New Mike interview in HuffPost

[Cam Mott]

I don't think it was ever specifically stated that Mike "did everything right", but can someone point to a comment from AGD where he specifically mentioned something that specifically Mike did wrong in relation to the demise of the reunion?

Yup - I've repeatedly and consistently said the timing of his September statement was lamentable. Because it was. Caused a shitload of grief for all concerned.

Ol' pal, isn't that the statement Mike says Brian's management asked him to make?

[DonnyL]

Mike obviously didn't want to continue the reunion, and took his out when the change came. I have a hunch that he had very good reasons that have not been disclosed publicly. I think Mike has a big ego, but he really does seem to have mellowed with age ... I believe his heart is probably in the right place these days. Though I wish they would have continued the reunion in some way and decided not to tour unless all members were present (this includes the Mike & Bruce show as well as the Jeff Beck thing). i.e., if the group would only get together as a 'group', I think their image as 'Rock Royalty' would have been enhanced. I'm sure any events featuring all members to promote Made in California would have given the thing a much higher profile. And yes, this is really Mike's fault though -- the facts are there. But I'm not sure I would want to be involved in a Joe Thomas-dominated scene either, so there ya go. But on the other hand, Mike could have stopped touring as 'The Beach Boys' for awhile, and made it a point to make some public appearances with the reunited group (not specifically concerts) to promote the box. Of course, he has his reasons to continue doing what he's been doing since 1998 ...

[guitarfool2002]

But I'm not sure I would want to be involved in a Joe Thomas-dominated scene either, so there ya go.

Donny, if you ever get a call for such a gig make sure you load the car with a Yamaha DX7 and plenty of bad late 80's Korg and Roland synths with all of those FM string/choir "pads" loaded into the soundbank. Any presets that have the name "David Foster" would nail it. And if it's a guitar gig, make sure to bring a Roland Jazz Chorus amp, a digital delay, and any model PRS guitar should work, the ones with the bird inlays on the fretboard.   

[HeyJude]

Mike obviously didn't want to continue the reunion, and took his out when the change came. I have a hunch that he had very good reasons that have not been disclosed publicly. I think Mike has a big ego, but he really does seem to have mellowed with age ... I believe his heart is probably in the right place these days. Though I wish they would have continued the reunion in some way and decided not to tour unless all members were present (this includes the Mike & Bruce show as well as the Jeff Beck thing). i.e., if the group would only get together as a 'group', I think their image as 'Rock Royalty' would have been enhanced. I'm sure any events featuring all members to promote Made in California would have given the thing a much higher profile. And yes, this is really Mike's fault though -- the facts are there. But I'm not sure I would want to be involved in a Joe Thomas-dominated scene either, so there ya go. But on the other hand, Mike could have stopped touring as 'The Beach Boys' for awhile, and made it a point to make some public appearances with the reunited group (not specifically concerts) to promote the box. Of course, he has his reasons to continue doing what he's been doing since 1998 ...

The Joe Thomas issue us difficult. He's not my #1 pick for any of them to work with. But I refer back to another of Howie Edelson's posts from a while back, where he interestingly pointed out that Joe Thomas got stuff done: an album, a tour, two DVDs, a live CD, all in less than a year. He was of course by no means solely responsible for those things, but he was the guy, as Howie said, who finally had the dough and clapped his hands and said "here's what we're going to do." The band has not often had such an individual. Edelson has interviewed members of the band numerous times, and has specifically discussed Joe Thomas with them, so I'm sure he has some understanding about how Thomas worked for the band.

[Sheriff John Stone]

First and foremost, I think many fans were bummed the reunion didn't continue. Pure and simple, seperate from any blame. It was just a total suck event (or lack of an event).

After that, we then arrive at the fact that it *could* have continued. There were no guarantees about what would happen after the tour, and any fan with even a passing knowledge of all the circumstances could have told you what was *likely* to happen after (e.g. back to the status quo). But they *could* have continued the reunion. It was a very doable thing, both functionally, and in terms of the commentary from the group members which indicated that 3/5 of the band wanted to continue. We also have clear references to solid specific offers being on the table from promoters to do more shows and the like. So we see a number of factors that were literally paving the way for the reunion to continue.

After that, we then arrive at who didn't allow those factors to pave the way for more reunion shows, etc. Again, notwithstanding vague references to the painfully obvious fact that we don't know precisely what happened on the tour, we have the group's own comments at our disposal which STILL indicate Mike didn't want to continue. That's where blame starts to creep into the discussion.

