Awesome New Mike Love Article!!

[Ang Jones]

A professional may have to put their emotions on hold whilst pursuing their professional duties. However, whilst reading a message on a MB, it is perfectly acceptable to allow oneself to have a subjective reaction.

[Angua]

And, no that characterization of the "brand bastardizing" of the BB's in the L + M movie, is utterly incorrect.  It was not a movie about the band, in my view, but more about Brian's struggle (and his wife's) to become extricated from a monster masquerading with quasi-medical credentials.  

The "bastardized the Beach Boys name" phrase comes from comments lodged against Al in Mike's 2005 lawsuit against Brian, right?

What does that have to do with the L&M movie?

I think one of the comments in Angua's post (and Angua can correct me if I'm misinterpreting) is meant to refer to the fact that inflammatory language about Al in Mike's lawsuit (strangely one Al wasn't even a party to) is ignored.

It came from Angua's post, to which I was responding.  

But Angua was pulling the comment from Mike's lawsuit (and again, Angua can correct me if I'm wrong). Nothing to do with the L&M movie.

You said in your post "that characterization of the "brand bastardizing"of the BB's in the L + M movie" , and there is no such characterization in the movie and Angua never asserted there was. They were two different points in a post that would be hard missed if actually read through.

So you're just bringing up two disparate pieces of information that have nothing to do with each other, which conveniently avoids addressing the charge that mean-spirited comments in Mike's lawsuit are being ignored.

Purple monkey dishwasher.
(A Simpsons reference for those who want to look it up).

Hey Jude - It was taken from the post.  Sentence 3, paragraph 1.

No. Sentence 3, Paragraph 1 of Angua's post makes no reference to "brand bastardization of the BB's in the L&M movie."

You're either not reading what people are writing, or you're misrepresenting what they're writing. Or both.

"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 'bastardize the Beach Boys name..."

Maybe you can explain it, since, you allege that I did not read it.  

So you *READ* the "Love & Mercy" film? How does that work?

Clearly Angua was referring to a scenario of you WATCHING the film and then, separately, READING a comment (in this case one clearly taken from the 2005 lawsuit which you've claimed you've actually read in full).

But, clearly, an emotionally-rivetng film depicting Brian, does not translate to slogging through pages of allegations or have anything to do with it.  

Allegations are just that.  Allegations in the complaint.  

The law is applied "mechanically" after looking at evidence and discarding what is not going to be adjudicated. At the end, they looked at one issue.  So the rest did not matter to the court.    

Mike Love lost the case.  Yes.  However, in filing the suit he made assertions about Brian that were incredibly demeaning, derogatory and inaccurate.  A person with empathy might understand how hurtful reading these assertions were likely to be to Brian and family.  Yet you, in a previous post, were claiming such empathy with the primary character in the L&M film, that same Brian Wilson, that you needed to seek a special place in the theater to deal with your emotions.  It's a little difficult for us to grasp the disconnect you seem to have between these two subjects.

Debbie KL - I guess the difference for me, is that a movie is not a place to "check your emotions at the door" as is needed in many of the professions, and that includes doctors, lawyers, or accountants.  I certainly don't want to see a surgeon focus on anything else but the task at hand, without any emotion.  

It does not mean you lose your compassion, because that is ridiculous, but only look at what is relevant in terms of facts.  Once you are trained to cut through what is not necessary; it is not something that becomes unlearned.  

Right.  So you would expect Brian and Melinda to read such assertions with the dispassion of a law professor.  I do have a second question.  If you read such a suit, with similarly demeaning assertions, directed at you, would you be so dispassionate?  That would be surprising to me, since you seem to want anyone banned who somehow offends your sensibilities.
 

Debbie - those are two different issues. Most people don't like to read allegations in a suit.  Any suit, whether it is a BB suit or a divorce suit.  They are not pretty and often contain forceful language. 

So, people  hire a lawyer to filter that complaint for them, even if they read a copy themselves.  It means the lawyer has to look for facts and law to apply to them, mechanically. 

The board has rules-of-the-road. 

2)  Debate is fine;  when it crosses into personal attacks, it becomes a different matter. 

And, I think it is safe to say that that line has been crossed in this thread.  I'll leave it at that.

Debbie simply asked you a question, she did not make a personal attack. You just dodged the question. It's as simple as that. Threadcrap, troll, derp, derp, derp.

CD - Yes, and I responded to them. I did not say she made it a personal attack, and your perception of whether or not I "dodged" a question is of no consequence to me.

Being accused of continuously dodging a question is out-of-line, in my opinion.  And I believe that it is a violation of #2 of the rules.

Being accused of continuously dodging a question is not out of line if it is true. 

Opinion is belief, but belief when unfounded is delusion. 

I won't form this as a question as I understand that it isn't your function to answer questions but I am a little unclear about what your function is.  I can't see that you have added anything constructive to the discussion, to the contrary and so it's my opinion that your posts are of no consequence.  To be clear - this is not an insult.

As for Smile having been released - the 2005 lawsuit accused Brian of misappropriating Smile.  Had it not been thrown out perhaps Smile wouldn't have been released.  THIS is one of the reasons why it is important to highlight this issue.  Not so we can just rant about things which happened in the past but to protect the music, the history and the person who could be damaged most - Brian.

[Cam Mott]

Filledeplage....I'm not jumping in to slam you but you are wrong on this. Others here are wrong as well when they blow things Mike says or does out of proportion. That 2005 lawsuit was a joke and Mike was  pissed about "things" when it was initiated. It was also 11 years ago and is water under the bridge. There are bands that make it big and are forgotten in 11 years time.

