Awesome New Mike Love Article!!

[China Pig]

Mike's hangup is that after finally getting his due from songs Brian chose not to credit him on years ago, he now has to listen to people claim that he 'stole' credits from Brian. Reguardless of how mentally ill somebody is, cheating someone is still cheating.

[filledeplage]

I think that Al nailed it.

I suspect that one of the reasons C50 crashed and burned was that each night the final introduction and the loudest applause was reserved for Brian Wilson and that irritated Mike to no end.

A qualifier here.  I really like Al and his work.  That said, I respectfully disagree.  Brian did get huge applause.  I saw multiple shows.  Brian stood in the shoes of both of his brothers.  No other band member was in that situation.

First, many (such as myself) had only seen Brian on a Landy-cameo, more than 20 years after seeing the Beach Boys live.  This means playing a full show with the band.   I never saw Brian at a full show, until C50 or on TV at the 25th Anniversary.

Second, although all eyes were on both Dennis and Carl during those highly charged tribute videos, many wept openly to see Brian as the highly unexpected sole survivor of his family, and as boomers, many had experienced similar losses and had great empathy for Brian for many reasons.

Third, perhaps none of the other members had suffered the losses such as Brian (and not just sympathy for a sibling - but the complex relationship of being co-creators and co-founders) and although not height- compromised, standing as a giant, rising above such loss.  

There is a dynamic, outside of the band, that transcends this different recognition for Brian.  It could likely be related to what he told Carl, when he was so sick, "I'm going to stay around for awhile."  Maybe the dynamic that was tapped-into for L&M - that makes the movie about his personal journey, and not related to the band he was involved in.  

Brian gets this extraordinary kind of applause at his solo shows, and I think not just for his music but his ability to move forward, that people have found to be courageous because of who he is as a human being.  Each of the band members were given plenty of C50 applause, and all merited it.   JMHO  

[guitarfool2002]

Usually AGD would jump in and correct the above inaccuracy regarding this lawsuit but for some reason he is absent this time.  Yes, the Smile lawsuit is a little more recent than you might think - Mike kept it going (and going and going and going) until a little over five years ago:

https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/California_Central_District_Court/2--05-cv-07798/Mike_Love_v._Mail_on_Sunday_et_al/

Warning: you might get dizzy scrolling through all of the filings and other minutia.

So it is a bit old, but not quite as old as you might think and certainly not as old as it got to be for Brian and his legal team to keep addressing the suit which was frivolous to begin with.  But I give Mike credit, he is as persistent in his legal maneuvering as he is in his touring.  

EoL

Looking at that, the actual lawsuit itself ended in May 2007 -- everything after that is argument about who paid the lawyers' fees.

That's not true. The original decisions were appealed and went to the 9th Circuit Court, and the 2010 decision that ended the case and offered the judgement on the matters of the appeal was written and filed in 2010. It's in the public record, and the full 9th Circuit judgement as written is available at this link: http://333.lawlink.com/documents/6826/public

I'm a bit of a legal geek who enjoys reading the various details and the how's and why's certain things happened, and this document traces the key points of the original case as well as describes the various decisions made leading up to that 2010 appeals court decision. It's interesting reading that spells out specific details and decisions in the years the case went through the legal process, including how certain aspects of the case were dismissed "with prejudice" by the various courts.

What was interesting here is how one of the key witnesses for the plaintiff (Love) on which certain elements of the case were based (taken from the written decision by the judge) "was a close associate of Love's attorney and had fabricated his allegation that he was confused by the labeling of 'Good Vibrations' " and sanctions were entered against counsel.

It would appear not only were some of the historical facts completely wrong in the original case filing, but the courts also found some of the evidence presented in the case had been fabricated, what the document described as "uncontested evidence" of the fabrication when it was discovered.

