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

[filledeplage]

Please remember that these Mike & Bruce shows were originally scheduled before the reunion dates and originally to start well over a month after the original reunion ending date. The UK shows were added much later in the tour.

Do we really know that any or all of these October  tour dates were scheduled before the reunion dates? Were the scheduled before the reunion tour began, or scheduled before the reunion shows were even schedules? I don't think we know, and I think there is some circumstantial evidence that, at the very least, these October dates could have been cancelled, rescheduled, or postponed if they were indeed booked a long time ago.

I think it's quite possible that post-reunion shows were still being booked or firmed up after the reunion tour was scheduled and perhaps had begun.

I also don't understand why it matters much that these October dates were some sort of "prior committment." First of all, I'm no 100% convinced that is absolutely the case. But even if it is, we've seen evidence that they are going to book and play more Mike/Bruce shows. The press release states that more shows with this lineup will be announced. I think Mike's ultimate intentions for the immediate aftermath of the reunion tour never changed, either before, during, or after any stage of the reunion. That's totally his decision, but again it will paint him in a negative light with some fans because it may indicate less flexibility in keeping a reunion going sooner rather than later.

You should be convinced.  They were listed on Beachboysband.net before, during and after.  No surprise, and always a disclaimer attached that it was the Touring Band and not the reunion band.  And, there was a 50 show initial plan, which became expanded to about 75.  

[drbeachboy]

Please remember that these Mike & Bruce shows were originally scheduled before the reunion dates and originally to start well over a month after the original reunion ending date. The UK shows were added much later in the tour.

Exactly, and that's an important point, maybe THE point. And, somebody (I think it was Nicko1234) made the point awhile back.

People are finding yet another reason to criticize Mike by saying, "I can't believe how SOON Mike and Bruce are going out after the last reunion gig..." But, originally it wasn't that way. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the reunion tour EXTENDED by a month and a half to two months? (As an aside, obviously Mike agreed to those extra dates). If they didn't extend the reunion tour, Mike & Bruce would've waited about two months before resuming touring, and as somebody else pointed out awhile back, things would've died down and it wouldn't "looked" as bad, as if Mike & Bruce couldn't wait to get out there again.

Did I mention that Mike must've agreed to the extra/extended reuinion dates?

I think the timeframe during which these October shows were booked only matter in terms of talking about how the timing of that press release seemed bad in PR terms. Doing those gigs so soon after the reunion gigs just looks bad. I'm less concerned with when those shows are taking place, and more concerned with booking those and likely more shows being an indicator of not particularly even entertaining the idea of more reunion shows.

I refer back to one of my old questions, which is why did he have to book October gigs at all? That was totally by choice. Why not just go take a break until the new year? The answer may well be all the standbys, "He's a road warrior, that's what he does", or "He wants to generate more revenue", etc. Those are all reasons that make sense for Mike, no question. But he is then going to be painted in a negative light accordingly if he needed so desperately to do more gigs.

The fact that they didn't at least have one part of the game plan for this reunion set up, which was to perhaps institute some sort of "no non-reunion shows in 2012 to avoid confusion and bad PR" does speak to adamghost's point that even as dysfunctional as the BB's can apparently be, it's surprising they didn't have a little bit more set in stone.

They were booked before the any Reunion shows. As many times as this has been stated, it keeps falling on deaf ears.

[filledeplage]

I think we need to follow Adam's lead here and just sit back for a moment and marvel at what an amazing accomplishment this tour has really been!! I remember back when I bought my Irvine tickets, I honestly felt in the pit of my stomach that the tour would likely implode before they even got to Irvine. Or, at the very  least, Brian would have quit and been back at home in bed. We're talking about a very complicated family/old friends situation here that just also happens to be a corporation employing various configurations of people. I don't think anyone here (other than OSD who was already 40 when Surfin Safari was released) is 70 + or still in the same band with their high school friends. We can only imagine what such relationships will be like at that juncture. I say we just relax and see what happens in June or beyond. No need to be concerned with Mike and Historical touring non-stop in the meantime. They could be playing the local old-folks Bingo hall down the street from me tonight, and I would likely not even have a clue. If/when the "real" beach Boys come back, we will all be in the loop.

