Everyone back together for a Beach Boys Q&A for Sirius XM?

[CenturyDeprived]

I didn't remember Mike's tour schedule was that light right after C50; that's quite interesting.

This is just my total guess/gut feeling, but it kind of smells like Mike just started booking a hand full of shows to essentially create a plausible reason to say he couldn't do more reunion shows (See? I already have my own shows booked!), and also to start getting his foot back in the door and re-establish his band as the going "Beach Boys" touring concern.

Yes, this makes so much sense. It explains those oddball bookings in Summer/Fall 2012, and it just seems like what he would logically do.

There's no doubt in my mind of this being true. Kind of reminds me of when watching a true crime show... somebody commits a crime, but they go out of their way to try and create and alibi stating they were present elsewhere that night, to diffuse anyone from thinking they could have had motive and opportunity to commit said crime.

It feels like Mike just throws any excuse to the wall to see what will "stick" for his not wanting to continue with C50. Why is it soooo hard for people to just agree that his actions seem to reflect him having giant ego, and that he ended the reunion because he couldn't stand losing control, after having gotten accustomed to full control as M&B? Admitting that this is the truth is not saying he is an evil, horrible person; on the contrary, it's just being realistic about the situation.

[CenturyDeprived]

What if Brian had showed up with five “Love & Mercy” shirts? Would Mike have worn that? And if he hadn’t, would it have been out of line to say group politics could have at least tangentially been involved? I don’t think so.

Sorry to single out this one point, but I've seen this analogy numerous times now and I think it's off-base. This was a Beach Boys reunion. What's the main characteristic of Mike's signature shirt? Yep, the blue and white stripes. Compare that to a "Love & Mercy" shirt or any other Brian solo shirt that has nothing to do with the Beach Boys. I agree that Dave's comments and Mary Ann Jardine's comments don't silence all such commentary (e.g. the mismatched appearance), but Mike's shirts aren't all that out of place at a Beach Boys reunion. Certainly not to the same extent a "Love & Mercy" shirt would be. It's not like Mike brought in "Unleash The Love" shirts for everyone to wear at a Beach Boys reunion. My thoughts on the entire shirt fiasco is, yes, it's the first thing I noticed when I looked at the group photo. It certainly deserved a mention and a discussion. Still, I consider it a footnote. That seems to be the perspective of those involved (that we've heard from).

It may not be a shirt with "Love and Mercy" written in giant letters, but it's still very much a "Mike Love" shirt being that his face (and only his face) is stitched into the shirt. In particular: being as it has certainly been a undeniably "touchy" aspect throughout recent years with regards to who is in the "BBs" band... these shirts are basically the statement MIKE LOVE IS THE BEACH BOYS in shirt form (what "band" t-shirts only have 1 member on them??)... and especially after Brian and Al felt pushed out of the band not so very long ago, it just feels tacky for the guy who pushed them out of the band (or if people want to get technical, the guy who made them feel like they were pushed out of the band) to bring those recently pushed-out guys shirts as gifts to wear at a reunion activity.

I'm glad David and Mary Ann are seeing things in a nice light, and I applaud them for just trying to make peace and at least publicly try to smooth things out. Truthfully, and I mean this very sincerely, I'm not trying to sh*t on their thoughts, nor the reunion, just by having my own opinion. I'm glad they don't see any deeper meaning. It doesn't mean that in the light of the history of the band, that the appearance (as HeyJude pointed out) isn't nevertheless just a bit off-putting for many fans (and publications) in light of the highly negative and egregiously inflammatory things that Mike has said about any number of Brian projects that "excluded" Mike.

Does a Beach Boys shirt with only Mike's face on it not somehow exclude Brian too? This may sound like a funny conversation, and it sort of is of course... but still, how is that comparison off-base? There's some truth in it.  If Mike didn't repeatedly say such negative stuff about "Brian content" countless times, this conversation would probably not exist. This is a shirt by the guy who made the biggest friggin' deal in the world in interviews, over and over and over and over again, about how it was SUCH a terrible and insulting thing for him (Mike) to not be completely included in aspects of the band in a manner that he (Mike) saw fit during the last reunion. So yeah, Mike wants everyone to cry a river that he did was not properly included as he should have been, and that TWGMTR was too Brian-centric (leaving out Mike), but then it's fine for Mike to expect Brian to wear a Mike shirt that takes the iconic brand fashion imagery and puts only Mike's face on it.

I think some people are simply bugged at Mike's inconsistency of what he has historically, repeatedly gotten publicly outraged at, when they see his actions. There's really nothing much more to it than that.

There's noooo doubt in my mind that if Brian had done the same thing (let's say Brian had a line of Brian Wilson striped shirts with only Brian's face taken from a 1960s Beach Boys photo, and asked Mike to wear it), that Mike would've have found a way (either right then and there, or years down the line) to make a big public hissy fit about being slighted, and to complain about Brian (or Melinda) having the chutzpah to expect Mike wear a Brian Wilson solo shirt to a Beach Boys reunion.

Honestly, anyone defending Mike in this discussion, please refute this. I'll expect crickets, just as JuiceBronston ducked out of my prior line of questioning.

Side note: if Reiner was “pro” matching shirts, that would surely mean Reiner wanted everyone to have matching shirts (or no one); I'm sure that if the "idea" of the band wearing matching shirts was mentioned to Reiner, that it would seem like a potentially nice idea on the surface, but no way in hell Reiner was somehow pushing for the idea of some members wearing matching shirts and some not.  Nobody in their right mind would think that was an ideal situation.

Also - none of this means that more great reunion activities are "tarnished", and I wish the band collective good vibrations from here on out.

With all this talk about trolling, it's hard for me to see posters who duck out of a back-and-forth conversation (the minute they can't refute an inconvenient truth) as anything but trolling, whether it's intended to be trolling or not. Even if trying very hard to not see this as trolling, it's just plain rude at best. I predicted crickets, and I was correct.

[tpesky]

As someone who saw the tour in May and I then again in late June I can tell you the tour picked up steam as it went . May was good but late June they were on fire . I think it is very plausible Brian changed his mind between June 1 and June 20 based on how the tour was going. It’s amazing that there couldn’t have been a follow up discussion. They saw each other every day , Mike couldn’t have asked Brian?!?!

[CenturyDeprived]

As someone who saw the tour in May and I then again in late June I can tell you the tour picked up steam as it went . May was good but late June they were on fire . I think it is very plausible Brian changed his mind between June 1 and June 20 based on how the tour was going. It’s amazing that there couldn’t have been a follow up discussion. They saw each other every day , Mike couldn’t have asked Brian?!?!

Thing is, if Mike had a bug up his butt about losing control and not being "the star" to a degree of his liking... then the bigger the C50 tour got, and the better they sounded would only become more of a threat to him, if it could potentially endanger his ability to go back to M&B, should the public get too accustomed to C50 being what should be expected at a BBs show.

I feel like Mike wanted C50 to fail once he realized the parameters weren't to his liking, and once he felt those parameters  weren't gonna change.

[guitarfool2002]

As someone who saw the tour in May and I then again in late June I can tell you the tour picked up steam as it went . May was good but late June they were on fire . I think it is very plausible Brian changed his mind between June 1 and June 20 based on how the tour was going. It’s amazing that there couldn’t have been a follow up discussion. They saw each other every day , Mike couldn’t have asked Brian?!?!

