Lowest point in the BB career?

[John]

Um, okay.

[37!ws]

Mike Love may actually be gay.

I don't know about that, but the way he looked during the Looking Back With Love period (especially on that Dick Clark thing in which the boys..uhmm....lip-synched to "Beach Boys Medley," with Brian doing Carl's parts and Dennis almost falling off the drum stool)...ya gotta wonder.

[adamghost]

Good points and I can't argue with any of it. Maybe I feel a tad differently because I happen to love (well, not LOVE, but strongly like) MIU, LA Light Album, 15 Big Ones, Kokomo, therefore the relentless bashing anything post Love You, tends to offend. Simple matter of taste. There has always been a certain goofiness about the Beach Boys in general. And it only got more pronounced as time went on. Dennis really was the only one able to be hip and cool effortlessly. Maybe this is why nothing "bad" they've ever done has really offended me.

Oh well...I have to go on record as saying I have defended LIGHT ALBUM to the death, over and over.  That's one of my favorite Beach Boys albums but as a guy that got into the Beach Boys in the '70s largely on the basis of Dennis and Carl's stuff, you'd expect that.  I'm into LOVE YOU and M.I.U. in spots.

I think Mike's songwriting is inextricably tied to his attitude about the band and about life, and the result is that it sounds contrived and hokey where in 1964 it sounded vibrant and youthful.  I'd much rather hear "Cool Head Warm Heart" because he's singing about something he actually cares about.  The other guys have made their share of cringeworthy music, but it's sincere.  Bruce loves schmaltz, Brian's writing about wallpaper, Al's obssessing about horses, Carl wants to be in the Eagles...whatever.  It's still coming from the heart and even if I don't like it it doesn't bother me. 

What Mike wants is money and fame and those kinds of things and rather than writing about that (which has been done well, a la Joe Walsh), he writes music that he thinks is going to GET him that.   He also doesn't really understand his audience as well as he thinks he does.  You take someone who's a total commercial writer -- a Dianne Warren for example -- and they know exactly how to get the punters on board for the song.  There's a certain art to that.  Mike's approach is more like, hey, I'll throw in some old Beach Boys titles and sing like I did in '65 and it'll all be cool.  He doesn't realize how condescending that is...part of the point of writing a hit is relating to your audience and not letting them figure out you're pandering to them.  Mike, for all his professed ability to relate to the masses, alienates a whole lot of people with this approach.  I believe "Kokomo" worked because (a) the song was written by other people; Mike just added the geographical chorus; (b) it's catchy; (c) it was in a hit movie; (d) there was, I am told, some skulduggery behind the scenes to get radio play (I'm shocked); and (e) it DOES resonate with the Beach Boys image as it was in the '80s, that is to say, older guys hanging out on the beach doing not very much, just kinda cruising. 

Based on public comments made, Mike apparently believes, as he did with "Good Vibrations," that it was his minor contrbutions to the song that made it a hit.  And so we get "c'mon let's cruise, you got, nothing to lose..." on the very next single.  That's the best example I can think of of why "Kokomo" ruined Mike as a writer.  He can't really objectively assess his writing, his skills or his audience.  It's all wrapped up in and warped by his self-perception, in which he needs to be more than a guy who was a lead singer and wrote some cool lyrics on some hit songs back in the '60s.

[Dancing Bear]

Adam, why do you think Carl dried up as an interesting songwriter after Long Promised Road / Feel Flows / Trader / Angel Come Home?

[lance]

Very well put and I couldn't agree more. I have often thought that Mike just doesn't get it as far as what's "commercial", even though, ironically, he's been pretty open to that being his chief goal--commerciality.

I put it down to lack of imagination on his part, he just has trouble thinking outside the narrow confines of his Beach Boys box--and yes, the fact that Kokomo/It's OK, etc. were hits does not help that. I really think if he was behind their late sixties/early seventies stuff rather than just behind the hits, the whole catalogue would sell steadily and they wouldn't have to rely as heavily on their greatest hits packages for their bread--in the long run they would sell more records, gain more respect from the public and the snobs, which would sell more records, and on and on.

I have to say, though, I don't hate Kokomo, or It's OK, or whatever. I liked Kokomo when it was on the radio, for all it's eighties slickness it was more organic and enjoyable than a lot of pop records of its day--and I was nowhere near a Beach Boys fan back then--just wish it had remained an occasional facet of the band rather than the point that got hammered home the most.

