Another S**t stirring article in The Independent today !

[Autotune]

Yes, Mike and Bruce have for many year "carried the Beach Boys banner" to county fairs and birthday parties both far and wide.

  

Tell me, how much did those county fair gigs really bother you when you watched all 5 BB on tour this past summer? Didn't bother me in the slightest--nor did it enter my mind.  Not sure it makes the show any less enjoyable. What's the difference what Mike/Bruce do when the reunion is on hiatus?  We just saw for ourselves how much it "tarnished' their legacy.  This summer was proof that the fans were there for the reunion regardless what county fairs and casino gigs Mike and Bruce have done.  Every show was a sellout and the whole thing was a complete success.  It doesn't matter what Mike does with his own band---the next reunion will be met with the same kind of hype and success both from fans and the media. 

They were playing county fairs with Carl Dean Wilson at the helm. This debate is 30 years old.

[MarcellaHasDirtyFeet]

I have a 17 second sample of a rough mix of the studio "(Wouldn't It Be Nice To) Live Again". Who wants it? Post here if you do.

I get the feeling I'm being played, but just in case...

I want it, runners!

[The Real Barnyard]

I have a 17 second sample of a rough mix of the studio "(Wouldn't It Be Nice To) Live Again". Who wants it? Post here if you do.

I need it!! Thanks!!

[Steve Mayo]

and now yahoo has noted it also...

http://music.yahoo.com/blogs/stop-the-presses/mike-love-sprinkles-bad-vibrations-beach-boys-reunion-173511608.html

[?]

Stick a hat on Johnny and nobody would even notice!

This pic is so awesome it makes the entire thread worthwhile.

[HeyJude]

I thought I read (an accurate?) quote from Mike Love that he would like to record another Beach Boys' album - if he could write some songs with Brian. Not ALL the songs (if I remember correctly), but SOME songs. Wouldn't that be considered continuing the reunion?

Also, if Brian, Al, and David continued touring with Mike & Bruce immediately after the scheduled reunion dates, where would they get the money to pay everyone? You would know better than me, aren't the performance fees for the upcoming Mike & Bruce shows already contractually agreed upon? And, you would know this better than anyone, would David agree to play with Mike & Bruce at a substantially lower pay than he is getting for the reunion shows? And, do you know how David would feel if a guitar player would get "bumped" if David joined the Mike & Bruce band for the upcoming shows?

Its my understanding that more offers became available for more reunion shows, so instead of stopping at say 75, they had offers for 10 or 20 more or something...more dates tacked on to the reunion tour...but these were turned down because Mike chose/planned/contracted to return to his pre-reunion set-up and his own bookings. I really don't know the motivation or details, just the generality that there were more reunion lineup offers left on the table, and from my impression Brian, Al and Dave were up for keeping it going, but Mike was not. Again i only have a general knowledge that this was the case, but no specifics as to how, why, where etc... And yes, Mike has said he'd like to record and write more with Brian, so hopefully that means with the five of them together.

From my "Limited Inside Knowledge", there is another reason (not to do with money, control, ego, power........), that no one has hit on, why Mike wants/likes to play these smaller venues not appropriate for the full Reunion band.  That's all I can say.

If you are referring to 'benefits' of small gigs, then yes, that has been mentioned in another thread.

Can someone enlighten me or point me to the post in the other thread that outlines these additional "benefits"? I'm genuinely just curious.

[filledeplage]

I'm sure from Mike's perspective, he made a bargain and kept it, and now he wants to go back to a manner of performing that he's more comfortable with.  Regardless of how I as a fan might or might not prefer it to go down (and honestly, I didn't shell out to go see the tour and probably won't in the future, so my opinion and that of people like me is totally irrelevant to the bottom line) I can totally respect that.

The optics of it, however, are bad.  It just seems like it's the kind of thing that would have gone down better AFTER the last show, and perhaps worded a bit more inclusively.  However, Doe is likely right that in three months it won't matter.  Mike's weathered worse.

"He made a bargain and kept it." (Mike) You are correct.  The posters here, who looked up the decision in the lawsuit, seem to have their heads around what the past problems were.  One was the promotion from among a list.  Second, was some percentage formula.  I'm bad in math, so let's not go there...

