The Smiley Smile Message Board

There was a thread like this for last year's "Beach Boys" tour, so I thought we could probably have another one for news on this year's tour. 

Setlists from the recent tour of Japan show a few developments. "Shut Down" has been dropped from the car medley for quite a few shows, "Be True To Your School" wasn't played at all according to setlists I've seen, and "Pisces Brother" is now usually in the setlist where "Cool Head, Warm Heart" used to be.

I think the absence of Shut Down may just have been due to the fact that they were playing such short shows. 2 shows a night so only 27 songs at some gigs. Which when you consider they were charging the equivalent of $140 to attend is pushing it.

That's 5 bucks a song!

Not a good deal for those fans.

I saw them a couple nights ago and I though the setlist was decent, but it was (as expected) incredibly heaving on car/surf songs. I had never seen the Mike and Bruce version of the group before, so it was an interesting experience. They both signed my albums at the end of the show and I got Mike's setlist, so I definitely can't complain!

Neat!


Oh, and welcome to the mental madness that is SmileySmileBoard.

Thank you, let the fun begin  :)

Can you post the set by any chance?

4/4/14 - Mystic Lake Casino - Prior Lake, MN

1. Do It Again
2. Honda
3. Goin To The Beach
4. Catch
5. Hawaii
6. Surf City
7. Safari

8. Surfer Girl
9. Wendy
10. Getcha Back
11. Fools
12. Grow Up
13. Darlin

14. Don't Worry Baby
15. Deuce Coupe
16. 409
17. Shut Down
18. I Get Around
19. Betsy

20. Pisces
21. God - Carl

22. Sloop
23. Nice
24. Kissed Her
25. Cal Girls

26. Vibes
27. Rhonda
28. Rock Roll
29. Wanna Dance
30. Barbara Ann
31. Surfin USA

32. Kokomo
33. Fun Fun Fun

Fantastic! thanks!

Pisces Brother live  :o

Pretty normal set these days....but not bad at all for a casino run! I think it's quite interesting that Pisces Brothers is being played live. However, I really have no desire to hear it.  :lol

^ Yeah, totally agree. I wish they'd add some more deep cuts. They have the ability to pull off songs that have never been played live before, so why not try?

Something concert performers rarely seem to do is adding some sort of theme to what songs are being played, like doing an entire album, start to finish. After seeing one M&B show, the idea of seeing another doesn't really excite me, but if they were to start playing all of 'Summer Days' in the middle of the show, I'd go out of my way to catch a M&B show! Imagine they performed every 'good' song that Mike sang lead on from 1963-1966 for their setlist? It would be something to talk about, that Mike is doing something new and interesting that has never really been done before. Their setlist has gone relatively unchanged for the last 30 years, it just seems like it would be a great way to make their shows noteworthy.

Also, a strange part of me does want to hear Goin' To The Beach live...is that normal?

I tried uploading a picture of the actual setlist I got, but I'm new to this and I couldn't get it to work. Pisces Brothers was interesting to hear live, and Going To The Beach was... well nothing out of the ordinary. Some mid to late 60s material would be cooler to hear from those guys, or even a Bruce song off of Sunflower.

Tears has only ever been played 10 times between 1970-1971, and Deirdre has never been played I believe...sure would be neat if they decided to one of them to the set.

Goin to the Beach is catchy so that is fair enough...

Obviously for us hardcore fans it would be great to hear more rarities. But I think Mike and Bruce know that most of their audience just want the hits. Ages ago I remember reading some reviews of old M&B concerts and there were a surprising number of comments like, `Sherry was the best received song`, `without the car medley the show didn`t really work`, `the crowd loved Duke of Earl` etc. I really don`t think the audience would want to hear `I`m Bugged at My Old Man` or `Summer Means New Love` for example.

The one good thing about this setlist is that they are playing comparitively few covers. Obviously the non-BB songs like Sherry, Duke of Earl and I Saw Her Standing There were dropped ages ago but now former regulars like Summertime Blues, California Dreaming, Little Old Lady and Back in the USSR are also missing. It is slightly better for the hardcore fans.

