Mike Love in New Issue of Mojo - "I'm always blamed! It's horsesh*t!"

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

I'm going with Amy that Melinda was not a game player in the least especially with something like this. And frankly, if myKe luHv's memory at age 76 is anything like mine is, we can all rest assured that it wasn't her that sent that email.

[Tony S]

Typical Mike Love speak, Agree 100% with Amy.

[HeyJude]

As far as I'm concerned, considering how critically *and* commercially successful the tour was, if ANYONE had sent an e-mail, even if the e-mail said "F**k you, eat s**t, we're not doing any more shows! Period, Mother****er!", anybody on the receiving end of that message should have followed up with something along the lines of "But the tour is really successful and it would be crazy to stop now. What's going on? Are you okay? What can we do to work on things and make this better?"

Some of the now-departed "insiders" who trumpeted the infamous "e-mail" indicated as I recall that the one e-mail was out of the blue and had no context. As in, they were just blindsided with a random e-mail saying literally "no more shows for Wilson." This has always sounded preposterous, but if it *is* true, Mike hasn't indicated he did any follow up. He hasn't said he asked if Brian was okay (geez, what if the e-mail meant Brian was terminally ill or something?). No, by Mike's own words, he assumed it was some weird passive-aggressive message from Melinda trying to bait Mike into groveling.

So, to the earlier question of "How is Mike supposed to know what Melinda meant?", I have two answers. One, as others have stated, is that Mike's interview indicates Mike had a really strong idea of what he thought Melinda meant or at least what she wanted Mike's reaction to be. Secondly, Mike could have asked for a clarification. Instead, by Mike's own account, his reaction was to immediately get his tour booking guy on the phone and start booking Mike/Bruce shows.

Let it ALSO be known that Al Jardine nearly BEGGED Mike to come back to the table to discuss more reunion shows and was apparently ignored, insofar as actually attempting to do more shows. Al describes pulling Mike aside at that Grammy Museum event in September of 2012 and asking Mike to discuss it further. Obviously nothing ever came of that.

Mike most conveniently leaves out *any* of the timing of these e-mails and show offers, and fails to mention if, at some point after that e-mail, Brian and/or Melinda came back to him wanting to do more shows.

But let's not fool ourselves. By the final dates, Mike knew he wasn't going back to the reunion and also knew that Brian and Al wanted to continue the reunion. Al had implored Mike back at the Grammy Museum, and I highly doubt Brian's letter to the LA Times was the first Mike heard of Brian wanting to do more shows.

Further, if you read Mike's LA Times letter, nowhere does he mention the infamous e-mail, and nowhere does he indicate that Brian ever expressed that he (Brian) didn't want to do more shows. Mike's LA Times letter seems to acknowledge that it was Mike's decision to break the reunion up. Remember Mike's reasons in that letter? He claimed "vital smaller markets" couldn't afford the reunion tour. What does THAT have to do with whether Brian wanted to do more shows? Mike's LA Times letter reads like "Yeah, I split. Here are a bunch of reasons why." Of course, this is where we started to hear his manta of "Set end date", which was perhaps (in my opinion) the most disingenuous and obfuscating reason being offered (essentially "it ended because it ended").  

[Juice Brohnston]

I don't think there is any mystery why C50 ended. Mike probably realized his leaner touring outfit was more profitable to him, and he could control it completely, and be the main attraction. All the other stuff is him offering justification.

I like Mike, but I wish that he would have got some closure when his book was published. Retelling these stories over and over is pretty weak. If it comes up, just say 'I dealt with it in my book, I wish Brian all the success and happiness in the world, and I love doing what I'm doing!'

[HeyJude]

I'm just wondering if maybe it's these interviewers getting Mike going again. I'm not blaming that on interviewers, that would be on Mike for how he interprets it.

But maybe every time an interviewer brings up the same stuff, it gets Mike going again. You can literally see this happening in that Rolling Stone piece from a year or two ago.

Here's a key excerpt from that Rolling Stone piece:

What else? Has there been one thing, above all others, that's required meditation to cope with?

