Mike's Book Discussion Thread (and how it relates to the SS board)

[bb4ever]

According to Mike's book,, he has paid 23.8 million to BRI  since obtaining the license in 1999, which has been split between the shareholders.Page 416

I have a question and please excuse me if it is an uninformed question:  If Mike has to pay $$ to BRI for using the Beach Boys name, do the shareholders get a say in the quality of his shows?  After hearing the totally auto-tuned escapade on the 4th of July, I can't say that performance was in any way representative of the Beach Boys. 

Or maybe everyone is just happy to collect their money from Mike's obsessive opportunism?

[HeyJude]

According to Mike's book,, he has paid 23.8 million to BRI  since obtaining the license in 1999, which has been split between the shareholders.Page 416

I have a question and please excuse me if it is an uninformed question:  If Mike has to pay $$ to BRI for using the Beach Boys name, do the shareholders get a say in the quality of his shows?  After hearing the totally auto-tuned escapade on the 4th of July, I can't say that performance was in any way representative of the Beach Boys. 

Or maybe everyone is just happy to collect their money from Mike's obsessive opportunism?

It's a good question. My best guess would be that technically yes, there are certain basic requirements to the license. But they would likely be very basic things rather than qualitative, subjective things like the *quality* of the performance. Singing flat, or using autotune, doing too many covers, unadventurous setlists (or *too* adventurous setlists), etc., all very difficult to enforce.

Interestingly, in articles around the time Al was being sued by BRI, some specifics were cited as to things his band were doing that were supposedly objectionable, and those things including having female singers on stage, and playing unconventional songs (e.g. non-hits). But I tend to think these were not firm license guidelines, because Mike was breaking that same setlist rule. While it made it sound like the license has specific terms as far as *appearance* and *setlist* go, I think it was more just a case of points to make against Al back then.

I think the basic idea is that they could conceivably vote to revoke Mike's license if all three other shareholders wanted it; that would be the only potential recourse if somebody didn't like something about Mike's band.

I think as things go right now, there is little back-and-forth on the merits of Mike's band as far as setlist. I think something quite extraordinary would have to happen for BRI to revoke Mike's license. He'd have to be convicted of a serious crime, or embroiled in some truly epic scandal, something along those lines, for any action to be taken on the license.

[Joel Goldenberg]

I've gotten to another part of the book where Brian, still under Landy's control, has a meeting with the group to discuss future plans, another recorded or transcribed meeting. Mike is so shocked and pleased that Brian not only expresses a desire to work with the group but to write with Mike that Mike names his latest child Brian. Next up-the grimy details of Landy's sexual shenanigans.

[Myra]

I went to his book signing in New York last night. He loved the Pet Sounds t-shirt I was wearing.

[Joel Goldenberg]

The chapter detailing Mike's song credits lawsuit against Brian is really riveting, no matter which side you take IMO.

[Amy B.]

Haven't had much time to read the book. I'm basically at the part where the BBs are just starting.

I did want to comment that what Mike says about his childhood and the Love family possibly offers some insight into his current behavior. I had heard some of this before, but Mike went into how his mother (Murry's sister) tried to have the perfect family and raise 6 perfect children. She and her husband were "a striking couple" with a large, beautiful house plenty of money, at least until the 1950s. But Mike says more than once that he didn't feel all that close to his parents, that they weren't that affectionate. He said his mother, Glee, played peacemaker with the warring factions of the family and would sometimes become anxious, "suffered fits of depression" and "sometimes got into the cooking sherry."  Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but it sounds like older generation code for "she had depression and was a alcoholic."

He also states that he had some friends as a teenager but was really "a loner" and that Brian was the person he was closest to.

Whatever it was, it seems possible that this is why, when the Wilson brothers displayed some of these same characteristics, Mike couldn't handle it and was sometimes in denial or overly critical about it. (Glee was a Wilson too.)

I'm not excusing Mike at all. He clearly holds onto way too much bitterness and anger and should be in therapy, if he isn't already. As has been said here, he seems scarily without self-awareness. But it's interesting to think about.