After that, we start getting into the really inane, circular debates about how Mike did "what he contractually agreed to", how a "set end date" is the mantra, and so on. To me, these are totally invalid in terms of the discussion at hand. As Wirestone alluded to awhile back, the whole "set end date" nonsense is a conceipt meant solely to cut off debate and discussion. We also start to get into a weird area where choosing to defend Mike based on legal technicalities (hello, nobody has claimed Mike violated any contracts or did anything freaking illegal!) ignores the OBVIOUS fact that when fans are lamenting the end of the reunion, and Mike's potential role in that, they are clearly making a subjective, moral/personal/emotional case. Just like saying it's sad the group didn't put this song or that song out even though it was better than what they were releasing. These fans aren't saying Mike was obligated to continue. They're basically saying he's a d**k if he was the reason it didn't continue. Even from there, the detractors branch off into multiple categories. Some attempt to say "Mike isn't a d**k, it actually wasn't his fault at all that the reunion didn't continue", while others branch off into "So what if Mike was the one who blocked it, that doesn't make him a d**k at all." Yet others have branched off into "you're an idiot, get over it" territory, which obviously kind of defeats the purpose of having a discussion in the first place, and I feel is kind of ironic considering the thing to get over in this case is literally the continued existence of the fullest lineup possible of the freaking band we're here talking about in the first place that we supposedly love! 

After saying all that, you forgot to mention that Brian told Mike, "No more dates for us, please".

Brian also said he and David wanted to continue and Mike was the one who did not, and Al has said the same thing. Mike had not refuted this in any other of the numerous interviews he has given. So I view the one single comment about Brian saying no with skepticism. I feel Mike needs to either clarify or give his comment some sort of context, or needs to say Brian and Al were/are making it up for some reason.

Oh, I get it now. If Mike says something in an interview that supports your argument or strengthens your case, then it must be true, it's a fact, unquestioned, case closed, we win!

But, if Mike says something in an interview that does NOT support you argument or strengthen your case, then it is met with skepticism, needs clarification and context, and needs to be validated by a number of other Beach Boys. It's very close to saying that Mike's lying and made it up.

[DonnyL]

FACT: Mike Love was essentially responsible for ending the reunion.

SPECULATION: He had good reason to do so.

OPINION: Mike Love is a dick for ending the reunion.

BULL$HIT: Mike Love would be pumping gas if it weren't for Brian Wilson.

[Mike's Beard]

True there's basically nothing new that any of us can discuss on the C50 demise.... at the moment. Once/if a certain baseball capped singer starts naming names and specific problems that made up his mind to walk, I'm certain that will all change.

We're still talking about songwriting issues from the 60's, and Smile, and so on. That's what this place is for. There are a lot of threads and topics and comments over the years that are repetitive or beat a dead horse. It's all on topic, so I see no problem with it. Comments lamenting the repetitive nature of these discussions are less on topic actually.

I thought all of the variables and possible interpretations of those statements by specific parties in the past year have been evaluated at length already.  Guess when it gets real slow around here, some people decide to gravitate to a thread with a recent Mike or Brian or Al interview discussion and milk it for all it's worth. Yes - this is an excellent example of beating a dead horse. And also derailing from the original subject matter. There are no further lessons to be learned here for the future. It's a done deal. Nothing gained and (to some) a little bit lost. It's history!  If it helps you to talk about it, continue on with your therapy!  

My post seems to have been attacked by both sides so just to make clear
(a) I don't bemoan the C50 breakup and the quality of my life didn't suffer in anyway when it did happen and
(b) I have absolutely no problem with anyone who wishes to discuss the C50 breakup as much as they like.

[Mikie]

My post seems to have been attacked by both sides so just to make clear
(a) I don't bemoan the C50 breakup and the quality of my life didn't suffer in anyway when it did happen and (b) I have absolutely no problem with anyone who wishes to discuss the C50 breakup as much as they like.

You forgot (c) David Marks is a founding member of The Beach Boys. 

[DonnyL]

But I'm not sure I would want to be involved in a Joe Thomas-dominated scene either, so there ya go.

Donny, if you ever get a call for such a gig make sure you load the car with a Yamaha DX7 and plenty of bad late 80's Korg and Roland synths with all of those FM string/choir "pads" loaded into the soundbank. Any presets that have the name "David Foster" would nail it. And if it's a guitar gig, make sure to bring a Roland Jazz Chorus amp, a digital delay, and any model PRS guitar should work, the ones with the bird inlays on the fretboard.   

stop it, you're gonna give me nightmares !!!

[guitarfool2002]

Oh, I get it now. If Mike says something in an interview that supports your argument or strengthens your case, then it must be true, it's a fact, unquestioned, case closed, we win!

