Official thread for Brian & Al's Official Response to Mike/Bruce Band Tour in the LA Times

[I. Spaceman]

There are whispers of incorporating Dave Coulier into the act to boost credibility with the young, groovy demographic that thinks Dave Coulier is, and I quote: "outta sight."

You oughtta know!

[filledeplage]

I honestly don't understand what Mike and Bruce get out of touring small venues, the money can't be that great for guys wealthy as them.

Each of the bands, has not done big venues exclusively.  Brian's band and Al's band have done funky old redone community theatres, which adds to the charm of the performances.  Some were built during the vaudeville days.  I notice that the band will recognize "return" customers to a lot of these venues, and there is a certain connection that has been cultivated in a lot of these diverse venues.  

At a point, it is not all about money, I don't think. It is charitable "give-back" and the gratification of the kind of goodwill and business that you've cultivated and built.  The Touring Band seems to enjoy a freedom that the C50 band (despite its magnificence) did not.  

There is a sort of familiarity with only comes with return engagements, getting to know BB fans in outlying areas.  It is something to be embraced. One that comes to mind is their visit to a post tornado town, where they did an impromptu show at a community center.  Would the Big Band have the freedom to do such stuff?  

[Danimalist]

Just another episode in the life of our favorite dysfunfunfunctional family!

Seriously, one of the reasons this band is so messed up is because they add family dynamics (and radically differing and stubborn personalities) to the usual group dynamics. Is any of us really surprised by all this?

[Dr. Tim]

Ian is simply summarizing what many, including Peter Carlin, have reported over the years.  The "strangeness" is not the band, they can come and go at will, like Zappa's stable of musicians.  It's the entourage(s) each has, who don't get along or just don't bother to communicate with each other.  Some people there could be the closest buds one week, but this week be persona non grata - David Leaf, anyone?   Nor is this a fault unique to the BB; see, e.g., the Eagles, CS&N over the years, etc.

This pigheaded refusal amongst the entourages (encouraged by the main guys. to be sure) to keep the lines open has caused the current kerfluffle, which is all  it really is.  A few phone calls among the principals (or a meetup at a favorite steak house) would sort it out in an hour or two.  But that's up to them.  I would be very surprised if it came to some kind of boardroom showdown.  But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Indeed, after all these years I am now convinced that Mike's ill-advised 2004 court case could have been avoided if certain of the designated "people" would have just TALKED to each other.  There might not have been a group hug about BWPS but maybe the Wings-of-Egos "boil" could have been reduced to a low "simmer".

[HeyJude]

So therefore, even though I don't consider myself a Brianista, he should tell Mike that either The Beach Boys proceed together or "The Beach Boys" won't be an active touring group anymore.

Brian could only do that if Al and Carl's Estate's attorney both agree.

Or if Mike Love actually chose to stop using the "Beach Boys" name.

[HeyJude]

I honestly don't understand what Mike and Bruce get out of touring small venues, the money can't be that great for guys wealthy as them.

Each of the bands, has not done big venues exclusively.  Brian's band and Al's band have done funky old redone community theatres, which adds to the charm of the performances.  Some were built during the vaudeville days.  I notice that the band will recognize "return" customers to a lot of these venues, and there is a certain connection that has been cultivated in a lot of these diverse venues. 

At a point, it is not all about money, I don't think. It is charitable "give-back" and the gratification of the kind of goodwill and business that you've cultivated and built.  The Touring Band seems to enjoy a freedom that the C50 band (despite its magnificence) did not. 

There is a sort of familiarity with only comes with return engagements, getting to know BB fans in outlying areas.  It is something to be embraced. One that comes to mind is their visit to a post tornado town, where they did an impromptu show at a community center.  Would the Big Band have the freedom to do such stuff? 

If the "reunion" band became an ongoing concern for the foreseeable future, they would probably be able to do more impromptu gigs and other things, since they wouldn't be tied down to any other obligations.

As for the touring being a charitable venture, I just don't think that's a driving motivation. It's a nice fringe benefit. If Mike really does feel like not playing the same small markets *every* year would lead to masses of fans forgetting about the Beach Boys, then that alone speaks to his motivation to continue to tour I suppose. It's like he thinks he'll lose something if he every lets it go, for any period of time.

