History of Mike's reputation

[Nicko]

What was Brian doing while Mike was being cheated: writing, arranging,  producing some of the best Pop music so far and managing an international act, co-running a corporation, co-running a publishing company, unilaterally deciding he would quit touring, and firing his dad. I don't know how things get so twisted up.

If some want Mike to be guilty of over-credit, even though we know he didn't set his own credit for WIBN, then have away if you must.  This does not change the circumstances or discredit the rest of the claims.

Once again, I think we are overlooking the point that Brian agreed that Mike deserved the credit he got in the suit. This does not deify or vilify either one of them. This does not take away from Brian and it does not take away from Mike, it is to both their credit.

Excellent post. Nobody should deify Mike and nobody has in this thread that I've seen.

To simply say that, 'Mike is unpleasant. Period.' contributes nothing intelligent though.

If somebody says, 'Mike is unpleasant due to x, y and z' then it might actually contribute to the debate.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Interesting... And this, I guess, is why bands like R.E.M. decided early on that all songs would be credited to all members of the band, no matter what. That really only works if all members are roughly equal in terms of what they contribute. But I think agreements like that are made to avoid problems like this.

The Doors' policy was that all songs would be credited to "The Doors" and it worked well for them. They made an exception, on The Soft Parade album, and it didn't work out too well. They eventually went back to the group credit.

When we bring up band like The Doors REM and U2 we have to realize that we're talking about the exceptions and not the norm. With most bands, whoever comes in with the basic 4 chords and words gets the credit. No matter how much work the entire band puts in in order to make the song go someplace and be worthy of recording/performing live. And Adam is right, the law protects songwriters and not musicians. But this shouldn't be used as an excuse. And who determines who is a songwriter and who is simply a musician??? Not the law! It's usually the "songwriter" of the band who decides this. Like I said, it's all in how each team plays it. In U2s case, most of the songs are workshopped and Adam, Larry, Edge beat out sections and musical landscapes that create a mood and Bono tunes into that mood and that mood informs what the song is ultimately about. But this is not the case every time with them, but THAT is the working edict and it.... works. Think about it, in U2's case..... hum one of their songs, chances are you're humming the bassline. This is true though for a lot of bands, but it just doesn't read that way on paper. Songwriters have a good talent for coming to the game feeling sorry for themselves that they have to bring their gold in only to have other people get their hands on it and make is somehow less... theirs. This creates an awful tension that doesn't have to be there, but too often is. My personal experience is a bit weird. I've been  both a working drummer and a working singer/guitarist/songwriter. I've seen it from all sides. I was with a band where we were recording an album and part way through, I realized we were going to end up with 10 songs that were all in the same time signature/tempo. Not necessarily a fatal thing, but in this case, the material was just not making it. So, I tore apart each song and decided that "this one needs a bridge" this one needs a breakdown and another chorus that extends for more measures and builds, etc... etc... I even went and wrote bridges and chorus, etc.... BUT since the songs were all "previously written" before my contributions, it was not seen as necessary that I receive any credit for songwriting. But, the whole band was granted an "all songs arranged by" credit, which was fair and just and put out a lot of fires.... Ya see, bands are capable of creating a situation to where the Law as it is, will protect the entire band, musician AND songwriters, but too many people just ignore this possibility. And let's not forget money. I happen to know that Weezer, in their heyday were stuck in an awful situation where Rivers got like 99% songwriting and the rest of the band had to share 1% and were forbidden to form/join any side projects that might bring their additional "songwriting" talents into the light. It was hideous and all designed to keep the other guys as subservient employees. The funny thing is, other bands can do it the complete opposite way and no one will stop them.... Do we wonder why U2 and REM and still together? Of course there's the Stones where it's all Mick and Keith songwriting-wise, but in their case, Bill Wyman/Charlie Watts/Mick Taylor/Ron Wood all receive high accolades especially from Mick and Keith who seem to worship the ground they walk on, which goes a long way!..... Like I said, it's all in how each team plays it.... Mike "riffing" at the end of WIBN: is that songwriting??? Perhaps. Is it contributing? Most certainly! But who determines is this contribution qualifies as "songwriting? Well, in this case is was Murray and Mike. So, MIke disagrees and a jury agrees with him! We're talking about the law protecting songwriters, right? Well, here's a prime example

