Thread for arguments with or about moderation

[Debbie KL]

*Sigh*
So once again I am being dragged into other people's arguments about other other people's views on other other other people. (An argument I wouldn't even know about had someone not PMd me asking me about all this).

For the record, here's what I wrote https://andrewhickey.info/2014/07/20/why-did-mike-love-sack-brian-wilson-from-the-beach-boys/

Val saw that blog post and asked if she could reprint it in the BBB newsletter, as she's done with other things I've written on my blog. I don't know if she made any editorial changes to what I wrote, and I don't have a copy of the newsletter.

Debbie, in her posts, is putting things in quote marks that aren't actual quotes from what I wrote -- which I wrote with no agenda whatsoever other than that for two whole years the single most common search term that got people to my blog was "why did Mike Love fire Brian Wilson from the Beach Boys?"

Most of what I wrote there is simply summarising what was posted on this board. *NOTHING* in there came from Val, who I'm "an associate" of in the same way I'm "an associate" of about half the people in this thread. I didn't talk to Val before I wrote it (well, to be absolutely accurate, I had a chat with her a couple of weeks earlier at a Mike & Bruce gig. We mostly talked about her mum's health problems and her son's new job, as I recall). I didn't even know she'd *read* it until a few weeks later when she asked if she could reprint it.

I know, and care, nothing about any intra-fandom squabbling, or any agendas to promote one band or the other. If anyone wants to know what I think of Brian's current touring, see https://andrewhickey.info/2016/05/26/brian-wilson-al-jardine-and-blondie-chaplin-manchester-apollo-24516/ , and specifically the bit where I say:
"Brian was more on form than I’ve ever seen him. His voice has got noticeably frailer in the last few years (not worse — just aging), and he’s relying more on the other vocalists than he used to, but he still took about two thirds of the leads, and did a good job. Some have been saying “Brian should retire” and so on in their reviews. No. He’ll never be a great singer again like he was in the 60s and 70s — though he’s still very, very strong as a harmony singer, actually — but he’s as good as he ever has been since he started touring solo in the late 90s, and he’s more enthusiastic than I’ve ever seen him."

One thing I don't mention there, incidentally, is that Probyn gave me a huge hug, pointed me out to people around him, and said "this man is my biggest fan!" -- hardly something likely to happen with someone dedicated to destroying Brian's career or whatever it is I'm apparently doing.

I am part of no conspiracy, agenda, or affinity group. I love Brian, his band, and his music. I also enjoy Mike's band and don't actually see any reason why I can't or shouldn't like both. My opinions are my own -- right or wrong -- and I am *absolutely fucking sick* of being dragged into other people's drama. I've deliberately not posted here for months, because it's become an utter fucking sewer and has been *severely* affecting my mental health. Stop dragging me in to fights that have nothing to do with me.

If what I wrote was inaccurate -- and it may be, just because *I* think people are trustworthy (the word I used, not the "unimpeachable" that Debbie keeps putting into my mouth) doesn't mean my judgement is correct -- then it's just that. Inaccurate -- *NOT* part of some campaign to destroy Brian. And if it's accurate -- which I still think it is -- then it doesn't reflect badly on Brian, his management, or anyone else involved *one iota*, at least in my opinion.

As I say *in the very post that Debbie is pointing to as evidence that I am in some way part of some vast Kokomaoist conspiracy against Brian*:

"Brian Wilson is responsible for at least 85% of what I like about the Beach Boys, and a vastly more talented artist than Love. If I had to pick a side, I would pick Brian over Mike every time, but I simply don’t think there is any value whatsoever in choosing goodies and baddies and fighting for one side in interpersonal problems between people I don’t know."

The backstabbing, snide insinuations, and general nastiness on this forum have already gone a *LONG* way towards destroying my love of the Beach Boys' music. Please, just leave me out of your petty arguments and vendettas -- and please, also, if people *do* try to drag me into their arguments, could people *just not tell me about it*? I avoid the Sandbox for a reason, and don't appreciate being PMd about stuff in it.