[CenturyDeprived]

Usually AGD would jump in and correct the above inaccuracy regarding this lawsuit but for some reason he is absent this time.  Yes, the Smile lawsuit is a little more recent than you might think - Mike kept it going (and going and going and going) until a little over five years ago:

https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/California_Central_District_Court/2--05-cv-07798/Mike_Love_v._Mail_on_Sunday_et_al/

Warning: you might get dizzy scrolling through all of the filings and other minutia.

So it is a bit old, but not quite as old as you might think and certainly not as old as it got to be for Brian and his legal team to keep addressing the suit which was frivolous to begin with.  But I give Mike credit, he is as persistent in his legal maneuvering as he is in his touring.  

EoL

Looking at that, the actual lawsuit itself ended in May 2007 -- everything after that is argument about who paid the lawyers' fees.

That's not true. The original decisions were appealed and went to the 9th Circuit Court, and the 2010 decision that ended the case and offered the judgement on the matters of the appeal was written and filed in 2010. It's in the public record, and the full 9th Circuit judgement as written is available at this link: http://333.lawlink.com/documents/6826/public

I'm a bit of a legal geek who enjoys reading the various details and the how's and why's certain things happened, and this document traces the key points of the original case as well as describes the various decisions made leading up to that 2010 appeals court decision. It's interesting reading that spells out specific details and decisions in the years the case went through the legal process, including how certain aspects of the case were dismissed "with prejudice" by the various courts.

What was interesting here is how one of the key witnesses for the plaintiff (Love) on which certain elements of the case were based (taken from the written decision by the judge) "was a close associate of Love's attorney and had fabricated his allegation that he was confused by the labeling of 'Good Vibrations' " and sanctions were entered against counsel.

It would appear not only were some of the historical facts completely wrong in the original case filing, but the courts also found some of the evidence presented in the case had been fabricated, what the document described as "uncontested evidence" of the fabrication when it was discovered.

Sounds like Mike's legal team behaved not too dissimilar ethically-speaking from the Manitowoc County Sheriff's department (made famous/infamous via the Netflix series "Making a Murderer") in the initial case, where Steven Avery was falsely imprisoned and then released after decades (irrespective of the second, more questionable crime in the show). Mike's team was actually willing to go to the lengths of planting evidence and having fake people completely, blatantly lying in order to try to "prove" their side, and this was proven to be the case.

In both cases, to think that the knowledge of this behavior didn't go all the way to the top is rather unlikely. Does anyone really think the a team of lower-level employees would go totally rogue and do that with zero knowledge by the big boss? Nobody's life was on the line in Mike's case, but the thought that an utterly fake person/story was drudged up and concocted is very, very icky and devoid of ethics.

My empathy for Mike's crediting screwjob doesn't evaporate with this knowledge, but his ethics do take quite a beating in my mind, especially when he repeatedly calls out his bandmates' ethical lapses. Maybe lawyers planting evidence like that was intended as a counterpunch to Brian not settling for the lower amount in the earlier songwriting case.  

[SMiLE Brian]

That whole move was twisted as f***.

[filledeplage]

Usually AGD would jump in and correct the above inaccuracy regarding this lawsuit but for some reason he is absent this time.  Yes, the Smile lawsuit is a little more recent than you might think - Mike kept it going (and going and going and going) until a little over five years ago:

https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/California_Central_District_Court/2--05-cv-07798/Mike_Love_v._Mail_on_Sunday_et_al/

Warning: you might get dizzy scrolling through all of the filings and other minutia.

So it is a bit old, but not quite as old as you might think and certainly not as old as it got to be for Brian and his legal team to keep addressing the suit which was frivolous to begin with.  But I give Mike credit, he is as persistent in his legal maneuvering as he is in his touring.  

EoL

Looking at that, the actual lawsuit itself ended in May 2007 -- everything after that is argument about who paid the lawyers' fees.

