New Mike interview...

[HeyJude]

Why would Mike want to work with Brian when he knows that a movie and book are in the works where he's likely not going to come out very well. The movie was already written and in pre-production during the reunion, the book deal was announced shortly after. There's enough bad blood between both parties (Mike and his usual remarks, no surprise there) that I can't see how they would have wanted to stay together anyways. Didn't the Beatles break up over personal issues? It's not do-able to have two people who don't like each other, and really haven't for years, to continue working together.  I don't get the Brian-centric fans who don't even like Mike musically, who wanted the reunion to continue. Do you really enjoy hearing Mike singing with Brian? Or do you just like the spectacle of Mike being dominated by Brian? If Mike is such an asshole, in your opinion, do you really think it would have been healthy for Brian to continue to deal with him? There a million reasons why that reunion had to end, and it would have been well over by now, anyways.

Mike was a key part of the reunion. He was a key part of the stage presentation, he was a welcome addition to the studio production, and he was certainly a key logistically in terms of agreeing to do the reunion. Much like those in the midst of the Stamos nonsense trying to peg anyone who doesn’t want him musically involved with the band as disliking Stamos on a personal level, it’s ridiculous to assume that those who prefer the full reunion lineup don’t like Mike’s musical contributions.

It is precisely because of his musical contributions, mixed with everybody else’s, all that “the sum is greater than the individual parts” stuff, all that stuff is true. The reunion lineup would be pointless without Mike there. That’s why people are bummed about Mike saying no to continuing the reunion. It’s not some weird rhetorical argument. Is there really much of anybody out there who is passionately, strenuously advocating for a return to the reunion lineup, who actually secretly *doesn’t* want another reunion, and really just wants something else to criticize about Mike? I don’t think so. There are plenty of other rhetorical arguments to make against him.

Sure, some fans continue to be frustrated with his attitude, or actions, or obfuscation in interviews. Knowing the unlikely nature of another reunion, I suppose pointing out these criticisms is now largely simply for sake of pointing them out and making rhetorical points. But it’s all borne out of wanting Mike with all of the Beach Boys.

I found that late 2011 Mike interview here on this board. If you go back and read that thread, you’ll see how people seem to be surprised but optimistic about how Mike sounded. I know I felt that way. Finally, the backhanded compliments and avoiding talking about certain members or bands, all of that was gone. Here was Mike, saying how Brian has “an amazing band”, and so on.

As for Brian’s movie/book, etc., to even raise that as a possible explanation for Mike not wanting to work with Brian seems a huge stretch. Even Mike isn’t making that contention. I doubt Mike has seen any of the film. I don’t think anybody even knows how far along the book is. There was not in 2012 nor is there even now a firm timeline for when these projects will be out, other than the film screening at a festival in a few months. The reunited Beach Boys could have toured TWO full years/summers after the 2012 tour prior to any Brian film coming out.

[HeyJude]

The appeal wasn't focused on Mike and Brian appearing together, the appeal was all surviving band members together performing. That's why the demand was so high, that's why more shows were added to the original plan, that's why more shows were offered beyond that, that's why people brought kids and grandkids to the shows because it was an event that transcended just having Mike and Brian on the same stage.

From a marketing standpoint, in terms of marketing the tour to the masses, the general idea of a “full reunited lineup” was definitely the focal point.

But Brian and Mike being on stage together was a huge deal. Mike and Bruce had of course been touring for ages together already. Dave had appeared a number of times with Mike and Bruce. Al had done some gigs with Brian. The estrangement had occurred between Brian and Mike, and Al and Mike. Those were the two pairings (other than Brian/Dave I suppose) that fans had, for the most part, not seen in ages.

To me, seeing Mike fronting a band of mostly Brian’s guys was kind of like, I dunno, seeing Spock pop up in the middle of a Star Wars movie or something.

[HeyJude]

At the risk of this either being roundly ignored or inciting a bunch of repetitive argument, I'd like to remind us all of this snippet from an interview concerning the then-upcoming reunion tour, with Mike Love, published by Rolling Stone on December 19, 2011:

Is this just a one-off get-together for this tour? Or are the Beach Boys back together?