Leave me out of your petty, stupid, squabbles. I want no part of them.

Andrew - I think you were "dragged in" because you chose to write the article for the BBB newsletter with - by all indications by what you wrote - 3rd hand info that would have been protected by BRI confidentiality and insubstantial at the same time.  You made that choice.  Life's like that.  You didn't seem to mind the "petty, stupid, squabbles" then.  

[filledeplage]

I don't know if I remember this right but wasn't there a court document for one of Al's cases or appeals or a complaint where BRI or MELECO specified Al was not following the license by, among other things, having women singing leads or something?  I seem to remember fans winding up over it because "Toni" Tennille.

The female singers were also cited in articles, and from a purely objective point of view, *that* argument made a little more sense. A bunch of old dudes in Hawaiian shirts will more easily pass as "The Beach Boys" than up-front female singers. I don't know whether the license terms actual bar the licensee from having female band members. I always assumed the commentary was just another vague salvo of the "it doesn't look and feel like the Beach Boys" variety lobbed at Al at the time. It was all moot anyway, as he never got a license. My guess is BRI was trying to say "he doesn't have a license, but even if he did, here's how he's not abiding by it."

And yes, Toni Tennille was cited back then as a contradiction to this, and one could argue Ambha Love's later guest spots singing with Mike might also contradict this. (All three examples are different of course, before someone points that out; I'm aware of that.)

But apart from all of the female singer citations (which I guessed someone might bring up), *separate* references were made back then to Al's setlist. That 1999 Rolling Stone article (the one with comments from Elliott Lott about Mike refusing to appear on stage with Carl) also had the references to the song selection/setlist issue. I can't find the full article, only an excerpt from the Usenet days (later reposted here). But I recall the article mentioning that it had been cited that it was an issue that Al was doing songs that didn't fit the surf, sun, cars, etc. image. I also recall the article pointing out that these contentions were contradicted by Mike's own setlist at the time (God Only Knows, etc.).

Mike's current setlist and setlist of recent years has more deep cuts (and is much longer) than Al's ever had in 1999, so either BRI was/is being selective about enforcing this rule/term of the license, or something about the terms of the license were changed.

Hey Jude - I saw Mike onstage with Carl in 1997.  It is a non-issue for me.  His intro of Carl was nothing short of empathetic and accommodating of Carl, whom we all knew was bidding us all a courageous farewell.
 
Perhaps Mike's confidence in this particular lineup with either longevity or skill is the reason that he is doing more deep cuts.  First people complain that he does not do enough "deep cuts" (which they usually did in the UK) and now people are complaining that they are doing "deep cuts."

The female singers thing, I don't get. Those are BRI constraints.  I did see Toni Tenille in 1972.  And, Ambha who might do SOS which is hardly a contract violation.  Wendy and Carnie and Luci Arnaz have sung with Al.  Al did not, according to the suit, fulfill the "conditions precedent" to get an official touring license.  Al has a great band, who were part of the "deep cuts" Holland era.  

As far as the setlist goes, I have heard little that was not part of the classic hippie era lineup, just being performed decades later.

[HeyJude]

Hey Jude - I saw Mike onstage with Carl in 1997.  It is a non-issue for me.  His intro of Carl was nothing short of empathetic and accommodating of Carl, whom we all knew was bidding us all a courageous farewell.

Sounds great. Not sure what that has to do with anything relating to the current line of discussion.
 

Perhaps Mike's confidence in this particular lineup with either longevity or skill is the reason that he is doing more deep cuts.  First people complain that he does not do enough "deep cuts" (which they usually did in the UK) and now people are complaining that they are doing "deep cuts."

The only complaint about "deep cuts" we're talking about here is BRI's apparent problem with Al performing deep cuts in 1999, and how this doesn't mesh with the fact that Mike now performs more deep cuts than Al ever did in 1999.

The female singers thing, I don't get. Those are BRI constraints.  I did see Toni Tenille in 1972.  And, Ambha who might do SOS which is hardly a contract violation.  