Instead reports clipped from a Chilean newspaper based on a phone interview Mike gave while riding the C50 bus was their notice given...

And asking again, when specifically (or how) was the tour extended from the original "set end date" of 50 shows? Because that newspaper report from June 22 still listed a plan of 50 shows.

And as of June 22, when all of this news of Mike booking shows started to break (albeit in South American papers), despite Mike's book stating there were a "ton of offers" coming in for his M&B lineup at the time, there were three...and all of them ended up not happening. The October 2012 Heart O’ Texas Fair & Rodeo Waco gig was written up in mid-July 2012 and the article stated it still wasn't clear which band members would be there, but said it was not part of the reunion tour.

Yet we're supposed to believe all fingers point to one email. Sure...

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

As someone who saw the tour in May and I then again in late June I can tell you the tour picked up steam as it went . May was good but late June they were on fire . I think it is very plausible Brian changed his mind between June 1 and June 20 based on how the tour was going. It’s amazing that there couldn’t have been a follow up discussion. They saw each other every day , Mike couldn’t have asked Brian?!?!

Thing is, if Mike had a bug up his butt about losing control and not being "the star" to a degree of his liking... then the bigger the C50 tour got, and the better they sounded would only become more of a threat to him, if it could potentially endanger his ability to go back to M&B, should the public get too accustomed to C50 being what should be expected at a BBs show.

I feel like Mike wanted C50 to fail once he realized the parameters weren't to his liking, and once he felt those parameters  weren't gonna change.

That is it in a nut shell. The “email” is a red herring. And did anyone *cough*Andrew*cough* ever explain why “Wilsons” was plural? Perhaps Al was considered a Wilson, or maybe the holograms demanded a pay hike?

[CenturyDeprived]

As someone who saw the tour in May and I then again in late June I can tell you the tour picked up steam as it went . May was good but late June they were on fire . I think it is very plausible Brian changed his mind between June 1 and June 20 based on how the tour was going. It’s amazing that there couldn’t have been a follow up discussion. They saw each other every day , Mike couldn’t have asked Brian?!?!

Thing is, if Mike had a bug up his butt about losing control and not being "the star" to a degree of his liking... then the bigger the C50 tour got, and the better they sounded would only become more of a threat to him, if it could potentially endanger his ability to go back to M&B, should the public get too accustomed to C50 being what should be expected at a BBs show.

I feel like Mike wanted C50 to fail once he realized the parameters weren't to his liking, and once he felt those parameters  weren't gonna change.

That is it in a nut shell. The “email” is a red herring. And did anyone *cough*Andrew*cough* ever explain why “Wilsons” was plural? Perhaps Al was considered a Wilson, or maybe the holograms demanded a pay hike?

Now that I think about it... the whole "no more shows for Wilson" email being used repeatedly by Mike as the reason C50 ended seems quite a bit like how Murry fired David Marks. David, presumably in a moment of passion, let out the words "I quit!"... and Murry - who'd been salivating for such a moment - went "a ha!" and never would let David back down from that, with Murry then trying to paint the narrative in a way that David was a quitter who'd made a singular decision from which there could be no wiggle room for further discussion, and that everything from that point on (and retroactively) was to be blamed on David being a "quitter".

It just seems like Mike was extraordinarily happy to receive that email (or to become aware of its existence months later, as I seem to recall people surmising might have been the case) since it could help legitimize what he wanted to do anyway, that being ditch 3/5 of the band so that he could regain total control. I just don't know why fans and Mike himself can't just own that. There's be a hell of a lot less bickering if this was just admitted to.

[Rocker]

- delete please -

[Juice Brohnston]

Here's some archival material to consider along with what's already been posted. If some of the links don't work, please point that out so they can be read/seen.

If we're talking about the dates, as in June 1st and then "20 days later" in this comment from "Juice" 'The first was sent June 1, the second email, some 20 days later. Days! Not minutes or hours. If there was no further discussion within that 20 day period, I could see Mike believing that there would indeed be no more shows.'

Consider that Mike first announced the shows in South America during a phone interview while riding on a C50 bus with the newspaper La Tercera which is in Chile.


A rough translation of the original "La Tercera" article which was already shared and circulating in the South American press on June 22, 2012:

"The Beach Boys returns to Santiago in October without Brian Wilson in the group

The band has already closed a deal to be presented at the end of October at Movistar Arena. Despite the reunion tour, they will only be led by another of their history, Mike Love.

The Beach Boys once again puts Chile on its road map. But, just like the previous two, he does it with certain nuances around his past and his present. If the announcements of 2005 -recital that was canceled- and 2011 -for a private event- presented a band that in those days led only two historical members, Mike Love and Bruce Johnston, this time the trip will also be with restricted contingent.

The Americans have just closed an upcoming South American tour for the last quarter and have already agreed on a concert for October at Movistar Arena, tentative date for the 26th. It is their first show for all audiences in the country. Of course, and although in December made the meeting and tour of its most important cast official - with Love and Johnston with Al Jardine, David Marks and Brian Wilson - the current reunion tour will not go through Santiago. In concrete terms, the group will only come with Love as a leader and without Wilson, the symbol and brain of Californians.

This is confirmed by Love himself, on the phone with La Tercera from the bus that takes them across North America in his current journey: "Yes, we are planning to go to South America. But those recitals will not be part of the reunion tour. " Consulted if it will be the same show that was offered in November of last year in Espacio Riesco, for a financial services firm, the artist responds with a concise "exact".

One point: the live return of the men of Pet Sounds (1966) marks dates until September in Oceania and England, all with Wilson in the set. Although his cousin, Love, prefers not to delve into the reasons why the soul of The Beach Boys will not be part of some sections of the course, there is room for lucubration. For example, since 1965, Wilson decided to leave the tours with his classmates to concentrate on the masterpieces that would be dispatched during the second part of the 60s. In other times, the singer also resigned on stage due to his problems with drugs and their psychiatric problems. In fact, he has never had much empathy with the respectable: although the reviews of his current tour, which started in April, have been praiseworthy, they have all emphasized that the musician responds to his historical profile and feels distant and distant. The coordinates for your local appointment will become official in the coming days.


And this published June 22 in Peru's "El Comercio" newspaper which was cited in a Guardian article June 27th:

Friday, June 22, 2012 | 13:14
The Beach Boys confirmed a tour of South America
Mike Love, vocalist of the Californian band, announced a visit for the month of October, but without the presence of Brian WilsonThe Beach Boys, the legendary Californian rock band, will visit South America. This was announced by Mike Love, vocalist and composer of the group, in an interview with the Chilean newspaper "La Tercera".

In a telephone conversation with the aforementioned medium, Love clarified that the concerts will not be part of the reunion tour of the band, so it will not be attended by Brian Wilson, perhaps the most emblematic member of the group.

As you remember, The Beach Boys have 50 dates around the world to celebrate their 50th anniversary in music."