Each to their own, I for one find it extremely boring, to say the least. Never shall understand what bit of it made people think it's good/catchy/better than other fun-in-the-sun number, going by reading other posts in other threads.

It`s probably unlikely. Bruce has said in the past that he regretted giving either of these songs to the group and Disney Girls is the only song of his that he recorded for the group that he has really spoken about with pride in the interviews that I`ve read.

Me? I find it both Catchy AND Boring!

At the end, it's just another fun-in-the-sun song that wouldn't do any good for their image. That being said, it is better than at least half of the songs off KTSA.

 :lol

There`s some truth to that. It is too repetitive but it is catchy enough to be a decent choice of song to be performed live.

Mike & Bruce have at least three different setlists tailored to the needs of the occasion:

1 - outdoor fairs/racetrack/festival: meat & potatoes hits for Joe Q. Public. 90 minutes of good-times.

2 - indoor venues: somewhat longer, a few deep cuts.

3 - UK/Europe indoor venues: 50+ songs in over two hours, hits, classics, deep cuts.

Better? No. Good? No. Catchy? Certainly! I wouldn't have minded had it been on KTSA.

This is true. But a casual fan would feel excited at the prospect of hearing an old, 'vintage' album played through in its entirety. Wouldn't hearing a Beach Boys record from 1965 be just as nostalgic and magical, if not moreso, than their current run through of the hits? Part of the appeal of their show is the nostalgia and timelessness of the music; playing an entire album like it's being spun on a turntable (start to finish) would only enhance that. As far as I know this has not been explored much with 60's bands touring these days, and really anything pre-Pet Sounds would be interesting and more than manageable - that little band can handle just about anything.

All I'm really trying to say is that the introduction of some thematic unity within their current setlists would make things much more interesting, for both the hardcore and  casual fan. It's not like the deeper cuts in The Beach Boys catalog is unaccessible, or that when you go to a concert you need to know every song.

I saw Peter Hook, the bassist for Joy Division, and this was the structure of his show:
-Opening of a few hits/songs he wanted to play
-The 'Closer' album in its entirety
-A few more misc songs
-The 'Unknown Pleasures' album in its entirety
-The rest of the essentials (Love Will Tear Us Apart, Ceremony, etc)

It was a hard hitting format, one of the most memorable shows I've ever seen...and their band had one less member than the current M&B band. It is definitely a personal preference, but seeing a whole album played just makes a show special in a way that playing through the hits in random(ish) order does not. Of course that worked amazing well with C50, cuz they played EVERYTHING, but if I could make one change to the M&B band, I'd change their setlists.

The problem is though that Pet Sounds and Smile are the only Beach Boys albums that are popular enough for that to appeal to any casual audience. And Brian was obviously the right person to play those.

As AGD says, in the U.K. they have played 54 song shows in the past and in the theatre shows do mix the hits with the rare quite well. There are probably close to 100 different songs that they have played since 1998 but I can`t see them coming up with too many new selections in the future...

I think Bruce did say a while ago that he would love to play a show just for the fans where they only play rarities... Could be a long time waiting for that one.

I want to hear it within the opening surf medley....I heard it three times as an encore song last year. Well, let me specify: I heard it once as an encore song and twice walking to my car because I just wanted to hear Wild Honey.  :lol

Sadly, to me anyway, this is not a selling point for Mike’s band. It undercuts further his lame argument that he “needs” to play those “vital” “small market” gigs. It’s just this circular logic. They “have to” play the hits and a shorter show at some of these gigs. But they book those gigs in the first place. The reality is that the “deep cuts” are a curiosity that someone in Mike’s camp over the last decade has convinced Mike was an interesting curio of a diversion that they could integrate into a relatively small number of their shows each year, to perhaps give his show a bit more “cred” to demographics like the hardcore European fans. I’m sure Mike doesn’t dislike getting into a few different setlist items, but he clearly isn’t motivated primarily by composing a setlist outside of the setlist that he’s been playing for years (with and without the other BB’s), a setlist that writes itself.

Even on the busiest years, Mike’s tour doesn’t play a ton of European dates compares to North America.

