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

[SurfRiderHawaii]

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.

Nope

[SurfRiderHawaii]

 

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.

I know what it is,  the key phrase is "hit on," right?  Mike wants to score more babes at the gigs and he's too far away from the front row in the bigger venues to make eye contact with the best ladies.  With apologies to Mrs. Mike.  (just kidding, I think)

Cough 

[Aegir]

okay, we get it, SurfRiderHawaii, you witnessed Mike being amorous backstage. whatever. bo-ring.

[Jason]

I don't get how Michael's (or indeed, any of the members) backstage behavior is anyone's fucking business.

[John Manning]

After tonight's gig I picture the scenario in a few weeks time. Mike on the phone:

"hey mr guitar guy, Mike the Lovester Love here - I'm getting the gang back together and going back on the road! Yeah, I'm sorry you didn't make the grade for the gigs I just done with Cousin Brian (he wrote the music and I wrote the words, Y'know - wow does HE have a great band) but hey we can have fun, right? Anyway, we already have a great gig booked, to mark the opening of some new tennis courts over in Palm Springs… wassat? Hello? Hello?"

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

I don't get how Michael's (or indeed, any of the members) backstage behavior is anyone's f***ing business.

+ 1

[Nicko1234]

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.

Al was doing county fair and casino shows right from the beginning as BBF&F and the shows were often short. I agree that he did play those songs but not at the same gig. In most shows only 2 or 3 rarities were played. I agree that Al may have wanted to play more (he famously mentioned wanting to sing Be Here in the Morning) but reality got in the way and he realised that the audience wanted to hear Kokomo instead. The difference between his shows and M&B`s were negligible. They played Wendy, Summer in Paradise and Little Honda regularly if memory serves (albeit not at every concert).

[SurfRiderHawaii]

I don't get how Michael's (or indeed, any of the members) backstage behavior is anyone's f***ing business.

Just pointing out that their are 'other' reasons Mike likes small venues (casinos, for example) vs. the larger venues the reunited group is playing.

The shows tend to be more intimate and probably more fun for the band in numerous ways.  I'm just saying Mike and Bruce have done this for 15+ years
and they have fun doing it.  So it's not necessarily about power, control, money, yada, yada.

Did I have a first hand, eye witness experience, which involved me personally? - YES. So, in that instance, it was very much my business!  Dude's a jerk!
But it's rock and roll and Mike Love, good and bad, is a legend!

[Banana]

Just to throw my two cents in...

This is probably more smoke than fire.  I'm not saying that there aren't ill feelings going on between members of the band right now...but as has been mentioned many times before: this is the plan that was in place for after the reunion shows ended.  More than anything else...this has just been poorly played from a PR standpoint...and the blame for that can be pointed at several factions.

Yes...from a personal standpoint...it would be sad if everything just returned to pre-2012 terms...but if that's what it is...I'm thankful we had this spring and summer.  It was magical.

The biggest concern for me is time.  They don't have a decade to "do their own thing" again.  Heck...even five years is pushing it.  I really hope that things are just being blown out of proportion and that behind-the-scenes things really aren't that fired up.  I guess time will tell!

[oldsurferdude]

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.

Absolutely,SB. Besides cheapening the name, they're full fledged imposters by using the name as well. Beach Boys, the name now means alot more than it did before the tour-take the name away from Myke and Bruusee before they get a chance to run it into the sewer destroying the name for a long time to come.

[oldsurferdude]

I don't get how Michael's (or indeed, any of the members) backstage behavior is anyone's f***ing business.

Just pointing out that their are 'other' reasons Mike likes small venues (casinos, for example) vs. the larger venues the reunited group is playing.

The shows tend to be more intimate and probably more fun for the band in numerous ways.  I'm just saying Mike and Bruce have done this for 15+ years
and they have fun doing it.  So it's not necessarily about power, control, money, yada, yada.

