From Brianistas to Lovesters

[Debbie KL]

Why it became so extreme, racist and sexist, I can't answer - I guess you'd need to go to the "peaceful" board and ask them, since most of them are there.  This bizarre political year in the US is equally inexplicable.  

It's an interesting comparable, and one I too have thought a lot about. Much like the current political climate, you have two groups, who are becoming increasingly unable to find common ground, and are at the point where they don't want to listen to the other side anymore. This is amplified by manipulation: Media, other posters, moderators etc.

I wish I happened to be technically adept enough to reply to both you and Thorgil in this post.

Suffice it to say, it's a problem.  I think that's why we have rules.  I think as humans, we're fundamentally "manipulative," since that's how we begin life.  We learn that if we scream, we get breast milk or our diapers are changed.  There seems to be a part of that no one ever transcends at a certain emotional point. 

I wouldn't even begin to know at what point people violate the rules here.  That has to be a tough one.  There is, thankfully, a good deal of tolerance.  When does a mod finally decide "enough is enough?"  I don't know.  I don't really view it as manipulation, though.

As far as Thorgil's comment goes - that's the mystery to me.  If you claim you're here because of the music, how could Brian possibly be the problem for you? 

[Emily]

The funny thing is that I am not a Lovester, but the Mike-bashing about every single thing gets old and it ruins nearly every thread in which his name is mentioned. I love the Beach Boys and nearly everything they have put out musically, and I want more. I love to read new facts and ideas about them - all of them - but more and more discussions take the same path lately is all I am saying. It takes the fun out of reading the material here, and this is the best Beach Boys resource on the net as far as I am concerned. People who try to push the anti-Mike agenda so hard are the ones who made me feel bad for him and lean toward a somewhat opposite stance. He did some shitty things. He still does. I get it.

I agree the negative discussion about Mike can get absurd at times, and I'll call myself out as being guilty of that sometimes, although I suppose the alternative is just a bunch of reasoned fans, a great many of which are truly willing to give Mike the benefit of the doubt, who are continually frustrated (and re-frustrated, not a word, I know) with each new interview, just sitting back and keeping their thoughts to themselves. I truly don't want threads ruined. But if the answer is for us to keep our thoughts to themselves, I hope the flipside of that is that people such as yourself will get equally frustrated at all of the fans who go out of their way to praise each new interview, regardless of how inflammatory the interviews may be. I don't see how they are helping matters either.

I just don't like the idea of anyone muzzling themselves. And frankly, that includes the IMO crazy Mike Love defenders. If they actually in their hearts feel like saying a bunch of stuff they believe, let them say it. There will be a group of logical people on the flipside to refute their (usually) flawed logic.

I wasn't here through C50 or the release of NPP, so I've only seen the back-and-forth since then, in real time. I think the impression of "people push[ing] the anti-Mike agenda so hard" is a bit of a false impression, but an easy impression to get.

The dynamic I've seen is:
I. A new Mike Love interview is posted
II. Someone criticizes something in it.
III. Someone defends what was criticized.
IV. 24 pages of argument ensue.

I don't think it starts out as an intention to go on for 24 pages criticizing Mike Love, or 24 pages defending Mike Love. I think the really tiresome threads (which I agree are really tiresome) are tiresome less because of an anti-Mike agenda being pushed hard, but because no resolution can be found between II and III once the topic is raised. I don't think anyone is enjoying themselves in those threads. The II people are frustrated by what the III people are saying. The III people are frustrated by what the II people are saying. The readers are frustrated. But the dynamic is not one-sided. I'm sure there are people who perceive the "pro-Mike agenda" is the problem, as well as people perceiving the "anti-Mike agenda" is the problem, because everyone perceives the other side of an argument is the problem. But the problem is the argument - the problem is that both sides engage and persist.

In some arguments, the differing opinions are equally reasonable and in some they are not. But in all arguments, either side can end the argument by stopping. But many people occasionally find themselves in an argument that they feel committed enough to that they will continue for quite a while, given the opportunity. There are also people who just avoid any argument and find observing any argument very unpleasant. For those latter, I think a message board with liberal rules must inevitably be a very uncomfortable place.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I think another thing is that the more arguments ensue, the less patience either side has in subsequent arguments. There seems to be a cumulative effect.