That's not true. The original decisions were appealed and went to the 9th Circuit Court, and the 2010 decision that ended the case and offered the judgement on the matters of the appeal was written and filed in 2010. It's in the public record, and the full 9th Circuit judgement as written is available at this link: http://333.lawlink.com/documents/6826/public

I'm a bit of a legal geek who enjoys reading the various details and the how's and why's certain things happened, and this document traces the key points of the original case as well as describes the various decisions made leading up to that 2010 appeals court decision. It's interesting reading that spells out specific details and decisions in the years the case went through the legal process, including how certain aspects of the case were dismissed "with prejudice" by the various courts.

What was interesting here is how one of the key witnesses for the plaintiff (Love) on which certain elements of the case were based (taken from the written decision by the judge) "was a close associate of Love's attorney and had fabricated his allegation that he was confused by the labeling of 'Good Vibrations' " and sanctions were entered against counsel.

It would appear not only were some of the historical facts completely wrong in the original case filing, but the courts also found some of the evidence presented in the case had been fabricated, what the document described as "uncontested evidence" of the fabrication when it was discovered.

Sounds like Mike's legal team behaved not too dissimilar ethically-speaking from the Manitowoc County Sheriff's department (made famous/infamous via the Netflix series "Making a Murderer"). Actually willing to go to the lengths of planting evidence and having fake people completely, blatantly lying in order to try to "prove" their side.

CD - there is sort of an easy rule of the road in a lawsuit.  The client controls the goal, whether they prevail or not; and, the lawyers control the means, generally meaning the paperwork.  

During the course of the litigation, defendants are dropped or by advancing information, others get them dismissed as defendants.  That list of filings and dismissals doe not look unusual because of the necessary rules that have to be complied with.   This is a too-broad a brush.  

Non-Lawyer clients, don't have the education to do their own legal work hire and entrust others to do that.  Lawyers are human and often reviled. And, when they cross the line, ethically, are disbarred or suspended from the practice of law, as they should.  But they are a necessary evil in society.      

There is no doubt that some very underpaid prosecutors are so hungry (and overworked) because they want to win a big case to break out into private practice, or go into politics and make a name, that they overlook "exculpatory" or evidence that tends to make the defendant innocent, and there are rules in place to fix that.  Many innocent people have gone to prison unjustly and by the same token, many guilty people have gotten off unpunished, because their private attorney could out-maneuver the prosecutor. So it cuts both ways.  Sometimes you win; sometimes you lose.  

It is too bad, because they give good attorneys a bad name, just like any other profession.  Just sayin'.  

[CenturyDeprived]

Usually AGD would jump in and correct the above inaccuracy regarding this lawsuit but for some reason he is absent this time.  Yes, the Smile lawsuit is a little more recent than you might think - Mike kept it going (and going and going and going) until a little over five years ago:

https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/California_Central_District_Court/2--05-cv-07798/Mike_Love_v._Mail_on_Sunday_et_al/

Warning: you might get dizzy scrolling through all of the filings and other minutia.

So it is a bit old, but not quite as old as you might think and certainly not as old as it got to be for Brian and his legal team to keep addressing the suit which was frivolous to begin with.  But I give Mike credit, he is as persistent in his legal maneuvering as he is in his touring.  

EoL

Looking at that, the actual lawsuit itself ended in May 2007 -- everything after that is argument about who paid the lawyers' fees.

That's not true. The original decisions were appealed and went to the 9th Circuit Court, and the 2010 decision that ended the case and offered the judgement on the matters of the appeal was written and filed in 2010. It's in the public record, and the full 9th Circuit judgement as written is available at this link: http://333.lawlink.com/documents/6826/public

I'm a bit of a legal geek who enjoys reading the various details and the how's and why's certain things happened, and this document traces the key points of the original case as well as describes the various decisions made leading up to that 2010 appeals court decision. It's interesting reading that spells out specific details and decisions in the years the case went through the legal process, including how certain aspects of the case were dismissed "with prejudice" by the various courts.

What was interesting here is how one of the key witnesses for the plaintiff (Love) on which certain elements of the case were based (taken from the written decision by the judge) "was a close associate of Love's attorney and had fabricated his allegation that he was confused by the labeling of 'Good Vibrations' " and sanctions were entered against counsel.

