Mike Love book out in September

[CenturyDeprived]

I don't see how Mike could write a book about the Beach Boys and not explain why Al Jardine was fired from the band.

Wouldn't be shocking.  

Ozzy Osbourne's autobiography didn't even mention Jake E. Lee, the underrated guitarist who played with Ozzy for three years and on two albums.  

Events that are publicly known, but that aren't necessarily super talked about or deeply well-known outside of bigger fans, will probably be avoided completely if they would paint Mike in a poor light should the full scope come to light. Mike's not gonna want to get into why he feels deserving of control of the band/brand, and that Al doesn't, and how people like Al got in the way of his "vision"... and unfortunately, the Al firing issue from 1997/1998 will likely get glossed over almost completely if it's too difficult to "spin" it in a way that makes Mike seem like a well-meaning/not power-hungry person.

While it's not any kind of secret that it happened (despite the known details being murky), it isn't an event that has sparked widespread fan outrage, infamy, and major notoriety anywhere near the same way as the late 2012 powergrab where both Al and Brian were affected. Other than the superfan readers like us on this board, Mike can largely get away with avoiding certain topics/people in the book and not get too many eyebrows raised at large, and I fully expect him to take advantage of that whenever possible.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Apparently holding a grudge for many years hasn't prevented Mr. Love from writing an autobiography.

This is true. In fairness, AGD, grudges shouldn't prevent you from applying the same 'judge it after I've read it' approach to Al that you give to Mike.

My original "read it first" comment was in response to the usual dimwits who instinctively "know" the worth of Mike's book... but you have a valid point, even though the chance of Alan actually doing a book before we all die is a slim as a slim thing.  

[KDS]

According to Amazon, Mike's book is worth $25.20. 

 

In all seriousness, I'm looking forward to reading both.

[Emily]

Apparently holding a grudge for many years hasn't prevented Mr. Love from writing an autobiography.

This is true. In fairness, AGD, grudges shouldn't prevent you from applying the same 'judge it after I've read it' approach to Al that you give to Mike.

My original "read it first" comment was in response to the usual dimwits who instinctively "know" the worth of Mike's book... but you have a valid point, even though the chance of Alan actually doing a book before we all die is a slim as a slim thing.  

I should've included a winky face or something. That was meant as a joking dig, not a mean one.

[Sheriff John Stone]

If Mike doesn't address Al's "firing" in his book, maybe Brian will address it in his. Or, at the very least, Brian can explain why he never came to Al's rescue in helping him get back in the band. Brian himself voted to give the license to Mike (for a fee of course); I wonder if he ever did anything to change it? Maybe that's why Brian keeps "hiring" Al for his band, maybe he feels guilty. That might explain why he continues to under-utilize Al.

Brian not helping to get Al back in the Beach Boys (when Al wanted back in) reminds me of that scene in The Godfather when Abe Vigoda (in this case Al) is about to get terminated, and he asks Robert Duvall (in this case Brian) for help, saying "For old time's sake...", and Robert Duvall responds, "Can't do it Sallie (Al)..."

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

If Mike doesn't address Al's "firing" in his book, maybe Brian will address it in his. Or, at the very least, Brian can explain why he never came to Al's rescue in helping him get back in the band. Brian himself voted to give the license to Mike (for a fee of course); I wonder if he ever did anything to change it? Maybe that's why Brian keeps "hiring" Al for his band, maybe he feels guilty. That might explain why he continues to under-utilize Al.

Brian not helping to get Al back in the Beach Boys (when Al wanted back in) reminds me of that scene in The Godfather when Abe Vigoda (in this case Al) is about to get terminated, and he asks Robert Duvall (in this case Brian) for help, saying "For old time's sake...", and Robert Duvall responds, "Can't do it Sallie (Al)..."

Unlike Myke luHv, Brian gets along with Al plus he got an incredible voice. I doubt that Brian feels any *guilt* but rather is far more concerned than myKe luHv about how his band comes across to the ticketholder. luHv-quantity. Brian-quality.

[SMiLE Brian]

It's telling Mike has constantly changing hired hands and one worn out Replacement BB while BW's band has stuck together for all these years.