That is so true, it was a marvel, and every band member had his own journey in life, sometimes very difficult and they did rise to the occasion.  As a fan, for so long, listening to their individual voices every day, even and especially Carl's and remembering Dennis' high spirited personality, it was easy to be overtaken at how overwhelmingly emotional, this has been.  As that video wall flashed the various stages they invented, it brought back my own life, high school, college, etc.

It was like a dream watching them all perform together and and so well, bolstered by fabulous young musicians, taken under the wing of these masters. 

And now, it is morning, after this dream, more and better than anyone imagined.  And, it looks as if emotion has supplanted reason.  And the old factions have re-emerged.  During the tour, people were united and now they are sadly divided. 

In this mess, somewhere there is likely some compromise to be arrived at, because of the underlying indestructible bond they share, and best handled privately.   

[Nicko1234]

Please remember that these Mike & Bruce shows were originally scheduled before the reunion dates and originally to start well over a month after the original reunion ending date. The UK shows were added much later in the tour.

Exactly, and that's an important point, maybe THE point. And, somebody (I think it was Nicko1234) made the point awhile back.

People are finding yet another reason to criticize Mike by saying, "I can't believe how SOON Mike and Bruce are going out after the last reunion gig..." But, originally it wasn't that way. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the reunion tour EXTENDED by a month and a half to two months? (As an aside, obviously Mike agreed to those extra dates). If they didn't extend the reunion tour, Mike & Bruce would've waited about two months before resuming touring, and as somebody else pointed out awhile back, things would've died down and it wouldn't "looked" as bad, as if Mike & Bruce couldn't wait to get out there again.

Did I mention that Mike must've agreed to the extra/extended reuinion dates?

I think the timeframe during which these October shows were booked only matter in terms of talking about how the timing of that press release seemed bad in PR terms. Doing those gigs so soon after the reunion gigs just looks bad. I'm less concerned with when those shows are taking place, and more concerned with booking those and likely more shows being an indicator of not particularly even entertaining the idea of more reunion shows.

I refer back to one of my old questions, which is why did he have to book October gigs at all? That was totally by choice. Why not just go take a break until the new year? The answer may well be all the standbys, "He's a road warrior, that's what he does", or "He wants to generate more revenue", etc. Those are all reasons that make sense for Mike, no question. But he is then going to be painted in a negative light accordingly if he needed so desperately to do more gigs.

The fact that they didn't at least have one part of the game plan for this reunion set up, which was to perhaps institute some sort of "no non-reunion shows in 2012 to avoid confusion and bad PR" does speak to adamghost's point that even as dysfunctional as the BB's can apparently be, it's surprising they didn't have a little bit more set in stone.

The October shows were booked before. It was on the net and discussed on this board.

The reason he chose to do October gigs is because they had to pick a point at some time when they thought the reunion tour would be finished. As the original agreement was to do 50 shows and for it to stop in August in Japan, October probably seemed like a sensible time.

Why didn`t they have an agreement to only use the reunion group in 2012? Because for Mike to have agreed to that Brian would probably have had to sign up for close to 100 shows right from the beginning which was never likely to happen.

It WAS all set in stone in terms of the reunion tour having to finish by a certain time. Bruce said it months ago and I`m certain that all of the members were aware of it. The mistake that has been made, as Adam rightly said, is that they have been singing from a different hymn sheet over the past couple of weeks. Mike certainly hasn`t helped himself but Brian and Al haven`t helped things either.

As others have said, the most important thing is that the reunion tour was a huge success and that is what will be remembered.

[KittyKat]

Ambha Love posted a defense of her father on his Facebook fan page.  It's a few posts down on the fan postings.  Several people gave her supportive replies, including her sisters Teresa and Melinda.  Her cousins on the Wilson side, Jonah and Carl B., also left her positive messages.  I thought it was nice.  There are a lot of nasty messages posted to Mike on the page, and the people running his page seem not to be deleting them.

