Awesome New Mike Love Article!!

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

Hey Cam, not to derail, but I've got a quick question. Are you any relation to the applesauce empire??   

[CenturyDeprived]

I hate to diverge and deflect from all of the diverging and deflecting and trolling and thread crapping, as fascinating as it is, but there is a PM and Ignore function, why not use it?

No. I don't use the Ignore script. I prefer to hear the full 24 tracks. Bass, guitar, percussion, endless Mike Love subterfuge; I want it all.

God bless the logical people on this board for calling out the endless nonsense I've been reading here. And you could put that in your Lanham and smoke it.  

This. Plus, not to mention that the ignore function won't make the desired Ignored posters' posts disappear when quoted by other non-Ignored members. The drivel won't go away. Speaking of deflecting, Cam remains oddly silent about how offbase Melinda and Darian must be. They are insiders who must be completely full of it for his theory to hold water.

Don't read the quotes.

Darian says Melinda complained at someone, Holdership claims a Mike representative, about a Dennis item in the script so she apparently didn't have control over the script either.

Do Darian's own quoted words "Mike Love propaganda at Brian's expense" mean anything to you?

[Cam Mott]

I hate to diverge and deflect from all of the diverging and deflecting and trolling and thread crapping, as fascinating as it is, but there is a PM and Ignore function, why not use it?

No. I don't use the Ignore script. I prefer to hear the full 24 tracks. Bass, guitar, percussion, endless Mike Love subterfuge; I want it all.

God bless the logical people on this board for calling out the endless nonsense I've been reading here. And you could put that in your Lanham and smoke it.  

This. Plus, not to mention that the ignore function won't make the desired Ignored posters' posts disappear when quoted by other non-Ignored members. The drivel won't go away. Speaking of deflecting, Cam remains oddly silent about how offbase Melinda and Darian must be. They are insiders who must be completely full of it for his theory to hold water.

Don't read the quotes.

Darian says Melinda complained at someone, Holdership claims a Mike representative, about a Dennis item in the script so she apparently didn't have control over the script either.

Do Darian's own quoted words "Mike Love propaganda at Brian's expense" mean anything to you?

It means he thought it was Mike propaganda.  Was he involved in the movie?

[Cam Mott]

Hey Cam, not to derail, but I've got a quick question. Are you any relation to the applesauce empire??   

Not that I know of.

[Emily]

Theydon Bois and Rab2591, thanks for stepping in. There's something very toxic about this place, simultaneous to so much that's really positive. I find myself being swept away by the toxicity often and it's unhealthy.
I can get pig-headed and forget when to walk away, but hearing a calm voice can snap me out of it.

[Custom Machine]

After slogging thru pages and pages of this thread, not to mention the Rocky Pamplin thread and others, it occurs to me that it would be fascinating to do a few SS Skype Group Calls just for the opportunity to encounter some SS posters in action and gain an even greater understanding of their various personalities, proclivities, and backstories. Hopefully such an encounter would remain civil, but there is the obvious possibility of it descending into pandemonium.

[Andrew G. Doe]

That, sir, is a spanking good notion. Make it so.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Please: this needs to stop now.

This board is an amazing resource.  Not just because of the knowledgeable, well-connected people who post on it, but because of the wealth of information and research contained within its archives.  I haven't been on here for very many years, and so whenever I do find time to have a poke around in threads that predate my joining, or whenever (as in this discussion) someone like Guitarfool links to an earlier thread with properly interesting material and first-hand testimony regarding how events panned out, I marvel at the great value this site can offer to fans and scholars alike.

And then I think of a future version of me, stumbling upon this site a few years down the line, and reaching this thread.  This unreadable thread.  This thread, which could have been interesting, starting as it did with a fascinating Mike interview that gives a real window into his worldview, and then expanding to take in related matters such as the 2005 lawsuit, a topic which no doubt informs a lot of the bad blood that remains even today in the Beach Boys universe.  There's a lot to be said about these topics, and valid points to be made on all sides.