A link to the original La Tercera article and phone interview: http://diario.latercera.com/edicionimpresa/the-beach-boys-vuelve-a-santiago-en-octubre-sin-brian-wilson-en-el-grupo/

And a cache archive of the June 22, 2012 El Comercio article: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:2FdypxK_h1oJ:https://elcomercio.pe/luces/musica/beach-boys-confirmaron-gira-america-sur-noticia-1431754+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us


News of the Nutty Jerry's booking was published in a local paper on June 20, 2012:

The Beach Boys Coming to Nutty Jerry's In Winnie October 6
Craig Hlavaty | June 20, 2012 | 2:00pm

If you missed the reunited and augmented Beach Boys a few weeks back in the Woodlands, you will have a second chance to see the band on October 6 out at Nutty Jerry's in Winnie. Yes, it's a long drive, but this tour is worth seeing.

As Rocks Off confirmed from Nutty Jerry's PR, this will in fact be the lineup that was at the Woodlands on June 8. There was some question to whether or not this would be Mike Love's version of the group that tours sans Brian Wilson.

Tickets are available here on the Jerry's site. While you are there, why not snag your America tickets?

Speaking of Wilson, the pop architect turns 70 years old today, so be sure and play Pet Sounds or SMiLE super-loud, or softly, whichever you prefer.

The Beach Boys are touring behind their first new album in decades, That's Why God Made The Radio, and their current setlists have been having upwards of 45 songs on them. In a recent interview with guitarist Al Jardine, he commented that he hopes that the band's dynamic can lend itself to more touring, at least every two years. It looks like they are in fact making a go of it.

In the current issue of Rolling Stone the band talks about their shaky but working relationship on the road and in the studio. Fun fact: Michael McDonald scares the sh*t out of Brian Wilson.

Followed by news of the cancellation and confusion published June 25, 2012:

Beach Boys Not Coming To Nutty Jerry's After All
Craig Hlavaty | June 25, 2012 | 4:30pm

Last week I told you about an upcoming Beach Boys date out in Winnie at Nutty Jerry's. The show sparked my interest since I was still on a B-Boys high from their show in the Woodlands earlier this month, and I was happy that the Houston-area was getting another go-round with the group.

But today the venue issued this press release, effectively cancelling the date:

    Due to a misunderstanding with the Beach Boy's management and a local booking agent, the October 6th Beach Boys concert at Nutty Jerry's has been cancelled.

    The group that was scheduled to perform at Nutty Jerry's is not the same lineup as the current "Beach Boys 50th Anniversary" tour.

    As a result Nutty Jerry's did not feel that we could advertise the show as the "original" Beach Boys. Nutty Jerry's regrets the misunderstanding and any inconvenience to our loyal customers.

The release went on to give information about refunds and also teased another concert announcement for that same October 6 date.

You know what they say about things being too good to be true. For my part, I did confirm with Jerry's front office last week that the band coming to town was the one that played 46 songs at the Woodlands, but as you can see things quickly changed.

The best I can tell is that the version of the Beach Boys that was booked for Nutty's was the Mike Love version which was touring before this year's reunion run, with all surviving members in tow, including Brian Wilson. Once myself and others inquired about the distinction, someone must have figured out the difference and balked.

And now according to Rolling Stone, this is a thing that Love has been doing the whole time during the reunion shows.

This current Beach Boys tour is only listed as far as September 28 at Wembley Stadium.

Link to June 20 2012 article announcing Nutty Jerrys gig: https://www.houstonpress.com/music/the-beach-boys-coming-to-nutty-jerrys-in-winnie-october-6-6500272

Link to June 25 2012 article canceling Nutty Jerrys gig: https://www.houstonpress.com/music/beach-boys-not-coming-to-nutty-jerrys-after-all-6777328

By June 27, other media had picked up these stories and had begun reporting about Mike booking gigs while touring as C50.


That's just to put more information from June 2012 on the table as these stories broke and people found out about them via the press reports linked above.

The key is still the context of the "smoking gun" email, as in what was sent before and what was sent after.

But it is also worth noting that in one of the South American newspapers, as of June 21-22 2012, the tour was still reported as 50 shows. Which was the original plan, until it was extended due to demand.

So when exactly was it extended, or when was the decision made to extend it? Because if by June 22nd a news report in South America still had it as 50 shows, either they were late to get the updates (if there were any), or the so-called "set end date" wasn't quite set in stone when Mike announced the booking of shows in South America for October on a phone interview to South America while riding on the C50 bus.

If it fits, it fits. If not, well...let the discussions begin. But context is key if the whole shebang is pinned on an email from June, and this is just some context after the fact.

Makes sense from a timeline perspective. If Brian and Melinda bailed early June, Mike could have started booking shows for M&B right away, and by the time of these interviews, new shows would have been lined up under The Beach Boys Love License?

When did the tour go beyond 50 shows, any idea? Obviously they were working on this before the June 1 email, if the purpose of that email was to inform Michael that Brian wasn't carrying on.

[guitarfool2002]

When was the tour extended beyond the original 50 gigs? What emails came before June 1, between June 1 and 20 when the nutty jerry's gig was announced, and what emails came after June 20?

As it stands, the entire deal is hinging on a single email. Does that sound like enough to affect an entire corporation? Does the fact Mike didn't play any significant numbers of gigs despite saying tons of offers were coming in for M & B suggest it wasn't as cut and dry as is being said?

So many questions.

[Juice Brohnston]

One interesting point that I believe highlights Mike was much more interested in *exiting* the reunion than under some immediate pressing obligation to book a ton of his own dates quickly is this:

Regarding Mike being required to book his own shows back after C50, it's worth actually looking at his tour schedule for the remainder of 2012 and into 2013.

From September 30, 2012 through the beginning of February 2013, Mike booked...wait for it.... NINE shows across EIGHT venues.

He dumped the reunion tour in order to play these shows:

September 30 - The Legacy Concert for the Children, The Santaluz Club, San Diego, CA
October 5 - Extraco Events Center, Waco, TX  
October 6 - The Backyard, Austin, TX  
October 12 - Beau Rivage, Biloxi, MS
October 13 - Beau Rivage, Biloxi, MS
December 21 - New Orleans Bowl Friday Night Concert, Champion's Square, New Orleans, LA (Free Show)
December 28 - Pike's Peak Center, Colorado Springs, CO  
December 31 - Mystic Lake Casino, Prior Lake, MN (2 Shows)

Nothing in November 2012, nothing in January 2013. Only FOUR shows in February 2013. Even assuming maybe he booked a few private/corporate gigs we don't know about, and even taking into account at least three canceled gigs (two in South America, plus the infamous "Nutty Jerry's" gig), I somehow doubt BRI had a requirement that both *forced* Mike to book shows, but then also allowed for such a *light* tour schedule.

This is just my total guess/gut feeling, but it kind of smells like Mike just started booking a hand full of shows to essentially create a plausible reason to say he couldn't do more reunion shows (See? I already have my own shows booked!), and also to start getting his foot back in the door and re-establish his band as the going "Beach Boys" touring concern.

Look at that schedule. THREE shows between mid-October 2012 and February 2013. They could have *easily* booked some year-end reunion gigs to try to cap the whole thing off on better terms (and that's just assuming they still wouldn't continue the reunion on any sort of even semi-permanent basis). As was bandied about some time back, even just one or two year-ending shows at the Staples Center or something could have easily been done.