[CenturyDeprived]

If Mike doesn't address Al's "firing" in his book, maybe Brian will address it in his. Or, at the very least, Brian can explain why he never came to Al's rescue in helping him get back in the band. Brian himself voted to give the license to Mike (for a fee of course); I wonder if he ever did anything to change it? Maybe that's why Brian keeps "hiring" Al for his band, maybe he feels guilty. That might explain why he continues to under-utilize Al.

Brian not helping to get Al back in the Beach Boys (when Al wanted back in) reminds me of that scene in The Godfather when Abe Vigoda (in this case Al) is about to get terminated, and he asks Robert Duvall (in this case Brian) for help, saying "For old time's sake...", and Robert Duvall responds, "Can't do it Sallie (Al)..."

Inaction by not coming to someone's rescue is quite a bit different than someone else actively making efforts to specifically squeeze someone out of the band.  Comparatively speaking, one would think the latter incident would certainly be more worthy of being addressed by the person who is responsible for those actions (Mike) in their book.  

[mikeddonn]

It's telling Mike has constantly changing hired hands and one worn out Replacement BB while BW's band has stuck together for all these years.

Trying telling that to Andy Paley, Bob Lizik, Jim Hines, Taylor Mills, Jeff Foskett for starters.   

Apart from them Brian's band has stuck together without any changes

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

It's telling Mike has constantly changing hired hands and one worn out Replacement BB while BW's band has stuck together for all these years.

Trying telling that to Andy Paley, Bob Lizik, Jim Hines, Taylor Mills, Jeff Foskett for starters.   

Apart from them Brian's band has stuck together without any changes

Funny, but without those mentioned, Brian's band is even better. myKe luHv's band is in dire need of Al Jardine for his great voice not to mention authenticity.

[mikeddonn]

It's telling Mike has constantly changing hired hands and one worn out Replacement BB while BW's band has stuck together for all these years.

Trying telling that to Andy Paley, Bob Lizik, Jim Hines, Taylor Mills, Jeff Foskett for starters.   

Apart from them Brian's band has stuck together without any changes

Funny, but without those mentioned, Brian's band is even better. myKe luHv's band is in dire need of Al Jardine for his great voice not to mention authenticity.

Maybe they are better now (Bob is back on bass) but they have always been the best band out there IMHO and I don't think there has been any improvement or decline noticeable to my ears.

As for Mike's group, I agree with you! And you could apply the same logic as you have used with Brian's. Which is, Mike has made those changes to improve the band.

The point of SB's post though was not about the merits of either band, but more do with another statement knocking Mike for the sake of it.  I believe, you have also just backed me up on this one!

[The Shift]

It's telling Mike has constantly changing hired hands and one worn out Replacement BB while BW's band has stuck together for all these years.

Trying telling that to Andy Paley, Bob Lizik, Jim Hines, Taylor Mills, Jeff Foskett for starters.  

Apart from them Brian's band has stuck together without any changes

Funny, but without those mentioned, Brian's band is even better. myKe luHv's band is in dire need of Al Jardine for his great voice not to mention authenticity.

Maybe they are better now (Bob is back on bass) but they have always been the best band out there IMHO and I don't think there has been any improvement or decline noticeable to my ears.

As for Mike's group, I agree with you! And you could apply the same logic as you have used with Brian's. Which is, Mike has made those changes to improve the band.

The point of SB's post though was not about the merits of either band, but more do with another statement knocking Mike for the sake of it.  I believe, you have also just backed me up on this one!

Smile Brian's point is invalid. Can't have it both ways. Either you stay long-term because you're good, or because you've become a worn-out stand in? Bruce has earned his place in Beach Boys' history. As have Brian's band members, past and present.

[The Shift]

It's telling Mike has constantly changing hired hands and one worn out Replacement BB while BW's band has stuck together for all these years.

Trying telling that to Andy Paley, Bob Lizik, Jim Hines, Taylor Mills, Jeff Foskett for starters.   