But instead of that, what we have on this thread is page upon page of spurious, obfuscatory nonsense from one poster, who will apparently never give in no matter how long the discussion grinds on, while good posters like HeyJude, Emily and AndrewHickey patiently, and with impressively mild tempers given the clear futility of their mission, point out all of the non-sequiturs, evasions and distraction techniques.  Now, a bit of this every now and then might be forgiveable as one of the pains of online message board interaction: not all posters are going to be on the same page or conduct discourse in the same way.  But this is now diluting the signal-to-noise ratio in this and other threads to such an extent that a future version of me, finding this thread (or its contemporaries) and hoping to locate insight in its contents, will probably just give up and go and look at something else instead.  I mean, Christ, the only reason I'm here on page 33 right now is that I've been following the thread since the beginning.  If I'd known when it started that it was going to devolve into a discussion of whether anyone can identify a style guide which justifies usage of asterisks to provide emphasis in formal English, then I don't think I would have bothered.

Please, everyone, if you care about this board being a useful resource to future (hell, even current) members, then arguing with someone who acts like they know everything about everything and yet expects everyone else to fall in line with their own idiosyncratic definition of what constitutes a "primary source", who only accepts testimony from members of the Beach Boys as evidence (unless (a) it goes against their personal theories, or (b) the member in question happens to filter it through their lawyers), and who defaults to discussing the Beach Boys as a business / legal construct rather than a source of magical, life-affirming music, is not going to get us anywhere.  I love you all, but please stop.

And filledeplage: either you are deliberately throwing in endless distractions, digressions and obfuscations in order to divert chat away from topics you don't like, in which case please stop, or else this is just your natural pattern of communication, in which case please be aware that this is the effect that you're having anyway, and so please stop.

Thanks all.  Or, as some might say, "just" "sayin'".

I "entirely" "agree". Outstanding "post".

[Ang Jones]

Hey Jude - I look at this clinically.  Sounds harsh.  My analysis;

1-  I look for whether the plaintiff had standing.  He did.  He was a beneficial owner.

2 - Was there any marking on the CD that were part of the brand?  Yes, a small photo that included him.  

3 - The law in question Lanham Act.  US law.  Action took place outside the US.  Court says, it does not apply.

Done.  

I would say as a clinical, fact-based analysis of the 2005 lawsuit, this analysis is incorrect, incomplete, is an answer to a question nobody asked, and ultimately fails. It's not an analysis of the case, but rather mainly an analysis of whether the plaintiff had the rights to bring the suit in the first place. Nobody has ever said Mike didn't have a right to file a lawsuit.

And finally, if one is only interested in clinical, harsh analyses of court cases (and apparently mostly only about issues involving standing to sue and rights to bring a suit), I would say it makes no sense to enter into an opinion-based, subjective discussion about a person rather than merely or solely a lawsuit.

Hey Jude - I have read thousands of cases.  If one reads thousands of cases, one cannot afford to get emotionally involved with them.  Some are shocking.  This is about property. And generally is resolved with money.  

Medical malpractice is to get excited about.  Misdiagnosis.  Social inequality, etc.  

That gets my attention.  I can get subjective about that.  Probably.    

I can be appalled by words like these:

"Jardine’s long and well documented history of mental and emotional problems, failure to perform, and abusiveness toward other band members"

and these

"Between 1967 and 2002, Brian was essentially too ill to do anything but collect his royalties....  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 fact I find it hard to imagine how anyone who has followed this band for years would not be appalled by the above.

It isn't just about money and property but about a hostile attitude towards people with whom Mike used to work and words that seem to put it mildly very unkind.

Edited to add that I compliment Hey Jude's, Emily's, theydon bois' and rab 4591's posts. So reasoned in comparison to some of the 'contributions' here.

[SamMcK]

My god, sometimes I forget how soul-suckingly tedious some parts of this forum are to read, never mind actually post in! Where's the tylenol?

[AndrewHickey]

I do agree that filledeplage is trolling, and I second the recommendation that those of you who use the ignore script should add her  to your block lists (instructions on how to add users can be found at the link in my sig. -- it's a bit of a difficult process right now, but I hope to make it easier Real Soon Now...). I've done so myself and it's made this thread a lot easier to read.