[Debbie KL]

The funny thing is that I am not a Lovester, but the Mike-bashing about every single thing gets old and it ruins nearly every thread in which his name is mentioned. I love the Beach Boys and nearly everything they have put out musically, and I want more. I love to read new facts and ideas about them - all of them - but more and more discussions take the same path lately is all I am saying. It takes the fun out of reading the material here, and this is the best Beach Boys resource on the net as far as I am concerned. People who try to push the anti-Mike agenda so hard are the ones who made me feel bad for him and lean toward a somewhat opposite stance. He did some shitty things. He still does. I get it.

I agree the negative discussion about Mike can get absurd at times, and I'll call myself out as being guilty of that sometimes, although I suppose the alternative is just a bunch of reasoned fans, a great many of which are truly willing to give Mike the benefit of the doubt, who are continually frustrated (and re-frustrated, not a word, I know) with each new interview, just sitting back and keeping their thoughts to themselves. I truly don't want threads ruined. But if the answer is for us to keep our thoughts to themselves, I hope the flipside of that is that people such as yourself will get equally frustrated at all of the fans who go out of their way to praise each new interview, regardless of how inflammatory the interviews may be. I don't see how they are helping matters either.

I just don't like the idea of anyone muzzling themselves. And frankly, that includes the IMO crazy Mike Love defenders. If they actually in their hearts feel like saying a bunch of stuff they believe, let them say it. There will be a group of logical people on the flipside to refute their (usually) flawed logic.

I wasn't here through C50 or the release of NPP, so I've only seen the back-and-forth since then, in real time. I think the impression of "people push[ing] the anti-Mike agenda so hard" is a bit of a false impression, but an easy impression to get.

The dynamic I've seen is:
I. A new Mike Love interview is posted
II. Someone criticizes something in it.
III. Someone defends what was criticized.
IV. 24 pages of argument ensue.

I don't think it starts out as an intention to go on for 24 pages criticizing Mike Love, or 24 pages defending Mike Love. I think the really tiresome threads (which I agree are really tiresome) are tiresome less because of an anti-Mike agenda being pushed hard, but because no resolution can be found between II and III once the topic is raised. I don't think anyone is enjoying themselves in those threads. The II people are frustrated by what the III people are saying. The III people are frustrated by what the II people are saying. The readers are frustrated. But the dynamic is not one-sided. I'm sure there are people who perceive the "pro-Mike agenda" is the problem, as well as people perceiving the "anti-Mike agenda" is the problem, because everyone perceives the other side of an argument is the problem. But the problem is the argument - the problem is that both sides engage and persist.

In some arguments, the differing opinions are equally reasonable and in some they are not. But in all arguments, either side can end the argument by stopping. But many people occasionally find themselves in an argument that they feel committed enough to that they will continue for quite a while, given the opportunity. There are also people who just avoid any argument and find observing any argument very unpleasant. For those latter, I think a message board with liberal rules must inevitably be a very uncomfortable place.

And yet, as you indicated, this is a MB.  I have no idea how the mods cope, or sort through all of it.  It must be a tough job to find any equilibrium.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Sure is!

Oh, and expect the cycle to continue since Mike Love is appearing on our 'good buddy' Iain Lee's radio 'show' today

[SMiLE Brian]

Oh wow, what a setup...

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Like Ted Nugent being interviewed by Rush Limbaugh

[mikeddonn]

It should be a great interview!  I think Ian might get the best out of Mike.

Hopefully all the folks here at Smiley will get to hear it.

[Rick5150]

I'm not sure how much Brian likes Mike....

But Brian has also admitted he hasn't talked to Mike in four years, since the end of the reunion.

Maybe that's why he likes him 

[Debbie KL]

Like Ted Nugent being interviewed by Rush Limbaugh

Hilarious.  So happy I missed it.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Almost half tempted to check it out just to see of he brings us up, but if I wanted to hear someone with the personality of a dry erase marker and the intelligence of Ricky Gervais,( or do I have it backwards?), I'd. ..actually, no I wouldnt.

[mikeddonn]

Just listened to a great interview!

Iain started it by playing "Only With You" and "Add Some Music" acapella and took it from there, asking Mike about writing with Dennis and the Sunflower album.  He gave Mike his due and kept the interview moving along, trying to cover a lot in a short time.  Mike didn't sound bitter and even praised Brian for wanting to correct the song writing credits without going to court (which could be construed as a dig at others!).

A pity it wasn't a longer interview.

Well done Iain!

[HeyJude]

So how often does Mike *not* mention the songwriting credit issue/lawsuit in interviews at this stage? Maybe he was asked (though he's probably asked because he brings it up all the time), but it's not like Al brings up the "Family & Friends" lawsuit in every interview. It's not like Brian brings up the frivolous 2005 "Smile" lawsuit all the time.