[HeyJude]

Why didn`t they have an agreement to only use the reunion group in 2012? Because for Mike to have agreed to that Brian would probably have had to sign up for close to 100 shows right from the beginning which was never likely to happen.

Why would Brian or anybody have to sign up for 100 shows? Why couldn't Mike just do the reunion gigs, whether 50 or 75 or more, and committ to no non-reunion shows until 2013, whether the reunion ended in July or September or whenever? A lot of comments seem to be predicated on the idea that Mike *has* to keep booking shows throughout the years. That is at least part of the reason that is leading to some of the negative characterizations of him, that he can't just leave the band's name alone for a few months. Yes, I know why he wants to keep going; it's the same reason he didn't want to take, say, some or all of 1998 to get past Carl's death, and so on. He does what he wants to do, what he feels is best. That's fine, but I don't think anyone should be surprised that it leaves him open to criticism if he needs to wring every bit of revenue out of the band's name as he can.

[the professor]

yes, it all makes sense,but why don't they please tell us that. . . . . . .

[EgoHanger1966]

Ambha Love posted a defense of her father on his Facebook fan page.  It's a few posts down on the fan postings.  Several people gave her supportive replies, including her sisters Teresa and Melinda.  Her cousins on the Wilson side, Jonah and Carl B., also left her positive messages.  I thought it was nice.  There are a lot of nasty messages posted to Mike on the page, and the people running his page seem not to be deleting them.

It does really suck that families have to be dragged into this, especially in this internet age where everything is so accessible. Comes with the territory for the performer - but when you're that performer's child, it must really hurt to have those things said about one of the most important people in your life.

She's right on one level, Mike Love didn't do anything wrong persay - it's just the way that this whole thing was handled and publicised. Maybe it was that way on purpose, maybe it wasn't. Hopefully this will blow over and will only be remembered in brief by uber fans like us...."hey, remember that time Mike 'fired' Brian???"

[Cam Mott]

Or everybody could do what they agreed to do [done] and if something extra can be worked out, fine [yet to be seen]. If not: no harm, no foul, at least they got what they agreed to. There is always [hopefully] next year.

[Jonathan Blum]

People are finding yet another reason to criticize Mike by saying, "I can't believe how SOON Mike and Bruce are going out after the last reunion gig..." But, originally it wasn't that way. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the reunion tour EXTENDED by a month and a half to two months? (As an aside, obviously Mike agreed to those extra dates). If they didn't extend the reunion tour, Mike & Bruce would've waited about two months before resuming touring, and as somebody else pointed out awhile back, things would've died down and it wouldn't "looked" as bad, as if Mike & Bruce couldn't wait to get out there again.

To me, the issue is not announcing the gigs or even going out again, but announcing them the week before the tour finale.  As Al indicated, that's not good timin'.

If they were booking and announcing gigs even before the press release, they were clearly under no obligation to put that announcement out right then; they could have waited another week before issuing the press release, and expressed it in a way which indicates that the whole band would still like to work together in future.

Regards,
Jon Blum

[Dave Modny]

Please remember that these Mike & Bruce shows were originally scheduled before the reunion dates and originally to start well over a month after the original reunion ending date. The UK shows were added much later in the tour.

Exactly, and that's an important point, maybe THE point. And, somebody (I think it was Nicko1234) made the point awhile back.

People are finding yet another reason to criticize Mike by saying, "I can't believe how SOON Mike and Bruce are going out after the last reunion gig..." But, originally it wasn't that way. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the reunion tour EXTENDED by a month and a half to two months? (As an aside, obviously Mike agreed to those extra dates). If they didn't extend the reunion tour, Mike & Bruce would've waited about two months before resuming touring, and as somebody else pointed out awhile back, things would've died down and it wouldn't "looked" as bad, as if Mike & Bruce couldn't wait to get out there again.