[brianc]

I believe "Kokomo" worked because (a) the song was written by other people; Mike just added the geographical chorus; (b) it's catchy; (c) it was in a hit movie; (d) there was, I am told, some skulduggery behind the scenes to get radio play (I'm shocked); and (e) it DOES resonate with the Beach Boys image as it was in the '80s, that is to say, older guys hanging out on the beach doing not very much, just kinda cruising. 

Unbelievably astute observation. I could have written five pages worth and not said it so well.

[adamghost]

Very well put and I couldn't agree more. I have often thought that Mike just doesn't get it as far as what's "commercial", even though, ironically, he's been pretty open to that being his chief goal--commerciality.

I put it down to lack of imagination on his part, he just has trouble thinking outside the narrow confines of his Beach Boys box--and yes, the fact that Kokomo/It's OK, etc. were hits does not help that. I really think if he was behind their late sixties/early seventies stuff rather than just behind the hits, the whole catalogue would sell steadily and they wouldn't have to rely as heavily on their greatest hits packages for their bread--in the long run they would sell more records, gain more respect from the public and the snobs, which would sell more records, and on and on.

I have to say, though, I don't hate Kokomo, or It's OK, or whatever. I liked Kokomo when it was on the radio, for all it's eighties slickness it was more organic and enjoyable than a lot of pop records of its day--and I was nowhere near a Beach Boys fan back then--just wish it had remained an occasional facet of the band rather than the point that got hammered home the most.

There's a really good quote in David Leaf's book, I think it was an anonymous one.  It went something like "Brian's always been surrounded by these ordinary, bowling-league type people who never said 'great' for the right reasons."

I've been thinking a lot lately how much of the Beach Boys history can be explained by this quote.  Brian had a lot of problems, for sure, some self-created and some inherited.  But he also had a sharp, active mind and part of the reason he got into trouble was wanting to stimulate that.  You can have people around you that love you and care about you, and you them, but don't exist on the same plane as you and aren't ever going to get you.  That' s a very lonely place, and an understimulated place and if you've got depression already that sense of isolation will fuel it.  

A lot of creative people and people with mental illness are very sensitive and in some ways see reality more clearly than the rest of us...they pick up more.  Carl has made this point about Brian many times.  So there's a lot of Brian being forced again and again to revisit stuff he did 20-30 years ago rather than doing whatever he feels like doing, and of course he got bored.   And unfortunately, the most interesting people around him were probably the most destructive ones, so that didn't help either.   I'm not trying to minimalize the other stuff.  I'm just saying that the practical role of an active mind in isolation a la "I Just Wasn't Made For These Times," isn't thought of as much, although Leaf's book touched on this.

So as regards Mike, I'd make the argument that he just doesn't know any better.  Lack of imagination is a good way to put it.  Everything about his history argues that he's just an average guy, probably with some deep insecurities and worthiness issues with his family, who's overcompensating.  It's no wonder he was in the tank for George W. Bush for so long, because it's a similar kind of psychological profile.  This is not to paint Mike Love as an evil dude, although I am given to understand he has indeed done some nasty things.  I'm just going by what causes a guy to act out the way he has and to express himself creatively in the oddly unreflective and detached way he does.  One of the more interesting things about Timothy White's book was to put a more human face on Mike and the things that drive him.  The fact that he was legitimately denied songwriting credit for at least one song ("California Girls") only fuels whatever sense of injustice Mike has felt, and indeed, his role in the band's early success is often overlooked because of his later behavior (which is partly his own doing, but I'm sure Mike doesn't see it that way).

Or as one person who knew him said to me, "If only MIke didn't take himself so goddammed seriously."

I think you make a good point that Mike could have gotten behind the late '60s-early '70s stuff more, but in fact, he did to some extent...witness a lot of his public comments in the early '70s vis a vis Capitol Records.  The problem was, again, it often came off as insincere pandering, like when they talked about getting stoned with Buffalo Springfield onstage with the Dead in '71, or in songs like "Student Demonstration Time" or "Don't Go Near The Water."  Everyone's like, yeah, right, regardless of whether it's true or not, because the motivation is transparent and the execution is clumsy.

My own take is that Mike had a valid point about where the band's strength lay...in its legacy and in its past...by 1974.  The problem was everything that took place after that, from rushing Brian back into the limelight to 15 BIG ONES to M.I.U., seemed only driven by commercial considerations without factoring everything else in.  Brian onstage in the state he was in in 1976 and the stream of embarassing albums did irreparable damage to the band.  A little more perspective, and a little more quality control, and a little more awareness of how much time Brian needed to recover, might have gotten a different outcome everyone could have lived with.