[BillA]

Mike is unpleasant because:

1. He spent an awful lot of time inflating his influence on the Beach Boys.  Dare we forget this gem:

http://earcandy_mag.tripod.com/mikelovebio.htm

The most offending lines:
" In 1974 Mike Love's concept album Endless Summer ignited a second generation of Beach Boys fans and stirred a comeback that rocked the music world."

and

" Love's role as the band's front man sometimes overshadows his stature as one of rock's foremost songwriters. "Surfin'," The Beach Boys' first hit came from his pen. With his cousin, Brian Wilson, Love wrote the classics "Fun, Fun, Fun," "I Get Around," "Help Me Rhonda," "California Girls" and "Good Vibrations." Years later, he showed he still had the lyrical chops by co-writing the irresistible and chart-topping "Kokomo."
2. "Brian is Back" - This just seems to have Mike's fingerprints all over it.  This hurt both Brian and the Beach Boys.  From 1976-1978 whatever creative critical cachet the Beach Boys had was shattered.  The Beach Boys were a better band without Brian on stage and after he creatively stepped away they made better music by relying on the other members of the band for the bulk of material with Brian contributing one or two killer tracks.  To me 'Surf's Up' is the ideal post Brian record.  'Til I Die' is worth 100 'MIU's', '15 Big Ones" and "Love You's"  
3. Mike believes he knows what is commercial and not commercial, however, save "Kokomo" (which I chalk up to the "even I blind Squirrel will occasionally find a nut" therom), he has been wrong for the 40 + years since GV.  He never understood that it is creepy for a man over 35 to write lyrics that sound like they were written by a 17 year old.
4. He brags about his impact on the Beach Boys and yet for the songs that he sang lead and and/or wrote lyrics the lead vocals and lyrics are typically the least interesting parts of the song (think 'California Girls').  I am of the view that the only memorable lead by Mike was 'All I Wanna Do'.

[Dr. Tim]

On the other point, when a guy has a court-appointed conservator- because he is regarded as legally incompetent or irresponsible on some level, I would guess- wouldn't someone else have his power of attorney?  I don't think they'd be disbarred for exercising it.  But that sounds like a Dr. Tim question.

And the Dr. Tim answer:
It depends.

Seriously, the order appointing the conservator would say how much power s/he would have, and for how long.  As for power of attorney, they can be general or limited, can cover everything or just specific items, or have a fixed duration.  No one is liable for exercising a valid power of attorney badly - a lot of leeway is given so long as the person is acting in good faith.  Mistakes are allowed.  The food fight begins when the principal or those around him think the person with the POA is acting for themselves, or recklessly.  For a modern example, see the Britney Spears situation right now.  

[Andrew G. Doe]

2. "Brian is Back" - This just seems to have Mike's fingerprints all over it.  

You're half-right - it was a Love concept... but that Love was Steve, not Mike. Of late, he's conceded it wasn't such a great idea.

[carlydenise]

 I am sure he was scared to death of all this new style of music the band was gravitating towards.  I actually don't blame him for being concerned and wanting to keep the band on its formula; he had house payments, alimony, child support, paternity suits, cars, and a lifestyle that he had to pay for.  Pumping gas was not going to pay for all this, and that was pretty much the extent of his work experience before the fame.

My problem I have with him is his obsession with lawsuits, power and divide and conquer attitude.  And his RR Hall of Fame Speech.  And Student Demonstration Time.  And the turban and the shiny gold suit period.  And his solo albums. And bringing Steve into the band's circle.   

I saw the Mike and Bruce BB's a couple of summers ago in NM, and they did a wonderful job, Mike was vintage frontman, just didn't dance around like he used to     but they did a great job with the music.

[adamghost]

Interesting... And this, I guess, is why bands like R.E.M. decided early on that all songs would be credited to all members of the band, no matter what. That really only works if all members are roughly equal in terms of what they contribute. But I think agreements like that are made to avoid problems like this.

REM is a great example. Buck, Mills and Berry are multi-intrumentalists who compose and Stipe wrote the melodies and lyrics, so your point about all members being equal is spot on.

