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

[GhostyTMRS]

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.

Perhaps it should be split into two threads: Those who've read it and those who haven't.

I'm in neither group as I'm only halfway through. By the time I'll be finished Brian's book will be out and I'll be jumping over to that one.   

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

Stacy Anderson is going to be in my will.

[SMiLE Brian]

For the Myke signed surf's up poster?

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

For the Myke signed surf's up poster?

  hmmm, I think you're on to something with that.

[Dwayne]

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)

I also purchased the audio edition and am about 3/4 through the book.  You can really hear the emotion in his voice as he reads certain parts which gives the book an authenticity and whole new dimension to the story.  I definitely see Mike's point of view in a whole new light with all the details he and other sources provides here.  I hope Brian's book will be read by himself as well but I doubt we'll get that lucky!

[HeyJude]

I believe there is already a voiceover guy listed as reading Brian's book. I'm actually fine with that. Neither Brian or Mike are probably good candidates to read their own books.

I've listened to samples of Mike's audiobook, which I truly thought might be an interesting way to hear his book, and it sounds pretty bad. I'm honestly not trying to go negative on him. But his delivery sounds very stilted and not conversational at all. He sounds like's reading a book report to class or something, way too affected. It sounds like he's reading it for the first time, like someone else wrote it and he's unfamiliar with it. It's like he's using his "Beaks of Eagles" delivery or something. And his voice is *very* raspy/hoarse. I can't fault him for that, he tours all year and he's 75 years old. But it doesn't make for a good out-loud reading experience.

Ironically, the only guy out of the bunch who *might* do a good job reading his own book would be Al.

[Rocker]

I believe there is already a voiceover guy listed as reading Brian's book. I'm actually fine with that. Neither Brian or Mike are probably good candidates to read their own books.

I've listened to samples of Mike's audiobook, which I truly thought might be an interesting way to hear his book, and it sounds pretty bad. I'm honestly not trying to go negative on him. But his delivery sounds very stilted and not conversational at all. He sounds like's reading a book report to class or something, way too affected. It sounds like he's reading it for the first time, like someone else wrote it and he's unfamiliar with it. It's like he's using his "Beaks of Eagles" delivery or something. And his voice is *very* raspy/hoarse. I can't fault him for that, he tours all year and he's 75 years old. But it doesn't make for a good out-loud reading experience.

Ironically, the only guy out of the bunch who *might* do a good job reading his own book would be Al.

Are there previews online to listen to the audio version?

[HeyJude]

Okay, so I’ve read essentially the second half of the book first, because I was impatient and find that stuff potentially more interesting because Mike far less often tends to go into a lot of detail on the post-1975 era.

A few random thoughts about his comments on the mid-late 70s and into the 80s:

-   His attitude and words towards Stan and Rocky Pamplin are quite odd. It’s like Mike *wants* to just come out and say it’s awesome that they were punching out and beating up Wilson brothers, but he can’t really get away with that. So he ends up coming across kind of weirdly bemused about them and their actions. He kind of has to point out when they went too far, but he really doesn’t offer much condemnation. He flaccidly points out that Dennis pressed charges when he got beat up for instance, but this is one of several instances particularly regarding Stan/Rocky where the content seems to just be a retelling of the Steven Gaines book.

-   It seems like MANY instances where Mike talks about specific shows or footage or interviews are taken *verbatim* from the “An American Band” documentary. In a few cases, he offers transcribed interview snippets that are 100% from the edited bits shown in “An American Band.” Nothing wrong with that, but the whole enterprise kinda comes across at times like Mike in terms of research materials was working almost exclusively from some audio tapes of board meetings, a copy of the “An American Band” documentary, a copy of the Steven Gaines biography, and a pro-Mike fan/scholar tipping him off about “common misconceptions” about Mike (more on that later).

-   Mike can’t quite seem to decide what he thinks of “15 Big Ones.” He acknowledges its shortcomings, but disagrees with Carl and Dennis’s contemporary comments that the album was rushed and sub-par and asserts they were right to put it out to get something out. He also seems convinced “It’s OK” should have been a hit. I think the timing of the release would have helped it do better, but I’m not sure the song would have been a #1 smash hit had it been released a few months early.

-   Mike barely mentions “Love You” quickly glossing over the album in a very short paragraph of just a few sentences. It’s basically “and then Brian did this weird album with synthesizers that failed”, and then he moves on to talking about “MIU”, which he spends *more* time on.

-   He seems to shame the Wilsons for being unenthusiastic about the “MIU” album (Mike doesn’t even mention the rejected X-Mas album sessions happening first), but then Mike goes on to point out that the album bombed.