His blue eyes darken to gunmetal gray, and the bristles of his beard nearly stand up and quiver. "Yeah," he says. "The major one of those things is being cheated."

Ah, yes, that, of course. It goes way back to the start. Thanks to the Wilson brothers' father, Murry, who was an abusive, conniving piece of work, as well as the Beach Boys' first manager, Love's name didn't make it onto the publishing credits for many of the early hit songs. For instance, on "Wouldn't It Be Nice," Love says he was responsible for the ending couplet "Good night, baby/Sleep tight, baby," not an earthshaking contribution but significant nonetheless, as were the lines that he wrote for "409": "She's real fine, my 409" and "Giddy-up, giddy-up, 409." And so on, with many other songs, including "California Girls," "Help Me, Rhonda" and "I Get Around."

Brian apparently knew what his father was up to but was too scared of him to do anything about it (Brian Wilson declined to comment for this story). Even so, Love seems to blame both of them, although, on occasion, he does acknowledge how cowed Brian was by his dad. And it doesn't seem to have helped that in 1993, long after Murry's death, Love successfully sued Brian for back songwriting credits, got his name appended to some 35 of the songs, and was awarded at least $2 million in back royalties. The whole thing still pisses him off. And once he gets started on it, there's no stopping him.

[HeyJude]

Another keen insight from the Rolling Stone article:

But far from suing Brian at every opportunity, shouldn't Love, with all his years of meditation, have been the one to step forward and try to make peace?

He blinks at the question, rolls his eyes and curls his lip.

"When somebody in your family suffers from a mental illness, sometimes it's gone past the opportunity to have a normal relationship," he says. "I mean, there may be a feeling that, ideally, you would like to see peace in the family. And I have nothing but sympathy for Brian. But when you say 'peace,' that would presuppose everything is peaceful. Well, when somebody has chosen a path or direction in life that has led to some pretty unhappy situations, everything isn't all right."

And he's completely serious. It's out of his hands. There's nothing he can do. It's enough to make you bang your head against the statue of Shiva, the Indian god of destruction, that stands in his house, or turn upside down the framed photograph of him, George Harrison, John Lennon, Donovan and others hanging out with the Maharishi back in the day. Then again, in 1968, Love said, "One of the greatest things [about Transcendental Meditation] that interested me was that [the Maharishi] said, 'You don't have to give up your Rolls-Royce and forsake all your pursuits of material pleasures to develop inner-spiritual qualities.' That sounded real good to me." And maybe all the lawsuits could be considered part of those pursuits, too, and thus fully justifiable, at least on an inner-spiritual level.

[guitarfool2002]

This is example #1A of why the complaints about rehashing C50 akin to kicking a dead horse ring hollow. If Mike and those around him would stick to one of the "reasons" behind his actions regarding C50, it would be a done deal. From the very first appearance in the LA Times, the press release that caused the firestorm just when the band was about to play the Grammy Museum event in 2012, Mike's reasons have changed. The reasons argued by his mouthpieces online have changed too. From the phrase "set end date" being used to answer any questions, to an email that was first reported and waved in our faces as "no more Wilsons" to more recently "no more shows for Wilson", from Mike saying he was advised not to risk overexposure and give it a year's rest, to Mike's co-author saying this in Fall 2016:

"27:32
The reality of the 50th anniversary tour was that it lost money on the domestic side, because the band was so big, the costs were too high, given the revenue that these concerts were generating. And the concern that Mike had going forward was that well, if we start not just losing money ourselves, but if our promoters are losing money, if the venues are losing money, then we're going to jeopardize the brand. And so those economic factors were very much a part of their concern"


...to Mike saying in a reply to the LA Times, October 2012 that he was contractually obligated to tour as the Beach Boys and had to book the smaller venues out of some kind of responsibility as the torch-bearer of the brand name...then saying he was surprised Al and Brian were surprised by his announcement, after Al and Brian said on the record they requested a meeting to go over all of this with Mike and his people regarding the future booking of Mike's own shows and the confusion caused by it, and Mike's people released the announcement before such a meeting could happen, resulting in the PR shitstorm it turned into...and flip over to around page 402 or 403 of Mike's book to read more details.

