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

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'

The group would lose something inessential yet distinct if the Mike Love were not there.

This is the orthodox view of the Mike Love, and as such is the central issue of debate with regard to Mike Loves.

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?

― intheblanks, Friday, May 23, 2014 11:03 AM (14 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Lars was very chill and personable when I interviewed him....

but it's my impression that Hetfield and him see themselves as the core of Metallica and that lots of their stuff was directed outward towards other members

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.

― brio, Friday, May 23, 2014 10:36 AM (42 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I agree with all of these, and then also disqualify Robbie Robertson

Feel like maybe Mike Loves are not incredibly common. In this thread I feel like the Mike Loves that have met all the criteria are:

Steve Perry
Mel Lyman
Birdman
Eazy E
Mike Love

That said I don't know much about The West Coast Pop Art Experimental Band or some of the other groups mentioned herein.

And Birdman is an interesting one, because it's arguably not just about Big Tymers, but also related to the entire golden era of Cash Money records.

you have to come up w/ groups that do have inessential or at least clearly least essential members and then have that member be someone that manages to acquire a disproportionate level of power and influence over the band and uses that power generally for ill cuz they're an asshole. that's alot of conditions.

steve perry decidedly essential to journey so i'd disqualify him. eazy-e maybe, except he's also the bez of nwa so somehow simultaneously the least essential and most essential member of nwa. i mean eazy-duz-it was almost as big as straight outta compton at the time.

how is Steve Perry a Mike Love? I know he broke his hip and asked the band to wait until he recovered to go on tour--and then the band said we gotta get this cash and hired another singer

Do they have be inessential? Or do they just have to be oppositional to the resident genius/geniuses, and also influential in the group's direction?

I can't remember but wasn't one of the Jackson 5 kind of a Mike Love? Jermaine, maybe?

Yeah, scratch Steve Perry, totally doesn't qualify

there's a really good reality tv show somewhere in this thread.

jackson five didn't have a mike love. totally had a murry wilson though.