Did I mention that Mike must've agreed to the extra/extended reuinion dates?

I think the timeframe during which these October shows were booked only matter in terms of talking about how the timing of that press release seemed bad in PR terms. Doing those gigs so soon after the reunion gigs just looks bad. I'm less concerned with when those shows are taking place, and more concerned with booking those and likely more shows being an indicator of not particularly even entertaining the idea of more reunion shows.

I refer back to one of my old questions, which is why did he have to book October gigs at all? That was totally by choice. Why not just go take a break until the new year? The answer may well be all the standbys, "He's a road warrior, that's what he does", or "He wants to generate more revenue", etc. Those are all reasons that make sense for Mike, no question. But he is then going to be painted in a negative light accordingly if he needed so desperately to do more gigs.

The fact that they didn't at least have one part of the game plan for this reunion set up, which was to perhaps institute some sort of "no non-reunion shows in 2012 to avoid confusion and bad PR" does speak to adamghost's point that even as dysfunctional as the BB's can apparently be, it's surprising they didn't have a little bit more set in stone.

They were booked before the any Reunion shows. As many times as this has been stated, it keeps falling on deaf ears.

Just curious, and forgive me if I missed it, but is there concrete verification that these upcoming Mike-Bruce shows were indeed booked *before* the reunion tour (which would've have literally meant [probably well] before December 2011 when the tour was announced)? That is, my only recollection of an initial mention in the press was the old Rolling Stone piece that noted "Mike booking new shows for his band as of June 2012."

[Cam Mott]

I guess I don't understand what difference it makes when they were booked, they are after the final date the other Boys had committed themselves to for the tour.  They had not expressed a desire to continue past the agreed dates until after the statement, until well after they had been booked. So they had been booked well before the other Boys decided they could do more dates whether it was before the reunion tour or during the reunion tour.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Additional salient point: the original closing date of the C50 tour was August 15th.

[AndrewHickey]

To me, the issue is not announcing the gigs or even going out again, but announcing them the week before the tour finale.  As Al indicated, that's not good timin'.

If they were booking and announcing gigs even before the press release, they were clearly under no obligation to put that announcement out right then; they could have waited another week before issuing the press release, and expressed it in a way which indicates that the whole band would still like to work together in future.

They were announced a long time ago as well. To me, the press release just read like a clarification -- the reunion tour was getting more press again, with the Grammy show and so on, so they thought it wise to tell people "these aren't the reunion shows" in case anyone bought tickets and was disappointed.

[Dave Modny]

I guess I don't understand what difference it makes when they were booked, they are after the final date the other Boys had committed themselves to for the tour. They had not expressed a desire to continue past the agreed dates until after the statement, until well after they had been booked. So they had been booked well before the other Boys decided they could do more dates whether it was before the reunion tour or during the reunion tour.

It doesn't at all. It was Mike's right to do what he did, according to what he and BRI had agreed upon long ago, and in terms of booking logistics. As I said a few posts back, I think that the end game problems arose because some members' motives or intents with the reunion may not have been perfectly "pure" or definite to begin with in their minds, while another's may have been as clear as a bell in his (all speculative of course). Thus, the main onus has to be on Al and Brian. There's no denying it was they who put forth all the "shock and dismay" out there.....when they probably knew better.

However...

Even taking into account that the 50th tour was extended after the fact, I can also see how someone can view the upcoming bookings with a rolling eye towards Mike. If only for the fact that it probably would've been a good idea for him not to put another, watered-down "Beach Boys" on the road for *several* months, maybe a year, after-the-fact, if he did indeed view the 50th as an absolute one-time-only deal (back when the 50th was being conceived to begin with...and beyond), and if only out of respect for the enormity and historical significance that he had to know a tour like this would bring.

Furthermore, when it was decided to indeed extend the 50th, and even if Al and Brian hadn't stirred the sauce, he probably should have realized that having the big tour instantly turn into the "county fair" one might be a PR/cred nightmare or in terms of potential confusion with ticket buyers -- preemptive press releases aside. That is, it might just *look* tacky or like a quick cash-grab to the cynical.