As for praising Brian for wanting to settle back circa 1994, it appears it just depends on which day you catch Mike as far as how much he blames Brian in addition to Murry.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

It's not like Brian brings up the frivolous 2005 "Smile" lawsuit all the time.

Exactly! Can you imagine if he did though? How would we respond (both sides and those in the middle, for that matter) if Brian went on the offensive for once?

[Debbie KL]

It's not like Brian brings up the frivolous 2005 "Smile" lawsuit all the time.

Exactly! Can you imagine if he did though? How would we respond (both sides and those in the middle, for that matter) if Brian went on the offensive for once?

I think we would be stunned into silence (if that's possible).  The excerpts from his book seem to be gracious, not inflammatory.  I like Brian the way he is, but it would be fun for a change, just to see everyone in shock.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I think our collective heads would explode!

[Ang Jones]

I love Brian as he is but I must admit I'd like it. It would be like that moment in Daphne du Maurier's Rebecca, when, having put up with Mrs Danvers snotty behaviour for ages, the unnamed heroine finally says "I'M Mrs de Winter now." Maybe there is a touch of that in Brian's book title. Brian has confidence in who he is - he doesn't need to be constantly trying to make himself more important.

[AllahOnlyKnows]

Ian Lee is a great human being and I agree with everything he tends to say.  Kind of hilarious the thread on him is locked and then within a matter or hours, he has Mike on his show.  Nice one, Iain.  The interview was a triumph.

[HeyJude]

Setting aside the post count, out of the blue appearance, and the odd idea that one would agree with *everything* that someone would tend to say (really? absolutely everything? I don't even agree with *myself* on everything), one thing that I think *is* probably true is that Mr. Lee's article and subsequent departure from this board most likely *are* related to his scoring an interview for his show.

If anyone ever wondered how closely this board is watched, this might just be another indicator.

Two guys that both believe Mike has been victimized and unfairly criticized; I'd be shocked if it *didn't* make for a supremely agreeable interview.

[HeyJude]

I think our collective heads would explode!

I dunno, when Brian gets feisty an in interview, it gets a little weird. There's this Uncut interview from 1995:

http://www.uncut.co.uk/blog/beach-boys-trying-destroy-77465

It's almost like Brian is so unfamiliar with just ranting and raving about something or someone, his personality is so far away from being that disgruntled, grudge-bearing type of person (at least publicly), that he doesn't really know how to even do it or put a voice to it, so it just ends up, well, weird and awkward. 

[clack]

Two guys that both believe Mike has been victimized and unfairly criticized; I'd be shocked if it *didn't* make for a supremely agreeable interview.

Are you saying that Mike wasn't victimized?

[HeyJude]

Two guys that both believe Mike has been victimized and unfairly criticized; I'd be shocked if it *didn't* make for a supremely agreeable interview.

Are you saying that Mike wasn't victimized?

I suppose it depends on how we define the word. I think all of the guys in the band have about one thing or another. That kind of goes for most anybody, especially public figures.

Has Mike ever been unfairly attacked? Sure, absolutely. So has just about every public figure, especially in the internet age of the last 20 years, including Mike and Brian.

The issue, and this goes back to another post I just made in the "Mike's Book Discussion Thread", is that some (for instance potentially Mr. Lee and certainly Mike Love) believe highlighting the sliver of truly unfair accusations and attacks (such as "Mike fired Brian", or vile internet trolls on Facebook and the like) is more important than discussing more fundamental issues of why so many seem to take issue with Mike. Indeed, as I mentioned in that post, defending himself against the small amount of truly incorrect statements about himself allows Mike to deflect and avoid answering accusations and questions that aren't unfair or incorrect factually.

Avoiding that pitfall is something the Rolling Stone article from February did quite well. It didn't let Mike get away with dismissing criticism by correctly pointing out that he didn't literally say "don't f**k with the formula" or that he didn't actually literally fire Brian. It didn't let him get away with rightly pointing out the good work he has done, or that he has friends and is nice to plenty of people. That article pointed out where criticisms and attacks were more specious and where they were more valid and in fact reinforced by Mike's own actions and comments while interacting with the author of the article.

[filledeplage]

Two guys that both believe Mike has been victimized and unfairly criticized; I'd be shocked if it *didn't* make for a supremely agreeable interview.

Are you saying that Mike wasn't victimized?

I suppose it depends on how we define the word. I think all of the guys in the band have about one thing or another. That kind of goes for most anybody, especially public figures.

