From Brianistas to Lovesters

[Bicyclerider]

The events of the past few months have caused me to reflect - what causes fans of the Beach Boys and Brian's music in Particular, and who have studied and loved Brian and his music for years, to change - metamorphose in fact - to become apologists for and advocates for Mike Love and his behavior and his (in their mind) crucial and under appreciated and misrepresented contribution to the Beach Boys' music?

I am not a Mike Love hater by any means, and I don't want this thread to be a Mike bashing session.  But two well known and longtime fans active on message boards for decades have been banned from here, both of whom appeared to have gone to the dark side of interrupting every thread with pro Mike sentiments and endless repeats of the same arguments and rationalizations, and in one case spreading malicious false anti Brian and his camp information.  We all know the three initials I'm talking about here.  In Cam's case, I remember on the Smile board he would take umbrage with the then current viewpoint that Mike gave "resistance" to the Smile project (which I think is almost indisputable, what is not is that Mike's resistance somehow derailed the entire album) - but he also had a lot of insight into the sessions, the history of the album, how things might have been put together, what the party reels were about, and other Beach Boy matters.  But then he became almost a caricature of himself, every post pro Mike to an extreme and even ridiculous degree.  The same arguments over and over and over again.  And then both allegedly went berserk with PMs to other members and the administrators.

What happened to create this change?  Are their personalities by nature contradictarian, delighting in creating controversy and going against the mainstream?  Did something happen with their interactions with the Brian camp to disillusion them with Brian and in spite they decided to throw their hats (baseball caps of course) into the Love ring?

I think this is worth discussing because I find it disturbing that these long time contributors like AGD, Cam, and others like Lee Dempsey, bgas, Ian are now active over at pet sounds, when they could be over here.

Mods if you think this thread is more sandbox material feel free to move it there.

[Robbie Mac]

I blame the Peter Bagge piece from several years ago,, which was sort of a precursor to that Observer op-ed as well as Iain Lee's piece.  Plus never underestimate the effect that Mike's lawsuit victory also had on the change in perception. 

[jeffh]

Pet sounds board ? What's the url ?

[Robbie Mac]

http://www.mbird.com/2012/05/beach-boys-101-peter-bagges-in-defense-of-and-praise-for-mike-love/

The piece begins after the italicized introduction.

[Bicyclerider]

I read the article - except for the ragging on Love You which I don't agree with (and Mike has to take responsibility for some of those "retarded" lyrics) I don't really disagree with it.  it's not even close to the extreme defense of Mike and mindless pro Mike arguments which we've seen on this board, at least the author openly acknowledges Mike's many faults and the appropriate criticism he's received for those faults.

Maybe you're right that this started something that developed steamroller like into the radical Pro Mike movement we've had to put up for the last couple of years.  Could these radical Mikists have purposely adopted their idol's more obnoxious personality traits as well?

[HeyJude]

I was re-reading the Rolling Stone piece on Mike from February, and I think that one is an important piece for several reasons. The writer was able to interview and hang with Mike, so it wasn't a press junket interview or anything, or a phone interview. Also, I think the writer really understands some key points in trying to understand Mike.

One thing the writer gets is the unjustified anger Mike still has over the songwriting credits issue. The writer is one of the only people to point out that Mike *WON* the lawsuit eons ago and everything was rectified. He talks to Love about it, and Love seems to have a "nothing can be done about it, it's out of my hands" attitude about being upset about it. The writer right points out that listening to this attitude from Mike can drive you crazy.

The article is a good example of not taking a fence-walking approach, but at the same time being very open to explanations and reasoning from Mike. When little to none is forthcoming, the author doesn't start trashing Mike. He just points out very reasonably the problems with Mike.

As for recent pockets of writers and fans defending Mike, I don't know where it comes from. Different places I suppose.

I think some *are* at least indirectly "in Mike's pocket" in some way or another, at the very least by hanging with Mike backstage, getting backstage passes, maybe some comped tickets, while at the same time not having a relationship with Brian or Brian's camp of the same nature. Not anything like "being on the payroll", but still pretty far away from even approaching objectivity.

I think a few are just old stalwart defenders that are never going to change their mind.

I also think, as I've alluded to in some other posts, newer fans sometimes tend to be more open to giving Mike the benefit of the doubt. Even fans approaching "hardcore fan" status who are very new fans and have digested everything in a few short months or a few years, they simply haven't been exposed to decades of Mike. Decades of questionable things have been formed into one big ball of "negative aspects of Mike", and I don't think some of these newer fans understand the full gravity of Mike's persona and actions over the years.