Mike has a chip on his shoulder that will remain permanent. Mike and a Rolling Stone reporter bringing up tired old crap means what exactly? It means Mike is Mike. More than a couple of people that spend an enormous amount of their time here seem to be hoping and thinking that someday Mike will see the light and admit he's a fool and ruined the Beach Boys reputation. He's not going to and he didn't hurt the Beach Boys reputation. From time to time he says or does something stupid that tarnishes his OWN reputation...but...in the end what does that matter, considering all of the great songs the Beach Boys left us with. 

Mike didn't kill Smile, he didn't turn the Beach Boys into a traveling jukebox, he didn't just want to write about fun and sun. Those are myths that have slowly but surely been debunked over the years. That said, he has said and done some ignorant things and one should not defend such ignorant things when they are said or done.

+1

[Lee Marshall]

Well...hold on for a second here.  He DID turn them into a traveling jukebox....Sha Na Na with shovels...for years.  He also did it on the CHEAP and it sounded like it.  So he dragged those precious songs through enough mud that they have been trying to right that ship for quite awhile now.   And he's the one who continuously reintroduces all of this negative subject matter into the here and now after some folks have decided to let it ALL lie.  His doing.  His problem...over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over...well I think you get my drift.

And now a book just in case someone out there doesn't know that Mike got short-changed.  [even though that was corrected] and that Brian was a dope fiend. [even though he was actually misdiagnosed and actually faced a far greater hill to climb.  Whatever.  There will be people who will be shocked and it will not SELL any music.  There'll be a whole heap of debunking...to be done when the myth hits the shelves.

[SMiLE Brian]

Exactly, history would be more kind to Mike if didn't try to fight the past.

[CenturyDeprived]

Mike didn't kill Smile, he didn't turn the Beach Boys into a traveling jukebox, he didn't just want to write about fun and sun. Those are myths that have slowly but surely been debunked over the years. That said, he has said and done some ignorant things and one should not defend such ignorant things when they are said or done.

To simply state those things without nuance is indeed non-factual.

However, "contributing factor" is a better word to use as opposed to the inaccurate "didn't", for if one wishes to deny Mike was at least a *contributing factor* to Smile's demise, one would have to state Brian himself is a liar based on his own words on the Beautiful Dreamer DVD.

One would have to state an outright denial of the emotion in his face when he visibly said the words.

I certainly won't be making those statements, will you?

[Niko]

The problem with the beach boys isnt that they don't perform the music well, it's that they sound like a tribute band. They're the best beach boys tribute band in the world but the feeling isn't really there no matter how perfectly the young members of the band can sing the notes. Brian's band is billed as Brian's band but with the original voices along with the intricate parts all being played as fully realized harmonies and arrangement, what comes out is something special and something that's exciting as it happens. It feels new and magical as the beach boys music should. Nothing can too brian playing pet sounds live...except maybe all the survivng members together doing it, which won't happen, and it's just as well that it doesn't. Mike clearly has different ideas.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Brian's band is billed as Brian's band but with the original voices...

I know I can be highly unobservant, but I really don't recall seeing (or reading about) Carl, Dennis, Mike or Bruce* at any of his shows since 1999, or Alan 1999-2005 and 2007-2011. Brian's band is outstanding in all departments, only a completely blinkered fool would dispute that... but the original voices they're not. There are two holes in the mix that will never, ever be filled. Same goes for Mike's band.

[* I know, 1998 in St Charles...]

[Cam Mott]

Mike didn't kill Smile, he didn't turn the Beach Boys into a traveling jukebox, he didn't just want to write about fun and sun. Those are myths that have slowly but surely been debunked over the years. That said, he has said and done some ignorant things and one should not defend such ignorant things when they are said or done.

To simply state those things without nuance is indeed non-factual.

However, "contributing factor" is a better word to use as opposed to the inaccurate "didn't", for if one wishes to deny Mike was at least a *contributing factor* to Smile's demise, one would have to state Brian himself is a liar based on his own words on the Beautiful Dreamer DVD.

One would have to state an outright denial of the emotion in his face when he visibly said the words.

I certainly won't be making those statements, will you?

I'm not sure which part of BD you are referring to, I only watched it once, but your face reading would only be your opinion not an undeniable fact.

[Cam Mott]

He said it was his "theory".

His "theory" isn't that it's Mike Love propaganda. He doesn't state that as a theory. The only thing he points to theorizing about is specifically what part in the film he believes disturbed Brian and Melinda the most.

"My theory is that Brian and Melinda were most disturbed, apart from all the Mike Love propaganda at Brian's expense, by a scene that depicted Dennis Wilson screaming, 'You never supported me as an artist,' at his older brother. From everything I've read and everyone I've ever talked to, Dennis was the one guy -- perhaps the only guy -- who always stood by Brian."

They are both parts of his "theory".

[Micha]

My favorite radio station had a theme week just now with reports and discussions on the subject of how social media and internet forums incite hate and radicalisation. They say the reason is that hate needs approval and community, and that's what the internet offers. You can witness that right in this thread. People have formed their radicalised opinion and emphasize on quotes and facts that weigh in for their own point of view, and other people who try to have a more balanced point of view are shouted down. I missed all shows of this theme week, but I saw it all here.

The upside of the internet, information, communication and exchange, gets out of view sometimes, but gladly, there's still a few threads here like that as well. Look for the shorter ones.