I mean, if "BB saturation" truly was a concern in his mind, and also taking into account his initial viewing of the big tour as a one-and-done deal, couldn't he have just waited until next spring to resume his activities? Were cancellations or postponements (where applicable) an option? That would still leave open the possibility for a potential, big reunion change of heart after that.

[Howie Edelson]

Most of us have known about these upcoming concerts for a while. Bruce Johnston gleefully told anybody who would listen as much. A lot of us have also known that this tour happened solely at the mercy of Melinda Wilson and Jackie Love and that come the final stretch of dates how THAT relationship played out would determine the future of the Beach Boys. Regardless of whether the Mike band had a bunch of dates booked, the "this tour had a specific end date" excuse really is bulls*** -- because EVERYONE IN AND AROUND THE TOUR knew that if the powers that if be said it's going to continue, it would. The fact than none of this "specific end date" or “our final tour” talk was brought up during their global round of recent interviews proves that either this was being kept away from the general public because it would sully the celebratory aspects of the reunion -- or no one was absolutely sure what was going to go down. And trust me – no one was sure. The prevailing attitude was “let’s just get through this tour.” Would Mike keep the side band for corporate dates and/or "off season shows" -- a lot of things were kept purposely ambiguous. I honestly believe that things are still up in the air about the future of the band. I personally believe there will be some type of middle ground met. I think we’re all in agreement that it could've been done more professionally and with far more class.

When I last spoke at length to Mike in late June, I pressed him hard about what 2013 would hold in store for the band and he made it seem that after the tour the principles would regroup to record at some point -- preferably on songs he and Brian co-wrote -- and discuss future dates. He stressed that the show was more expensive than he would have liked and that he actually regretted having to only play large venues. He had ample chances to say to me that it was permanently going back to the way it was before and he did not. He loved everything about the 50th tour from the song selection to his bandmates' performances -- but (my words) he resented having to lose money paying for such a big machine. Apart from that, he gave me ZERO INDICATION that this was a finite thing. Mike telling the audience at the CalSaga Grammy performance that the group would be opening for the Beach Boys next summer certainly seemed to indicate that the co-founders would be hitting the road again. (Two members of CalSaga told me that the announcement was actually news to them.)

While talking about the tour -- and specifically the "50 Big Ones Productions" headed by Joe Thomas -- Mike gushed that no one else could have pulled this thing together. When I asked him if BRI has ever thought of hiring someone "in house" to run operations like that year-round, he admitted they never have considered it. I offered up former manager Jerry Schilling's name.

The press release issued just prior to the Grammy show was needed to explain the situation before fans started buying tickets to shows and walk out pissed at seeing "imposters." It really wasn’t the d*ck move that the press are labeling it – but the timing was both comically and typically horrible. The fact that it was bereft of any emotion, class, good will, or respect for the co-founders is why this mess happened in the first place. It was ugly and it reeked of "the bottom line." And the thing that's so dispiriting about this is that this thing was truly magnificent. It really was. It rose to every occasion. The rock press coverage was astounding. For a band with zero presence on classic rock radio, they were covered as much -- if not more -- than McCartney and The Who's tours. A hit album and massive, massive exposure. They went from Frankie Valli to Mick Jagger OVERNIGHT. Even Bruce Johnston calling Barrack Obama an as shole couldn't cause a dent in the power of this reunion. But having "Mike Love Fires Brian Wilson" being one of the top tweets and trends online coupled with the Eagles calling Mike out for being an idiot, is press so bad I doubt the brand can fully recover. All that positivity, all that good will GONE in a day. Even the cynics are speechless. What a stupid avoidable mess.

[Cam Mott]

If a promoter/venue causes confusion or misleads the public then shame on them. I guess I also don't see what is wrong with going back to the normal after the special or how it is less special or tarnished by proximity to the normal. Seems to me it polishs up the specialness if anything. If the special does become the normal, cool, for however long it lasts. The BBs' legacy seems to be bullletproof either way.

