jh055
Grommet
Posts: 34
Likes: 67 
Favorite Album: Sunflower. No, Friends! Um....
|
Post by jh055 on Jan 26, 2019 17:39:09 GMT -5
I agree with a lot of that: you detailed my feelings without telling anyone to fuck off. Kudos.  If this is directed at me, then thank you  SM, really well written post. You captured my feelings re Mike perfectly. And if I can just add, that every time he refers to BW as “my cousin Brian” or the Beatles as his Pisces brothers it feels as though he is trying too hard to capitalize on fortunate associations. And Captain, or Cap’n, thank you for acknowledging possibly sending a wrong message to people here regarding expressing opinions. I know you are a knowledgeable and passionate fan of The Band, and I like reading your thoughts even if I don’t always share your opinions. last, lest anyone think I am just one of the many Mike Love bashers out there, I’m not. I recognize his many fine lyric contributions, and many great vocal contributions, esp bass vocals; they go pretty much unheralded. His lead vocals on Friends through Holland are a high point for him. In my opinion. And, I don’t doubt how difficult it must have been in 1966 to get bumped as Brian’s main collaborator, how could your feelings help but be hurt? But as SM said, Brian’s music evolved past Mike’s lyrics at that point. And as I said in my original post, he tried to hang in there and be a team player through a lot of confusing tough times..Endless summer and Brian’s massive decline changed the landscape irrevocably. |
|
|
|
Post by juicebrohnston on Feb 1, 2019 13:56:22 GMT -5
I think Mike tried to be a “go w the flow” guy through all the more “progressive” music the band was making, (Do it again notwithstanding), but after Holland, and the success of Endless Summer, and the general apathy towards the 67 -73 material, he longed for the glory days again. And it’s hard to blame him. Must have seemed like they were pushing a boulder up a hill, when for 6 or more years they had been producing works that most of us now think of as the greatest period in their history, with little fan appreciation and sales to show for it. I’m as guilty of the next guy for wishing there had been half a dozen more records like Sunflower,Surfs up, and Holland. Still makes me sad that they kinda threw in the towel, especially live, and resigned themselves to playing Help me Rhonda and Surfin USA because that’s what the people responded to. But, as someone else said, Mike is his own worst enemy. The HOF speech, the lawsuits, the continual jabs at the Wilsons as depressed guys with drug problems, and the endless crusade to paint himself as the “positivity” guy in the band don’t help his cause. Ok, there is truth to some of those things, but a good PR person might have phrased things differently, or pointed out the futility of trying to educate the world on what a mess BW was. There is a legend surrounding Brian, he is beloved, and rightly so, despite his problems. last, I think John Lennon was a guy with a lot of issues and was tough to deal with, but Paul McCartney continued to sing his praises for ever after. If you could give him some truth serum, he might have more to say, but he understands how the world feels about John. That last paragraph is really, thought provoking. If Mike would have taken the approach to always praise, defend and promote Brian, he would definitely be perceived differently, no doubt. Great point about 'understanding how the world feels'. Now Mike just doesn't have the personality to have pulled that off. And the familial relationship probably made it tough- there was always competitiveness there, I am sure, and also the fact that their lives started with an unbalanced 'socio-economic' hierarchy between the Love and Wilson families. It probably made Mike start off feeling a bit superior, and it would be tough to turn that around. |
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2019 14:49:19 GMT -5
I think Mike tried to be a “go w the flow” guy through all the more “progressive” music the band was making, (Do it again notwithstanding), but after Holland, and the success of Endless Summer, and the general apathy towards the 67 -73 material, he longed for the glory days again. And it’s hard to blame him. Must have seemed like they were pushing a boulder up a hill, when for 6 or more years they had been producing works that most of us now think of as the greatest period in their history, with little fan appreciation and sales to show for it. I’m as guilty of the next guy for wishing there had been half a dozen more records like Sunflower,Surfs up, and Holland. Still makes me sad that they kinda threw in the towel, especially live, and resigned themselves to playing Help me Rhonda and Surfin USA because that’s what the people responded to. But, as someone else said, Mike is his own worst enemy. The HOF speech, the lawsuits, the continual jabs at the Wilsons as depressed guys with drug problems, and the endless crusade to paint himself as the “positivity” guy in the band don’t help his cause. Ok, there is truth to some of those things, but a good PR person might have phrased things differently, or pointed out the futility of trying to educate the world on what a mess BW was. There is a legend surrounding Brian, he is beloved, and rightly so, despite his problems. last, I think John Lennon was a guy with a lot of issues and was tough to deal with, but Paul McCartney continued to sing his praises for ever after. If you could give him some truth serum, he might have more to say, but he understands how the world feels about John. That last paragraph is really, thought provoking. If Mike would have taken the approach to always praise, defend and promote Brian, he would definitely be perceived differently, no doubt. The ironic or sad thing is that Mike used to be that way. Mike used to kiss Brian's ass just like everybody else and go out of his way to praise Brian in any way he could. Did you ever see or listen to those early "Brian Is Back" concerts in 1976 and 1977? Mike used to constantly refer to or introduce Brian as "the musical sage of the age" or "the reason we're here tonight, musically", and "the writer of this next song, another classic from Brian". In print interviews he would refer to Brian as a "musical genius" and "the best songwriter in the business". Mike couldn't say enough good things about Brian and I believe, again, that even though he was sucking up to Brian, he also was sincere with his praise.