I don't "get" the female singers thing either. But unless we have that actual contract that shows the license terms, we don't know what was, is, could have been, or could be a contract violation. What we do know is that Al having female singers in his band in 1999 was raised as an issue by BRI because they felt it didn't abide by some element of a license.

[filledeplage]

Hey Jude - I saw Mike onstage with Carl in 1997.  It is a non-issue for me.  His intro of Carl was nothing short of empathetic and accommodating of Carl, whom we all knew was bidding us all a courageous farewell.

Sounds great. Not sure what that has to do with anything relating to the current line of discussion.
 

Perhaps Mike's confidence in this particular lineup with either longevity or skill is the reason that he is doing more deep cuts.  First people complain that he does not do enough "deep cuts" (which they usually did in the UK) and now people are complaining that they are doing "deep cuts."

The only complaint about "deep cuts" we're talking about here is BRI's apparent problem with Al performing deep cuts in 1999, and how this doesn't mesh with the fact that Mike now performs more deep cuts than Al ever did in 1999.

The female singers thing, I don't get. Those are BRI constraints.  I did see Toni Tenille in 1972.  And, Ambha who might do SOS which is hardly a contract violation.  

I don't "get" the female singers thing either. But unless we have that actual contract that shows the license terms, we don't know what was, is, could have been, or could be a contract violation. What we do know is that Al having female singers in his band in 1999 was raised as an issue by BRI because they felt it didn't abide by some element of a license.

Whatever went down with Elliot (whom I don't know) was in 1997.  That is 20 years ago.  It has little or no bearing on today.  What the bands were doing in 1999, in terms of deep cuts or what were perceived as deep cuts matter little today.  If anyone can "read" an audience it is Mike and he seems to know just what will be appropriate for each kind of audience they perform in front of.  BRI is composed of (as far as I know) Brian, Carl's estate, Mike and Al.  Someone must have had a problem with it.  It would never have been my complaint.  If anything Carl was the master of the deep cuts.  But, I am not a member of BRI what I think is of little or no consequence. 

[Juice Brohnston]

*Sigh*
So once again I am being dragged into other people's arguments about other other people's views on other other other people. (An argument I wouldn't even know about had someone not PMd me asking me about all this).

For the record, here's what I wrote https://andrewhickey.info/2014/07/20/why-did-mike-love-sack-brian-wilson-from-the-beach-boys/

Val saw that blog post and asked if she could reprint it in the BBB newsletter, as she's done with other things I've written on my blog. I don't know if she made any editorial changes to what I wrote, and I don't have a copy of the newsletter.

Debbie, in her posts, is putting things in quote marks that aren't actual quotes from what I wrote -- which I wrote with no agenda whatsoever other than that for two whole years the single most common search term that got people to my blog was "why did Mike Love fire Brian Wilson from the Beach Boys?"

Most of what I wrote there is simply summarising what was posted on this board. *NOTHING* in there came from Val, who I'm "an associate" of in the same way I'm "an associate" of about half the people in this thread. I didn't talk to Val before I wrote it (well, to be absolutely accurate, I had a chat with her a couple of weeks earlier at a Mike & Bruce gig. We mostly talked about her mum's health problems and her son's new job, as I recall). I didn't even know she'd *read* it until a few weeks later when she asked if she could reprint it.

I know, and care, nothing about any intra-fandom squabbling, or any agendas to promote one band or the other. If anyone wants to know what I think of Brian's current touring, see https://andrewhickey.info/2016/05/26/brian-wilson-al-jardine-and-blondie-chaplin-manchester-apollo-24516/ , and specifically the bit where I say:
"Brian was more on form than I’ve ever seen him. His voice has got noticeably frailer in the last few years (not worse — just aging), and he’s relying more on the other vocalists than he used to, but he still took about two thirds of the leads, and did a good job. Some have been saying “Brian should retire” and so on in their reviews. No. He’ll never be a great singer again like he was in the 60s and 70s — though he’s still very, very strong as a harmony singer, actually — but he’s as good as he ever has been since he started touring solo in the late 90s, and he’s more enthusiastic than I’ve ever seen him."