I also think at least some of the people putting forth the "Mike is unfairly maligned" line are simply being contrarians, either simply for the sake of being contrarian, or to stir controversy, drive clicks to their articles, etc.

That's why that Rolling Stone piece earlier this year was so good. The writer seemed to go in almost wanting to find some evidence to dispel the reputation that Mike has. What he found was that it was largely founded.

By far the most perplexing aspect of "pro-Mike" fandom is, to me, the fans who seemed to *celebrate* Mike breaking up the reunion in 2012. I still don't fully understand why any fan who loved the reunion would be so gleeful about it. I'm not talking about the "meh, I expected it to happen" attitude (I have separate feelings about that attitude). But there were some fans who said they were glad the reunion ended. Not coincidentally, *some* of the fans with attitudes along those lines also tend to be ardent Mike defenders. I can't help but wonder if their willingness to defend Mike at all costs extends to something that amounts to the break-down of the very band we all profess to love so much.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

By far the most perplexing aspect of "pro-Mike" fandom is, to me, the fans who seemed to *celebrate* Mike breaking up the reunion in 2012. I still don't fully understand why any fan who loved the reunion would be so gleeful about it. I'm not talking about the "meh, I expected it to happen" attitude (I have separate feelings about that attitude). But there were some fans who said they were glad the reunion ended. Not coincidentally, *some* of the fans with attitudes along those lines also tend to be ardent Mike defenders. I can't help but wonder if their willingness to defend Mike at all costs extends to something that amounts to the break-down of the very band we all profess to love so much.

I don't get that either.

[CenturyDeprived]

By far the most perplexing aspect of "pro-Mike" fandom is, to me, the fans who seemed to *celebrate* Mike breaking up the reunion in 2012. I still don't fully understand why any fan who loved the reunion would be so gleeful about it. I'm not talking about the "meh, I expected it to happen" attitude (I have separate feelings about that attitude). But there were some fans who said they were glad the reunion ended. Not coincidentally, *some* of the fans with attitudes along those lines also tend to be ardent Mike defenders. I can't help but wonder if their willingness to defend Mike at all costs extends to something that amounts to the break-down of the very band we all profess to love so much.

I don't get that either.

The only line of logic I can think people holding that opinion would have would be that nobody in the band deserves to be unhappy, and putting up with disrespect (as they perceive Mike to have endured). And I, for one, of course want everyone in the band to be happy, and not feeling icky and disgusted being onstage. Including Mike, including Brian. I don't think any fan wants to see bandmates who despise aspects of their specific, particular touring experience, be onstage and going through the motions.

What it comes down to is whether or not one thinks that Brian simply deserves (factoring in all that he has been through) to have a certain level of preferential treatment, and to be the "boss" of a reunited BB band at this stage in the game. And if they think that Mike should simply table his ego, resentment, jealousy, and defer to Brian's wants and needs. I'm sure he did this to a point, but obviously Mike's barometer for how much control he wanted was incongruous with basically everyone else.

Bands aren't by definition "supposed" to be democracies. Some are, but some aren't. I don't see why *every* member of this band couldn't have just let Brian be the guy who they deferred to. Mike couldn't do it. Yet Al did it. Dave did it. I wonder what Mike's reasoning is for why Al was able to step back and let Brian be the boss, while Mike himself couldn't. I'd guess that Mike thinks because he wrote lyrics to many hits that he himself is the sh*t, and that everyone should kiss his own ass until the cows come home.

Again, it comes down to that Rolling Stone article. If Mike has shown to have one of the biggest chips on his shoulder in the industry (maybe 2nd only to Phil Spector, or tied with Billy Corgan), it's not a surprise that he couldn't deal with not being praised on the level that Brian was. Mike still doesn't get why that is, and because he refuses to "get it", he had to get his (relatively speaking) lesser version of the band back in order to become the big kahuna again.

[CenturyDeprived]

The events of the past few months have caused me to reflect - what causes fans of the Beach Boys and Brian's music in Particular, and who have studied and loved Brian and his music for years, to change - metamorphose in fact - to become apologists for and advocates for Mike Love and his behavior and his (in their mind) crucial and under appreciated and misrepresented contribution to the Beach Boys' music?