Part of this, as you are quoted as saying below, is just how Mike rolls out his tours. It's never an announcement of a full slate of shows.

"Also, if one has followed Mike's tour and scheduling habits over the years, they will have found that Mike never really "announces" a tour. He never unveils a tour schedule. It just sort of continually exists and is updated on an ongoing basis. It takes a few months into the year for summer tour dates to fill out. " -Hey Jude

[Juice Brohnston]

So many questions.

Yep and no definitive answers, really. Mike's chimed in, have we ever heard rebuttals?

[HeyJude]

One interesting point that I believe highlights Mike was much more interested in *exiting* the reunion than under some immediate pressing obligation to book a ton of his own dates quickly is this:

Regarding Mike being required to book his own shows back after C50, it's worth actually looking at his tour schedule for the remainder of 2012 and into 2013.

From September 30, 2012 through the beginning of February 2013, Mike booked...wait for it.... NINE shows across EIGHT venues.

He dumped the reunion tour in order to play these shows:

September 30 - The Legacy Concert for the Children, The Santaluz Club, San Diego, CA
October 5 - Extraco Events Center, Waco, TX  
October 6 - The Backyard, Austin, TX  
October 12 - Beau Rivage, Biloxi, MS
October 13 - Beau Rivage, Biloxi, MS
December 21 - New Orleans Bowl Friday Night Concert, Champion's Square, New Orleans, LA (Free Show)
December 28 - Pike's Peak Center, Colorado Springs, CO  
December 31 - Mystic Lake Casino, Prior Lake, MN (2 Shows)

Nothing in November 2012, nothing in January 2013. Only FOUR shows in February 2013. Even assuming maybe he booked a few private/corporate gigs we don't know about, and even taking into account at least three canceled gigs (two in South America, plus the infamous "Nutty Jerry's" gig), I somehow doubt BRI had a requirement that both *forced* Mike to book shows, but then also allowed for such a *light* tour schedule.

This is just my total guess/gut feeling, but it kind of smells like Mike just started booking a hand full of shows to essentially create a plausible reason to say he couldn't do more reunion shows (See? I already have my own shows booked!), and also to start getting his foot back in the door and re-establish his band as the going "Beach Boys" touring concern.

Look at that schedule. THREE shows between mid-October 2012 and February 2013. They could have *easily* booked some year-end reunion gigs to try to cap the whole thing off on better terms (and that's just assuming they still wouldn't continue the reunion on any sort of even semi-permanent basis). As was bandied about some time back, even just one or two year-ending shows at the Staples Center or something could have easily been done.

Part of this, as you are quoted as saying below, is just how Mike rolls out his tours. It's never an announcement of a full slate of shows.

"Also, if one has followed Mike's tour and scheduling habits over the years, they will have found that Mike never really "announces" a tour. He never unveils a tour schedule. It just sort of continually exists and is updated on an ongoing basis. It takes a few months into the year for summer tour dates to fill out. " -Hey Jude

Yes, and you're taking my comment about Mike's *typical* touring procedure out of context. That comment, from another thread and on a different topic (namely Mike's *current* touring), pertained to his typical rollout for a given year.

Additionally, my comment quoted above about his tour rollout pertained to *how* tour dates were announced and *when*. I was *not* speaking to the total number of tour dates. During that September to Febuary timeline discussed in the current thread, a total of nine shows is *very atypical* of any recent Mike tour schedules.

2012 was obviously unique, and normally I wouldn't scrutinize too heavily that Mike just did some scattered dates in the latter half of 2012 into early 2013. However, it was Mike and Mike alone who consistently referred back to a pressing need if not requirement to continue to tour, and he often used "I had already booked my own dates" as a reason (however bogus) for ending the reunion tour.

He had dates booked at the end of September into early-mid October. So if there were so many offers, and he was *required* to endlessly tour by BRI, why was there a 2-month-plus gap between October 13 and December 21?

Again, between mid-October 2012 and the end of January 2013, he did *three* shows over the span of about three and a half months. That's not only atypical for Mike's touring routine, it completely contradicts his stated pressing need to continue to tour (and seems to clash with the implication that offers were just flooding in for his edition of the band) and clearly shows there was plenty of leeway to continue with more reunion shows.

I fully understand all of the variables. By the second half of 2012, he would certainly be getting plenty of offers for 2013. If he truly didn't start booking *any* of his own shows until June of 2012, then the second half of the year would not be as jam packed as a typical latter half of the year of touring for his band. But if he was pounding the pavement and snagging tons of bookings, and if he truly was *immediately* required by BRI to go back out, I don't buy again, as I've said, that BRI would both *have* an immediate legal requirement for him to book shows without any break, but then *also* allow him to book so few shows.

Again, my total guess of a takeaway is that he first and foremost didn't want to continue the reunion, and everything else is a justification for the reunion ending instead of just simply and plainly stating what his words strongly indicate, which is that it wasn't about a legal requirement to book his own shows, it wasn't about needing to "give it a rest" to build up demand, it wasn't about an e-mail (later retracted by Mike's own admission). It was about Mike quitting the Beach Boys in September 2012; of disliking Melinda more than his desire to continue working with Brian and the other guys as a fully reunited unit.

[HeyJude]

So many questions.

Yep and no definitive answers, really. Mike's chimed in, have we ever heard rebuttals?

Yes. Brian wrote a letter to the LA Times. Brian's book discusses the reunion. Also, Al has discussed it in numerous interviews, and has done so very plainly and simply. He discussed being disappointed that Mike didn't want to continue.

By EVERY MEMBER'S account, *by the end of the tour* Brian, Al, and David wanted to continue the reunion. Mike did not. Bruce never really specifically individually chimed in but obviously stayed glued to Mike and has never lamented the end of the reunion.

From MIKE'S autobiography at the tail end of the (few) pages covering the reunion:

"He (Brian) wanted the tour to continue, and he said so loudly and often, but you can't change the melody once the score's been written."

Whatever *that* means.....

[Juice Brohnston]

One interesting point that I believe highlights Mike was much more interested in *exiting* the reunion than under some immediate pressing obligation to book a ton of his own dates quickly is this:

Regarding Mike being required to book his own shows back after C50, it's worth actually looking at his tour schedule for the remainder of 2012 and into 2013.

From September 30, 2012 through the beginning of February 2013, Mike booked...wait for it.... NINE shows across EIGHT venues.

He dumped the reunion tour in order to play these shows:

September 30 - The Legacy Concert for the Children, The Santaluz Club, San Diego, CA
October 5 - Extraco Events Center, Waco, TX  
October 6 - The Backyard, Austin, TX  
October 12 - Beau Rivage, Biloxi, MS
October 13 - Beau Rivage, Biloxi, MS
December 21 - New Orleans Bowl Friday Night Concert, Champion's Square, New Orleans, LA (Free Show)
December 28 - Pike's Peak Center, Colorado Springs, CO  
December 31 - Mystic Lake Casino, Prior Lake, MN (2 Shows)

Nothing in November 2012, nothing in January 2013. Only FOUR shows in February 2013. Even assuming maybe he booked a few private/corporate gigs we don't know about, and even taking into account at least three canceled gigs (two in South America, plus the infamous "Nutty Jerry's" gig), I somehow doubt BRI had a requirement that both *forced* Mike to book shows, but then also allowed for such a *light* tour schedule.