Apart from them Brian's band has stuck together without any changes

Funny, but without those mentioned, Brian's band is even better. myKe luHv's band is in dire need of Al Jardine for his great voice not to mention authenticity.

Maybe they are better now (Bob is back on bass) but they have always been the best band out there IMHO and I don't think there has been any improvement or decline noticeable to my ears.

As for Mike's group, I agree with you! And you could apply the same logic as you have used with Brian's. Which is, Mike has made those changes to improve the band.

The point of SB's post though was not about the merits of either band, but more do with another statement knocking Mike for the sake of it.  I believe, you have also just backed me up on this one!

Small Brain's point is invalid. Can't have it both ways. Either you stay long-term because you're good, or because you've become a worn-out stand in? Bruce has earned his place in Beach Boys' history. As have Brian's band members, past and present.

Sorry… "Smile Brian" - bloomin' auto correct!!!

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

It's telling Mike has constantly changing hired hands and one worn out Replacement BB while BW's band has stuck together for all these years.

Trying telling that to Andy Paley, Bob Lizik, Jim Hines, Taylor Mills, Jeff Foskett for starters.   

Apart from them Brian's band has stuck together without any changes

Funny, but without those mentioned, Brian's band is even better. myKe luHv's band is in dire need of Al Jardine for his great voice not to mention authenticity.

Maybe they are better now (Bob is back on bass) but they have always been the best band out there IMHO and I don't think there has been any improvement or decline noticeable to my ears.

As for Mike's group, I agree with you! And you could apply the same logic as you have used with Brian's. Which is, Mike has made those changes to improve the band.

The point of SB's post though was not about the merits of either band, but more do with another statement knocking Mike for the sake of it.  I believe, you have also just backed me up on this one!

Hardly. myKe luHv employs *yes men*, you know, like br00th who adds virtually nada to the band but omits Al   myKe luHv so deserves all the knocks he receives.

[HeyJude]

It's telling Mike has constantly changing hired hands and one worn out Replacement BB while BW's band has stuck together for all these years.

Trying telling that to Andy Paley, Bob Lizik, Jim Hines, Taylor Mills, Jeff Foskett for starters.  

Apart from them Brian's band has stuck together without any changes

I certainly don't think it should be suggested that Brian's band has remained intact and unchanged. But I'd say Brian's band has had a relatively low amount of turnover for being together for 17 years now, especially with such a big band. First of all, Lizik of course is back. If we're to believe the published accounts/statements, Foskett chose to leave. Andy Paley was only brought in as an ostensibly temporary replacement for Mike D'Amico, in 2001, right?

Most accounts suggested Lizik and Hines's departures were not of their choice. Not sure about Mills. Didn't she kind of just not get integrated back in when Brian got back to touring? Simons I presume had other things on his schedule, resulting in the return of Lizik.

Whereas, with Mike's band, how many folks who have left the touring band since the late 90s have done so of their own choice? We obviously can never say for sure, but other than Christian Love and, I guess David Marks, not many others seem to have chosen to leave. Maybe Matt Jardine in 1998 if we want to count that (and that had some obvious extenuating circumstances). Maybe Phil Bardowell? So I would guess Mike has a higher involuntary turnover rate in his band.

Not that *that* is even necessarily a bad thing. It's like any other job/industry. Some people over the years were probably let go for legitimate musical reasons. Some were maybe let go because even though they were fine, someone else was wanted more. Some people (probably relatively few) have chosen to leave. Even those who don't care to see Mike's shows can objectively see that moves like Cowsill and Totten have helped the band, and that Foskett and Ike are no slouches musically either.

While Brian's band is not and has not been immune from the common industry tropes of some amount of turnover, I'd say there has been more mutual employer *and* employee loyalty *and* consistency there than many other bands, including potentially Mike. So much so that Brian got most of his band into the C50 band as well. Something tells me it probably would have been easier for Brian to just submit to having he, Al, and Dave join Mike's band. But Brian didn't do that.

[The Shift]

It's telling Mike has constantly changing hired hands and one worn out Replacement BB while BW's band has stuck together for all these years.