And then things changed. Whether it was Landy or Melinda or Brian himself, someone or something kept Brian from working with Mike and it is haunting Mike. I believe more than anything - ANYTHING - that Mike wanted to continue to write with Brian and try to churn out hit records and timeless songs like the past. Mike always believed in the B. Wilson/M. Love songwriting partnership, and when he lost it, it made him a bitter man. I believe that Mike thought they would eventually get back together and time was on his side. That's when Mike was 40. Now he's pushing 80. Sadly, instead of internalizing his feelings, he is lashing out in interviews. Some of the things he says might be the truth, but also, some things are better left unsaid.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Feb 1, 2019 15:14:39 GMT -5
Mostly well said. The one thing I'd quibble with--or maybe even comment on more than quibble with--is that in Mike's praise, I always infer a certain amount of ... I don't know, fakeness? Condescension? There's something about him going back decades where it seems he just can't give a compliment with a straight face and let it lie, or let someone else enjoy the spotlight on his own. I think back to things like the Knebworth show where he concludes "Lady Lynda" by singing in a cartoonish voice, Al Jar-diiiine" or interrupts the end of "Darlin'," I think it is, with "how 'bout that Carl Wilson?" Or even the annoying little joke that kicks off "Wouldn't It Be Nice?" with "the name of this song is..."
I feel that the tone is similar in many of his interviews. Like there's a butting in, or a wink, or a hamming it up. If it's "Brian is the greatest," it's inevitably followed with "but he almost killed himself with drugs" or "but I co-wrote those songs," or something similar. It's hard to be charitable toward him because of that, I think. (However, it's probably the kind of ego that helps him be a successful frontman, promoter, etc.)
|
|
|
|
Post by kds on Feb 1, 2019 15:18:47 GMT -5
That last paragraph is really, thought provoking. If Mike would have taken the approach to always praise, defend and promote Brian, he would definitely be perceived differently, no doubt. The ironic or sad thing is that Mike used to be that way. Mike used to kiss Brian's ass just like everybody else and go out of his way to praise Brian in any way he could. Did you ever see or listen to those early "Brian Is Back" concerts in 1976 and 1977? Mike used to constantly refer to or introduce Brian as "the musical sage of the age" or "the reason we're here tonight, musically", and "the writer of this next song, another classic from Brian". In print interviews he would refer to Brian as a "musical genius" and "the best songwriter in the business". Mike couldn't say enough good things about Brian and I believe, again, that even though he was sucking up to Brian, he also was sincere with his praise.
And then things changed. Whether it was Landy or Melinda or Brian himself, someone or something kept Brian from working with Mike and it is haunting Mike. I believe more than anything - ANYTHING - that Mike wanted to continue to write with Brian and try to churn out hit records and timeless songs like the past. Mike always believed in the B. Wilson/M. Love songwriting partnership, and when he lost it, it made him a bitter man. I believe that Mike thought they would eventually get back together and time was on his side. That's when Mike was 40. Now he's pushing 80. Sadly, instead of internalizing his feelings, he is lashing out in interviews. Some of the things he says might be the truth, but also, some things are better left unsaid.
Actually, there have been times in recently interviews where I feel like Mike is biting his tongue a little bit. In that case, he probably shouldn't imply anything. |
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2019 15:55:15 GMT -5
Mostly well said. The one thing I'd quibble with--or maybe even comment on more than quibble with--is that in Mike's praise, I always infer a certain amount of ... I don't know, fakeness? Condescension? There's something about him going back decades where it seems he just can't give a compliment with a straight face and let it lie, or let someone else enjoy the spotlight on his own. I think back to things like the Knebworth show where he concludes "Lady Lynda" by singing in a cartoonish voice, Al Jar-diiiine" or interrupts the end of "Darlin'," I think it is, with "how 'bout that Carl Wilson?" Or even the annoying little joke that kicks off "Wouldn't It Be Nice?" with "the name of this song is..."
I feel that the tone is similar in many of his interviews. Like there's a butting in, or a wink, or a hamming it up. If it's "Brian is the greatest," it's inevitably followed with "but he almost killed himself with drugs" or "but I co-wrote those songs," or something similar. It's hard to be charitable toward him because of that, I think. (However, it's probably the kind of ego that helps him be a successful frontman, promoter, etc.)
I don't know if I saw a lot of Mike's fakeness or condescending tone in the past (60's/70's/early 80's), but recently? Yes, most definitely. I think up to the early 1980's, Mike was all in and could/would be the team player. I think he tried his best to accept his role, even when it was diminished, and truly appreciated the talents of his bandmates. I mean, he was writing lyrics for and singing Dennis Wilson compositions! I think he truly valued the band that was Brian, Carl, Dennis, Mike, Al, and Bruce, and he would defend and praise that band and individuals at the drop of a hat.
Then things started to go crazy and I think it eventually got to Mike. Instead of emphasizing the positives he was quick to add some negatives. Instead of praising his bandmates unconditionally, he started to nitpick and criticize, or as The Cap'n pointed out, you could feel it in his tone or a wink or a gesture. What bothers me over the recent years is how Mike measures his praise of Brian. Mike would say in interviews how "Brian came up with these great harmonies and vocal arrangements" and would leave it at that, like that was Brian's ONLY contribution to the song. Never mind that Brian wrote the music, arranged it, produced the record, probably played an instrument on it, and contributed to the lead and background vocals! Mike seemed to forget about that or conveniently left all of that out.