It would appear not only were some of the historical facts completely wrong in the original case filing, but the courts also found some of the evidence presented in the case had been fabricated, what the document described as "uncontested evidence" of the fabrication when it was discovered.

Sounds like Mike's legal team behaved not too dissimilar ethically-speaking from the Manitowoc County Sheriff's department (made famous/infamous via the Netflix series "Making a Murderer"). Actually willing to go to the lengths of planting evidence and having fake people completely, blatantly lying in order to try to "prove" their side.

CD - there is sort of an easy rule of the road in a lawsuit.  The client controls the goal, whether they prevail or not; and, the lawyers control the means, generally meaning the paperwork.  

During the course of the litigation, defendants are dropped or by advancing information, others get them dismissed as defendants.  That list of filings and dismissals doe not look unusual because of the necessary rules that have to be complied with.   This is a too-broad a brush.  

Non-Lawyer clients, don't have the education to do their own legal work hire and entrust others to do that.  Lawyers are human and often reviled. And, when they cross the line, ethically, are disbarred or suspended from the practice of law, as they should.  But they are a necessary evil in society.      

There is no doubt that some very underpaid prosecutors are so hungry (and overworked) because they want to win a big case to break out into private practice, or go into politics and make a name, that they overlook "exculpatory" or evidence that tends to make the defendant innocent, and there are rules in place to fix that.  Many innocent people have gone to prison unjustly and by the same token, many guilty people have gotten off unpunished, because their private attorney could out-maneuver the prosecutor. So it cuts both ways.  Sometimes you win; sometimes you lose.  

It is too bad, because they give good attorneys a bad name, just like any other profession.  Just sayin'.  

I don't think that Mike was necessarily the mastermind of any plot, anymore than Brian was the mastermind of a plot to not settle for the lower amount Mike was willing to settle for in the earlier songwriting lawsuit. But do you think it's realistic a savvy guy like Mike could have had zero awareness of any attempts of a strategy that had to have taken crafting/planning?

Imagine for a moment, the thought of being a very rich person, hiring a lawyer to prove some point of being legally "wronged", and that lawyer creates a false person with a completely fake backstory. For one, wouldn't a client ask the lawyers where/how they found this mysterious person? Classified ad looking for people who were confused and "harmed" by a giveaway CD?   And for two, after it came out in court as completely fraudulent, wouldn't this already known litigious, rich client most likely sue the lawyer for doing such an action behind their back, which further drags the client's name through the mud by association? We're talking false planting of a person, not just "bad legal advice". Seems unlikely to me that said client would just take that lying down. Maybe a bad lawyer talked Mike into it, and he went along with what he thought was a harmless ruse that would prove his point.  And maybe not. I'm just talking about what's likely and what's not. I'm trying to be open-minded here, but how likely is something like this to occur completely behind the client's back? Not just in this case, but in other cases with wealthy clients?

[filledeplage]

Usually AGD would jump in and correct the above inaccuracy regarding this lawsuit but for some reason he is absent this time.  Yes, the Smile lawsuit is a little more recent than you might think - Mike kept it going (and going and going and going) until a little over five years ago:

https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/California_Central_District_Court/2--05-cv-07798/Mike_Love_v._Mail_on_Sunday_et_al/

Warning: you might get dizzy scrolling through all of the filings and other minutia.

So it is a bit old, but not quite as old as you might think and certainly not as old as it got to be for Brian and his legal team to keep addressing the suit which was frivolous to begin with.  But I give Mike credit, he is as persistent in his legal maneuvering as he is in his touring.  

EoL

Looking at that, the actual lawsuit itself ended in May 2007 -- everything after that is argument about who paid the lawyers' fees.