[Shady]

Beach Boys have canceled a show in Chile because of "logistical problems"

The Beach Boys: SUSPENDED
FRIDAY 10/26/2012
21:00 Hrs.
Movistar Arena


As reported by the organization of the event is concert will be rescheduled due to "logistical problems outside the band and domestic production."
"Both the band and the production office, are working together to schedule a new date and bring back to The Beach Boys," the official statement.
The return of the entries will take place from Friday 12 October at authorized outlets Ticket Point. For those who bought their tickets and have not yet retired, the refunds will be processed automatically and the money will be reversed through the same means by which we bought.

[GoodToMyBaby]

The plot thickens..

[filledeplage]

I honestly don't understand what Mike and Bruce get out of touring small venues, the money can't be that great for guys wealthy as them.

Each of the bands, has not done big venues exclusively.  Brian's band and Al's band have done funky old redone community theatres, which adds to the charm of the performances.  Some were built during the vaudeville days.  I notice that the band will recognize "return" customers to a lot of these venues, and there is a certain connection that has been cultivated in a lot of these diverse venues.  

At a point, it is not all about money, I don't think. It is charitable "give-back" and the gratification of the kind of goodwill and business that you've cultivated and built.  The Touring Band seems to enjoy a freedom that the C50 band (despite its magnificence) did not.  

There is a sort of familiarity with only comes with return engagements, getting to know BB fans in outlying areas.  It is something to be embraced. One that comes to mind is their visit to a post tornado town, where they did an impromptu show at a community center.  Would the Big Band have the freedom to do such stuff?  

If the "reunion" band became an ongoing concern for the foreseeable future, they would probably be able to do more impromptu gigs and other things, since they wouldn't be tied down to any other obligations.

As for the touring being a charitable venture, I just don't think that's a driving motivation. It's a nice fringe benefit. If Mike really does feel like not playing the same small markets *every* year would lead to masses of fans forgetting about the Beach Boys, then that alone speaks to his motivation to continue to tour I suppose. It's like he thinks he'll lose something if he every lets it go, for any period of time.

Just for the sake of argument...my take was that the tour was managed, not from "within" but, from "without."

With every minute "plugged in" with interviews, on venue site, and off venue site, does it seem possible that they could be free to do anything "impromptu?" All these back seat drivers who would change the course of business and history, and substitute their judgment, for the band, could not possibly infer what intentions any band member might have.  

And, of course it is not a charitable outfit, but social awareness is a factor, as always.  Music or art, for that matter, has never been that far removed from the conscience of society.   It isn't fringe.

Is it unreasonable to let the band work this out, themselves?  It gives them no credit for being intelligent adults who are capable of handling their business affairs.  I think they will figure this out.  The fact that this was such a 1) successful tour and 2) a carve out of scheduling for the Touring Band, 3) and realization that there was a "change in positions," that was not anticipated.  

At the outset, it was 50 dates; then it was enlarged by about 50%.  Now, "an event," (C50)is being construed as what some people feel should be a "permanent arrangement."  And attack anyone and everyone who does not agree.  If they can compose the greatest American music of the latter 20th century, I think they can figure this out.  

[Wirestone]

At the outset, it was 50 dates; then it was enlarged by about 50%.  Now, "an event," (C50)is being construed as what some people feel should be a "permanent arrangement."  And attack anyone and everyone who does not agree.  If they can compose the greatest American music of the latter 20th century, I think they can figure this out. 

I don't think we're attacking anyone and everyone who does not agree. I have not seen or heard that. I've seen and heard some folks who are unhappy at seeing a great, full-lineup band that put on shows worthy of its legacy being tossed aside in favor of a value-priced outfit that plays tiny venues.

[Wirestone]

Melinda, for all her faults, seems to have ultimately found a good balance.

I agree, tho many, and I am not speaking of fans, disagree.

There are also many, and I'm speaking of imaginary people rather than real ones, who think Melinda is a magical unicorn.

[filledeplage]

At the outset, it was 50 dates; then it was enlarged by about 50%.  Now, "an event," (C50)is being construed as what some people feel should be a "permanent arrangement."  And attack anyone and everyone who does not agree.  If they can compose the greatest American music of the latter 20th century, I think they can figure this out. 

I don't think we're attacking anyone and everyone who does not agree. I have not seen or heard that. I've seen and heard some folks who are unhappy at seeing a great, full-lineup band that put on shows worthy of its legacy being tossed aside in favor of a value-priced outfit that plays tiny venues.