I really think it all eventually got to Mike - the drugs, the deaths, the bickering, Dr. Landy, Brian releasing one subpar solo album after another, the outsiders' interference, and this recent "Melinda thing". Is Mike completely innocent in all of this? Hell no. In some ways he made his own bed and now he has to sleep in it. But he's had enough, he's one of the last Beach Boys standing, literally, and he's gonna speak his mind, for good or for bad. |
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2019 14:55:53 GMT -5
Mostly well said. The one thing I'd quibble with--or maybe even comment on more than quibble with--is that in Mike's praise, I always infer a certain amount of ... I don't know, fakeness? Condescension? There's something about him going back decades where it seems he just can't give a compliment with a straight face and let it lie, or let someone else enjoy the spotlight on his own. I think back to things like the Knebworth show where he concludes "Lady Lynda" by singing in a cartoonish voice, Al Jar-diiiine" or interrupts the end of "Darlin'," I think it is, with "how 'bout that Carl Wilson?" Or even the annoying little joke that kicks off "Wouldn't It Be Nice?" with "the name of this song is..."
I feel that the tone is similar in many of his interviews. Like there's a butting in, or a wink, or a hamming it up. If it's "Brian is the greatest," it's inevitably followed with "but he almost killed himself with drugs" or "but I co-wrote those songs," or something similar. It's hard to be charitable toward him because of that, I think. (However, it's probably the kind of ego that helps him be a successful frontman, promoter, etc.)
Agreed. I think Sheriff is correct that Mike is a bitter man, but I personally think it was there long before Landy or Melinda. Id just be speculating but I always thought he was jealous of the praise Brian got--that he wasn't seen as his cousin's equal the same way Lennon and McCartney are. The song credits debacle certainly didn't help. But also I think maybe he might resent Brian a bit for coming apart around SMiLE--that whole thing killed their careers for awhile and I wonder if Mike maybe blames Brian for all that. Maybe he resents how Brian was still beloved after "blowing it" while in Mike's mind he went and busted his ass on stage every night and got no love for it. Im just speculating, but it's not too big of a stretch especially considering mental health, and the extent of Brian's condition specifically, weren't that well understood back then. |
|
|
|
Post by Cam Mott on Feb 4, 2019 15:12:26 GMT -5
Mike has gotten more vocal about his due since Brian's suit against Irving imo. He pretty much lumped it before then it seems to me, could be wrong. The impression I get from Mike's autobio is he had his eyes opened to the extent of what he had to be bitter about in the discovery for his case against Brian over breach of agreement with Mike for Wilson v. Irving. I think maybe C50 felt like a personal affront too that put the pedal to the metal even more. JMO. Mike could exercise more tact sure, who couldn't.
But even opining that I think his supposed bitterness is often more fan manufactured than real and overblown. Especially claims of Mike attempting to take too much credit, as far as I can remember Mike is usually very specific about what is his creation and what is someone else's. Take a song like Please Let Me Wonder, as far as I know Mike has only claimed to write the verses and I believe it is the only song on the album which at the time got Mike credit. Did Mike take/get too much credit for the song? I don't know what the split was for the song, does anyone? I believe Mike didn't get full 50% credit for songs he co-authored, often just 25% including GV, until the Wild Honey album. Anyone have the actual numbers on that? Anyways, if I'm not mistaken, it seems awfully hard to get too much credit while you are systematically under-credited or un-credited. Corrections and clarifications welcome.
They will always have "good night, sleep tight", the equivalent of "Hillary's e-mails"..
|
|
|
|
Post by Vale on Feb 5, 2019 10:17:52 GMT -5
I always saw Mike as an emblem of The Beach Boys, I immediately associate to him surf / cars / girls / fun / sunshine songs; Brian was the spiritual / emotional side instead.
I think Mike was born to be a frontman, he looks so confident. I saw him a couple of times, in 2004 and the C50 in 2012 and I was really impressed of him, a true stage animal for 2:30hrs circa, I really enjoyed.
|
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Feb 6, 2019 10:47:11 GMT -5
Mostly well said. The one thing I'd quibble with--or maybe even comment on more than quibble with--is that in Mike's praise, I always infer a certain amount of ... I don't know, fakeness? Condescension? There's something about him going back decades where it seems he just can't give a compliment with a straight face and let it lie, or let someone else enjoy the spotlight on his own. I think back to things like the Knebworth show where he concludes "Lady Lynda" by singing in a cartoonish voice, Al Jar-diiiine" or interrupts the end of "Darlin'," I think it is, with "how 'bout that Carl Wilson?" Or even the annoying little joke that kicks off "Wouldn't It Be Nice?" with "the name of this song is..."
I feel that the tone is similar in many of his interviews. Like there's a butting in, or a wink, or a hamming it up. If it's "Brian is the greatest," it's inevitably followed with "but he almost killed himself with drugs" or "but I co-wrote those songs," or something similar. It's hard to be charitable toward him because of that, I think. (However, it's probably the kind of ego that helps him be a successful frontman, promoter, etc.)