Trying telling that to Andy Paley, Bob Lizik, Jim Hines, Taylor Mills, Jeff Foskett for starters.   

Apart from them Brian's band has stuck together without any changes

I certainly don't think it should be suggested that Brian's band has remained intact and unchanged. But I'd say Brian's band has had a relatively low amount of turnover for being together for 17 years now, especially with such a big band. First of all, Lizik of course is back. If we're to believe the published accounts/statements, Foskett chose to leave. Andy Paley was only brought in as an ostensibly temporary replacement for Mike D'Amico, in 2001, right?

Most accounts suggested Lizik and Hines's departures were not of their choice. Not sure about Mills. Didn't she kind of just not get integrated back in when Brian got back to touring? Simons I presume had other things on his schedule, resulting in the return of Lizik.

Whereas, with Mike's band, how many folks who have left the touring band since the late 90s have done so of their own choice? We obviously can never say for sure, but other than Christian Love and, I guess David Marks, not many others seem to have chosen to leave. Maybe Matt Jardine in 1998 if we want to count that (and that had some obvious extenuating circumstances). Maybe Phil Bardowell? So I would guess Mike has a higher involuntary turnover rate in his band.

Not that *that* is even necessarily a bad thing. It's like any other job/industry. Some people over the years were probably let go for legitimate musical reasons. Some were maybe let go because even though they were fine, someone else was wanted more. Some people (probably relatively few) have chosen to leave. Even those who don't care to see Mike's shows can objectively see that moves like Cowsill and Totten have helped the band, and that Foskett and Ike are no slouches musically either.

While Brian's band is not and has not been immune from the common industry tropes of some amount of turnover, I'd say there has been more mutual employer *and* employee loyalty *and* consistency there than many other bands, including potentially Mike. So much so that Brian got most of his band into the C50 band as well. Something tells me it probably would have been easier for Brian to just submit to having he, Al, and Dave join Mike's band. But Brian didn't do that.

Didn't Taylor leave to (successfully) start a family? She's guested on stage at least once since, I believe.

[Cam Mott]

It's hard to compare but Mike's guys tend to have served for thousands of shows where as Brian's guys have been around for hundreds of shows?

[Cam Mott]

If you had been with Brian's band for every show since 1998 you would have had like 700 shows (I think), Mike's guys match that milestone in 4 or 5 years (I think).

[Andrew G. Doe]

Er, try about 520 to date.

[HeyJude]

If you follow touring bands, from the 175-per-year variety (Mike) to the lucky-if-you-can-book-a-dozen-rib-cook-offs variety (Al solo), what you'll find is that it is typically *more difficult* to hold a backing band together when you play fewer shows.

It's why, if you open up Al's "Live in Las Vegas" CD, I think it shows like three different bass players, a few drummers, etc. Obviously, he had one set of musicians on that album. But doing scattershot dates usually means your band is more likely to drift apart.

That Brian has kept all of the guys he has over 17 years when he has done very scattered touring during certain years, is even more impressive in terms of mutual loyalty and consistency between Brian and band. Even more so considering the people currently in the band are probably *not* kept on retainer the way, say, McCartney keeps his guys, or Mike keeps his guys (and even if Mike doesn't literally keep this band on retainer, they are employed for nearly the entire year, every year, even if they're simply being contracted for specific blocks of dates).

[Cam Mott]

Er, try about 520 to date.

Noted, so the equivalent 3 to 4 years of loyalty in Mike's band.

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

If you follow touring bands, from the 175-per-year variety (Mike) to the lucky-if-you-can-book-a-dozen-rib-cook-offs variety (Al solo), what you'll find is that it is typically *more difficult* to hold a backing band together when you play fewer shows.

It's why, if you open up Al's "Live in Las Vegas" CD, I think it shows like three different bass players, a few drummers, etc. Obviously, he had one set of musicians on that album. But doing scattershot dates usually means your band is more likely to drift apart.