-   Mike does take time out to discuss Dennis’s “Pacific Ocean Blue.” But you guessed it, it’s almost entirely about the one song he wrote lyrics for. It’s like Mike knows the album has a lot of cred and fans, so he stretches his connection to the album as much as he possibly can. Oh, this album is considered cool? I was totally on it! Mike also very specifically goes out of his way to state that the “rumor” that he  told Dennis that if Dennis tried to do a solo tour he would be banned from the Beach Boys is totally false. I found this weird. Number one, I always thought the assertion was it was more pressure from the entire BB organization than just Mike. Secondly, this totally reeks in my mind of some pro-Mike fan/scholar sending Mike a list of “Common Misconceptions” about him that he could refute. The “Beach Boys made Dennis cancel his solo tour” story is a relatively obscure story relegated to a few things like Jon Stebbins’s book, so this was just a case where it felt like it was an outside fan/scholar sympathetic to Mike who was giving him a list of things to refute. This happens several times in the book.

-   As already discussed, he places Yetnikoff’s “I’ve been f**ked” comments as happening *before* the band went to Miami, but I believe Ed Roach has said he was there when it happened. Not a huge deal, but it does show Mike’s memory isn’t always accurate.

-   Mike correctly points out that Carl didn’t leave the band in 1981 in order to do his solo album, but left instead because he was disenchanted with the state of the band. However, Mike doesn’t seem to play up too much Carl’s specific beef with the *tour band* slacking off, which would of course reflect poorly on Mike as much as anyone.

-   Mike takes a detour to talk about Foskett joining the band, and I can’t be the only one who thinks that if Foskett hadn’t jumped to Mike’s band in 2014, there’s no way Foskett would have even been mentioned in the book (there’s another mention later, but I’ll get to that).

-   Like the coverage of many of the albums, Mike’s description of albums like the ’85 album basically amount to the most brief of mentions you would find in any quickie bio of the band. He has no insights into something like the ’85 album, simply mentioning the things you’d see on the back of a CD cover, that Steve Levine was the Culture Club guy and that the album featured Culture Club and Steve Wonder “covers.” Mike rattles off numerous albums that tanked, but doesn’t seem to have any unique insight into why they failed.

-   Mike spends more time talking about the plane ride from Washington DC to Miami on the 4th of July in 1984 than he does several actual BB albums.

I’ll leave it at that for now. Next up, the 1997/1998 timeframe which I’ve been especially interested to read about. Slight spoiler: This section of the book is super disappointing…..

[HeyJude]

As some might be aware, I’ve always been fascinated with the mid-late 90s timeframe in terms of band politics. Specifically, almost 20 years later we still don’t really have a clear picture of what happened with Al’s departure from the touring band, and the events that preceded and followed that event. I was really hoping, even if offering an obviously slanted, one-sided account, that Mike’s book would shed more light on this. Sadly, it’s *barely* discussed at all. The crux of why Mike didn’t want to tour with Al is relegated to one single event recounted in one quick paragraph for the most part. But I’ll touch on that as I go through more points:

-   Mike unfortunately doesn’t seem to have any particular insights into why mid-90s projects failed. I guess maybe he’s trying to just imply Melinda was butting in and kept it from happening, but it’s basically just a retelling of what we’ve read elsewhere: The “Baywatch Nights” thing and the Paley sessions were truncated, and Mike doesn’t really explain why. I don’t even think he mentions Don Was’s name in this section.

-   Mike claims it was Joe Thomas’s idea to do the “Stars and Stripes” album, and I think kind of implies Joe came to the project through Brian. I thought I had previously read that Mike found Joe Thomas, and that it was at least partly Mike’s idea to do that album. But I’m not sure, so maybe these are legit things Mike is correcting.

-   Mike, as often happens in this book, likes to throw one little anecdote bomb at people as if it actually means anything in the grand scheme of things. Brian and Melinda are victims of this at various points, and Al gets his turn during a seemingly non-sequitur story about Al complaining to Jackie about one of the stage dancers being fired (Jackie was apparently in charge of the cheerleaders/dancers?) because she was also working as Al’s nanny. As in, Al was being cheap and didn’t want to have to pay to keep the nanny on staff since the travel expenses would no longer be covered. This story takes a weird and unexplained jump to Jackie freaking out and trying to attack Al, and then Carl stepping in and saying “shame on you” to *Al*, as if Jackie physically attacking someone was not an issue at all.

-   Mike portrays that Carl told the band very little about his prognosis when he told them of his diagnosis in 1997. It sounds like Carl told them he was diagnosed, and that he would continue touring, and not much else.