One thing I don't mention there, incidentally, is that Probyn gave me a huge hug, pointed me out to people around him, and said "this man is my biggest fan!" -- hardly something likely to happen with someone dedicated to destroying Brian's career or whatever it is I'm apparently doing.

I am part of no conspiracy, agenda, or affinity group. I love Brian, his band, and his music. I also enjoy Mike's band and don't actually see any reason why I can't or shouldn't like both. My opinions are my own -- right or wrong -- and I am *absolutely fucking sick* of being dragged into other people's drama. I've deliberately not posted here for months, because it's become an utter fucking sewer and has been *severely* affecting my mental health. Stop dragging me in to fights that have nothing to do with me.

If what I wrote was inaccurate -- and it may be, just because *I* think people are trustworthy (the word I used, not the "unimpeachable" that Debbie keeps putting into my mouth) doesn't mean my judgement is correct -- then it's just that. Inaccurate -- *NOT* part of some campaign to destroy Brian. And if it's accurate -- which I still think it is -- then it doesn't reflect badly on Brian, his management, or anyone else involved *one iota*, at least in my opinion.

As I say *in the very post that Debbie is pointing to as evidence that I am in some way part of some vast Kokomaoist conspiracy against Brian*:

"Brian Wilson is responsible for at least 85% of what I like about the Beach Boys, and a vastly more talented artist than Love. If I had to pick a side, I would pick Brian over Mike every time, but I simply don’t think there is any value whatsoever in choosing goodies and baddies and fighting for one side in interpersonal problems between people I don’t know."

The backstabbing, snide insinuations, and general nastiness on this forum have already gone a *LONG* way towards destroying my love of the Beach Boys' music. Please, just leave me out of your petty arguments and vendettas -- and please, also, if people *do* try to drag me into their arguments, could people *just not tell me about it*? I avoid the Sandbox for a reason, and don't appreciate being PMd about stuff in it.

Leave me out of your petty, stupid, squabbles. I want no part of them.

Andrew - I think you were "dragged in" because you chose to write the article for the BBB newsletter with - by all indications by what you wrote - 3rd hand info that would have been protected by BRI confidentiality and insubstantial at the same time.  You made that choice.  Life's like that.  You didn't seem to mind the "petty, stupid, squabbles" then.  

Debbie, I am curious on your thoughts regarding the email. Do you think this email was sent, or did someone mislead Andrew, or others about the facts?

[Robbie Mac]

*Sigh*
So once again I am being dragged into other people's arguments about other other people's views on other other other people. (An argument I wouldn't even know about had someone not PMd me asking me about all this).

For the record, here's what I wrote https://andrewhickey.info/2014/07/20/why-did-mike-love-sack-brian-wilson-from-the-beach-boys/

Val saw that blog post and asked if she could reprint it in the BBB newsletter, as she's done with other things I've written on my blog. I don't know if she made any editorial changes to what I wrote, and I don't have a copy of the newsletter.

Debbie, in her posts, is putting things in quote marks that aren't actual quotes from what I wrote -- which I wrote with no agenda whatsoever other than that for two whole years the single most common search term that got people to my blog was "why did Mike Love fire Brian Wilson from the Beach Boys?"

Most of what I wrote there is simply summarising what was posted on this board. *NOTHING* in there came from Val, who I'm "an associate" of in the same way I'm "an associate" of about half the people in this thread. I didn't talk to Val before I wrote it (well, to be absolutely accurate, I had a chat with her a couple of weeks earlier at a Mike & Bruce gig. We mostly talked about her mum's health problems and her son's new job, as I recall). I didn't even know she'd *read* it until a few weeks later when she asked if she could reprint it.