If people take the time to read the decision, they will understand a little better what the background is and what the contested issues were.  No insults meant. The timing is indeed awful, because it is so close in time to reunion shows.  From my sidelines, I think Mike had to assure those venues and ticket holders that the show was going "on" as within the contract.  This is no time to undermine one another.  Things have gone better than ever imagined. The performances have been flawless.  And, it is so wonderful to see Brian and his band embrace this whole dimension that is absent in the solo performance dynamic.  I loved seeing Scott Bennett jumping up and down with Darian during the shows.  I think they all have Beach Boys Fever!  (Island Fever pun intended.)

The star is the music, and the delicate element here.  And the challenge; how to quell the firestorm which represents a reaction to a statement, "likely" to assure contract fulfillment.  I would be the first to say that post-Carl, I wondered how anyone could manage to rebuild the BB dynamic, in the "live" context.  The music was never going anywhere or becoming lost.  That is a fact.  And I was the first to buy tickets for the new fledgling band. Only diligence and hard work made it happen.  I have come to really respect Mike's professional work ethic.  The band just got better and better and with a true multigenerational audience.

The other two bands, who I would not miss for anything, because of the music, and the very fine "solo" work, are adult audiences.  Great shows, but not digging down to the grandchildren, getting the kids excited about their grandparents/parents brand of music.  That is the future. Mike cultivated that dynamic.  

They say that even bad publicity is good.  Here, I'm unconvinced.  And, ticket holders for these shows next week, have reasonable assurance that they will happen.  Is the applecart overturned? Ya. The touring calendar was always in place.  Is there room for future strategy? Of course. And writing collaboration.  That seems to be a "go" as well.

My guess is that this will work out, with "first things," first.  And, second, because "blood is still thicker than water."  

The principal members are somewhat a family dynamic.  They disagree, then, "get over it!" 

[Nathan Snyder]

sometimes being a hardcore fan has its disadvantages....  yes, we all know the real scoop, but now since this news headline has wondered into American websites, I'm getting bombarded with emails from friends/coworkers/family to 'fill me in' on the shocking news and ask for my reaction.  Yawn.

[KittyKat]

and now yahoo has noted it also...

http://music.yahoo.com/blogs/stop-the-presses/mike-love-sprinkles-bad-vibrations-beach-boys-reunion-173511608.html

Yahoo has noted it with another inaccurate, biased article authored by someone named Wendy Geller.  Why do so few, if any, of these articles point out that Brian Wilson voted to give Mike the rights to tour under the Beach Boys?  It makes it sound like Mike "wrested" control of the Beach Boys name all by himself.  That puts in a slightly different light if people knew that.  Nor does it point out that Mike and the rest of the boys (when Brian's brothers were still around) toured without Brian for most of the Beach Boys' career.

[coco1997]

For what it's worth, Mike just posted this on his Facebook page:

http://www.glidemagazine.com/hiddentrack/dont-believe-the-hype-original-beach-boys-werent-fired/

[Daniel]

I have a 17 second sample of a rough mix of the studio "(Wouldn't It Be Nice To) Live Again". Who wants it? Post here if you do.

the man says yes please....

[Wirestone]

I did try to explain all this to people over at the Pollstar article ... which is the source for a lot of this crap. Don't know if it worked, though.

Someone just needs to post a version of this on every one of these stupid things. I'm a media person, and I hate the media at times like this ...

http://www.pollstar.com/news_article.aspx?ID=802788

[the professor]

the professor does not know how to start threads and hesitates to presume to do so, but should we have a new thread entitled "latest official news and reaction to the state of the band in the wake of the tour" or words to that effect?We are diving up the information on too many threads. I want quick access to the upcoming news (I hope) that clarifies all this and promises the new tour next year and the new album, with hints about the contents and focus of that album. anyone agree?

[Justin]

Well I certainly think a few of these threads can be merged together.  This one should be merged with the big "Endless Summer" one...the same things are being discussed in all these different threads. Might as well have it in one place.....

[HeyJude]

I'm not sure why they need such a huge band.  I wonder whose insistence it was they had to include just about every member of the Brian Wilson touring band on the reunion.  I'm not sure Brian toured with that many players on every tour or gig.  That could save some money right there, if they were to continue as a "reunited" band.

I think most would agree the likely scenario is that one of Brian's contingencies was to have his touring band on this tour. It had the added benefit of being a versatile, pro band who knows the material, etc. But it is very much a comfort thing for Brian. I would then imagine the addition of two of Mike's guys was to have a bit of buffer so that Mike and Bruce wouldn't just feel like they were joining Brian's band.