-   Mike *never mentions* the alleged letter he sent to BRI (Ray Lawlor posted about this a year or two back on the board) threatening to quit the band if Carl remained out on tour.

-   Mike *never mentions* that, as recounted in the Marks/Stebbins book, he was recruiting David Marks for the band while Carl was still touring. He certainly never speaks to the indication in the Marks/Stebbins books that he was recuting David Marks to replace *Al*, and there might be a pretty specific reason for why he doesn’t mention that (more on that in a moment).

-   Mike ends up reinforcing the incorrect perception (which was damaging to David, especially at the time) that David was brought in to replace Carl, as if it was an opportunist move to take Carl’s place. As mentioned in the Marks/Stebbins book, David was in talks prior to Carl leaving the tour and it appears the timing of Carl departing and David joining was at least partly coincidental.

-   So, the big one, why did Al and Mike part? F**k me, after nearly 20 years, it’s barely even addressed in the damn book. Mike makes a quick mention of the idea that people sometimes can’t stay together forever, and then tells the story, already known in one iteration, about Al trying to do the “Symphonic” tour. Mike says he was approached by a promoter to do a symphonic show and said no. He claims Al was also approached and said he *liked* the idea. Mike finds out that Al wanted to do the tour, makes the weird leap to assuming Al must have been planning to actually DO the tour and replace both Mike and Carl, and that’s when Mike claims he told management he didn’t want to play with Al. But this makes NO sense. How would Al have gone about doing a “Beach Boys” tour with the support of NOBODY ELSE in the organization? Also, how distasteful was the idea of replacing Carl to Mike, when mere months if not weeks after Carl’s death, Mike was using surrogate singers to do Carl’s parts? Again, my paragraph here is longer than Mike’s discussion of why he and Al parted ways. Other than a few previous mentions (such as the “nanny” story), there’s nothing to indicate a huge, crumbling relationship between Mike and Al.

-   The “Family & Friends” lawsuit stuff is also BARELY mentioned. Mike mentions that all of the BBs were offered non-exclusive licenses. He says he took one, and he also says Al went out on tour and then was quickly sued by BRI due to fans asking for refunds. Important point here: Mike *NEVER* mentions that Al toured as “Family & Friends.” His words imply Al went out and toured as “The Beach Boys”, which makes the “fans asking for refunds” accusation take on an *entirely* different meaning. The few stories of fans asking for refunds were almost certainly actually predicated on the idea that they thought they were attending a “Beach Boys” concert and then saw that it was a “Beach Boys Family & Friends” show. But people reading Mike’s book who don’t know the name of Al’s band would assume Al was simultaneously touring as “The Beach Boys”, and would then have to assume requests for refund were due to, I guess, poor performances? Mike also makes it EXPLICITLY clear that it was not he but BRI who was suing Al. Mike then quickly rattles off some of the BRI-Al lawsuit accusations within the same short paragraph. That’s about it. Jon Stebbins’s or Peter Carlin’s books go into more detail on this stuff than Mike does.

-   Mike, not surprisingly, characterizes his license fee to BRI as some sort of huge burden. He doesn’t point out how hugely lucrative the use of the license is, and how one could easily argue it’s an *amazing* deal considering he also gets 25% of that license fee back as a member of BRI.

More thoughts soon, and then there’s the C50 stuff. Whew….. Spoiler alert: Mike never even mentions Al in the C50 section of the book at all, other than mentioning that Al was on the tour. That’s almost about it.

[Debbie KL]

As some might be aware, I’ve always been fascinated with the mid-late 90s timeframe in terms of band politics. Specifically, almost 20 years later we still don’t really have a clear picture of what happened with Al’s departure from the touring band, and the events that preceded and followed that event. I was really hoping, even if offering an obviously slanted, one-sided account, that Mike’s book would shed more light on this. Sadly, it’s *barely* discussed at all. The crux of why Mike didn’t want to tour with Al is relegated to one single event recounted in one quick paragraph for the most part. But I’ll touch on that as I go through more points:

-   Mike unfortunately doesn’t seem to have any particular insights into why mid-90s projects failed. I guess maybe he’s trying to just imply Melinda was butting in and kept it from happening, but it’s basically just a retelling of what we’ve read elsewhere: The “Baywatch Nights” thing and the Paley sessions were truncated, and Mike doesn’t really explain why. I don’t even think he mentions Don Was’s name in this section.

-   Mike claims it was Joe Thomas’s idea to do the “Stars and Stripes” album, and I think kind of implies Joe came to the project through Brian. I thought I had previously read that Mike found Joe Thomas, and that it was at least partly Mike’s idea to do that album. But I’m not sure, so maybe these are legit things Mike is correcting.