I am not a Mike Love hater by any means, and I don't want this thread to be a Mike bashing session.  But two well known and longtime fans active on message boards for decades have been banned from here, both of whom appeared to have gone to the dark side of interrupting every thread with pro Mike sentiments and endless repeats of the same arguments and rationalizations, and in one case spreading malicious false anti Brian and his camp information.  We all know the three initials I'm talking about here.  In Cam's case, I remember on the Smile board he would take umbrage with the then current viewpoint that Mike gave "resistance" to the Smile project (which I think is almost indisputable, what is not is that Mike's resistance somehow derailed the entire album) - but he also had a lot of insight into the sessions, the history of the album, how things might have been put together, what the party reels were about, and other Beach Boy matters.  But then he became almost a caricature of himself, every post pro Mike to an extreme and even ridiculous degree.  The same arguments over and over and over again.  And then both allegedly went berserk with PMs to other members and the administrators.

What happened to create this change?  Are their personalities by nature contradictarian, delighting in creating controversy and going against the mainstream?  Did something happen with their interactions with the Brian camp to disillusion them with Brian and in spite they decided to throw their hats (baseball caps of course) into the Love ring?

I think this is worth discussing because I find it disturbing that these long time contributors like AGD, Cam, and others like Lee Dempsey, bgas, Ian are now active over at pet sounds, when they could be over here.

Mods if you think this thread is more sandbox material feel free to move it there.

I'm guessing it's an overreaction to the ridiculous, purely hateful YouTube comments, and such. The amount of absolute hate, and people thinking that Mike is completely worthless in the history of the band is a palpable opinion online. Much less so on this board, but just go to the comments section of YouTube or other non BB sites posting BB-related stories, that have comments sections.

I think it's simply a case of the pendulum swinging too far the other way. That, and I would tend to think that people who are incredibly stubborn (and don't like to EVER back down) themselves might be more inclined to empathize with a guy who has shown to be one of the most stubborn people in the industry, who also never backs down. Supporting someone they feel is more their own kind.

I think nuance is key, and it is tragic that people hate Mike the way they do. There is a way to examine the crappy things he has done, but to also acknowledge the good things, and in the end to be of the opinion that he's a flawed human, who simply gets under our skin as fans far too often than he should. Equally tragic (and stupid) are the people who defend **everything** Mike does, because I feel they are enabling crap behavior, which leads to more crap behavior. I'm sure Mike is aware of his defenders (of literally any/all actions), and he must be happy to know they exist.  Yet if *every* fan put their foot down and stopped going to Mike's concerts for doing/saying terrible stuff that harms his own reputation (and the band's), I have a hunch Mike would stop putting his foot in his mouth in a hurry.

[Debbie KL]

By far the most perplexing aspect of "pro-Mike" fandom is, to me, the fans who seemed to *celebrate* Mike breaking up the reunion in 2012. I still don't fully understand why any fan who loved the reunion would be so gleeful about it. I'm not talking about the "meh, I expected it to happen" attitude (I have separate feelings about that attitude). But there were some fans who said they were glad the reunion ended. Not coincidentally, *some* of the fans with attitudes along those lines also tend to be ardent Mike defenders. I can't help but wonder if their willingness to defend Mike at all costs extends to something that amounts to the break-down of the very band we all profess to love so much.

I don't get that either.

The only line of logic I can think people holding that opinion would have would be that nobody in the band deserves to be unhappy, and putting up with disrespect (as they perceive Mike to have endured). And I, for one, of course want everyone in the band to be happy, and not feeling icky and disgusted being onstage. Including Mike, including Brian. I don't think any fan wants to see bandmates who despise aspects of their specific, particular touring experience, be onstage and going through the motions.

What it comes down to is whether or not one thinks that Brian simply deserves (factoring in all that he has been through) to have a certain level of preferential treatment, and to be the "boss" of a reunited BB band at this stage in the game. And if they think that Mike should simply table his ego, resentment, jealousy, and defer to Brian's wants and needs. I'm sure he did this to a point, but obviously Mike's barometer for how much control he wanted was incongruous with basically everyone else.