What if the band had actually been able to craft a decent album, even on a compromise level of say a LIGHT ALBUM, after "Kokomo?"  What if the follow-up to "Kokomo" hadn't been "Still Cruisin'" but another equally light pop song that didn't scream out "I'm trying to write Kokomo Part II?"  They could have had a decent resurgence.  But instead, the band opted for the quick buck and the easy way out, and faded away once more.  Commercialism is fine, but it seems to me Mike never really understood how badly he was undercutting his own goals.

But, y'know, this is the band we know and love and hate...a bunch of real people with real faults and personality differences that were thrust into a situation that they had to deal with for 40 years.  Everybody I'm sure was doing what they thought was right at the time.  Hindsight is 20/20.  I wouldn't have wanted to have been any of them...a very tough road to hoe for sure.

[adamghost]

Adam, why do you think Carl dried up as an interesting songwriter after Long Promised Road / Feel Flows / Trader / Angel Come Home?

Hmm.  Good question.  Well, I think there are a couple of possible factors.

One's not so obvious...when I worked out those songs for the LONG PROMISED ROAD album, I noticed how odd the chord structures were.  They're the kind of songs you write when you're not a very schooled keyboard player but you're really searching for the sounds and interesting chord shapes.  Carl would have this weird chords with 2s and 6s and 3rds in the bass.  It made it sound like there was never any home key, and combined with the particular layered production style he favored in the early '70s gave everything an otherworldly quality.

Now you get into the later stuff, it's much more traditional, and may I say guitar-oriented.  Carl's not really stretching out on an unfamiliar instrument, although "Heaven" has some weird chords, some of those same kind of chord structures.  The difference with "Heaven" though is whereas on keyboards and with that particular type of song structure, it sounds like you're in outer space, with acoustic guitar and a more generic production style, it feels like you're just idling and not really going anywhere, which songs with lots of sixth chords in them tend to be like ("Babe" by Styx leaps to mind).  (I know a lot of people love "Heaven" so I don't mean to bum anybody's trip...but imagine it being done on SURF'S UP on a Wurlitzer electric piano and that might convey what I'm talking about)

Another thing is that ever notice that "Feel Flows" and "Long Promised Road" are the same song?  Same chord progression, just a different production and melody.

So my personal theory is a lot of what made Carl interesting wasn't what he wrote, but how he produced it.  He didn't really start writing prolifically until the late '70s, after what most of us think of as his peak.  Once you take the guy out of the studio he owns and put him in Caribou Ranch, or with Steve Levine or whatever, he's much less likely to say "I would produce it this way" than go with the flow of people who have more experience.  Plus by the '80s Carl wanted a hit as much as everybody else did.  And so you get a much less interesting interpretation of the songs he came up with.

Another factor is from what I'm told Carl by 1980 was into country music and hard rock, basically.  And I mean new country, 1980 country, not Johnny Cash or Merle Haggard.  So his tastes were reflected in what he wrote, and I think a lot of us would feel that that wasn't as interesting as what he was probably listening to 10 years before.

That said, a lot of my favorite Carl stuff is from later years.  "Keepin' The Summer Alive" and "Maybe I Don't Know" were fascinating...he actually forced the Beach Boys to try to be an '80s AOR band, and just about pulled it off.  And "Where I Belong" is gorgeous.  I like some of the Beckley-Lamm-Wilson stuff too.  But I get your point.

[PongHit]

I don't know about that, but the way he looked during the Looking Back With Love period (especially on that Dick Clark thing in which the boys..uhmm....lip-synched to "Beach Boys Medley," with Brian doing Carl's parts and Dennis almost falling off the drum stool)...ya gotta wonder.

What!?  Is this on YouTube??

[Sheriff John Stone]

Listening to the music is a subjective thing; I like chocolate ice cream and you might prefer vanilla ice cream. But blaming someone , in this case Mike Love, for career low points, should at least have some facts to substantiate the claim.

First, what did Mike contribute leading up to "Kokomo"? Mike contributed to the writing/recording of "Getcha Back" and "Rock And Roll To The Rescue". What's wrong with those two songs?  Mike was also instrumental in the recording of "Wipe Out" and (I think?) "California Dreamin". Those two songs were featured prominently on MTV, and contributed in keeping the Beach Boys in the public view. These were not low points. That was fun, enjoyable music.