That's not true. The original decisions were appealed and went to the 9th Circuit Court, and the 2010 decision that ended the case and offered the judgement on the matters of the appeal was written and filed in 2010. It's in the public record, and the full 9th Circuit judgement as written is available at this link: http://333.lawlink.com/documents/6826/public

I'm a bit of a legal geek who enjoys reading the various details and the how's and why's certain things happened, and this document traces the key points of the original case as well as describes the various decisions made leading up to that 2010 appeals court decision. It's interesting reading that spells out specific details and decisions in the years the case went through the legal process, including how certain aspects of the case were dismissed "with prejudice" by the various courts.

What was interesting here is how one of the key witnesses for the plaintiff (Love) on which certain elements of the case were based (taken from the written decision by the judge) "was a close associate of Love's attorney and had fabricated his allegation that he was confused by the labeling of 'Good Vibrations' " and sanctions were entered against counsel.

It would appear not only were some of the historical facts completely wrong in the original case filing, but the courts also found some of the evidence presented in the case had been fabricated, what the document described as "uncontested evidence" of the fabrication when it was discovered.

Sounds like Mike's legal team behaved not too dissimilar ethically-speaking from the Manitowoc County Sheriff's department (made famous/infamous via the Netflix series "Making a Murderer"). Actually willing to go to the lengths of planting evidence and having fake people completely, blatantly lying in order to try to "prove" their side.

CD - there is sort of an easy rule of the road in a lawsuit.  The client controls the goal, whether they prevail or not; and, the lawyers control the means, generally meaning the paperwork.  

During the course of the litigation, defendants are dropped or by advancing information, others get them dismissed as defendants.  That list of filings and dismissals doe not look unusual because of the necessary rules that have to be complied with.   This is a too-broad a brush.  

Non-Lawyer clients, don't have the education to do their own legal work hire and entrust others to do that.  Lawyers are human and often reviled. And, when they cross the line, ethically, are disbarred or suspended from the practice of law, as they should.  But they are a necessary evil in society.      

There is no doubt that some very underpaid prosecutors are so hungry (and overworked) because they want to win a big case to break out into private practice, or go into politics and make a name, that they overlook "exculpatory" or evidence that tends to make the defendant innocent, and there are rules in place to fix that.  Many innocent people have gone to prison unjustly and by the same token, many guilty people have gotten off unpunished, because their private attorney could out-maneuver the prosecutor. So it cuts both ways.  Sometimes you win; sometimes you lose.  

It is too bad, because they give good attorneys a bad name, just like any other profession.  Just sayin'.  

I don't think that Mike was necessarily the mastermind of any plot, anymore than Brian was the mastermind of a plot to not settle for the lower amount Mike was willing to settle for in the earlier songwriting lawsuit. But do you think it's realistic a savvy guy like Mike could have had zero awareness of any attempts of a strategy that had to have taken crafting/planning?

Imagine for a moment, the thought of being a very rich person, hiring a lawyer to prove some point of being legally "wronged", and that lawyer creates a false person with a completely fake backstory. For one, wouldn't a client ask the lawyers where/how they found this mysterious person? Classified ad looking for people who were confused and "harmed" by a giveaway CD?   And for two, after it came out in court as completely fraudulent, wouldn't this already known litigious, rich client most likely sue the lawyer for doing such an action behind their back, which further drags the client's name through the mud by association? We're talking false planting of a person, not just "bad legal advice". Seems unlikely to me that said client would just take that lying down. Maybe a bad lawyer talked Mike into it, and he went along with what he thought was a harmless ruse that would prove his point.  And maybe not. I'm just talking about what's likely and what's not. I'm trying to be open-minded here, but how likely is something like this to occur completely behind the client's back? Not just in this case, but in other cases with wealthy clients?

CD - The lawyers may have come up with a "theory of the case" and ran it out.  So, wealthy or not, this thing is "billable hours" and a problem with the profession so who knows?  And, it could have caused confusion, and that is sometimes unpredictable.  As, is the lawyer-client relationship, because we don't know all of the facts and circumstances.  We only know what was "filed."