I don't know if I saw a lot of Mike's fakeness or condescending tone in the past (60's/70's/early 80's), but recently? Yes, most definitely. I think up to the early 1980's, Mike was all in and could/would be the team player. I think he tried his best to accept his role, even when it was diminished, and truly appreciated the talents of his bandmates. I mean, he was writing lyrics for and singing Dennis Wilson compositions! I think he truly valued the band that was Brian, Carl, Dennis, Mike, Al, and Bruce, and he would defend and praise that band and individuals at the drop of a hat.
Then things started to go crazy and I think it eventually got to Mike. Instead of emphasizing the positives he was quick to add some negatives. Instead of praising his bandmates unconditionally, he started to nitpick and criticize, or as The Cap'n pointed out, you could feel it in his tone or a wink or a gesture. What bothers me over the recent years is how Mike measures his praise of Brian. Mike would say in interviews how "Brian came up with these great harmonies and vocal arrangements" and would leave it at that, like that was Brian's ONLY contribution to the song. Never mind that Brian wrote the music, arranged it, produced the record, probably played an instrument on it, and contributed to the lead and background vocals! Mike seemed to forget about that or conveniently left all of that out.
I really think it all eventually got to Mike - the drugs, the deaths, the bickering, Dr. Landy, Brian releasing one subpar solo album after another, the outsiders' interference, and this recent "Melinda thing". Is Mike completely innocent in all of this? Hell no. In some ways he made his own bed and now he has to sleep in it. But he's had enough, he's one of the last Beach Boys standing, literally, and he's gonna speak his mind, for good or for bad. During the 60’s - I’m looking at only after I started to see them in 1967, Carl was the absolute boss (MD) on stage. Mike did the MC chores and had to keep the show going when someone’s guitar string broke and they had to fix it during the show, but I think there are blurred lines with this whole idea of being condescending. I honestly can say I never saw that. A lot of people who are naturally reserved (never mind a stage persona) are perceived as being condescending or aloof. I don’t see that. I’ve seen him patiently sign autographs after a long and taxing show. When the last note is performed- he is officially off duty, but often accommodates fans. And honestly - Mike should have sued earlier - and it would have cleared the decks and aired the laundry about Murry and his side deal to sell the catalog. Maybe he didn’t to keep the peace. The court found that Mike was not compensated. Was he wrong for asserting a copyright claim? I don’t think so. One suit was pushed by Landy - IIRC when he was looking to be Brian’s sole heir. This is all public information. The LA Times has whatever is out there and it seems the documents are sealed. What goes on in private - is private. There is a certain frustration with drugs and booze - watching someone close to you self-destruct (never mind a member of the business) and there is little you can do. This whole “camps” thing - did not look evident in the Sirius XM photos. An eyewitness at one of the trials posted this...seems he ended up with a “chalk” or item for display in the court trial. www.surfermoon.com/essays/lovevwilson1.html |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Feb 6, 2019 15:16:33 GMT -5
The reunion - People can believe what they want to believe, but it did seem that Mike was in favor of carrying into 2013. Wow. I have got to call bullpucky on this one. Even though I have given my fair share of grief to Mike over the years, I actually am a fan. I think Unleash The Love is kinda good, I enjoy a fair amount of the Celebration material, and shoot, I even own a copy of his and Bruce's Summertime Cruisin' album. However, to say that he seemed like he was in favor of continuing C50 defies all logic. During the tour he was already talking about booking new dates with "his band" and how they might wanna "give it a rest" for a while because he claimed something like, "...bands like the Eagles are having to sell tickets for five dollars cuz of overexposure." Then you had Brian and Al actually come out and say that they wanted to keep the reunion going. Now who was the person who resisted this? Mike Love. Who has been the person who has come up with countless explanations for ending the reunion? Not Brian. Not Al. Only Mike. Depending on the day, it was that Brian didn't write with him, or that Brian didn't write with him in the way he wanted, or it's too expensive to tour this way (even though I'm sure bands of their stature probably have much more expensive costs for touring) or Melinda hooked "autotune" up to the microphones (what?!!), or Joe Thomas is a schyster who wouldn't allow Mike room to do things his way (even though Mike brought Thomas in originally for the Stars and Stripes project), or Melinda is drugging up Brian so he can't run his own life. Or my personal favorite from his book, "He [Brian] wanted the tour to continue, and he said so loudly and often, but you can't change the melody once the score's been written." And why is that Michael? Now my point is not to hash out any of those claims, but it's the fact that Mike had all of these excuses. He obviously had some major point of contention which led him to say that he couldn't do it anymore (i.e. touring with Brian and Al). And I have no problem with that. He's a human being who should be allowed to do what he wants within the law. And last time I checked there's no law saying Mike Love has to tour with Brian Wilson and Al Jardine. However, what does get me is that he basically broke up the real Beach Boys so he could go back on the road with his generic, watered-down "Beach Boys." If Mike left the reunion tour to go solo, or to do a thing as "Mike Love, Bruce Johnston and the Endless Summer Maharishi Bullshit Band" I'd say "right on, dude" but he didn't. For all his reputation as a straight talker, he's bullshitted around this subject going on nearly seven years now. And that to me, is really my only beef with Mike right now (not that anybody cares, nor should they)! |
|
|
|
Post by kds on Feb 6, 2019 15:30:19 GMT -5
