Awesome New Mike Love Article!!

[Shark]

Just for context...Mike and Bruce (and band) appeared on the Donny and Marie Show with Stamos to promote the 2000 tv movie.  They performed a few songs and sounded the worst I have ever heard them.  They also sat down for a brief interview.  Brian was at least a part of the making of this movie as he contributed vocal tracks that were performed by him specifically for the movie (which made it very bizarre to hear Brian's voice as it sounded in the year 2000 to be coming out of the actor playing Brian in 1966).  I also remember hearing Stamos mention in an article that you have to be very careful when doing any sort of project on the Beach Boys because of how litigious they are.  

[HeyJude]

Just for context...Mike and Bruce (and band) appeared on the Donny and Marie Show with Stamos to promote the 2000 tv movie.  They performed a few songs and sounded the worst I have ever heard them.  They also sat down for a brief interview.  Brian was at least a part of the making of this movie as he contributed vocal tracks that were performed by him specifically for the movie (which made it very bizarre to hear Brian's voice as it sounded in the year 2000 to be coming out of the actor playing Brian in 1966).  I also remember hearing Stamos mention in an article that you have to be very careful when doing any sort of project on the Beach Boys because of how litigious they are.  

I remember this episode. I think this was the one where Stamos got on his knees and did the "I'm not worthy" thing. Blecch. It was crystal clear at that point if people didn't already know that Brian Wilson no longer wanted anything to do with the movie, for good reason.

[CenturyDeprived]

And really, when we're talking about actual factual evidence, intractability isn't a bad thing. I'm pretty intractable when it comes to disagreeing with the assertion that Brian Wilson didn't do anything but collect royalty checks for 35 years from 1967 to 2002. My intractability on that issue is due to the ample space music produced by Brian during that time frame takes up on my shelf, and ticket stubs to shows I attended featuring Brian during that time period, etc.

When even a blatant falsehood like this can't be universally recognized as unrealistic, if not outright false, by people who are well read and knowledgeable... there truly are no words for how ridiculous defending those words - even if only by inaction - is.

Emotional abusers THRIVE on others having that mindset.

Pics or it didn't happen!

[filledeplage]

There are only two regular posters in this thread who have an "intractable" position, and guitarfool is not one of them.

Hey Jude -  the comment was directed at CD.  I don't appreciate your commentary and harangue either or your innuendo.  Without a difference of opinion and everyone agrees and pats other on the back, it would be a pretty boring place. 

[CenturyDeprived]

There are only two regular posters in this thread who have an "intractable" position, and guitarfool is not one of them.

Hey Jude -  the comment was directed at CD.  I don't appreciate your commentary and harangue either or your innuendo.  Without a difference of opinion and everyone agrees and pats other on the back, it would be a pretty boring place.  

FDP - truly, how can someone even know that a difference of opinion exists when a question is not answered?  I am  legitimately not trying to harass you, I'm trying to understand how a non-answer can be an opinion?

And if you would not qualify your responses as non-answers, I would love to know what you would in fact consider to be non-answers?  I'm trying to understand where you're coming from.

Now... If you are of the opinion that saying any bad/negative opinions of any band member's actions … In the unlikely event they should come into your mind ... is simply not something you personally want to touch with a 10 foot pole in a public forum, well then just say that, and I can at least understand if that's your opinion.  If you don't want to ever say anything bad about Mike under any circumstances in a public forum, it would be nice to just hear you say that and you'd get a lot of people off your back.  

I would however, hope that you would reasonably understand why some people won't think you are approaching posting with a particularly objective mindset,  since there are very few people who appear to share that mindset… If that is indeed yours.

Admitting your inability to publicly say anything bad about Mike would be the first step for us being able to agree to  disagree, and I probably speak for more than just myself.

[filledeplage]

Just for context...Mike and Bruce (and band) appeared on the Donny and Marie Show with Stamos to promote the 2000 tv movie.  They performed a few songs and sounded the worst I have ever heard them.  They also sat down for a brief interview.  Brian was at least a part of the making of this movie as he contributed vocal tracks that were performed by him specifically for the movie (which made it very bizarre to hear Brian's voice as it sounded in the year 2000 to be coming out of the actor playing Brian in 1966).  I also remember hearing Stamos mention in an article that you have to be very careful when doing any sort of project on the Beach Boys because of how litigious they are.  