[Ang Jones]

My favorite radio station had a theme week just now with reports and discussions on the subject of how social media and internet forums incite hate and radicalisation. They say the reason is that hate needs approval and community, and that's what the internet offers. You can witness that right in this thread. People have formed their radicalised opinion and emphasize on quotes and facts that weigh in for their own point of view, and other people who try to have a more balanced point of view are shouted down. I missed all shows of this theme week, but I saw it all here.

The upside of the internet, information, communication and exchange, gets out of view sometimes, but gladly, there's still a few threads here like that as well. Look for the shorter ones.

If by balanced point of view you mean seeing both sides, I find it hard to have a balanced point of view about the 2005 lawsuit. The court certainly didn't seem to find any merit in it and neither do I. Perhaps if Mike's interviews displayed more of a balanced viewpoint, there would be less hostility to him here and elsewhere.

[Empire Of Love]

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.

While this is a bit off topic and should probably be another thread, I guess I'm not understanding what this radical overhaul of the board might be.  I'd have to assume rules changes, or probably a clarification of the rules, would take care of the problems.  Ironically, a minor problem in this thread is the usual tendency we all have to go off-topic (example here), but our fellow posters normally handle that.  I'm as guilty of this as anyone, obviously.  I think the glaring problem in this thread was the tendency for a few posters to argue a single point that no one else was discussing, without ever acknowledging or responding to other posters' comments or challenges.  I suppose a rule might be defined regarding this.  What else did you have in mind?

Waiting for an answer Andrew...??

[Emily]

My favorite radio station had a theme week just now with reports and discussions on the subject of how social media and internet forums incite hate and radicalisation. They say the reason is that hate needs approval and community, and that's what the internet offers. You can witness that right in this thread. People have formed their radicalised opinion and emphasize on quotes and facts that weigh in for their own point of view, and other people who try to have a more balanced point of view are shouted down. I missed all shows of this theme week, but I saw it all here.

The upside of the internet, information, communication and exchange, gets out of view sometimes, but gladly, there's still a few threads here like that as well. Look for the shorter ones.

Really? I just don't think that being critical of the 2005 lawsuit, which is the only thing that I've spoken out about on this thread, is hateful.

[CenturyDeprived]

Mike didn't kill Smile, he didn't turn the Beach Boys into a traveling jukebox, he didn't just want to write about fun and sun. Those are myths that have slowly but surely been debunked over the years. That said, he has said and done some ignorant things and one should not defend such ignorant things when they are said or done.

To simply state those things without nuance is indeed non-factual.

However, "contributing factor" is a better word to use as opposed to the inaccurate "didn't", for if one wishes to deny Mike was at least a *contributing factor* to Smile's demise, one would have to state Brian himself is a liar based on his own words on the Beautiful Dreamer DVD.

One would have to state an outright denial of the emotion in his face when he visibly said the words.

I certainly won't be making those statements, will you?

I'm not sure which part of BD you are referring to, I only watched it once, but your face reading would only be your opinion not an undeniable fact.

I’m surprised that a huge fan (and Smile researcher) such as yourself has only seen Beautiful Dreamer once in a dozen years; if nothing else, watching Brian taking the stage and receiving a standing ovation performing the music is an emotional sight to behold. Did that ovation do anything for you? It’s well worth rewatching... unless someone has some inherent bias to not like it for some reason.

Quotes from Brian Douglas Wilson himself, 2004, on camera.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SriaRRcA6w

54:23 “Mike did not like Smile at all. He hated it. He hated it”

1:01:08 “I’ll tell you from my heart… in 1967, the reasons why I didn’t finish Smile were: Mike didn’t like it, I thought it was too experimental, I thought that the Fire tape was too scary, and I thought people wouldn’t understand where my head was at at that time. Those were the reasons.”

Those are NOT my “opinions”. Those are NOT Brian’s “opinions”. Those are Brian’s words, from the horses’ mouth.  His feelings aren't "wrong". Nobody has a right to go spouting some "opinion" verbage here.  It's similarly NOT Mike's "opinion" that he got screwed out of Cali Girls crediting either, or that it hurt him.

Only Brian can truly say why the project was scrapped, and what the contributing factors were. Neither myself nor you, nor Mike Love gets to say that. According to Brian, it was a combination of paranoia, self-doubt, Mike’s apparent dislike or hostility, and fearing people not “getting” what he was trying to do. It was a combination of factors. No one thing. Mike is NOT the “culprit” who to assign complete blame to. But Mike is not a negligible contributing factor. Again: NOT an opinion. Brian’s on camera words. Brian had no reason to make that up out of thin air.

A major reason this issue gets discussed ad nauseam for decades is largely due to Mike’s outright denial as a statement of “fact”, which does him no favors at all. Just as Brian would have no right to publicly state that Mike did not get emotionally wounded due to the California Girls crediting issue.  Mike is sh*tting on Brian’s feelings and words.  

Whatever face-saving Mike thinks he's getting out of denying it, even if he in his own mind truly thinks what he's saying is spot on... he's still publicly actively saying, in so many words, that Brian's feelings are WRONG. That is bloody ridiculous. Whatever cred Mike may fear he would "lose" by saying that he's sorry if his own actions had that effect on Brian and the project... he is completely, utterly misguided if he thinks people wouldn't applaud his selflessness and like him MORE as a result.

People seem to overlook that the two years between when California Girls came out (and Mike didn’t get credit) until 1967 (when Mike started meditating) would naturally be a time when Mike would have lots of anger and hostility seething in him. I can understand that. I can empathize with that. I don’t in any way think Mike deserved to not get credited. He got screwed over unfairly and had every right to be mad.