-   Mike, as often happens in this book, likes to throw one little anecdote bomb at people as if it actually means anything in the grand scheme of things. Brian and Melinda are victims of this at various points, and Al gets his turn during a seemingly non-sequitur story about Al complaining to Jackie about one of the stage dancers being fired (Jackie was apparently in charge of the cheerleaders/dancers?) because she was also working as Al’s nanny. As in, Al was being cheap and didn’t want to have to pay to keep the nanny on staff since the travel expenses would no longer be covered. This story takes a weird and unexplained jump to Jackie freaking out and trying to attack Al, and then Carl stepping in and saying “shame on you” to *Al*, as if Jackie physically attacking someone was not an issue at all.

-   Mike portrays that Carl told the band very little about his prognosis when he told them of his diagnosis in 1997. It sounds like Carl told them he was diagnosed, and that he would continue touring, and not much else.

-   Mike *never mentions* the alleged letter he sent to BRI (Ray Lawlor posted about this a year or two back on the board) threatening to quit the band if Carl remained out on tour.

-   Mike *never mentions* that, as recounted in the Marks/Stebbins book, he was recruiting David Marks for the band while Carl was still touring. He certainly never speaks to the indication in the Marks/Stebbins books that he was recuting David Marks to replace *Al*, and there might be a pretty specific reason for why he doesn’t mention that (more on that in a moment).

-   Mike ends up reinforcing the incorrect perception (which was damaging to David, especially at the time) that David was brought in to replace Carl, as if it was an opportunist move to take Carl’s place. As mentioned in the Marks/Stebbins book, David was in talks prior to Carl leaving the tour and it appears the timing of Carl departing and David joining was at least partly coincidental.

-   So, the big one, why did Al and Mike part? F**k me, after nearly 20 years, it’s barely even addressed in the damn book. Mike makes a quick mention of the idea that people sometimes can’t stay together forever, and then tells the story, already known in one iteration, about Al trying to do the “Symphonic” tour. Mike says he was approached by a promoter to do a symphonic show and said no. He claims Al was also approached and said he *liked* the idea. Mike finds out that Al wanted to do the tour, makes the weird leap to assuming Al must have been planning to actually DO the tour and replace both Mike and Carl, and that’s when Mike claims he told management he didn’t want to play with Al. But this makes NO sense. How would Al have gone about doing a “Beach Boys” tour with the support of NOBODY ELSE in the organization? Also, how distasteful was the idea of replacing Carl to Mike, when mere months if not weeks after Carl’s death, Mike was using surrogate singers to do Carl’s parts? Again, my paragraph here is longer than Mike’s discussion of why he and Al parted ways. Other than a few previous mentions (such as the “nanny” story), there’s nothing to indicate a huge, crumbling relationship between Mike and Al.

-   The “Family & Friends” lawsuit stuff is also BARELY mentioned. Mike mentions that all of the BBs were offered non-exclusive licenses. He says he took one, and he also says Al went out on tour and then was quickly sued by BRI due to fans asking for refunds. Important point here: Mike *NEVER* mentions that Al toured as “Family & Friends.” His words imply Al went out and toured as “The Beach Boys”, which makes the “fans asking for refunds” accusation take on an *entirely* different meaning. The few stories of fans asking for refunds were almost certainly actually predicated on the idea that they thought they were attending a “Beach Boys” concert and then saw that it was a “Beach Boys Family & Friends” show. But people reading Mike’s book who don’t know the name of Al’s band would assume Al was simultaneously touring as “The Beach Boys”, and would then have to assume requests for refund were due to, I guess, poor performances? Mike also makes it EXPLICITLY clear that it was not he but BRI who was suing Al. Mike then quickly rattles off some of the BRI-Al lawsuit accusations within the same short paragraph. That’s about it. Jon Stebbins’s or Peter Carlin’s books go into more detail on this stuff than Mike does.

-   Mike, not surprisingly, characterizes his license fee to BRI as some sort of huge burden. He doesn’t point out how hugely lucrative the use of the license is, and how one could easily argue it’s an *amazing* deal considering he also gets 25% of that license fee back as a member of BRI.

More thoughts soon, and then there’s the C50 stuff. Whew….. Spoiler alert: Mike never even mentions Al in the C50 section of the book at all, other than mentioning that Al was on the tour. That’s almost about it.

Thanks so much, Hey Jude. 

This is enlightening.

[jeffh]

Jude, hope you'll be as analytical with Brian's book.

[thorgil]

You can count on him for that!