We're just approaching it a day at a time, one tour at a time. We're going to do some European stuff, it looks like. Right now, it's just offers. Other than three dates in Japan in August, that's confirmed. Everything else is subject to offers and negotiations.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/exclusive-mike-love-talks-beach-boys-50th-anniversary-tour-20111219#ixzz39YvFvnSk

Does that sound like someone who knows, unequivocally, that after the reunion tour they will not do anything else together? He literally says they're taking it "a day at a time." He's either bulls**tting, or he truly is undecided at that stage as to whether the band might continue together into the future.

I actually hadn't gone back and read those pre-tour interviews for quite some time. How interesting and sad. What the f*** happened? 

As someone who covers a professional sports team for a living, "one day at a time" is code word for, "I'm not going to say anything interesting or answer this question." Mike might or might not have known at the time that there were 50 dates and that's it, but saying so unequivocally could have painted him as a bad guy, thus "one day at a time."

Oh, I definitely realize that “one day at a time” means being unwilling to commit to any particulars. That response at the time was not inappropriate at all. I would imagine the other group members may have offered similar sentiments, because it would indeed be silly to speculate too much about the future.

But if you look at that comment, and then look at what Mike is saying now, I think one has to call bulls**t on one of the two comments. One of the comments seems to me to be disingenuous. Either Mike already knew he was going to go back to his own thing (and who know if bookings were already being worked on) and simply didn’t say so to avoid looking like a d**k before the tour had even begun, or what he’s saying now, that it was always only going to be that one tour and album and nothing more, is a cover story for having changed his mind and chosen not to carry on with the reunited lineup.

I think we still don’t truly know what the full intentions or plans were. Bruce was actually the only one emphatically (and, yes, as we’ve said before, strangely seemingly gleefully) stating before the tour began that there was a definite endpoint, and that the last show on the tour schedule was going to be the last show with all five members. 

[HeyJude]

Just saw what Pretty Funky wrote, and I got a little something as well...

Mike claims that "there never was a second album planned", but he might wanna tell that to whoever operates his Facebook (which I'm pretty sure is actually him). Because...dig this:



So yeah, it's obvious Mike is very, very unhappy with Brian and his people. But why is he lying about stuff that is verifiable?

Also, it's interesting that he cited Jason Fine by name. I'm assuming he probably has beef with how he was portrayed in the Rolling Stone piece from 2012 and also probably has his lawyers ready on speed dial so he can "sue Brian's ass to pieces" is he says a cross word about Mike in the new autobiography.

Concerning Fine, I certainly hope (and would kind of assume) that he knows or has been made aware of the pitfalls (legal and otherwise) of doing a book on Brian. Ironically, at this stage, the debacle of the 1991 “Wouldn’t It Be Nice” book and the resulting lawsuits is now a part of the actual story of Brian and the group, and should probably be included in any thorough new biography on Brian. 

Back to Mike, and the contradictions between what was said before/during the reunion and after, it does indeed seem to be a case of having soured on something, or a series of things. But he’s not doing himself (or anyone else) any favors by trying to reframe or rewrite things to the point of denying they ever existed. I’m not sure why it’s so difficult to simply say, “There was consideration given to another album, but I didn’t like the way it was going down, and preferred to exit and do my own thing touring.”

The sort of semantics of all of this is getting a bit silly. The “second album” thing is just like the tour thing. It’s easy to fall back on saying none of those things ever existed, because of course they didn’t. They wouldn’t exist until they did them. Nobody cancelled an in-progress album or tour. The whole idea is that there were apparently offers to do both, and other willing members, and Mike didn’t want to do it. I don’t know why he can’t bring himself to say that. Instead, we’re tied up in a bunch of repetitive, circular stuff about “we did the shows we agreed to”, and so on.

[Gohi]

I feel the need to remind Mike Love that he is not even close to being on the level of McCartney, let alone George Harrison.

So George Harrison was on a higher level than Paul McCartney?

I guess I accidentally implied that with my phrasing. I certainly prefer Harrison but it wasn't my intention to say he was better. Oh well.

[Nicko1234]

Concerning Fine, I certainly hope (and would kind of assume) that he knows or has been made aware of the pitfalls (legal and otherwise) of doing a book on Brian. Ironically, at this stage, the debacle of the 1991 “Wouldn’t It Be Nice” book and the resulting lawsuits is now a part of the actual story of Brian and the group, and should probably be included in any thorough new biography on Brian. 