The reunion - People can believe what they want to believe, but it did seem that Mike was in favor of carrying into 2013. Wow. I have got to call bullpucky on this one. Even though I have given my fair share of grief to Mike over the years, I actually am a fan. I think Unleash The Love is kinda good, I enjoy a fair amount of the Celebration material, and shoot, I even own a copy of his and Bruce's Summertime Cruisin' album. However, to say that he seemed like he was in favor of continuing C50 defies all logic. During the tour he was already talking about booking new dates with "his band" and how they might wanna "give it a rest" for a while because he claimed something like, "...bands like the Eagles are having to sell tickets for five dollars cuz of overexposure." Then you had Brian and Al actually come out and say that they wanted to keep the reunion going. Now who was the person who resisted this? Mike Love. Who has been the person who has come up with countless explanations for ending the reunion? Not Brian. Not Al. Only Mike. Depending on the day, it was that Brian didn't write with him, or that Brian didn't write with him in the way he wanted, or it's too expensive to tour this way (even though I'm sure bands of their stature probably have much more expensive costs for touring) or Melinda hooked "autotune" up to the microphones (what?!!), or Joe Thomas is a schyster who wouldn't allow Mike room to do things his way (even though Mike brought Thomas in originally for the Stars and Stripes project), or Melinda is drugging up Brian so he can't run his own life. Or my personal favorite from his book, "He [Brian] wanted the tour to continue, and he said so loudly and often, but you can't change the melody once the score's been written." And why is that Michael? Now my point is not to hash out any of those claims, but it's the fact that Mike had all of these excuses. He obviously had some major point of contention which led him to say that he couldn't do it anymore (i.e. touring with Brian and Al). And I have no problem with that. He's a human being who should be allowed to do what he wants within the law. And last time I checked there's no law saying Mike Love has to tour with Brian Wilson and Al Jardine. However, what does get me is that he basically broke up the real Beach Boys so he could go back on the road with his generic, watered-down "Beach Boys." If Mike left the reunion tour to go solo, or to do a thing as "Mike Love, Bruce Johnston and the Endless Summer Maharishi Bullshit Band" I'd say "right on, dude" but he didn't. For all his reputation as a straight talker, he's bullshitted around this subject going on nearly seven years now. And that to me, is really my only beef with Mike right now (not that anybody cares, nor should they)! Like I said, people can believe what they want to believe. But, I don't think Mike, himself, "broke up" the reunion. Frankly, I think it was a situation with a lot of cooks in the kitchen between the five primary members, two full bands, and two strong wife/managers. I think it's very convenient to blame Mike for the fall out, especially after Brian's infamous "I feel like I just got fired" line that was taken to heart by a lot of fans. |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Feb 6, 2019 16:23:59 GMT -5
Like I said, people can believe what they want to believe. But, I don't think Mike, himself, "broke up" the reunion. Frankly, I think it was a situation with a lot of cooks in the kitchen between the five primary members, two full bands, and two strong wife/managers. I think it's very convenient to blame Mike for the fall out, especially after Brian's infamous "I feel like I just got fired" line that was taken to heart by a lot of fans. It's not about people believing what they want to believe though. There are facts. And you said that, "it did seem that Mike was in favor of carrying into 2013." If you make this assertion I assume you either have some facts are at least a well founded reason for why you think this. Because as I pointed out above, what I've read and heard paints a much, much different picture. Also, this isn't about the reasons for C50 ending. I think it comes down to nothing more than both sides wanting their way after years of doing it "their way" and neither wanting to give in a bit. However, this is nothing more than conjecture on my part and I'll admit that. And I doubt there is anybody outside of, say, an Alan Boyd, Joe Thomas, or even a c-man (yes I know this isn't his "field" per se, but I still trust him on BB news). Other researchers and historians may have a view, but I think that it is possible that "access" to one camp or the other may cloud their view of what the actual truth is. And whatever the truth is, it seems like it must have been rancorous enough that the all the guys have only been together once since 2012. |
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Feb 6, 2019 16:37:39 GMT -5
The reunion - People can believe what they want to believe, but it did seem that Mike was in favor of carrying into 2013. Wow. I have got to call bullpucky on this one. Even though I have given my fair share of grief to Mike over the years, I actually am a fan. I think Unleash The Love is kinda good, I enjoy a fair amount of the Celebration material, and shoot, I even own a copy of his and Bruce's Summertime Cruisin' album. However, to say that he seemed like he was in favor of continuing C50 defies all logic. During the tour he was already talking about booking new dates with "his band" and how they might wanna "give it a rest" for a while because he claimed something like, "...bands like the Eagles are having to sell tickets for five dollars cuz of overexposure." Then you had Brian and Al actually come out and say that they wanted to keep the reunion going. Now who was the person who resisted this? Mike Love. Who has been the person who has come up with countless explanations for ending the reunion? Not Brian. Not Al. Only Mike. Depending on the day, it was that Brian didn't write with him, or that Brian didn't write with him in the way he wanted, or it's too expensive to tour this way (even though I'm sure bands of their stature probably have much more expensive costs for touring) or Melinda hooked "autotune" up to the microphones (what?!!), or Joe Thomas is a schyster who wouldn't allow Mike room to do things his way (even though Mike brought Thomas in originally for the Stars and Stripes project), or Melinda is drugging up Brian so he can't run his own life. Or my personal favorite from his book, "He [Brian] wanted the tour to continue, and he said so loudly and often, but you can't change the melody once the score's been written." And why is that Michael? Now my point is not