This was another really cool think about the 2012 tour. The *shortest* setlist on the entire tour was something like 43 or 44 songs. You were guaranteed to get some interesting songs even in the earliest, shorter, less-interesting setlists. “This Whole World”, “All This Is That”, “Disney Girls”, “I Just Wasn’t Made for These Times”, etc. By the end of the tour, the interesting inclusions like “Good Timin’”, “Marcella”, “Getcha Back”, “California Saga”, “Add Some Music to Your Day” were the rule, not the exception. No “oh well, this area is full of beer swigging bumpkins, let’s drop ¼ of our setlist and add “Surf City” to the surf medley.”

This is kind of sad (and yes, not new in any way) that some fans come away from a Mike show with a bit of a “ah crap, I guess I got Setlist A, the kinda boring one). If guys like Totten or other guys in the band, guys who likely want to play way more deep cuts, have the explanation that they have to play the “meat and potatoes” numbers because of the venue/booking, then we have to trace it back to the fact that Mike books those gigs.

In other words, there’s no explanation or justification for Mike’s standard, most likely-to-be-aired setlist. That is the setlist Mike likes, that works for him and the types of shows he books. If you’re lucky, you’ll get “Setlist B” or “Setlist C” where you’ll get Mike possibly singing a few different tunes, in rare cases Bruce singing something else (usually even then it’s a cover like “Summer Means Fun”), and more likely the backing dudes singing relative “deep cuts” like “Good Timin” or “Cottonfields”, etc.

This is why the idea of Al and Dave joining Mike’s band isn’t terribly interesting. It has way less to do with whether even Brian would be there, and more to do with the fact that we’d just be getting the same Mike touring pattern and setlist pattern. You’d get Dave singing a token song, and Al singing his standard “Rhonda”, bits of “Sloop”, and a few others.

I feel like Cherry Cherry Coupe and Custom Machine would be perfect songs for them to add to the car section but I think for some reason Mike refuses to play them, I think Scott said that in some interview he did. Those would be perfect to do!

For whatever reason, Bruce has *never* played a big role in Beach Boys shows, especially since rejoining in late 1978. It would be interesting to tabulate all of the available setlists, but I’d bet if you averaged his “leads per show” since 1978, it would be somewhere between “0.25” and “1.”

“Disney Girls” at some venues, “I Write the Songs” from time to time, “Wendy” sometimes, “Summer Means Fun” occasionally over the years, he took over “God Only Knows” for a few years after Carl, he did “Please Let Me Wonder” for a tour or two, and after that, apart from lead vocal bits during songs (“Summer in Paradise”), you get into relatively obscure stuff like “Hey Little Cobra” in 1986, or other on-and-off inclusions. 

Um... as politely as I can... tosh. And nonsense.

Consider - M&B are booked into the Joe Q. Public Fresh Fish Emporium & Used Car Center in Hooterville, and the decision is made to play a 90 minute setlist of deep cuts. Cue a couple of thousand terminally confused punters who most decidedly won't be repeat customers. It's very simple - you play to the audience. Even Brian - whisper it softly - has been known to play a mostly GH setlist at festivals and the like.

Then they can keep the hit oriented setlist for the Fish Emporium, but why not open things up a bit for the indoor theaters? I saw them at a wonderful venue, with crystal clear sound (probably the best theatre I've ever been in actually) and it was 75 minutes of hits. I have the setlist on my wall, lemme type it out.

Do it again
Catch
Hawaii
Surf City
Safari
Surfer Girl
Dont Worry
Deuce
409
Shut Down
Get Around
Room
God
Cal Dreamin
Sloop
Cal Girls
Kissed Her
Nice
Vibes
Rhonda
Rock Roll
Wanna Dance
Barbarra Ann
Surfin USA
Kokomo
Fun Fun Fun

They performed the songs exceptionally well, lots of energy and they were all in good voice. But a 75 minute string of hits was really underwhelming. I heard quite a bit of mumbling after the curtain came down of "wow...its over already?" For a fan, it really felt half baked...it was basically the track listing of Sound of Summer. How can Mike himself not be tired of these setlists?