[Wirestone]

Howie, when you're on, you're on. Brilliant summation / analysis.

[Mikie]

Yeah, good one, Howie.

[Autotune]

Thank you for such an insightful and well-written post, Mr. Edelson.

One question: am I right to infer that Mrs. Wilson and Mrs. Love got along just fine?

[John Manning]

Howie, when you're on, you're on. Brilliant summation / analysis.

Agreed wholeheartedly.

[the professor]

Yes, a compelling clarification and historical summary by Howie. Unfortunately its truths confirm the best possible reading of the events (it makes sense for Mike to go back to touring at least for now) and the worst possible revelation about how it was done (callously and stupidly so as to tarnish the band and imperil its future art, popularity, press and very existence).

What now?

[guitarfool2002]

I agree with Howie, that was a great post.

It also agrees with what others have said over the past dozen pages or so: Beyond the whole thing being lifted to a level of both the surreal and the pathetic for no discernible reason, it was handled terribly, and unless I'm mistaken *NO ONE* actually in the band has made an attempt to publicly clarify any part of it. If something goes this far, shouldn't Mike himself or Mike and the rest of the band issue a joint public statement or even make an online video to explain to their fans what is happening?

It's just speculation after assumption, fueled by not a single personal word (as of yet...) to ease the tensions a bit.

It tells me perhaps a case of "any publicity is good publicity" is what we're seeing. Or else it was truly major mistake or misunderstanding that can't be fixed so easily.

The absence of a follow-up statement or comment from an actual band member other than a hired spokesperson seems very sketchy...and worrisome.

[Shady]

Mike is a musical genius and a brilliant front man but what a truly a horrible person.

[filledeplage]

Most of us have known about these upcoming concerts for a while. Bruce Johnston gleefully told anybody who would listen as much. A lot of us have also known that this tour happened solely at the mercy of Melinda Wilson and Jackie Love and that come the final stretch of dates how THAT relationship played out would determine the future of the Beach Boys. Regardless of whether the Mike band had a bunch of dates booked, the "this tour had a specific end date" excuse really is bulls*** -- because EVERYONE IN AND AROUND THE TOUR knew that if the powers that if be said it's going to continue, it would. The fact than none of this "specific end date" or “our final tour” talk was brought up during their global round of recent interviews proves that either this was being kept away from the general public because it would sully the celebratory aspects of the reunion -- or no one was absolutely sure what was going to go down. And trust me – no one was sure. The prevailing attitude was “let’s just get through this tour.” Would Mike keep the side band for corporate dates and/or "off season shows" -- a lot of things were kept purposely ambiguous. I honestly believe that things are still up in the air about the future of the band. I personally believe there will be some type of middle ground met. I think we’re all in agreement that it could've been done more professionally and with far more class.

When I last spoke at length to Mike in late June, I pressed him hard about what 2013 would hold in store for the band and he made it seem that after the tour the principles would regroup to record at some point -- preferably on songs he and Brian co-wrote -- and discuss future dates. He stressed that the show was more expensive than he would have liked and that he actually regretted having to only play large venues. He had ample chances to say to me that it was permanently going back to the way it was before and he did not. He loved everything about the 50th tour from the song selection to his bandmates' performances -- but (my words) he resented having to lose money paying for such a big machine. Apart from that, he gave me ZERO INDICATION that this was a finite thing. Mike telling the audience at the CalSaga Grammy performance that the group would be opening for the Beach Boys next summer certainly seemed to indicate that the co-founders would be hitting the road again. (Two members of CalSaga told me that the announcement was actually news to them.)

While talking about the tour -- and specifically the "50 Big Ones Productions" headed by Joe Thomas -- Mike gushed that no one else could have pulled this thing together. When I asked him if BRI has ever thought of hiring someone "in house" to run operations like that year-round, he admitted they never have considered it. I offered up former manager Jerry Schilling's name.

