has anything to do with Brian himself"

It seems it implies both "sides" had the power to not allow it without having anything to do with either of them.

[Cam Mott]

Hasn't it been well established that the C50 ran the whole dates it was scheduled for and that the Mike and Bruce Band had other dates lined up that they were committed to?

There are about ten trillion posts on this subject spread out over the last three years. Nobody has ever said any C50 dates were cancelled. The argument that they couldn't do more reunion dates because Mike had other commitments makes no sense and never has; it implies someone was forcing him to book dates. He didn't fail to continue on the reunion tour because he had his own dates booked. He booked his own dates because he didn't want to continue the reunion.

Anyone in that organization who actually wanted to continue the reunion would not have begun booking non-reunion shows while the reunion tour was still going.

To me it seems clear there were no offers for more C50 dates in 2012 so that is probably a strawman argument; the offers were for 2013 (or later) and were apparently never even put in writing to be discussed by the band as the band and so another strawman argument.  To me, if there is blame it is on BRI for inaction.

[ontor pertawst]

It's clear that Mike's handlers have him kept prisoner, isolated from the world. They won't even let him watch Love & Mercy, and he loves his Cousin Brian so very much! Nutty Jerry can't get a straight answer, much less get thru on the phone any more. Rumor has it that he's been prevented from writing songs with Bruce Johnston in a room for decades! Their combined songwriting power and commercial savvy, inexplicably suffocated. Damn those handlers!

Dunno what SJS's point is, or what "reunion" marketing or hype he's referring to. It's just great that Blondie Chaplin is playing with the BW band, they sound great together. So they didn't pal around in the 70s. Big deal. Neither did George Harrison and Mike Love, and he's out there whining almost every night about his Pisces Brother. Weird that Olivia Harrison didn't remember that and ask him to perform at the Concert for George or something. Where was he at Georgefest? Maybe he was watching BW sing from a nearby doorway and didn't want to hog the spotlight.

Anyway, you can't deny that BW and BC are linked forever by "Sail On, Sailor." And yeah, yer wrong -- he's doing backing vocals on "Runaway Dancer' too.

[DonnyL]

Far as I'm concerned, they could have called it a Boys album anyway with the inclusion of Al/Blondie.

I'm not singling you out, MikestheGreatest, but since you mentioned this...it's something I've wanted to address for awhile.

It was advertised and promoted extensively that Brian Wilson "reunited" with ex-Beach Boy Blondie Chaplin on No Pier Pressure. Does anybody know if, as Beach Boys, Brian Wilson and Blondie Chaplin ever shared the same stage live? And, does anybody know if Brian Wilson and Blondie Chaplin ever attended the same recording session during the CATP and Holland sessions? I'm just curious but that's not really my point.

Please correct me if I'm missing a part, but the only song on No Pier Pressure that Blondie Chaplin sings on is "Sail Away". On the song he sings four lines totaling 25 seconds. For some reason - and I'm not questioning Joe Thomas' and Brian's artistic decision - Blondie only sings the first verse and disappears. Brian sings the other verses and Brian and Al Jardine are both featured on the choruses. Blondie is listed on background vocals but I'll be darn if I can hear him. I guess my point is, yeah, factually, Brian and Blondie, two ex-Beach Boys, did reunite on the No Pier Pressure album. But, damn, if you sneezed you might've missed it. OK, sorry to hold you up. Go back to hammering Mike Love. The thread is still young...

I would think Brian and Blondie were both present for sessions on tracks like "He Come Down" and "Funky Pretty".

[CenturyDeprived]

Hasn't it been well established that the C50 ran the whole dates it was scheduled for and that the Mike and Bruce Band had other dates lined up that they were committed to?

There are about ten trillion posts on this subject spread out over the last three years. Nobody has ever said any C50 dates were cancelled. The argument that they couldn't do more reunion dates because Mike had other commitments makes no sense and never has; it implies someone was forcing him to book dates. He didn't fail to continue on the reunion tour because he had his own dates booked. He booked his own dates because he didn't want to continue the reunion.

Anyone in that organization who actually wanted to continue the reunion would not have begun booking non-reunion shows while the reunion tour was still going.

To me it seems clear there were no offers for more C50 dates in 2012 so that is probably a strawman argument; the offers were for 2013 (or later) and were apparently never even put in writing to be discussed by the band as the band and so another strawman argument.  To me, if there is blame it is on BRI for inaction.

Let's especially blame Brian and Al for not wanting to deal with the emotional weight and financial drain of what would surely have been a protracted, bitter legal battle if they wanted to do something about it. That's as lame and difficult-to-comprehend an excuse if there ever was one - very blame-worthy.

[Emily]

So Mike is saying he and Brian both have "sides" which make decisions without them.

I'm not sure what his intent is, but if we parse it literally it means:
1. they both have 'sides'
2. Brian's 'side' did "not allow" them to work together
3. Mike doesn't think that the lack of allowance had "anything to do with Brian himself"

So, his words communicate that they each have a 'side' but that Brian's side makes rules for Brian's behavior independent of input from Brian. He does not comment on how his side operates.

Again, that's what his words say, regardless of his intent.

"... but it was not allowed — by his side, not my side. So I don’t think it has anything to do with Brian himself"

It seems it implies both "sides" had the power to not allow it without having anything to do with either of them.

Again, I'm making no assertion regarding his intent, and perhaps that was his intent. But a literal parsing does not state that. A literal parsing only states that they each had a side and that Brian's side didn't allow something. He literally said nothing about the behavior of his side. Whether he intended to imply such a thing is subjective.