[CenturyDeprived]

As some might be aware, I’ve always been fascinated with the mid-late 90s timeframe in terms of band politics. Specifically, almost 20 years later we still don’t really have a clear picture of what happened with Al’s departure from the touring band, and the events that preceded and followed that event. I was really hoping, even if offering an obviously slanted, one-sided account, that Mike’s book would shed more light on this. Sadly, it’s *barely* discussed at all. The crux of why Mike didn’t want to tour with Al is relegated to one single event recounted in one quick paragraph for the most part. But I’ll touch on that as I go through more points:

-   Mike unfortunately doesn’t seem to have any particular insights into why mid-90s projects failed. I guess maybe he’s trying to just imply Melinda was butting in and kept it from happening, but it’s basically just a retelling of what we’ve read elsewhere: The “Baywatch Nights” thing and the Paley sessions were truncated, and Mike doesn’t really explain why. I don’t even think he mentions Don Was’s name in this section.

-   Mike claims it was Joe Thomas’s idea to do the “Stars and Stripes” album, and I think kind of implies Joe came to the project through Brian. I thought I had previously read that Mike found Joe Thomas, and that it was at least partly Mike’s idea to do that album. But I’m not sure, so maybe these are legit things Mike is correcting.

-   Mike, as often happens in this book, likes to throw one little anecdote bomb at people as if it actually means anything in the grand scheme of things. Brian and Melinda are victims of this at various points, and Al gets his turn during a seemingly non-sequitur story about Al complaining to Jackie about one of the stage dancers being fired (Jackie was apparently in charge of the cheerleaders/dancers?) because she was also working as Al’s nanny. As in, Al was being cheap and didn’t want to have to pay to keep the nanny on staff since the travel expenses would no longer be covered. This story takes a weird and unexplained jump to Jackie freaking out and trying to attack Al, and then Carl stepping in and saying “shame on you” to *Al*, as if Jackie physically attacking someone was not an issue at all.

-   Mike portrays that Carl told the band very little about his prognosis when he told them of his diagnosis in 1997. It sounds like Carl told them he was diagnosed, and that he would continue touring, and not much else.

-   Mike *never mentions* the alleged letter he sent to BRI (Ray Lawlor posted about this a year or two back on the board) threatening to quit the band if Carl remained out on tour.

-   Mike *never mentions* that, as recounted in the Marks/Stebbins book, he was recruiting David Marks for the band while Carl was still touring. He certainly never speaks to the indication in the Marks/Stebbins books that he was recuting David Marks to replace *Al*, and there might be a pretty specific reason for why he doesn’t mention that (more on that in a moment).

-   Mike ends up reinforcing the incorrect perception (which was damaging to David, especially at the time) that David was brought in to replace Carl, as if it was an opportunist move to take Carl’s place. As mentioned in the Marks/Stebbins book, David was in talks prior to Carl leaving the tour and it appears the timing of Carl departing and David joining was at least partly coincidental.

-   So, the big one, why did Al and Mike part? F**k me, after nearly 20 years, it’s barely even addressed in the damn book. Mike makes a quick mention of the idea that people sometimes can’t stay together forever, and then tells the story, already known in one iteration, about Al trying to do the “Symphonic” tour. Mike says he was approached by a promoter to do a symphonic show and said no. He claims Al was also approached and said he *liked* the idea. Mike finds out that Al wanted to do the tour, makes the weird leap to assuming Al must have been planning to actually DO the tour and replace both Mike and Carl, and that’s when Mike claims he told management he didn’t want to play with Al. But this makes NO sense. How would Al have gone about doing a “Beach Boys” tour with the support of NOBODY ELSE in the organization? Also, how distasteful was the idea of replacing Carl to Mike, when mere months if not weeks after Carl’s death, Mike was using surrogate singers to do Carl’s parts? Again, my paragraph here is longer than Mike’s discussion of why he and Al parted ways. Other than a few previous mentions (such as the “nanny” story), there’s nothing to indicate a huge, crumbling relationship between Mike and Al.

-   The “Family & Friends” lawsuit stuff is also BARELY mentioned. Mike mentions that all of the BBs were offered non-exclusive licenses. He says he took one, and he also says Al went out on tour and then was quickly sued by BRI due to fans asking for refunds. Important point here: Mike *NEVER* mentions that Al toured as “Family & Friends.” His words imply Al went out and toured as “The Beach Boys”, which makes the “fans asking for refunds” accusation take on an *entirely* different meaning. The few stories of fans asking for refunds were almost certainly actually predicated on the idea that they thought they were attending a “Beach Boys” concert and then saw that it was a “Beach Boys Family & Friends” show. But people reading Mike’s book who don’t know the name of Al’s band would assume Al was simultaneously touring as “The Beach Boys”, and would then have to assume requests for refund were due to, I guess, poor performances? Mike also makes it EXPLICITLY clear that it was not he but BRI who was suing Al. Mike then quickly rattles off some of the BRI-Al lawsuit accusations within the same short paragraph. That’s about it. Jon Stebbins’s or Peter Carlin’s books go into more detail on this stuff than Mike does.

