gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
660581 Posts in 26466 Topics by 3770 Members - Latest Member: robertscool August 10, 2020, 09:11:37 AM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Mike Sums Up Life in 3 Minutes on PBS - Does he mention songwriting credits?  (Read 3045 times)
Lonely Summer
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3420


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: January 13, 2020, 11:35:44 PM »

One of the things that annoys me about McCartney, though, is how he kept complaining publicly about the Lennon-McCartney songwriting credit; how it was so unfair for John's name to be before his on Yesterday, Michelle, Penny Lane, Let it Be, etc.
Of course he had no such reservations about completely removing Denny Laine's name from some songs they wrote together.

The McCartney songwriting credit/naming order has always been largely much ado about nothing. First, it’s not even really enforceable as to what order names have to be on credits. As long as all the names are listed and proper royalties paid, it probably doesn’t matter. I recall a Beach Boys release (perhaps the “Knebworth 1980” CD?) that has all the Brian/Mike songs credited to “Love/Wilson” even though it’s usually the other way around.

McCartney obviously for many years had this naming order thing gnawing away at him. In his defense, he actually did offer an understandable and plausible explanation/scenario where the naming order caused a bit of a problem. He noted times where he has seen performers with sheet music writing out shorthand and only including the first name. So he had some story of like looking at some piano player’s sheet music for a Paul song and seeing the person had just scribbled “Lennon…” instead of “Lennon/McCartney.” This was obviously not a very common or high profile problem Paul was citing. But at least he had some sort of scenario he could paint.

That being said, nobody noticed or cared when he listed the Beatles tunes as “McCartney/Lennon” back in 1976 on “Wings Over America.” He did this *during* Lennon’s lifetime and Lennon didn’t care. All names were credited, everybody was paid appropriately. That’s also ignoring that songs were all “McCartney/Lennon” on the band’s first album.

When decades later McCartney tried flipping the credits again, it of course arbitrarily created a media ruckus and Yoko had to weigh in, etc. It appears that after that point, McCartney gave up and let it go. He clearly realized he was losing the PR battle on that one, whether he was at all justified or not.

The “it isn’t a big deal” thing works both ways. McCartney should have let it go (and eventually did; he has specifically gone on record in more recent years that he gave up raising a stink about it and is over it; a far different reaction from Mike Love’s of course), but Yoko could have thrown him a bone too. Apparently, even though he probably didn’t even need to ask, at some point McCartney specifically asked Yoko if she would agree to reverse the credits *only* for the song “Yesterday.” She said no. They were both being too stubborn I’d say, but however much McCartney was overly-obsessed with this thing at some point, it appears Yoko could have avoided ill will by exerting exactly *zero* effort and just letting him do it on that song.

Not sure what the Denny Laine reference is. I don’t believe he ever took Laine’s name off of a song he previously had credits on. Did Laine later claim to have co-written stuff he was never credited for? Probably, as many ousted band members have in many bands over the years (Billy Joel’s drummer Libery DeVitto for instance). Heck, even within the Beatles, there were many songs where others should have been credited. Harrison should have been credited on some of those Lennon/McCartney songs. Harrison should have been credited in some Ringo Beatles and solo tracks. For that matter, while Harrison was rightly disenfranchised about such things, I also think *McCartney* probably earned a co-writing credit on some of *Harrison’s* songs like “Weeps” and “Something.” John and Paul should have been throwing George more bones all those years. Yet, Harrison’s two most popular Beatles songs have *Paul* playing (and arguably writing) some of the key elements.

Unlike Mike Love, the Beatles all largely realized they were *so effing rich* off all their success, and had more accolades and credit than they could ever hope for, and so usually never sought extra credit even when they deserved it. Harrison probably wrote more of “It Don’t Come Easy” than Ringo did, yet Harrison didn’t give a f**k about getting credit for it.

I’m not saying Mike didn’t deserve to pursue credits on songs he co-wrote; I’m just saying others have gotten over it *without* the credits being rectified. Mike hasn’t gotten over it even *after* the situation being righted both in terms of credits and financially.