Put two and two together: a guy with SELF-ADMITTED anger management issues, who stated that an infamous, widely-viewed-as-inappropriate public outburst was due to lack of meditating, spent the two years directly after receiving the biggest professional and personal screwjob of his life NOT meditating (because he hadn’t discovered it yet).

These Smile events where his behavior was in question happened during this pre-TM time period, right at a time when it would make sense that he'd be very resentful. To think that Mike's actions, words, and body language wouldn’t have been amplified by this resentment is quite unrelaistic. To think that an emotionally fragile guy like Brian in that era would have just brushed Mike's opposition off is absurd. Just because Mike sang on the songs, doesn't mean he didn't have a toxic attitude that made a difference. Mike behaved like he did in 1988 on camera. I cannot think that he would have been *more* restrained in private with Brian 21-22 years earlier.  Just because Mike had a right to not dig everything Brian did in the studio, it did not give him carte blanche to act any way he pleased with Brian and VDP.

Now perhaps you think that Brian deserved any type of emotional outburst or line of questioning from Mike (regardless of any manner in which it manifested) due to the Cali Girls issue. That it was coming to him. I won’t agree with that, but I could *understand* that if that’s your opinion. Is it?

I’ve stated my legitimate, true empathy for Mike’s situation, where his head was at the time… where’s your empathy for Brian being on the receiving end of someone with anger management issues? Hadn’t Brian endured enough anger management alpha male bullsh*t for a lifetime just during his childhood alone?

To say Mike had ZERO role as a contributing factor in Smile’s demise is to say the on-camera words of Brian Wilson are a load of horse manure. Are you ready to say that?  We are NOT debating opinion, but the man BDW himself stating his own feelings on his own project.

[Empire Of Love]

He said it was his "theory".

His "theory" isn't that it's Mike Love propaganda. He doesn't state that as a theory. The only thing he points to theorizing about is specifically what part in the film he believes disturbed Brian and Melinda the most.

"My theory is that Brian and Melinda were most disturbed, apart from all the Mike Love propaganda at Brian's expense, by a scene that depicted Dennis Wilson screaming, 'You never supported me as an artist,' at his older brother. From everything I've read and everyone I've ever talked to, Dennis was the one guy -- perhaps the only guy -- who always stood by Brian."

They are both parts of his "theory".

Cam, you are wrong on this one.  Grammatically, Darian is not theorizing as to whether or not Brian and Melinda believed the film contained Mike Love propaganda any more than he was theorizing that Brian and Melinda believed there was a scene in the film with Dennis Wilson screaming, 'You never supported me as an artist'.

Your only avenue is to deny that Darian knows what he is talking about, accuse him of lying, or accuse the author of misquoting him.  The grammar of the statement as printed irrefutably supports CD on this one.  

EoL

[Niko]

Brian's band is billed as Brian's band but with the original voices...

I know I can be highly unobservant, but I really don't recall seeing (or reading about) Carl, Dennis, Mike or Bruce* at any of his shows since 1999, or Alan 1999-2005 and 2007-2011. Brian's band is outstanding in all departments, only a completely blinkered fool would dispute that... but the original voices they're not. There are two holes in the mix that will never, ever be filled. Same goes for Mike's band.

[* I know, 1998 in St Charles...]

Brian Wilson, AL Jardine and Blondie Chaplin are in the band, all of them ORIGINIAL VOICES. Especially Al jardine.

[Sheriff John Stone]

My favorite radio station had a theme week just now with reports and discussions on the subject of how social media and internet forums incite hate and radicalisation. They say the reason is that hate needs approval and community, and that's what the internet offers. You can witness that right in this thread. People have formed their radicalised opinion and emphasize on quotes and facts that weigh in for their own point of view, and other people who try to have a more balanced point of view are shouted down.

Micha, in my opinion, your post ^ is the most important post of the last five years, and easily the relevant one as it pertains to this board. Thread topics aren't even important anymore; they are just a front or an EXCUSE to incite more hate. I'll tell you what, even though I believe it IS hate, so some aren't offended, I'll scratch that and instead substitute attack, destroy, or avenge.

The thread topics offer very little in the area of new information. This new information could easily be discussed and if necessary, debated, in a couple of pages. Instead, some posters will take a sentence, hell, even a single phrase, and turn it into an entirely different "case" - based on a single phrase! And, if there isn't enough ammo in the new topic, by God we'll go back several years and we'll find another case and enter THAT into the discussion. Take that, Mike! Fun isn't it? No, it's sad, actually. What's even sadder is when some brave souls offer a different side or perspective - and there are (at least) two sides to every story - and they are the ones accused of trolling. Unbelievable...

But, it's OK to attack Mike, over and over and over, because, well, that's what Mike is doing to Brian, right? As long as Mike keeps complaining, it's OK to "give it right back" to him because he deserves it. As long as Mike keeps saying these bad things about Brian (and others), and with his overall whining and repeating, he deserves to be hammered for it! So, therefore, it's OK for us to, in turn, do the same thing - that is, say derogatory things about Mike and whine and repeat bad things about HIM. What's that called, when one criticizes somebody for doing/saying something, and then one proceeds to do the same thing?

But, I guess it's all good. I mean, look at how long these threads are running. There's never enough pages or opportunities to attack a Beach Boy, especially when they deserve it. And, the moderators are allowing it, so it must be OK...

[Smilin Ed H]

While I do think Mike comes over as a dick in this instance, you're absolutely right SJS. The board gets bogged down in this sort of stuff and while some of the detail here (the lawsuit stuff, for example) has been enlightening, it ends up feeding the old prejudices.