Bands aren't by definition "supposed" to be democracies. Some are, but some aren't. I don't see why *every* member of this band couldn't have just let Brian be the guy who they deferred to. Mike couldn't do it. Yet Al did it. Dave did it. I wonder what Mike's reasoning is for why Al was able to step back and let Brian be the boss, while Mike himself couldn't. I'd guess that Mike thinks because he wrote lyrics to many hits that he himself is the sh*t, and that everyone should kiss his own ass until the cows come home.

Again, it comes down to that Rolling Stone article. If Mike has shown to have one of the biggest chips on his shoulder in the industry (maybe 2nd only to Phil Spector, or tied with Billy Corgan), it's not a surprise that he couldn't deal with not being praised on the level that Brian was. Mike still doesn't get why that is, and because he refuses to "get it", he had to get his (relatively speaking) lesser version of the band back in order to become the big kahuna again.

Honestly, I haven't a clue what motivates these people.  It has to be pretty complicated.  One, at least, is quite bright and accomplished with, by all indications, a good ear.  I've even asked that person directly about this behind the scenes - never got a clear answer.

Some seem to be on a bizarre mission I'll never understand - but some good points have been made here and I appreciate them. Affinity to his persona - that makes sense.

Perks by one side as opposed to the other surely have some influence - and attention (particularly from celebrities) is like heroin to some people, and Mike knows this.  Brian isn't inclined to "work the room" other than through his music.  Mike is, and I think Brian appreciated that.  I doubt Brian will ever cater to that group of fandom.  It may lose him fanatics who create or a few strange ones who join us and post on message boards. I also doubt that he cares.  Brian knows that his big musical heart will live on.  He learned long ago not to worry about the other stuff.  

Brian just makes the music and enjoys sharing the love and comfort it brings.  He's incredibly honest in his comments and lifestyle, even if he occasionally messes with reporters when he's bored with the questions. At least that's entertaining.  

Maybe those of us who are more inclined to dig deeper and get what was behind the actual music become "Brianistas."  I'm frankly, proud of that title - cheerleader?  WTF - okay fine.  Like I said before, clearly Iain Lee been a cheerleader here for Mike (but he's a guy, so), and his motives are probably questionable at best.  I'm clear that mine aren't.

We'll see what the bios offer us over the next month or so.  I suspect one group will love one certain bio.  Others will like the other.  From what I've seen of the available pages of Brian's, I'm quite comfortable.  From what I've seen of the tabloid headlines from Mike's book, I won't be buying it unless I'm made aware of redeeming factors.  I've read it - and lived a bit of it - all before.

[mikeddonn]

As for recent pockets of writers and fans defending Mike, I don't know where it comes from. Different places I suppose.

I think some *are* at least indirectly "in Mike's pocket" in some way or another, at the very least by hanging with Mike backstage, getting backstage passes, maybe some comped tickets, while at the same time not having a relationship with Brian or Brian's camp of the same nature. Not anything like "being on the payroll", but still pretty far away from even approaching objectivity.

[/quote]

The above is an example of why folk who are Brianistas start to come across as Mike defenders.  The above post makes it seem as though people defend Mike because of all the freebies.  But surely, if one was being objective, they might agree that there will be many who get freebies from Brian's camp.  Does this then mean they are on Brian's payroll?  Yes, if you apply the same logic, it must.  No more no less.  So HeyJude, do you think that all of those people who have enjoyed these benefits from Team Brian are all totally objective but those who get benefits from Team Love are not?

I am a Brianista and wouldn't really try to defend Mike and the stuff he says.  I have said many times he should move on and get over it. Stop being so delusional and do what he does well which is tour and put on shows.  Forget about trying to write songs, part 2,3,4,5,6... he wrote in his 20s with cousin Brian.

However, I do get annoyed at inconsistent arguments and flawed logic.  Or being people called out as Brian haters when they are only giving honest opinions.  Honest fans being accused of having agendas because they express a valid opinion.  For me it started to go downhill on this board after the release if NPP.  I love that album but not everyone did.  Those who didn't were called haters and accused of having agendas by a couple of people who many might think were on Brian's payroll (figuratively speaking!).  Since then people have wanted to be seen to take sides.  A lot of 'sucking up' has been going on since, as well as much cheering and backslapping.  A lot of notable historians/collectors and fans have gone and in this last week there has been a further 'purge' (for reasons I can't seem to find out).