Thanks, Shark for that info.  I don't think I ever saw that Donnie and Marie.   But, it was a little too ambitious to try to survey their whole careers.    

[HeyJude]

There are some fans, including some folks on this board, who stay out of the fray and stay very sunshiney about everybody in the band, just ignoring the sniping and insults from band members, etc. While the negative aspects of the band never affect my enjoyment of their music, I think sometimes I'm the type of fan that can't always ignore that stuff. I can't always say "it's all good" and celebrate when the band essentially breaks up and just say "Hey, now there are FIVE different touring bands! More music is always better!" I can't just ignore a really inflammatory Mike interview and post a link to his new Christmas single and a link to buy tickets to his next show.

But I think the fans that completely stay out of the fray are still respectful, and certainly consistent.

But that's different from entering into a discussion that involves some expressing dismay or disapproval of something a member has said or done, and proactively offering excuses or defenses, often stretching credulity to the point of insulting everybody's intelligence and common sense. I think that's where the breakdown occurs. If you don't want to say anything negative about Mike, and can't bring yourself to ever, ever renounce anything he has ever said or done, that's cool. But maybe it's a bad idea then to enter into a discussion centered on lamenting something he has said or done. 

[CenturyDeprived]

There are some fans, including some folks on this board, who stay out of the fray and stay very sunshiney about everybody in the band, just ignoring the sniping and insults from band members, etc. While the negative aspects of the band never affect my enjoyment of their music, I think sometimes I'm the type of fan that can't always ignore that stuff. I can't always say "it's all good" and celebrate when the band essentially breaks up and just say "Hey, now there are FIVE different touring bands! More music is always better!" I can't just ignore a really inflammatory Mike interview and post a link to his new Christmas single and a link to buy tickets to his next show.

But I think the fans that completely stay out of the fray are still respectful, and certainly consistent.

But that's different from entering into a discussion that involves some expressing dismay or disapproval of something a member has said or done, and proactively offering excuses or defenses, often stretching credulity to the point of insulting everybody's intelligence and common sense. I think that's where the breakdown occurs. If you don't want to say anything negative about Mike, and can't bring yourself to ever, ever renounce anything he has ever said or done, that's cool. But maybe it's a bad idea then to enter into a discussion centered on lamenting something he has said or done. 

+1

[filledeplage]

There are only two regular posters in this thread who have an "intractable" position, and guitarfool is not one of them.

Hey Jude -  the comment was directed at CD.  I don't appreciate your commentary and harangue either or your innuendo.  Without a difference of opinion and everyone agrees and pats other on the back, it would be a pretty boring place. 

FDP - truly, how can someone even know that a difference of opinion exists when a question is not answered?  I am  legitimately not trying to harass you, I'm trying to understand how a non-answer can be an opinion?  And if you would not qualify your responses as non-answers, I would love to know what you would in fact consider to be non-answers?  I'm trying to understand where you're coming from.

Now... If you are of the opinion that saying any bad/negative opinions of any band member's actions is simply not something you personally want to touch with a 10 foot pole in a public forum, well then just say that, and I can at least understand if that's your opinion. That at least makes sense, if that is what you think.

CD - I was asked and I gave my opinion. I read those docs.  That was not enough for some.  The issue was one of enforceability of the Lanham Act in the UK.

It makes this an unpleasant forum for fans to discuss the music they love.  It is why many who sign up don't post and those who do, feel intimidated.  

You don't agree.  Andrew (Doe) did mention something above that I did not think of and sort of agree about returning to a forum with a response that satisfies no one.  

People want to call lawyers, judges, publicists, etc., 16 years after a TV movie and call them out. It is an utter absurdity.  There may have been many alternative scenes or out-takes, that ended up on a cutting room floor that may have been qualifiers.  Only those in charge had control of that.  

[filledeplage]

There are some fans, including some folks on this board, who stay out of the fray and stay very sunshiney about everybody in the band, just ignoring the sniping and insults from band members, etc. While the negative aspects of the band never affect my enjoyment of their music, I think sometimes I'm the type of fan that can't always ignore that stuff. I can't always say "it's all good" and celebrate when the band essentially breaks up and just say "Hey, now there are FIVE different touring bands! More music is always better!" I can't just ignore a really inflammatory Mike interview and post a link to his new Christmas single and a link to buy tickets to his next show.

But I think the fans that completely stay out of the fray are still respectful, and certainly consistent.