I know, and care, nothing about any intra-fandom squabbling, or any agendas to promote one band or the other. If anyone wants to know what I think of Brian's current touring, see https://andrewhickey.info/2016/05/26/brian-wilson-al-jardine-and-blondie-chaplin-manchester-apollo-24516/ , and specifically the bit where I say:
"Brian was more on form than I’ve ever seen him. His voice has got noticeably frailer in the last few years (not worse — just aging), and he’s relying more on the other vocalists than he used to, but he still took about two thirds of the leads, and did a good job. Some have been saying “Brian should retire” and so on in their reviews. No. He’ll never be a great singer again like he was in the 60s and 70s — though he’s still very, very strong as a harmony singer, actually — but he’s as good as he ever has been since he started touring solo in the late 90s, and he’s more enthusiastic than I’ve ever seen him."

One thing I don't mention there, incidentally, is that Probyn gave me a huge hug, pointed me out to people around him, and said "this man is my biggest fan!" -- hardly something likely to happen with someone dedicated to destroying Brian's career or whatever it is I'm apparently doing.

I am part of no conspiracy, agenda, or affinity group. I love Brian, his band, and his music. I also enjoy Mike's band and don't actually see any reason why I can't or shouldn't like both. My opinions are my own -- right or wrong -- and I am *absolutely fucking sick* of being dragged into other people's drama. I've deliberately not posted here for months, because it's become an utter fucking sewer and has been *severely* affecting my mental health. Stop dragging me in to fights that have nothing to do with me.

If what I wrote was inaccurate -- and it may be, just because *I* think people are trustworthy (the word I used, not the "unimpeachable" that Debbie keeps putting into my mouth) doesn't mean my judgement is correct -- then it's just that. Inaccurate -- *NOT* part of some campaign to destroy Brian. And if it's accurate -- which I still think it is -- then it doesn't reflect badly on Brian, his management, or anyone else involved *one iota*, at least in my opinion.

As I say *in the very post that Debbie is pointing to as evidence that I am in some way part of some vast Kokomaoist conspiracy against Brian*:

"Brian Wilson is responsible for at least 85% of what I like about the Beach Boys, and a vastly more talented artist than Love. If I had to pick a side, I would pick Brian over Mike every time, but I simply don’t think there is any value whatsoever in choosing goodies and baddies and fighting for one side in interpersonal problems between people I don’t know."

The backstabbing, snide insinuations, and general nastiness on this forum have already gone a *LONG* way towards destroying my love of the Beach Boys' music. Please, just leave me out of your petty arguments and vendettas -- and please, also, if people *do* try to drag me into their arguments, could people *just not tell me about it*? I avoid the Sandbox for a reason, and don't appreciate being PMd about stuff in it.

Leave me out of your petty, stupid, squabbles. I want no part of them.

Andrew - I think you were "dragged in" because you chose to write the article for the BBB newsletter with - by all indications by what you wrote - 3rd hand info that would have been protected by BRI confidentiality and insubstantial at the same time.  You made that choice.  Life's like that.  You didn't seem to mind the "petty, stupid, squabbles" then.  

Andrew originally published this on his blog. BBB had come calling later asking to reprint it. As for the info in it, the "no more shows for Wilson" email came up quite a bit during discussions on this board on the C50 breakup. All Andrew did was get that stuff from the various Smiley discussions. As far as I can remember, the person who confirmed its existence had the initals "A", "G", and "D".

[HeyJude]

Andrew originally published this on his blog. BBB had come calling later asking to reprint it. As for the info in it, the "no more shows for Wilson" email came up quite a bit during discussions on this board on the C50 breakup. All Andrew did was get that stuff from the various Smiley discussions. As far as I can remember, the person who confirmed its existence had the initals "A", "G", and "D".

My issue with the "no more shows" e-mail is that it was held up as some sort of smoking gun in the C50 debacle. To hold it up as such in any way, one has to ignore pretty much all of the other details surrounding the saga. Simply put, if Mike had come out at some point and said "I totally wanted to do more shows, but Brian said he would never do another show", and if simultaneously Brian had never expressed a desire to keep the reunion together and do more touring, then the e-mail would actually be relevant in some way.

That blog post is not a simple round-up or distillation of various Smiley board discussions, it's some cherry picked information that generally tends to absolve Mike of much of any blame in the demise of C50. All simpy in my opinion of course, nothing more.