[Juice Brohnston]

As others have been saying and the reviews are starting to appear, advance copies of Mike's book have gone out. I happened to be able to check one out. Without doing any spoilers or copying direct passages, or without doing a review, something did stand out and it runs through chapters of the book sometimes pretty obviously.

All I can say is, some of the defenses of various claims in the book might sound very familiar to readers of this board. I'd almost go as far as to say if you've kept up regularly with this forum, and the various topics and arguments around certain issues, you'll feel like you've read or heard it before.

Some posters here either had their fingers on the pulse of these things, enough to make some of the same points and offer the same explanations as you'll read in the book, or they just happened to be hitting on the same narrative.

As someone who has been reading this stuff for several decades, I recognized some of the original sources from which certain passages and background may have been used. Especially in the Smile chapter, certain descriptive words and phrases read like those in sources I've read and am familiar with. Some are too specifically worded not to notice.

But it was the similarity to quite a few posts made here on the Smiley forum (and the posters who made them) that really stood out. There are points, arguments, and even what you might call defenses that I recognized from discussions and debates here on the board. In some cases, some recently, I remember reading a poster's points (and defenses) and thinking that's odd, in all the years prior I don't remember that being raised as a point of defending or arguing for or against some aspect of Smile, or whatever else was the topic. Then those points also appear in Mike's book?

I remember them because I was involved in some of those debates directly as they played out here. And I remember who it was that was debating, and it sounded familiar on the pages of this book.

Apart from that, there was an odd method to offering some of the defenses. Instead of "setting the record straight", there were sometimes quotes from other band members and others involved with various aspects of the band inserted in order to bolster or back up whatever that chapter's narrative was suggesting. And some of them seemed taken perhaps too easily out of a larger context, but that's just my opinion.

If you've been reading this forum, and engaging in the debates, you may recognize some of the new book's narratives as what certain posters have been offering here on the board.

The first passage I have stumbled on where I do get this connection is the discussion of Manson recording at Brian's house, and Desper's reaction. I guess my question is as follows: Is Stephen on the record anywhere else in discussing Manson's sessions at Brian's house in reference to details about the Charlie's switchblade, and personal hygiene?

[the professor]

I have read closely the first 106 pages of the book, in addition to the 50th Anniversary section which I had read as well. So far I do not see an unkind word in this book about anybody except Mike's own strong often brutal critique of his own behavior and a very strong critique of his Uncle Murray. Mike is very kind to Dave and giving him some very good credit for his contribution. So far there is very little about L and Carl artistically other than to praise their singing and generally speak of them warmly and there are some wonderful very warm very intimate portraits of Mike and Dennis. For Brian mike reserves his greatest affection end artistic admiration. The only anxiety and bitterness is when Mike explains how either through Brian being kind of oblivious and Murry being mean and vindictive, his name was left off various songs. So far the book is very wonderful, very humane and very intelligent and I feel like Mike is speaking to you very directly and it's a pleasure to hear his  contemplatively recounting what are in many cases well-known events. His story of the warmth of the sun is particularly moving.

[guitarfool2002]

As others have been saying and the reviews are starting to appear, advance copies of Mike's book have gone out. I happened to be able to check one out. Without doing any spoilers or copying direct passages, or without doing a review, something did stand out and it runs through chapters of the book sometimes pretty obviously.

All I can say is, some of the defenses of various claims in the book might sound very familiar to readers of this board. I'd almost go as far as to say if you've kept up regularly with this forum, and the various topics and arguments around certain issues, you'll feel like you've read or heard it before.

Some posters here either had their fingers on the pulse of these things, enough to make some of the same points and offer the same explanations as you'll read in the book, or they just happened to be hitting on the same narrative.

As someone who has been reading this stuff for several decades, I recognized some of the original sources from which certain passages and background may have been used. Especially in the Smile chapter, certain descriptive words and phrases read like those in sources I've read and am familiar with. Some are too specifically worded not to notice.