Here's one from 1983, 30 years ago before the setlist I posted:

California Girls
I Can Hear Music
Sloop John B
Darlin'
Dance, Dance, Dance
Wouldn't It Be Nice
You're So Good to Me
The Warmth of the Sun
God Only Knows
What You Do to Me
409
Shut Down
The Little Old Lady From Pasadena
Little Deuce Coupe
I Get Around
Runaway
Surfer Girl
Come Go with Me
Rockin' All Over the World
Help Me, Rhonda
Rock and Roll Music
Surfin' Safari
Surf City
Surfin' U.S.A.
Encore:
Good Vibrations
Barbara Ann
Fun, Fun, Fun

I'm just whining that I want setlist closer to what I want played, but I honestly don't understand the lack of variation considering the quantity of quality in The Beach Boys songbook.

Sorry - I'm with Andrew on this one.  The multi-task venues such as the casinos, want people to gamble AND see a show. That is the same with country fairs, and venues that have more than one entertainment agenda.  They want people to use the slot machines, the restaurants, and buy products at the various kiosks in an outdoor venue.  They have the Beach Boys and attractions for people to spend money.

And, further, Andrew is correct about Brian's shows doing a huge volume of greatest hits.  Seriously.  The only exception to this was the Beck run.  It was a pared-down setlist to accommodate both artists.

In the last dozen or so years, David has often "met up" with the Touring Band, as in December of 2011.  Al does many greatest hits in his shows as well.  It is a matter of tried-and-true trial-and-error during hundreds of shows.  The casino people want to party to the hits and play the slots.  They aren't there for the deep cuts.  It is just the way things work successfully.

Those "beer-swilling bumpkins" so pejoratively characterized, are the people who feed us. And the Touring Band, played Wild Honey for them last September. My first country fair.  

If you do a search you will find a post of mine from 2-3 years ago in which I explained that the show length is 100 per cent of the time dictated by the house or promoter, not by Mike.  Mike ALWAYS wants to put on a full-length show and always goes over the requested amount, because he wants to give the audience as much of a show as possible.  IF the house tells Mike "play as long as you want" then it will be a 2-hour or longer show.  I know because I type up the setlist every show.

When you are faced with a 75 minute time limit, it's hard to add rarities at the expense of the more well-known songs.

You're roughly my age, you know the BB from when you were young, they're in town. You go see them, you're going to expect - no, DEMAND - they play these songs:

Surfin' USA
California Girls
Surfer Girl
Little Deuce Coupe
Good Vibrations
God Only Knows
In My Room
Kokomo
Rock & Roll Music
I Can Hear Music
Darlin'
Do It Again
Don't Worry, Baby
Wouldn't It Be Nice
Surfin' Safari
Barbara-fucking-Ann
I Get Around
Sloop John B
Help Me Rhonda
Fun, Fun, Fun
Be True To Your School

Well there's an hours worth and more there. That's what Scott has to work with, for every show - at least 60 minutes of the setlist set in stone. A minimum of 50% that you JUST CANNOT CHANGE. There's about 2700 registered on this list (roughly a full house at the RFH): of those, maybe 100 post anything like regularly, and of those, maybe 25 have more than 3000 posts to their name. My point ? We are a laughingly miniscule percentage of the potential audience, yet we - or rather some of us - imagine we have some divinely bestowed right to hear what we want to and the hell with everyone else. That's arrogant, snobbish and actually pretty sad.

I understand why they play the setlists they do once the gig is booked. I understand that promoters/venues, etc. can dictate some or all of the aspects of the setlist.

But the *booking* of the show is not out of the control of Mike. I understand he isn’t personally doing the booking, some other actual agent or staff is literally making calls and booking the shows. But Mike controls the touring operation.

My point was *not* that Mike should be playing “deep cuts” shows at the Cleveland Rib Cook-Off. My point was two-fold: First, perhaps he shouldn’t be booking those “small market” shows if the venues or promoters are so oppressive when it comes to the setlist (especially if Mike so *wants* to play those longer shows with deeper cuts). Secondly, if Mike’s touring operation are inclined to book those shows, then they can’t blame someone else for not being able to do a more interesting setlist, because they are making the decision to book those types of venues year after year after year.

