Awesome New Mike Love Article!!

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

Maybe you missed my original post: "Sometimes it feels to me like some people are more outraged (or whatever) at Mike's continuing hurt feelings than they are with the people and actions that hurt Mike."  Didn't have anything to do with that lawsuit.

I hope that "Baghdad Bob" comment doesn't violate Rule 2 and get you in trouble.   

Cam, stop fishing to try and get people banned.  The new Board strategy of the Mike Love PR team. 

By hoping it doesn't get him in trouble?  So did you have any comment for SB about his comment?

Look at it this way, by being called Baghdad Bob, you got off comparatively easy coming from someone who's been called far worse. give it up and move on Cmott.

[SurfRiderHawaii]

I agree with the lack of charm. He just doesn't have a likable personality. Yes, Dennis did do far worse stuff than Mike but got away with it because he also had charm...and could also be kind. Didn't have the irritating aspects to his personality either, like the corny sense of humor and the blatant materialism.

But the other thing about Mike is that he seems psychologically stuck in 1963. It's like he can't acknowledge the validity of anything that has happened since then. He can't even get Brian's diagnosis right, and Brian is someone who had a BIG presence in his personal and professional life, and so presumably, someone he cares about. But he hasn't even taken the time to maybe find out WHY Brian does some of the things he does. Mike appears to be stuck as a 22-year-old, with the adolescent humor and everything. Thus, he can't accept Brian as anything other than the 21-year-old who wrote Fun, Fun, Fun with him. He can't seem to accept that things change, and he hasn't seemed to have gained the perspective that most people gain as they get older. A lot of people look back on things that happened when they were young and say, "I get it now. I get why I did that, and it was a mistake. I get why he did that. There are more important things in life than holding onto this." But he can't seem to do that.

And like a much younger person, he hasn't taken responsibility for anything. Still pointing out Dennis and Brian's addictions and Brian's mental illness, blaming them for those things. Talking as if meditating is a virtue in itself-- something that makes him the better person. But in fact, the meditation seemlngly hasn't given him inner peace at all.

I can't blame Mike because he seems to lack self-awareness. And he seems to suffer from many of the same demons as his cousins...they're just expressed in different ways. I wonder if Mike has ever had therapy to help him make sense of why he's so bitter.

To be fair, Mike HAS acknowledged the validity of Brian's post-1963 music, including the 1966 and later "artistic" stuff - he routinely acknowledges the huge, influential success of "Good Vibrations", and perhaps to a lesser degree Pet Sounds, and has been known to drop such esoteric "deep cuts" as "You Still Believe In Me", "Here Today", "Heroes And Villains", and even "Surf's Up" and "'Til I Die" into his setlist from time-to-time, depending on the venue.

Really C-Man? He did this by suing Brian and alleging , " Between 1967 and 2002, Brian was essentially too ill to do anything but collect his royalties, including revenues from BRI and his 25% share of Mike Love’s license royalties."?

[Cam Mott]

Look at it this way, by being called Baghdad Bob, you got off comparatively easy coming from someone who's been called far worse. give it up and move on Cmott.

As have I but that doesn't help SB.

Back at ya, old pal.  

[Emily]

I would be flattered to be compared to Baghdad Bob. He was right on almost every call.

[c-man]

I agree with the lack of charm. He just doesn't have a likable personality. Yes, Dennis did do far worse stuff than Mike but got away with it because he also had charm...and could also be kind. Didn't have the irritating aspects to his personality either, like the corny sense of humor and the blatant materialism.

But the other thing about Mike is that he seems psychologically stuck in 1963. It's like he can't acknowledge the validity of anything that has happened since then. He can't even get Brian's diagnosis right, and Brian is someone who had a BIG presence in his personal and professional life, and so presumably, someone he cares about. But he hasn't even taken the time to maybe find out WHY Brian does some of the things he does. Mike appears to be stuck as a 22-year-old, with the adolescent humor and everything. Thus, he can't accept Brian as anything other than the 21-year-old who wrote Fun, Fun, Fun with him. He can't seem to accept that things change, and he hasn't seemed to have gained the perspective that most people gain as they get older. A lot of people look back on things that happened when they were young and say, "I get it now. I get why I did that, and it was a mistake. I get why he did that. There are more important things in life than holding onto this." But he can't seem to do that.

