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

[Jason]

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?  

It's called wanting it both ways.

[Steve Mayo]

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".

also done at all the 1983 shows i went to......

[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".

also done at all the 1983 shows i went to......

You're right! That slipped my mind. So even less of a rarity!

[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...

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".

also done at all the 1983 shows i went to......

I only knew about the '66 and late '90s performances, and I'm not overly familiar with Mike&Bruce's setlists. So from my point of view (or level of knowledge) it was a 'live rarity'. Thanks for the additonal information. This board is really something.

[D409]

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".

also done at all the 1983 shows i went to......

I only knew about the '66 and late '90s performances, and I'm not overly familiar with Mike&Bruce's setlists. So from my point of view (or level of knowledge) it was a 'live rarity'. Thanks for the additonal information. This board is really something.

Have seen Chris Farmer sing it in 2004 and Christian Love sing it in 2008

[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...

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".

also done at all the 1983 shows i went to......

I only knew about the '66 and late '90s performances, and I'm not overly familiar with Mike&Bruce's setlists. So from my point of view (or level of knowledge) it was a 'live rarity'. Thanks for the additonal information. This board is really something.

Have seen Chris Farmer sing it in 2004 and Christian Love sing it in 2008

Youtubing it as we speak...  

EDIT: Dammit, and I knew this clip of course: 1983.... 

[The Real Barnyard]

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".

Also was done in 1990 and 1991.

[Sheriff John Stone]

 

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

Do you think so? Still?

I mean, yeah, Mike & Brian are related, but... They might be family in name only. In the last, say, 30 years, how many "family things" do you think they shared?

And, I'm not so sure they "get over" things so quickly anymore. I think they (including Al) are still carrying around a lot of baggage and hurt - inflicted on each other. They "got over" things to do this album and tour. Money can be a very strong motivator. It helps you get over a lot of things.

The dynamic or bond they do share is history, and I truly believe they carry that with them in the studio and on stage. Regardless of their sometimes humble appearance (especially Brian), they know who they are.

[Disney Boy (1985)]

Am I the only one fairly pleased with these recent developments? I'm not saying i agree with the typically tactless way in which Mike has gone about doing it, but i think it's good for them to 'quit while they're ahead', so to speak. After all, this reunion has been a success and, as i've said previously, Summer's Gone makes for an absolutely beautiful, perfect finale, and it now seems unlikely another album will appear.

My only worry is if bad feelings re-emerge it might interfere with or affect the release of 'Made in California'.

[HeyJude]

The discussion about "You're So Good To Me" illustrates my point. I've seen it happening for many years now. When a debate breaks out over "rarities" in the setlist, we start disagreeing on what a "rarity" even is. Obviously, that particular song is kind of in that in-between area. It wasn't a "regular", but wasn't one of those oddball, played-on-one-tour-and-then-forgotten numbers either.

What about "Lady Lynda"? That was beaten to death from 1977 or 78 until early '82, but then never heard again other than briefly in '86 as "Lady Liberty" and apparently one one later UK tour as, sadly, "Little Lady."

[SonoraDick]

Looks like Mike & Bruce have plans for New Year's Eve. Two shows in balmy Minnesota...

http://www.songkick.com/concerts/14140449-beach-boys-at-mystic-lake-showroom

Wonder who's to blame for "The Beach Boys 50" in the upper right?

[HeyJude]

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? 

This isn't applicable to the debate happening on this board right now. I stopped reading most other forums, including the "official" BW board, years ago. I don't know what's going on there. But the folks who are disappointed about the possible lack of additional reunion shows should not be lumped in with the skeptics that said Brian looked bored (he did look bored sometimes, fans of all sorts would agree I think), or some fringe super-negative fans that still hated on Mike Love during the reunion shows.

As I've said before, whether Mike knows or cares, he won over more formerly-disgruntled fans by doing this tour, and doing it well, than he has in years, decades, maybe ever. I know a number of very cynical, grizzled fans who have had no love for Mike or his touring in past years who were won over by both Mike individually and the collective presentation of the show on this reunion tour. That is why some fans are bummed. Not because they are "Brianistas" or because they "love to hate" Mike. They are bummed because, as some fans have put it, this reunion lineup has put on the best BB show in decades, since probably their heyday as a live band in the 70's. That's even more impressive considering they're doing it without Carl, who was one of the only reasons to catch a BB show in the 90's.

[HeyJude]

Am I the only one fairly pleased with these recent developments? I'm not saying i agree with the typically tactless way in which Mike has gone about doing it, but i think it's gone for them to 'quit while they're ahead', so to speak. After all, this reunion has been a success and, as i've said previously, Summer's Gone makes for an absolutely beautiful, perfect finale, and it now seems unlikely another album will appear.

My only worry is if bad feelings re-emerge it might interfere with or affect the release of 'Made in California'.