It sure looks that way to me.  These appear to be legal relationships within the organization. The C50 Tour was billed unambiguously as an "event" of finite duration, not a change in what members were free to do.  I never got the impression that if, for example Brian was to be offered a special project, such as the Gershwin project, or one such as TLOS, that the Touring Band would be there for Brian's tour.  Or, in the alternative, if Al's Band was presenting his wonderful Postcard from California, that the Touring Band would participate. 

The concept of "value" is relative.  Is it (The Touring Band) within the reach of more people? Ya.  But, this was billed as a "limited" engagement of sorts.  I'm delighted they performed together.  But, it is not up to me to tell anyone they must work together.  That might be called indentured servitude.  It is a matter of choice.  They all have to choose to either stay as separate entities or decide if a hybrid is the new model or all go back to what I think of as a pre-1965 band model.

Do they as a group want to rethink how they deliver the music? Do they want to "dial it back?" Do they need a cast of thousands? Is there a middle ground that they can all live with?  Probably. 

[KittyKat]

Some things to keep in mind about Melinda Wilson: she sued Joe Thomas a long time ago.  Which means that either she or the people who give her advice can be difficult.  On the other hand, she did eventually make peace with Joe Thomas, or was forced to do so when Brian decided to work with him again.  The same with Al Jardine.  Brian's "people" didn't even allow him to speak to Brian during the Hawthorne monument dedication.  When Brian and Al did reconcile, Al was even allowed to tour with Brian.  Then Brian's people turned around and got rid of Al, either at Brian's people's choice or Brian's choice or both.  Now, they've made peace with Al again, for the time being, while it's convenient, at least.  I'm thinking both sides of this can be not only difficult, but flaky and hard to predict.

I'm also wondering if it is a cost issue or rather a cost sharing issue.  Brian's demands for the tour had to have driven up the cost, if he insisted that so many of his band members be included.  Then there's the issue of the tour bus that Brian has just for himself.  There could easily be a reduction of at least a couple of band members.  There are too many keyboardists, guitarists, and perhaps even the drummer can be reduced to one.  As far as Brian having his own bus, he should only get as much money for that expense as if he were riding along with the rest of the band.  Perhaps he does pay the expense himself, but if he doesn't, he really should.  Or even travel by a van or car.  It would surely be less to travel in a smaller vehicle if all they're doing is using an entire bus to carry him around, and he just can't stand to be around other people.

[HeyJude]

At the outset, it was 50 dates; then it was enlarged by about 50%.  Now, "an event," (C50)is being construed as what some people feel should be a "permanent arrangement."  And attack anyone and everyone who does not agree.  If they can compose the greatest American music of the latter 20th century, I think they can figure this out. 

I don't think we're attacking anyone and everyone who does not agree. I have not seen or heard that. I've seen and heard some folks who are unhappy at seeing a great, full-lineup band that put on shows worthy of its legacy being tossed aside in favor of a value-priced outfit that plays tiny venues.

It sure looks that way to me.  These appear to be legal relationships within the organization. The C50 Tour was billed unambiguously as an "event" of finite duration, not a change in what members were free to do.  I never got the impression that if, for example Brian was to be offered a special project, such as the Gershwin project, or one such as TLOS, that the Touring Band would be there for Brian's tour.  Or, in the alternative, if Al's Band was presenting his wonderful Postcard from California, that the Touring Band would participate. 

The concept of "value" is relative.  Is it (The Touring Band) within the reach of more people? Ya.  But, this was billed as a "limited" engagement of sorts.  I'm delighted they performed together.  But, it is not up to me to tell anyone they must work together.  That might be called indentured servitude.  It is a matter of choice.  They all have to choose to either stay as separate entities or decide if a hybrid is the new model or all go back to what I think of as a pre-1965 band model.

Do they as a group want to rethink how they deliver the music? Do they want to "dial it back?" Do they need a cast of thousands? Is there a middle ground that they can all live with?  Probably. 

I suppose the "50th Anniversary" component of this was inherently of a finite duration; only one year can be the 50th. Heck, everything is a finite duration if it ever changes at any point in the future. But it certainly seems like they kept the whole thing at the very least open ended in the sense that they never stated they would never do anything together after this album and tour. Indeed, from what we're hearing, it was a disorganized but somewhat open "let's just get through this tour and then see" attitude. That certainly doesn't promise anything afterwards, but I don't think it was "unambiguous" as to the duration of the actual "reunion lineup", it actually seemed to be very ambiguous through most of the tour, with little talk from the band of what would happen afterward.  That obviously changed closer to the end of the tour.