Paul put out a book of his lyrics some years back called Blackbird Singing. Mull of Kintyre is credited to just McCartney, even though Laine's main contribution to the song was helping him with the lyrics on the verses - Paul already had the hook, the chorus of the song, when they started working on it.
The Tug of War Archive Edition removed Laine as co-writer of the song Rainclouds, even though all the original releases had it listed as a McCartney/Laine song.
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8892



View Profile WWW
« Reply #26 on: January 14, 2020, 06:21:07 AM »

Paul put out a book of his lyrics some years back called Blackbird Singing. Mull of Kintyre is credited to just McCartney, even though Laine's main contribution to the song was helping him with the lyrics on the verses - Paul already had the hook, the chorus of the song, when they started working on it.
The Tug of War Archive Edition removed Laine as co-writer of the song Rainclouds, even though all the original releases had it listed as a McCartney/Laine song.

In the case of "Mull of Kintyre", Laine's name was never actually removed from the song's publishing. He's still credited in the ASCAP database and, as far as I can tell, on all releases of the song. If his name was not on that book, it was presumably just an editorial decision. I don't know if McCartney disagrees and remembers having written all the lyrics, and unless the song had separate music and lyric credits (which I don't believe it did), then Laine's name should be included in any reprint of music or lyrics.

But in that particular case, McCartney has not actually removed Laine's name (or, technically, "Brian Hines") from the song's publishing.

As for "Rainclouds", I would assume McCartney felt the original credit was in error. I don't know if Laine has publicly said he was wrongly removed from the credits on that one.

I think McCartney has weirdly and (in the case of that Wingspan documentary) comically minimized all of the former members of Wings in numerous ways, and I have no reason to doubt that back in the day they weren't paid anywhere near what a huge band should be, especially by the time they reached 1976 levels of success. But I haven't seen vast cases of wiping Denny Laine's name off songs. While the two have never recovered a personal or professional relationship, McCartney is a little better than in the Wingspan days of including involvement from Laine and other Wings members on the "Archive Collection" sets, at least soliciting comments for the books, etc. And really, the McCartney/Laine songwriting relationship (or Laine's place in Wings in general) is not even anywhere near as robust as Wilson/Love. I'm not saying Laine wasn't talented or that he never contributed to Wings; but McCartney was always pulling the weight in that "band", and Laine's subsequent solo stuff didn't portend a whole lot.

The Mike Love situation is different in that he didn't have his name retroactively removed from songs; he was sporadically never credited in the first place. It's ironic; the fact that Mike *did* get some songwriting credits even in the early days was probably something that immensely helped his eventual case. Had he never been credited on anything in the 60s, his 90s lawsuit may have looked more like the Liberty DeVitto/Billy Joel lawsuit; a former disgruntled bandmate retroactively deciding his in-studio contributions rose to the level of co-authorship. Mike's case was a case where, again apart from the debate over WIBN, he clearly wrote substantive portions of lyrics.

Interestingly, I'd say while Mike was screwed over worse than Denny Laine originally, as of the year 2020, Laine has more overall legit reasons to be disgruntled. Denny Laine's playing clubs, and I'm guessing *doesn't* have a huge house in Nevada and isn't touring 180 shows per year and selling properties around the globe.
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
CosmicDancer
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 406



View Profile WWW
« Reply #27 on: January 14, 2020, 07:31:04 AM »

I don't think it's such a big deal that he mentioned it.  Like others have said, it's obviously edited together, so I'm sure he mentioned other things as well.  Think about the reasons that Mike felt the need to bring forth the lawsuit and what it ended up meaning to him in the long run.  His legacy is tied directly to his performing, and more importantly, his songwriting.  Many of you say that his focus on this should have been all of the wonderful music he was a part of...well, a lot of the wonderful music that he directly helped create wasn't being credited to him at all. I think the two go hand in hand.  Yes, I'm sure he could still take pride in it all regardless of the credits, but I'd also be pissed off if I weren't getting properly credited and my songwriting partner was getting all of the praise. He co-wrote the songs, he should have been credited and deserved to be credited. When that wasn't honored in that way, he didn't have any other option other than just forgetting about it and losing a ton of money.  I can see this being a pretty pivotal moment in his life that he feels is worth noting. It was a game changer for him in a couple of ways in his life.