[AndrewHickey]

I’m surprised that a huge fan (and Smile researcher) such as yourself has only seen Beautiful Dreamer once in a dozen years; if nothing else, watching Brian taking the stage and receiving a standing ovation performing the music is an emotional sight to behold. It’s well worth rewatching, unless someone has some inherent bias to not like it for some reason.  

You don't need an inherent bias to not watch Beautiful Dreamer much. I've watched it more than Cam has -- maybe four or five times, around the time it came out -- but wouldn't guarantee that I'd seen it in a decade. Not because of any particular bias one way or another, just because I haven't had any particular urge to do so.

(I probably should watch it again. I remember it being pretty good.)

Quotes from Brian Douglas Wilson himself, 2004, on camera.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SriaRRcA6w

54:23 “Mike did not like Smile at all. He hated it. He hated it”

1:01:08 “I’ll tell you from my heart… in 1967, the reasons why I didn’t finish Smile were: Mike didn’t like it, I thought it was too experimental, I thought that the Fire tape was too scary, and I thought people wouldn’t understand where my head was at at that time. Those were the reasons.”

Those are NOT my “opinions”. Those are NOT Brian’s “opinions”. Those are Brian’s words, from the horses’ mouth.  His feelings aren't "wrong". Nobody has a right to go spouting some "opinion" verbage here.  It's similarly NOT Mike's "opinion" that he got screwed out of Cali Girls crediting either, or that it hurt him.

To be entirely accurate, the second is not an opinion. The first is, though -- it's Brian's opinion of what Mike thought.

Only Brian can truly say why the project was scrapped, and what the contributing factors were. Neither myself nor you, nor Mike Love gets to say that. According to Brian, it was a combination of paranoia, self-doubt, Mike’s apparent dislike or hostility, and fearing people not “getting” what he was trying to do. It was a combination of factors. No one thing. Mike is NOT the “culprit” who to assign complete blame to. But he is not a negligible contributing factor. Again: NOT my opinion. Brian’s on camera words. Brian had no reason to make that up out of thin air.

A major reason this issue gets discussed ad nauseam for decades is largely due to Mike’s outright denial as a statement of “fact”, which does him no favors at all. That is sh*tting on Brian’s feelings and words. Just as Brian would have no right to publicly state that Mike did not get emotionally wounded due to the California Girls crediting issue.  

People seem to overlook that the two years between when California Girls came out (and Mike didn’t get credit) until 1967 (when Mike started meditating) would naturally be a time when Mike would have lots of anger and hostility seething in him. I can understand that. I can empathize with that. I don’t in any way think Mike deserved to not get credited. He got screwed over unfairly and had every right to be mad.

Put two and two together: a guy with SELF-ADMITTED anger management issues, who stated that an infamous, widely-viewed-as-inappropriate public outburst was due to lack of meditating, spent the two years directly after receiving the biggest professional and personal screwjob of his life NOT meditating (because he hadn’t discovered it yet).

These Smile events where his behavior was in question happened during this pre-TM time period, right at a time when it would make sense that he'd be very resentful. To think that Mike's actions, words, and body language wouldn’t have been amplified by this resentment is quite unrelaistic. To think that an emotionally fragile guy like Brian in that era would have just brushed Mike's opposition off is absurd. Just because Mike sang on the songs, doesn't mean he didn't have a toxic attitude that made a difference. Mike behaved like he did in 1988 on camera. I cannot think that he would have been *more* restrained in private with Brian 21-22 years earlier.  Just because Mike had a right to not dig everything Brian did in the studio, it did not give him carte blanche to act any way he pleased with Brian and VDP.

Indeed. One thing I found very interesting in the original article that started all this was Mike saying "Brian could have become extra-, ultrasensitive to attitudes, you know, body language, or whatever. My psyche is mainly . . . except for the, maybe, moments of true frustration or anger or whatever, saying things in a way that’s been misconstrued. Maybe I’m cast in that light, which is unfortunate but maybe deserving. But can I be responsible? "

Now, it reads to me like Mike is disclaiming *responsibility* for the end of Smile, but is -- I think for the very first time -- accepting that his actions played a part in that. Mike thinks that his actions during "moments of true frustration or anger" were "misconstrued", and that Brian was "ultrasensitive", but that the blame is "maybe deserving".

I think that's as close to an admission that Mike had a significant part in Smile's ending as we're going to get, and it pretty much backs up your thesis here. Mike was generally frustrated and not happy with at least some aspects of the Smile material -- willing to go along with it but making his feelings clear, possibly at times aggressively. Brian got more upset by Mike's attitude than Mike perhaps intended.

If one looks at it reasonably charitably, there's no fault or blame there, or very little. But to say Mike's actions played no part -- however inadvertantly -- in Smile ending is to say Van Dyke, Brian, and now apparently Mike himself are all lying or mistaken.

[Paul J B]

Mike didn't kill Smile, he didn't turn the Beach Boys into a traveling jukebox, he didn't just want to write about fun and sun. Those are myths that have slowly but surely been debunked over the years. That said, he has said and done some ignorant things and one should not defend such ignorant things when they are said or done.

To simply state those things without nuance is indeed non-factual.

However, "contributing factor" is a better word to use as opposed to the inaccurate "didn't", for if one wishes to deny Mike was at least a *contributing factor* to Smile's demise, one would have to state Brian himself is a liar based on his own words on the Beautiful Dreamer DVD.

One would have to state an outright denial of the emotion in his face when he visibly said the words.

I certainly won't be making those statements, will you?

Arguing for the sake of arguing? Parks was also a contributing factor as was Brian's mental state a lot of other things. Mike unjustly has often gotten the sole blame for the things I mentioned above and those charges are what are non-factual.