As I look (through that lens) to the beginning of the band, I see the initial Murry nonsense and Brian being browbeaten into whatever arose, while they were all too young to enter into a contract.  And Murry did kick the door down and the band, still does give him credit for that.  I think Murry created a huge mess that took decades to unravel long after he died.    

Maybe Murry thought he was entitled to them all working for him.  It appears he had control of the catalog and people in the industry looked the other way.  We can't turn back the hands of time, but just look at documents that show the legal control relationships that arose over time.        

It is easy for people who don't understand these relationships to finger-point.  There are some brilliant lawyers out there, some greedy ones, some lazy ones and some real dummies as well.  It is no different from any other profession.  

[MaryUSA]

Hi all,

We have all read the article and had our say.  No use rehashing old lawsuits.  It only hurts the people doing that.  I am sure that Brian and Mike would rather their fans move on and simply enjoy the music.  We had our soap opera.  Now it is time to listen to great music.  The old lawsuits happened the way they did.  Aren't any of you into the upcoming concerts?  I only hope that we can enjoy The Pet Sounds Tour and The Beach Boys.  There is a saying: learn from the past, live in the present and plan for the future.  Both men are doing just that.  Time for the fans to do that as well.  Remember the beating a dead horse saying?  In an Elvis songs Elvis sings please forget the past. The future looks bright up ahead.  Brian sang a song called Lay Down Burden.  Mike sings about having Fun, Fun, Fun.  When we analyze old lawsuits are we really saying we want to change the outcome?  I do hope that people can go forward and enjoy life.     

[bossaroo]

the text of Mike's lawsuit is nothing short of libel. oh the irony

[Ang Jones]

Hi all,

We have all read the article and had our say.  No use rehashing old lawsuits.  It only hurts the people doing that.  I am sure that Brian and Mike would rather their fans move on and simply enjoy the music.  We had our soap opera.  Now it is time to listen to great music.  The old lawsuits happened the way they did.  Aren't any of you into the upcoming concerts?  I only hope that we can enjoy The Pet Sounds Tour and The Beach Boys.  There is a saying: learn from the past, live in the present and plan for the future.  Both men are doing just that.  Time for the fans to do that as well.  Remember the beating a dead horse saying?  In an Elvis songs Elvis sings please forget the past. The future looks bright up ahead.  Brian sang a song called Lay Down Burden.  Mike sings about having Fun, Fun, Fun.  When we analyze old lawsuits are we really saying we want to change the outcome?  I do hope that people can go forward and enjoy life.     

The problem is Mike has not just moved on. This interview has just been done and he still has grievances and that is why we end up discussing the situation yet again. Let's hope that from now on Mike can let go of the past.

[Doo Dah]

And this is obviously the appetizer to the main course - the book. We'll be knee deep in the big muddy once Mike releases his, aww big muddy.

We conjectured this much when the announcement of the book came out. As I recall, many of us were shouted down by the usual suspects to approach the book with an open mind. I think we have a pretty good idea how this is going to play out. C'est la vie.

[SMiLE Brian]

Exactly, Mike Love never changes in being a douchebag.

[MaryUSA]

Hi all,

Interviews are planned and rehearsed.  Mike is going to be Mike.  Brian has recently made a statement and moved on.  I am going to follow Brian's lead. 

[Moon Dawg]

   The songwriting credit debacle may have been legally rectified, but for Mike, the emotional burn and betrayal will never go away. I can understand that, but his never ending carping only reinforces every negative Mike Love stereotype known to humanity.

  I do think Mike's rep as a creative force would be greater today had he been given proper credit at the time.

  A few questions:

  It seems generally accepted that Mike wrote (more or less) all the words to "California Girls". But what was the general pattern of the Brian-Mike collaborations? How much lyrical contribution did Brian make on say "I Get Around" and "Help Me Rhonda" ? Does Mike claim to have written "all the words"?