-   Mike, not surprisingly, characterizes his license fee to BRI as some sort of huge burden. He doesn’t point out how hugely lucrative the use of the license is, and how one could easily argue it’s an *amazing* deal considering he also gets 25% of that license fee back as a member of BRI.

More thoughts soon, and then there’s the C50 stuff. Whew….. Spoiler alert: Mike never even mentions Al in the C50 section of the book at all, other than mentioning that Al was on the tour. That’s almost about it.

Wow, thanks HJ. That is something else. How Mike could have done as many actions that significantly negativity impacted the band and its members, and completely sidestep addressing these actions entirely, is really beyond me. It's like he had a team of researchers trying to find a way that he could spin or weasel out of (however half-assedly) bad actions, but when it was determined that some things are just indefensible without him coming off as looking awful, he just pretends these things did not exist/happen. When blame shifting is not possible, just pretend it didn't happen by not mentioning it. Sounds like a great plan.

I'm waiting for someone to say the same about Brian's book, how Brian is no better and that so many heinous actions of his own will be missing from his book. Either way, even if Brian sidesteps some stuff - and obviously nobody can talk about every single conceivable action they've ever done in the limited space of a bio - it will still really be no comparison between their actions as a whole. Mike plain and simple just chickened out of discussing band stuff that makes him look bad, and sadly that chickensh*t avoidance just makes him look *even worse*.

I'd give Mike a lot of positive credit for fessing up to acting like a jerk sometimes with regards to the band (not just as a dad/husband). It would go a LONG way. Many, many fans don't think it for no reason! Just admitting he did so on many occasions doesn't mean that his good qualities or good actions have to be ignored. A person who is not inherently a jerk or a terrible person can still do jerky things sometimes. But it takes several truckloads of empathy and kool aid to excuse Mike from these ridiculous omissions that have been pointed out above. I have lots of empathy in general, yet it's running in short supply here for me.

I honestly have less interest in reading the book now. I want to understand why Mike does what he does, both the good and the bad. I don't want to just read a book that pretends important (and unfortunately very ugly) things in the history of the band just simply didn't happen. I can understand if an event that has been kept entirely private (and is completely unknown to the public) just stays private, but these things that HJ outlined above are publicly KNOWN things that Mike can't just hide from. I'll probably still read it, but I may just wait till it's at the 99 Cent Store, because the omissions frankly piss me off, and are an insult to the intelligence of fans. These events didn't not happen.

[HeyJude]

Jude, hope you'll be as analytical with Brian's book.

Of course. From what I've seen and heard so far, it'll have far less specific anecdotes (especially anecdotes intended to reflect negatively on others), and more in the way of general thoughts and impressions and feelings.

The one review that suggested Mike's is a better "read" in the sense of having more juicy tidbits is probably right. There will probably be even less attempts at smoking-gun, presumed "revelatory" reveals in Brian's book compared to Mike. There will probably also be far less criticisms and sniping at other members. I'm guessing Brian's book is going to be far more sort of inert, and get more into how Brian *felt* about things. Mike's book is, in many parts (not all), more like a Brian Wilson biography through Mike's eyes. I'm guessing Brian won't fixate nearly as much on Mike.

Al will probably end up being largely roundly ignored in both books.

Obviously, I get the potential implication that those critical of Mike have their knives out and read for his book. This isn't completely untrue. As I've said, we should keep an open mind, but at the same time, Mike has utterly burned through any benefit of the doubt at this stage. I'm actually trying hard to not just assume the worst possible motive about every passage in Mike's book and stick more to individual points and stories and how they contradict or reinforce things we know.  

[HeyJude]

For better or worse, anyone that's a scholar or student of the band has to read this thing.

There's a little more "meat" to the bone when it gets to C50, which I'll cover either today or tomorrow.