Nobody can hold the moral high ground. To accuse some people of being childish when indulging in that very same behaviour is not particularly appealing and reflects badly on this place.  Such a shame that it came to this.  It is not what the music was ever about.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

The above post makes it seem as though people defend Mike because of all the freebies.  But surely, if one was being objective, they might agree that there will be many who get freebies from Brian's camp.  Does this then mean they are on Brian's payroll?  Yes, if you apply the same logic, it must.  No more no less.  So HeyJude, do you think that all of those people who have enjoyed these benefits from Team Brian are all totally objective but those who get benefits from Team Love are not?

The initial post said *some*, not all. I don't think anybody would (or should) argue the point that all Mike defenders have been comped, and all "Brianistas" have been comped.

Forgive in advance if this is a doublepost...I keep getting a SMF connection error

[mikeddonn]

The above post makes it seem as though people defend Mike because of all the freebies.  But surely, if one was being objective, they might agree that there will be many who get freebies from Brian's camp.  Does this then mean they are on Brian's payroll?  Yes, if you apply the same logic, it must.  No more no less.  So HeyJude, do you think that all of those people who have enjoyed these benefits from Team Brian are all totally objective but those who get benefits from Team Love are not?

The initial post said *some*, not all. I don't think anybody would (or should) argue the point that all Mike defenders have been comped, and all "Brianistas" have been comped.

Forgive in advance if this is a doublepost...I keep getting a SMF connection error

But that's the point Billy.  HeyJude doesn't say, "some are, at least indirectly on Brian's payroll", and therefore beating the drum for Team Brian.

It's just like politics and it all gets muddled until people lose sight of reality and what it's all about.

[Emily]

I think part of it, for some people, might be a common defensive reaction to learning that your narrative script is wrong. People understand the world, and the things they love, and the things they don't love, based on stories they've put together from the input they've received. Most often when they receive input that counters an already established story, they will dismiss it. But if someone persists with the input, they will often react angrily and make strong, often irrational, efforts to defend their existing story. It's frightening and humiliating to find out that your story is wrong.
Thus, anti-PC anger. Or when you tell a dog-lover how their patronage of dog-racing supports torturing dogs, they are likely to attack you and make irrational assertions of why that's not so.

I think it's a common human reaction.

I am not asserting that that applies to all defenses of Mike Love all the time.

I also think that a defend-the-underdog reaction might be occurring sometimes. Some people, when they perceive someone is being unfairly attacked, will react with over-compensating in defensiveness. And I think sometimes the Mike Love attacking can be over-the-top, so the Mike Love defending is a reaction to that.

Regarding the 'comping' discussion, I think a Brian-comp vs. a Mike-comp is a false equivalence in this context. It would only be applicable if one asserted that there was an issue with people over-defending Brian. Now, I understand that there was once some sort of auto-tune related imbroglio with Brian Wilson, and if people were over-defending him, the comping question might be pertinent. But my perception of the people labeled "Brianistas" is not that they are accused so much of over-defending Brian but more of over-criticizing Mike. Whether they are comped by Brian is not directly relevant. The flip-side of people over-defending Mike due to comps would be people over-criticizing Mike due to NOT being comped by Mike.
If there's an assertion that there's an ongoing issue of people over-defending Brian when he does something that other people find unacceptable, then the question of Brian-comps would be relevant. And maybe that happens, but I haven't perceived that as being an issue, mainly because I don't think he really does much to raise such criticism.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I can understand the confusion, but he was specifically  referring to the allegations concerning the , uh, 'Lovesters' (to use the word in the thread title) in regards to the article mentioned.

As for the last sentence,I agree completely.

[HeyJude]

The above is an example of why folk who are Brianistas start to come across as Mike defenders.  The above post makes it seem as though people defend Mike because of all the freebies.  But surely, if one was being objective, they might agree that there will be many who get freebies from Brian's camp. Does this then mean they are on Brian's payroll?  Yes, if you apply the same logic, it must.  No more no less.  So HeyJude, do you think that all of those people who have enjoyed these benefits from Team Brian are all totally objective but those who get benefits from Team Love are not?

Let me clarify a few things that I felt were clear in my previous post, but that I'm happy to try to clarify:

You equate "being on the payroll" with getting freebies. I *specifically* outlined in my previous post that those two things are NOT the same. I've often argued that accusing people of "being on the payroll" of someone is an ineffective argument, because it allows people to obfuscate by simply stating what is almost surely true: That they are not getting an actual paycheck from anyone in exchange for services.