Did I have a first hand, eye witness experience, which involved me personally? - YES. So, in that instance, it was very much my business!  Dude's a jerk!
But it's rock and roll and Mike Love, good and bad, is a legend!

In his own insidious mind he is.

[Bill Ed]

I don't get how Michael's (or indeed, any of the members) backstage behavior is anyone's f***ing business.

+ 1

After reading the comment you pasted I noticed your avatar. Priceless!

[runnersdialzero]

I don't get how Michael's (or indeed, any of the members) backstage behavior is anyone's f***ing business.

But he pisses on Brian when Brian is asleep. That's not right. And then he says "lol pet sounds? more like sh*t sounds u fag" and then tells Bruce to piss on him too. That's what SurfRiderHawaii is talking about. That and liking the more "intimate" settings (in which he pisses on pictures of Brian/copies of pEt SoUnDz and sMiLe in an intimate manner (just he and bruce) (end other comma) and then intimately has sex with people less than a third of his own age and don't use no protection and then says "sup dawg i herd u didnt liek forming babby but i accidentally in your base" and then never pays child support even though he is extremely wealthy the bastard omg and then he grows a spiteful sort of moustache and records the red album)

[mabewa]

I never celebrated going back to how it was before...I just said I wasn't surprised about it. Seriously...what about this is such a shock? It was known back in JUNE.

I suppose the outrage isn't about things going back to the way they were, we did all know that was going to  happen. But a fundamental thing in the equation changed, and that is an *active* willingness from Brian, Al, and David to keep it going. I'm not shocked so much that Mike may not care about that, but it makes Mike going back to his own tour much more heartbreaking.

It's true that we probably would have been better off not knowing that the others wanted to keep it going. 

Hopefully something yet will be worked out. 

Contracts were drawn up and plans were made while completly keeping in mind that the reunion tour was a one-time thing that had a start and end date.  Why do we assume that it's so easy for them to now break agreements and contacts and extend the tour indefinitely?  Mike and Bruce made plans for more shows in October...with a good group of other band members and crew prepared to take those shows on.  What does it mean to them that Mike will now break out of those commitments?  Let's just let the events pass and see what they do next year.  Right now, they're just following through with the plans they initiated earlier this year. 

I don't think it's an outlandish claim to say that Brianistas lack integrity and that they believe the rest of the world (meaning Michael Love) should fall in line behind their demands.

You have got to be the least objective mod I've ever encountered on the Internet.

Why blame "Brianistas" for this?  You have a combination of Mike Love making poorly worded press statements and right-wing British tabloids doing what they do best here.  Is it a terrible crime to want to see the Beach Boys continue touring with more than one original member? 

[mabewa]

Just to throw my two cents in...

This is probably more smoke than fire.  I'm not saying that there aren't ill feelings going on between members of the band right now...but as has been mentioned many times before: this is the plan that was in place for after the reunion shows ended.  More than anything else...this has just been poorly played from a PR standpoint...and the blame for that can be pointed at several factions.

Yes...from a personal standpoint...it would be sad if everything just returned to pre-2012 terms...but if that's what it is...I'm thankful we had this spring and summer.  It was magical.

The biggest concern for me is time.  They don't have a decade to "do their own thing" again.  Heck...even five years is pushing it.  I really hope that things are just being blown out of proportion and that behind-the-scenes things really aren't that fired up.  I guess time will tell!

Mike acknowledged this himself, in a way I found rather poignant, in the Rolling Stone article.  I wouldn't mind at all if they took a year or two off, with or without Mike and Bruce touring by themselves.  But if the band is going to do anything more in any meaningful form, it's going to have to be fairly soon. 

[Jason]

I never celebrated going back to how it was before...I just said I wasn't surprised about it. Seriously...what about this is such a shock? It was known back in JUNE.

I suppose the outrage isn't about things going back to the way they were, we did all know that was going to  happen. But a fundamental thing in the equation changed, and that is an *active* willingness from Brian, Al, and David to keep it going. I'm not shocked so much that Mike may not care about that, but it makes Mike going back to his own tour much more heartbreaking.