Then came "Kokomo", which was a catchy, No. 1 single. Somebody in a previous post stated (incorrectly) that Mike went on to record Kokomo Part II, II, etc. So I checked the songs that Mike contributed to the Still Cruisin' album. When I listen to "Still Cruisin", "Somewhere Near Japan" and "Make It Big" (I know it was written pre-1988), I don't hear "Kokomo". And, again, I don't have any major problems with those songs. Pet Sounds they ain't; low points they ain't either.

So, I looked further for "Kokomo Part II and II". I checked the Summer In Paradise album. "Summer Of Love" - nope. "Still Surfin" - nope. "Strange Things Happen" - nope. "Lahaina Aloha" - nope. "Summer In Paradise" - nope. "Island Fever" - YES! I found one. Well, Mike Love, that no good SOB. He wrote a song that resembled "Kokomo". How dare him! Never mind that it wasn't a bad song. And neither were the other songs that Mike contributed to Summer In Paradise, except for "Summer Of Love"....

Why are you singling out Mike as being responsible for the low point(s)? RESPONSIBLE? Not Mike. He produced something. He gave them hits ("Getcha Back", "Wipe Out", and "Kokomo"). But, most of all, he tried. I wish I could say the same for Brian, Al, Carl, and Bruce. You wanna criticize Mike for BB85? When Al contributed "Crack In Your Ass"? And Brian contributed "I'm So Horny"? And Bruce contributed his typical, just one, ballad? Carl did come through with "Where I Belong". But Mike co-wrote and sang lead on a Top 40 hit from the album. If youre gonna criticize BB85, criticize everyone; don't single out Mike Love.

You want to criticize Mike's contribution to Still Cruisin'? You call it "Kokomo-like"? When Al contributes "Island Girl" and Brian contributes "In My Car"? Who forced them to write those songs? Did you ever hear the one about calling the kettle black? Oh, by the way, what songs did Carl and Bruce contribute to Still Cruisin'?

And then there's Summer In Paradise. A lot of people's low point. It might be. BECAUSE AS SONGWRITERS, BRIAN, CARL, AND AL ARE NO WHERE TO BE FOUND. If you're going to blame Mike for not allowing their songs, would you please include some proof? As I stated above, Mike contributed enough good songs for one person. Why was Brian sitting on "The Spirit Of Rock And Roll", "Don't Let Her Know She's An Angel", and "Angel Eyes"? He was 5-6 years away from his next solo album. Where were Al's and Carl's songs? And Bruce's only contribution is a semi-cover? And you wanna blame Mike? Those other guys were still Beach Boys, and Summer In Paradise was a Beach Boys' album. Did they get paid for the album? At least Brian, of all people, could've contributed a few songs to cover the several thousand dollars worth of checks that he's been receiving for NOT showing up at concerts.

The points made about Mike writing songs about "fun" and related themes are absolutely correct. He did and he still does. He is what he is. But he's always been that way. There might've been a 2-3 year window (1970-72) when he mellowed out. But, the group must've known what Mike was gonna contribute. If they - Brian, Carl, Al, and Bruce - were the true songwriting "artists" of the band, they should've COMPLIMENTED Mike's songs with some of their own. But they didn't. They either saved them or didn't write them. There was no "Disney Girls", "California Saga", "Feel Flows", or even "A Day In The Life Of A Tree". When I look at the lowpoint(s), it's because of the ABSENCE of certain members, not a guy who was doing his thing, like he had been doing for decades....

[Wilsonista]

SJS, you just don't get it, do you?

[the captain]

Well, SJS, I get that you often want to defend Mike from unfair attacks, and I can support that (admittedly more because I like being a devil's advocate than that I like Mike's work). But if the topic is "lowest point," and Mike's songs are what people consider the lowest point, then it's a fair answer. I agree: those final couple Beach Boys albums are their worst. Mike wrote or co-wrote the bulk of the material. So Mike is responsible. Was Brian there, could he have done more, should Al or Carl have contributed, etc.? Maybe. But I can't blame them for an absence. Sometimes nothing is better than something, and those albums are such times. Why not continue with presumably successful oldies touring? Why make those records--did those songs really need to be released? Was someone clamoring for them? I don't know the sales figures, but I doubt it strongly. If you like them, cool. But if others don't (myself included), cool. It's a legitimate answer to call them the worst. And Mike was at the helm.

[Wilsonista]

"should Al or Carl have contributed, etc.? Maybe. But I can't blame them for an absence."