Back to Mike, and the contradictions between what was said before/during the reunion and after, it does indeed seem to be a case of having soured on something, or a series of things. But he’s not doing himself (or anyone else) any favors by trying to reframe or rewrite things to the point of denying they ever existed. I’m not sure why it’s so difficult to simply say, “There was consideration given to another album, but I didn’t like the way it was going down, and preferred to exit and do my own thing touring.”

The sort of semantics of all of this is getting a bit silly. The “second album” thing is just like the tour thing. It’s easy to fall back on saying none of those things ever existed, because of course they didn’t. They wouldn’t exist until they did them. Nobody cancelled an in-progress album or tour. The whole idea is that there were apparently offers to do both, and other willing members, and Mike didn’t want to do it. I don’t know why he can’t bring himself to say that. Instead, we’re tied up in a bunch of repetitive, circular stuff about “we did the shows we agreed to”, and so on.

I`m not sure I would say that they wouldn`t exist until they actually did them. More that they wouldn`t exist until some definite plans had been made...

Now we know there were offers to continue the tour in 2012 and Capitol presumably were interested in a possible new album. But we don`t know whether there were any serious discussions about Brian doing another 50 shows in 2013 along with recording a new album. That would have been a huge undertaking for Brian and as it has taken 2 years to record the new solo album, it would have been asking a heck of a lot for him to written and recorded a new CD in a few months.

[Wirestone]

Now we know there were offers to continue the tour in 2012 and Capitol presumably were interested in a possible new album. But we don`t know whether there were any serious discussions about Brian doing another 50 shows in 2013 along with recording a new album. That would have been a huge undertaking for Brian and as it has taken 2 years to record the new solo album, it would have been asking a heck of a lot for him to written and recorded a new CD in a few months.

I doubt there was any serious deadline for a second album. Again, it would depend on lots of things. We know that a bunch of extra tracks were cut during the TWGMTR sessions, and adding a few more wouldn't have been difficult. According to Ray, the solo record has taken some time because Brian has been working around the schedules of the guests.

And as for 50 shows -- again, that's adding a specific number on something that had no specifics. I doubt BW would have continued on the road with the group full time. But he still managed to play 30 shows last year, and record besides.

[KittyKat]

Looking at the Facebook post from Mike, he says he's thrilled at the idea of doing another Beach Boys album with Brian. There's also a link to the item in Rolling Stone. It appears to be a reaction to the article, rather than something directly discussed with Brian. To say one is "thrilled at the idea" is different than saying "thrilled to be doing/planning" another album.  The entire reunion fell apart, of course, but it's hard to say that Brian had a whole lot of songs written specifically for it, at least not yet. For one thing, he said it would be a rock album. The album Brian is doing now is not a rock album, but is a so-called mellow album, according to both Brian and people who have heard it (nothing wrong with that, "Pet Sounds" is a mellow album).  If Brian did write those rock tunes, he may have put them in a drawer for a future project, or maybe the album would have been cover songs that Brian and Mike discussed when the reunion idea first came up, or some type of combination similar to 15 Big Ones.

[Nicko1234]

I doubt there was any serious deadline for a second album. Again, it would depend on lots of things. We know that a bunch of extra tracks were cut during the TWGMTR sessions, and adding a few more wouldn't have been difficult. According to Ray, the solo record has taken some time because Brian has been working around the schedules of the guests.

And as for 50 shows -- again, that's adding a specific number on something that had no specifics. I doubt BW would have continued on the road with the group full time. But he still managed to play 30 shows last year, and record besides.

Sure, there would have been no set deadline. But once we go down the route of Brian not touring full time and you have the scenario of 2 Beach Boys in the band, 4 Beach Boys in the band, 5 Beach Boys in the band etc. all within a short space of time then it shows how complicated things are with the group. The C50 tour and TWGMTR album were obviously planned well in advance and it would have been no small undertaking to have done that all over again.

A lot of comments were made by the group members during the C50 tour but there doesn`t seem to have been any indication yet there was substance behind them. All of the, `We want to keep doing this for a long time` quotes seem to be about as reliable as Brian`s, `My next album is going to be a rock and roll album`.

[Cam Mott]

Jon or Howie talked about these ideas or offers, what was said?

[HeyJude]

I doubt there was any serious deadline for a second album. Again, it would depend on lots of things. We know that a bunch of extra tracks were cut during the TWGMTR sessions, and adding a few more wouldn't have been difficult. According to Ray, the solo record has taken some time because Brian has been working around the schedules of the guests.