But it was the similarity to quite a few posts made here on the Smiley forum (and the posters who made them) that really stood out. There are points, arguments, and even what you might call defenses that I recognized from discussions and debates here on the board. In some cases, some recently, I remember reading a poster's points (and defenses) and thinking that's odd, in all the years prior I don't remember that being raised as a point of defending or arguing for or against some aspect of Smile, or whatever else was the topic. Then those points also appear in Mike's book?

I remember them because I was involved in some of those debates directly as they played out here. And I remember who it was that was debating, and it sounded familiar on the pages of this book.

Apart from that, there was an odd method to offering some of the defenses. Instead of "setting the record straight", there were sometimes quotes from other band members and others involved with various aspects of the band inserted in order to bolster or back up whatever that chapter's narrative was suggesting. And some of them seemed taken perhaps too easily out of a larger context, but that's just my opinion.

If you've been reading this forum, and engaging in the debates, you may recognize some of the new book's narratives as what certain posters have been offering here on the board.

The first passage I have stumbled on where I do get this connection is the discussion of Manson recording at Brian's house, and Desper's reaction. I guess my question is as follows: Is Stephen on the record anywhere else in discussing Manson's sessions at Brian's house in reference to details about the Charlie's switchblade, and personal hygiene?

Nope - At least I never read it anywhere else and first read it here:

Great read thank you! Is it true that Manson also used to nonchalantly pull out a knife during the sessions whilst speaking?

COMMENT:  Yes. He liked to clean under his fingernails with the blade. It was a switchblade knife. Things like that don't bother me. I made it plain from the on-set that I was in charge of the recording session. When he pulled out his knife, I let him clean himself a few times and then ask Manson if I could see his knife and would he show me how it works -- which he did. Then I ask him again if I could hold the knife to see how the weight was. He did give me the knife and I balanced it on my finger to check the balance. We talked a little about balance and how it affected the toss of the knife. After that he put it in his pocked and got down to the business of recording. This knife nail cleaning habit is not unusual among some would-be tough guys. I saw it practiced while in High School as a student. If it was intended to impress or threaten me; it did not -- and Manson knew it by my at-ease with this practice. In fact, Manson displayed respect for me and told me so when he did not have a light for his cigarette. I went off leaving him along in the control room, to search in Brian's house for a match. When I returned with a book of matches, Charlie thought that was really something -- that I would make such an effort on his behalf. (Actually I just did not want him wondering around Brian and Marylin's house looking for a light.) At any event it did tend to make a positive impression in him.

Please keep in mind as you read all this, that it happened a couple of weeks BEFORE the "event."  So to me he was this creapy guy I was to record playing his Guitar and singing some original songs. I treated Charlie with the same respect as anyone recording in the studio, but he started out a little pushy, or maybe that's how it impressed me. In hind sight I'd say he just had a problem with authority.  At first it was, "I'm going to do this and you record me," whereas after the first playback it became more like, "what do I do now so you can make a better recording." That is, he realized that I was running the session, not him -- that he was out of his league in the studio environment and had best trust an expert if he wanted the end product to reflect his best side. Once that was established he did farily well as an artist and things moved along.
~swd   

My question is not what/why women would want to be with Manson, BO and all, but why Denny would want anything to do with those same women.  The guy had all inds of cute girls at his finger tips all along.....what the hell did he see in that crowd?