Exactly! If I was Carl, I would have done the samet hing he did. Especially if I had the songs that wound being on Beckley-Lamm-Wilson. As I mentioned, Carl was follwing a muse that nothing to do with or even could share a place in Mike's vision of the BB during that timeframe.  Read the '92 Goldmine interview and  his gushing over SIP. The guy wouldn;t have been open to an "I Wish For You" in '91 (to give a random example).  Kokomo established a new BB forumls: the Mike lead on the verses and the preety carl vocal on the chorus and there was plenty of that on both SC and SIP. Any suggestion otherwise is, well, horse poop.

[Sheriff John Stone]

Was Brian there, could he have done more, should Al or Carl have contributed, etc.? Maybe. But I can't blame them for an absence. Sometimes nothing is better than something, and those albums are such times.

We'll just have to respectfully disagree, Luther. I do think, yes, Brian could have done more. I do think, yes, Al and Carl should've contributed more. I can blame and do blame them for their absence. Yes, sometimes nothing is better than something (GIOMH for example), but not in this case. Those BB albums in question needed more. It's one thing to blame someone, it's another thing to single them out unfairly. But, hey, no problem; look forward to your posts....

[the captain]

Those BB albums in question needed more. It's one thing to blame someone, it's another thing to single them out unfairly.

On the former, I agree wholeheartedly. On the latter, I also agree wholeheartedly (and don't think I really did). So let's fight about our agreement! 

[adamghost]

Listening to the music is a subjective thing; I like chocolate ice cream and you might prefer vanilla ice cream. But blaming someone , in this case Mike Love, for career low points, should at least have some facts to substantiate the claim.

First, what did Mike contribute leading up to "Kokomo"? Mike contributed to the writing/recording of "Getcha Back" and "Rock And Roll To The Rescue". What's wrong with those two songs?  Mike was also instrumental in the recording of "Wipe Out" and (I think?) "California Dreamin". Those two songs were featured prominently on MTV, and contributed in keeping the Beach Boys in the public view. These were not low points. That was fun, enjoyable music.

Then came "Kokomo", which was a catchy, No. 1 single. Somebody in a previous post stated (incorrectly) that Mike went on to record Kokomo Part II, II, etc. So I checked the songs that Mike contributed to the Still Cruisin' album. When I listen to "Still Cruisin", "Somewhere Near Japan" and "Make It Big" (I know it was written pre-1988), I don't hear "Kokomo". And, again, I don't have any major problems with those songs. Pet Sounds they ain't; low points they ain't either.

So, I looked further for "Kokomo Part II and II". I checked the Summer In Paradise album. "Summer Of Love" - nope. "Still Surfin" - nope. "Strange Things Happen" - nope. "Lahaina Aloha" - nope. "Summer In Paradise" - nope. "Island Fever" - YES! I found one. Well, Mike Love, that no good SOB. He wrote a song that resembled "Kokomo". How dare him! Never mind that it wasn't a bad song. And neither were the other songs that Mike contributed to Summer In Paradise, except for "Summer Of Love"....

Why are you singling out Mike as being responsible for the low point(s)? RESPONSIBLE? Not Mike. He produced something. He gave them hits ("Getcha Back", "Wipe Out", and "Kokomo"). But, most of all, he tried. I wish I could say the same for Brian, Al, Carl, and Bruce. You wanna criticize Mike for BB85? When Al contributed "Crack In Your Ass"? And Brian contributed "I'm So Horny"? And Bruce contributed his typical, just one, ballad? Carl did come through with "Where I Belong". But Mike co-wrote and sang lead on a Top 40 hit from the album. If youre gonna criticize BB85, criticize everyone; don't single out Mike Love.

You want to criticize Mike's contribution to Still Cruisin'? You call it "Kokomo-like"? When Al contributes "Island Girl" and Brian contributes "In My Car"? Who forced them to write those songs? Did you ever hear the one about calling the kettle black? Oh, by the way, what songs did Carl and Bruce contribute to Still Cruisin'?

And then there's Summer In Paradise. A lot of people's low point. It might be. BECAUSE AS SONGWRITERS, BRIAN, CARL, AND AL ARE NO WHERE TO BE FOUND. If you're going to blame Mike for not allowing their songs, would you please include some proof? As I stated above, Mike contributed enough good songs for one person. Why was Brian sitting on "The Spirit Of Rock And Roll", "Don't Let Her Know She's An Angel", and "Angel Eyes"? He was 5-6 years away from his next solo album. Where were Al's and Carl's songs? And Bruce's only contribution is a semi-cover? And you wanna blame Mike? Those other guys were still Beach Boys, and Summer In Paradise was a Beach Boys' album. Did they get paid for the album? At least Brian, of all people, could've contributed a few songs to cover the several thousand dollars worth of checks that he's been receiving for NOT showing up at concerts.