And like a much younger person, he hasn't taken responsibility for anything. Still pointing out Dennis and Brian's addictions and Brian's mental illness, blaming them for those things. Talking as if meditating is a virtue in itself-- something that makes him the better person. But in fact, the meditation seemlngly hasn't given him inner peace at all.

I can't blame Mike because he seems to lack self-awareness. And he seems to suffer from many of the same demons as his cousins...they're just expressed in different ways. I wonder if Mike has ever had therapy to help him make sense of why he's so bitter.

To be fair, Mike HAS acknowledged the validity of Brian's post-1963 music, including the 1966 and later "artistic" stuff - he routinely acknowledges the huge, influential success of "Good Vibrations", and perhaps to a lesser degree Pet Sounds, and has been known to drop such esoteric "deep cuts" as "You Still Believe In Me", "Here Today", "Heroes And Villains", and even "Surf's Up" and "'Til I Die" into his setlist from time-to-time, depending on the venue.

Really C-Man? He did this by suing Brian and alleging , " Between 1967 and 2002, Brian was essentially too ill to do anything but collect his royalties, including revenues from BRI and his 25% share of Mike Love’s license royalties."?

Contradictory though they may appear, Mike has indeed done both.

[SurfRiderHawaii]

I agree with the lack of charm. He just doesn't have a likable personality. Yes, Dennis did do far worse stuff than Mike but got away with it because he also had charm...and could also be kind. Didn't have the irritating aspects to his personality either, like the corny sense of humor and the blatant materialism.

But the other thing about Mike is that he seems psychologically stuck in 1963. It's like he can't acknowledge the validity of anything that has happened since then. He can't even get Brian's diagnosis right, and Brian is someone who had a BIG presence in his personal and professional life, and so presumably, someone he cares about. But he hasn't even taken the time to maybe find out WHY Brian does some of the things he does. Mike appears to be stuck as a 22-year-old, with the adolescent humor and everything. Thus, he can't accept Brian as anything other than the 21-year-old who wrote Fun, Fun, Fun with him. He can't seem to accept that things change, and he hasn't seemed to have gained the perspective that most people gain as they get older. A lot of people look back on things that happened when they were young and say, "I get it now. I get why I did that, and it was a mistake. I get why he did that. There are more important things in life than holding onto this." But he can't seem to do that.

And like a much younger person, he hasn't taken responsibility for anything. Still pointing out Dennis and Brian's addictions and Brian's mental illness, blaming them for those things. Talking as if meditating is a virtue in itself-- something that makes him the better person. But in fact, the meditation seemlngly hasn't given him inner peace at all.

I can't blame Mike because he seems to lack self-awareness. And he seems to suffer from many of the same demons as his cousins...they're just expressed in different ways. I wonder if Mike has ever had therapy to help him make sense of why he's so bitter.

To be fair, Mike HAS acknowledged the validity of Brian's post-1963 music, including the 1966 and later "artistic" stuff - he routinely acknowledges the huge, influential success of "Good Vibrations", and perhaps to a lesser degree Pet Sounds, and has been known to drop such esoteric "deep cuts" as "You Still Believe In Me", "Here Today", "Heroes And Villains", and even "Surf's Up" and "'Til I Die" into his setlist from time-to-time, depending on the venue.

Really C-Man? He did this by suing Brian and alleging , " Between 1967 and 2002, Brian was essentially too ill to do anything but collect his royalties, including revenues from BRI and his 25% share of Mike Love’s license royalties."?

Contradictory though they may appear, Mike has indeed done both.

Yes indeed. OC Disorder perhaps (him, not you).

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

What the hell is a Baghdad Bob, besides something you can get in Cambodia for about $30 U.S.?

[Andrew G. Doe]

Took longer than I expected, but we got there. 