It makes all the difference in the world, because if everyone's sharing in the songwriting royalties but there are one or two members that aren't contributing to the songwriting on a near-equal basis, it's going to cause just as much tension as doing it any other way.  R.E.M. and the Doors -- correct me if I'm wrong -- are both bands that did a lot of songwriting in the rehearsal room, where it can be hard to tease out who did what.  In cases like that, yeah, a group credit can be the best way to go.  But if I was a primary songwriter in a band and had to share credit with three other guys that weren't contributing nearly as much as I was, unless that was something I did voluntarily, it would piss me off.

[adamghost]

Re:  Erik's post, just a couple of things.  True, what constitutes songwriting and not arranging is a grey area, but there are some guidelines that people generally adhere to.  For the sake of argument, let's say it's more than one line of verse, and more than a riff or a suggestion of a chord.  The part I contributed to "Pop Tarte" was a chord sequence that only happened once in the song.  You could argue that warrants a credit, but since Mike Randle wrote 99.5% percent of the song and he didn't HAVE to use my little bit -- it wasn't really key to the song -- I don't think it does.

The example you bring up, Erik, is an interesting point:  OK, if you took the songs and changed them around, added a bridge, I can see how that would warrant a songwriting credit...however, you also took a completed song that someone else wrote, made a bunch of changes unilaterally based on your own personal perception of what was needed, then presented it to the band.  If I was the songwriter, I might be miffed because I never asked you to do it, even if your changes were artistically right.  So yeah, on the one hand perhaps it's unfair if the songwriter "chooses" who writes the song and who doesn't, but on the other, you made a unilateral choice to change the song on your own based on your own artistic perceptions that may or not have been necessary.  He/she brought it in with the expectation that it was their song that the band was going to work on, and you took it and ran with it in another direction.  So we're clear, I'm not saying you were right or wrong; I think you may well have been artistically right.  I'm saying there's more than one way to look at that scenario.  At that point who gets a credit really does come down to a lot of factors that may have nothing to do with artistic merit.

I do think that if a songwriter brings in a song that's essentially complete and a bandmember makes a change or two to make the song scan better, that shouldn't necessarily constitute a songwriter credit, if for nothing else than a matter of courtesy to the songwriter, who's come in to the session with a song that they think works, brought it to the musicians for help, and there's a certain expectation (at least in my opinion) that the musicians are there not just to execute parts but to offer musical ideas without an expectation that they're automatically going to be cut in to the songwriting.  I've worked with other artists and made changes to their songs that definitely could have warranted a songwriting credit, but I didn't ask for one, because they were changes I made based on my own idea of what would make the song better.  I did it voluntarily and as a team player.  Under those circumstances I would have considered it rude to ask for a credit.  Now, if someone had brought in half a song and asked me to finish it up for them, that would be a totally different ball of wax. 

Yeah, I do think it should be the songwriter's call in that case, because the songwriter is the one who brings in the song and he/she doesn't HAVE to have this or that musician on the track (e.g., if I'm going to bring a musician to play in on one of my songs, I would hope they're not going to demand a credit for any incidental change they might make -- or else that's going to make me not want to bring in outside players at all, or allow outside input).  If the same bandmember was in at the inception and had a particular riff or idea that then became the basis of the song, then I think in most cases that would warrant a credit, though to me just suggesting a song title does not clear the bar, i.e. Jon Braun suggested I write a song on my new album called "A.M. Gold," which I immediately did, words and lyrics, but I didn't give Jon credit, nor do I think he expected one, because all he contributed was the title.

[Shady]

2. "Brian is Back" - This just seems to have Mike's fingerprints all over it.  

You're half-right - it was a Love concept... but that Love was Steve, not Mike. Of late, he's conceded it wasn't such a great idea.

LMAO, Maybe he sat down and watched the concert footage 

[KokoMoses]

Re:  Erik's post, just a couple of things.  True, what constitutes songwriting and not arranging is a grey area, but there are some guidelines that people generally adhere to.  For the sake of argument, let's say it's more than one line of verse, and more than a riff or a suggestion of a chord.  The part I contributed to "Pop Tarte" was a chord sequence that only happened once in the song.  You could argue that warrants a credit, but since Mike Randle wrote 99.5% percent of the song and he didn't HAVE to use my little bit -- it wasn't really key to the song -- I don't think it does.