Should Mike still bring it up as much as he does?  I don't really have an answer.  Sure, it's over and done with and he won, so you might think he'd let it go.  On the other hand, the guy still gets slagged for his talent (or lack thereof according to some) and he still get's grief for even bringing forth the lawsuit.  I can see why he'd have a chip on his shoulder.  It's human nature.  On this very board, he is spoken ill of daily.  His role is downplayed constantly.  I'd hope that if I had the money and accomplishments that Mike has, that I'd be immune to it all, but he's a person like all of us and I guess he feels the need to defend himself.  I think I'd handle it differently, but I don't fault him for it.

« Last Edit: January 14, 2020, 12:03:07 PM by CosmicDancer » Logged

The Un-Funny Alliance:  Are you not "good at being funny"?  Join us today in our mission to make the world a less funny place one "easy" fart joke at a time!
Pretty Funky
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5571


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: January 14, 2020, 09:21:12 AM »

Definitely human nature as you say. There is another high profile person known for self promotion and belittling others achievements, that makes Mike seem modest in comparison....but that’s for the Sandbox.
Logged
rab2591
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5242


"My God. It's full of stars."


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: January 14, 2020, 04:56:45 PM »

I don't think it's such a big deal that he mentioned it.  Like others have said, it's obviously edited together, so I'm sure he mentioned other things as well.  Think about the reasons that Mike felt the need to bring forth the lawsuit and what it ended up meaning to him in the long run.  His legacy is tied directly to his performing, and more importantly, his songwriting.  Many of you say that his focus on this should have been all of the wonderful music he was a part of...well, a lot of the wonderful music that he directly helped create wasn't being credited to him at all. I think the two go hand in hand.  Yes, I'm sure he could still take pride in it all regardless of the credits, but I'd also be pissed off if I weren't getting properly credited and my songwriting partner was getting all of the praise. He co-wrote the songs, he should have been credited and deserved to be credited. When that wasn't honored in that way, he didn't have any other option other than just forgetting about it and losing a ton of money.  I can see this being a pretty pivotal moment in his life that he feels is worth noting. It was a game changer for him in a couple of ways in his life.

Should Mike still bring it up as much as he does?  I don't really have an answer.  Sure, it's over and done with and he won, so you might think he'd let it go.  On the other hand, the guy still gets slagged for his talent (or lack thereof according to some) and he still get's grief for even bringing forth the lawsuit.  I can see why he'd have a chip on his shoulder.  It's human nature.  On this very board, he is spoken ill of daily.  His role is downplayed constantly.  I'd hope that if I had the money and accomplishments that Mike has, that I'd be immune to it all, but he's a person like all of us and I guess he feels the need to defend himself.  I think I'd handle it differently, but I don't fault him for it.

Even Mike himself says in this very interview "If you focus on that stuff it loses sight on the incredible positivity that our music has meant." So even Mike is admitting here that if we focus on past problems it just overshadows the positive aspects of The Beach Boys. If he sees the problem with focussing on negativity why is he doing it?

I don't think the problem is that Mike has a legitimate complaint, I think the problem is that Mike has complained so much about so many trivial things that he has alienated himself from getting much sympathy for his legitimate gripes. It's also the irony: He prides himself on being Mr. Positivity, being the one who wrote the positive things in the band (and not the "depressing" things like the Life Suite on TWGMTR which he complained about after that album was released) - yet he complains more than any of the other Beach Boys combined...usually focussing on the negative somewhere in his interviews (be it Brian's prescription drug intake, Melinda controlling Brian, the Wilson brother's doing hard drugs, Mike having gone uncredited on some 60s songs, how Brian's first album "sounded like sh*t", how "'The Right Time' would be great if it doesn't have autotune on it," etc etc.). Even on one of the biggest nights of The Beach Boys career (Rock and Roll Hall of Fame) Mike couldn't help trying to be the center of attention by bothering Brian during Brian's speech and lashing out people in the crowd during his own speech. On the flip side, Brian has written some depressing songs, is a manic depressive, has a history of drug abuse, was controlled for years by a psychotic doctor, the last lawsuit he got from Mike was completely groundless and it blatantly lied about Brian, yet Brian is outwardly the most positive guy ever...and has rarely (like maybe once) said a negative thing about his cousin Mike.