I also think you're exaggerating what I said regarding whom might get these "freebies." I said *SOME*, not all. I posted in *detail* about other scenarios, having nothing to do with even having ever met Mike or even attended one of his shows, might lead to being more sympathetic to Mike.

Are there similar cases regarding Brian? Almost surely.

So what's the difference you might ask?

The difference is that Brian far less often does things that require any defending. Defending Brian against a bad concert review (whether a hit-piece review or a legit negative review) isn't really the same thing as defending Mike against negative reaction due to a malicious or inflammatory interview or other things Mike has said.

It doesn't mean those who defend Brian are never unreasonable.

If you've read my posts in the past, you would also see that I have pointed out numerous times that Brian fans can be overly-defensive and overly-forgiving sometimes. I think on occasion an innocent review of Brian's shows or recordings has been too quickly jumped on. Again, referring back to my own history, I was critical of many elements of the NPP album, and I felt that on a few occasions the defense of Brian against my middling review was excessive.

But it's just not on the same scale or even the same ballpark as issues concerning Mike.

I'm just not a fan of falsely equating two things. Mike and Brian aren't the same. I don't believe, at this stage, they deserve the same benefit of the doubt or empathy. Mike has done and said far more inflammatory and disagreeable things than Brian has. A defense of Mike requires far more stretching of logic, morals, ethics, and common sense. In my opinion.

The reason Mike is criticized far more than Brian is due, largely, to Mike's own words and actions. The reason you see people criticize Mike more, and also criticize defenses of Mike more, is because, again in my opinion, Mike says and does disagreeable things.

It doesn't mean Brian is perfect. It doesn't Mike is 100% wrong about everything. It doesn't mean one can't ever defend Mike.

But people keep looking to the boards or people on the boards to figure out "what went wrong", etc. I think that, while we should all engage in some self-reflection and reflection on the state of the board, and "check" ourselves every so often and look at what we're saying and why we say it, the degree to which people feel things have gone wrong (which is, I think, not even an accurate picture of what has happened, but that's a separate issue) can be traced back largely (though NOT entirely) to an uptick in Mike's rhetoric, a continually fragmented band and "Brand" in disarray, and a small number of people stretching things far too much to defend Mike, or, at best, trying to equate all ills of the band and fans equally.

Sorry, I'm not of the "everybody is equally at fault" opinion at this stage, whether it comes to the band or its fans. That ship sailed long ago. It doesn't mean I don't still dig talking to any fans who want to talk. It also doesn't mean I hate Mike Love, or that I'll refuse to acknowledge his MAJOR contributions *not just* to the band's 60s output, but a lot of it. He was a HUGE player in what made C50 great, and I wish he'd realize that the s**t he got for ending the reunion, for instance, was also an *endorsement* of him and what he brings to the table.

If people hated him and didn't want him on stage, wouldn't they have been more than happy with Brian touring without Mike?

[HeyJude]

But that's the point Billy.  HeyJude doesn't say, "some are, at least indirectly on Brian's payroll", and therefore beating the drum for Team Brian.

It's just like politics and it all gets muddled until people lose sight of reality and what it's all about.

The topic at hand, at least with the first post, seemed to be specifically to try to figure out the motivation behind a specific group in question who go to great lengths to defend Mike.

I don't think anybody was suggesting that there aren't fans who would defend Brian due to freebies, etc.

I was speaking to the incredulity that comes up when the "being on Mike's payroll" references are thrown around, and I was trying to explain both why the actual accusation is usually if not always untrue while also delving into why there are potentially grains of truth to it.

To assume that pointing this out about Mike fans means it can't be true of Brian fans is simply jumping to a conclusion unfairly in my opinion.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I think part of it, for some people, might be a common defensive reaction to learning that your narrative script is wrong. People understand the world, and the things they love, and the things they don't love, based on stories they've put together from the input they've received. Most often when they receive input that counters an already established story, they will dismiss it. But if someone persists with the input, they will often react angrily and make strong, often irrational, efforts to defend their existing story. It's frightening and humiliating to find out that your story is wrong.
Thus, anti-PC anger. Or when you tell a dog-lover how their patronage of dog-racing supports torturing dogs, they are likely to attack you and make irrational assertions of why that's not so.

I think it's a common human reaction.

I am not asserting that that applies to all defenses of Mike Love all the time.