That Brian has kept all of the guys he has over 17 years when he has done very scattered touring during certain years, is even more impressive in terms of mutual loyalty and consistency between Brian and band. Even more so considering the people currently in the band are probably *not* kept on retainer the way, say, McCartney keeps his guys, or Mike keeps his guys (and even if Mike doesn't literally keep this band on retainer, they are employed for nearly the entire year, every year, even if they're simply being contracted for specific blocks of dates).

And in addition to the loyality that Brian has earned, I'm sure that it has something to do with playing with a true legend unlike the myKe and br00th BB tribute band.

[HeyJude]

I don't think anybody has questioned the loyalty of musicians in both Brian's and Mike's band. Very few members in either band have seemed to voluntarily exit their respective band.

It's more an issue of "turnover" than it is "loyalty", considering the majority of musicians exiting have probably done so not of their own choice.

When you factor in departures relative to total band size, and look at length of service, (to say nothing of actual tour schedules), Brian's band has had less turnover than Mike's. Which could mean any number of things. Mike could be finicky. He could be meticulous in upgrading musicians. He could be bad at hiring musicians in the first place.

I didn't bring up band member turnover, so it's not a big thing to me one way or the other. But *if* we're going to compare the two bands, and certainly if we're going to really get into "loyalty", I think two germane points are: 1. Most members of both bands tend to *want* to stay in them. and 2. If one way we measure "loyalty" is sticking to a band even without consistent monetary reward, and not taking other long-term gigs, then the *less active* touring band and its members could easily be characterized as having more "loyalty."

[Cam Mott]

If you follow touring bands, from the 175-per-year variety (Mike) to the lucky-if-you-can-book-a-dozen-rib-cook-offs variety (Al solo), what you'll find is that it is typically *more difficult* to hold a backing band together when you play fewer shows.

It's why, if you open up Al's "Live in Las Vegas" CD, I think it shows like three different bass players, a few drummers, etc. Obviously, he had one set of musicians on that album. But doing scattershot dates usually means your band is more likely to drift apart.

That Brian has kept all of the guys he has over 17 years when he has done very scattered touring during certain years, is even more impressive in terms of mutual loyalty and consistency between Brian and band. Even more so considering the people currently in the band are probably *not* kept on retainer the way, say, McCartney keeps his guys, or Mike keeps his guys (and even if Mike doesn't literally keep this band on retainer, they are employed for nearly the entire year, every year, even if they're simply being contracted for specific blocks of dates).

And in addition to the loyality that Brian has earned, I'm sure that it has something to do with playing with a true legend unlike the myKe and br00th BB tribute band.

We agree about Brian but it would be an honor to perform with the living legends Mike and Bruce (and Al, and Dave) too.

[CenturyDeprived]

I don't think anybody has questioned the loyalty of musicians in both Brian's and Mike's band. Very few members in either band have seemed to voluntarily exit their respective band.

It's more an issue of "turnover" than it is "loyalty", considering the majority of musicians exiting have probably done so not of their own choice.

When you factor in departures relative to total band size, and look at length of service, (to say nothing of actual tour schedules), Brian's band has had less turnover than Mike's. Which could mean any number of things. Mike could be finicky. He could be meticulous in upgrading musicians. He could be bad at hiring musicians in the first place.

I didn't bring up band member turnover, so it's not a big thing to me one way or the other. But *if* we're going to compare the two bands, and certainly if we're going to really get into "loyalty", I think two germane points are: 1. Most members of both bands tend to *want* to stay in them. and 2. If one way we measure "loyalty" is sticking to a band even without consistent monetary reward, and not taking other long-term gigs, then the *less active* touring band and its members could easily be characterized as having more "loyalty."

I also imagine that the musicians in Brian's band feel they get significantly more respect from the media and fans, when compared to the musicians Mike's band. That's not a dig against any of the musicians in either band, but the undeniable fact of the matter, regardless of politics, is that Brian's band is respected on a much higher level, and play places like Hollywood Bowl, etc. Mike's band does play some big shows sometimes, but as far as I know not Hollywood Bowl headlining level, and only smaller local press typically covers the M&B show, compared to more legit news outlets for Brian's shows. For whatever that disparity could mean to band members on a personal level, I would tend to think it's not a negligible issue when it comes to turnover and morale.