If Mike is bringing up a 50 year old issue that was resolved over two decades ago to defend himself from some keyboard warriors on a Beach Boys message board, he should probably take a step back to contemplate how useless of a fight that is. The guy played 130+ concerts to very happy fans last year. He is co-writer of some of the most positive and beautiful music ever recorded. He's got a secure lifestyle and a wonderful group of band members surrounding him. If he's bringing up these issues in an attempt to defend himself he's just going to dig him deeper into the hole he's apparently trying to get himself out of.

You're right that Mike is a human like all of us. But if he took his own advice about letting negativity go, I think so many people would have a much more positive perception of the man.
Logged

Bill Tobelman's SMiLE site
Lonely Summer
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3420


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: January 14, 2020, 11:42:41 PM »

Paul put out a book of his lyrics some years back called Blackbird Singing. Mull of Kintyre is credited to just McCartney, even though Laine's main contribution to the song was helping him with the lyrics on the verses - Paul already had the hook, the chorus of the song, when they started working on it.
The Tug of War Archive Edition removed Laine as co-writer of the song Rainclouds, even though all the original releases had it listed as a McCartney/Laine song.

In the case of "Mull of Kintyre", Laine's name was never actually removed from the song's publishing. He's still credited in the ASCAP database and, as far as I can tell, on all releases of the song. If his name was not on that book, it was presumably just an editorial decision. I don't know if McCartney disagrees and remembers having written all the lyrics, and unless the song had separate music and lyric credits (which I don't believe it did), then Laine's name should be included in any reprint of music or lyrics.

But in that particular case, McCartney has not actually removed Laine's name (or, technically, "Brian Hines") from the song's publishing.

As for "Rainclouds", I would assume McCartney felt the original credit was in error. I don't know if Laine has publicly said he was wrongly removed from the credits on that one.

I think McCartney has weirdly and (in the case of that Wingspan documentary) comically minimized all of the former members of Wings in numerous ways, and I have no reason to doubt that back in the day they weren't paid anywhere near what a huge band should be, especially by the time they reached 1976 levels of success. But I haven't seen vast cases of wiping Denny Laine's name off songs. While the two have never recovered a personal or professional relationship, McCartney is a little better than in the Wingspan days of including involvement from Laine and other Wings members on the "Archive Collection" sets, at least soliciting comments for the books, etc. And really, the McCartney/Laine songwriting relationship (or Laine's place in Wings in general) is not even anywhere near as robust as Wilson/Love. I'm not saying Laine wasn't talented or that he never contributed to Wings; but McCartney was always pulling the weight in that "band", and Laine's subsequent solo stuff didn't portend a whole lot.

The Mike Love situation is different in that he didn't have his name retroactively removed from songs; he was sporadically never credited in the first place. It's ironic; the fact that Mike *did* get some songwriting credits even in the early days was probably something that immensely helped his eventual case. Had he never been credited on anything in the 60s, his 90s lawsuit may have looked more like the Liberty DeVitto/Billy Joel lawsuit; a former disgruntled bandmate retroactively deciding his in-studio contributions rose to the level of co-authorship. Mike's case was a case where, again apart from the debate over WIBN, he clearly wrote substantive portions of lyrics.