I also think that a defend-the-underdog reaction might be occurring sometimes. Some people, when they perceive someone is being unfairly attacked, will react with over-compensating in defensiveness. And I think sometimes the Mike Love attacking can be over-the-top, so the Mike Love defending is a reaction to that.

Regarding the 'comping' discussion, I think a Brian-comp vs. a Mike-comp is a false equivalence in this context. It would only be applicable if one asserted that there was an issue with people over-defending Brian. Now, I understand that there was once some sort of auto-tune related imbroglio with Brian Wilson, and if people were over-defending him, the comping question might be pertinent. But my perception of the people labeled "Brianistas" is not that they are accused so much of over-defending Brian but more of over-criticizing Mike. Whether they are comped by Brian is not directly relevant. The flip-side of people over-defending Mike due to comps would be people over-criticizing Mike due to NOT being comped by Mike.
If there's an assertion that there's an ongoing issue of people over-defending Brian when he does something that other people find unacceptable, then the question of Brian-comps would be relevant. And maybe that happens, but I haven't perceived that as being an issue, mainly because I don't think he really does much to raise such criticism.

Ahh..you put it much better than I did!

[HeyJude]

I think part of it, for some people, might be a common defensive reaction to learning that your narrative script is wrong. People understand the world, and the things they love, and the things they don't love, based on stories they've put together from the input they've received. Most often when they receive input that counters an already established story, they will dismiss it. But if someone persists with the input, they will often react angrily and make strong, often irrational, efforts to defend their existing story. It's frightening and humiliating to find out that your story is wrong.
Thus, anti-PC anger. Or when you tell a dog-lover how their patronage of dog-racing supports torturing dogs, they are likely to attack you and make irrational assertions of why that's not so.

I think it's a common human reaction.

I am not asserting that that applies to all defenses of Mike Love all the time.

I also think that a defend-the-underdog reaction might be occurring sometimes. Some people, when they perceive someone is being unfairly attacked, will react with over-compensating in defensiveness. And I think sometimes the Mike Love attacking can be over-the-top, so the Mike Love defending is a reaction to that.

Regarding the 'comping' discussion, I think a Brian-comp vs. a Mike-comp is a false equivalence in this context. It would only be applicable if one asserted that there was an issue with people over-defending Brian. Now, I understand that there was once some sort of auto-tune related imbroglio with Brian Wilson, and if people were over-defending him, the comping question might be pertinent. But my perception of the people labeled "Brianistas" is not that they are accused so much of over-defending Brian but more of over-criticizing Mike. Whether they are comped by Brian is not directly relevant. The flip-side of people over-defending Mike due to comps would be people over-criticizing Mike due to NOT being comped by Mike.
If there's an assertion that there's an ongoing issue of people over-defending Brian when he does something that other people find unacceptable, then the question of Brian-comps would be relevant. And maybe that happens, but I haven't perceived that as being an issue, mainly because I don't think he really does much to raise such criticism.

Well put as always!

[Emily]

  right back atcha!

[Pretty Funky]

Thanks Bicyclerider for starting this thread. Last week either this board or the PSF said those that posted here were the Brianistas which p!ssed me off. For 10 years myself and others have praised and been critical of everything Beach Boys. From albums both solo and group, songs, tours, again solo and group. If it's been good...we have said so. If it stinks....again, we have said so. If a group member has stated something in an interview that is in dispute more often not a valid reason for that comment is provided by a poster.

Speaking for most board members who avoid these threads once they turn confrontational I will say this. I am NOT a Brianista. I loved his work on TWGMTR in 2012 and admired his will power over 70 plus shows that year however if he does not sing as well as did last time I heard him in concert I have the right to say so. His solo albums are not for me. I admire Mikes staying power as a front man for 55 years and wish he could be happy with that.....but his songs nowadays don't do it for me.

For those like myself, let's continue to praise and be critical when warranted. Could others forget this 'taking sides' nonsense when we do so.

[HeyJude]

I'd also caution immediately putting most or all of the blame on fans when the perception is that there are "pro-Brian fans", "pro-Mike fans", and "anti-Mike fans", but almost no "anti-Brian fans." The degree to which an admittedly sweeping generalization might be true, what does such a state of fandom tell us? The first thing I would ask if I were an objective outsider is "What's the deal with Mike Love then?" I wouldn't just assume that fans have arbitrarily decided to have a bigger beef with one member for no particular reason.