[AndrewHickey]

 It seems generally accepted that Mike wrote (more or less) all the words to "California Girls". But what was the general pattern of the Brian-Mike collaborations? How much lyrical contribution did Brian make on say "I Get Around" and "Help Me Rhonda" ? Does Mike claim to have written "all the words"?

He claims to have written all or most of the words to those two, yes -- and in the case of "I Get Around" to have come up with the "round round get around" part as well as the lyric. In other cases, he claims less -- on Wouldn't It Be Nice, he apparently came up with only "good night baby/sleep tight baby" on the tag, and I'm pretty sure his contribution to "409" was only "She's real fine, my 409" and the "giddy-up" backing vocals.
I think that on the songs where another lyricist is also credited, Mike's contributions were usually of the latter kind. Where he and Brian are the only credited contributors, it's more often, though not always, the former.

[clack]

Mike has in past interviews been pretty explicit about what he desires. In his view, Wilson/Love should be regarded as one of the great 60's songwriting teams, alongside such teams as Goffin/King, Bacharach/David, Jagger/Richards. 

He was cheated of this recognition during the band's mid-60's heyday, and he feels his contribution is still not given the public and critical recognition it deserves. Granted he is going about seeking this recognition in an abrasive, clumsy way -- but is trying to cement his popular music legacy really so beyond the pale?

[filledeplage]

Hi all,

We have all read the article and had our say.  No use rehashing old lawsuits.  It only hurts the people doing that.  I am sure that Brian and Mike would rather their fans move on and simply enjoy the music.  We had our soap opera.  Now it is time to listen to great music.  The old lawsuits happened the way they did.  Aren't any of you into the upcoming concerts?  I only hope that we can enjoy The Pet Sounds Tour and The Beach Boys.  There is a saying: learn from the past, live in the present and plan for the future.  Both men are doing just that.  Time for the fans to do that as well.  Remember the beating a dead horse saying?  In an Elvis songs Elvis sings please forget the past. The future looks bright up ahead.  Brian sang a song called Lay Down Burden.  Mike sings about having Fun, Fun, Fun.  When we analyze old lawsuits are we really saying we want to change the outcome?  I do hope that people can go forward and enjoy life.      

The problem is Mike has not just moved on. This interview has just been done and he still has grievances and that is why we end up discussing the situation yet again. Let's hope that from now on Mike can let go of the past.

Ang - More likely than not, the author had a punch-list of questions that he wanted answered.  Mike appears to have cooperated to this hot button set of questions rather than bar them from the discussion.

Interesting, that the author calls Kokomo "insipid" and that is a value judgment.  Mike was one of four composers on that, and by similarly credentialed composers. Brian was prevented from singing on Kokomo by Landy as I remember but made sure he sang on the Spanish version.  

You bet if Brian was not imprisoned by Landy it would have happened.  And, on Endless Harmony Brian says as much without directly mentioning Landy.  

Mike is clear about Murry's role in setting the ball in motion with the royalties issues.  That is history.  And not uncommon for show-biz parents to have their hands in the coffers.  Murry somehow controlled the catalog which he sold.  Is this what you do to your kids and their business partners?  

But the author does get some new light shed on the early days with the kids going to "Wednesday-night youth meetings at the Presbyterian church and come home singing."  And he was absolutely correct in going after the Landy book.  

What is the important take-away? "- but if you take this music... what it has it has meant to so many people."

That is all that matters, here.  

  

[Lee Marshall]

I've given this a whole heap of thought.  I'm done with Mike.  I won't buy his book.  I've already read it.  That said...I'll leave him with a little 'friendly' advice...  2 things...

  If Mike really truly wants to be recognized professionally as an equal to his cousin Brian he needs to do 2 things.  ...1...He needs to stop publically bashing the Beach Boys 'brand' as he's harming the corporation and its potential to continue earning.  [I would have already fired him for THIS specific ongoing blunder.]  ...and 2...He should immediately arrange to have a Mike Love doll [or action figure as some might refer to is as] manufactured and made avaialble to the quivering-with-anticipation public.  [He might well increase sales of said doll some 97.5 fold by including free pins with every purchase.]