COMMENT:  I cannot tell you what was in Dennis' mind, but I think you said it. The allure was in the "crowd."  The orgy aspect that was available to Dennis through Charles was a major difference from what Dennis had with most cute girls.  It was Manson that needed a bath, not the girls with him, and STD in those days could be treated overnight.   ~swd 

[SenorPotatoHead]

A few thoughts on the audio version, which I recently acquired:

The delivery of his reading isn't all that great overall, he often sounds unsure about what he's reading, he stumbles quite a bit in parts like he doesn't know the material, and that voice - it's like he's thinking, "Yeah, listen to my sexy, mellifluous voice!"
There are points in the book where he is mostly just quoting from other sources - I found some of that a little annoying.
Some of his memories about events through the band's history are pretty interesting, feel less apocryphal and more genuine, and I appreciate that aspect a lot. 

and just a warning:  do not fall asleep while listening to this.  Seriously, falling asleep while listening to this is....just a bad idea, don't do it!  (more than that I cannot say)

[guitarfool2002]

A few thoughts on the audio version, which I recently acquired:

The delivery of his reading isn't all that great overall, he often sounds unsure about what he's reading, he stumbles quite a bit in parts like he doesn't know the material, and that voice - it's like he's thinking, "Yeah, listen to my sexy, mellifluous voice!"
There are points in the book where he is mostly just quoting from other sources - I found some of that a little annoying.
Some of his memories about events through the band's history are pretty interesting, feel less apocryphal and more genuine, and I appreciate that aspect a lot. 

and just a warning:  do not fall asleep while listening to this.  Seriously, falling asleep while listening to this is....just a bad idea, don't do it!  (more than that I cannot say)

Your observation in bold is exactly what I observed as well which started this thread, and my comments got twisted and bastardized into certain people saying I was accusing James Hirsch of plagiarism and Cam Mott/filledeplage of actually co-writing the book.

Not the case - Like you just said, some passages relied too heavily in my opinion on other sources which rang a bell and which I had read previously, and in the case of the Smile chapter and others I could recall what they were based on by the way things were phrased or terms used. That is NOT accusing someone of plagiarism, that is observing that there was a reliance on other sources for the background in some of these chapters and I would have preferred Mike's own background in his words.

[Juice Brohnston]

Some random thoughts as I finish up the book....
I do feel that I walk away with a better understanding of Mike. To me, the book doesn't come across as 'just sour grapes'. Mike has some legitimate beefs, and I don't think he goes over the top in trying to address them. Yes there are times in the book when stories are self serving, but that's part of the package.

A few passages changed my way of thinking on something of relatively small consequence. That is bringing family members on stage to sing. It's not my preference, and caused an issue as discussed in another thread. But the Beach Boys ARE a family band, and that is in its roots. Makes me appreciate the contributions from the Matts and the Christians a little more.

Puzzled as to the amount of space or lack thereof, dedicated to Bruce. Something is telling there. A few sentences here and there, the most interesting being Bruce's method of avoiding the war. More time spend talking about Terry ( which is cool). More time devoted to David (I get that as Mike uses David to set up how he was also a Murry victim) For the last 2 decades Bruce has been Mikes guy...thought there would be more on him.

Jacqueline has had a tremendous influence on Mike. Good for her.

[the professor]

Yes, I agree. I am half way through. Mike loves and reveres Brian in every chapter, though he is keenly critical of mythologizers and hagiographers, not because they minimize Mike's role but because they never did Brian any good nor cared about him as a person. A sense of family warmth fills the book, and a sense of longing, nostalgia call it.

Many people on our board have spoken based on rumor and "what they heard" about the book rather than from reading it, and anyone committed to hating Mike is going to hate no matter what. But I do appreciate reading the comments of the open-minded critical thinkers here. For them and for me, this is a wonderful book and a way to get closer to Mikle and to the BB.

Bruce has the unfortunate fate of being with Mike every day, which makes him less likely the subject for exposition in the book. But all the BB are praised for their art--Carl deemed the most musically talented after Brian.
I still expect the boys to play together again, and this book will actually help that process.

Some random thoughts as I finish up the book....
I do feel that I walk away with a better understanding of Mike. To me, the book doesn't come across as 'just sour grapes'. Mike has some legitimate beefs, and I don't think he goes over the top in trying to address them. Yes there are times in the book when stories are self serving, but that's part of the package.

A few passages changed my way of thinking on something of relatively small consequence. That is bringing family members on stage to sing. It's not my preference, and caused an issue as discussed in another thread. But the Beach Boys ARE a family band, and that is in its roots. Makes me appreciate the contributions from the Matts and the Christians a little more.