The points made about Mike writing songs about "fun" and related themes are absolutely correct. He did and he still does. He is what he is. But he's always been that way. There might've been a 2-3 year window (1970-72) when he mellowed out. But, the group must've known what Mike was gonna contribute. If they - Brian, Carl, Al, and Bruce - were the true songwriting "artists" of the band, they should've COMPLIMENTED Mike's songs with some of their own. But they didn't. They either saved them or didn't write them. There was no "Disney Girls", "California Saga", "Feel Flows", or even "A Day In The Life Of A Tree". When I look at the lowpoint(s), it's because of the ABSENCE of certain members, not a guy who was doing his thing, like he had been doing for decades....

John, man, you got a right to express your opinion, and more power to you, my friend...but I have to say you are way off base in this post.  There's so much in your post above that totally misconstrues or misunderstands what I've said.  I'll go through it briefly, just to set the record straight, but not belabor it.

The point wasn't "blaming Mike Love for career low points."  What I had said originally was that "Kokomo" was a low point because Mike kept retreading the formula after "Kokomo."  For that to be case, he had to be NOT sucking all the time prior to "Kokomo," which is the same point you have made above.  I specifically pointed to "Rock and Roll To The Rescue," which you also mentioned, as something I liked.  As you say, music is subjective, but if you can't hear the influence of "Kokomo" in nearly everything Mike wrote after that, I'm really shocked...I mean, the "c'mon let's cruise" chorus of "Still Cruising" is a clear lift from "Aruba, Jamaica..." 

As to your other points about not criticizing the other guys' contributions, again, you didn't read my post very carefully. I specifically said, just as you did, the other guys came up with plenty of stinkers.  The difference IN MY OPINION -- and stated as such, my friend -- is that the other guys were writing lame music that they really believed in, and Mike was writing disingenuous music in trying to get a hit, and in so doing, was undercutting his own goals, because people could tell that's what he was trying to do and weren't buying it.  The point isn't that Mike is a bad person or a bad songwriter...the point is that he wasn't succeeding in what he was trying to do in going about it the way he was, and he isn't the best judge of his own talent or material.

As for "blaming Mike for not allowing the others to write songs," no one's suggested that.  You make an excellent point that Mike is just doing what he has always done and the others for whatever reason did not contribute.  I can only point out that you've made a logical construction where it's the other guys' fault for not contributing, but at the same time, we can't blame Mike for not allowing them to, because there's no proof.  There's no proof that the guys DIDN'T try to contribute, either.  You can't have it both ways.

Anyhow, John, it's clear you have a lot of passion on this subject and I commend you for it.  It's just that your post is one of those things where it seems like you have a lot of things you want to say, and in so doing, you made the points you wanted to make -- but you were making an argument that wasn't on point to what was posted.  Which is cool, and I understand...just don't put words in my or anybody else's mouths, cool?  Keep on keepin' on.

[adamghost]

You know, just as an addendum: "Getcha Back" is an interesting case in point.  It's pre-"Kokomo", it's Love/Melcher, and the song isn't terrible, and it was a mid-sized hit.

The one problem with the tune, though is that Carl specifically stated at the time that Mike wanted to write a song that had the Bruce Springsteen vibe, specifically "Hungry Heart."  And if you listen to "Getcha Back," the songs are so close in structure, chord progression and melody that Springsteen could have sued.  ("Hungry Heart" was Springsteen's tip of the hat to the BBs, so that wouldn't have been very cool of him)  The other touchstone was supposedly "Hushabye" and indeed, the intro vocla part is very similar.

Now, this doesn't bother me a whole lot in the sense that the tune was OK and Mike was clearly into Springsteen and it was coming from a good place.  But it is kind of ironic, given Mike's litigious nature when it comes to even the smallest songwriter contribution ("ba ba ba ba ba ba, bee do be" from WIBN is one example), that Mike's tribute to "Hungry Heart" was so close to the original.  And it also seems that it's hard for Mike to come up with something that's not really very derivative of something else...and again, it's not that it's necessarily a bad thing, it's that there's a subtle, artful way to do it and there's an obvious and clumsy way to do it.