This is just my total guess/gut feeling, but it kind of smells like Mike just started booking a hand full of shows to essentially create a plausible reason to say he couldn't do more reunion shows (See? I already have my own shows booked!), and also to start getting his foot back in the door and re-establish his band as the going "Beach Boys" touring concern.

Look at that schedule. THREE shows between mid-October 2012 and February 2013. They could have *easily* booked some year-end reunion gigs to try to cap the whole thing off on better terms (and that's just assuming they still wouldn't continue the reunion on any sort of even semi-permanent basis). As was bandied about some time back, even just one or two year-ending shows at the Staples Center or something could have easily been done.

Part of this, as you are quoted as saying below, is just how Mike rolls out his tours. It's never an announcement of a full slate of shows.

"Also, if one has followed Mike's tour and scheduling habits over the years, they will have found that Mike never really "announces" a tour. He never unveils a tour schedule. It just sort of continually exists and is updated on an ongoing basis. It takes a few months into the year for summer tour dates to fill out. " -Hey Jude

Yes, and you're taking my comment about Mike's *typical* touring procedure out of context. That comment, from another thread and on a different topic (namely Mike's *current* touring), pertained to his typical rollout for a given year.

Additionally, my comment quoted above about his tour rollout pertained to *how* tour dates were announced and *when*. I was *not* speaking to the total number of tour dates. During that September to Febuary timeline discussed in the current thread, a total of nine shows is *very atypical* of any recent Mike tour schedules.

2012 was obviously unique, and normally I wouldn't scrutinize too heavily that Mike just did some scattered dates in the latter half of 2012 into early 2013. However, it was Mike and Mike alone who consistently referred back to a pressing need if not requirement to continue to tour, and he often used "I had already booked my own dates" as a reason (however bogus) for ending the reunion tour.

He had dates booked at the end of September into early-mid October. So if there were so many offers, and he was *required* to endlessly tour by BRI, why was there a 2-month-plus gap between October 13 and December 21?

Again, between mid-October 2012 and the end of January 2013, he did *three* shows over the span of about three and a half months. That's not only atypical for Mike's touring routine, it completely contradicts his stated pressing need to continue to tour (and seems to clash with the implication that offers were just flooding in for his edition of the band) and clearly shows there was plenty of leeway to continue with more reunion shows.

I fully understand all of the variables. By the second half of 2012, he would certainly be getting plenty of offers for 2013. If he truly didn't start booking *any* of his own shows until June of 2012, then the second half of the year would not be as jam packed as a typical latter half of the year of touring for his band. But if he was pounding the pavement and snagging tons of bookings, and if he truly was *immediately* required by BRI to go back out, I don't buy again, as I've said, that BRI would both *have* an immediate legal requirement for him to book shows without any break, but then *also* allow him to book so few shows.

Again, my total guess of a takeaway is that he first and foremost didn't want to continue the reunion, and everything else is a justification for the reunion ending instead of just simply and plainly stating what his words strongly indicate, which is that it wasn't about a legal requirement to book his own shows, it wasn't about needing to "give it a rest" to build up demand, it wasn't about an e-mail (later retracted by Mike's own admission). It was about Mike quitting the Beach Boys in September 2012; of disliking Melinda more than his desire to continue working with Brian and the other guys as a fully reunited unit.

I agree with your last paragraph. Mike wanted out. Probably for a number of reasons. But my take on it, and it's just that, is that it all exists in one big stinkin' pile. I think mistakes were made on both sides. It wasn't entirely Mike's fault on C50. And stuff like the email, again in my opinion only shows that it was poorly handled all around. Ironically that can be brought right back to the actual origins of this thread. A reunion that seems to be the product of a hard working manager that can get sides to cooperate. That would have been something to have on C50.

[B.E.]

What if Brian had showed up with five “Love & Mercy” shirts? Would Mike have worn that? And if he hadn’t, would it have been out of line to say group politics could have at least tangentially been involved? I don’t think so.

Sorry to single out this one point, but I've seen this analogy numerous times now and I think it's off-base. This was a Beach Boys reunion. What's the main characteristic of Mike's signature shirt? Yep, the blue and white stripes. Compare that to a "Love & Mercy" shirt or any other Brian solo shirt that has nothing to do with the Beach Boys. I agree that Dave's comments and Mary Ann Jardine's comments don't silence all such commentary (e.g. the mismatched appearance), but Mike's shirts aren't all that out of place at a Beach Boys reunion. Certainly not to the same extent a "Love & Mercy" shirt would be. It's not like Mike brought in "Unleash The Love" shirts for everyone to wear at a Beach Boys reunion. My thoughts on the entire shirt fiasco is, yes, it's the first thing I noticed when I looked at the group photo. It certainly deserved a mention and a discussion. Still, I consider it a footnote. That seems to be the perspective of those involved (that we've heard from).

It may not be a shirt with "Love and Mercy" written in giant letters, but it's still very much a "Mike Love" shirt being that his face (and only his face) is stitched into the shirt. In particular: being as it has certainly been a undeniably "touchy" aspect throughout recent years with regards to who is in the "BBs" band... these shirts are basically the statement MIKE LOVE IS THE BEACH BOYS in shirt form (what "band" t-shirts only have 1 member on them??)... and especially after Brian and Al felt pushed out of the band not so very long ago, it just feels tacky for the guy who pushed them out of the band (or if people want to get technical, the guy who made them feel like they were pushed out of the band) to bring those recently pushed-out guys shirts as gifts to wear at a reunion activity.

I'm glad David and Mary Ann are seeing things in a nice light, and I applaud them for just trying to make peace and at least publicly try to smooth things out. Truthfully, and I mean this very sincerely, I'm not trying to sh*t on their thoughts, nor the reunion, just by having my own opinion. I'm glad they don't see any deeper meaning. It doesn't mean that in the light of the history of the band, that the appearance (as HeyJude pointed out) isn't nevertheless just a bit off-putting for many fans (and publications) in light of the highly negative and egregiously inflammatory things that Mike has said about any number of Brian projects that "excluded" Mike.

Does a Beach Boys shirt with only Mike's face on it not somehow exclude Brian too? This may sound like a funny conversation, and it sort of is of course... but still, how is that comparison off-base? There's some truth in it.  If Mike didn't repeatedly say such negative stuff about "Brian content" countless times, this conversation would probably not exist. This is a shirt by the guy who made the biggest friggin' deal in the world in interviews, over and over and over and over again, about how it was SUCH a terrible and insulting thing for him (Mike) to not be completely included in aspects of the band in a manner that he (Mike) saw fit during the last reunion. So yeah, Mike wants everyone to cry a river that he did was not properly included as he should have been, and that TWGMTR was too Brian-centric (leaving out Mike), but then it's fine for Mike to expect Brian to wear a Mike shirt that takes the iconic brand fashion imagery and puts only Mike's face on it.

I think some people are simply bugged at Mike's inconsistency of what he has historically, repeatedly gotten publicly outraged at, when they see his actions. There's really nothing much more to it than that.

