Vanity Fair Review of the Books

[terrei]

I read a Vanity Fair review of the competing memoirs of Mike Love and Brian Wilson, which says the Love book is better.

Does it?

If it’s the jumbo popcorn bag of Beach Boys lore you saltily crave, then Love’s Good Vibrations should hold you the length of the circus. In the battle of the Beach Boys memoirs, it’s the better read: lively, informative, thumbtacked with crazy specifics, and a decent job of self-exoneration.

In other words, he's saying "if you're obsessive over the band's lore like I am, then you're better off with Love's book." Whereas I Am Brian Wilson seems like a compilation of typical Brian phone call interviews since 2010, Good Vibrations looks like an atypical Mike phone call interview that continued on for several hours. I don't care about the Manson times, but isn't Mike's book unprecedented in that nobody in the band has ever publicly acknowledged Manson on their own volition?

[Emily]

I read the review before it was on this site and immediately thought, oh, the Brianistas are gonna have a cow.  Predictable.

I do sincerely think though that the labeling of Brian as a genius probably hurt him greatly.  I remember reading a Spector book where he said something to the effect, "maybe Brian's just not really that smart".  It does seem he wigged out after the genius hype began.

Something to ponder....I don't think Spector meant Brian was not smart at all, maybe just he had been promotionally pushed to a title he didn't perhaps deserve.  But calling anyone a "pop genius" sort of has its own built in qualifier, you may as well be calling them a "junior genius" or somehow, "a genius, but you know, not a GENIUS".

I have thought at times listening to particular BBs and BW moments that "this is a work of genius".  But on the other hand, I have felt the same listening to the Seeds or the Music Machine or a Terry Kirkman song, and then kind of go, "okay, maybe3 time to curb your enthusiasm" to coin a phrase.  Strange how extreme affection for some pop art gets easily conflated into genius.

I think the Beatles are a prime example of this.

The word "genius" carries an implication of brilliance in a particular area, as in "math genius", "music genius", "artistic genius." It doesn't usually imply general intelligence.
Extreme liking for any art might get the artist briefly labeled "genius" by someone at the moment of thrall, but the markings that Brian Wilson showed in the way he wrote, arranged and recorded music, pretty much single-handedly (not actually playing the instruments  ) time after time, without training, indicate more than would be shown by writing or recording a few brilliant songs.

[c-man]

I read the review before it was on this site and immediately thought, oh, the Brianistas are gonna have a cow.  Predictable.

I do sincerely think though that the labeling of Brian as a genius probably hurt him greatly.  I remember reading a Spector book where he said something to the effect, "maybe Brian's just not really that smart".  It does seem he wigged out after the genius hype began.

Something to ponder....I don't think Spector meant Brian was not smart at all, maybe just he had been promotionally pushed to a title he didn't perhaps deserve.  But calling anyone a "pop genius" sort of has its own built in qualifier, you may as well be calling them a "junior genius" or somehow, "a genius, but you know, not a GENIUS".

I have thought at times listening to particular BBs and BW moments that "this is a work of genius".  But on the other hand, I have felt the same listening to the Seeds or the Music Machine or a Terry Kirkman song, and then kind of go, "okay, maybe3 time to curb your enthusiasm" to coin a phrase.  Strange how extreme affection for some pop art gets easily conflated into genius.

I think the Beatles are a prime example of this.

The word "genius" carries an implication of brilliance in a particular area, as in "math genius", "music genius", "artistic genius." It doesn't usually imply general intelligence.
Extreme liking for any art might get the artist briefly labeled "genius" by someone at the moment of thrall, but the markings that Brian Wilson showed in the way he wrote, arranged and recorded music, pretty much single-handedly (not actually playing the instruments  ) time after time, without training, indicate more than would be shown by writing or recording a few brilliant songs.

The fact that he can create complex, multi-part harmonies on the spur of the moment with one part of his brain, while simultaneously playing a completely-unrelated boogie-woogie rhythm on the piano should tell us somehting! 

[Autotune]

I am loving this thread. So what if Mike's book is better than Brian's? The mere fact that such possibility is drivig some fans crazy is indicative of the reality of BB fandom.

[KDS]

I am loving this thread. So what if Mike's book is better than Brian's? The mere fact that such possibility is drivig some fans crazy is indicative of the reality of BB fandom.

True.  I'm really looking forward to both books.   I wish AL would write one too.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I am loving this thread. So what if Mike's book is better than Brian's? The mere fact that such possibility is drivig some fans crazy is indicative of the reality of BB fandom.