[Aegir]

I never connected Getcha Back with Hungry Heart. I always heard more of a 50s doo-wop influence than anything like Bruce Springsteen.

[Wilsonista]

I never connected Getcha Back with Hungry Heart. I always heard more of a 50s doo-wop influence than anything like Bruce Springsteen.

How could you not? Both songs have the same chord changes (which, of course are both derivitive if doo-wop).

[Wilsonista]

You know, just as an addendum: "Getcha Back" is an interesting case in point.  It's pre-"Kokomo", it's Love/Melcher, and the song isn't terrible, and it was a mid-sized hit.

The one problem with the tune, though is that Carl specifically stated at the time that Mike wanted to write a song that had the Bruce Springsteen vibe, specifically "Hungry Heart."  And if you listen to "Getcha Back," the songs are so close in structure, chord progression and melody that Springsteen could have sued.  ("Hungry Heart" was Springsteen's tip of the hat to the BBs, so that wouldn't have been very cool of him)  The other touchstone was supposedly "Hushabye" and indeed, the intro vocla part is very similar.

Now, this doesn't bother me a whole lot in the sense that the tune was OK and Mike was clearly into Springsteen and it was coming from a good place.  But it is kind of ironic, given Mike's litigious nature when it comes to even the smallest songwriter contribution ("ba ba ba ba ba ba, bee do be" from WIBN is one example), that Mike's tribute to "Hungry Heart" was so close to the original.  And it also seems that it's hard for Mike to come up with something that's not really very derivative of something else...and again, it's not that it's necessarily a bad thing, it's that there's a subtle, artful way to do it and there's an obvious and clumsy way to do it.

I remember reading an interview with Mike where he states that he wished Melcher had produced Getcha back because he would have gotten closer to an E Street Band feel than Steve Levine did.  Mike then added that Getcha back was inspired by Hungry Heart.

[oldsurferdude]

Was Brian there, could he have done more, should Al or Carl have contributed, etc.? Maybe. But I can't blame them for an absence. Sometimes nothing is better than something, and those albums are such times.

We'll just have to respectfully disagree, Luther. I do think, yes, Brian could have done more. I do think, yes, Al and Carl should've contributed more. I can blame and do blame them for their absence. Yes, sometimes nothing is better than something (GIOMH for example), but not in this case. Those BB albums in question needed more. It's one thing to blame someone, it's another thing to single them out unfairly. But, hey, no problem; look forward to your posts....

Sometimes nothing is better than something-Country Love, Looking Back With Love-I'll take GIOMH over those two jewels.

[oldsurferdude]

SJS, you just don't get it, do you?

...and he never will. 

[Sheriff John Stone]

There's so much in your post above that totally misconstrues or misunderstands what I've said.

The point wasn't "blaming Mike Love for career low points."  What I had said originally was that "Kokomo" was a low point because Mike kept retreading the formula after "Kokomo." 

... but if you can't hear the influence of "Kokomo" in nearly everything Mike wrote after that, I'm really shocked...I mean, the "c'mon let's cruise" chorus of "Still Cruising" is a clear lift from "Aruba, Jamaica..." 

...the point is that he wasn't succeeding in what he was trying to do in going about it the way he was, and he isn't the best judge of his own talent or material.

There's no proof that the guys DIDN'T try to contribute, either.  You can't have it both ways.

...just don't put words in my or anybody else's mouths, cool?  Keep on keepin' on.

Thanks for your response, adamghost. I'll respond also....

1) I don't think I misconstrued and misunderstood what you said. I only read your post one time, I don't remember most of it, and I didn't quote you. The part about Mike writing "Kokomo Part II and III" stood out, and I did quote the characterization. I thought that was funny. Incorrect, but funny.

2) By saying that you're NOT blaming Mike for the career lowpoints, and then saying that "Kokomo" was a lowpoint because Mike kept retreading the formula after "Kokomo", is basically placing the blame at the same place - at Mike Love.

3) Adam, I know you're a musician. I went on your website and saw/listened to your music. It's quite good. So you know what you're talking about. But, I can honestly say that, other than "Island Fever", I don't hear the Kokomo influence that you do. And I tried to point that out in my post. I'm sorry if that shocks you. But I'm just an average Joe, not a musician. And, as I pointed out, what about "In My Car" and "Island Fever"? They are somehow never mentioned.