There's noooo doubt in my mind that if Brian had done the same thing (let's say Brian had a line of Brian Wilson striped shirts with only Brian's face taken from a 1960s Beach Boys photo, and asked Mike to wear it), that Mike would've have found a way (either right then and there, or years down the line) to make a big public hissy fit about being slighted, and to complain about Brian (or Melinda) having the chutzpah to expect Mike wear a Brian Wilson solo shirt to a Beach Boys reunion.

Honestly, anyone defending Mike in this discussion, please refute this. I'll expect crickets, just as JuiceBronston ducked out of my prior line of questioning.

Side note: if Reiner was “pro” matching shirts, that would surely mean Reiner wanted everyone to have matching shirts (or no one); I'm sure that if the "idea" of the band wearing matching shirts was mentioned to Reiner, that it would seem like a potentially nice idea on the surface, but no way in hell Reiner was somehow pushing for the idea of some members wearing matching shirts and some not.  Nobody in their right mind would think that was an ideal situation.

Also - none of this means that more great reunion activities are "tarnished", and I wish the band collective good vibrations from here on out.

With all this talk about trolling, it's hard for me to see posters who duck out of a back-and-forth conversation (the minute they can't refute an inconvenient truth) as anything but trolling, whether it's intended to be trolling or not. Even if trying very hard to not see this as trolling, it's just plain rude at best. I predicted crickets, and I was correct.

Trolling?

The main point of my post (Reply #383) is that the analogy is weak. I suppose I could have clarified that it's not entirely off-base, but it's weak enough (as I illustrated in my post) that it undermines otherwise balanced arguments. That still stands. That doesn't mean that I don't ultimately agree with the point HeyJude was making. Furthermore, I happen to agree with just about everything else HeyJude said in the post I responded to and his response to me. As I said, I have seen that analogy a few times now and I just wanted to comment on it. I don't find it persuasive. I acknowledge all the points you made, they've already been made. I wasn't commenting on them. What inconvenient truth can't I refute? I honestly wasn't even sure you were addressing me when you called out Mike defenders.

[guitarfool2002]

C50 had little or nothing to do with not having the current management. They did multiple interviews like the one that happened for Sirius. The tour itself, and the reunions album, were successful beyond what anyone expected, including players in the industry. If anything, you had three members expressing interest in continuing the tour and also making more music together. One member scuppered the whole thing because he didn't want to do it. And after that, it became 6 years of making excuses to try to deflect or Justify what was ultimately a simple decision not to go forward.

[CenturyDeprived]

What if Brian had showed up with five “Love & Mercy” shirts? Would Mike have worn that? And if he hadn’t, would it have been out of line to say group politics could have at least tangentially been involved? I don’t think so.

Sorry to single out this one point, but I've seen this analogy numerous times now and I think it's off-base. This was a Beach Boys reunion. What's the main characteristic of Mike's signature shirt? Yep, the blue and white stripes. Compare that to a "Love & Mercy" shirt or any other Brian solo shirt that has nothing to do with the Beach Boys. I agree that Dave's comments and Mary Ann Jardine's comments don't silence all such commentary (e.g. the mismatched appearance), but Mike's shirts aren't all that out of place at a Beach Boys reunion. Certainly not to the same extent a "Love & Mercy" shirt would be. It's not like Mike brought in "Unleash The Love" shirts for everyone to wear at a Beach Boys reunion. My thoughts on the entire shirt fiasco is, yes, it's the first thing I noticed when I looked at the group photo. It certainly deserved a mention and a discussion. Still, I consider it a footnote. That seems to be the perspective of those involved (that we've heard from).

It may not be a shirt with "Love and Mercy" written in giant letters, but it's still very much a "Mike Love" shirt being that his face (and only his face) is stitched into the shirt. In particular: being as it has certainly been a undeniably "touchy" aspect throughout recent years with regards to who is in the "BBs" band... these shirts are basically the statement MIKE LOVE IS THE BEACH BOYS in shirt form (what "band" t-shirts only have 1 member on them??)... and especially after Brian and Al felt pushed out of the band not so very long ago, it just feels tacky for the guy who pushed them out of the band (or if people want to get technical, the guy who made them feel like they were pushed out of the band) to bring those recently pushed-out guys shirts as gifts to wear at a reunion activity.

I'm glad David and Mary Ann are seeing things in a nice light, and I applaud them for just trying to make peace and at least publicly try to smooth things out. Truthfully, and I mean this very sincerely, I'm not trying to sh*t on their thoughts, nor the reunion, just by having my own opinion. I'm glad they don't see any deeper meaning. It doesn't mean that in the light of the history of the band, that the appearance (as HeyJude pointed out) isn't nevertheless just a bit off-putting for many fans (and publications) in light of the highly negative and egregiously inflammatory things that Mike has said about any number of Brian projects that "excluded" Mike.

Does a Beach Boys shirt with only Mike's face on it not somehow exclude Brian too? This may sound like a funny conversation, and it sort of is of course... but still, how is that comparison off-base? There's some truth in it.  If Mike didn't repeatedly say such negative stuff about "Brian content" countless times, this conversation would probably not exist. This is a shirt by the guy who made the biggest friggin' deal in the world in interviews, over and over and over and over again, about how it was SUCH a terrible and insulting thing for him (Mike) to not be completely included in aspects of the band in a manner that he (Mike) saw fit during the last reunion. So yeah, Mike wants everyone to cry a river that he did was not properly included as he should have been, and that TWGMTR was too Brian-centric (leaving out Mike), but then it's fine for Mike to expect Brian to wear a Mike shirt that takes the iconic brand fashion imagery and puts only Mike's face on it.

I think some people are simply bugged at Mike's inconsistency of what he has historically, repeatedly gotten publicly outraged at, when they see his actions. There's really nothing much more to it than that.

There's noooo doubt in my mind that if Brian had done the same thing (let's say Brian had a line of Brian Wilson striped shirts with only Brian's face taken from a 1960s Beach Boys photo, and asked Mike to wear it), that Mike would've have found a way (either right then and there, or years down the line) to make a big public hissy fit about being slighted, and to complain about Brian (or Melinda) having the chutzpah to expect Mike wear a Brian Wilson solo shirt to a Beach Boys reunion.

Honestly, anyone defending Mike in this discussion, please refute this. I'll expect crickets, just as JuiceBronston ducked out of my prior line of questioning.

Side note: if Reiner was “pro” matching shirts, that would surely mean Reiner wanted everyone to have matching shirts (or no one); I'm sure that if the "idea" of the band wearing matching shirts was mentioned to Reiner, that it would seem like a potentially nice idea on the surface, but no way in hell Reiner was somehow pushing for the idea of some members wearing matching shirts and some not.  Nobody in their right mind would think that was an ideal situation.

Also - none of this means that more great reunion activities are "tarnished", and I wish the band collective good vibrations from here on out.

With all this talk about trolling, it's hard for me to see posters who duck out of a back-and-forth conversation (the minute they can't refute an inconvenient truth) as anything but trolling, whether it's intended to be trolling or not. Even if trying very hard to not see this as trolling, it's just plain rude at best. I predicted crickets, and I was correct.

Trolling?