The quality of the books isn't 'drivig' anybody crazy...the reference to a certain interview in a review is what's doing it.

[Robbie Mac]

What does his goatee have to do with anything...?

If you are bitching about how everyone unfairly demonizes you, it kinda helps if you don't look like a douchey Anton LeVey follower.

I repeat.. What does his goatee have to do with anything..

Nothing

Wrong, again.

[DonnyL]

Brian Wilson is clearly a musical genius in my opinion ... I think that concept is relatively uncontroversial. Fairly certain Mike Love is in agreement.

I presume that for both books, Mike and Brian gave a series of interviews and the other writer actually wrote the book. I would guess that Mike's book will be a more interesting read than Brian's. Based on interviews in which Mike actually "opens up" (like Goldmine '92), he tends to be more revealing than Brian. Combined with this being the first time he's "setting the record straight", I expect a fair amount of info coming out that fans might not be aware of. Regardless of which "side" the reader is on

[Moon Dawg]

 Mike's ghostwriter James S. Hirsch did an admirable job with his authorized Willie Mays bio a few years back.

[KDS]

What does his goatee have to do with anything...?

If you are bitching about how everyone unfairly demonizes you, it kinda helps if you don't look like a douchey Anton LeVey follower.

I repeat.. What does his goatee have to do with anything..

Nothing

Wrong, again.

It never ceases to amaze me how people will look for ANY reason to bash Mike.  RNRHOF speech.  Fine.   Putting foot in mouth in reason interviews. Fair enough.   But, facial hair?

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

What does his goatee have to do with anything...?

If you are bitching about how everyone unfairly demonizes you, it kinda helps if you don't look like a douchey Anton LeVey follower.

I repeat.. What does his goatee have to do with anything..

Nothing

Wrong, again.

It never ceases to amaze me how people will look for ANY reason to bash Mike.  RNRHOF speech.  Fine.   Putting foot in mouth in reason interviews. Fair enough.   But, facial hair?

Yeah I don't get that one...I think Mike looks better with it at this point.

[Robbie Mac]

I'm, admittedly,  not a fan of the Love goatee.  Full beard, yes. But not the goatee.

[HeyJude]

I'm, admittedly,  not a fan of the Love goatee.  Full beard, yes. But not the goatee.

I have to agree. And *OF COURSE* their facial hair has nothing to do with them as people. I mean, I guess you can try to micro-analyze their appearance over the years and parse its relation to all sort of social and political movements, etc.

Certainly, Mike's ten-foot-long beard of the early 70s opens the door to speaking about *something* to do with something he was into.

But more times than not, it's just fringe discussion for fun.

Ever since its inception circa 1998 (notwithstanding a few near-goatees like whatever you call what he had going on at the 1988 R&R Hall of Fame), I've not been a fan of his goatee. To me, it gives the appearance of playing into the aging baby boomer with Hawaiian shirt and primped and meticulously groomed Hootie and the Blowfish-style goatee. Indeed, the goatee thing seemed to peak in popularity in the mid-late 90s.

I just always thought, quite *subjectively*, that the goatee made him look extra douchey.

The full beard of the late 70s and early 80s always gave me the impression (however incorrect) of a more kindly, just sort of middle-aged, unhip guy. Indeed, nearly *all* of the BBs gave off that vibe in that timeframe. They all looked way older than they actually were. Look at pics of them in, say, 1976. Brian and Al are freaking 33 or 34 years old and Mike 34 or 35 and they look easily in their mid-40s.

When Al and Mike shaved, they certainly looked younger. Al instantly looked like 20 years younger. I think it also played, however incorrectly it might actually be, into the mid-80s conservative streak the band sometimes tended to portray. Shave off the hippie beards, and become conservative business men. Again, a vast generalization and simplification. I think they probably just did it when too much grey crept in, and also when it wasn't as fashionable.

Mike actually briefly grew the full beard back around 1992. There are a few pics on Getty Images I recently saw. Really weird; it's the "Summer in Paradise" era and Mike has a full Santa beard going on.

I was quite glad Mike ditched the goatee for C50.

[CenturyDeprived]

I'm, admittedly,  not a fan of the Love goatee.  Full beard, yes. But not the goatee.

I have to agree. And *OF COURSE* their facial hair has nothing to do with them as people. I mean, I guess you can try to micro-analyze their appearance over the years and parse its relation to all sort of social and political movements, etc.

Certainly, Mike's ten-foot-long beard of the early 70s opens the door to speaking about *something* to do with something he was into.

But more times than not, it's just fringe discussion for fun.