But, if Mike says something in an interview that does NOT support you argument or strengthen your case, then it is met with skepticism, needs clarification and context, and needs to be validated by a number of other Beach Boys. It's very close to saying that Mike's lying and made it up.

In all fairness a lot of the comments surrounding the lawsuit in this thread that were trying to point a finger at Brian sounded a lot like the same statements Mike made in the Goldmine interview. That interview happened in the summer of 1992, literally days after Brian's team had just won his settlement and weeks before Mike's team had filed their suit. Unfortunately that was a snapshot in time that got Mike talking about issues when he was at his most (rightfully so) angry and bitter because of what happened and the lack of communication or even a follow-up with Brian's "people" who had made agreements regarding that suit. Mike felt ripped off, and his anger is all over that interview.

Then an interview is posted from 12 years or so later, where Mike is looking back after the issues were settled and finding his own middle ground, opening up more possibilities and seeming to have come to terms with what led to all of the problems to begin with.

Now we have Mike on the record at the exact time he may have felt the most anger and hurt, and Mike on the record a decade or so later after time and communication not to mention the outcomes of the cases helped heal the wounds and close the divide, even if that healing involved being able to talk directly with Brian as family rather than litigants or opponents.

And at the same time the 1992 interview was being paraphrased to make points in this thread, the 2004 interview was being impugned and challenged for what Mike was saying.

Both statements were Mike's feelings at that time. As readers, we can weigh what he said but at the same time consider the context and the timing of when he said them.

And consider how anyone you may know would feel days after they just got hammered in court with a divorce settlement where custody was lost, property lost, etc. versus how that same person may feel after a decade of time and lots of water under the bridge has flowed through the situation. It's part of the acceptance and healing process everyone goes through, and the immediate anger and hurt becomes less over time.

Middle ground.

[HeyJude]

First and foremost, I think many fans were bummed the reunion didn't continue. Pure and simple, seperate from any blame. It was just a total suck event (or lack of an event).

After that, we then arrive at the fact that it *could* have continued. There were no guarantees about what would happen after the tour, and any fan with even a passing knowledge of all the circumstances could have told you what was *likely* to happen after (e.g. back to the status quo). But they *could* have continued the reunion. It was a very doable thing, both functionally, and in terms of the commentary from the group members which indicated that 3/5 of the band wanted to continue. We also have clear references to solid specific offers being on the table from promoters to do more shows and the like. So we see a number of factors that were literally paving the way for the reunion to continue.

After that, we then arrive at who didn't allow those factors to pave the way for more reunion shows, etc. Again, notwithstanding vague references to the painfully obvious fact that we don't know precisely what happened on the tour, we have the group's own comments at our disposal which STILL indicate Mike didn't want to continue. That's where blame starts to creep into the discussion.

After that, we start getting into the really inane, circular debates about how Mike did "what he contractually agreed to", how a "set end date" is the mantra, and so on. To me, these are totally invalid in terms of the discussion at hand. As Wirestone alluded to awhile back, the whole "set end date" nonsense is a conceipt meant solely to cut off debate and discussion. We also start to get into a weird area where choosing to defend Mike based on legal technicalities (hello, nobody has claimed Mike violated any contracts or did anything freaking illegal!) ignores the OBVIOUS fact that when fans are lamenting the end of the reunion, and Mike's potential role in that, they are clearly making a subjective, moral/personal/emotional case. Just like saying it's sad the group didn't put this song or that song out even though it was better than what they were releasing. These fans aren't saying Mike was obligated to continue. They're basically saying he's a d**k if he was the reason it didn't continue. Even from there, the detractors branch off into multiple categories. Some attempt to say "Mike isn't a d**k, it actually wasn't his fault at all that the reunion didn't continue", while others branch off into "So what if Mike was the one who blocked it, that doesn't make him a d**k at all." Yet others have branched off into "you're an idiot, get over it" territory, which obviously kind of defeats the purpose of having a discussion in the first place, and I feel is kind of ironic considering the thing to get over in this case is literally the continued existence of the fullest lineup possible of the freaking band we're here talking about in the first place that we supposedly love! 

After saying all that, you forgot to mention that Brian told Mike, "No more dates for us, please".

Brian also said he and David wanted to continue and Mike was the one who did not, and Al has said the same thing. Mike had not refuted this in any other of the numerous interviews he has given. So I view the one single comment about Brian saying no with skepticism. I feel Mike needs to either clarify or give his comment some sort of context, or needs to say Brian and Al were/are making it up for some reason.