Puzzled as to the amount of space or lack thereof, dedicated to Bruce. Something is telling there. A few sentences here and there, the most interesting being Bruce's method of avoiding the war. More time spend talking about Terry ( which is cool). More time devoted to David (I get that as Mike uses David to set up how he was also a Murry victim) For the last 2 decades Bruce has been Mikes guy...thought there would be more on him.

Jacqueline has had a tremendous influence on Mike. Good for her.

[Debbie KL]

Yes, I agree. I am half way through. Mike loves and reveres Brian in every chapter, though he is keenly critical of mythologizers and hagiographers, not because they minimize Mike's role but because they never did Brian any good nor cared about him as a person. A sense of family warmth fills the book, and a sense of longing, nostalgia call it.

Many people on our board have spoken based on rumor and "what they heard" about the book rather than from reading it, and anyone committed to hating Mike is going to hate no matter what. But I do appreciate reading the comments of the open-minded critical thinkers here. For them and for me, this is a wonderful book and a way to get closer to Mikle and to the BB.

Bruce has the unfortunate fate of being with Mike every day, which makes him less likely the subject for exposition in the book. But all the BB are praised for their art--Carl deemed the most musically talented after Brian.
I still expect the boys to play together again, and this book will actually help that process.

Some random thoughts as I finish up the book....
I do feel that I walk away with a better understanding of Mike. To me, the book doesn't come across as 'just sour grapes'. Mike has some legitimate beefs, and I don't think he goes over the top in trying to address them. Yes there are times in the book when stories are self serving, but that's part of the package.

A few passages changed my way of thinking on something of relatively small consequence. That is bringing family members on stage to sing. It's not my preference, and caused an issue as discussed in another thread. But the Beach Boys ARE a family band, and that is in its roots. Makes me appreciate the contributions from the Matts and the Christians a little more.

Puzzled as to the amount of space or lack thereof, dedicated to Bruce. Something is telling there. A few sentences here and there, the most interesting being Bruce's method of avoiding the war. More time spend talking about Terry ( which is cool). More time devoted to David (I get that as Mike uses David to set up how he was also a Murry victim) For the last 2 decades Bruce has been Mikes guy...thought there would be more on him.

Jacqueline has had a tremendous influence on Mike. Good for her.

  "Yes, I agree. I am half way through. Mike loves and reveres Brian in every chapter, though he is keenly critical of mythologizers and hagiographers, not because they minimize Mike's role but because they never did Brian any good nor cared about him as a person. A sense of family warmth fills the book, and a sense of longing, nostalgia call it".

Who exactly are these mythologizers and hagiographers?  The ones who didn't care about Brian?  There's always the possibility that Brian has a different view of whomever his real supporters happen to be.  I'll wait for HIS book.

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

Great review of "My Life..." over at The Complete Beach Boys Guide site in the "books" section. And, no, despite what you may think, I did not write it.

[thorgil]

Thanks, OSD, nice reading. And no, you could never have written it. No emoticons!

[HeyJude]

Interesting review on that Beach Boys site; I certainly don't always agree his reviews. In particular, my recollection is that he's pretty harsh on Jon Stebbins's Dennis and David bios. I have to wonder if the guy just really doesn't like Stebbins's work, as he even gives the "FAQ" book a pretty low rating while giving other fluff coffee table books surprisingly higher ratings.

But yeah, that review of Mike's book sounds about right based on how far I've gotten in the book so far in addition to jumping around and reading other excerpts and reviews.

[Robbie Mac]

Yes, I agree. I am half way through. Mike loves and reveres Brian in every chapter, though he is keenly critical of mythologizers and hagiographers, not because they minimize Mike's role but because they never did Brian any good nor cared about him as a person. A sense of family warmth fills the book, and a sense of longing, nostalgia call it.