The main point of my post (Reply #383) is that the analogy is weak. I suppose I could have clarified that it's not entirely off-base, but it's weak enough (as I illustrated in my post) that it undermines otherwise balanced arguments. That still stands. That doesn't mean that I don't ultimately agree with the point HeyJude was making. Furthermore, I happen to agree with just about everything else HeyJude said in the post I responded to and his response to me. As I said, I have seen that analogy a few times now and I just wanted to comment on it. I don't find it persuasive. I acknowledge all the points you made, they've already been made. I wasn't commenting on them. What inconvenient truth can't I refute? I honestly wasn't even sure you were addressing me when you called out Mike defenders.

Sorry, it wasn't intended towards you. That was actually directed to JuiceBrohnston, with whom I was having a polite convo with in this thread, until my questions I asked of him began to get no response. And it's kind of annoying because it seems this stonewalling happened just as I made a point that IMO would be difficult to refute. My point that I was making was that if the shoe was on the other foot (if Brian was the one who had a line of shirts, and Brian brought in a Brian-branded line of striped Beach Boys-style shirts, with Brian's (and only Brian's) face from a 1960s promo Beach Boys photo stitched into the shirt sleeve... I think it is a bit absurd to think of Mike happily going along with wearing said hypothetical shirt. I think Mike would find a way to get upset about it then and there, or at some future point he'd complain about it, and use it as a way to show how disrespected he has been treated).

And generally, I don't understand how any educated fan with knowledge of the band, and awareness of Mike's repeated actions, such as Mike's history of publicly berating Brian's solo products in various interviews, and Mike's 2005 ugly lawsuit against Brian (complete with fake "witnesses" who were in cahoots with Mike's lawyers) making a giant hissy fit over band/brand name technicalities on a promo CD, can think it is a move that is without chutzpah for Mike to have brought Mike-branded BBs shirts for Brian to wear to a Beach Boys reunion.  I legit am trying to understand it.

I'm not a hater, I don't think Mike is a talentless hack. I am simply bugged by his inconsistent actions.

[Juice Brohnston]

What if Brian had showed up with five “Love & Mercy” shirts? Would Mike have worn that? And if he hadn’t, would it have been out of line to say group politics could have at least tangentially been involved? I don’t think so.

Sorry to single out this one point, but I've seen this analogy numerous times now and I think it's off-base. This was a Beach Boys reunion. What's the main characteristic of Mike's signature shirt? Yep, the blue and white stripes. Compare that to a "Love & Mercy" shirt or any other Brian solo shirt that has nothing to do with the Beach Boys. I agree that Dave's comments and Mary Ann Jardine's comments don't silence all such commentary (e.g. the mismatched appearance), but Mike's shirts aren't all that out of place at a Beach Boys reunion. Certainly not to the same extent a "Love & Mercy" shirt would be. It's not like Mike brought in "Unleash The Love" shirts for everyone to wear at a Beach Boys reunion. My thoughts on the entire shirt fiasco is, yes, it's the first thing I noticed when I looked at the group photo. It certainly deserved a mention and a discussion. Still, I consider it a footnote. That seems to be the perspective of those involved (that we've heard from).

It may not be a shirt with "Love and Mercy" written in giant letters, but it's still very much a "Mike Love" shirt being that his face (and only his face) is stitched into the shirt. In particular: being as it has certainly been a undeniably "touchy" aspect throughout recent years with regards to who is in the "BBs" band... these shirts are basically the statement MIKE LOVE IS THE BEACH BOYS in shirt form (what "band" t-shirts only have 1 member on them??)... and especially after Brian and Al felt pushed out of the band not so very long ago, it just feels tacky for the guy who pushed them out of the band (or if people want to get technical, the guy who made them feel like they were pushed out of the band) to bring those recently pushed-out guys shirts as gifts to wear at a reunion activity.

I'm glad David and Mary Ann are seeing things in a nice light, and I applaud them for just trying to make peace and at least publicly try to smooth things out. Truthfully, and I mean this very sincerely, I'm not trying to sh*t on their thoughts, nor the reunion, just by having my own opinion. I'm glad they don't see any deeper meaning. It doesn't mean that in the light of the history of the band, that the appearance (as HeyJude pointed out) isn't nevertheless just a bit off-putting for many fans (and publications) in light of the highly negative and egregiously inflammatory things that Mike has said about any number of Brian projects that "excluded" Mike.

Does a Beach Boys shirt with only Mike's face on it not somehow exclude Brian too? This may sound like a funny conversation, and it sort of is of course... but still, how is that comparison off-base? There's some truth in it.  If Mike didn't repeatedly say such negative stuff about "Brian content" countless times, this conversation would probably not exist. This is a shirt by the guy who made the biggest friggin' deal in the world in interviews, over and over and over and over again, about how it was SUCH a terrible and insulting thing for him (Mike) to not be completely included in aspects of the band in a manner that he (Mike) saw fit during the last reunion. So yeah, Mike wants everyone to cry a river that he did was not properly included as he should have been, and that TWGMTR was too Brian-centric (leaving out Mike), but then it's fine for Mike to expect Brian to wear a Mike shirt that takes the iconic brand fashion imagery and puts only Mike's face on it.

I think some people are simply bugged at Mike's inconsistency of what he has historically, repeatedly gotten publicly outraged at, when they see his actions. There's really nothing much more to it than that.

There's noooo doubt in my mind that if Brian had done the same thing (let's say Brian had a line of Brian Wilson striped shirts with only Brian's face taken from a 1960s Beach Boys photo, and asked Mike to wear it), that Mike would've have found a way (either right then and there, or years down the line) to make a big public hissy fit about being slighted, and to complain about Brian (or Melinda) having the chutzpah to expect Mike wear a Brian Wilson solo shirt to a Beach Boys reunion.

Honestly, anyone defending Mike in this discussion, please refute this. I'll expect crickets, just as JuiceBronston ducked out of my prior line of questioning.

Side note: if Reiner was “pro” matching shirts, that would surely mean Reiner wanted everyone to have matching shirts (or no one); I'm sure that if the "idea" of the band wearing matching shirts was mentioned to Reiner, that it would seem like a potentially nice idea on the surface, but no way in hell Reiner was somehow pushing for the idea of some members wearing matching shirts and some not.  Nobody in their right mind would think that was an ideal situation.

Also - none of this means that more great reunion activities are "tarnished", and I wish the band collective good vibrations from here on out.

With all this talk about trolling, it's hard for me to see posters who duck out of a back-and-forth conversation (the minute they can't refute an inconvenient truth) as anything but trolling, whether it's intended to be trolling or not. Even if trying very hard to not see this as trolling, it's just plain rude at best. I predicted crickets, and I was correct.

Trolling?

The main point of my post (Reply #383) is that the analogy is weak. I suppose I could have clarified that it's not entirely off-base, but it's weak enough (as I illustrated in my post) that it undermines otherwise balanced arguments. That still stands. That doesn't mean that I don't ultimately agree with the point HeyJude was making. Furthermore, I happen to agree with just about everything else HeyJude said in the post I responded to and his response to me. As I said, I have seen that analogy a few times now and I just wanted to comment on it. I don't find it persuasive. I acknowledge all the points you made, they've already been made. I wasn't commenting on them. What inconvenient truth can't I refute? I honestly wasn't even sure you were addressing me when you called out Mike defenders.