[SurfRiderHawaii]

What the hell is a Baghdad Bob, besides something you can get in Cambodia for about $30 U.S.?

Iraqi military/regime PR spokesmen prior to Desert Storm and up thru the fall of Baghdad. His press conferences werre highly entertaining!

[Ang Jones]

We can laugh and joke but hard for me to imagine retaining a relationship with someone who initiated such a case.

"In 2002, Brian began to resurrect his career by touring with his own band. However his “performance” has been, for the most part, limited by his past mental and emotional problems." So much so that he made the national news in the UK and was invited to perform at the Party at the Palace.

But if his "performance" was so limited, why did Mike agree to the C50 then?

[Pretty Funky]

What the hell is a Baghdad Bob, besides something you can get in Cambodia for about $30 U.S.?

Iraqi military/regime PR spokesmen prior to Desert Storm and up thru the fall of Baghdad. His press conferences werre highly entertaining!

Ahhh Comical Ali.

Thanks.

[Cam Mott]

I guess we can relax, SB.  Maybe you're fine rule-wise as long as we keep our insults to comparing someone to a notorious liar of a murderous regime.  Good to know, right?    

[Smilin Ed H]

Sometimes it feels to me like some people are more outraged (or whatever) at Mike's continuing hurt feelings than they are with the people and actions that hurt Mike. 

Sometimes it's not hard to understand why people would have a hard time sympathizing with Mike.  You are talking of what, a thirty+ year grudge even after he won a lawsuit wherein he probably received more money and credit than he deserves?  And he still can't quit bad mouthing a mentally ill man who never really bad mouths him back?

Then he goes on the attack against Al Jardine in a frivolous lawsuit against Brian in regards to Smile?  Despite Al not even being named?  Here are some of the more choice bits from the lawsuit:

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/cassius-love-vs-sonny-wilson-2005-lawsuit-text.67046/

"4. In addition to his songwriting contributions to The Beach Boys, as the longtime front man for the band, Mike Love has been historically recognized as the primary voice and image of The Beach Boys; and Carl Wilson was historically recognized as the musical leader. After Carl’s death in 1998, Alan Jardine announced in the entertainment media that he no longer wished to tour with The Beach Boys; and Mike Love announced privately within BRI that he would no longer tour with Alan Jardine because of Jardine’s long and well documented history of mental and emotional problems, failure to perform, and abusiveness toward other band members. BRI then granted an exclusive license to Mike Love to perform at live concerts using The Beach Boys registered trademark. Since 1998, Mike Love has scrupulously fulfilled his license obligations, using the trademark to perform as The Beach Boys in approximately 150 live concerts per year all over the world. He has paid over eleven million dollars to BRI as royalties on this license.

5. In the same time frame following Carl Wilson’s death, Alan Jardine misappropriated the trademark, bastardized The Beach Boys name, altered the traditional Beach Boys harmonies, line-up and music, defamed Mike Love and The Beach Boys in the media, and then overtly infringed upon the trademark by using it to perform live concerts while duping ticket-buyers into believing it was the BRI-licensed Beach Boys. Jardine wreaked havoc in the marketplace causing BRI to sue for a permanent injunction which was granted and then upheld by the Ninth Circuit in Brother Records, Inc. v Jardine, 318 F.3d 900 (9th Cir. 2003). Although Jardine is still a 25% shareholder and a Director of BRI (receiving 25% of the license revenues), he is an adjudicated infringer who has breached his fiduciary duties to BRI.

6. Like Jardine, Brian Wilson has now with the “give-away” scheme, pursued a path to promote himself, destroy The Beach Boys trademark, and breach his fiduciary duties to BRI and to Mike Love. Historically, these breaches are the continuation of over thirty-five years of conduct by Brian Wilson to damage The Beach Boys and BRI. Between 1961 and 1966 Mike Love and Brian Wilson successfully collaborated with Carl and Dennis Wilson in the creation of hit after hit and album after album in the rapidly growing world of rock and roll music. Mike and Brian are recognized as prodigious song-writing pioneers in the early development of this musical genre. But beginning in 1965, drugs began to destroy Brian Wilson. By 1967, Brian lived either in his bed or in his sand-box in his Beverly Hills mansion. While Mike Love and The Beach Boys were touring without him, Brian was surrounded by drug addicts, drug dealers, parasites, and plagiarizers. In 1967, while Brian was living in an environment of drugs and physical and mental illness, Brian and The Beach Boys created the “Smile” album pursuant to their contract with Capitol Records, and paid for by Capitol. Brian also consulted some of the hangers-on that surrounded him at the time.