4) You say that Mike wasn't succeeding? "Getcha Back"? "Wipe Out"? "Kokomo"? "Somewhere In Japan"? Not successful? You don't have to LIKE them, but they were successful. And, I'm sorry to repeat myself, but I didn't find Mike's SIP songs THAT bad.

5) Don't want it both ways. But, to me, when Brian, Carl, and Al have NO songs on a Beach Boys album, it's more logical to assume they did not submit any, than to speculate that Brian Wilson, Carl Wilson, and Al Jardine submitted a song(s), and one person, Mike Love, had the power to say "No". I also don't buy the theory that they withheld songs because the project didn't warrant or merit their inclusion. What project did? Youngblood Part II? Postcards From Wherever - 20 years later?

6) Again, didn't put words in anybody's mouths. I purposely didn't quote anybody because I only read the posts one time -  including yours. What I wrote was a response to the multiple posters who singled out Mike Love - or his contributions - as a low point. As Luther correctly pointed out, it's fair for people to consider Mike's songs as a lowpoint. My point was to not SINGLE him out, but include the others as well. People seem to have short memories when they discuss that infamous period. I like to remind them. Cool?

[adamghost]

<<Again, didn't put words in anybody's mouths. I purposely didn't quote anybody because I only read the posts one time -  including yours. What I wrote was a response to the multiple posters who singled out Mike Love - or his contributions - as a low point. As Luther correctly pointed out, it's fair for people to consider Mike's songs as a lowpoint. My point was to not SINGLE him out, but include the others as well. People seem to have short memories when they discuss that infamous period. I like to remind them. Cool?>>

Oh yeah!  Totally cool.  I sensed that you had the thing that you really wanted to say, but it wasn't necessarily addressing or refuting what I or anybody else was saying.  As long as we're clear on that, rock on.

There IS a difference between blaming the band's low points on Mike Love and saying that "Kokomo" was a low point because it ruined Mike as a writer.  The first is saying everything the band did that sucked was Mike's fault.  That's not what I or anyone else said (though we might be thinking it!  No, just kidding.  I don't).  The second is saying that the success of "Kokomo" altered Mike's writing to the point of self-parody and as you point out, since he was the main creative force of the group at that point, that's a bad thing.  I accept that you don't hear the influece of "Kokomo" in what came afterward as clearly as I do, but I did give you one concrete example, and other non-musicians here heard the same thing, so it's not like we're all just on a Mike Love vendetta.  It's true that when Mike sucks it bugs me more than when the other guys suck because I sense a cynicism in his writing that isn't there as much with the other guys.  But I admit that that's my perception and also point out, again, that I specifically said Mike was not the only person who ever wrote a crappy BBs song.

Mike DID have a few chart successes, as you point out.  What I was saying is that in my opinion by making decisions for short term gain (e.g. squeezing out a hit by mining a formula) he was trading away long-term options (respect for the band and also songs that had more lasting appeal and would have kept the band more commercial viable).  As evidence of this I pointed out that "Still Cruisin'" made #93 in the wake of a #1 record, and the band never charted on the top 100 again.

The only other thing I'd say is that, again, making a construction that says that since there's 4 of the other guys and only 1 of Mike Love, it's the other 4 guys' fault if they didn't have more influence on the records, and at the same time saying we can't question whether Mike had anything to do with it because there's no proof, is making assumptions that are biased in favor of Mike.  I think it's fairer to say -- and I never said anything different -- that we don't know why Mike took such a dominant role in the band in the later years, and any speculation is bound to be colored by our own prejudices.  Fair enough?

[Sheriff John Stone]

Fair enough. I just have one more question - for anybody. Then I'm putting this - and me - to bed! For tonight anyway....

My question centers around Mike's alleged "power", going back as far as 15 Big Ones, when it was mentioned (on this board) that Mike was rejecting others' songs. Here's the question:

If Mike was so much more inferior to the others as a songwriter, he didn't play an instrument, his later singing ability was being called into question, his penchant for "fun in the sun" music was not the direction to go, Mike was too commercial, nobody liked Mike, he didn't get along with Dennis, Brian didn't want to work with him, and on and on...

Why did Mike have the power (or whatever the appropriate word is) to single-handedly veto/reject songs from Beach Boys albums? Why didn't the other guys (including Al, if you think he was into "art") disrepsect him, out vote him, shut him down, shut him up, or crush him like a grape. Instead, according to many on this board (and I'm not putting words in their mouths), Mike prevented the other Beach Boys' songs from getting on the albums. And please don't respond that they didn't feel like fighting him and it was easier to give in....