It's true that we probably would have been better off not knowing that the others wanted to keep it going. 

Hopefully something yet will be worked out. 

Contracts were drawn up and plans were made while completly keeping in mind that the reunion tour was a one-time thing that had a start and end date.  Why do we assume that it's so easy for them to now break agreements and contacts and extend the tour indefinitely?  Mike and Bruce made plans for more shows in October...with a good group of other band members and crew prepared to take those shows on.  What does it mean to them that Mike will now break out of those commitments?  Let's just let the events pass and see what they do next year.  Right now, they're just following through with the plans they initiated earlier this year. 

I don't think it's an outlandish claim to say that Brianistas lack integrity and that they believe the rest of the world (meaning Michael Love) should fall in line behind their demands.

You have got to be the least objective mod I've ever encountered on the Internet.

Why blame "Brianistas" for this?  You have a combination of Mike Love making poorly worded press statements and right-wing British tabloids doing what they do best here.  Is it a terrible crime to want to see the Beach Boys continue touring with more than one original member? 

I'm entitled to an opinion as well, you know.

No, it's not a terrible crime to want to see the Beach Boys continue touring with more than one original member. I'd love to see the five-man group go on. But this whole situation was already known back in June. Sure, Michael's statement was rather poorly worded and the less said about John Bull's psuedo-journalism, the better. I'm not blaming Brianistas for this situation itself since, again, we knew it back in June. But some of the most hateful remarks I've ever seen thrown at anyone, let alone a member of the Beach Boys...it's a bit much. I understand that the guy's not perfect but it's just moronic behavior for its own sake, in my opinion.

[hypehat]

I don't get how Michael's (or indeed, any of the members) backstage behavior is anyone's f***ing business.

But he pisses on Brian when Brian is asleep. That's not right. And then he says "lol pet sounds? more like sh*t sounds u fag" and then tells Bruce to piss on him too. That's what SurfRiderHawaii is talking about. That and liking the more "intimate" settings (in which he pisses on pictures of Brian/copies of pEt SoUnDz and sMiLe in an intimate manner (just he and bruce) (end other comma) and then intimately has sex with people less than a third of his own age and don't use no protection and then says "sup dawg i herd u didnt liek forming babby but i accidentally in your base" and then never pays child support even though he is extremely wealthy the bastard omg and then he grows a spiteful sort of moustache and records the red album)

This is entirely true.

[D409]

Yesterday's Guardian : among Mike's crimes listed is the "come and look at my huge turd" story from that leading and notoriously accurate  authority on The Beach Boys - Wouldn't It Be Nice :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/lostinshowbiz/2012/sep/27/mike-love-sacking-beach-boys

[Doo Dah]

Well the beat goes on - this time, stateside.

I just saw the CBS Morning News do a 5 minute report entitled "Sunset for the Beach Boys". The piece basically reiterated the whole ML announcement c/o a finite tour schedule and Brian's apparent shock that Mike wouldn't allow Al and Brian to tour with him, quoting Brian - "since after all...we're the Beach Boys." They also included clips from their Sunday Morning Show interview and went on to report (in the reporter's opinion), that "during my interview, you could feel the tension between the guys...they were polite and deferential to one another, but you could sense the personal tension..." Charlie Rose even joined in on the panel discussion!

Pounding out like a rhythm, to the brain...

[HeyJude]

My point with Al's band is that he never had a chance to "regularly" tour becuase of the immediate problems with his band's name. Regardless of wether the naming issue was totally Al's fault or not, the reality was that he never got momentum going to get the variety of bookings that would allow for the "indoor" and "outdoor" setlist variations that Mike/Bruce have done where more rarities are added to the more intimate, indoor theaters and whatnot. His shows were typically shorter than even the Mike/Bruce shows of the era, yet he was still attempting to add rarities. He tried doing the "Strawberry Festival" gig with the "long" version of "Heroes and Villains" complete with the "three score at five" bit. He was trying. It's too bad it failed for all the reasons we know it did.