7. Between 1967 and 2002, Brian was essentially too ill to do anything but collect his royalties, including revenues from BRI and his 25% share of Mike Love’s license royalties. Between 1991 and 2002, Brian was under a court-ordered conservatorship, first with a court appointed lawyer until 1995, and then with his just married wife. In 2002, Brian began to resurrect his career by touring with his own band. However his “performance” has been, for the most part, limited by his past mental and emotional problems. In order to promote himself, Brian began to misappropriate BRI property. In 2003, he misappropriated “Pet Sounds,” a Beach Boys album, all while serving as a fiduciary to BRI. In September, 2004, Brian Wilson, without permission or a license from BRI, the owner of Smile, orchestrated the scheme to release a Smile CD. Up until then, Smile had been called the most recognized unreleased album in the history of rock ‘n’ roll. Smile has obtained “secondary meaning” as a Beach Boys property, and historically has been identified with The Beach Boys trademark. The defendants here exploited Mike Love and The Beach Boys’ tie-ins with Brian Wilson and Smile to promote the sale of the Smile CD, The Mail on Sunday newspaper, and the services of BigTime.TV.

Sometimes Mike makes it hard to feel bad for Mike.

EoL

Seeing this all in black and white - or white and black... it is inescapabaly shitty, isn't it?

[Ang Jones]

Cam Mott doing the Two Step Side Step again, a much easier manoeuvre than addressing the serious, and seriously depressing, points raised in this thread.

I agree it looks appalling set out in black and white.

[Cam Mott]

Sure.  A lot of things lawyers have said and done on behalf of the Boys are inescapably shitty. A lot of things Beach Boys have actually done to each other are inescapably shitty.  Do we complain about them having hurt feelings more than we complain about the actions that hurt their feelings?  Imo, I think we do in regards to Mike.

[Cam Mott]

Cam Mott doing the Two Step Side Step again, a much easier manoeuvre than addressing the serious, and seriously depressing, points raised in this thread.

I agree it looks appalling set out in black and white.

Ang says as Two Step Side Stepping my point.

[Ang Jones]

Sure.  A lot of things lawyers have said and done on behalf of the Boys are inescapably shitty. A lot of things Beach Boys have actually done to each other are inescapably shitty.  Do we complain about them having hurt feelings more than we complain about the actions that hurt their feelings?  Imo, I think we do in regards to Mike.

We're not talking about what the Beach Boys have done to each other or what lawyers have done - we are discussing one specific situation. Widening this to include a variety of situations is an attempt to evade and whether or not other Beach Boys have also behaved badly does not alter this specific situation at all. The 'everybody does it' excuse is known as the Golden Rationalisation:

"1. The Golden Rationalization, or "Everybody does it"

"This rationalization has been used to excuse ethical misconduct since the beginning of civilization. It is based on the flawed assumption that the ethical nature of an act is somehow improved by the number of people who do it, and if "everybody does it," then it is implicitly all right for you to do it as well: cheat on tests, commit adultery, lie under oath, use illegal drugs, persecute Jews, lynch blacks. Of course, people who use this "reasoning" usually don't believe that what they are doing is right because "everybody does it." They usually are arguing that they shouldn't be singled out for condemnation if "everybody else" isn't.

"Since most people will admit that principles of right and wrong are not determined by polls, those who try to use this fallacy are really admitting misconduct. The simple answer to them is that even assuming they are correct, when more people engage in an action that is admittedly unethical, more harm results. An individual is still responsible for his or her part of the harm.