No, it won't stop her posting -- but it will stop people getting annoyed, and responding to her posts, and things escalating. I've noticed that since people started using the script to block a few other posters, those posters have actually become a lot more reasonable -- the people who were wound up by them haven't responded, so they've tended to be a lot more on-topic and moderate.

And filledeplage, if by some small chance you're not actually trolling, please understand something:
Andrew Doe is annoyed at your posts. He's one of the bigger defenders of Mike on here -- so much so that people have accused him of being on Mike's payroll.
I'm annoyed at your posts. I don't defend Mike as much as AGD does, but I think it's pretty clear that I'm far from being a reflexive hater of Mike either.
Your posts, apparently designed to defend Mike, *are not helping him*. You're actually making people dislike Mike -- someone you like and admire -- far more than they already did.

[Andrew G. Doe]

My god, sometimes I forget how soul-suckingly tedious some parts of this forum are to read, never mind actually post in! Where's the tylenol?

**** the tylenol, where's the Jack Daniels ?! 

[Micha]

I've been following this thread only very loosely, because it kind of takes the fun out of being a Beach Boys fan. This thread is way too depressing to me to participate. Finally some wise words were spoken this last day, up to then, of the random selection of the few posts I actually read, this was the only one I enjoyed:

How many Beach Boys fans does it take to change a light bulb?

Two.

One to change the light bulb.

One to blame Mike Love for the old light bulb burning out. 

 

I'm so sick of all these people at each other's throats.

[Angua]

Whist I understand that everything comes down to the law in the end, this board is a place for opinion and the simple truth is that the wording to the lawsuit and some of the things that Mike has said in interviews over the years and during the 'sacking' at the end of the C50 are rude, nasty and upsetting at best. Even looking at this from an objective point of view it must be possible to see that these things are not 'nice'. It seems that FDP must sit in a remote corner of the cinema to watch Love and Mercy because she will find it so upsetting but can read words like 'bastardise the Beach Boys name,  long and well documented history of mental and emotional problems, failure to perform and abusiveness to other band members, too ill to do anything but collect his royalties, misappropriated Pet Sounds and Smile'  without turning a hair.  Perhaps if she looked at it from the point of view of a defence lawyer for Brian it might help.

I don't think people should ignore certain posters.  They may prove to be trolling but you cannot let certain statements go unchallenged.  I do think that any distractions should be flagged as a distraction - perhaps they could appoint a specific smiley for ease of use.

It seems to me that FDPs reluctance to explain her position comes from years of working in the legal profession where your personal opinion is nothing to do with whatever case you are pleading but in this forum failure to explain your position, whilst it might effect a future argument, actually affects how your argument is viewed.  If you are repeatedly defending a position with no logical reason (all the discussion has taken place and 'evidence' has been presented) it simply looks as though you are invested in some way - hence the question about loyalty to Mike/the group etc and implications of working on behalf of Mike.  Unlike the legal profession but like politicians, we should have to declare any vested interest.  (I declare mine here - I'm a Brian fan of many years.  I have friends who may have contacts, I have none myself and any statement I make is mine.  I will sometimes make mistakes but I don't follow anyone's instructions.)

Mike and his associates (family, lawyers, friends) must be wringing their hands over this thread - I'm not sure that they'd be thanking FDP and CM for prolonging our listing of every mean, nasty thing that Mike has (allegedly) done.  Perhaps the quiet we are hearing from some people is testament to this.  

So far as I'm concerned I think that the discussion is won even if FDP won't concede.

[Andrew G. Doe]

I have no problem with reasoned argument and debate. Sadly, seems others here do. This forum isn't simply the best place for BB intercourse and learned research... it's pretty well the only place for the last few years, and as such it should be preserved from the internal forces that periodically threaten to scupper it. Not as bad as FIFA (yet), but I think a radical overhaul might not be such a bad idea while one can still have a positive outcome.

[KDS]

I've been following this thread only very loosely, because it kind of takes the fun out of being a Beach Boys fan. This thread is way too depressing to me to participate. Finally some wise words were spoken this last day, up to then, of the random selection of the few posts I actually read, this was the only one I enjoyed:

How many Beach Boys fans does it take to change a light bulb?

Two.

One to change the light bulb.