The huge band also seemed to be something Mike had some mixed feelings about if his interviews are any indication. It was very subtle, but as someone else put it a few months back, I would guess Mike sees the huge band as a bit gluttonous or overkill, and certainly an additional cost he doesn't enjoy. He has said himself he likes to run a lean operation; Bruce has also supported this supposition.

[Lowbacca]

the professor does not know how to start threads and hesitates to presume to do so, but should we have a new thread entitled "latest official news and reaction to the state of the band in the wake of the tour" or words to that effect?We are diving up the information on too many threads. I want quick access to the upcoming news (I hope) that clarifies all this and promises the new tour next year and the new album, with hints about the contents and focus of that album. anyone agree?

Well I certainly think a few of these threads can be merged together.  This one should be merged with the big "Endless Summer" one...the same things are being discussed in all these different threads. Might as well have it in one place.....

This please!

[HeyJude]

Why should Mike be the one in control of the name?

Because he's the only one qualified to run it, mentally and physically. But, most importantly, he's the only one who ever WANTED it.

Somebody referred to Brian's current stance as a "power play". That was a good analogy. But, frankly, it's a little off-putting. For years, decades, almost 45 of their 51 years, Brian wanted to have as little to do with The Beach Boys as possible. First, he didn't want to tour with them. Then he didn't want to produce them. Then he didn't want to write songs for them (due in large part to increasing illness, I know). And, finally, over the last 15 years, he didn't want to have anything to do with them. He made comments like he didn't want to work with them, didn't want to talk with them, didn't like them, didn't want to be in the band, said that his band was superior to The Beach Boys, and on and on.

Now, after what, a five month tour, boy, has he changed his tune. This Beach Boys thing IS PRETTY GOOD isn't it? What happened to that "Mike has his thing, The Beach Boys, and I have my thing, my solo career". If I was Mike, I would resent it.

And, having written all that, I'm still not sure that Brian even wants to continue touring as a Beach Boy. I still need to hear more. Melinda!

There's no question that Brian has been able to pick and choose when it's a convenient for him to be a Beach Boys or to tour with the Beach Boys. But he's allowed to. Why? Because he's Brian Wilson, the dude who wrote most of the songs, blah, blah, blah, you know the rest. That's reason enough. And if that isn't, then let's also add the fact that he owns the trademark to the name along with the other BRI members.

As for nobody else wanting the BB name, I think that slew of court activity concerning Al and "BBFF" and all of that would tend to go against that idea. Also, in more recent years, it seemed like Al was kind of hinting he wanted back in, even just in Mike's version of the band.

[Disney Boy (1985)]

I have a 17 second sample of a rough mix of the studio "(Wouldn't It Be Nice To) Live Again". Who wants it? Post here if you do.

How do you have that?

[HeyJude]

Now, after what, a five month tour, boy, has he changed his tune. This Beach Boys thing IS PRETTY GOOD isn't it? What happened to that "Mike has his thing, The Beach Boys, and I have my thing, my solo career". If I was Mike, I would resent it.

I agree.  I'd imagine it must be very awkward for Mike to now open the door to everyone to permanently stay when it was mainly him (and Bruce) who's carried the Beach Boys banner for this long.  Considering the way they tour is significantly different than how this mega reunion tour went---I just don't see how Mike could have handled this any other way right now.  

I think this comment may be true to how Mike actually may think about things, but this isn't how it should be. It's not Mike's band. It's a band that belongs to all of them, regardless of who has toured longer. Bruce has been in a touring Beach Boys longer than Al at this point, so does Bruce "outrank" Al now too in terms of moral entitlement to the name? Mike and Bruce only carried the banner because Brian didn't care, Carl was gone, and Al was forced out.

[HeyJude]

That is utter nonsense. If you look at the setlists that Al played since 1998 you will see that the vast majority contain almost exclusively the hits. Take a look at the track listing on his Live in Las Vegas CD for proof.

The Mike and Bruce shows vary according to the venue. For the casino and county fair shows they play the hits and for the theatre shows they often play some deeper cuts. I`m happy to say that I`ve heard them play Forever, Til I Die, Let Him Run Wild, Kiss Me Baby, Wendy, All this is That, Sail on Sailor, Please Let me Wonder, Disney Girls, Everyone`s in Love With You etc.