"If someone really is making the argument that an action is no longer unethical because so many people do it, then that person is either in dire need of ethical instruction, or an idiot." http://www.ethicsscoreboard.com/rb_fallacies.html

[Empire Of Love]

Sure.  A lot of things lawyers have said and done on behalf of the Boys are inescapably shitty. A lot of things Beach Boys have actually done to each other are inescapably shitty.  Do we complain about them having hurt feelings more than we complain about the actions that hurt their feelings?  Imo, I think we do in regards to Mike.

Shifting blame to the attorneys would work Cam, were it not for the fact that many of the comments read just like a Mike Love interview.  Shall I begin providing links and quotes to make the point?  Or are you suggesting his attorneys are writing his interview responses as well?

EoL

[SMiLE Brian]

Plus nice try with the Baghdad bob distraction.

[SMiLE Brian]

Sahaf's nickname, "Baghdad Bob," now denotes someone who confidently declares what everyone else can see is false--someone so wrong, it's funny.

[Cam Mott]

Sure.  A lot of things lawyers have said and done on behalf of the Boys are inescapably shitty. A lot of things Beach Boys have actually done to each other are inescapably shitty.  Do we complain about them having hurt feelings more than we complain about the actions that hurt their feelings?  Imo, I think we do in regards to Mike.

We're not talking about what the Beach Boys have done to each other or what lawyers have done - we are discussing one specific situation. Widening this to include a variety of situations is an attempt to evade and whether or not other Beach Boys have also behaved badly does not alter this specific situation at all. The 'everybody does it' excuse is known as the Golden Rationalisation:

"1. The Golden Rationalization, or "Everybody does it"

"This rationalization has been used to excuse ethical misconduct since the beginning of civilization. It is based on the flawed assumption that the ethical nature of an act is somehow improved by the number of people who do it, and if "everybody does it," then it is implicitly all right for you to do it as well: cheat on tests, commit adultery, lie under oath, use illegal drugs, persecute Jews, lynch blacks. Of course, people who use this "reasoning" usually don't believe that what they are doing is right because "everybody does it." They usually are arguing that they shouldn't be singled out for condemnation if "everybody else" isn't.

"Since most people will admit that principles of right and wrong are not determined by polls, those who try to use this fallacy are really admitting misconduct. The simple answer to them is that even assuming they are correct, when more people engage in an action that is admittedly unethical, more harm results. An individual is still responsible for his or her part of the harm.

"If someone really is making the argument that an action is no longer unethical because so many people do it, then that person is either in dire need of ethical instruction, or an idiot." http://www.ethicsscoreboard.com/rb_fallacies.html

I didn't excuse anything, the opposite - I agreed it was misguided, and I pointed out a context that speaks to the perceived bias in my original point. If you'll read my original post it is specific and apparently being avoided with side steps and diversions and distractions.  I'm not side stepping anything and I've answered diversions from it. You could just speak to MY point instead of holding me accountable to other's diversions from it and we can agree or disagree.

[Cam Mott]

Sure.  A lot of things lawyers have said and done on behalf of the Boys are inescapably shitty. A lot of things Beach Boys have actually done to each other are inescapably shitty.  Do we complain about them having hurt feelings more than we complain about the actions that hurt their feelings?  Imo, I think we do in regards to Mike.

Shifting blame to the attorneys would work Cam, were it not for the fact that many of the comments read just like a Mike Love interview.  Shall I begin providing links and quotes to make the point?  Or are you suggesting his attorneys are writing his interview responses as well?

EoL

You may continue to divert from my original post as much as you like but please quit blaming me for your diversions from it.

[Cam Mott]

Sahaf's nickname, "Baghdad Bob," now denotes someone who confidently declares what everyone else can see is false--someone so wrong, it's funny.

Well, you're off the hook for your own actions then I guess. Well done, carry on.

Edit: it does sort of speak to my point: there is much more discussion of my reaction to the deed than there is about the actual deed. On topic finally, well done again.

[SMiLE Brian]

Let it go "Kokomo Cam"

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

Let it go "Kokomo Cam"