One to blame Mike Love for the old light bulb burning out. 

 

I'm so sick of all these people at each other's throats.

Thanks, Micha. 

Just thought this thread needed a dose of humor on a Friday (when I posted the joke). 

[Angua]

I distrust radical overhauls - sometimes it means political overthrow.

[Emily]

This might be a little tedious and at times off-topic, but it's to make an on-topic point:
Obviously any two people will disagree on something and I can respect a lot of people's opinions that aren't the same as mine. I will, because it's not on-topic thus I hope not inflammatory, make an example of an economic question - the benefits and drawbacks of an unfettered free market. If someone asserts that they support an unfettered free market because it would lead to economic justice, I might respond that I think that people are driven not just by rational economic choices but also often by bigotry and clannism and we would have, ultimately, dramatic income inequality based on superficial characteristics, not value. I may also throw in that I don't think homelessness and starvation is an economically just consequence for incompetence. If my interlocutor responded with pointing out that the government is meant to keep tainted meat from reaching the marketplace but sometimes tainted meat does reach the marketplace, I might respond by saying I agree that sometimes government agencies don't succeed in their missions, but that is not to the point. If they then respond by linking to an article showing that sometimes tainted meat reaches the marketplace, and we go back and forth forth for a long time on the pertinence of that tangent, I will end up being very frustrated and, bad on my part, growing increasingly aggressive. The right thing to do would be to walk away, but I'm not good at that sometimes.
Alternatively, my interlocutor could respond with either evidence or cogent arguments that if there were a truly unfettered free market, people would respond by making rational economic choices; it is exactly the interference with the market that causes people to make choices based on other input. Or they could reasonably respond by discussing what 'justice' really is. And, if their arguments are reasonable and made in good faith, and mine were, someone's mind might be changed, or we could end up continuing to disagree but respectfully.
What happens sometimes here is that I feel that someone in the dialogue is not responding to the points made - not even acknowledging them really - and is making points that they present as if they are responsive, but they are not. I consequently get really frustrated, and I think others do too, and increasingly aggressive. The latter is not really a good response to frustration, but it is a failing of mine.

How is this on-topic? It's made me realize something that I think may be the case with Mike Love: I feel that one mistake he makes is that he continually brings up his rather controversial perspective on past rather controversial events. If he hadn't raised the idea of whether it's fair, in some sense, for people to judge him as they do for the past, then the past wouldn't keep being discussed by people who judge them as they do for it. So why is he doing that? As he is human, like me, I imagine some of his reactions to situations might be similar to mine. I believe that he actually believes what he says. Whether I agree with his stance on some of these topics is not pertinent to my point, but the idea that his stance is authentic is. I don't imagine that there are many people around him who vociferously state their disagreement with him - some probably actually agree; most people he spends most of his time with work for him and probably don't think it would be prudent to argue with him; and he's generally the BMOC in his crowd. So he probably doesn't have people saying, assertively, "but Mike, you really should rethink what was going on with Brian at that time, in light of what we know now about his mental health" or other points.

So, given that he doesn't probably face reasoned disagreement to his perspective, but given that he knows there's a lot of Mike Love vilification in the public sphere, I can imagine he feels the same frustration of "I keep making my point and these people just aren't hearing it" and maybe he's responding in the same rather stupid way I do, which is to keep making the point more aggressively. I keep doing so, though I should have learned by now that the consequences are never satisfactory - the person never acknowledges what I'm saying and I end up feeling badly about my behavior; Mike Love is human like me and maybe he feels unheard and unvalidated - because he doesn't have people saying "I understand but here's why I disagree." He just has some people saying "I agree" and a sense that there are a lot of people out there who don't, and he doesn't get why.
Sorry if this isn't clear or is just way too boring to read, but I think I may have gained some insight to Mike Love due to my own frustration and improper response to it.

edit to say: tl;dr? Start at the bold, if interested.

[HeyJude]

I can be appalled by words like these:

"Jardine’s long and well documented history of mental and emotional problems, failure to perform, and abusiveness toward other band members"

and these

"Between 1967 and 2002, Brian was essentially too ill to do anything but collect his royalties....  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 fact I find it hard to imagine how anyone who has followed this band for years would not be appalled by the above.