The example you bring up, Erik, is an interesting point:  OK, if you took the songs and changed them around, added a bridge, I can see how that would warrant a songwriting credit...however, you also took a completed song that someone else wrote, made a bunch of changes unilaterally based on your own personal perception of what was needed, then presented it to the band.  If I was the songwriter, I might be miffed because I never asked you to do it, even if your changes were artistically right.  So yeah, on the one hand perhaps it's unfair if the songwriter "chooses" who writes the song and who doesn't, but on the other, you made a unilateral choice to change the song on your own based on your own artistic perceptions that may or not have been necessary.  He/she brought it in with the expectation that it was their song that the band was going to work on, and you took it and ran with it in another direction.  So we're clear, I'm not saying you were right or wrong; I think you may well have been artistically right.  I'm saying there's more than one way to look at that scenario.  At that point who gets a credit really does come down to a lot of factors that may have nothing to do with artistic merit.

I do think that if a songwriter brings in a song that's essentially complete and a bandmember makes a change or two to make the song scan better, that shouldn't necessarily constitute a songwriter credit, if for nothing else than a matter of courtesy to the songwriter, who's come in to the session with a song that they think works, brought it to the musicians for help, and there's a certain expectation (at least in my opinion) that the musicians are there not just to execute parts but to offer musical ideas without an expectation that they're automatically going to be cut in to the songwriting.  I've worked with other artists and made changes to their songs that definitely could have warranted a songwriting credit, but I didn't ask for one, because they were changes I made based on my own idea of what would make the song better.  I did it voluntarily and as a team player.  Under those circumstances I would have considered it rude to ask for a credit.  Now, if someone had brought in half a song and asked me to finish it up for them, that would be a totally different ball of wax. 

Yeah, I do think it should be the songwriter's call in that case, because the songwriter is the one who brings in the song and he/she doesn't HAVE to have this or that musician on the track (e.g., if I'm going to bring a musician to play in on one of my songs, I would hope they're not going to demand a credit for any incidental change they might make -- or else that's going to make me not want to bring in outside players at all, or allow outside input).  If the same bandmember was in at the inception and had a particular riff or idea that then became the basis of the song, then I think in most cases that would warrant a credit, though to me just suggesting a song title does not clear the bar, i.e. Jon Braun suggested I write a song on my new album called "A.M. Gold," which I immediately did, words and lyrics, but I didn't give Jon credit, nor do I think he expected one, because all he contributed was the title.

Spot on Adam, And thank you for responding in a mature way to a post, that reading again, comes off as a bit bitchey to me! My fault!

In my case: the example I brought up, the whole situation was chaos and something needed to be done. My input on the songs was enouraged accepted and embraced, and I wasn't even asking for or expecting a songwriting credit! Therefore, I was pleased and suprised when the full band recieved an arragement credit.

Looking at and discussing such a gray area can quickly become a maze upon a maze upon mazes. Its itreresting to see (in the case of Mike and WIBN) how a jury breaks it all down in a court of law.

[bgas]

Looking at and discussing such a gray area can quickly become a maze upon a maze upon mazes. Its itreresting to see (in the case of Mike and WIBN) how a jury breaks it all down in a court of law.

This is the part that interests me. Oh to have been a fly on the wall in the deliberation room!
 I'd like to know how the jury decided that 5 words were worth a writing credit.
maybe  somebody could trace the jurors and get some memories from them.
Oh, if only I was rich, with nothing better to do, and lived in LA....

[MBE]

Maybe this doesn't make a difference but I vaugely remember reading that  Mike might came up with the prominent "bow ba ba bow" back up on "Wouldn't It Be Nice". I'm not sure if I am misremembering or not. Even if Mike didn't do much on the song it still seems that he did have a lot to do with the majority of tracks he got credit for. It was Brian's sound and vocal arrangments that made the Beach Boys excell, but Mike did add to their commercial appeal. I've even heard Dennis in a radio interview (I think it's the one where he's getting a haircut) speak of how Mike was the bands lyrics man. In fact he explains that as being the reason Mike didn't understand Smile.