And as for 50 shows -- again, that's adding a specific number on something that had no specifics. I doubt BW would have continued on the road with the group full time. But he still managed to play 30 shows last year, and record besides.

Sure, there would have been no set deadline. But once we go down the route of Brian not touring full time and you have the scenario of 2 Beach Boys in the band, 4 Beach Boys in the band, 5 Beach Boys in the band etc. all within a short space of time then it shows how complicated things are with the group. The C50 tour and TWGMTR album were obviously planned well in advance and it would have been no small undertaking to have done that all over again.

A lot of comments were made by the group members during the C50 tour but there doesn`t seem to have been any indication yet there was substance behind them. All of the, `We want to keep doing this for a long time` quotes seem to be about as reliable as Brian`s, `My next album is going to be a rock and roll album`.

There would no doubt have been all sorts of logistics involved had they continued as a full group. But I think the issue, at least for some fans, is that none of those reasons (scheduling, Brian's appearances or non-appearances, recording, etc.) appear to have had anything to do with why the reunion stopped when it stopped.

I don't get any sense from the evidence at hand or Mike's own comments in interviews that he was particularly fixated on how many shows Brian might do in the future. It doesn't appear as if Brian was ever pitched an idea to do another reunion tour and then turned it down because he couldn't do that many dates. Yes, lack of ability to book 130 shows per year was very possibly a factor weighing on Mike's mind. I think Brian could have done 50 or perhaps more show in 2013. He had to do very little heavy lifting at the BB shows in 2012. He did 30 or so shows in 2013 where he sang most of the leads and fronted the show. I think he could have done 50 or maybe even 73 in 2013.

But here's the thing: I don't think Brian would have just closed out his career with the Beach Boys. It *may* be that Brian and Al would have (or still would) prefer a scenario where the "reunion" lineup was a permanent thing, perhaps recording another album or two, and doing some touring each year for several more years to round out their career. But this was unlikely and unrealistic, and I doubt anybody (except perhaps an over-optimistic if not naïve Al Jardine) thought something like that could truly come to pass.

Here's what I think would have happened if Brian had "had his way": They would have taken probably a smaller amount of large bookings for 2012. It sounds like they were getting offers for large indoor arenas. They perhaps would have gotten another album out in 2013, perhaps before but more likely after another summer tour. I'm thinking after another go-around in 2013, Brian may well have happily and cleanly handed over the reigns back to Mike. Al may or may not have had a chance to stay on. Brian then could have popped in and out from time to time.

But the structure is just not set up to do that anymore apparently, nor do their personalities allow for it. The problem is that with a normal band, they would all split off and do solo stuff. With this band, they have an awkward licensing setup that nobody apart from maybe Al seems to have enough piss and vinegar to actually do anything about.

[Cyncie]

Jon or Howie talked about these ideas or offers, what was said?

Jon Stebbins: At least 30 more C50 shows, another studio album, a bunch more high profile TV appearances etc... But I would not term it as Mike "turning them down"...I would say the prospect of these things were left on the table because they were never negotiated beyond the offer stage due to Mike's preference to return to his normal business model.

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,15371.msg357621.html#msg357621

[Capitol Punishment]

Jon or Howie talked about these ideas or offers, what was said?

Jon Stebbins: At least 30 more C50 shows, another studio album, a bunch more high profile TV appearances etc... But I would not term it as Mike "turning them down"...I would say the prospect of these things were left on the table because they were never negotiated beyond the offer stage due to Mike's preference to return to his normal business model.

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,15371.msg357621.html#msg357621

The two shows I remember mentioned was a show at Wrigley and a show at MSG. Man, those would have been great shows!

[Ron]

That interview did indeed at least elicit more of a substantive response concerning C50 than any of these other interviews we’ve been talking about. He still avoids addressing why he didn’t want to do more reunion shows and falls back on stating the obvious; that they did all the shows they agreed to do. But his verbiage concerning C50 is becoming almost comically more and more “bleh.” Now the best we get is that it was “interesting.” We don’t even get the “it was a fun and we had a good time” sort of response anymore.