But that's different from entering into a discussion that involves some expressing dismay or disapproval of something a member has said or done, and proactively offering excuses or defenses, often stretching credulity to the point of insulting everybody's intelligence and common sense. I think that's where the breakdown occurs. If you don't want to say anything negative about Mike, and can't bring yourself to ever, ever renounce anything he has ever said or done, that's cool. But maybe it's a bad idea then to enter into a discussion centered on lamenting something he has said or done. 

+1

It defies logic that it is necessary to feel compelled to corner posters on whatever certain posters believe. 

They are identified as one camp or another and not as just general Beach Boys fans.   There is no other way as far as I am concerned. I am neither a Touring Band fan, or Brian fan.  I am a Beach Boys' fan. 

[SMiLE Brian]

Talk about duck Dodgers about Mike's horrible TV movie and lawsuits of the 21st century.

[SMiLE Brian]

#notthebeachboys

[Emily]

It doesn't seem right to enter a conversation, assert a very controversial and contrary opinion to the topic, refuse to support your controversial statement or reply to questions about it, ignore all the evidence, then suggest those expressing frustration are doing something a mod should sanction.

[HeyJude]

Can someone confirm that the Lanham Act was not the ONLY issue at play in that 2005 lawsuit?

I don't believe the entirety of the lawsuit was thrown out or ruled against SOLELY due to lack of ability to enforce the US act in the UK.

Certainly, Mike was not "admonished" by the court for changing the state of residence because of the Lanham Act enforceability issue. The lawyer(s) did not have sanctions leveled against them over the eBay/CD affidavit issue due to the Lanham Act enforceability issue.

Courts don't typically use terms like "frivolous" and "over-pled" when the ONLY issue at play is enforceability of laws due to geographical location.

[HeyJude]

It doesn't seem right to enter a conversation, assert a very controversial and contrary opinion to the topic, refuse to support your controversial statement or reply to questions about it, ignore all the evidence, then suggest those expressing frustration are doing something a mod should sanction.

Agreed. Well put.

[CenturyDeprived]

There are only two regular posters in this thread who have an "intractable" position, and guitarfool is not one of them.

Hey Jude -  the comment was directed at CD.  I don't appreciate your commentary and harangue either or your innuendo.  Without a difference of opinion and everyone agrees and pats other on the back, it would be a pretty boring place. 

FDP - truly, how can someone even know that a difference of opinion exists when a question is not answered?  I am  legitimately not trying to harass you, I'm trying to understand how a non-answer can be an opinion?  And if you would not qualify your responses as non-answers, I would love to know what you would in fact consider to be non-answers?  I'm trying to understand where you're coming from.

Now... If you are of the opinion that saying any bad/negative opinions of any band member's actions is simply not something you personally want to touch with a 10 foot pole in a public forum, well then just say that, and I can at least understand if that's your opinion. That at least makes sense, if that is what you think.

CD - I was asked and I gave my opinion. I read those docs.  That was not enough for some.  The issue was one of enforceability of the Lanham Act in the UK.

It makes this an unpleasant forum for fans to discuss the music they love.  It is why many who sign up don't post and those who do, feel intimidated.  

You don't agree.  Andrew (Doe) did mention something above that I did not think of and sort of agree about returning to a forum with a response that satisfies no one.  

People want to call lawyers, judges, publicists, etc., 16 years after a TV movie and call them out. It is an utter absurdity.  There may have been many alternative scenes or out-takes, that ended up on a cutting room floor that may have been qualifiers.  Only those in charge had control of that.  

I edited my post while you were replying to it, so I'd like to know what you think of this. I'm trying to resolve the aggravation that many of us feel and this might help.

Admitting your inability (or preference to never) publicly say anything bad about Mike would be the first step for us being able to agree to disagree, and I probably speak for more than just myself.  If you could just say that you don't want to say anything bad about Mike, I can disagree, but I can respect that. If you simply don't answer this question, it's going to just continue the aggravation that many people have.  I won't ask you why you don't want to ever under any circumstances publicly say anything bad about him, I just want to know if that's truly the case.

[CenturyDeprived]

It doesn't seem right to enter a conversation, assert a very controversial and contrary opinion to the topic, refuse to support your controversial statement or reply to questions about it, ignore all the evidence, then suggest those expressing frustration are doing something a mod should sanction.