Not all artists book the type of tours where the venues are telling them what songs to play. I’ll totally buy that venues and promoters dictating some or all of the setlist is much more common than one would think, but there are artists out there that either don’t have to answer to anyone else when it comes to selecting their setlist, or, if they do to some degree, they book the type of tour and type of venues where they can play a long enough show to play all the songs they want to. Clearly, at least the latter was the case with the 2012 tour.

I understand the realities of the venues and the audiences at these Beach Boys shows. I’ve followed it closely for years. My only issue is with abdicating responsibility for the type of tour it is and has been for years. It’s absolute “tosh” for anyone who has a say in how these tours are booked to throw their hands up in the air as if to say “hey, it’s not my fault we’ve booked a bunch of shows with drunk spectators who will riot if they hear Bruce play “Your Song” again.” The venues aren’t forcing Mike’s band to book shows at their venues.

I’m sure Mike’s band wants to play those deep cuts for appreciative audiences. They have expressed their desire that they’d love to play more deep cuts at more shows. That’s awesome.

I think you've misunderstood Scott... or me... or both - the venue has no power over what the band plays, rather over how long. Granted, the latter impacts hugely on the former, but I wouldn't want to be the promoter who hands out a list of what he wants the band to play to Scott.  ;D

My point is, Mike's been doing this for longer than a lot of us (sadly, not me) have been alive, and he knows his audiences, knows he can not only get away with but be actively lauded for a show in the UK that would very likely get him tarred and feathered in Hooterville.

Agreed. They are related issues but not one and the same. But to my main point: If Mike wants to play “long” shows, then he can stop booking shows that put a time limit, or such an extreme time limit, on his shows. So rather than “the venues are telling me what to play”, if the excuse is actually “the venue is only letting us play for 75 minutes”, and someone (such as Mike) wants to play long shows and give the audience value for their money, then they can book shows and venues that allow for that. Why don’t they? They’d no doubt play fewer shows, to smaller audiences, in fewer cities. I’m not even suggesting whether that is preferable. But the root of it all is the choice to book the types of shows and tours that they do.

In the same vein, to the degree “fault” needs to be applied years after the fact (there isn’t much need at all of course), Carl and Al had a hand in agreeing to play tours when they were in the band that resulted in some of the stale, rote setlists and performances of the 80’s and 90’s.

I understand the setlist issue well. I’ve been to many shows, listened to hundreds of shows, have read setlists and reviews and accounts of hundreds and hundreds of shows. I’ve been to shows where it’s clear they’d just as soon hear “Barbara Ann” sprinkled into the setlist about a half dozen times. I know *why*, in most cases, a setlist is structured the way it is at any given venue and any point over the years.

My issue is simple: If they are going to book that type of tour, with all of the associated characteristics of such tours, then they have to own that decision. Mike himself isn’t making any apologies for having to knock out a 75 minute show with the meat-and-potatoes material; but fans are a bit. What I’m reading is fans pointing to the nature of the venues and audiences, when perhaps they should be pointing to the original decision to play those venues, because we can all agree with what AGD mentioned: There are expectations from the audience when it comes to the setlist, there are obvious realities of what type of show can be played. I think most of us understand that. AGD does, I do, Mike Love certainly does. It’s common sense, and something that any BB fan with more than a passing knowledge of the band and their shows would know.

“Beer swilling bumpkins”, by the way, was a purposely hyperbolic statement, making light how those masses can be characterized by the more jaded, cynical (and some would say realistic) fan, and did not refer to any particular audience.

Having been to many shows in many venues with many different types of audiences, most all of them contain varying amounts of beer swilling bumpkins. Concerts attract that. I don’t swill the beer, but anyone else is free to call me a bumpkin if they want. 

Not to be picky here, but I think having "Hey Little Cobra" in the set was justified. The song was hardly obscure - going to #4 on Billboard, one of the highest ranking car songs of all time. Plus, Bruce Johnston sang on the original record. And though Bruce only sang backgrounds on it, another song that was in the Beach Boys' set for quite awhile was "GTO", which also went to #4 on the charts in '64.

We use to call them "Country Bumpkins".  Now, I think they refer to them as "Rednecks".  It's OK - nothing wrong with that.....

Oh, I definitely only meant that it was "obscure" relative to a typical BB setlist over the years. Sort of like if they performed "Bohemian Rhapsody" or "Dead Man's Curve" or "Ice Ice Baby", those would relatively obscure titles compared to what has been in the setlist over the years.