Oh, I get it now. If Mike says something in an interview that supports your argument or strengthens your case, then it must be true, it's a fact, unquestioned, case closed, we win!

But, if Mike says something in an interview that does NOT support you argument or strengthen your case, then it is met with skepticism, needs clarification and context, and needs to be validated by a number of other Beach Boys. It's very close to saying that Mike's lying and made it up.

I'm not sure I said much of that, but I'm simply skeptical of one particular comment in one particular Mike interview, not because it " doesn't support my argument", but because it directly and indirectly contradicts pretty much every other interview that group members have given, including Mike himself. He had ample opportunities in plenty of interviews before and after that one interview in question to elaborate or reiterate anything to the effect that Brian ended the reunion, and has not done so. I simply would like more information or some sort of context to understand that one Mike comment. That one-time assertion from Mike is odd. I don't think he's lying, I think it needs a lot more explaining, otherwise taken on face value with no other context it does imply that Brian, Al, and Mike have lied either directly or by omission in every other interview on the topic.

[guitarfool2002]

But I'm not sure I would want to be involved in a Joe Thomas-dominated scene either, so there ya go.

Donny, if you ever get a call for such a gig make sure you load the car with a Yamaha DX7 and plenty of bad late 80's Korg and Roland synths with all of those FM string/choir "pads" loaded into the soundbank. Any presets that have the name "David Foster" would nail it. And if it's a guitar gig, make sure to bring a Roland Jazz Chorus amp, a digital delay, and any model PRS guitar should work, the ones with the bird inlays on the fretboard.   

stop it, you're gonna give me nightmares !!!

Haha! A frightening situation to consider but it is Halloween, after all...

There is a positive, though. If the Joe Thomas gig falls through, you can take all that gear with you for the Jefferson Starship tribute band auditions. Just make sure you put on one of those piano-keyboard neckties and a black overcoat before you hit the rehearsal room.

[Mike's Beard]

My post seems to have been attacked by both sides so just to make clear
(a) I don't bemoan the C50 breakup and the quality of my life didn't suffer in anyway when it did happen and (b) I have absolutely no problem with anyone who wishes to discuss the C50 breakup as much as they like.

You forgot (c) David Marks is a founding member of The Beach Boys. 

I don't want people thinking that just because I don't consider David a founding member that I don't appreciate him; he's easily my seventh or eighth favourite Beach Boy member.  

[guitarfool2002]

My post seems to have been attacked by both sides so just to make clear
(a) I don't bemoan the C50 breakup and the quality of my life didn't suffer in anyway when it did happen and (b) I have absolutely no problem with anyone who wishes to discuss the C50 breakup as much as they like.

You forgot (c) David Marks is a founding member of The Beach Boys. 

I don't want people thinking that just because I don't consider David a founding member that I don't appreciate him; he's easily my seventh or eighth favourite Beach Boy member.  

Would he appear before or after Stamos on your list? 

[Mike's Beard]

Silly question, Stamos is #1 - all the others are just competing for second place. 

[guitarfool2002]

Silly question, Stamos is #1 - all the others are just competing for second place. 

That's the spirit! 

[SMiLE Brian]

Such Art!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRC8jaO3qgw

[Andrew G. Doe]

I don't think it was ever specifically stated that Mike "did everything right", but can someone point to a comment from AGD where he specifically mentioned something that specifically Mike did wrong in relation to the demise of the reunion?

Yup - I've repeatedly and consistently said the timing of his September statement was lamentable. Because it was. Caused a shitload of grief for all concerned.

Ol' pal, isn't that the statement Mike says Brian's management asked him to make?

Yes, but the timing still sucked.

[DonnyL]

But I'm not sure I would want to be involved in a Joe Thomas-dominated scene either, so there ya go.

Donny, if you ever get a call for such a gig make sure you load the car with a Yamaha DX7 and plenty of bad late 80's Korg and Roland synths with all of those FM string/choir "pads" loaded into the soundbank. Any presets that have the name "David Foster" would nail it. And if it's a guitar gig, make sure to bring a Roland Jazz Chorus amp, a digital delay, and any model PRS guitar should work, the ones with the bird inlays on the fretboard.   

stop it, you're gonna give me nightmares !!!

Haha! A frightening situation to consider but it is Halloween, after all...