But I'm really surprised by how little Mike does in this book to actually rehabilitate his image, which he seems to feel is unfairly negative. He spends plenty of time countering actual perceived falsehoods, rumors, and perceptions about actual things he is reported to have said or done. But he doesn't seem to make a strong attempt to not be acerbic and bitter and getting way too hung up on specific things like the songwriting lawsuit. I actually have to go back over the songwriting lawsuit again in his book, because I was surprised how my eyes were almost glazing over. It's like he's still pissed about it, but because he won the lawsuit and was vindicated all the while still feeling disenfranchised about it *to this day*, he has to stretch this segment of the book out with excruciating detail that is inconsistent with other portions of the book. He barely mentions some actual albums, but has to offer a detailed description of going into court, who came with him to court, what he was wearing (Jackie had to buy him more suits because he rarely dressed in them. GET IT? Mike wants you to know he's *not* as litigious as many people say he is, and the proof is that he hardly owned anything to even wear in court!), and so on.

One interesting bit from the songwriting trial account is that Al testified about "Sloop John B." The idea presumably being that Mike's lawyers wanted to establish a pattern of Brian *not* crediting people who help him. Indeed, Al testifies he helped with the arrangement, and that he did not receive any credit. What Al *doesn't* say in the trial (I would presume Mike would have included it if he had) is that he's angry that he wasn't credited, or even that he believes he *should* have been credited. Al has mentioned in a zillion interviews that he brought the song to Brian and helped with the arrangement. I don't believe he has ever complained about not receiving credit, even though I would say he probably should have. So Mike bringing up this bit about Al actually undercuts Mike a little bit. Al never sued Brian or anyone else over the song.

[John Malone]

Just read the chapters of interest last night. My initial assessment is total surprise at how culpable ML considers Brian to be in the Sea of Tunes sale and the subsequent testimony/depositions in the late 80s and the 94 lawsuit. . In ML's view, BW was not a passive and incapable presence in either the late 60s or 1980s-90s proceedings. Quite to the contrary, according to ML. He has BW painted as an active conspirator involved in a premeditated fraud against his cousin.  I find this version difficult to believe.  All the while, I will not play judge and jury since, like most of us, I was not there for any of it. I will, however, be curious to see how this plays out in the coming months and years. Because, if some of the silly stuff in the WIBN book was good enough to collect a settlement from HarperCollins, then the concrete accusations and assessments presented by Mr. Love should at least be fodder for some future litigation. We shall see.

[CenturyDeprived]

Just read the chapters of interest last night. My initial assessment is total surprise at how culpable ML considers Brian to be in the Sea of Tunes sale and the subsequent testimony/depositions in the late 80s and the 94 lawsuit. . In ML's view, BW was not a passive and incapable presence in either the late 60s or 1980s-90s proceedings. Quite to the contrary, according to ML. He has BW painted as an active conspirator involved in a premeditated fraud against his cousin.  I find this version difficult to believe.  All the while, I will not play judge and jury since, like most of us, I was not there for any of it. I will, however, be curious to see how this plays out in the coming months and years. Because, if some of the silly stuff in the WIBN book was good enough to collect a settlement from HarperCollins, then the concrete accusations and assessments presented by Mr. Love should at least be fodder for some future litigation. We shall see.

I find this doubtful, but I will say that I believe that *if* there was any active intent/premeditation in any small way, I cannot honestly fathom that greed would have really been the prime motivator for Brian. Seriously, does anyone think that?

Resentment over unacknowledged hurt/bullying that Mike perhaps inflicted on Brian years earlier? I could believe that to be a *possibility*. If Brian felt Mike acted like a jerk to him (I don't mean one or two isolated instances either), I wouldn't think this would be an absolute non-issue. Am I saying Mike perhaps maybe maybe brought it on some of these crediting injustices himself? I don't know. I just don't think this stuff exists in a vacuum, and if anyone believes intent is a possibility, I don't think Brian would passive-aggressively hurt someone for decades, a family member no less, for no real reason. Doesn't make it right, but more understandable as a possible reason why. Something that one might *hope* that Mike, when doing some self-reflecting, might think about when writing a book. Greed doesn't add up to me as THE reason.  Just IMHO.  

Does the book offer any insight as to why Mike thinks Brian would have intentionally done such as thing?

[SMiLE Brian]

Mike's a bitter old man who can't let go of the past and imagined riches of cash.

[Gerry]

Hey, that's as good a reason as any

[bossaroo]

obviously Al just needs to write a book of his own once the dust settles from Mike & Brian's

[CenturyDeprived]

obviously Al just needs to write a book of his own once the dust settles from Mike & Brian's

I'd love an Al book, but I question if Al would feel it's worth the stress to write a book and get into the deep stuff. Especially when he's been on the receiving end of lawsuits before.

[guitarfool2002]

-   Mike claims it was Joe Thomas’s idea to do the “Stars and Stripes” album, and I think kind of implies Joe came to the project through Brian. I thought I had previously read that Mike found Joe Thomas, and that it was at least partly Mike’s idea to do that album. But I’m not sure, so maybe these are legit things Mike is correcting.