I mean, seriously...let's get down to brass tacks here and cut the bullshit.

C50 in terms of business and legal affairs was hinged on a three-way legal partnership that was filed and named as "50 Big Ones", Mike-Brian-Joe Thomas and all related legal parties and business ventures.

An email saying "no more shows for Wilson" or "no more Wilsons" depending on whose account you believe is not going to be a silver bullet that scuttles a three-way business agreement never mind a multi-million dollar tour.

And such a tour would not be designed to lose money.

And such business agreements when all related affairs affect three principal interests of the parent "company" 50 Big Ones, and their interests legal and financial, and Capitol Records, and numerous booking agents, and a road crew and staff of dozens of people, and ticket agencies around the world, etc etc etc...are NOT going to hinge on a single email without a history or context to it, and surely not without meetings and discussions and the like.

That's how a business runs, that's how a partnership runs. If Mike's people went rogue before that Grammy event and released a public announcement prior to having a meeting requested by Brian and Al and ostensibly the other "50 Big Ones" interests involved to hash things out regarding booking shows under the name Beach Boys and other issues surrounding the tour and bookings, then someone should ask Mike what the hell happened.

If there are people arguing or believing that a 3-way legal/business partnership that had dozens of people and millions of dollars at stake would come down to one email, and have no context as to what was sent prior to that email and basically little context at all other than there was an offer to play a show in Israel, you're either misinformed or naive about the way business works. And how businesses and corporate interests, especially partnerships, do not dissolve or make decisions based on a phrase in an email without serious discussions and procedures.

But, I digress. If people want to argue for and defend Mike's multiple and sometimes changing "reasons", from Mike not wanting to risk overexposure to the tour losing money to there being a "set end date" to Mike being contractually obligated to play with his smaller band to Mike saying it came down to an email sent in early June 2012 to Mike suggesting anything that might still come out that wasn't in his book or a Mojo interview or an interview in the Kokomo Gazette...have at it.

You either see it or you don't. Just make sure you pick one of Mike's more plausible reasons to defend before another interview comes out with a new "reason" behind the C50 mess.

And watch out for shadowy figures sneaking around stages trying to clip Autotune units on microphones before a gig...

[Juice Brohnston]

But, I digress. If people want to argue for and defend Mike's multiple and sometimes changing "reasons", from Mike not wanting to risk overexposure to the tour losing money to there being a "set end date" to Mike being contractually obligated to play with his smaller band to Mike saying it came down to an email sent in early June 2012 to Mike suggesting anything that might still come out that wasn't in his book or a Mojo interview or an interview in the Kokomo Gazette...have at it.

And all of these things may have played a part in Mike's decision to pull the plug. It might have been overexposed if it carried on. There was a set end date, and maybe Mike had shows booked on that timeline. I know there were a lot of half full venues on that tour. Maybe there was an email.

I loved that tour, but I never got the feeling that it was going to go on forever. And I'll say it...I bet it is stressful touring with Brian.

[KDS]

But, I digress. If people want to argue for and defend Mike's multiple and sometimes changing "reasons", from Mike not wanting to risk overexposure to the tour losing money to there being a "set end date" to Mike being contractually obligated to play with his smaller band to Mike saying it came down to an email sent in early June 2012 to Mike suggesting anything that might still come out that wasn't in his book or a Mojo interview or an interview in the Kokomo Gazette...have at it.

And all of these things may have played a part in Mike's decision to pull the plug. It might have been overexposed if it carried on. There was a set end date, and maybe Mike had shows booked on that timeline. I know there were a lot of half full venues on that tour. Maybe there was an email.

I loved that tour, but I never got the feeling that it was going to go on forever. And I'll say it...I bet it is stressful touring with Brian.

Also, basically having two full bands onstage for the duration of the tour.   

[Mr. Tiger]

If we're to view Brian and Al as two disappointed guys who have been shut out of the touring band, I'm still a little confused about the current status quo. If there are 4 votes in BRI: Brian, Al, Mike and Carl's kids, what's stopping them from nixing the Mike and Bruce tour and demanding that the BB can only tour as a reunion outfit?