Look I think basically every other lawsuit Mike has had with his bandmates (the Smile one particularly) were petty, but he deserves those co-credits and place in Beach Boys history. Frankly I don't care if he's kind or if he's a jerk, it doesn't make me like his creative input any more or less. I like Phil Spector's music, I love Ike Turner's music, it just doesn't matter that much to me when I play music what the people were really like off stage or outside the studio. I mean with the Beach Boys the crazyness spilled onto stage and into the studio, but still I'm able to divorce myself from that and either like or dislike any given piece of music they did. Sure their lives are interesting but that doesn't really make a difference when it comes down to how good they were in their prime.

[Sound of Free]

I think Mike can be an a-hole a lot of the time, but I have to side more with him on the songwriting issue. If I were Mike, the thing that would really bother me was that whenever anyone else wrote with Brian (Usher, Christian, Asher, Parks), they got credited, but Mike didn't. And if he did write lyrics to Dance, Dance, Dance, it had to be particularly hard to see Carl get credit for the guitar riff but Mike not get credit for the lyrics.

I also think (maybe I'm underestimating Mike's greed) that if he had gotten the credit he deserved on a lot of the songs, he wouldn't have pushed for it for his five words on WIBN. There should be been a system, where some songs, like California Girls, would be "Music by Brian Wllson, lyrics by Mike Love"  and a 50-50 split. A lot of the songs in dispute should have been "Music by Brian Wllson, lyrics by Brian Wilson and Mike Love" for a 75-25 split.

Brian was the one who first admitted to an audience in 1986 that Brian wrote the lyrics to California Girls. Yet in the seven years until Mike got him into the courtroom, he never gave him credit/money.

[Sheriff John Stone]

If I were Mike, the thing that would really bother me was that whenever anyone else wrote with Brian (Usher, Christian, Asher, Parks), they got credited, but Mike didn't.

Yes, and don't forget Reily, Almer, and Roger McGuinn - ding, dang, dingin' a ding-dong!  Reggie Dunbar anyone? 

[Cam Mott]

While we are hashing it out, and I may be way off base and totally wrong, but something else that bothers me about the credit affair is:

1. The fan notion that Brian couldn't stand up for himself, yet we want to believe he had all of these people and suits doing his bidding and I don't mean that in bad ways but in one-of-the-most-capable-and-extraordinary-young-men-in-America ways. [In the 1962-66 period covered by this suit, I should have added] Even that 8 page draft shows that Murry didn't have any real control over Brian or the rest doesn't it?

2. Who would profit from this supposed songwriting credit tampering? Wouldn't the publisher's cut be separate from the songwriter's cut and remain the same regardless of who, or how many, was credited with the songwriting? In other words, there would be no economic advantage to the publisher for adding or subtracting the numbers of songwriters on the paperwork but there would be an advantage/disadvantage for the songwriters. Or do I have that wrong? I'd be interested to hear from those who actually know about this sort thing.

Prepared to be humiliated, humble pie baking.

[A Million Units In Jan!]

Shouldn't we be more bothered by those who continually perpetuate these 'facts' about Mike, then who actually started them? Because there are a fair share of people out there who still bash Mike at every turn.

[adamghost]

I think Mike can be an a-hole a lot of the time, but I have to side more with him on the songwriting issue. If I were Mike, the thing that would really bother me was that whenever anyone else wrote with Brian (Usher, Christian, Asher, Parks), they got credited, but Mike didn't. And if he did write lyrics to Dance, Dance, Dance, it had to be particularly hard to see Carl get credit for the guitar riff but Mike not get credit for the lyrics.

I think that's a fair statement, but it also calls to mind something Tony Asher said:  "If Mike deserves a credit for 'Wouldn't It Be Nice' then I deserve a credit for the [retained] first two lines of 'Good Vibrations'."  Which to me is spot on. The "bow bow bow" part if I recall correctly is just a repetition of a melody line that was already on the track.

I hope everybody registers that I think the fact that Mike Love did not get credit on "California Girls" (and, if it's true he wrote the lyrics, "Dance Dance Dance") is indefensible.  It just shouldn't justify claiming credit for every song he ever contributed one line to.  That's just how I feel.  I do understand, though, the logic behind claiming every last thing you can in a lawsuit.  That's just how it's done when you go into a court case.