The press release issued just prior to the Grammy show was needed to explain the situation before fans started buying tickets to shows and walk out pissed at seeing "imposters." It really wasn’t the d*ck move that the press are labeling it – but the timing was both comically and typically horrible. The fact that it was bereft of any emotion, class, good will, or respect for the co-founders is why this mess happened in the first place. It was ugly and it reeked of "the bottom line." And the thing that's so dispiriting about this is that this thing was truly magnificent. It really was. It rose to every occasion. The rock press coverage was astounding. For a band with zero presence on classic rock radio, they were covered as much -- if not more -- than McCartney and The Who's tours. A hit album and massive, massive exposure. They went from Frankie Valli to Mick Jagger OVERNIGHT. Even Bruce Johnston calling Barrack Obama an as shole couldn't cause a dent in the power of this reunion. But having "Mike Love Fires Brian Wilson" being one of the top tweets and trends online coupled with the Eagles calling Mike out for being an idiot, is press so bad I doubt the brand can fully recover. All that positivity, all that good will GONE in a day. Even the cynics are speechless. What a stupid avoidable mess.

Howie - Those two ladies, Melinda, and Jacqui, are women who are involved and appear to work actively with, and for their husbands' businesses.  News flash: We, women can vote, be doctors, lawyers, and Secretaries' of State.  And be lifelong passionate Beach Boys fans.

And, frankly a "wait and see" approach of prudence to see how the tour came together, was not a bad thing, with Brian's mobility issues, as well as anything else that could have sprung up.  I find that your comments discredit their contributions to the operations, which do have a track record that is credible.  Friends who attended the shows and saw Brian in such discomfort were hoping and praying, that he would last through the tour, and Thank God, he did.  The fans held their breath, too.

This media campaign, at the close of the tour, has been a nightmare. A lesson in Facebook 101.  

But, clarity for ticket holders of the Touring Band, which you disparagingly describe as a "side" band, is difficult to reckon for me. The "side band" members (Totten and Cowsill) brought an "oomph" to this reunion.  The "backbeat and brains" as it were.  They had to take direction from someone younger.  They sang better, were more precise as a result, and the performances were more or less letter perfect.  

Going on the road at 70 in an over the top caravan, and it was, a "caravan" might have truly been perceived as wasteful.  And that is not just an "opinion" but and "informed" opinion, if Mike did speak about it, and info from someone who ran the business.  With help from a woman, who should be credited as a businesswoman, as much as Melinda has been instrumental, in Brian's business.  

Maybe in these lean economic times, a little prudence with money, which translates to a lower ticket price, and more fan attendance, is not a bad thing.  You've mentioned that not all the venues might not have been the first choice.  Mike is making money, surely, but he is bringing the music more places, more reasonably for the fans.  That is commendable.  Because people can bring their families.

But, that little "side band" could teach the world of rock and roll a thing or two. I saw Steve Stills in a smaller, but packed and more intimate setting last fall, and it was a clearly fulfilling event for all.  Bigger is not always better.  And, Mike makes the music more "accessible" to outlying areas, whose money is green, too.  And it seems "market saturation" is valid.  I live in a state where there is a war over casino placement, close in proximity to failing or struggling casinos.  Were the Eagles' tix $5? If it is true, then, it was their (Eagles) pride that was hurt.  

Funny, when a man is gifted in business, he is respected, but when a women is equally gifted, there is still an undertone of disrespect.  And, that is what I take from your post; that it is the fault of two hardworking, spouses.  

I look at it differently, and said as much earlier.  They were 4 entities: 1) Big Band, 2) Touring Band, 3)Brian Band, 4) Al Band.  The 2, 3 and 4 being subsets or entities of 1) Big Band.  

Band 2) could probaby not fire Band 1) - and your suggestion is that the "spouses" of Band 2) and Band 3) ended the reunion? I taught 4 year olds for many years; I have to keep it simple, sweetie.  The KISS rule.  Hence the numbered subsets.

And, I think you owe those ladies (Mrs. Wilson and Mrs. Love) an apology; I hope surf does not "freeze over" before you do.