Do Brian and/or Al nevertheless vote for the Mike and Bruce show because of the money it rakes in? If so, it's a little more difficult to view them purely as victims. OR, what happens if there is a split vote, with both Mike and Carl's kids voting for the Mike and Bruce show and Brian and Al voting against? What happens then?

[guitarfool2002]

But, I digress. If people want to argue for and defend Mike's multiple and sometimes changing "reasons", from Mike not wanting to risk overexposure to the tour losing money to there being a "set end date" to Mike being contractually obligated to play with his smaller band to Mike saying it came down to an email sent in early June 2012 to Mike suggesting anything that might still come out that wasn't in his book or a Mojo interview or an interview in the Kokomo Gazette...have at it.

And all of these things may have played a part in Mike's decision to pull the plug. It might have been overexposed if it carried on. There was a set end date, and maybe Mike had shows booked on that timeline. I know there were a lot of half full venues on that tour. Maybe there was an email.

I loved that tour, but I never got the feeling that it was going to go on forever. And I'll say it...I bet it is stressful touring with Brian.

More or less stressful than touring with Mike? C'mon, Juice...

What or where were the "a lot of half full venues" on that tour? It was reported as the tour was happening as exceeding expectations on sales and attendance which led to more and bigger offers coming in. The numbers are available. The official numbers after the tour wrapped would not be where they were if it were a flop that played to half-capacity venues. There would be no reason to extend it by adding almost 2 dozen more shows if it were a flop. There would not be such interest and industry buzz if the norm was the C50 shows playing to a lot of half-full venues, unless the expectations and projections were  that they'd play to 1/4 full venues and half-full venues exceeded those expectations. That's #MottLogic.

I'll ask again, specifically in reply to this even though it's repeating the same thing yet again: What was the context of this email, and what came before it in the email chain?

Juice: Do you believe all of this hinged on a lone email, that without context would seem to have appeared out of the blue and hammered the final nail in the C50 coffin rather than as a reply or a follow-up to something else, or at least within a context?

[Joel Goldenberg]

The Montreal show I attended was fantastic, but unfortunately the venue (Bell Centre) was not close to full.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Certainly wasn't half full when I went. Even during a storm it was full of people

[urbanite]

One e-mail from Brian Wilson's wife expressed his unwillingness to continue touring.  Whatever led up to it, that e-mail was crystal clear.  And then at some point thereafter, Brian's desire to tour changed.  I don't get why Brian or his wife didn't go to Mike and try to work something out for more shows.  Maybe they did and it hasn't been reported.  It seems apparent that Mike and Melinda don't get along, and if Melinda's e-mail was a bluff, it was a foolish move.  Mike Love is strong willed and doesn't want to be second banana to the wife of a rock star.  And the soap opera continues.     

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

One e-mail from Brian Wilson's wife expressed his unwillingness to continue touring.  Whatever led up to it, that e-mail was crystal clear.  And then at some point thereafter, Brian's desire to tour changed.  I don't get why Brian or his wife didn't go to Mike and try to work something out for more shows.  Maybe they did and it hasn't been reported.  It seems apparent that Mike and Melinda don't get along, and if Melinda's e-mail was a bluff, it was a foolish move.  Mike Love is strong willed and doesn't want to be second banana to the wife of a rock star.  And the soap opera continues.     

How do we know the email actually exists?

[SMiLE Brian]

The email is a mcguffen...,

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Too bad it is not a macMUFFIN. I'm hungry

[HeyJude]

And all of these things may have played a part in Mike's decision to pull the plug. It might have been overexposed if it carried on. There was a set end date, and maybe Mike had shows booked on that timeline. I know there were a lot of half full venues on that tour. Maybe there was an email.

I loved that tour, but I never got the feeling that it was going to go on forever. And I'll say it...I bet it is stressful touring with Brian.

Not trying to sound heavy, but this is mostly wrong.