To clarify this, more to come on the other points. (Great summary and analysis, BTW. Unlike what's being lied about elsewhere, we have read the book.)

I could search the archives for what I wrote earlier, but I did go pretty deep into the history of the Stars & Stripes. But one of the main primary sources was a Billboard magazine article, July 6, 1996 issue. His name is in my original posts, but I can't recall it...the promoter who was working a tour with the Beach Boys and Hank Williams Jr thought it would be good for Hank to cover Help Me Rhonda, and he took the idea to Joe Thomas. Joe then had the idea of getting the actual Beach Boys in on the project, and expanding it to other country artists. Joe reached out to Mike, and they began talking over the plans.

Mike was on board with the ideas Joe had, and Joe mentioned Willie Nelson. Mike said if Joe could get Willie involved, he'd get Brian. So Joe was put on the phone with Brian, who told him if he could get Willie to cut Warmth Of The Sun, he'd be in as a co-producer. And after Willie agreed, the other stars followed. Willie's involvement was key to getting others, as was Brian's request that he'd be in if Willie was in.

And that's how it went down, according to those directly involved. If anything it was a Joe Thomas idea that he took to Mike, and the two of them started working on the concept together. Brian didn't come on board until they got Willie Nelson committed to do Warmth Of The Sun. And Joe and Mike - if the timeline is correct - would have started discussing this some time in early 1995, again if the timeline reported by Billboard is accurate. Brian came in after Joe and Mike started planning.

[jeffh]

Just read the chapters of interest last night. My initial assessment is total surprise at how culpable ML considers Brian to be in the Sea of Tunes sale and the subsequent testimony/depositions in the late 80s and the 94 lawsuit. . In ML's view, BW was not a passive and incapable presence in either the late 60s or 1980s-90s proceedings. Quite to the contrary, according to ML. He has BW painted as an active conspirator involved in a premeditated fraud against his cousin.  I find this version difficult to believe.  All the while, I will not play judge and jury since, like most of us, I was not there for any of it. I will, however, be curious to see how this plays out in the coming months and years. Because, if some of the silly stuff in the WIBN book was good enough to collect a settlement from HarperCollins, then the concrete accusations and assessments presented by Mr. Love should at least be fodder for some future litigation. We shall see.

In the book Mike says that during the lawsuit, his attorney showed him Sea of Tune corporate minutes , signed by Murry, his wife, and Brian , indicating that they would be selling the song catalog . The minutes were dated 30 days PRIOR to the sale, which does indicate that Brian was aware of the sale long before it happened. I'm sure Mike wouldn't lie about this, it is a record of the court.  page 358

[guitarfool2002]

Just read the chapters of interest last night. My initial assessment is total surprise at how culpable ML considers Brian to be in the Sea of Tunes sale and the subsequent testimony/depositions in the late 80s and the 94 lawsuit. . In ML's view, BW was not a passive and incapable presence in either the late 60s or 1980s-90s proceedings. Quite to the contrary, according to ML. He has BW painted as an active conspirator involved in a premeditated fraud against his cousin.  I find this version difficult to believe.  All the while, I will not play judge and jury since, like most of us, I was not there for any of it. I will, however, be curious to see how this plays out in the coming months and years. Because, if some of the silly stuff in the WIBN book was good enough to collect a settlement from HarperCollins, then the concrete accusations and assessments presented by Mr. Love should at least be fodder for some future litigation. We shall see.

In the book Mike says that during the lawsuit, his attorney showed him Sea of Tune corporate minutes , signed by Murry, his wife, and Brian , indicating that they would be selling the song catalog . The minutes were dated 30 days PRIOR to the sale, which does indicate that Brian was aware of the sale long before it happened. I'm sure Mike wouldn't lie about this, it is a record of the court.  page 358

The court case that reversed that decision and awarded Brian millions in back royalties also brought up charges of forgery and there were reports that one of Mike's brothers was a courier for documents that were delivered to Brian to be signed and the suggestion was made he was either (or both) misled into thinking he was signing something other than he actually was or some signatures were possibly forged.

[guitarfool2002]

I bring that up not to challenge Mike, but to put on the table that once there are valid claims made of fraud, forgery, and the like, everything connected is called into question. In this case, the court awarded Brian millions in back payments that were lost due to the SOT sale.

So producing a document that was signed among others that were part of fraud or forgery...or even the implications thereof...puts serious doubt on the legitimacy of any one signed document in the bunch.

Similar to when a witness in a court case if found to have lied or perjured themselves, you may as well throw all their other words out the window because they're worthless after one lie was told. See the 2005 lawsuit for details on that one.