It isn't just about money and property but about a hostile attitude towards people with whom Mike used to work and words that seem to put it mildly very unkind.

Edited to add that I compliment Hey Jude's, Emily's, theydon bois' and rab 4591's posts. So reasoned in comparison to some of the 'contributions' here.

And I think pulling out those quotes, which I'm sure one or two people would claim is just trying to stoke the flames, is actually very instructive. If we are to examine or discuss the interpersonal relationships of this band, knowing that statements like the above were made in suits may help to explain the standoffishness and mixed feelings and confusing action and inaction that these guys take with each other.

What's more interesting is that Brian and Al would have pretty strong reason to have a chip on their shoulders and hold grudges for stuff like the words in that 2005 suit. Yet, they don't go on and on and on in every interview about it.

The standoffishness between Mike and Al is even more confusing because they apparently both meditate and/or have some level of interest in TM.

And finally, while we shouldn't start just doing nothing but parsing the words and motives of other posters, I think the verbiage in that 2005 lawsuit is actually a pretty good litmus test for what someone is willing to renounce or not renounce. I'm always open to enlightening discussions and debates about the BBs, but I would say if someone reads that 2005 suit and can't find one thing or one reason to offer the slightest of repudiation or disapproval or even just general sadness, then that person probably isn't capable of actually having a conversation about much, and I would guess may not be capable of bringing any kind of subjective human emotion or feeling into a discussion.

[mojoman3061]

[snip]
So, given that he doesn't probably face reasoned disagreement to his perspective, but given that he knows there's a lot of Mike Love vilification in the public sphere, I can imagine he feels the same frustration of "I keep making my point and these people just aren't hearing it" and maybe he's responding in the same rather stupid way I do, which is to keep making the point more aggressively. I keep doing so, though I should have learned by now that the consequences are never satisfactory - the person never acknowledges what I'm saying and I end up feeling badly about my behavior; Mike Love is human like me and maybe he feels unheard and unvalidated - because he doesn't have people saying "I understand but here's why I disagree." He just has some people saying "I agree" and a sense that there are a lot of people out there who don't, and he doesn't get why.
Sorry if this isn't clear or is just way too boring to read, but I think I may have gained some insight to Mike Love due to my own frustration and improper response to it.

Beautifully put, Emily.  I bought the Rolling Stone with the Mike article yesterday, and I got the strong impression that he is genuinely puzzled about the people who don't seem to get his point or the way he makes it.  I also sense that it hurts him.  I also sense that he is unable to "back down" without feeling that it would cost him dearly (Beach Boys song title reference very much intended).

[HeyJude]

To once again get back to the topic of discussion, I think it's quite interesting to read Mike's comments about Al in his 1992 Goldmine interview. Considering how Mike comes across in the new RS article, it's almost like you could drop Mike's name in place of Al's:

Mike talks about Al Jardine:

... And I told Al... we had a rough time the last couple of years communicating. He's definitely been on a bummer for many years based on some things that have happened to him historically. Different than what happened to me with Brian with respect to the writing but a similar effect on him emotionally. And me, I ignore it and go straight ahead and I think more of the future. Al has this thing where he'll obsess on something that happened 20 years ago. It's hard for him to let go.

So we've actually been having group meetings between Carl, myself and Al with the psychiatrist Howard Bloomfield, who's a good friend of mine and a board member of the Love Foundation, and we've done a lot of healing kind of things, airing grievances and working things out. It's been very therapeutic for all of us individually and collectively. I think we've gotten to understand each other and see the other's point of view and experience and it's made the group better and stronger.

That confirms a report i heard a little while back that Al Jardine had left the Beach Boys.

We got to the point where we didn't want to be in the same room or on stage with him because he was so negative about things. He was negative about certain things and once we were able to get into a forum, an area where he was able to unload some of that, we could empathize with some of it, not all of it, and air our points of view and it resolved all that stuff.


Obviously, the irony is also probably not lost on anyone that Mike claims Al gets hung up on the past, while he (Mike) goes "straight ahead" and thinks "more of the future." Cut to 24 YEARS later where Mike is still fuming about the same thing he talks about in this 1992 Goldmine interview, the only difference being that he has since WON his lawsuit (the full interview, much of which centers on the songwriting credits issue, is here: http://troun.tripod.com/mikelove.html ).