The "overexposure" argument is completely invalid. Multiple sources have said demand was *building* for more shows. BIGGER shows. Bigger, richer promoters were watching this tour to see how it unfolded. For a tour of this magnitude, 73 worldwide dates over the course of only *five* months is nothing remotely close to overexposure. That's "ending it when it has barely started" territory. If they had booked 150 shows per year for five years straight, then we could maybe start to talk overexposure.

The "set end date" argument falls apart for numerous reasons. First of all, Mike *claims* he didn't book shows until after that e-mail. So at any given point up to that point, the "set end date" was open to being moved, as it already was once when they did a *pitiful* meager 23 international dates, including a skimpy *two* shows in the UK. Secondly, even if Mike had his own dates booked way in advance before that e-mail, those Mike/Bruce dates could have been bought off in a heartbeat and replaced with reunion shows, or postponed or rescheduled, etc. Indeed, I recall one "symphonic" Mike/Bruce date that had already been booked for earlier in 2012 (in Texas maybe?) was canceled once C50 was scheduled.

I also don't believe many dates on the tour were "half full." I recall Pollstar reporting high numbers for the C50 shows.

As to Brian being stressful to tour with, I have no reason to doubt it. But the same goes for Mike. The whole point was for them to actually truly compromise on that tour.

I don't think anybody expected it go on forever. But a second leg for the tour once the amazing reviews were in (and apparently offers were on the table) is far from "forever."

[HeyJude]

But, I digress. If people want to argue for and defend Mike's multiple and sometimes changing "reasons", from Mike not wanting to risk overexposure to the tour losing money to there being a "set end date" to Mike being contractually obligated to play with his smaller band to Mike saying it came down to an email sent in early June 2012 to Mike suggesting anything that might still come out that wasn't in his book or a Mojo interview or an interview in the Kokomo Gazette...have at it.

And all of these things may have played a part in Mike's decision to pull the plug. It might have been overexposed if it carried on. There was a set end date, and maybe Mike had shows booked on that timeline. I know there were a lot of half full venues on that tour. Maybe there was an email.

I loved that tour, but I never got the feeling that it was going to go on forever. And I'll say it...I bet it is stressful touring with Brian.

Also, basically having two full bands onstage for the duration of the tour.  

The C50 touring band was no doubt more expensive, but I doubt it was more stressful. *Maybe* stressful for co-musical directors Paul Mertens and Scott Totten. But Mertens has regularly dealt with a large band, and I never sensed Totten felt overwhelmed. But Mike did the same thing on C50 that he does at his own shows. He sang a hand full of songs he doesn't normally sing. Otherwise, he does the same thing whether there are 5 or 12 guys playing behind him.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

One e-mail from Brian Wilson's wife expressed his unwillingness to continue touring.  Whatever led up to it, that e-mail was crystal clear. 

If what Mike says is true and that there was some ulterior motive behind the e-mail then it was not crystal clear. Again, Mike seems to be suggesting that he interpreted the e-mail as meaning something other than what it said.

[HeyJude]

If we're to view Brian and Al as two disappointed guys who have been shut out of the touring band, I'm still a little confused about the current status quo. If there are 4 votes in BRI: Brian, Al, Mike and Carl's kids, what's stopping them from nixing the Mike and Bruce tour and demanding that the BB can only tour as a reunion outfit?

Do Brian and/or Al nevertheless vote for the Mike and Bruce show because of the money it rakes in? If so, it's a little more difficult to view them purely as victims. OR, what happens if there is a split vote, with both Mike and Carl's kids voting for the Mike and Bruce show and Brian and Al voting against? What happens then?

There are numerous hangups. It is NOT as simple as calling for a vote. First of all, they would need Carl's sons' vote, and the only evidence I've ever heard of them voting against Mike at BRI is that "Love & Mercy" soundtrack vote, and even then they voted without even knowing how Mike would vote.

Secondly, even if they *did* get Carl's estate's vote and voted to strip the license from Mike, it would almost surely be tied up in litigation until the surviving members were deceased. There would be a myriad of ways to tie the whole thing up and argue against that vote in court.

Also, even if they *were* able to take the license away, who is interested in Mike touring literally under duress?