Has Mike ever been unfairly attacked? Sure, absolutely. So has just about every public figure, especially in the internet age of the last 20 years, including Mike and Brian.

The issue, and this goes back to another post I just made in the "Mike's Book Discussion Thread", is that some (for instance potentially Mr. Lee and certainly Mike Love) believe highlighting the sliver of truly unfair accusations and attacks (such as "Mike fired Brian", or vile internet trolls on Facebook and the like) is more important than discussing more fundamental issues of why so many seem to take issue with Mike. Indeed, as I mentioned in that post, defending himself against the small amount of truly incorrect statements about himself allows Mike to deflect and avoid answering accusations and questions that aren't unfair or incorrect factually.

Avoiding that pitfall is something the Rolling Stone article from February did quite well. It didn't let Mike get away with dismissing criticism by correctly pointing out that he didn't literally say "don't f**k with the formula" or that he didn't actually literally fire Brian. It didn't let him get away with rightly pointing out the good work he has done, or that he has friends and is nice to plenty of people. That article pointed out where criticisms and attacks were more specious and where they were more valid and in fact reinforced by Mike's own actions and comments while interacting with the author of the article.

Hey Jude - ascribing a corporate narrative to a band member is false.  "Don't F- with the formula" was from Capitol and is continuously being ascribed to a certain band member.  It was not Mike's.  It was the outright rejection of Pet Sounds where IIRC, Mike went with Brian to Capitol to lobby the album.  Capitol threw the Beach Boys under the bus after The Beatles signed with them.  

It was the corporate narrative of Capitol to look at their life-cycle and wind-them-down by offering the Best of Vol I - almost contemporaneous to Pet Sounds.  They were regarded as having an expiration date and outlived-their-usefulness.

Hence the organization of Brother Records.  It was the BB backlash to the corporate narrative of surf-cars-girls. For BRI to get off the ground, required unanimous cooperation from all the members and appears that it was done for creative control.  It was Capitol who were "f-ing" with the new evolving Beach Boys formula.  

Watch the Gaumont Palace interview for support of that fact. Al, Mike, Carl and Dennis were in unison about what happened.  

[HeyJude]

So once again it appears you didn't actually read my posts, where I asserted numerous times that ascribing "don't f**k with the formula" to Mike is not correct.

While the rest of what you say has nothing much to do with the conversation at hand, I don't agree that the group situation in 1966-67 was some sort of unified, artistic front from *all* of the band against the evil Capitol Records.

There was apprehension within the band as to the material Brian was producing. It doesn't mean they rejected outright what Brian was doing. But they were not all 100% on board without any misgivings; even members of the band including Mike himself have admitted as much.

Capitol Records probably wanted "Smile" completed and able to be released as much if not MORE than anyone in the band. Maybe they didn't "get" it, and clearly others including Mike didn't either, but both Mike and Capitol were ready to make the album happen.

But again, I think the idea that all of the Beach Boys equally and with a united front were rejecting the "formula" in the face of a Capitol Records that "didn't get it" is silly and way too much of a generalization and oversimplification.

[filledeplage]

So once again it appears you didn't actually read my posts, where I asserted numerous times that ascribing "don't f**k with the formula" to Mike is not correct.

While the rest of what you say has nothing much to do with the conversation at hand, I don't agree that the group situation in 1966-67 was some sort of unified, artistic front from *all* of the band against the evil Capitol Records.

There was apprehension within the band as to the material Brian was producing. It doesn't mean they rejected outright what Brian was doing. But they were not all 100% on board without any misgivings; even members of the band including Mike himself have admitted as much.

Capitol Records probably wanted "Smile" completed and able to be released as much if not MORE than anyone in the band. Maybe they didn't "get" it, and clearly others including Mike didn't either, but both Mike and Capitol were ready to make the album happen.

But again, I think the idea that all of the Beach Boys equally and with a united front were rejecting the "formula" in the face of a Capitol Records that "didn't get it" is silly and way too much of a generalization and oversimplification.

Hey Jude -  please stick to the point.  Don't F with the formula originated with Capitol.  You don't know if you were not there but we all know from that Gaumont Palace and it is confirmed when they  outed Capitol during that interview.  That was circa 1971.  So, 40+ years later the same b.s is spinning out there. 

When a business model changes, there is always apprehension.  Apple dropped the headphone port.  There is and was apprehension.  No one knows how it will work out.  Pet Sounds was much the same.  No one knew.  Capitol had no faith in them.  They only had enough faith for The Beatles and not for the home team.