[the captain]

Part of the issue of credits is, in my opinion, that there isn't really a clearly and universally understood rulebook. Writer, arranger, producer, musician ... the words seem to have obvious meanings, but in real-world applications...when things are going well, nobody cares or has issues one way or the other, but when it goes wrong, it goes wrong.

[Sheriff John Stone]

I do understand, though, the logic behind claiming every last thing you can in a lawsuit.  That's just how it's done when you go into a court case.

Excellent point, adamghost, in mentioning the LOGIC behind the lawsuit. I am glad that you made that observation, because most people on this board tend to agree with what you say.

In my opinion, "claiming every last thing you can in a lawsuit" is THE major issue in this debate, and I mentioned that issue in a prior post. When one employs the services of a high-priced attorney in a multi-million dollar lawsuit, one should expect that attorney to do every thing within the law to represent that client. I would EXPECT that attorney to ask his client, in this case Mike Love, to "tell me every contribution you made to every song you worked on with Brian Wilson." I do not think it is unreasonable or illegal to then mention (in testimony or deposition) the attorney's findings to a judge or jury. It is then up to the judge or jury to rule, not Mike Love. And, obviously, they ruled in Mike's favor on "Wouldn't It Be Nice".

As I have already mentioned ad nauseum, I wonder how many Mike Love bashers would've done the same thing if faced with the same circumstances. From reading your previous posts, adamghost, you would not have.

[adamghost]

Nope, I wouldn't.  In fact, if it was me, I would consider that trying to claim credit for songs I had very marginal contributions to might weaken my overall case...and if you think about it, if Brian hadn't admitted Mike had co-written "California Girls," it's possible that's exactly what would have happened.

[KokoMoses]

I keep coming back to this, but we're all here admitting it's a gray area and that the law protects songwriters and not musicans, but this is a case where someone (Mike) was asked to specify his contributions to numerous songs, and he did so in a court of law and the jury involved decided in his favor. That fact alone should speak a volume or two.

In this specific case, when you take a look at Mike, he had a bit more clout than your average "non-contributing-songwriting-wise", drummer or bass player. He was a founding member of the band, had admittedly written the lyrics to several songs, so there was never any question of his ability TO write lyrics. And if you can write lyrics, chances are, you're coming up with a vocal melody or two. So, maybe Mike's a bastard, but I'll bet if more "lower down the food chain" musicians, singers etc.... were to pursue their cases in court.... it would be interesting to see the results. Just because it hasn't happened often, doesn't mean that in each and every case the process of songwriting should be confined to the basic chords and lyrics. I mean, it used to be all based around the marketed sheet music right? How many situations these days is that an even viable part of the package? We're also talking about records here, not simply songs. There are the chords and lyrics and that someone writes, and then there is the actual record that is produced. And in many many cases, by the time the songs becomes a record, lyrics and chords are changed, as are vocal melodies. But yes, the law protects the songwriter BUT only if the law isn't challenged.... I can say all this, but I still understand that in probably most cases, someone challenging this situation for a songwriting credit wouldn't have a leg to stand on, but this is not every case.... Ron Wood has talked about how if one wants to pursue a songwriting credit in The Stones, they have to do so while the song is being worked on, they have to stand up and ask for credit, and in his case, it has been granted several times. Like I keep saying, it's all in how each team plays it.

[Meade]

Just to add something here, I feel just as Mike has received a lot of ill-feelings, he's also spent a good deal of time in the last few decades exalting himself and depreciating those around him.

Take the Beach Boys bio-pic "An American Family" that Mike supervised the writing of, for example. Every 20 minutes it depicts Mike as not only being the ambitious man in the group, but also as the constant "savior" of the group, as if every good idea they ever had somehow links to him, he takes credit for coming up with so much stuff that it almost becomes a comical element... "well, why not call it Endless Summer?"  "I like that!"  it focuses heavily on the problems of Brian and Dennis and pushes Carl and Al into the background. It makes Brian look gifted but totally incompetent (even at his prime), diminishes the legacy of the songs that Mike's not taking credit for, makes Van Dyke Parks look like a bumbling fool, and totally trashes the recording of Smile without the faintest glimmer of respect given. It's actually a rather sad spectacle.