[wilsonart1]

The book, the book  Not the only one who walk's on water.  Finally the truth comes out.  Film rights available?

[SurfRiderHawaii]

Another look at the article, Mike is still slaving away at "Mike Love Not War". What's it been, 15 years in the making? He's already released 2 or 3 songs from it. And he will never get permission to use the Beatles singing.

I mean, WTF?

[SMiLE Brian]

It's no SMiLE...

[CenturyDeprived]

Another look at the article, Mike is still slaving away at "Mike Love Not War". What's it been, 15 years in the making? He's already released 2 or 3 songs from it. And he will never get permission to use the Beatles singing.

I mean, WTF?

Well in Mike's defense, I guess he's pulling an Al Jardine with this solo album

[CenturyDeprived]

I've given this a whole heap of thought.  I'm done with Mike.  I won't buy his book.  I've already read it.  That said...I'll leave him with a little 'friendly' advice...  2 things...

  If Mike really truly wants to be recognized professionally as an equal to his cousin Brian he needs to do 2 things.  ...1...He needs to stop publically bashing the Beach Boys 'brand' as he's harming the corporation and its potential to continue earning.  [I would have already fired him for THIS specific ongoing blunder.]  ...and 2...He should immediately arrange to have a Mike Love doll [or action figure as some might refer to is as] manufactured and made avaialble to the quivering-with-anticipation public.  [He might well increase sales of said doll some 97.5 fold by including free pins with every purchase.]

I think the only takeaway one can have from this... after giving it much thought myself... is that Mike is an emotionally damaged man, or someone who, while they are capable of many normal, healthy emotions, is just stuck in a negative vortex, where they endlessly lash outwardly to those around them. It's almost like he can't help himself. I mean, one would think that he could see how he comes off, but I actually truly think he is not capable of it.  Once could surmise that part of that stems from the songwriting screwjob he received as a young man. That must have irreversibly warped him but good.

I have relatives like that, and it's just so incredibly sad, infuriating, and frustrating to see the futility in hoping they "see the light". As much as what Mike says pisses us off, seems illogical, etc, if one looks at it as though it is a form of mental illness (very different than the type Brian suffers from, but a type nonetheless), it's easier to switch the disgust more to a level of empathy and pity. Not that it's easy - he continues to shoot himself and the brand name in the foot - but more and more I do tend to just feel really, really, really sorry for the guy because I think he's not emotionally right in the head, and I'm not sure he can help himself.  

It's sort of how I feel about Phil Spector too. Not comparing the two men's talents, nor am I comparing the ways in which they've caused damage around them... only that they are both talented fellows who just became their worst enemies in a huge way, and seemingly are literally completely unable to help themselves out of that endless funk. The very talented Billy Corgan seems to be that way too. It sucks.

That doesn't mean that I think many of Mike's actions are defensible, just that I think he is literally not able to help himself. It still frustrates me a ton and will probably continue to do so, and people who just blindly defend him will remain infuriating to me, since they - much like Mike - don't help Mike's cause, and their arguments and question-dodging are laughable.  The other sad thing is that Mike or his defenders would probably take offense to the mental illness train of thought, even though it's coming (personally speaking) from a good place of trying to find a way, any way, to empathize. I am waiting for people to rush to say this is wrong to try and diagnose someone from afar - and I'll just say that it's just my opinion which can freely be dismissed, and that people similarly were trying to diagnose Brian from afar for years too. Mental illness manifests in many forms. I wish Mike peace and happiness, but it seems very, very clear to me that he'll never find it, and that the egotism has eviscerated his better judgment.

[Lee Marshall]

I agree.  But I'm NOT gonna EVER cut him another break.  Enough already.  Friggin' 'ingrate'.  He may very well be 'ill' but in addition....He's just a fool.