Interestingly, I'd say while Mike was screwed over worse than Denny Laine originally, as of the year 2020, Laine has more overall legit reasons to be disgruntled. Denny Laine's playing clubs, and I'm guessing *doesn't* have a huge house in Nevada and isn't touring 180 shows per year and selling properties around the globe.
Yeah, his post-Wings career has been pretty sad. Had a bunch of poorly promoted solo albums in the 80's that mostly did not get released in the US. He's talked occasionally of touring over here, but it doesn't appear he's ever lined up enough gigs to do a proper tour. He recorded an album about 10 years ago called Valley of Dreams, I got a demo cd of the songs, but the proper album seems to be tied up in legal issues.
He's never been a good business man, always getting ripped off by somebody. Really sad, because he is a talented guy, and everyone I know that has met him says he's a great guy.
Logged
urbanite
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 858


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: January 15, 2020, 12:20:46 PM »

I know it was a long time ago, but why did Wings break up?
Logged
Lonely Summer
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3420


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: January 15, 2020, 11:57:41 PM »

I know it was a long time ago, but why did Wings break up?
The stories vary. The story most writers tell is that they broke up when Paul got busted in Japan. That's not quite true, although Denny was pretty pissed about the whole thing. But they did regroup in summer 1980 to start working on some new material. Somewhere along the way, though, Paul changed his mind about recording with the band. Laurence Juber and Steve Holley were both informed that their services were no longer needed. Paul, Denny, and Linda went to Monserrat to record Tug of War with George Martin and guest musicians. At some point, Denny walked out. I've read that he was having problems with his wife JoJo; he's also said he was getting tired of being in the studio all the time, wanted to get out and play live again. Paul had no interest in touring again after John Lennon was murdered, but it's also likely he would have had trouble touring after the bust in Japan.
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8892



View Profile WWW
« Reply #33 on: January 16, 2020, 06:42:15 AM »

I know it was a long time ago, but why did Wings break up?
The stories vary. The story most writers tell is that they broke up when Paul got busted in Japan. That's not quite true, although Denny was pretty pissed about the whole thing. But they did regroup in summer 1980 to start working on some new material. Somewhere along the way, though, Paul changed his mind about recording with the band. Laurence Juber and Steve Holley were both informed that their services were no longer needed. Paul, Denny, and Linda went to Monserrat to record Tug of War with George Martin and guest musicians. At some point, Denny walked out. I've read that he was having problems with his wife JoJo; he's also said he was getting tired of being in the studio all the time, wanted to get out and play live again. Paul had no interest in touring again after John Lennon was murdered, but it's also likely he would have had trouble touring after the bust in Japan.

Wings was on borrowed time even before McCartney reconstituted a new lineup in 1978 with Juber and Holley.

For a dead-man walking band, they did a pretty great album with "Back to the Egg" in 1979. By that time, McCartney was already back to cutting solo material ("McCartney II" recorded in mid-1979), and then he went back out for a December '79 UK tour with Wings, which was to be followed by dates in Japan and probably North America in 1980.

His Japan bust was obviously some sort of weird subconscious sabotage thing. Even Paul himself, who is not usually apt to deeply analyze his personal ulterior motives and psychology, has kind of admitted on some level he was done with Wings and stupidly getting busted was some part of that.

By early 1980, Wings was on hold, he was putting out a true "Solo" album with "McCartney II", was was beginning to network with George Martin on his next album.

McCartney did do a few group rehearsals with Wings post-Japan in 1980, but if you listen to those rehearsals, they're pretty awful. Evidence of nothing more than McCartney clearly not being into Wings anymore (and frankly, the other guys in the band showing up pretty ragged and messy-sounding themselves). Those rehearsals reek of "I'm not sure what to do, so I guess I'll just do what I was doing last year".

As the infamous story goes, George Martin agreed to produce Paul's next album, with sessions beginning in late 1980. But Martin made it clear he didn't want Wings. He wanted to do a McCartney solo album. So Juber and Holley were not invited. Paul continued to bring Denny along for the initial group of sessions (for what ended up being "Tug of War"), which certainly seemed to be a last vestige of Paul continuing to just do things they way he had done them for years. Denny had been there for a decade through multiple Wings lineups (including lineups where there were no other members), so he came along.

At some point in 1981, Juber and Holley officially "left" Wings, though it was obviously a case of leaving a party that was already over.

After initial sessions ended in Montserrat in 1981, Paul came back to the UK for additional sessions, and that was the point at which, as I understand it, it was a case of Paul (and/or his organization) letting Denny know his services were no longer needed for the foreseeable future.