[Emily]

Whist I understand that everything comes down to the law in the end, this board is a place for opinion and the simple truth is that the wording to the lawsuit and some of the things that Mike has said in interviews over the years and during the 'sacking' at the end of the C50 are rude, nasty and upsetting at best. Even looking at this from an objective point of view it must be possible to see that these things are not 'nice'. It seems that FDP must sit in a remote corner of the cinema to watch Love and Mercy because she will find it so upsetting but can read words like 'bastardise the Beach Boys name,  long and well documented history of mental and emotional problems, failure to perform and abusiveness to other band members, too ill to do anything but collect his royalties, misappropriated Pet Sounds and Smile'  without turning a hair.  Perhaps if she looked at it from the point of view of a defence lawyer for Brian it might help.

I don't think people should ignore certain posters.  They may prove to be trolling but you cannot let certain statements go unchallenged.  I do think that any distractions should be flagged as a distraction - perhaps they could appoint a specific smiley for ease of use.

It seems to me that FDPs reluctance to explain her position comes from years of working in the legal profession where your personal opinion is nothing to do with whatever case you are pleading but in this forum failure to explain your position, whilst it might effect a future argument, actually affects how your argument is viewed.  If you are repeatedly defending a position with no logical reason (all the discussion has taken place and 'evidence' has been presented) it simply looks as though you are invested in some way - hence the question about loyalty to Mike/the group etc and implications of working on behalf of Mike.  Unlike the legal profession but like politicians, we should have to declare any vested interest.  (I declare mine here - I'm a Brian fan of many years.  I have friends who may have contacts, I have none myself and any statement I make is mine.  I will sometimes make mistakes but I don't follow anyone's instructions.)

Mike and his associates (family, lawyers, friends) must be wringing their hands over this thread - I'm not sure that they'd be thanking FDP and CM for prolonging our listing of every mean, nasty thing that Mike has (allegedly) done.  Perhaps the quiet we are hearing from some people is testament to this.  

So far as I'm concerned I think that the discussion is won even if FDP won't concede.

Sorry to disagree, but while there are many lawyers, particularly in the kind of 'family court' stuff that gets reported a lot, who might be successful through obfuscation, the majority of really successful lawyers are successful because they argue a case well with logic and evidence.

[Theydon Bois]

So we've actually been having group meetings between Carl, myself and Al with the psychiatrist Howard Bloomfield, who's a good friend of mine and a board member of the Love Foundation, and we've done a lot of healing kind of things, airing grievances and working things out. It's been very therapeutic for all of us individually and collectively. I think we've gotten to understand each other and see the other's point of view and experience and it's made the group better and stronger.

Does anyone know if Howard Bloomfield, mentioned in this quote, is the same as Harold H. Bloomfield, the psychiatrist author of books such as TM: Discovering Inner Energy and Overcoming Stress?  It seems pretty likely, given the TM / Love Foundation link.  If so, well, our guys really can't catch a break when it comes to choosing their friends and associates...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_H._Bloomfield

[HeyJude]

So we've actually been having group meetings between Carl, myself and Al with the psychiatrist Howard Bloomfield, who's a good friend of mine and a board member of the Love Foundation, and we've done a lot of healing kind of things, airing grievances and working things out. It's been very therapeutic for all of us individually and collectively. I think we've gotten to understand each other and see the other's point of view and experience and it's made the group better and stronger.

Does anyone know if Howard Bloomfield, mentioned in this quote, is the same as Harold H. Bloomfield, the psychiatrist author of books such as TM: Discovering Inner Energy and Overcoming Stress?  It seems pretty likely, given the TM / Love Foundation link.  If so, well, our guys really can't catch a break when it comes to choosing their friends and associates...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_H._Bloomfield

Apart from that, I've always questioned why anyone would feel a group therapy session where the assumed-to-be impartial therapist is friends with one of the three would be advisable.

[Bill30022]

Look at the bright side - at least Mike hasn't taken any shots at Carl!