Brian and Al don't "vote for Mike to use the name", as if it's a continual renewal process. There was one vote back in 1998, and it's likely Al voted *against* Mike getting his license. No vote has taken place since then. Brian and Al don't make a ton of money off of Mike's tour. I'm guessing they don't strongly go after Mike's license simply because it would be kicking a hornet's nest of costly litigation. But Brian and Al each make 25% *of* the small licensing fee Mike pays to use the name. They don't get 25% of the whole thing, only 25% of their 5% or whatever it is that Mike pays out to BRI.

We kicked rough numbers around in a thread a few years ago. Mike's tour makes MANY MILLIONS per year. It sounds like at most around $1 million annually is paid out in licensing fees to BRI (based on $20 million over 20 years or so), and then Brian and Al would each get 25% of that $1 million. *As does Mike.* So Mike makes *as much* as Brian and Al off the small licensing fee, PLUS Mike makes millions per year off the touring operation itself.

Brian and Al are co-owners of the trademark. They should get their fair share of any licensing fee, regardless of whether they agree with issuing said license. If you own stock in a company and your stock turns a huge profit despite you disagreeing with the company's decisions, you *still* get to keep your stock/money.

[HeyJude]

One e-mail from Brian Wilson's wife expressed his unwillingness to continue touring.  Whatever led up to it, that e-mail was crystal clear.  And then at some point thereafter, Brian's desire to tour changed.  I don't get why Brian or his wife didn't go to Mike and try to work something out for more shows.  Maybe they did and it hasn't been reported.  It seems apparent that Mike and Melinda don't get along, and if Melinda's e-mail was a bluff, it was a foolish move.  Mike Love is strong willed and doesn't want to be second banana to the wife of a rock star.  And the soap opera continues.    

Even assuming Mike's and Mike's supporters' version of the story is correct, a single one-line email with no context is the exact opposite of crystal clear.

If someone got a text message from their spouse that said "no more marriage for me", would the response be to just go file for divorce and never talk to the spouse again, or would it be good to maybe get some clarification, or *God forbid* actually try to work something out?

It sounds like at some point Brian *and* Al let Mike know they wanted to continue, and Mike balked. As I've already said, Al nearly begged Mike to come back to the table to discuss it and Al was blown off.

[HeyJude]

One e-mail from Brian Wilson's wife expressed his unwillingness to continue touring.  Whatever led up to it, that e-mail was crystal clear. 

If what Mike says is true and that there was some ulterior motive behind the e-mail then it was not crystal clear. Again, Mike seems to be suggesting that he interpreted the e-mail as meaning something other than what it said.

That's what's fascinating about this new Mike interview. Mike's *own* interpretation of the story makes him look like the one who refused to come back to the table and work out doing more shows.

Seriously, Mike's idea of what he thought Melinda was hoping he would say is actually *exactly* what I think Mike or anybody in that situation should have said/asked. Pretty simple. "This tour is amazing! Don't you want to keep going?" Mike did not do that.

[Pretty Funky]

Just a reminder from 2012 and a couple of posts from Jon Stebbins.

Its funny that Howie basically relates very truthfully that Melinda and Jaqui are the bottom line, in charge, calling the shots, wielding the power...and Fildepage somehow takes that as an "undertone of disrespect".

Well, that story is a 180 degree turn from last week.  Last week Mike was the villain. Splashed globally.  Now it is the wives?

The villain is the horrible way this was handled as far as inflaming the public perception that the Beach Boys are firing each other etc... It could have easily been avoided, and the Mike press release, the wording of it, the Beach Boys reluctance to mitigate that by giving an explanation that no one was fired etc... All of that was stupid and ugly. The behind the scenes truth is that Melinda and Jaqui essentially pull the levers of the two integrated organizations that have made this reunion possible. If they were currently operating in harmony as they were throughout most of this reunion, this most likely would not have happened. Seems obvious. You are the first person in this exchange to label them as villains. I'd view them as being in charge, and as having done a fantastic job with all reunion related issues...until now.

[urbanite]

"How do we know the email actually exists?"

Because if it didn't, the other camp would have said so publicly or through their surrogates.