MovieChat Forums > Love & Mercy (2015) Discussion > Unfair Hate for Mike Love

Unfair Hate for Mike Love


I always thought Mike Love, who like everyone, has his faults, receives a lot of unfair hate and criticism from fans of Brian. Anyone who has read about the band or even watched this film, has to appreciate how hard it must have been to deal with Brian at that time as he was losing his mind. You also have to respect how successful the band was at that time. Brian wanting to completely change the bands sound and direction was a legit concern to anyone involved. Sure, the music is considered the work of a genius today, but at that time, he was messing with a winning formula.

With this film, I didn't see Mike as so much of a villain, but more as someone who was concerned not only with his cousin's well being, but also legitimately with the future of the band and the direction they were going in.

reply

That exact situation is a bit too grey-area for Love to really bear the brunt of the "blame", such as it is... but those would have to be counted among the least of Love's sins, anyway. Maybe back then, his actions bore something akin to a noble countenance, but that has been eroded irrevocably by time. He's a revisionist glory-hog who has never seemed to understand the depth of Brian's illness... he strikes me as the kind of guy who believes in the "just get over it" mentality towards mental problems... which, ironically, the man seems to possess a few instances of himself.

Despite ostensibly practicing meditation and all that entails he seems less "at peace" than most normal people I know. I don't know how serious he was being but he once claimed his entire reason for following this path of enlightenment was that it didn't shun materialism. That's as shallow as following a freaking fashion trend to be considered "cool." And that's just where Love's mindset is; he seems patently incapable of recognizing and appreciating music as art rather than simple thrills and a means of income; ergo, any threat to the status quo of the BB's commercial success would be his worst nightmare. During the Landy era, he talked (justifiably) about Brian being Landy's "golden goose", conveniently ignoring how without Brian, there would've been no success story and no timeless legacy of classic music. Love would've been a nobody breaking his back pumping gas or working in a sheet metal factory as we speak.

The man seems genuinely incapable of any level of humility or even thankfulness for his luck in life. He could craft a snappy lyric and nobody else in the group had his broad, crowd-pleasing vocals... but the same thoughtless knobheads who claim Ringo was just a "lucky nobody" The Beatles snapped up from out of nowhere ain't got *beep* on Love. It might not have come in the form of The Beach Boys, but with Brian's unsurpassed talent Brian would've known recognition and success with or without him. When it comes to matters of spirituality and all that truly makes live worth living, Love is a very poor man indeed. He is a bitter, twisted person and on the day of his passing precious few tears will be shed for him.

In short, he's not a man worth defending or standing up for. Have your sympathy if you must, but in the end he just isn't worth it.

reply

I understand Love lost a lot of fans with all of the lawsuits etc, I get that, but I still don't get the hate for not measuring up to Brian music production-wise. As you mentioned, Ringo gets a lot of the same criticism (minus the outright hate). I mean, Love and Starr both had their role in their respective bands and delivered didn't they? As you said, Love delivered the catchy, mainstream vocal sound that together with the music, earned them fame. Would he have made it on his own? Doubtful. I agree that Wilson would have made something for himself on his own. As big as the beach boys? Who knows. My point is, all members of the band complimented each other perfectly. We're still listening to the results 50 years later. I've seen this same argument carry on for years over Pink Floyd (Gilmour vs. Waters). As long as a band member does his part and does it well, I don't think they need to be compared to what the others are doing. Does it matter if Ringo didn't have any input on Harrison's guitar solos?

I'm looking forward to reading Love's book when it comes out next month. It'll be interesting to get his take on things. I suppose after that, I'll have a better idea on whether or not he's worth defending.

reply

I do understand Mike's point of view. I get why he didn't want to mess with the formula. However, he was proven wrong when Good Vibrations became their best selling single ever. He should have been more supportive of Brian after that. And the reason Pet Sounds didn't do that well commercially wasn't really the music, since the singles did extremely well. It was mostly Capitol's fault, for not promoting it enough and for releasing a greatest hits right after Pet Sounds.

The legend of the dog faced woman.

reply

You hit it on the head. Bands argue all the time over musical direction. The problem is when, as you stated, the record company doesn't believe in the work. Love and the others obviously ended up believing enough in it to work on and finish it. Tour it. It's the same with films. If the company doesn't believe in it and market it, it'll fail.

reply

Any hate Mike Love receives has been well-earned for a lifelong display of douchebaggery

Even the most primitive society has an innate respect for the insane.

reply

^ What Phoenix said.

Mike Love is a pompous, self-aggrandizing jerk.

reply