I think Denny Laine would have kept recording with Paul until he was told to go away, regardless of any tour dates. Not trying to knock the guy, but his career obviously wasn't going to take off post-Wings. They scant solo items he had cut prior to Wings disbanding had had no traction, including a full album of Buddy Holly covers produced by Paul himself.

I think Paul was over Wings by 1979/80, and then George Martin not being into recording them was enough to sink the whole thing. Paul eventually wanted to move on from working with Denny at all, and any slim chance there was that Paul may have called Denny back up at some point later on was nixed when Denny (and his wife I believe?) started going to tabloids and reporting unflattering accusations about Paul and  Linda.

The story of the other Wings members isn't totally unlike that of the Beach Boys. Should the less musically contributing members feel they're lucky to even be there, or should they get more credit for schlepping along for all the years they did?

But I'd have to say, while most members of Wings were good musicians, and in a few cases they wrote some decent stuff, Wings was generally not analogous to the Beach Boys in that pretty much every member of the Beach Boys wrote some really great material for their band at one point or another, and played a more prominent role at various points than other members of Wings had.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2020, 06:45:42 AM by HeyJude » Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
Pretty Funky
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5571


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: January 16, 2020, 08:51:12 AM »

A distant memory for me but I thought Jimmy McCulloch leaving in 1977 (and later death at only 26) would have finished it in 1979.
Logged
Mr. Tiger
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 112


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: January 16, 2020, 09:13:00 AM »

Mike should have just used his 3 minutes to do a cocktail lounge rendition of the song Endless Harmony with Bruce at the piano. That would have been much better, and hilarious.
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5225



View Profile
« Reply #36 on: January 16, 2020, 10:34:27 AM »

Mike should have just used his 3 minutes to do a cocktail lounge rendition of the song Endless Harmony with Bruce at the piano. That would have been much better, and hilarious.

Might be a bit tough for Mike to sing the "cousins, friends, and brothers" line, with him having moved on from playing with the last brother from the band :/

"Cousins, friends, and former bandmates" doesn't quite have the same ring to it...
« Last Edit: January 16, 2020, 10:35:29 AM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
Love Thang
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 86


Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeen


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: January 17, 2020, 07:02:08 PM »

I’m surprised baldness didn’t make the list. What an insufferable douche nozzle.
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5225



View Profile
« Reply #38 on: January 17, 2020, 07:20:42 PM »

I’m surprised baldness didn’t make the list. What an insufferable douche nozzle.

Picking on someone for their physical traits is really below the belt, regardless of how you feel about the guy.
Logged
The LEGENDARY OSD
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1841

luHv Estrangement Syndrome. It's a great thing!


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: January 18, 2020, 07:57:16 AM »

I’m surprised baldness didn’t make the list. What an insufferable douche nozzle.

Picking on someone for their physical traits is really below the belt, regardless of how you feel about the guy.

Oh, I don't know about that, CD. Mike has been "covering up" his condition for decades not to mention his covering up his awful personality traits that he covers up with trying in vain to use meditation as a front on how peaceful and together type person he is. Everyone knows he's bald so it's just naturally going to be added for "effect"when describing the lovester.
Logged

myKe luHv, the most hated, embarrassing clown the world of music has ever witnessed.
Lonely Summer
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3420


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: January 18, 2020, 12:50:25 PM »

I’m surprised baldness didn’t make the list. What an insufferable douche nozzle.

Picking on someone for their physical traits is really below the belt, regardless of how you feel about the guy.

Oh, I don't know about that, CD. Mike has been "covering up" his condition for decades not to mention his covering up his awful personality traits that he covers up with trying in vain to use meditation as a front on how peaceful and together type person he is. Everyone knows he's bald so it's just naturally going to be added for "effect"when describing the lovester.
I don't know that Mike is all that bothered about his baldness. I am unaware of his ever attempting a hair transplant, or wearing a wig.
There were pics of Al in the 70's where he sure appeared to be going bald; but it's 2020 now, and he still has a decent head of hair. Maybe not a full head of hair, but he looks pretty good for a guy in his 70's.
Logged
gfx
Pages: 1 [2] Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 2.22 seconds with 22 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!