That explanation above of why the blog post was made does make some sense; he mentioned that a lot of web traffic had been coming in from folks looking for answers to questions about C50 ending.

Why a newsletter needed to also reprint it seems less clear, to me. C50 has remained a hot button issue for nearly four years now, but I don't believe there was anything particularly new stirring about the C50 debate in mid-2014 randomly. I guess, maybe, the Jones Beach debacle was around that time? Perhaps that's what elicited an apparent need to address the issue in a newsletter, even if, in my opinion, a rather haphazard fashion.

[GhostyTMRS]

I was under the impression that the "no more shows" email came from a mention in a post on Facebook from Mike's daughter Ambha as she was defending her father against attacks. I may be wrong on this but I seem to recall that was the first anyone heard of it.

[Robbie Mac]

I was under the impression that the "no more shows" email came from a mention in a post on Facebook from Mike's daughter Ambha as she was defending her father against attacks. I may be wrong on this but I seem to recall that was the first anyone heard of it.

I think you are correct. IIRC, someone had crossposted that here and I believe AGD later confirmed it.

[Cam Mott]

I don't know when Ambha's post was dated, and it doesn't specify e-mail, but the "No more dates for us, please" is mentioned here and it is dated July 8, 2013.

http://ultimateclassicrock.com/mike-love-wants-brian-wilson-in-beach-boys/

[Emily]

The strange thing is that the email *seems* to flatly contradict the public statements of both Brian W and Mike L. I have to think the context would make sense of it.
Without context, it's just a random inconsistency and shouldn't really be given any weight.

[Cam Mott]

The strange thing is that the email *seems* to flatly contradict the public statements of both Brian W and Mike L. I have to think the context would make sense of it.
Without context, it's just a random inconsistency and shouldn't really be given any weight.

I'm not following, what is the contradiction to Brian and Mike's public statements?

[Emily]

The strange thing is that the email *seems* to flatly contradict the public statements of both Brian W and Mike L. I have to think the context would make sense of it.
Without context, it's just a random inconsistency and shouldn't really be given any weight.

I'm not following, what is the contradiction to Brian and Mike's public statements?

I'm really wary that we're going to get into another circular thing, nor do I think it's useful for this whole discussion which has been had before to be had again, but here goes:
From Brian's public statement:
-" What's confusing is that by Mike not wanting or letting Al, David and me tour with the band, it sort of feels like we're being fired...What's a bummer to Al and me is that we have numerous offers to continue, so why wouldn't we want to? "
From Mike's public statement:
-" As the year went on, Brian and Al wanted to keep the 50th anniversary tour going beyond the 75 dates."

So, both of their public statements indicate that Brian Wilson wanted to continue. The email *seems* to indicate otherwise. My guess is that, if the email quote is accurate, it's got a context that would clear that up; like perhaps the email was sent when the tour was being arranged and BW was indicating that at that time he wasn't interested in numerous dates, for example.
The assumption that the email indicates that he wanted to stop touring around the time that they did seems incorrect, given the public statements.

[Cam Mott]

The strange thing is that the email *seems* to flatly contradict the public statements of both Brian W and Mike L. I have to think the context would make sense of it.
Without context, it's just a random inconsistency and shouldn't really be given any weight.

I'm not following, what is the contradiction to Brian and Mike's public statements?

I'm really wary that we're going to get into another circular thing, nor do I think it's useful for this whole discussion which has been had before to be had again, but here goes:
From Brian's public statement:
-" What's confusing is that by Mike not wanting or letting Al, David and me tour with the band, it sort of feels like we're being fired...What's a bummer to Al and me is that we have numerous offers to continue, so why wouldn't we want to? "
From Mike's public statement:
-" As the year went on, Brian and Al wanted to keep the 50th anniversary tour going beyond the 75 dates."