I think even in his first year of touring in 1999, there were already attempted injunctions to stop him from using the name, and bookings were being cancelled. I recall some reports which may or may not be true of Al "BBFF" gigs being cancelled and replaced with shows from Mike's "Beach Boys", and so on.

[filledeplage]

Yesterday's Guardian : among Mike's crimes listed is the "come and look at my huge turd" story from that leading and notoriously accurate   authority on The Beach Boys - Wouldn't It Be Nice :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/lostinshowbiz/2012/sep/27/mike-love-sacking-beach-boys

That article was one of the most vicious and unbalanced things I've ever read, sourcing reportedly discredited information.  My gut tells me that Mike could not "fire" anyone but members in the band he runs under the license. It would be nice (pun intended) if some "agency/corporations/business associations/practitioner" would check that out.  If, however, Mike merely asserted that he was going back to the Touring Band, then revisit the "Band of 5," outside of his prior/ongoing commitments, it seems inflammatory (and insulting) for no reason.  He has already proven himself to be a reasonable man.  He agreed to the tour.  He interrupted his long existing business, to go on tour.  

These appear to be board room decisions.  Facebook is not the boardroom.  Consensus and agreement dominate with advice and counsel.  Informed opinions.  Not public opinion.  They have the public validation a million times over.  The love for the music is overpowering.

And, yes, it was more than great to see them up there, performing together.  But it was always presented and "represented" as a "window." In terms of "reunion and time." And not a "door" to dissipation of the Touring Band via polling and petition.  Or, in the alternative, relegating the "Big Band" to the "Touring Band." One might be considered a "subset" of the other.  Frankly, that might even be a "demotion." JMHO

People think they have the right to every nugget of personal information about a public figure.  Once they go off the stage, they re-enter their private lives.  Just as the new princess being photo-stalked as was her late mother-in-law, the great Princess Diana; this just "crosses the line."
 

[Doo Dah]

But it takes on a life of its own. And that's why professional PR people know what they're doing. Every word counts, and every word deleted counts as well. Jus' saying. It can all be swept away with a clear, concise explanation by 'someone important', but in that vacuum you have this viral thing going on. I mean yahoo tracking, CBS Morning News...where does it end? 

People who know me know that I'm no Mike apologist (and especially not a Bruce apologist), but I'm stunned by how one-sided and black n white this whole media onslaught has been. Part of me thinks, 'sucks for you Mike' but really the whole charade is quite unnecessary.

[guitarfool2002]

Put the blame where the blame is due - Mike f***ed this up by using the wrong words and saying what was already known by some fans on this board in such a way to make it sound like something other than what it really is.

We knew the "band" situation months ago - however, at the same time it was reckless of him to come out with this kind of statement and make it appear that the three original members were cut off from "The Beach Boys". And that's how it appeared to me, knowing what the backstory was the whole time I was reading coverage.

Now there are tens of thousands of people thinking Mike fired a few fellow Beach Boys, that's his own fault for saying what he said as he said it and not leaving such things to the professionals they pay to work the PR angle.

Or maybe he really wants to be "the bad guy" in some strange way, because this dust-up surely hasn't helped his image and probably won't help ticket sales for his upcoming tour either.

I don't know why people like this can't just bask in their success of performing their music to enthusiastic crowds, enjoy what the hell they have and what they get paid to do, savor the moment, and shut the f*** up.

[the professor]

Mike knows what he did, and his immersion in "ego" in the Vedic sense is surprising.  He know better than to create division and pain.  We need a change of heart, a clarification. . . .sorry, but all your analysis is so good and correct that I can add nothing but childish hope; the song is love and the children show the way (know the way?).

[ontor pertawst]

Has anybody recorded the CBS morning news report or found an online link? Pretty please.

For um, research purposes. Yeah. That's the ticket.