Add some..... the traveling jukebox as its often referred to began after Endless Summer went huge. The guy that puts out the Endless Summer quarterly provided evidence that it was DENNIS pushing for a return to almost all of the old stuff in their live shows. Not to mention the traveling jukebox went on for years and years and if you think Dennis and Carl were not on board with it you are mistaken. They played what the crowds came to hear.

I'll also elaborate on the fun in the sun lyrics and Mike. Between Pet Sounds and Keepin' the Summer Alive, how many fun in the sun songs did Mike write lyrics for that ended up on a Beach Boys album? Very, very few.

Filledeplage has been wrong in this thread and wrong to not admit she is wrong. The other thing wrong is people using Mike as a scapegoat since the late 60's because the Beach Boys world over the next few decades did not pan out the way they would have wished.

Mike Love lives rent free in some of your heads. It's really baffling as to why sometimes. It's not like he sued you. Put on Holland or All Summer Long and enjoy it for the love of God.

[CenturyDeprived]

I’m surprised that a huge fan (and Smile researcher) such as yourself has only seen Beautiful Dreamer once in a dozen years; if nothing else, watching Brian taking the stage and receiving a standing ovation performing the music is an emotional sight to behold. It’s well worth rewatching, unless someone has some inherent bias to not like it for some reason.  

You don't need an inherent bias to not watch Beautiful Dreamer much. I've watched it more than Cam has -- maybe four or five times, around the time it came out -- but wouldn't guarantee that I'd seen it in a decade. Not because of any particular bias one way or another, just because I haven't had any particular urge to do so.

(I probably should watch it again. I remember it being pretty good.)

Quotes from Brian Douglas Wilson himself, 2004, on camera.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SriaRRcA6w

54:23 “Mike did not like Smile at all. He hated it. He hated it”

1:01:08 “I’ll tell you from my heart… in 1967, the reasons why I didn’t finish Smile were: Mike didn’t like it, I thought it was too experimental, I thought that the Fire tape was too scary, and I thought people wouldn’t understand where my head was at at that time. Those were the reasons.”

Those are NOT my “opinions”. Those are NOT Brian’s “opinions”. Those are Brian’s words, from the horses’ mouth.  His feelings aren't "wrong". Nobody has a right to go spouting some "opinion" verbage here.  It's similarly NOT Mike's "opinion" that he got screwed out of Cali Girls crediting either, or that it hurt him.

To be entirely accurate, the second is not an opinion. The first is, though -- it's Brian's opinion of what Mike thought.

Only Brian can truly say why the project was scrapped, and what the contributing factors were. Neither myself nor you, nor Mike Love gets to say that. According to Brian, it was a combination of paranoia, self-doubt, Mike’s apparent dislike or hostility, and fearing people not “getting” what he was trying to do. It was a combination of factors. No one thing. Mike is NOT the “culprit” who to assign complete blame to. But he is not a negligible contributing factor. Again: NOT my opinion. Brian’s on camera words. Brian had no reason to make that up out of thin air.

A major reason this issue gets discussed ad nauseam for decades is largely due to Mike’s outright denial as a statement of “fact”, which does him no favors at all. That is sh*tting on Brian’s feelings and words. Just as Brian would have no right to publicly state that Mike did not get emotionally wounded due to the California Girls crediting issue.  

People seem to overlook that the two years between when California Girls came out (and Mike didn’t get credit) until 1967 (when Mike started meditating) would naturally be a time when Mike would have lots of anger and hostility seething in him. I can understand that. I can empathize with that. I don’t in any way think Mike deserved to not get credited. He got screwed over unfairly and had every right to be mad.

Put two and two together: a guy with SELF-ADMITTED anger management issues, who stated that an infamous, widely-viewed-as-inappropriate public outburst was due to lack of meditating, spent the two years directly after receiving the biggest professional and personal screwjob of his life NOT meditating (because he hadn’t discovered it yet).

These Smile events where his behavior was in question happened during this pre-TM time period, right at a time when it would make sense that he'd be very resentful. To think that Mike's actions, words, and body language wouldn’t have been amplified by this resentment is quite unrelaistic. To think that an emotionally fragile guy like Brian in that era would have just brushed Mike's opposition off is absurd. Just because Mike sang on the songs, doesn't mean he didn't have a toxic attitude that made a difference. Mike behaved like he did in 1988 on camera. I cannot think that he would have been *more* restrained in private with Brian 21-22 years earlier.  Just because Mike had a right to not dig everything Brian did in the studio, it did not give him carte blanche to act any way he pleased with Brian and VDP.

Indeed. One thing I found very interesting in the original article that started all this was Mike saying "Brian could have become extra-, ultrasensitive to attitudes, you know, body language, or whatever. My psyche is mainly . . . except for the, maybe, moments of true frustration or anger or whatever, saying things in a way that’s been misconstrued. Maybe I’m cast in that light, which is unfortunate but maybe deserving. But can I be responsible? "

Now, it reads to me like Mike is disclaiming *responsibility* for the end of Smile, but is -- I think for the very first time -- accepting that his actions played a part in that. Mike thinks that his actions during "moments of true frustration or anger" were "misconstrued", and that Brian was "ultrasensitive", but that the blame is "maybe deserving".

I think that's as close to an admission that Mike had a significant part in Smile's ending as we're going to get, and it pretty much backs up your thesis here. Mike was generally frustrated and not happy with at least some aspects of the Smile material -- willing to go along with it but making his feelings clear, possibly at times aggressively. Brian got more upset by Mike's attitude than Mike perhaps intended.