to hash out any of those claims, but it's the fact that Mike had all of these excuse s. He obviously had some major point of contention which led him to say that he couldn't do it anymore (i.e. touring with Brian and Al). And I have no problem with that. He's a human being who should be allowed to do what he wants within the law. And last time I checked there's no law saying Mike Love has to tour with Brian Wilson and Al Jardine. However, what does get me is that he basically broke up the real Beach Boys so he could go back on the road with his generic, watered-down "Beach Boys." If Mike left the reunion tour to go solo, or to do a thing as "Mike Love, Bruce Johnston and the Endless Summer Maharishi Bullshit Band" I'd say "right on, dude" but he didn't. For all his reputation as a straight talker, he's bullshitted around this subject going on nearly seven years now. And that to me, is really my only beef with Mike right now (not that anybody cares, nor should they)! This has been done to death, and there is an interesting and legally succinct post in the land of elsewhere addressing just this point. First, rejecting an offer kills the deal in contract. Second, it has nothing to do with the touring band. This was a separate entity for a special period of time to celebrate an event. Third, the initial deal was for 50 shows and it ended up at 75. There is no such thing as "spin" on rejecting an offer. The deal is over. There is no grace period with a rejection. The rest is just nonsense and myth perpetuation. It is like buying a car. You make an offer and it is rejected - the deal is over. Go back to square one. Stuff happens. Even to great musicians. We all end up going back to the drawing board in life. It looks from the SiriusXM event as though everyone is on good terms. Who knows what may come of that? |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Feb 6, 2019 16:44:45 GMT -5
This has been done to death, and there is an interesting and legally succinct post in the land of elsewhere addressing just this point. First, rejecting an offer kills the deal in contract. Second, it has nothing to do with the touring band. This was a separate entity for a special period of time to celebrate an event. Third, the initial deal was for 50 shows and it ended up at 75. There is no such thing as "spin" on rejecting an offer. The deal is over. There is no grace period with a rejection. The rest is just nonsense and myth perpetuation. It is like buying a car. You make an offer and it is rejected - the deal is over. Go back to square one. Stuff happens. Even to great musicians. We all end up going back to the drawing board in life. It looks from the SiriusXM event as though everyone is on good terms. Who knows what may come of that? I haven't the foggiest notion of what any of this means or what it has to do with anything, but nonetheless thank you for your reply!!  |
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Feb 6, 2019 17:31:54 GMT -5
This has been done to death, and there is an interesting and legally succinct post in the land of elsewhere addressing just this point. First, rejecting an offer kills the deal in contract. Second, it has nothing to do with the touring band. This was a separate entity for a special period of time to celebrate an event. Third, the initial deal was for 50 shows and it ended up at 75. There is no such thing as "spin" on rejecting an offer. The deal is over. There is no grace period with a rejection. The rest is just nonsense and myth perpetuation. It is like buying a car. You make an offer and it is rejected - the deal is over. Go back to square one. Stuff happens. Even to great musicians. We all end up going back to the drawing board in life. It looks from the SiriusXM event as though everyone is on good terms. Who knows what may come of that? I haven't the foggiest notion of what any of this means or what it has to do with anything, but nonetheless thank you for your reply!! When you open the door by raising the issue - be prepared for a rebuttal. Contracts and offers and rejections don't have feelings. You either accept the offer or reject the offer. No feelings involved. I sympathize with the ramifications of those events but once an offer is rejected - it just "goes away." Here is something to get "un-foggy." Or, ask a lawyer. www.upcounsel.com/rejection-in-contract-law |
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2019 20:13:39 GMT -5
The reunion - People can believe what they want to believe, but it did seem that Mike was in favor of carrying into 2013. Wow. I have got to call bullpucky on this one. Even though I have given my fair share of grief to Mike over the years, I actually am a fan. I think Unleash The Love is kinda good, I enjoy a fair amount of the Celebration material, and shoot, I even own a copy of his and Bruce's Summertime Cruisin' album. However, to say that he seemed like he was in favor of continuing C50 defies all logic. During the tour he was already talking about booking new dates with "his band" and how they might wanna "give it a rest" for a while because he claimed something like, "...bands like the Eagles are having to sell tickets for five dollars cuz of overexposure." Then you had Brian and Al actually come out and say that they wanted to keep the reunion going. Now who was the person who resisted this? Mike Love. Who has been the person who has come up with countless explanations for ending the reunion? Not Brian. Not Al. Only Mike. Depending on the day, it was that Brian didn't write with him, or that Brian didn't write with him in the way he wanted, or it's too expensive to tour this way (even though I'm sure bands of their stature probably have much more expensive costs for touring) or Melinda hooked "autotune" up to the microphones (what?!!), or Joe Thomas is a schyster who wouldn't allow Mike room to do things his way (even though Mike brought Thomas in originally for the Stars and Stripes project), or Melinda is drugging up Brian so he can't run his own life. Or my personal favorite from his book, "He [Brian] wanted the tour to continue, and he said so loudly and often, but you can't change the melody once the score's been written." And why is that Michael? Now my point is not to hash out any of those claims, but it's the fact that Mike had all of these excuses. He obviously had some major point of contention which led him to say that he couldn't do it anymore (i.e. touring with Brian and Al). And I have no problem with that. He's a human being who should be allowed to do what