It reminds me of one time I took a distant relative out to dinner. Afterward, their reaction started as “the food was great.” Then, once they got cues from others that they thought the food wasn’t that great, a few hours later the reaction had shifted to “it was okay.” By the end of the night, it had turned to “it wasn’t that great.” Weeks later, when the topic came up, it was “oh my god, that was the worst meal I’ve ever had, and here are the ten reasons it was so horrendous.”

But Mike is, sadly for fans of the band who want some sort of indication that the guys might do something together again, using even stronger, more pointed language concerning Brian. As I’ve often said with Brian, even if all these points are accurate, they’ve always been accurate. If you work with the guy and say everything’s a-okay, but then when things aren’t going the way you want, point out how f-ed up you think his situation is, it kind of undercuts credibility.

As for the “second album”, I view that as the same situation as “another tour.” There would never be another tour or album until they all agreed to do another one. I don’t think Fine or Brian have said Mike agreed to do another album and then backed out. I think what they’ve indicated is that Brian had more material ready to do another BB album, wanted to do another BB album, and Mike didn’t under those circumstances.

Same thing with the “fired” thing. Mike is now using the ignorant press comments as a straw man. Nobody is still asking or saying Mike fired Brian. Even Brian said he hadn’t been fired. The question concerns why Mike didn’t want to do more shows. The answer we have thus far is still nothing more than “we didn’t do more shows because we didn’t do more shows.”

You know how sometimes we're in a thread, and everything's just been beat to DEATH over and over again, and there's nothing left to really say, everybody's already said it 10 times and it's just dragging on and on and on and good god why are we still talking about this?


That's Mike's interviews for the last 50 years.  That he even smiles and talks to people is pretty astonishing, I don't know he (or any celebrity) does it after getting asked the same questions literally thousands of times.  That he takes shortcuts and uses strawman arguments doesn't surprise me.  He's very defensive... to the point of bringing up criticism, then shooting it down; given the history of how he's been vilified (much of it his own doing, no doubt) I don't hold it against him.  I'd be proactively defensive as well. 

[Andrew G. Doe]

"Nobody is still asking or saying Mike fired Brian."

Think you'll find they are, and recently. Just slope on over to Brian's FB page. It's still being presented as fact in the press as well. Granted these are ill-informed people who can't be bothered to even use Google properly, but to the end of time, people will be saying that Brian fired Mike, just as they'll be saying it was a UFO at Roswell and that there was a second gunman in Dallas.

[Pretty Funky]

"Nobody is still asking or saying Mike fired Brian."

Think you'll find they are, and recently. Just slope on over to Brian's FB page. It's still being presented as fact in the press as well. Granted these are ill-informed people who can't be bothered to even use Google properly, but to the end of time, people will be saying that Brian fired Mike, just as they'll be saying it was a UFO at Roswell and that there was a second gunman in Dallas.

May want to consider an edit, being the purveyor that all facts should be correct AGD.

[Cam Mott]

Jon or Howie talked about these ideas or offers, what was said?

Jon Stebbins: At least 30 more C50 shows, another studio album, a bunch more high profile TV appearances etc... But I would not term it as Mike "turning them down"...I would say the prospect of these things were left on the table because they were never negotiated beyond the offer stage due to Mike's preference to return to his normal business model.

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,15371.msg357621.html#msg357621

I'd love to know the details Jon said he wasn't privy to. Seems to me there is probably a lot more to this story than we know or a lot less than we imagine.

[guitarfool2002]

Something to consider about what did or didn't happen around the 50th tour: There is probably a lot more that happened and was negotiated and discussed behind the scenes, deep in the inner workings of it from the band members to the musicians to the organizers and various staff that happened which hasn't been revealed or discussed in interviews and the like. So in light of the fact we may have read what could amount to less than 10% of the "full story", it's safe to say there is probably a lot more to the story.

*If* there were shows offered at venues like Wrigley Field as Cyncie mentioned in his post...for fans outside the US, the spectacle of staging a live show at Wrigley would have been a major, very high-profile gig as it's one of the most beloved and well-known baseball stadiums in America, with a huge nostalgia and 'throwback' appeal as the stadium exists in 2014 pretty much the same as it has since the 1930's - Like Fenway in Boston, people go there just to see it for the history, even if the Cubs aren't playing (In spite of the Cubs, actually, but I'm a Phillies fan so forgive me...). If Wrigley were even on the table, it would be a shame that it did not happen for whatever reasons. I'd very much like to hear the reasoning behind why an offer for Wrigley would be turned down, if one were made.