Sorry, it wasn't intended towards you. That was actually directed to JuiceBrohnston, with whom I was having a polite convo with in this thread, until my questions I asked of him began to get no response. And it's kind of annoying because it seems this stonewalling happened just as I made a point that IMO would be difficult to refute. My point that I was making was that if the shoe was on the other foot (if Brian was the one who had a line of shirts, and Brian brought in a Brian-branded line of striped Beach Boys-style shirts, with Brian's (and only Brian's) face from a 1960s promo Beach Boys photo stitched into the shirt sleeve... I think it is a bit absurd to think of Mike happily going along with wearing said hypothetical shirt. I think Mike would find a way to get upset about it then and there, or at some future point he'd complain about it, and use it as a way to show how disrespected he has been treated).

And generally, I don't understand how any educated fan with knowledge of the band, and awareness of Mike's repeated actions, such as Mike's history of publicly berating Brian's solo products in various interviews, and Mike's 2005 ugly lawsuit against Brian (complete with fake "witnesses" who were in cahoots with Mike's lawyers) making a giant hissy fit over band/brand name technicalities on a promo CD, can think it is a move that is without chutzpah for Mike to have brought Mike-branded BBs shirts for Brian to wear to a Beach Boys reunion.  I legit am trying to understand it.

I'm not a hater, I don't think Mike is a talentless hack. I am simply bugged by his inconsistent actions.

I went back in this thread to try and figure out what the hell you are talking about and how I was 'trolling' you?
You mentioned some polite conversation, I had no recollection of. I see you asked me a bunch of questions about what if Brian had brought shirts for everybody? Shortly thereafter, David Marks commented publicly on the matter, and I felt it was no longer a pertinent discussion. Trolling....hmmm. Not up on my definition but wouldn't it be more a case of you trolling me?

[barsone]

For those who are interested as far as when and how Mike may have been booking "Mike and Bruce" shows for post-C50, it's worth noting that word first leaked around *June 15, 2012* of rumors of Mike booking South American dates for his band. My guess is these would have been the 10/26 and 10/28 shows in Chile and Argentina that were for some reason cancelled.

In any event, less than two months into the C50 tour, and over three months before it was over, word was breaking of rumors of Mike booking his own shows for later in the year (and one might guess that by the time those "rumors leaked", it was something that had occurred days if not weeks prior.) That doesn't smell like someone who has any intention or desire to "see how it goes" at that point and possibly continue the reunion.

HJ......I will never EVER forget the evening of June 13, 2012.  The family bought me the MeetnGreet/Soundcheck to the Cleveland show for C50.  Just weird stuff on the stage during soundcheck.  Mike actually delaying a soundcheck song as he took a call on his cell.  He walked to the corner of the stage with his back to everybody....who knows what was said.....then it all  ends with Al and Scott disagreeing about the end of Help Me Rhonda.   I'm just fascinated with pages 16 through 19 in this thread.  Three years later at Mike's book signing in Seattle, he was very poignant with the anti Joe Thomas verbiage "He's a pathological Liar" comment.   Kinda obvious to me that Mike probably did not want to do the tour in the first place but the almighty dollar forced his hand up front.  As stated in the thread, so many things went south early in the album process to walking out due to the auto-tone incident.  Life's just easier for Mike doing his M/B shows where's he's in charge.  Do I like the result...no but life isn't always what we want.....

[CenturyDeprived]

I went back in this thread to try and figure out what the hell you are talking about and how I was 'trolling' you?
You mentioned some polite conversation, I had no recollection of. I see you asked me a bunch of questions about what if Brian had brought shirts for everybody? Shortly thereafter, David Marks commented publicly on the matter, and I felt it was no longer a pertinent discussion. Trolling....hmmm. Not up on my definition but wouldn't it be more a case of you trolling me?

I just tend to lump in your action of ignoring my question that was specifically directed at you (it was directed at you since it was in direct response to previous posts you made, in the middle of a conversation we were all having) with the general term "trolling"; maybe the terms are not exactly synonymous, but they are like first cousins.

I'm not trolling you - I'll happily have a polite convo on things about which we disagree, but I won't just suddenly start ducking questions or cursing. I suppose I'll just not hold my breath for an answer.

In any case, while I'm glad that David pointed out "no deeper meaning" in the 3 of those guys wearing the shirts - and I don't doubt in the slightest that David made a truthful statement - I'm commenting on the hypocrisy of Mike's actions, something that is completely separate.

[guitarfool2002]

My point that I was making was that if the shoe was on the other foot (if Brian was the one who had a line of shirts, and Brian brought in a Brian-branded line of striped Beach Boys-style shirts, with Brian's (and only Brian's) face from a 1960s promo Beach Boys photo stitched into the shirt sleeve... I think it is a bit absurd to think of Mike happily going along with wearing said hypothetical shirt. I think Mike would find a way to get upset about it then and there, or at some future point he'd complain about it, and use it as a way to show how disrespected he has been treated).

And generally, I don't understand how any educated fan with knowledge of the band, and awareness of Mike's repeated actions, such as Mike's history of publicly berating Brian's solo products in various interviews, and Mike's 2005 ugly lawsuit against Brian (complete with fake "witnesses" who were in cahoots with Mike's lawyers) making a giant hissy fit over band/brand name technicalities on a promo CD, can think it is a move that is without chutzpah for Mike to have brought Mike-branded BBs shirts for Brian to wear to a Beach Boys reunion.  I legit am trying to understand it.

I'm not a hater, I don't think Mike is a talentless hack. I am simply bugged by his inconsistent actions.

Well stated, CD. Consider how many clowns out there (and yes, clowns is a polite word to use) would read this comment and charge you with being a "hater" or any number of other labels.

Sometimes it must hurt some to read logical, well-reasoned statements of opinion such as this, acknowledging the facts of what happened but having opinions on the optics and the way it played out. But I happen to agree with this opinion, about how the Sirius thing played out, so call me a hater, or call anyone who shares these opinions haters...I don't think we give a flying f**k at this point. 

[Rocker]

Just a short update:

Al shared a video of the town hall on his facebook account. Reiner asks if there is anyone the guys would have wanted to colloborate with but didn't. Mike says "Yeah, there's a lot of great artists", then Al interrupts "Oh, I know. the Beatles" which made for some laughter from the audience.

[HeyJude]

Just a short update:

Al shared a video of the town hall on his facebook account. Reiner asks if there is anyone the guys would have wanted to colloborate with but didn't. Mike says "Yeah, there's a lot of great artists", then Al interrupts "Oh, I know. the Beatles" which made for some laughter from the audience.

This was one of the few moments actually covered in the initial print articles (Rolling Stone or LA Times as I recall) the next day, with Al telling his story of how he hoped the Beatles were visiting to discuss music, but they were selling them on TM instead.

[B.E.]

Reunion interview schedule:

August 10 at 5 pm ET with replays August 10 at 8 pm ET; Saturday, August 11 at 12 pm ET; Sunday, August 12 at 3pm & 10 pm ET; Tuesday, August 14 at 2 pm ET; and Wednesday, August 15 at 11 pm ET.