Many people on our board have spoken based on rumor and "what they heard" about the book rather than from reading it, and anyone committed to hating Mike is going to hate no matter what. But I do appreciate reading the comments of the open-minded critical thinkers here. For them and for me, this is a wonderful book and a way to get closer to Mikle and to the BB.

Bruce has the unfortunate fate of being with Mike every day, which makes him less likely the subject for exposition in the book. But all the BB are praised for their art--Carl deemed the most musically talented after Brian.
I still expect the boys to play together again, and this book will actually help that process.

Some random thoughts as I finish up the book....
I do feel that I walk away with a better understanding of Mike. To me, the book doesn't come across as 'just sour grapes'. Mike has some legitimate beefs, and I don't think he goes over the top in trying to address them. Yes there are times in the book when stories are self serving, but that's part of the package.

A few passages changed my way of thinking on something of relatively small consequence. That is bringing family members on stage to sing. It's not my preference, and caused an issue as discussed in another thread. But the Beach Boys ARE a family band, and that is in its roots. Makes me appreciate the contributions from the Matts and the Christians a little more.

Puzzled as to the amount of space or lack thereof, dedicated to Bruce. Something is telling there. A few sentences here and there, the most interesting being Bruce's method of avoiding the war. More time spend talking about Terry ( which is cool). More time devoted to David (I get that as Mike uses David to set up how he was also a Murry victim) For the last 2 decades Bruce has been Mikes guy...thought there would be more on him.

Jacqueline has had a tremendous influence on Mike. Good for her.

  "Yes, I agree. I am half way through. Mike loves and reveres Brian in every chapter, though he is keenly critical of mythologizers and hagiographers, not because they minimize Mike's role but because they never did Brian any good nor cared about him as a person. A sense of family warmth fills the book, and a sense of longing, nostalgia call it".

Who exactly are these mythologizers and hagiographers?  The ones who didn't care about Brian?  There's always the possibility that Brian has a different view of whomever his real supporters happen to be.  I'll wait for HIS book.

Well, Kokomaoists loathe David Leaf with a passion so I gues that crowd consisers him THEmythologizer and  hagiograpger.

[HeyJude]

Even if we take Mike's comments about Brian at face value, that he reveres Brian and just has problems with people around Brian, and problems with how those people have impacted Brian's life, I think this is still a pretty presumptuous and condescending way to look at things.

Mike may love and care for Brian, but it's just on his terms in his idealized fashion where their lack of a relationship is always someone else's fault. Just because he *thinks* he knows what Brian's life should be like doesn't mean he's right. Mike has shown, especially in recent years, a stunning *lack* of basic familiarity with elements of Brian's life. Didn't Mike recently refer to Brian as "paranoid schizophrenic", which is *not* actually what Brian suffers from? Reminds me of that 90s interview with William Shatner where he was *still* pronouncing George Takei's name incorrectly thirty years later.

Mike sometimes comes across as the guy who calls you "Dave" when you prefer "David", and even after you've told him a million times over the last ten years that you don't want to be called "Dave", he *still* calls you Dave anyway. We all know someone like *that.*

[ruskalupagus]

The People Vs. Mike Love

http://pitchfork.com/thepitch/1296-the-people-vs-mike-love/

Pitchfork reviewing the book in a somewhat humorous way.

[Debbie KL]

Yes, I agree. I am half way through. Mike loves and reveres Brian in every chapter, though he is keenly critical of mythologizers and hagiographers, not because they minimize Mike's role but because they never did Brian any good nor cared about him as a person. A sense of family warmth fills the book, and a sense of longing, nostalgia call it.

Many people on our board have spoken based on rumor and "what they heard" about the book rather than from reading it, and anyone committed to hating Mike is going to hate no matter what. But I do appreciate reading the comments of the open-minded critical thinkers here. For them and for me, this is a wonderful book and a way to get closer to Mikle and to the BB.

Bruce has the unfortunate fate of being with Mike every day, which makes him less likely the subject for exposition in the book. But all the BB are praised for their art--Carl deemed the most musically talented after Brian.
I still expect the boys to play together again, and this book will actually help that process.