[ontor pertawst]

I'm sure the bus issue was taken care of long ago. You seriously see Mike letting the cost of that for an entire tour slide and not insisting Brian give on another issue or cover the increased cost himself? That is just the sort of thing to really exert leverage on when compromising. I'm sure this wasn't left to be a burning, resentful issue paid for out of Potential Mike Love Profit(TM)

[HeyJude]

Some things to keep in mind about Melinda Wilson: she sued Joe Thomas a long time ago.  Which means that either she or the people who give her advice can be difficult.  On the other hand, she did eventually make peace with Joe Thomas, or was forced to do so when Brian decided to work with him again.  The same with Al Jardine.  Brian's "people" didn't even allow him to speak to Brian during the Hawthorne monument dedication.  When Brian and Al did reconcile, Al was even allowed to tour with Brian.  Then Brian's people turned around and got rid of Al, either at Brian's people's choice or Brian's choice or both.  Now, they've made peace with Al again, for the time being, while it's convenient, at least.  I'm thinking both sides of this can be not only difficult, but flaky and hard to predict. 

I don't think I've ever read a firm, reliable account of what happened in terms of Al not continuing with Brian's tour back circa 2007. It certainly was never presented as Al joining Brian's band, but simply sitting in for special occasions. It seems pretty obvious something beyond the "Al is going to stay home and focus on his album" line was going on, but I still haven't heard much on this beyond vague allusions to costs, which always made it sound like Al technically chose to depart because there weren't funds to pay him. This could obviously be construed as the organization forcing Al out, but I never heard any bitter words from Brian or Al about each other after that.

[Rocky Raccoon]

I think Melinda should step back from being Brian's business representative or whatever it is she does.  Being his wife, I think it makes her a little too overprotective and personal.  I mean, obviously she should have a say but there are times when it seems like she's a little too involved.

[SurfRiderHawaii]

Some things to keep in mind about Melinda Wilson: she sued Joe Thomas a long time ago.  Which means that either she or the people who give her advice can be difficult.  On the other hand, she did eventually make peace with Joe Thomas, or was forced to do so when Brian decided to work with him again.  The same with Al Jardine.  Brian's "people" didn't even allow him to speak to Brian during the Hawthorne monument dedication.  When Brian and Al did reconcile, Al was even allowed to tour with Brian.  Then Brian's people turned around and got rid of Al, either at Brian's people's choice or Brian's choice or both.  Now, they've made peace with Al again, for the time being, while it's convenient, at least.  I'm thinking both sides of this can be not only difficult, but flaky and hard to predict.  

I don't think I've ever read a firm, reliable account of what happened in terms of Al not continuing with Brian's tour back circa 2007. It certainly was never presented as Al joining Brian's band, but simply sitting in for special occasions. It seems pretty obvious something beyond the "Al is going to stay home and focus on his album" line was going on, but I still haven't heard much on this beyond vague allusions to costs, which always made it sound like Al technically chose to depart because there weren't funds to pay him. This could obviously be construed as the organization forcing Al out, but I never heard any bitter words from Brian or Al about each other after that.

Thatʻs pretty much what I heard.  To Brian, Al was sitting in.  To Al, he was helping put people in the seats but wasnʻt getting paid. Plus he was acting like the co-star around the band, being pissy (cause he wasnʻt getting $). Not sure who initiated his departure but he "Departed to finish his solo album".  Good thing, it took him long enough.  If he had stayed out with Brian, sucker would still be in the works.

[Wirestone]

My suspicion is that Brian did not want Al there after a certain point. Remember the business with the fainting spell onstage? Has Brian ever done anything remotely like that before or since? Nope. Al was out right after that.

Brian has ways of making people listen to him when he needs to.

That being said, I don't think they necessarily parted on the worst of terms or anything ... just that it was an experiment that didn't work out.

I think Melinda should step back from being Brian's business representative or whatever it is she does.  Being his wife, I think it makes her a little too overprotective and personal.  I mean, obviously she should have a say but there are times when it seems like she's a little too involved.

Who else would do it? Who else would want to do it?

[HeyJude]

Thatʻs pretty much what I heard.  To Brian, Al was sitting in.  To Al, he was helping put people in the seats but wasnʻt getting paid. Plus he was acting like the co-star around the band, being pissy (cause he wasnʻt getting $). Not sure who initiated his departure but he "Departed to finish his solo album".  Good thing, it took him long enough.  If he had stayed out with Brian, sucker would still be in the works.

