WI: Other Bands with the "Mike Love Factor"

By the Mike Love Factor, I am referring to a member of the band who plays a limited role in a music group's direction, song writing, and success, potentially runs in opposition to the group direction despite success with that direction, but who nonetheless forms a massive ego which creates problems with other members of and outside of the group. At such point, that member begins to assume authority within the group, in conjunction with distraction, personal issues and/or waning interest from the other members and original leader(s), takes it over, potentially expels the original members, and turns the group away from it's direction at best, and at worst turns the group into a tribute act to it's own early discography and iconography.

In a cynical and uninformed view, some have interpreted Paul McCartney as the Mike Love Factor for the Beatles. However, such is not the case. I have drawn the analogy that it would be something like Ringo Starr growing a massive ego, becoming angry and jaded at his band members for their success and acclaim, and retroactively claiming that his contribution was massive and he was the true artist. And at such point, such as right after "Abbey Road", taking over from the other members, gradually replacing the others with a slew of rotating session musicians, putting them and himself in mop top wigs and Beatle boots, and having them play only the hits of 1964 to 1966 at every state fair and Seaworld grand opening they could attend to an aging but loyal audience. And casting that as the Beatles, and releasing a slew of albums that attempt to replicate the sound of the early Beatles to increasingly dwindling sales, plummeting critical claim, and increasingly limited public interest. And then speaking constantly about his own glory, suing the other original Beatles, lashing out at ex-wives and other musicians, and otherwise being a jerk. You can play with this on any band, from the Rolling Stones to Led Zeppelin. And indeed, outside of a jerk member, it is that factor which a lot of 60s acts have fallen into, which is only one or two original members remaining (if any; sometimes the rotations and replacements mean no one from the beginning is left and it keeps rotating) and playing a bunch of forgotten greatest hits to an audience of grandmothers. This discussion can also focus on that factor instead, with bands that did not go that direction actually going that direction.
 
I don't know if he had the ego and interpersonal issues, but for "untalented minor member of a band inexplicably manages to take over and waters their sound down", you've got Peter Cetera for Chicago.
 

Archibald

Banned
Didn't Pink Floyd also suffered from a kind of "Mike Love illness", through Waters antics ? With Syd Barret in the role of Brian Wilson ?
 
To be fair to Waters, he had talent of his own (like McCartney), even if Syd was the original main man. Still a fairly silly spat though, and pity about the unconvincing group hug in the reunion gig.
 

oberdada

Gone Fishin'
Well with a Mike Love, Bruce Johnston and some other guys you can tour state fairs, with a Brian Wilson Band + Mike, Al , Bruce and David (50s anniversary tour was basically that) you'd go broke.

Well however, I just don't see why people blame everything that's gone wrong with the Beach Boys on Mike Love.

He has done some crazy shit, but who hasn't in that business.
 
I don't know if he had the ego and interpersonal issues, but for "untalented minor member of a band inexplicably manages to take over and waters their sound down", you've got Peter Cetera for Chicago.

My sister and I have a joke about the music video for "Glory of Love". He is 40 years old and clearly is not the music video generation, and has no idea what to do with his body or hands, moves so awkward, but is so intense and flowy about it all and has these weird smiley facial expressions where he literally does not move his bottom lip.

 
Chicago started out great with a hybrid sound reminding me of a cross between Santana and Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass but gradually devolved into wimpy rockers under Cetera.
 
I find the whole brassy horned instrument thing in "jazz rock" kind of artistically bankrupt anyway. It has a time and place, but it feels superficial. But at least Chicago had success in the 80s. However, they did face something a lot of groups do. There was a period in music where if you came around in the 60s or 70s, you were lasting into the 1980s and even probably the early 90s as a major musical force. David Bowie, George Harrison, Paul McCartney, the Rolling Stones. These guys all were still on MTV. They still had hit music and teenagers were buying their records. So that's another theory of mine that you get about 30 to 35 years of artistic relevance. And then something happened, and the hits ran out. And a lot of the time, it got embarrassing and douchie. You can't be 50 trying to sing about teenage love or whatever you sang about in your 20s. The singer/song-writer doesn't believe it, so they don't have passion and can't write it, and the audience doesn't believe it, and it isn't sincere. And sincerity is replaced by overdoing it and being too into it to get it going, and it's just embarrassing. That's Chicago in the 90s. It's honestly the Moody Blues in the 90s too, among many others. And I'll give you an example.


EDIT:
Which, by the way, is why someone like Neil Young is pretty great. There's a lot of artists that avoided that by simply being sincere in what they were doing regardless of any other factors. Glitz and glamour and being caught up in the Pop mode will kill an artist, because they get into a head space, and then the muses leave them or trends pass them by, and they can't go forward. A bad Pop song is like an unfunny Comedy: there's no redeeming value. Even if a Comedy is superficial, if it's funny, that's all that matters. Even if a Pop song is superficial, all that really matters is if the melody elicits something and captures interest. And the difference between a 60s/70s artist and an 80s/90s artist is that the latter was superficial a lot more than the former. A Bob Dylan is going to last a hell of a lot longer than a Billy Idol or a Ricky Martin, and a Led Zeppelin is going to last a hell of a lot long than a Smash Mouth. I can't really think of a band or artist that is exclusive to the 80s that is still around as anything that matters, and isn't just kitsch nostalgia for the 80s. Springsteen, John Mellencamp, Paul Simon, and a lot of others may not have smash hits, but they are still iconic, but the 80s was just a pass through for them and they started before it. I think my measure would be who is an "Elder Statesman" in music. Someone like David Bowie was, or Ozzie Osbourne, Neil Young, Paul McCartney. The public, the media, and musicians treat them with that respect. Madonna isn't. David Cassidy isn't. Because they weren't sincere. That's the difference between, after the hits end, an introspective interview on the Today Show and playing the County Fair. Either you're so good that you proved yourself, you don't need to make new hits, and the new songs are more for you and are considered decent or higher art despite not being Pop ear candy, or you're viewed as washed up, and that you are a has-been who doesn't have anything in them and the audience is no longer interested. A lot of artists burned out on that. You will still find regard for the Talking Heads and Blondie, but no one gives a sh*t about Adam Ant.
 
Last edited:
It depends on your definition of "still taken seriously", but for 80's acts who are still at least somewhat respected, you've got Jay-Z, Dr. Dre, the Red Hot Chili Peppers and Green Day.
 
Anton Newcombe made a halfway decent band in the Brian Jonestown Massacre into an absolute shitshow. Same I could say for Lars Ulrich.

On the whole "cultural relevancy" discussion, I think you could view it from an artistic/influence angle in a sense.

People like Steinski (Hip-Hop) or the Melvins (Grunge/Rock) are extremely integral to music that's come out in the past 20 years, but the average person on the street has no idea who they are.

Then you have Adam Ant, who people recognize but is basically completely irrelevant in modern music.

You gotta get a perfect mean between the two.
 
Top