And then with his opportunistic flip-flopping. After making such a big stink about not doing the "spiritual" kind of thing with the Hang On To Your Ego, and the "acid alliteration" lyrics in '67... just 6 years later he's co-writing songs like "Funky Pretty" and not putting up a stink over Carl's "Feel Flows" and such... included in those songs are even more direct spiritualism and obtuse lyrics than Brian had ever tried to shoot for. All of this combined just makes Mike look like a commercial opportunist who will bend to almost any musical direction so long as it has already proven profitable...which automatically renders the feeling behind it flimsy and fake.

The thing is, two members are dead, and Brian isn't in his right mind to contest this revisionism at this point, so Mike gets away with it. Dennis always seemed like the only member of the group with the guts to stand up to Mike, and in his lifetime was not shy about his own feelings towards him just as Mike continues to be likewise. It's sad that now Mike more than any other controls how their legacy is promoted, but the way things turned out just gives him more ability to say "See, I'm not dead or messed up in the head. I was right all along. This is what the Beach Boys are."

And to add, just because Donovan claims he came up with the "sea of green" line in Yellow Submarine, you don't see him going to court for ownership of the song.

[ESQ Editor]

A lot of subjective speculation taking place on this subject.

I'm amazed at the level of attention it has brought, which basically points to one truth: Mike Love continues to be a significant contributor to the Beach Boys history. How else would you explain 13 pages on the subject? I'll go on record and say that I think Mike is a great performer and brings a positive fun-seeking attitude to the current shows. Considering all that he's been through in the group (along with all the others) he could be a lot more jilted than he is.

[bgas]

A lot of subjective speculation taking place on this subject.

I'm amazed at the level of attention it has brought, which basically points to one truth: Mike Love continues to be a significant contributor to the Beach Boys history. How else would you explain 13 pages on the subject? I'll go on record and say that I think Mike is a great performer and brings a positive fun-seeking attitude to the current shows. Considering all that he's been through in the group (along with all the others) he could be a lot more jilted than he is.

Or, it could be said that Mike continues to be a significant detractor from/to their history and legacy. Obviously we don't all agree on Mike's place, hence the pages.
Personally, I like him as the performer he is; He did co-write a lot of great songs, no doubt; but he belittles himself by claiming credit for every tiny bit.
 Not certain what you meant by Jilted( to cast aside a lover), unless perhaps you think of the other members of the BBs as his lovers

[BillA]

A lot of subjective speculation taking place on this subject.

I'm amazed at the level of attention it has brought, which basically points to one truth: Mike Love continues to be a significant contributor to the Beach Boys history. How else would you explain 13 pages on the subject? I'll go on record and say that I think Mike is a great performer and brings a positive fun-seeking attitude to the current shows. Considering all that he's been through in the group (along with all the others) he could be a lot more jilted than he is.

Or, it could be said that Mike continues to be a significant detractor from/to their history and legacy. Obviously we don't all agree on Mike's place, hence the pages.
Personally, I like him as the performer he is; He did co-write a lot of great songs, no doubt; but he belittles himself by claiming credit for every tiny bit.
 Not certain what you meant by Jilted( to cast aside a lover), unless perhaps you think of the other members of the BBs as his lovers

The reason why it is thirteen pages is because Mike has proclaimed himself the savoir of the Beach Boys at the expense of the other members.

If any member were to be credited with saving the Beach Boys (following Brian's late 60's withdrawal) it would have to be Carl.  Under his leadership the band remained somewhat commercially viable, critically viable and they became one of the best performing bands in existence. 

It could be argued that the band members (excluding Brian even though "'Til I Die is unbelievably good) did their best work while Carl was at the helm. 

If Carl did not fill the leadership vacuum left by Brian when he did the Beach Boys would have ended in 1970.  If Carl did not lead the touring band there is no way they could have capitalized on the success of "Endless Summer".

Under Mike's leadership the Beach Boys commercial and critical appeal evaporated (although I could point out that from 1976 through 1998 if you take the top 10 recordings six of them were Carl Wilson compositions) and the excellence of the live shows was replaced by spotty quality.