Totally. It feels very, very much like trolling. I'm not saying that FDP is intentionally trying to troll anyone, but it feels like trolling, kind of like Brian and Al felt like they were being fired. It's a very real feeling. It's not agreeing to disagree.

Agreeing to disagree would be if some people said that they refuse to ever publicly say anything bad about Mike. If that could just be addressed, admitted to, gotten out of the way, and not danced around, it would clear some stuff up.

[Empire Of Love]

GF - Thank you for that article. It shows you look at both sides.  I do believe that Stamos is sincere in this clip of the article you attached.  It reminds me that the goal was a survey of sorts of the whole BB career.  And it was not, perhaps as nuanced as it could have been.  Partly, it is a function of Stamos' relative age, in my opinion, despite all the time he has put in with this band, and his guesting them on his various TV shows.  

And after trying to sort out this morass of inconsistency from 1966-1967, someone who was 3 or 4 years old at the time, could not possibly have filtered that era as well as possible.  It was easier to show the stereotypical surf scenes, with appropriate clothing, or cars that were built in the exact year.  A costuming department is only going to get so much right, unless they have someone supervising who lived in this era.   And if they got some of the characterization wrong it could have been the idea of cramming 1961 to  the 1990's into a made for TV movie.  It doesn't forgive the alleged inaccuracies but might better explain them.

Pohlad didn't try to do a survey movie on Brian and hyper-focused on time-sections with greater attention to detail, even very cleverly using two characters for Brian.  There was certainly friction with regard the relationship as among the band and Parks.  It came through in both films.  Parks is a very smart guy.  I read in  Carlin's book where there was a continuing problem with proper attribution of his work.  Someone should have fixed that proactively.  A sit-down with him during production might have been helpful.  Likely it was a regret after-the-fact.  

The goal was too large for a TV miniseries.  It is difficult to do everything right, and likely something that Pohlad wanted to avoid by targeting very narrow time windows.  

Thanks again, GF - for the news clip.

        

It's not about costumes, it's about rewriting the band's history, well beyond the years 66-67.

GF - With all the resources I have looked at (I don't have every single publication but have a lot) the stories are all over the place.  I don't think anyone has the whole story, because everyone's version varies.

That Pet Sounds/Smile/BRI incorporation window appears to me to be a complete mess.   So everyone is writing their own version of BB history.  Even Landy got a version.

Do you think the versions of 1966-67 told in the 2000 film and described in the 2005 lawsuit are accurate?

GF  - I have already said that I did not think the pleadings in the suit were related to the film. It is a stretch.   It was a beneficial owner matter, as the standing would have required.  And, in the same way there might have been a sit-down with Parks during the filming, there should have been a sit-down with the Band to keep them in the loop.  Saves aggravation.      

And, no one but those who were eyewitnesses to those events, know.  Not you or I (unless you were there.)  I was not.  

I was waiting for the question duck, and there it is. That attitude of possibly accepting an inane portrayal is probably just what Mike wanted from a portion of the audience, and by golly it seems he got his wish.

We weren't there but we accept Murry and Landy acted like abusive d*cks. How does that work?

Century Deprived -  I was asked my opinion by a mod whom I respect.  I read the material and responded.  You do not agree.  Reasonable minds can differ.

This is offensive harassment on your end and I don't appreciate it.  I am asking that your haranguing and continuous insulting posts be looked at by the mods.  The "duck" narrative and harangue.  You have an intractable position.  I do not insult you for it.  

Please use the ignore function.  Thank you.

When reason fails the man/woman without an argument, he/she will either ignore or mock the opposition.  When these options fail to produce the desired result the last resort is to outlaw the opposition.

EoL

[Empire Of Love]

It doesn't seem right to enter a conversation, assert a very controversial and contrary opinion to the topic, refuse to support your controversial statement or reply to questions about it, ignore all the evidence, then suggest those expressing frustration are doing something a mod should sanction.

I agree.  I hate to say it but doing something like this strikes me as really fishy.

EoL

[SMiLE Brian]

The plague is on the Mike Love online fan club for sure. Asking for bans (lawsuits) like her idol.

[filledeplage]

It doesn't seem right to enter a conversation, assert a very controversial and contrary opinion to the topic, refuse to support your controversial statement or reply to questions about it, ignore all the evidence, then suggest those expressing frustration are doing something a mod should sanction.