[Cam Mott]

So Mike is saying he and Brian both have "sides" which make decisions without them.

I'm not sure what his intent is, but if we parse it literally it means:
1. they both have 'sides'
2. Brian's 'side' did "not allow" them to work together
3. Mike doesn't think that the lack of allowance had "anything to do with Brian himself"

So, his words communicate that they each have a 'side' but that Brian's side makes rules for Brian's behavior independent of input from Brian. He does not comment on how his side operates.

Again, that's what his words say, regardless of his intent.

"... but it was not allowed — by his side, not my side. So I don’t think it has anything to do with Brian himself"

It seems it implies both "sides" had the power to not allow it without having anything to do with either of them.

Again, I'm making no assertion regarding his intent, and perhaps that was his intent. But a literal parsing does not state that. A literal parsing only states that they each had a side and that Brian's side didn't allow something. He literally said nothing about the behavior of his side. Whether he intended to imply such a thing is subjective.

OK, we'll leave it there, agreeably disagreeing.

[bgas]

So Mike is saying he and Brian both have "sides" which make decisions without them.

I'm not sure what his intent is, but if we parse it literally it means:
1. they both have 'sides'
2. Brian's 'side' did "not allow" them to work together
3. Mike doesn't think that the lack of allowance had "anything to do with Brian himself"

So, his words communicate that they each have a 'side' but that Brian's side makes rules for Brian's behavior independent of input from Brian. He does not comment on how his side operates.

Again, that's what his words say, regardless of his intent.

"... but it was not allowed — by his side, not my side. So I don’t think it has anything to do with Brian himself"

It seems it implies both "sides" had the power to not allow it without having anything to do with either of them.

Again, I'm making no assertion regarding his intent, and perhaps that was his intent. But a literal parsing does not state that. A literal parsing only states that they each had a side and that Brian's side didn't allow something. He literally said nothing about the behavior of his side. Whether he intended to imply such a thing is subjective.

OK, we'll leave it there, agreeably disagreeing.

I think this is the most agreeable you've been in a long time. You're really getting mellow

[Emily]

So Mike is saying he and Brian both have "sides" which make decisions without them.

I'm not sure what his intent is, but if we parse it literally it means:
1. they both have 'sides'
2. Brian's 'side' did "not allow" them to work together
3. Mike doesn't think that the lack of allowance had "anything to do with Brian himself"

So, his words communicate that they each have a 'side' but that Brian's side makes rules for Brian's behavior independent of input from Brian. He does not comment on how his side operates.

Again, that's what his words say, regardless of his intent.

"... but it was not allowed — by his side, not my side. So I don’t think it has anything to do with Brian himself"

It seems it implies both "sides" had the power to not allow it without having anything to do with either of them.

Again, I'm making no assertion regarding his intent, and perhaps that was his intent. But a literal parsing does not state that. A literal parsing only states that they each had a side and that Brian's side didn't allow something. He literally said nothing about the behavior of his side. Whether he intended to imply such a thing is subjective.

OK, we'll leave it there, agreeably disagreeing.

[Cam Mott]

So Mike is saying he and Brian both have "sides" which make decisions without them.

I'm not sure what his intent is, but if we parse it literally it means:
1. they both have 'sides'
2. Brian's 'side' did "not allow" them to work together
3. Mike doesn't think that the lack of allowance had "anything to do with Brian himself"

So, his words communicate that they each have a 'side' but that Brian's side makes rules for Brian's behavior independent of input from Brian. He does not comment on how his side operates.

Again, that's what his words say, regardless of his intent.

"... but it was not allowed — by his side, not my side. So I don’t think it has anything to do with Brian himself"

It seems it implies both "sides" had the power to not allow it without having anything to do with either of them.

Again, I'm making no assertion regarding his intent, and perhaps that was his intent. But a literal parsing does not state that. A literal parsing only states that they each had a side and that Brian's side didn't allow something. He literally said nothing about the behavior of his side. Whether he intended to imply such a thing is subjective.

OK, we'll leave it there, agreeably disagreeing.

I think this is the most agreeable you've been in a long time. You're really getting mellow

I'm always mellow and agreeable. It's everybody else.....

[bgas]

I knew it wouldn't last

[Lonely Summer]

Far as I'm concerned, they could have called it a Boys album anyway with the inclusion of Al/Blondie.

I'm not singling you out, MikestheGreatest, but since you mentioned this...it's something I've wanted to address for awhile.

It was advertised and promoted extensively that Brian Wilson "reunited" with ex-Beach Boy Blondie Chaplin on No Pier Pressure. Does anybody know if, as Beach Boys, Brian Wilson and Blondie Chaplin ever shared the same stage live? And, does anybody know if Brian Wilson and Blondie Chaplin ever attended the same recording session during the CATP and Holland sessions? I'm just curious but that's not really my point.

Please correct me if I'm missing a part, but the only song on No Pier Pressure that Blondie Chaplin sings on is "Sail Away". On the song he sings four lines totaling 25 seconds. For some reason - and I'm not questioning Joe Thomas' and Brian's artistic decision - Blondie only sings the first verse and disappears. Brian sings the other verses and Brian and Al Jardine are both featured on the choruses. Blondie is listed on background vocals but I'll be darn if I can hear him. I guess my point is, yeah, factually, Brian and Blondie, two ex-Beach Boys, did reunite on the No Pier Pressure album. But, damn, if you sneezed you might've missed it. OK, sorry to hold you up. Go back to hammering Mike Love. The thread is still young...

I would think Brian and Blondie were both present for sessions on tracks like "He Come Down" and "Funky Pretty".

I wouldn't bet on it.