Again, I think that Rolling Stone article from February is quite instructive in this regard. The writer gave Mike a sh*t-ton of chances to belie or otherwise contradict the impression the public seems to have about him. The writer literally describes wanting to beat his head against something out of frustration trying to get this guy to not just reinforce all of the stereotypes about him.

[Debbie KL]

The above post makes it seem as though people defend Mike because of all the freebies.  But surely, if one was being objective, they might agree that there will be many who get freebies from Brian's camp.  Does this then mean they are on Brian's payroll?  Yes, if you apply the same logic, it must.  No more no less.  So HeyJude, do you think that all of those people who have enjoyed these benefits from Team Brian are all totally objective but those who get benefits from Team Love are not?

The initial post said *some*, not all. I don't think anybody would (or should) argue the point that all Mike defenders have been comped, and all "Brianistas" have been comped.

Forgive in advance if this is a doublepost...I keep getting a SMF connection error

But that's the point Billy.  HeyJude doesn't say, "some are, at least indirectly on Brian's payroll", and therefore beating the drum for Team Brian.

It's just like politics and it all gets muddled until people lose sight of reality and what it's all about.

Okay.  

I just happily admitted to being a Brianista above.  I am on Team Brian.  I can't speak for anyone else.

I have always paid for my tickets to concerts, ever since I was Brian's "date" in the late 70's/early 80's (and then I had to stand at the side of the stage - behind Mike's girlfriend of the time - a funny story I may have already shared here).

I insist on this payment because it's ethical and fair (I get paid for my work), and to counter such accusations as these.  I don't even like going backstage, so I never ask. Brian never bothered me at work.  I don't bother him there either.

I don't go to Meet & Greets because, well, I've met and greeted before.  So what is it that I'm getting as compensation from Brian?  Even when I'm asking for favors for others, they pay.  I think, if they read this, they'll confirm this.  Brian's people are ethical.  I'm not claiming Mike's aren't.  I have no idea.  I'm not involved.

Have I hung with old friends at shows recently (before, or during the show - Brian's gone like a flash after the show, so they are as well)?  Yes.  Is that a perk?  I don't know.  I thought it was just seeing an old friend.    I just cheer, applaud and enjoy when Brian performs.

Any other questions about Brianistas?  I'm not on Brian's "perk roll" either.  I can't speak for others.

Oh my, I just saw all the other posts as I was writing.  I'll read them.  

Right.  Forgot to mention, I don't get a paycheck either.

No anti-Brian fans?  Give me a break.

Did anyone read the attacks on NPP, L&M, etc?  Some were sane, personal opinions, but a lot of the accusations were simply ridiculous.  A contributor to that record, Peter Hollens (as I recall), was run off SS after one post because he read the vicious attacks on him.  

There was a whole thread mocking NPP, for no apparent reason.  And honest challenges from some of us with a different opinion were deemed as "attacks?"  Why were they attacks, as opposed to the other comments?

Melinda has been attacked on this board mercilessly, along with the shadowy "wives and managers," "handlers," etc.

That isn't anti-Brian?  Then please explain what is.

[Bicyclerider]

The people posting on this thread seem to have balanced opinions on things, even if they are more Brian fans than Mike fans.  They aren't anti Mike, although they may be pro Brian.  They recognize Mike's important role at different times in the band.  Which is the way it should be.

But the thing I'm talking about is the unrelenting defending Mike against any criticism or perceived negative comment, and then usually turning that defense into an attack or sarcastic insult against the person or persons making the comment.  The civility of the discourse on these issues has sadly disappeared, and this has resulted in banning and "purges."

Sometimes I think all message boards like this may have a limited lifespan, because something similar happened to the smile shop board which was the impetus for the creation of this board.  The weird thing is it's not just new board members who may be a little crazy with their own agenda joining the board, trolling and eventually destroying the board, it's long term members who for years appeared able to discuss controversial topics amicably even when representing their viewpoint vociferously.  Does this reflect the general coarsening of our culture and the rising frequency of Internet bullying on Twitter, Facebook and other social media sites?  I don't know but I wish something could happen to reverse this trend, because it obfuscates more than it illuminates the issues.

[clack]

This is a Beach Boys fan site. Mike Love is an important member of the Beach Boys. In fact, during their 1963-1966 glory years, his importance was second only to Brian.

Why, on a Beach Boys fan site, is it considered remarkable that some people would want to defend a Beach Boy?