The "bad guy" in the band: who are the other Mike Loves in music?

but yeah I agree about the narratives thing (I also think the narrative about the BBs is mostly correct, altho Bagge makes some interesting devil's advocate sorta points)

xp

yeah the Peter Bagge pushback on fan perceptions and championing of the genius-child figures in bands is key - especially the idea that without the driven bitter dick you'd have a bunch of flakes who fell apart, which is a pretty convincing pro-Johnny Ramone argument as well

but doesn't make them less dicks or necessarily mean they had to be dicks about it

xp I like the idea of Manzarek as a Mike Love with the Ghost of Jim Morrison as his Brian.

Or maybe people who thought Manzarek's activities seemed silly and kind of pathetic were the Brian, I don't know.

Dennis Wilson's Pacific Ocean Blue does not inspire confidence (he wasn't a "bad guy" though, just a fuck up).

brio, if you really want to go down the lyman rabbit hole

Nobody's mentioned Noel Gallagher?

Byrne, Wareham are principal songwriters & musicians - something Mike Love never was. Feel like anybody who is that much of a creative leader of the band doesn't really qualify.

― Οὖτις, Thursday, May 22, 2014 6:06 PM (Yesterday)

Yes, this. Come on guys, you can't go around naming the MAIN DUDES from a band, even if they are dicks. The point about being a Mike Love is that you totally are not the main dude but you (attempt to) co-opt the band for your own purposes at some point.

cleese and idle

No wai, Cleese is merely a dude with opinions about his own work, Idle is a grasping cunt who repeatedly tramples the others in his quest for props and money, and actively fucked over Innes again and again (also funny, main m/s on the books, one most responsible for keeping the name an ongoing concern, etc – a total Mike Love package)

Eazy Muthaphuckin' E

I blame that manager feller.

That Solar dude who controlled Guru in his final days

"Definitely fans of early- to mid-period Wilco and Jay Bennett partisans viewed Tweedy as a Mike Love-figure."

Yeah and there was also this bit of weird nugget out there on the end of Uncle Tupelo from a former thread.

Jay Farrar on Uncle Tupelo split

Farrar does not necessarily disagree with all that, but has his own (juicier) side to contribute to history. In the lengthy Relix interview, Farrar tells journalist Antony DeCurtis that things started to unravel after he saw Tweedy stroke the hair of his girlfriend of seven years, Monica Groth (now his wife), as she was sleeping. "I found out later that he was telling her stuff, like, he loves her," says Farrar, who attempted to quit the band the next day. Tweedy was devastated. "[Tweedy's] parents called mine and said that Jeff 'wanted to be me.' I struggled with that...Then every other day for about a week he would call. After a week of sitting around with no prospects, I decided to continue."

Farrar departed the band for good in January 1994. Before leaving Tupelo, he met with Tweedy for another major confrontation. Farrar explains, "When I spoke to him about why I was quitting I basically laid it out for him. I told him that the dynamic had changed and that it wasn't fun for me anymore...His response was to call me a 'pussy.'"

Farrar's story definitely adds a different dynamic to Uncle Tupelo's end, which is what he hoped to accomplish upon ending his silence in the Relix interview. "One misconception that I find difficult to absorb is Jeff's portrayal of himself as a victim, which I find to be absurd," says Farrar. "There were steps we could have taken to have a better relationship and a better understanding. It could have happened. But it didn't."

The guy that should probably own this thread is Phil Anselmo.

Professor Griff. Minister of worthless ignorance.

Richie Blackmore.

I blame that manager feller.

― rage against martin sheen (sic), Thursday, May 22, 2014 5:23 PM Bookmark

Naw, Heller was an bastard but he was Eazy's bastard. Without Eazy there's no Heller and I've always gotten the impression that Eazy was always in on Heller's schemes and vice versa. Then again, I haven't read Heller's autobio but fuck that.

Lars.

I assume Eazy went along with Heller's schemes rather than v/v, but I just wanted to ref the line

Professor Griff. Minister of worthless ignorance.

He never attempted to exert any influence over the band in any way that we know of though. Plus Pawns In The Game is p good

If we're talking CSNY, I don't see how it can be anyone but Neil Young. The occasionally continued existence of the group is entirely at the mercy of Neil's whims.

Lindsey Buckingham is the only member of Fleetwood Mac who isn't a Mike Love

― i also enjoy in line skateing (spazzmatazz), Thursday, May 22, 2014 1:17 PM (8 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

christine? really? i'm not fully up on my mac lore

i mean to the extent that after Tusk I'm pretty sure the four of them were like "never again lindsey u crazy fuck- playing it safe from now on"

"THE BLOW IS NOT GOING TO PAY FOR ITSELF, LINDS"

People really hate on "mind gardens"?!?

ftr, Birdman was a very important addition to this thread

for the hand rub alone

Dr. C (Dr. C) wrote this on thread My vote for the worst song ever recorded on board I Love Music on May 24, 2004

The Byrds - Mind Gardens

pete s wrote this on thread Top 100 Most Skipped-Over Tracks In The History Of CDs on board I Love Music on Jan 19, 2004

26 The Byrds - Mind Gardens

dan selzer wrote this on thread Gene Clark S/D, C/D on board I Love Music on Dec 13, 2013

there is nothing good about Mind Gardens. I hate that song.