he wants within the law. And last time I checked there's no law saying Mike Love has to tour with Brian Wilson and Al Jardine. However, what does get me is that he basically broke up the real Beach Boys so he could go back on the road with his generic, watered-down "Beach Boys." If Mike left the reunion tour to go solo, or to do a thing as "Mike Love, Bruce Johnston and the Endless Summer Maharishi Bullshit Band" I'd say "right on, dude" but he didn't. For all his reputation as a straight talker, he's bullshitted around this subject going on nearly seven years now. And that to me, is really my only beef with Mike right now (not that anybody cares, nor should they)! I believe it was Al who first publicly floated the idea of "The Beach Boys" going out in this configuration the following summer and presumably every summer afterward with Mike taking a vague "we'll explore all offers" stance. It's interesting that the 2012 tour was, based on the official press junket, conceived as a "one final time" deal of "50 shows, 50 years" with the understanding that Mike and Brian would go back to touring in their usual configurations once it was over (presumably Al and David would be left to their own devices). There were rumors of trouble with "the wives" early on and while I'm not sure what Mike means about putting auto-tune on the mics, Brian's vocals had autotune on them on a few of the early shows which elicited a mighty uproar in the fan community (the idea was quietly and quickly dropped). I'm not aware of what legal wrangling went on to amend the original deal to include added shows but at some point this indeed happened. When those commitments were fulfilled, Mike chose to see out the original agreement and went back to touring with his guys under the banner of "The Beach Boys". The hue and cry over this seemed unwarranted to me as we, the audience, had been told from the beginning that the reunion tour was never meant to be permanent. The sense of bewilderment on the parts of Brian and Al came off as disingenuous to me but who knows? Maybe they thought "we'll agree to these terms now but once we get on the road, Mike will have such a good time that he'll willingly give up his own business and enter into a new partnership". I suppose nostalgia and sentimentality come into play here but that's not a good business model, especially when Mike is running a business that he feels comfortable with and suits him (and he clearly does not get along with Melinda so there's that). In a perfect world, the surviving Beach Boys would just burn any and all previously existing licensing agreements in a bonfire and split the business 5 ways, but that was never going to happen. |
|
|
|
Post by kds on Feb 6, 2019 21:53:47 GMT -5
Like I said, people can believe what they want to believe. But, I don't think Mike, himself, "broke up" the reunion. Frankly, I think it was a situation with a lot of cooks in the kitchen between the five primary members, two full bands, and two strong wife/managers. I think it's very convenient to blame Mike for the fall out, especially after Brian's infamous "I feel like I just got fired" line that was taken to heart by a lot of fans. It's not about people believing what they want to believe though. There are facts. And you said that, "it did seem that Mike was in favor of carrying into 2013." If you make this assertion I assume you either have some facts are at least a well founded reason for why you think this. Because as I pointed out above, what I've read and heard paints a much, much different picture. Also, this isn't about the reasons for C50 ending. I think it comes down to nothing more than both sides wanting their way after years of doing it "their way" and neither wanting to give in a bit. However, this is nothing more than conjecture on my part and I'll admit that. And I doubt there is anybody outside of, say, an Alan Boyd, Joe Thomas, or even a c-man (yes I know this isn't his "field" per se, but I still trust him on BB news). Other researchers and historians may have a view, but I think that it is possible that "access" to one camp or the other may cloud their view of what the actual truth is. And whatever the truth is, it seems like it must have been rancorous enough that the all the guys have only been together once since 2012. Mike has said that there were offers for further shows which were shot down by the "No more shows for Wilson" email. In all honesty, seven years after the fact, neither are getting any younger, and both bands play small venues compared to the C50 shows from 2012. No, the split doesn't really do either any favors. But, I don't believe for one second that if Brian Wilson, or his camp, really wanted to be a Beach Boy again that it wouldn't happen. |
|
|
|
Post by Cam Mott on Feb 6, 2019 23:45:12 GMT -5
Brian's camp ended the extension of the 2012 tour but I think Brian and Mike have to share the blame for there not being a 2013 extension of touring. Both said they assumed they would discuss the 2013 offers after the C50 ended, well the C50 ended but I've not seen any hint they ever discussed the 2013 offers. I have seen it suggested that the clusterfuck around the ending of C50 caused those extending those 2013 offers (more like talk of offers, not in writing even apparently) to withdraw them, so maybe that is why.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Feb 7, 2019 0:07:07 GMT -5
I haven't the foggiest notion of what any of this means or what it has to do with anything, but nonetheless thank you for your reply!! When you open the door by raising the issue - be prepared for a rebuttal. Contracts and offers and rejections don't have feelings. You either accept the offer or reject the offer. No feelings involved. I sympathize with the ramifications of those events but once an offer is rejected - it just "goes away." Here is something to get "un-foggy." Or, ask a lawyer. www.upcounsel.com/rejection-in-contract-lawI still don't know how this has anything to do with what I was talking about. But I respect your right to say it! Have a wonderful day! |
|
|
|
Post by Cam Mott on Feb 8, 2019 22:01:27 GMT -5
"Others" are blaming and claiming their speculation/fantasizing about extending C50 as fact, yet the only extended date that was actually rejected was rejected by Brian.
|
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2019 0:16:43 GMT -5
I think Mike's artistic choices over the years are certainly open to criticism (as are anyone else's). No doubt he's made some odd choices....especially in fashion!