I dunno how he was acting around the band, though I've never heard any accounts of him acting negatively. I can say, having seen two shows with Brian and Al in 2007, one the PS tour and one a regular show, that Al acted like anything but the co-star. He was barely given any leads (Then I Kissed Her, Cal Saga, Rhonda, bits of Sloop, WIBN, and I Know There's An Answer, that's about it), and took the side of the stage shaking a tambourine while Scott Bennett took his spot to play guitar on "Marcella", and did all of this looking happy, like he was having fun.

As for the fainting spell also mentioned, I was at that show, and I don't think it was as nefarious as some have suggested. More importantly, as was later revealed, it was the day before that show, back in Monterey recording at Al's studio, that the "decision" was made to not have Al on the European tour that was following. So he played the "fainting show" after they all already knew Al wasn't joining on the tour, and Al wasn't even scheduled or billed to be at that show, so if they had wanted Al out, he wouldn't have even been at that show.

[relx]

For what it's worth, my two cents about this whole thing is that it comes down to "control." Since 1999, Mike has been in total control of "The Beach Boys" without anyone to answer to. He was obviously willing to cede that control temporarily for the 50th anniversary tour. However, in relinquishing that control, he was forced to accept things that he hasn't had to in nearly 15 years. For example, it is obvious that someone on Brian's side put a very quick stop to the Stamos appearances early in the tour. As absurd as many of us think Stamos is, in Mike's vision of the BB's, he is a regular part of the act. In addition, from his own statements, it is obvious that Mike wanted a smaller band. However, Brian wanted a bigger band, so they toured with a bigger band. Furthermore, despite the fact that Mike is supposedly in charge of the set list, if Brian wanted a song in, it went in. The reason that many of us side with Brian is because many of his decisions are more "artistic" and do improve the music. No Stamos, a bigger band, some deep cuts, are all things that enhance the music, and enhanced the reunion tour, but to Mike, they don't match his vision of what The Beach Boys in 2012 are all about.

Finally, I do think that Mike fears, with good reason, that Brian could easily change his mind at anytime about wanting to be a Beach Boy. Just because he is into today, this week, this month, doesn't mean it will be that way in the future. If Mike were to dismantle his version of the BB's, letting all the musicians go into to other jobs and disband the whole operation, what happens if Brian decides in six months, a year, that he no longer wants to be a Beach Boy? I mean, in 2011, Brian said he didn't want to tour with the band again, and now he doesn't want to stop. I don't think it is unreasonable for Mike, having known Brian for his entire life, to fear placing his future livelihood at the whims of Brian Wilson.    

[SurfRiderHawaii]

Thatʻs pretty much what I heard.  To Brian, Al was sitting in.  To Al, he was helping put people in the seats but wasnʻt getting paid. Plus he was acting like the co-star around the band, being pissy (cause he wasnʻt getting $). Not sure who initiated his departure but he "Departed to finish his solo album".  Good thing, it took him long enough.  If he had stayed out with Brian, sucker would still be in the works.

I dunno how he was acting around the band, though I've never heard any accounts of him acting negatively. I can say, having seen two shows with Brian and Al in 2007, one the PS tour and one a regular show, that Al acted like anything but the co-star. He was barely given any leads (Then I Kissed Her, Cal Saga, Rhonda, bits of Sloop, WIBN, and I Know There's An Answer, that's about it), and took the side of the stage shaking a tambourine while Scott Bennett took his spot to play guitar on "Marcella", and did all of this looking happy, like he was having fun.

As for the fainting spell also mentioned, I was at that show, and I don't think it was as nefarious as some have suggested. More importantly, as was later revealed, it was the day before that show, back in Monterey recording at Al's studio, that the "decision" was made to not have Al on the European tour that was following. So he played the "fainting show" after they all already knew Al wasn't joining on the tour, and Al wasn't even scheduled or billed to be at that show, so if they had wanted Al out, he wouldn't have even been at that show.

I got this from a very inside source.  Not that Al acted like a co-star onstage, but around the band/crew offstage. He rubbed people the wrong way.  And that he wanted MORE solo spots, better lighting on him, that kind of stuff.  This is just what I was told.  Sounds a lot like this present mess.  Brian and Mike not communicating directly.  Back then, Brian and Al not communicating directly.