So, both of their public statements indicate that Brian Wilson wanted to continue. The email *seems* to indicate otherwise. My guess is that, if the email quote is accurate, it's got a context that would clear that up; like perhaps the email was sent when the tour was being arranged and BW was indicating that at that time he wasn't interested in numerous dates, for example.
The assumption that the email indicates that he wanted to stop touring around the time that they did seems incorrect, given the public statements.

I don't know about circles but there is indeed much more context to all of it.

[MarcellaHasDirtyFeet]

The strange thing is that the email *seems* to flatly contradict the public statements of both Brian W and Mike L. I have to think the context would make sense of it.
Without context, it's just a random inconsistency and shouldn't really be given any weight.

I'm not following, what is the contradiction to Brian and Mike's public statements?

I'm really wary that we're going to get into another circular thing, nor do I think it's useful for this whole discussion which has been had before to be had again, but here goes:
From Brian's public statement:
-" What's confusing is that by Mike not wanting or letting Al, David and me tour with the band, it sort of feels like we're being fired...What's a bummer to Al and me is that we have numerous offers to continue, so why wouldn't we want to? "
From Mike's public statement:
-" As the year went on, Brian and Al wanted to keep the 50th anniversary tour going beyond the 75 dates."

So, both of their public statements indicate that Brian Wilson wanted to continue. The email *seems* to indicate otherwise. My guess is that, if the email quote is accurate, it's got a context that would clear that up; like perhaps the email was sent when the tour was being arranged and BW was indicating that at that time he wasn't interested in numerous dates, for example.
The assumption that the email indicates that he wanted to stop touring around the time that they did seems incorrect, given the public statements.

I don't know about circles but there is indeed much more context to all of it.

Haha Cam is confused why someone would accuse him of arguing in circles 

[Cam Mott]

The strange thing is that the email *seems* to flatly contradict the public statements of both Brian W and Mike L. I have to think the context would make sense of it.
Without context, it's just a random inconsistency and shouldn't really be given any weight.

I'm not following, what is the contradiction to Brian and Mike's public statements?

I'm really wary that we're going to get into another circular thing, nor do I think it's useful for this whole discussion which has been had before to be had again, but here goes:
From Brian's public statement:
-" What's confusing is that by Mike not wanting or letting Al, David and me tour with the band, it sort of feels like we're being fired...What's a bummer to Al and me is that we have numerous offers to continue, so why wouldn't we want to? "
From Mike's public statement:
-" As the year went on, Brian and Al wanted to keep the 50th anniversary tour going beyond the 75 dates."

So, both of their public statements indicate that Brian Wilson wanted to continue. The email *seems* to indicate otherwise. My guess is that, if the email quote is accurate, it's got a context that would clear that up; like perhaps the email was sent when the tour was being arranged and BW was indicating that at that time he wasn't interested in numerous dates, for example.
The assumption that the email indicates that he wanted to stop touring around the time that they did seems incorrect, given the public statements.

I don't know about circles but there is indeed much more context to all of it.

Haha Cam is confused why someone would accuse him of arguing in circles 

It takes at least two to argue in circles MarcellaHasDoucheyFeet. If that really is your name. 

[MarcellaHasDirtyFeet]

It's my nom de guerre. My real name is [REDACTED]

[Cam Mott]

It's my nom de guerre. My real name is Evan Geibel.

It was a joke but glad to meet you. If THAT really is your name.   

[MarcellaHasDirtyFeet]

It does sound made-up... Here, I'll post my SSN so you can confirm it's me--

867-53-0999

[Emily]

Don't do that. Take that down. Delete it. Now.

[Robbie Mac]

https://youtu.be/6WTdTwcmxyo

[Emily]

Lol. I didn't read the number. Good one.

[Cam Mott]

It does sound made-up... Here, I'll post my SSN so you can confirm it's me--

867-53-0999

St-awww-ppp. It's a joke. Wait. Are you pulling my leg?

[Cam Mott]

Well played, sir.  If "sir" really is your honorific address.

[MarcellaHasDirtyFeet]

Yes, I identify as a "sir" but will also respond to my childhood nickname, "Oops," as well as my current nickname, "Asshole."