I consider it a real treat when Mike and Bruce appear near me in a small theatre ( as they will be on Friday in Torrington, CT) because that's where they really get into the great setlists. Intimate venue, great acoustics. My favorite Mike and Bruce concert ever was here in 2005 or 06 ( they haven't played there since) and I'm really looking forward to Friday.

I'm not sure if I should be offended or not! The C50 show I went to had I think 53 songs and the swilling of beer! Of course it was in Australia so what should one expect? ;D

I haven`t seen anyone making apologies. Just stating the facts.

If you go to see an M&B show at a casino or outside venue then you know exactly what to expect. The hits.

Actually, I saw Bruce take on more leads than ever last summer....

-Summer Means Fun
-Surfer Girl
-Sloop John B
-Disney Girls
-God Only Knows
-Do You Wanna Dance

I know it's still not a lot, but he is a rather dominant vocal presence on stage. He's responsible for a fair amount of falsetto and very audible backing/harmony vocals. Now his keyboard playing.......

I think they get a lot more casual fans, and when you're a pro who's done this sh*t for 50 years it probably gets old singing a song and nobody in the crowd is into it.  It just comes down to their personalities, more creative people yeah would probably play more album cuts, but for the few fans who'd appreciate it you'd bore the rest of the audience.  Mike's all about pleasing the masses...  I saw them years ago back before I was anything more than a casual fan and I thought they were fucking AWESOME so I imagine casual fans still feel that way.

Doesn't the holder of the tour license have a legal duty to BRI to maximize their touring revenue? Why would they want to book fewer or smaller venues for the sake of artistic quality? I'm sure part of the reason Brian voted to give Mike the license is because he's a reliable moneymaker at a variety of mainstream type of venues.

I don't know who makes the decision but Mike and Bruce have done shows with full symphony orchestras. Without looking up set lists, those gigs would have more than just the hits I imagine. 

There are likely some provisions in the license outlining some characteristics of the show that uses the name. But it would have to be pretty specific. What constitutes “maximizing” profits? Mike and Bruce do a ton of shows, but they could technically book even more. Where would that line be? If such a provision were written into a license, it would have to be more specific, such as booking “x” number of dates. However, even that would seem to get dicey. What happens if or when it’s simply not possible to book that many shows? What if demand dips a bit?

What I do remember is, back in the 1999-2000 trademark lawsuit days, there were some “expectations” cited in court paperwork that may or may not have been actual legal requirements of the license, having to do with the “type” of songs being performed for instance. Some court paperwork cited, and I’m very loosely paraphrasing/summing up, that Al was not properly representing the BB trademark because he was essentially playing less recognizable songs, the “deep cuts.” I believe the documentation cited *not* Al’s lack of playing “hits”, but specifically playing less identifiably “Beach Boys” style songs, “sun, surf, cars” and the like, as if playing the “deep cuts” even alongside many hits was damaging the trademark.

It also mentioned the presence of female singers as being unrepresentative as well. I know the latter point in particular was cited in subsequent years by Al as well, and he seemed to be offended by it (as well he should have been) and indicated it was one of the reasons the Wilson sisters ended up exiting from his band.

It’s also important to remember, and this will perhaps for better or worse lure Cam into this discussion, that clearly a bunch of points were being made against Al at that time not based on the principle of some of those issues, but simply to find legal points to make against Al (which is the point of legal action of course). In subsequent tours, Mike’s own tour ended up on select tours playing as many or more “rare”, “less recognizable” tracks as Al’s “Family and Friends” show was. One could even argue years later Mike to a very small degree integrated a “non-conformist” female voice to his show by having his daughter sing a track or two.

Ironically, the band’s own anniversary tour years later integrated many of songs that BRI had contended back in 1999/2000 would injure the trademark.

Ultimately, I would guess there are general guidelines written into the standing license created back around 1999, and they probably aren’t enforced at all unless one or more parties within BRI care to contest something. A bunch of stuff was in contention back in 1999, but it isn’t now.