Ever since its inception circa 1998 (notwithstanding a few near-goatees like whatever you call what he had going on at the 1988 R&R Hall of Fame), I've not been a fan of his goatee. To me, it gives the appearance of playing into the aging baby boomer with Hawaiian shirt and primped and meticulously groomed Hootie and the Blowfish-style goatee. Indeed, the goatee thing seemed to peak in popularity in the mid-late 90s.

I just always thought, quite *subjectively*, that the goatee made him look extra douchey.

The full beard of the late 70s and early 80s always gave me the impression (however incorrect) of a more kindly, just sort of middle-aged, unhip guy. Indeed, nearly *all* of the BBs gave off that vibe in that timeframe. They all looked way older than they actually were. Look at pics of them in, say, 1976. Brian and Al are freaking 33 or 34 years old and Mike 34 or 35 and they look easily in their mid-40s.

When Al and Mike shaved, they certainly looked younger. Al instantly looked like 20 years younger. I think it also played, however incorrectly it might actually be, into the mid-80s conservative streak the band sometimes tended to portray. Shave off the hippie beards, and become conservative business men. Again, a vast generalization and simplification. I think they probably just did it when too much grey crept in, and also when it wasn't as fashionable.

Mike actually briefly grew the full beard back around 1992. There are a few pics on Getty Images I recently saw. Really weird; it's the "Summer in Paradise" era and Mike has a full Santa beard going on.

I was quite glad Mike ditched the goatee for C50.

I agree entirely about your thoughts on Mike's goatee (and I say that being a self-deprecating former wearer of a goatee myself!)

It could be worse... Mike could shave his facial hair into *just* a Flavor-Saver below the lip. Yuck.  

[thorgil]

I like Mike's goatee, imho it gives him a more "distinguished" look, very appropriate for his age.

[Shady]

I'm more interested in Mike's, he actually wrote his.

[Rocky Raccoon]

I'm more interested in Mike's, he actually wrote his.

Um, they both used ghostwriters...

[guitarfool2002]

I'm more interested in Mike's, he actually wrote his.

Where are you getting your information from, Shady? Do you have info on how the books were written to make that statement?

[RangeRoverA1]

I'm really looking forward to both books.   I wish AL would write one too.

Affirmative.

[Ian]

Yes Mike definitely had a professional writer work with him by that is pretty standard other than maybe bob Dylan I can't think of too many memoirs where the celeb didn't have help.  But it can still be someone's authentic voice if the writer uses lots of interviews and just polishes it.  I feel like this is what the guy who worked with Keith Richards did

[Rocky Raccoon]

Yes Mike definitely had a professional writer work with him by that is pretty standard other than maybe bob Dylan I can't think of too many memoirs where the celeb didn't have help.  But it can still be someone's authentic voice if the writer uses lots of interviews and just polishes it.  I feel like this is what the guy who worked with Keith Richards did

There's certainly nothing wrong with it.  The stories will be Mike and Brian's respectively.  People sometimes act like using a ghostwriter is just being lazy.  It's not, it's assuring that these great stories are written as well as they can be.

[MarcellaHasDirtyFeet]

In my experience, most people are terrible writers. The use of ghostwriters means the books will be readable!

Too bad Rocky didn't line up a good ghostwriter. Would have been a bestseller 

[HeyJude]

In my experience, most people are terrible writers. The use of ghostwriters means the books will be readable!

This is very true, and why I kind of wish both Brian and Mike had gone the route of "authorized biography" to avoid a first-person narrative that is never going to really sound particularly like either of them.

But that's essentially what these books are, authorized biographies written in the first person. Indeed, few "autobiographies" are written, especially by "rock stars", with the actual subject sitting down and writing it.

[HeyJude]

From the bits I've gathered so far (haven't read either book yet myself), these books seem like they may be, content-wise (not necessarily style-wise) somewhat similar to press releases and interviews from Brian and Mike from recent years.

That is, it sounds like Brian's book is not going out of its way to hone in on Mike, only raising the topic when needed, whereas Mike's is more of an exercise in "righting wrongs" in terms of stories and perceptions. It appears Brian may be, both to his detriment and benefit, taking a bit of the "high road."

I have no problem believing, as a simple reading experience, Mike's might be more enveloping. I have to wonder if Brian's book would have been a lot different had Jason Fine finished it out with him. Fine's articles on C50 are well-written and insightful.

[Robbie Mac]

I'm more interested in Mike's, he actually wrote his.

Um, they both used ghostwriters...

And 99.9999 percent of celebrity "autobiographies" are ghostwritten.