Emily - that is a value judgment.  Any poster can opine as they see fit.  If it is contrary to the popular narrative, that should be acceptable. 

With 50+ years as a fan, under my belt, and a pretty good knowledge of the catalog, having seen them live at least a hundred times, I feel qualified to opine one way or another.  I read this so-called "incriminating" evidence, which is little more than "artful" legal drafting.  The case was settled.  C50 happened, post.  So there is some communication going on since the resolution of the suit.  Some people think that other people's business is theirs, simply because it hits the airwaves.   

Some of these bomb-tossing threads (and one poster has opened close to 180 threads) are calculated to bait members and call for only one opinion and not multiple ones.  It is like a leading question in court which are tailored to only get one result. 

[HeyJude]

I read this so-called "incriminating" evidence, which is little more than "artful" legal drafting. 

Who said anything was "incriminating?" Nobody as far as I know has asserted any criminal activity from Mike or anybody else. There's one civil court case, and the rest is analysis and opinions of fans.

I would also say the appeals court found that 2005 lawsuit far more than simply "artful legal drafting." You don't get admonished by the court and have sanctions leveled for being "artful." If anything, the court was saying the exact opposite. "Over-pled" reads to me as the exact opposite of "artful."

[SMiLE Brian]

Deflect, deflect, deflect from the plague.

[HeyJude]

Some of these bomb-tossing threads (and one poster has opened close to 180 threads) are calculated to bait members and call for only one opinion and not multiple ones.  It is like a leading question in court which are tailored to only get one result. 

Posting a Rolling Stone article is not a "bomb-tossing" thread, nor is it anything remotely like a leading question in court, which, if objected to successfully, is not allowed during questioning in a court setting.

[filledeplage]

There are only two regular posters in this thread who have an "intractable" position, and guitarfool is not one of them.

Hey Jude -  the comment was directed at CD.  I don't appreciate your commentary and harangue either or your innuendo.  Without a difference of opinion and everyone agrees and pats other on the back, it would be a pretty boring place. 

FDP - truly, how can someone even know that a difference of opinion exists when a question is not answered?  I am  legitimately not trying to harass you, I'm trying to understand how a non-answer can be an opinion?  And if you would not qualify your responses as non-answers, I would love to know what you would in fact consider to be non-answers?  I'm trying to understand where you're coming from.

Now... If you are of the opinion that saying any bad/negative opinions of any band member's actions is simply not something you personally want to touch with a 10 foot pole in a public forum, well then just say that, and I can at least understand if that's your opinion. That at least makes sense, if that is what you think.

CD - I was asked and I gave my opinion. I read those docs.  That was not enough for some.  The issue was one of enforceability of the Lanham Act in the UK.

It makes this an unpleasant forum for fans to discuss the music they love.  It is why many who sign up don't post and those who do, feel intimidated.  

You don't agree.  Andrew (Doe) did mention something above that I did not think of and sort of agree about returning to a forum with a response that satisfies no one.  

People want to call lawyers, judges, publicists, etc., 16 years after a TV movie and call them out. It is an utter absurdity.  There may have been many alternative scenes or out-takes, that ended up on a cutting room floor that may have been qualifiers.  Only those in charge had control of that.  

I edited my post while you were replying to it, so I'd like to know what you think of this. I'm trying to resolve the aggravation that many of us feel and this might help.

Admitting your inability (or preference to never) publicly say anything bad about Mike would be the first step for us being able to agree to disagree, and I probably speak for more than just myself.  If you could just say that you don't want to say anything bad about Mike, I can disagree, but I can respect that. If you simply don't answer this question, it's going to just continue the aggravation that many people have.  I won't ask you why you don't want to ever under any circumstances publicly say anything bad about him, I just want to know if that's truly the case.

CD - Last time I checked, we are not here to criticize others, band members included.  I have not criticized Brian, (or other members) either.  You accuse me of an "inability to say" whatever.  Who are you to decide my (or anyone else's) abilities or inabilities?  We are not here for that.  It is a harangue.

Who do you think you are to suggest anyone should be compelled to answer another poster?  Is this high school?  Or junior high?  

This line of posts is not constructed to resolve anything but get 100% consensus to direct hate towards a band member.  Many sit out and won't opine for fear of being bullied.  

That band has all made their mistakes (like the rest of humanity) paid for them, money-wise or otherwise, and should be allowed to live and let live.  Some people won't "let it go."