If one looks at it reasonably charitably, there's no fault or blame there, or very little. But to say Mike's actions played no part -- however inadvertantly -- in Smile ending is to say Van Dyke, Brian, and now apparently Mike himself are all lying or mistaken.

AndrewHickey, I too agree that it is good that Mike finally did lean in *just a little bit* into the realm of understanding how his demeanor and way of speaking could effect somebody. I give him credit for even mentioning that (only because in five decades I cannot recall him EVER having done so before)... but again, he stopped short with the "But can I be responsible"... which really sucks, because it's a guy with self-admitted anger management issues denying that anybody's reaction to his externalized anger is his fault.  The answer is yes. If someone wants to say the answer is no, then I'm not sure how any emotional abuser is ever held accountable for their actions, ever. Did Mike emotionally abuse Brian? Only Brian could say so. I'm not going to make that statement. But at some point, people do simply go to far and need to own it, and not just blame other people for how it was received. Mike almost gave us a tease at an apology, but won't own it, so I can't really give him much credit.

Part of me wonders when he says "But can I be responsible" if he means responsible in any slight way for contributing, however inadvertently, to Brian's mental decline.

And it sucks, really, really sucks, because I'm sure the thought has crossed Mike's own mind, and I'm sure nobody - least of all Mike, who complicatedly loves his cousin - would ever want to feel in any way "responsible" for that. And while I don't think direct blame can be directly assigned to anyone (I await a crowd of people saying that nobody forced Brian to take any drugs), I think that this is a thought which Mike won't let his own heart be open to, because it's too hard to even let himself process.

I should also add that if Brian thought that Mike hated Smile, enough to say it twice in succession for emphasis, he must have felt it. Even if Mike says it's not the case, well there is some sort of disconnect, as Brian was not going to just make it up and say it for no reason at all. It's possible that Mike's demeanor was so callous at times that it colored what Brian thought of Mike's own opinion. Either way... if there was miscommunication that happened, it's unfortunate, but a guy with anger management issues needs to own them and not make excuses. Period.

[Ang Jones]

I’m surprised that a huge fan (and Smile researcher) such as yourself has only seen Beautiful Dreamer once in a dozen years; if nothing else, watching Brian taking the stage and receiving a standing ovation performing the music is an emotional sight to behold. It’s well worth rewatching, unless someone has some inherent bias to not like it for some reason.  

You don't need an inherent bias to not watch Beautiful Dreamer much. I've watched it more than Cam has -- maybe four or five times, around the time it came out -- but wouldn't guarantee that I'd seen it in a decade. Not because of any particular bias one way or another, just because I haven't had any particular urge to do so.

(I probably should watch it again. I remember it being pretty good.)

Quotes from Brian Douglas Wilson himself, 2004, on camera.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SriaRRcA6w

54:23 “Mike did not like Smile at all. He hated it. He hated it”

1:01:08 “I’ll tell you from my heart… in 1967, the reasons why I didn’t finish Smile were: Mike didn’t like it, I thought it was too experimental, I thought that the Fire tape was too scary, and I thought people wouldn’t understand where my head was at at that time. Those were the reasons.”

Those are NOT my “opinions”. Those are NOT Brian’s “opinions”. Those are Brian’s words, from the horses’ mouth.  His feelings aren't "wrong". Nobody has a right to go spouting some "opinion" verbage here.  It's similarly NOT Mike's "opinion" that he got screwed out of Cali Girls crediting either, or that it hurt him.

To be entirely accurate, the second is not an opinion. The first is, though -- it's Brian's opinion of what Mike thought.

Only Brian can truly say why the project was scrapped, and what the contributing factors were. Neither myself nor you, nor Mike Love gets to say that. According to Brian, it was a combination of paranoia, self-doubt, Mike’s apparent dislike or hostility, and fearing people not “getting” what he was trying to do. It was a combination of factors. No one thing. Mike is NOT the “culprit” who to assign complete blame to. But he is not a negligible contributing factor. Again: NOT my opinion. Brian’s on camera words. Brian had no reason to make that up out of thin air.

A major reason this issue gets discussed ad nauseam for decades is largely due to Mike’s outright denial as a statement of “fact”, which does him no favors at all. That is sh*tting on Brian’s feelings and words. Just as Brian would have no right to publicly state that Mike did not get emotionally wounded due to the California Girls crediting issue.  

People seem to overlook that the two years between when California Girls came out (and Mike didn’t get credit) until 1967 (when Mike started meditating) would naturally be a time when Mike would have lots of anger and hostility seething in him. I can understand that. I can empathize with that. I don’t in any way think Mike deserved to not get credited. He got screwed over unfairly and had every right to be mad.

Put two and two together: a guy with SELF-ADMITTED anger management issues, who stated that an infamous, widely-viewed-as-inappropriate public outburst was due to lack of meditating, spent the two years directly after receiving the biggest professional and personal screwjob of his life NOT meditating (because he hadn’t discovered it yet).

These Smile events where his behavior was in question happened during this pre-TM time period, right at a time when it would make sense that he'd be very resentful. To think that Mike's actions, words, and body language wouldn’t have been amplified by this resentment is quite unrelaistic. To think that an emotionally fragile guy like Brian in that era would have just brushed Mike's opposition off is absurd. Just because Mike sang on the songs, doesn't mean he didn't have a toxic attitude that made a difference. Mike behaved like he did in 1988 on camera. I cannot think that he would have been *more* restrained in private with Brian 21-22 years earlier.  Just because Mike had a right to not dig everything Brian did in the studio, it did not give him carte blanche to act any way he pleased with Brian and VDP.