There is a positive, though. If the Joe Thomas gig falls through, you can take all that gear with you for the Jefferson Starship tribute band auditions. Just make sure you put on one of those piano-keyboard neckties and a black overcoat before you hit the rehearsal room.

semi-related question ... what was the situation with guitar amps during the C50 shows? It almost looked like they had a couple of those little Fender 15W tube amps onstage and not much else.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

I don't think it was ever specifically stated that Mike "did everything right", but can someone point to a comment from AGD where he specifically mentioned something that specifically Mike did wrong in relation to the demise of the reunion?

Yup - I've repeatedly and consistently said the timing of his September statement was lamentable. Because it was. Caused a shitload of grief for all concerned.

Ol' pal, isn't that the statement Mike says Brian's management asked him to make?

Yes, but the timing still sucked.

Bad timing! Not exactly an alien concept in Beach Boys land, eh?

[Andrew G. Doe]

The Joe Thomas issue us difficult. He's not my #1 pick for any of them to work with. But I refer back to another of Howie Edelson's posts from a while back, where he interestingly pointed out that Joe Thomas got stuff done: an album, a tour, two DVDs, a live CD, all in less than a year.

Which live CD is as close to unlistenable as makes no difference. I refuse to believe for a nano-second that Brian listened to all of it and agreed it was fit for release.

[Sheriff John Stone]

The Joe Thomas issue us difficult. He's not my #1 pick for any of them to work with. But I refer back to another of Howie Edelson's posts from a while back, where he interestingly pointed out that Joe Thomas got stuff done: an album, a tour, two DVDs, a live CD, all in less than a year.

Which live CD is as close to unlistenable as makes no difference. I refuse to believe for a nano-second that Brian listened to all of it and agreed it was fit for release.

Yes, and it doesn't seem to bother many people WHY BRIAN DIDN'T listen to it and/or saw it fit for release, if that's in fact true. We can't go THERE!

[HeyJude]

The Joe Thomas issue us difficult. He's not my #1 pick for any of them to work with. But I refer back to another of Howie Edelson's posts from a while back, where he interestingly pointed out that Joe Thomas got stuff done: an album, a tour, two DVDs, a live CD, all in less than a year.

Which live CD is as close to unlistenable as makes no difference. I refuse to believe for a nano-second that Brian listened to all of it and agreed it was fit for release.

I wasn't a huge fan of the live album or DVDs; they could have been worse, but far far better. I'm not convinced there was or is anyone on hand that could have made an immensely preferable product appear for us. Thomas was probably responsible for the intensive overuse of autotune. I'm not sure another person or team would have put in place anything to make happen what I and many fans would have liked, which was complete shows on cd and DVD/Blu-Ray.

[HeyJude]

The Joe Thomas issue us difficult. He's not my #1 pick for any of them to work with. But I refer back to another of Howie Edelson's posts from a while back, where he interestingly pointed out that Joe Thomas got stuff done: an album, a tour, two DVDs, a live CD, all in less than a year.

Which live CD is as close to unlistenable as makes no difference. I refuse to believe for a nano-second that Brian listened to all of it and agreed it was fit for release.

Yes, and it doesn't seem to bother many people WHY BRIAN DIDN'T listen to it and/or saw it fit for release, if that's in fact true. We can't go THERE!

Unless any of band come out say they're not being allowed to have any input or listen to the product before it's released, then the problem seems to be that they don't have any particular interest. That is the fault of all of them, or most of them anyway. The stuff has the Brother logo on it. So we can I suppose blame Brian, Al, and Mike in addition to Joe Thomas for any shortcomings on the album.

[Sheriff John Stone]

The Joe Thomas issue us difficult. He's not my #1 pick for any of them to work with. But I refer back to another of Howie Edelson's posts from a while back, where he interestingly pointed out that Joe Thomas got stuff done: an album, a tour, two DVDs, a live CD, all in less than a year.

Which live CD is as close to unlistenable as makes no difference. I refuse to believe for a nano-second that Brian listened to all of it and agreed it was fit for release.

Yes, and it doesn't seem to bother many people WHY BRIAN DIDN'T listen to it and/or saw it fit for release, if that's in fact true. We can't go THERE!

Unless any of band come out say they're not being allowed to have any input or listen to the product before it's released, then the problem seems to be that they don't have any particular interest. That is the fault of all of them, or most of them anyway. The stuff has the Brother logo on it. So we can I suppose blame Brian, Al, and Mike in addition to Joe Thomas for any shortcomings on the album.

I singled out Brian Wilson because on my CD liner notes it lists him - not Mike, Al, Bruce, or David - as Producer. But, I forgot how it works. If something good or high quality appears, Brian Wilson WAS responsible. If something of low or questionable quality appears, Brian didn't care, he's mentally ill, so he's not accountable. Sorry, lost my head again.