[LostArt]

Something to consider about what did or didn't happen around the 50th tour: There is probably a lot more that happened and was negotiated and discussed behind the scenes, deep in the inner workings of it from the band members to the musicians to the organizers and various staff that happened which hasn't been revealed or discussed in interviews and the like. So in light of the fact we may have read what could amount to less than 10% of the "full story", it's safe to say there is probably a lot more to the story.

*If* there were shows offered at venues like Wrigley Field as Cyncie mentioned in his post...for fans outside the US, the spectacle of staging a live show at Wrigley would have been a major, very high-profile gig as it's one of the most beloved and well-known baseball stadiums in America, with a huge nostalgia and 'throwback' appeal as the stadium exists in 2014 pretty much the same as it has since the 1930's - Like Fenway in Boston, people go there just to see it for the history, even if the Cubs aren't playing (In spite of the Cubs, actually, but I'm a Phillies fan so forgive me...). If Wrigley were even on the table, it would be a shame that it did not happen for whatever reasons. I'd very much like to hear the reasoning behind why an offer for Wrigley would be turned down, if one were made.

It has been noted here previously that since the final show of the tour was at Wembley on the 28th of September, an outdoor show in Chicago in October or later probably wouldn't have been a great idea.  However, if the offer was for the following summer it might have been do-able, but they'd have had to work around the Cubs schedule.

[guitarfool2002]

Something to consider about what did or didn't happen around the 50th tour: There is probably a lot more that happened and was negotiated and discussed behind the scenes, deep in the inner workings of it from the band members to the musicians to the organizers and various staff that happened which hasn't been revealed or discussed in interviews and the like. So in light of the fact we may have read what could amount to less than 10% of the "full story", it's safe to say there is probably a lot more to the story.

*If* there were shows offered at venues like Wrigley Field as Cyncie mentioned in his post...for fans outside the US, the spectacle of staging a live show at Wrigley would have been a major, very high-profile gig as it's one of the most beloved and well-known baseball stadiums in America, with a huge nostalgia and 'throwback' appeal as the stadium exists in 2014 pretty much the same as it has since the 1930's - Like Fenway in Boston, people go there just to see it for the history, even if the Cubs aren't playing (In spite of the Cubs, actually, but I'm a Phillies fan so forgive me...). If Wrigley were even on the table, it would be a shame that it did not happen for whatever reasons. I'd very much like to hear the reasoning behind why an offer for Wrigley would be turned down, if one were made.

It has been noted here previously that since the final show of the tour was at Wembley on the 28th of September, an outdoor show in Chicago in October or later probably wouldn't have been a great idea.  However, if the offer was for the following summer it might have been do-able, but they'd have had to work around the Cubs schedule.

You're right - Chicago outdoors after October is a dicey proposition, we don't know when the gig would have been so that's a major missing piece. Wasn't there a legendary baseball story from either Wrigley or San Francisco where a pitcher was getting ready to deliver a pitch, a big gust of wind stirred up and actually knocked him off balance, his foot came off the mound, he got called for a balk and a run scored from 3rd? That's windy....

Seriously though, like when McCartney played Fenway they have to factor in the weather and the baseball schedules. But still, it would have been a terrific gig no matter how or when they could have pulled it off. And I guess the reasoning behind it is what I'm curious about.

[guitarfool2002]

(Speaking as a Philadelphia Phillies fan again) : I don't think they needed to worry at all about the Cubs playing much ball in October. 


Sorry, I couldn't resist. Now the Phils are in the same boat. 

[SMiLE Brian]

Dammit, not again.

[Cyncie]

From Brian's LA Times letter on the kerfuffle:

"We hadn't even discussed as a band what we were going to do with all the offers that were coming in for more 50th shows.

Al and I just assumed based on everyone's enthusiasm we would at least want to take those offers into consideration since we all knew about them. I mean, who wouldn't want to play the Hollywood Bowl again, Madison Square Garden and Wrigley Field? And what better way to celebrate New Year's Eve than with the 50th band? That would have blown the lid off things."

[Cam Mott]

On the other hand, maybe there is a lot less to these "offers" then we imagine like not a concert but a  pre-game songs or two. Still good but...

[Cam Mott]

...or maybe not.