Where I wind up defending Mike is when it goes from genuine music critiques to "Mike has no right to do this or that" or worse yet, fans trying to interfere with his business. That's beyond the pale to me.
Many of my favorite artists have projects or songs I don't care for. I just don't listen to them. Problem solved!
|
|
dumbchops
Dude/Dudette
Posts: 83
Likes: 75
Favorite Album: Sail On Sailor
|
Post by dumbchops on Feb 11, 2019 21:10:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Feb 12, 2019 8:42:55 GMT -5
Mike has gotten more vocal about his due since Brian's suit against Irving imo. He pretty much lumped it before then it seems to me, could be wrong. The impression I get from Mike's autobio is he had his eyes opened to the extent of what he had to be bitter about in the discovery for his case against Brian over breach of agreement with Mike for Wilson v. Irving. I think maybe C50 felt like a personal affront too that put the pedal to the metal even more. JMO. Mike could exercise more tact sure, who couldn't. But even opining that I think his supposed bitterness is often more fan manufactured than real and overblown. Especially claims of Mike attempting to take too much credit, as far as I can remember Mike is usually very specific about what is his creation and what is someone else's. Take a song like Please Let Me Wonder, as far as I know Mike has only claimed to write the verses and I believe it is the only song on the album which at the time got Mike credit. Did Mike take/get too much credit for the song? I don't know what the split was for the song, does anyone? I believe Mike didn't get full 50% credit for songs he co-authored, often just 25% including GV, until the Wild Honey album. Anyone have the actual numbers on that? Anyways, if I'm not mistaken, it seems awfully hard to get too much credit while you are systematically under-credited or un-credited. Corrections and clarifications welcome. They will always have "good night, sleep tight", the equivalent of "Hillary's e-mails".. That is a funny analogy compared to H's emails. I found the book amazingly linear - as far as the career timeline went. I'd have to go back and re-read screenshots or the whole thing about being deprived of - the fruits of your labor. IIRC it was around 1969 (the Manson summer of terror) when the catalog was sold out from under them. I guess there is a greater sense of betrayal to have deprivation of income, arise from your own family. It is not just about the money. It is also about your own corpus (body of work) that is diminished as a result of non-acknowledgment. And if your family is looking to maintain peace especially around the holidays, there is always pressure to keep your mouth shut and go along with the status quo even under very unjust circumstances. So, it was not just Brian's monetary injury but also Mike's because his continuing deprivation of compensation that started earlier. I guess I am just looking at this more clinically. And I read it as a matter of Murry selling what was not his to sell. And having the buyers' lawyers not question the ages of the band (some too young to consent or form a contract if they were contributors.) Yes, on paper, it appeared that he (Murry) may have had the legal authority, but clawing back to un-compensated or un-recognized with your name belonging on the label - makes a huge difference. The court may have appeared to over-credit on some, to compensate, in equity, for some that were not compensated at all. They have a lot of latitude, under "equity" powers to make someone "whole." There may have been less evidence such as old notebooks or notepads where lyrics might be found as evidence. But a clear indication of a writing style. The Pet Sound stuff was later-in-time so the notes or might have been available. It is like You Are So Beautiful with Dennis - it sure as heck sounds like something he would write, in a certain style that is like a fingerprint from an arrest. It is hard to know without the documents to see. We have very little to go on besides the LA Times accounts and that guy who has his courtroom trial account on the surfermoon site, and who ended up with a display (chalk) from the lawyer post trial.  |
|
|
|
Post by monolithic on Feb 22, 2019 7:25:39 GMT -5
I think Mike tried to be a “go w the flow” guy through all the more “progressive” music the band was making, (Do it again notwithstanding), but after Holland, and the success of Endless Summer, and the general apathy towards the 67 -73 material, he longed for the glory days again. And it’s hard to blame him. Must have seemed like they were pushing a boulder up a hill, when for 6 or more years they had been producing works that most of us now think of as the greatest period in their history, with little fan appreciation and sales to show for it. I’m as guilty of the next guy for wishing there had been half a dozen more records like Sunflower,Surfs up, and Holland. Still makes me sad that they kinda threw in the towel, especially live, and resigned themselves to playing Help me Rhonda and Surfin USA because that’s what the people responded to. But, as someone else said, Mike is his own worst enemy. The HOF speech, the lawsuits, the continual jabs at the Wilsons as depressed guys with drug problems, and the endless crusade to paint himself as the “positivity” guy in the band don’t help his cause. Ok, there is truth to some of those things, but a good PR person might have phrased things differently, or pointed out the futility of trying to educate the world on what a mess BW was. There is a legend surrounding Brian, he is beloved, and rightly so, despite his problems. last, I think John Lennon was a guy with a lot of issues and was tough to deal with, but Paul McCartney continued to sing his praises for ever after. If you could give him some truth serum, he might have more to say, but he understands how the world feels about John. I think that has been exaggerated a lot though. They were still playing great and varied set lists years after Endless Summer was released. Sadly they never quite got together to put all of their efforts into a new album though. LA was close, but Brian had already retreated by then. |
|