This does get us back into circa-2000 debate topic territory, but if you look back at that timeframe, Al was *attempting* to start up a band with a more diverse setlist in 1999. This was at time when the BB's (both with and without Al and Carl) were doing a pretty stale, short setlist over and over.

Al's band worked in stuff like "Lookin' at Tomorrow", "You're So Good To Me", "Girl Don't Tell Me", "You Still Believe in Me", "Wild Honey", and some others that the touring BB's hadn't and weren't doing regularly any time recently.

When Al was unable to use the BB name in *any* way, including just billing himself as a BB, he was unable to get many bookings. So when he was only able to scrape up Ed Carter, Billy Hinshce, et al. at random intervals every few weeks or months to do one or a few gigs, it didn't allow him to get a regularly-touring band up and running and working through more diverse setlists. He had to do more "county fair" bookings where the shows had to be shorter. There was no time (either rehearsal wise or in terms of actual show running time) to get much past the meat-and-potatoes numbers Mike was doing.

It has only been in more recent years that Mike has indeed worked up a sometimes more diverse setlist. Just wanted to get the historical record straight a bit here.

[HeyJude]

about half of what you listed is pre-66. Al played things like California Saga, Honkin Down the Highway, Wild Honey, Breakaway, Vegetables,  Girl Don't Tell Me, and didn't seem to tailor his set to the type of venue.

6 songs and one of them is on the greatest hits albums. Wow.

Wipe the rapid foam from your mouth before you type. You are right that Al is comfortably the best singer of the remaining BBs. A valid point. But when half the stuff you right is clearly guff then it detracts from the rest of your posts.

Al's setlist in 1999 was, when allowed to be a normal running time and not truncated, more varied than the BB's setlist had been, either pre-98 or even in 1999. Even in 1997, for whatever reason, it wasn't as easy for the BB's to add a bunch of rarities to the setlist.

I think once Brian started doing it and got some good reviews for it, and then Mike got some better guys in his backing band, then several years later we finally saw Mike's Beach Boys adding more rarities.
Then of course we start getting into picking apart the setlist and deciding what constitutes a "rarity", which of course muddies the whole discussion. Is "You're So Good to Me" a rarity for instance? Some say yes, some say no.

[bossaroo]

yes it could certainly be argued that it took Al and Brian playing deeper cuts in their respective shows in order for Mike to "up his game" and include a few himself. seems he was fairly resistant to adding things like Marcella and Our Prayer this time around. and who knows what else he may have just flat-out vetoed.

sorry forgot my 'rabid foam wipes' again 

[Lowbacca]

Is "You're So Good to Me" a rarity for instance? Some say yes, some say no.

In the context of tracks being performed live.. yes, YSGTM is a 'rarity'.  Because it has rarely been performed live (before 2012). 


Of course one might also argue that there are basically no rarities whatsoever in their setlists (nor have there ever been), since all the songs they perform are commercially available everywhere and at all times...

[Jason]

Is "You're So Good to Me" a rarity for instance? Some say yes, some say no.

In the context of tracks being performed live.. yes, YSGTM is a 'rarity'.  Because it has rarely been performed live (before 2012). 


Of course one might also argue that there are basically no rarities whatsoever in their setlists (nor have there ever been), since all the songs they perform are commercially available everywhere and at all times...

You're So Good To Me was performed often in 1966, performed a lot in 1975, brought back in the late 1990s and been pretty common in the Michael and Bruce setlists since 2004...yup, a "rarity".

[KittyKat]

Why do the hardcore Brian Wilson fans have a problem with this?  As I recall, quite a number of them were saying that Brian looked unhappy onstage with the reunited Beach Boys and they feared it wasn't good for his well-being and he may have been "forced" into doing the reunion tour.  They also said they hated watching Mike Love onstage at the reunion shows.

Here's a solution for them:  have Brian Wilson go back to touring as a solo.  What Mike does or does not do has no effect on that.  Some of those folks were claiming that Brian looked sooo much happier onstage with his own band than he did on the Beach Boys reunion.  So now they're arguing that Brian was happier on the Beach Boys reunion tour?  Or that they actually didn't mind having to sit through Mike's nasal singing and schtick when they went to the reunion shows?