Some random thoughts as I finish up the book....
I do feel that I walk away with a better understanding of Mike. To me, the book doesn't come across as 'just sour grapes'. Mike has some legitimate beefs, and I don't think he goes over the top in trying to address them. Yes there are times in the book when stories are self serving, but that's part of the package.

A few passages changed my way of thinking on something of relatively small consequence. That is bringing family members on stage to sing. It's not my preference, and caused an issue as discussed in another thread. But the Beach Boys ARE a family band, and that is in its roots. Makes me appreciate the contributions from the Matts and the Christians a little more.

Puzzled as to the amount of space or lack thereof, dedicated to Bruce. Something is telling there. A few sentences here and there, the most interesting being Bruce's method of avoiding the war. More time spend talking about Terry ( which is cool). More time devoted to David (I get that as Mike uses David to set up how he was also a Murry victim) For the last 2 decades Bruce has been Mikes guy...thought there would be more on him.

Jacqueline has had a tremendous influence on Mike. Good for her.

  "Yes, I agree. I am half way through. Mike loves and reveres Brian in every chapter, though he is keenly critical of mythologizers and hagiographers, not because they minimize Mike's role but because they never did Brian any good nor cared about him as a person. A sense of family warmth fills the book, and a sense of longing, nostalgia call it".

Who exactly are these mythologizers and hagiographers?  The ones who didn't care about Brian?  There's always the possibility that Brian has a different view of whomever his real supporters happen to be.  I'll wait for HIS book.

Well, Kokomaoists loathe David Leaf with a passion so I gues that crowd consisers him THEmythologizer and  hagiograpger.

Yes, Andy.  As I understand it, David L. was quoting someone significant (I should do my homework, in that the name may already be public, so I could repeat it.), when he included the, "Dont' f*ck with the formula" quote.  That would make it a "he said, he said" thing about Mike's book.  Happily, that person is still alive, so Mike can't just get away with his version if that person decides to speak up.  One person in the "he said, he said" has a lot to gain from saying the quote is false at this point in time, I'm thinking.

I was there when David was doing his interviews and research (he was in love with my roommate, so I saw him a lot) and the man had great credentials (well, he's now a UCLA professor, so...), worked hard and followed all the requirements of any biographer.  I met him through his "Pet Sounds" newsletter and introduced him to his future wife.

As far as what the Professor's views are, as best I can tell from his posting history, he has an odd fascination with David Marks and an obsession with the living BBs reuniting.  If I'm wrong, he can correct that.  I can't quite follow his thinking.

[Debbie KL]

The People Vs. Mike Love

http://pitchfork.com/thepitch/1296-the-people-vs-mike-love/

Pitchfork reviewing the book in a somewhat humorous way.

Holy-frikkin'-moly! Thanks. That was unexpected.

[the professor]

In the book mike cites prior historians in explaining what he sees as the  tendency to sanctify Brian. I find it rather singular that people here chatter on about the book without having read it. I'm not the professor who assigned it mind you , but an intelligent discussion would be based on reading the book,  not in circulating rumor and in channeling one's prefabricated and rather predictable anger.  I will make no further comment here for fear I will tax some of our members who think it worth their time to try to unravel my thinking. My time is better spent in pursuing my odd fascination with David. Can you imagine that, on a discussion board like this someone is  accused of having an odd fascination with a member of the Beach Boys.

This is my last comment in this particular threat so please leave my name out of further discussion if you would be so gracious.

[SonoraDick]

Can you imagine that, on a discussion board like this someone is  accused of having an odd fascination with a member of the Beach Boys.

An absolutely perfect response to that comment, professor.

[Pretty Funky]

The People Vs. Mike Love

http://pitchfork.com/thepitch/1296-the-people-vs-mike-love/

Pitchfork reviewing the book in a somewhat humorous way.

OMG!

My new title for the book.

Mike Love : How I Shot Myself In The Foot!