Euler (Euler) wrote this on thread My vote for the worst song ever recorded on board I Love Music on Jan 16, 2006

I'll second "Mind Gardens" by the Byrds. Crosby's songs are usually terrific but this one is a disaster; and to boot, they put an "alternate version" on the Younger Than Yesterday reissue, which really must have been a funny prank for someone...

etc etc

Brian Jones deserves mentioning. By all accounts he was an absolute monster.

Too bad Warren Zevon was a solo act because after reading his bio there's very little to like.

Sid Vicious?

ftr, Birdman was a very important addition to this thread

― The Reverend, Friday, 23 May 2014 03:42 (40 minutes ago) Permalink

thanks, i try

richard ashcroft

Somewhat unrelated, but I've been looking up which band members own the rights to their band's name.

I dunno, this guy would've been my third guess for this band.

he's been the only constant band member since they formed.

Such a weird last-man-standing rule though, but yeah. Little River Band's name is owned by some guitarist who joined in the 80s and stuck around after everyone else left. Chris Squire, bless him, owns the rights to Yes.

hasn't rhodes always been known as duran's leader? that's how i've always seen him.

Little River Band's actual members have to tour as Birtles Shorrock Globles and I refuse to google if that's correct

About Noel Gallagher above: I think Oasis would only fit into this if Bonehead was its Mike Love. Which would have been hilarious.

Joey Molland

if we reduce this to "one major dickhead, rest of the pack seem like reasonable dudes", Axl wins in a heartbeat.

tbh almost everyone in GNR was such a mess that they would've been the problem child in any other band

It's tough to say who in Pink Floyd fits the bill. Gut says Waters, but it was Gilmour who essentially turned the band into a corporation when he had Mason buy in for the reunion. Note how in the "Momentary Lapse of Reason" sleeve (which I'm sure you are all familiar with from when you listened to it yesterday) Gilmour and Mason get top billing and big pictures, even though Rick fuckin founder/singer Wright is in the band and on the album.

pains me to say but Wayne Kramer might be MC5's Mike Love? While his musical contributions are unquestionable his revisionist interviews make him sound like a major-league control freak

even though Rick fuckin founder/singer Wright is in the band and on the album.

Wright's barely on the album (if at all):

his contributions were minimal. Most of the new keyboard parts had already been recorded, and so from February 1987 he played some background reinforcement on a Hammond organ, and a Fender Rhodes piano, along with several vocal harmonies. The keyboardist also performed a solo in "On the Turning Away", which was discarded, according to Wright "not because they didn't like it ... they just thought it didn't fit."[24] Gilmour later said: "Both Nick and Rick were catatonic in terms of their playing ability at the beginning. Neither of them played on this at all really. In my view, they'd been destroyed by Roger"

Mason's contributions were negligible as well:

Gilmour employed extra session musicians including Carmine Appice and Jim Keltner. Both drummers, they later replaced Mason on most of the album's songs; Mason was concerned that he was too out of practice to perform on the album, and instead busied himself with its sound effects.[20][28] Some of the album's drum parts were also performed by drum machines.[29]

I think we're getting somewhere. ,
Can we get some consensus on the criteria of what constitutes Loveness?
I humbly submit the following points to consider:

1) Not every band has a Mike Love.
2) Mike Loves are not the "genius" figures in the band, or the principal songwriters. That's the Brian Wilson. So no Billy Corgans, John Fogertys, Noel Gallaghers, David Byrnes, etc.
3) Mike Loves are dicks, but not all dicks are Mike Loves. Mike Loves should have vocal haters.
4) You should be able to make a case for Mike Love as being important to the band's existence, like the Peter Bagge defense of Mike Love.
5) To be a true Mike Love, some people think you're a shitty musician. So Johnny Ramone and Paul McCartney, while having many Mike Love-esque qualities, can not be true Mike Loves. Ginger Baker might also be off the Mike Love list on these grounds too. Lars Ulrich is definitely a Mike Love.
5A) The musical ability debate is a bit of a red herring. It's not really about ACTUAL musical ability - it's about fans' perceptions and the narrative that has grown around the band. Mike Love may or may not be a great musician, but he is undeniably a Mike Love.

Is Lars Ulrich really Metallica's bad guy? I mean, is he any more of a dick than Hetfield?

yeah

he's definitely more of a vocal moron

Good question: I'm no Metallica expert, but is Lars really an oppositional force to Hetfield? Or is he just the one most likely to put his foot in his mouth during an interview?

I haven't read much metallica press in a while, but I was always under the impression that they were a sorta douchebag tag team, is all.

To be a Mike Love, does there have to be an oppositional force within the group? A member who, in the absence of the Mike Love, would likely take the group in different directions and/or allow the group to fall into total disrepair?

The group would lose something inessential yet distinct if the Mike Love were not there.
The group would lose something essential and gain a Jon Stamos if the oppositional force were to leave and the Mike Love were to remain.

lol

every mike love has its 'new jersey'