Nope, I flat out disagree with the idea that they should "quit while they're on top", etc. First of all, they aren't quitting if Mike continues to tour with the name. Secondly, they have more good songs to record together and awesome shows they could do in a live setting.

I appreciate those that are clear about their feeling happy about no more reunion stuff. I just can't agree with it when more good stuff could come of it, maybe even better than 2012. We don't know that 2012 was "ahead" or "on top." As recent events have demonstrated, we will likely never get a graceful, clear ending to their saga.

[SMiLE Brian]

BRI needs to yank the touring lisence from Mike and Bruce. 14 years of touring is enough for these two now that the real group is ready to tour again.

[Heysaboda]

I do wonder if and when the Mike/Bruce Beach Boys (the smaller group) have gotten together to rehearse.  Obviously, they all know the tunes, but I'm assuming they'd do at least a cursory rehearsal and/or run through to prepare for the upcoming Waco Fair concert?

[Justin]

Looks like Mike & Bruce have plans for New Year's Eve. Two shows in balmy Minnesota...

http://www.songkick.com/concerts/14140449-beach-boys-at-mystic-lake-showroom

Wonder who's to blame for "The Beach Boys 50" in the upper right?

That may be false.  The same site listed that the Stones were performing at the O2 in London in early 2013.   The Stones had to specifically send out a Tweet to warn people to ignore that site and not buy tickets because it was not true.

[Jason]

BRI needs to yank the touring lisence from Mike and Bruce. 14 years of touring is enough for these two now that the real group is ready to tour again.

They have to vote on it first.

[SMiLE Brian]

BRI needs to yank the touring lisence from Mike and Bruce. 14 years of touring is enough for these two now that the real group is ready to tour again.

They have to vote on it first.

Let them vote then, I really want one BBs group at this point. Mike should tour under another name if he really wants to work those smaller venues so bad.

[Jason]

BRI needs to yank the touring lisence from Mike and Bruce. 14 years of touring is enough for these two now that the real group is ready to tour again.

They have to vote on it first.

Let them vote then, I really want one BBs group at this point. Mike should tour under another name if he really wants to work those smaller venues so bad.

Even if the vote came up, we would still have the same situation.

[SMiLE Brian]

BRI needs to yank the touring lisence from Mike and Bruce. 14 years of touring is enough for these two now that the real group is ready to tour again.

They have to vote on it first.

Let them vote then, I really want one BBs group at this point. Mike should tour under another name if he really wants to work those smaller venues so bad.

Even if the vote came up, we would still have the same situation.

I am not so sure about that at this point. The group is getting up there in age and time is running out for them to big time tour. Mike is also running his voice into the ground, I would rather he rest his voice until the group needs his services. Mike and Bruce had a great run, but their role is done with the full group back to tour again.

[Shady]

Great picture via pitchfork

[Jason]

BRI needs to yank the touring lisence from Mike and Bruce. 14 years of touring is enough for these two now that the real group is ready to tour again.

They have to vote on it first.

Let them vote then, I really want one BBs group at this point. Mike should tour under another name if he really wants to work those smaller venues so bad.

Even if the vote came up, we would still have the same situation.

I am not so sure about that at this point. The group is getting up there in age and time is running out for them to big time tour. Mike is also running his voice into the ground, I would rather he rest his voice until the group needs his services. Mike and Bruce had a great run, but their role is done with the full group back to tour again.

I agree...and like I said earlier, I'd rather just see the five-man band do sporadic tours instead of tons of gigs.

[SMiLE Brian]

BRI needs to yank the touring lisence from Mike and Bruce. 14 years of touring is enough for these two now that the real group is ready to tour again.

They have to vote on it first.

Let them vote then, I really want one BBs group at this point. Mike should tour under another name if he really wants to work those smaller venues so bad.

Even if the vote came up, we would still have the same situation.

I am not so sure about that at this point. The group is getting up there in age and time is running out for them to big time tour. Mike is also running his voice into the ground, I would rather he rest his voice until the group needs his services. Mike and Bruce had a great run, but their role is done with the full group back to tour again.

I agree...and like I said earlier, I'd rather just see the five-man band do sporadic tours instead of tons of gigs.

That would work with me as well, the sporadic touring would have demand and profits up, making everybody happy.

[KittyKat]

It probably depends on the license conditions BRI set out.  If it's a set license for a number of years, I don't think it can be re-opened if it's a legally binding contract, which it likely is.  Another alternative might be giving Mike some type of financial settlement and buying him out of the contract.  I'm sure it would not be a popular move in terms of fan reaction, but if they were the ones who entered the contract, it has to be settled somehow if they want him off the road.  He still has one kid in high school and it won't be cheap to send her to college if she goes to college, he has a gazillion grandkids, etc. 

[smackdaddy]

I can't imagine any plausible financial scenario for Mike where he doesn't already have enough money to send a house full of kids to Ivy League colleges.