Indeed. One thing I found very interesting in the original article that started all this was Mike saying "Brian could have become extra-, ultrasensitive to attitudes, you know, body language, or whatever. My psyche is mainly . . . except for the, maybe, moments of true frustration or anger or whatever, saying things in a way that’s been misconstrued. Maybe I’m cast in that light, which is unfortunate but maybe deserving. But can I be responsible? "

Now, it reads to me like Mike is disclaiming *responsibility* for the end of Smile, but is -- I think for the very first time -- accepting that his actions played a part in that. Mike thinks that his actions during "moments of true frustration or anger" were "misconstrued", and that Brian was "ultrasensitive", but that the blame is "maybe deserving".

I think that's as close to an admission that Mike had a significant part in Smile's ending as we're going to get, and it pretty much backs up your thesis here. Mike was generally frustrated and not happy with at least some aspects of the Smile material -- willing to go along with it but making his feelings clear, possibly at times aggressively. Brian got more upset by Mike's attitude than Mike perhaps intended.

If one looks at it reasonably charitably, there's no fault or blame there, or very little. But to say Mike's actions played no part -- however inadvertantly -- in Smile ending is to say Van Dyke, Brian, and now apparently Mike himself are all lying or mistaken.

I'm going to try to be as charitable as I can and accept that Mike may have been genuinely scared that SMiLE could backfire badly. I believe he has admitted in the past that he also felt some chagrin at being passed over as main collaborator for Pet Sounds and SMiLE which is also understandable. It isn't so much his behaviour at the time but the way that later they were repeatedly using SMiLE for spares on subsequent albums and stoking up the legend of something for which Brian had inadequate support. I don't lay the blame for SMiLE's non release just at Mike's door but he seems to have been a contributory factor as Brian himself has indicated.

[CenturyDeprived]

Mike didn't kill Smile, he didn't turn the Beach Boys into a traveling jukebox, he didn't just want to write about fun and sun. Those are myths that have slowly but surely been debunked over the years. That said, he has said and done some ignorant things and one should not defend such ignorant things when they are said or done.

To simply state those things without nuance is indeed non-factual.

However, "contributing factor" is a better word to use as opposed to the inaccurate "didn't", for if one wishes to deny Mike was at least a *contributing factor* to Smile's demise, one would have to state Brian himself is a liar based on his own words on the Beautiful Dreamer DVD.

One would have to state an outright denial of the emotion in his face when he visibly said the words.

I certainly won't be making those statements, will you?

Arguing for the sake of arguing? Parks was also a contributing factor as was Brian's mental state a lot of other things. Mike unjustly has often gotten the sole blame for the things I mentioned above and those charges are what are non-factual.

I never, ever said Mike should be assigned "sole blame", so I'm not sure where you're getting that terminology. Nor did I ever hint at it, because I don't think it.

However, to deny he was a contributing factor is going directly against Brian's own words.

I'm arguing not for the sake of arguing, but for the sake of Brian's own on camera words not being casually dismissed.

[Debbie KL]

My favorite radio station had a theme week just now with reports and discussions on the subject of how social media and internet forums incite hate and radicalisation. They say the reason is that hate needs approval and community, and that's what the internet offers. You can witness that right in this thread. People have formed their radicalised opinion and emphasize on quotes and facts that weigh in for their own point of view, and other people who try to have a more balanced point of view are shouted down.

Micha, in my opinion, your post ^ is the most important post of the last five years, and easily the relevant one as it pertains to this board. Thread topics aren't even important anymore; they are just a front or an EXCUSE to incite more hate. I'll tell you what, even though I believe it IS hate, so some aren't offended, I'll scratch that and instead substitute attack, destroy, or avenge.

The thread topics offer very little in the area of new information. This new information could easily be discussed and if necessary, debated, in a couple of pages. Instead, some posters will take a sentence, hell, even a single phrase, and turn it into an entirely different "case" - based on a single phrase! And, if there isn't enough ammo in the new topic, by God we'll go back several years and we'll find another case and enter THAT into the discussion. Take that, Mike! Fun isn't it? No, it's sad, actually. What's even sadder is when some brave souls offer a different side or perspective - and there are (at least) two sides to every story - and they are the ones accused of trolling. Unbelievable...

But, it's OK to attack Mike, over and over and over, because, well, that's what Mike is doing to Brian, right? As long as Mike keeps complaining, it's OK to "give it right back" to him because he deserves it. As long as Mike keeps saying these bad things about Brian (and others), and with his overall whining and repeating, he deserves to be hammered for it! So, therefore, it's OK for us to, in turn, do the same thing - that is, say derogatory things about Mike and whine and repeat bad things about HIM. What's that called, when one criticizes somebody for doing/saying something, and then one proceeds to do the same thing?

But, I guess it's all good. I mean, look at how long these threads are running. There's never enough pages or opportunities to attack a Beach Boy, especially when they deserve it. And, the moderators are allowing it, so it must be OK...

Ah yes, at last, the voice of reason.  And thank heavens you never say anything that is inflammatory, nor attack Brian, nor Billy C for that matter.  I invite everyone to look at your post history and see how balanced and reasonable you have been.

Actually, this thread was an interesting discussion of documented legal material and the related statements to what what was asked in the RS article by Mr. Love.  Then there was the TV film that seemed to have the same characterizations of the Wilsons as the later 2005-2010 lawsuit.  We were essentially quoting Mr. Love.  So where is all this "hate" you're referencing exactly?