[Cam Mott]

Finally, I do think that Mike fears, with good reason, that Brian could easily change his mind at anytime about wanting to be a Beach Boy. Just because he is into today, this week, this month, doesn't mean it will be that way in the future. If Mike were to dismantle his version of the BB's, letting all the musicians go into to other jobs and disband the whole operation, what happens if Brian decides in six months, a year, that he no longer wants to be a Beach Boy? I mean, in 2011, Brian said he didn't want to tour with the band again, and now he doesn't want to stop. I don't think it is unreasonable for Mike, having known Brian for his entire life, to fear placing his future livelihood at the whims of Brian Wilson.    

I have to think this is true. I would not make commitments based on Brian's stated desires [or Al's] until I had it in writing. This explains why Mike
is not changing any plans on just the shenanigans of Brian and Al. If Brian and Al are serious all they have to do get on the phone and call a meeting. Apparently they haven't done that and so Mike has no reason to change anything. Mike hasn't ruled anything out.

[Awesoman]

Thatʻs pretty much what I heard.  To Brian, Al was sitting in.  To Al, he was helping put people in the seats but wasnʻt getting paid. Plus he was acting like the co-star around the band, being pissy (cause he wasnʻt getting $). Not sure who initiated his departure but he "Departed to finish his solo album".  Good thing, it took him long enough.  If he had stayed out with Brian, sucker would still be in the works.

I dunno how he was acting around the band, though I've never heard any accounts of him acting negatively. I can say, having seen two shows with Brian and Al in 2007, one the PS tour and one a regular show, that Al acted like anything but the co-star. He was barely given any leads (Then I Kissed Her, Cal Saga, Rhonda, bits of Sloop, WIBN, and I Know There's An Answer, that's about it), and took the side of the stage shaking a tambourine while Scott Bennett took his spot to play guitar on "Marcella", and did all of this looking happy, like he was having fun.

As for the fainting spell also mentioned, I was at that show, and I don't think it was as nefarious as some have suggested. More importantly, as was later revealed, it was the day before that show, back in Monterey recording at Al's studio, that the "decision" was made to not have Al on the European tour that was following. So he played the "fainting show" after they all already knew Al wasn't joining on the tour, and Al wasn't even scheduled or billed to be at that show, so if they had wanted Al out, he wouldn't have even been at that show.

I got this from a very inside source.  Not that Al acted like a co-star onstage, but around the band/crew offstage. He rubbed people the wrong way.  And that he wanted MORE solo spots, better lighting on him, that kind of stuff.  This is just what I was told.  Sounds a lot like this present mess.  Brian and Mike not communicating directly.  Back then, Brian and Al not communicating directly.

Didn't Al mention something about not feeling comfortable around Brian's people?  Wasn't there some incident where, in the middle of a live performance, Brian just got up from his keyboard and proceeded to lie down on the stage?  And this rubbed Al the wrong way?  Could have sworn this was mentioned here not that long ago.

[HeyJude]

Finally, I do think that Mike fears, with good reason, that Brian could easily change his mind at anytime about wanting to be a Beach Boy. Just because he is into today, this week, this month, doesn't mean it will be that way in the future. If Mike were to dismantle his version of the BB's, letting all the musicians go into to other jobs and disband the whole operation, what happens if Brian decides in six months, a year, that he no longer wants to be a Beach Boy? I mean, in 2011, Brian said he didn't want to tour with the band again, and now he doesn't want to stop. I don't think it is unreasonable for Mike, having known Brian for his entire life, to fear placing his future livelihood at the whims of Brian Wilson.    

I have to think this is true. I would not make commitments based on Brian's stated desires [or Al's] until I had it in writing. This explains why Mike
is not changing any plans on just the shenanigans of Brian and Al. If Brian and Al are serious all they have to do get on the phone and call a meeting. Apparently they haven't done that and so Mike has no reason to change anything. Mike hasn't ruled anything out.

Both Brian and Mike have referenced getting more offers and Mike not wanting to do them. I think offers from promoters, with Brian and Al presumably ready and willing to do additional shows, is far from some sort of shaky "shenanigans." I obviously can't say for sure that they had "a meeting", but sounds like they were all made aware of additional show offers, and Brian and Al wanted to do it while Mike didn't. It certainly sounds like Brian and Al were ready to put it in "writing" to do those additional shows.

I don't understand all of these excuses for why Mike doesn't want to do more reunion shows. Mike's own statement largely states that he simply doesn't want to do more of those shows at this time. Even Mike isn't claiming it's due to Brian being shaky or Brian or Al being flakey.