I can see points on both sides but there are always compromises. You can say too many deep cuts would detract the casual fan and that is probably true. With some people though, there arguments about the generic setlist is always about the "casual fan". What about the "actual fan"? You know, the people who have also supported your career by purchasing every reissued album, every umpteenth hits package, every box set, every dvd, merchandise from the shows, people who shell out $$$ for meet and greet packages, etc. There should be some consideration for these fans as well. 

Below is a pretty basic 25 song setlist with some deeper cuts thrown in that I think would work. No such thing as perfect but it works. It's not a complete "deep cut" setlist but there is enough there to make the set more appealing to fans and there is still plenty of meat and potatoes there. Who knows, the casual fan might hear something they don't know and like it. That may get them to actual check out and purchase more of The Beach Boys catalog rather than the Sounds of Summer cd. I couldn't care less about The Beach Boys until a friend let me borrow their Friends & 20/20 twofer. After that was Sunflower and I was completely hooked. It still took me about a year of listening to post '66 material every day to open up to the pre '66 material. My mom is a very, very casual fan of The Beach Boys. I made her a compilation a couple years ago on cd to listen to in her car. Her favorite BB song for the past two years has been Lady (fallin' in love).

Do It Again
California Girls
Hawaii
Catch A Wave
Surfin' Safari
Surfin' USA
Little Deuce Coupe
Shut Down
Please Let Me Wonder
Getcha Back
Help Me, Rhonda
Wouldn't It Be Nice
The Warmth Of The Sun
God Only Knows
Here Today
Deirdre
Sloop John B
All I Wanna Do
Surfer Girl
Dance, Dance, Dance
Kokomo
I Get Around
Fun, Fun, Fun
Wild Honey
Good Vibrations

As you`ve said, if they did complain about Al performing rarer songs it was just as a legal thing (especially as Al performed very few rare songs in his setlists).

Beach Boys Family and Friends did perform rare songs, well beyond anything the BB had touched in decades.

Yes but very few of them. An average of 3 per show maybe.

Wild Honey, Breakaway and Girl Don't Tell Me are the three that come to mind

Mike and Bruce could add really rocking versions of those last two in easily utilizing Cowsill and Totten.

I think this particular variation on this topic (that is, the question of whether Al’s “BBFF” band actually did perform a decent amount of rarities during its comically brief tenure of one year of sporadic touring followed by one additional year of a hand full of dates) came up before, and it totally depends on one’s definition of rare or deep cuts. I think especially if we can count some stuff like “I Can Hear Music” or “You’re So Good To Me” or “Heroes and Villains” or “Sail on Sailor” as somewhat “deep” cuts (meaning not the top tier of hits a casual fan would mention, and not songs that were *always* in the setlist year after year in the BB’s), then Al was attempting something with a bit more breadth than either Mike’s band was at the time or the BB’s with Al and Carl had in recent years. Clearly, Al’s brief according to early interviews in 1999 to play a lot of deep cuts was not something he was able to carry out to the degree he wanted (he discussed doing stuff like “Be Here in the Morning”, etc.), and that was partly due to playing so sporadically, where the band couldn’t build the repertoire to quickly dig into a bunch of non-“meat and potatoes” numbers.

Al was also playing (and sadly still does) venues and bookings even more restrictive than Mike’s band does. Mike’s “short” shows seem to usually be in the 80-90 minute range or so. But Al seemed to get some bookings of the “fair” variety and whatnot that were even shorter, sometimes an hour or less. When I saw “Family and Friends” at one of their few bookings in 2000, they crammed 21 songs (including a few rarities such as “Wild Honey”) into an hour or so. It was so truncated that stuff heard in rehearsal like even “Come Go With Me” got dropped. They evidently rehearsed “The Trader” at that show, but obviously it wasn’t included.

Certainly, I would say in 1999 that Al was performing a more viscerally interesting setlist than Mike was or the BB’s had in recent years. Al was at least attempting to not only dig into more late 60’s/early 70’s songs, but was actually digging up at least a few songs the BB’s hadn’t performed in years (“Lookin’ at Tomorrow”, “You Still Believe In Me”) if not decades or ever (the “three score at five” section of “Heroes and Villains” at a few early shows, “Girl Don’t Tell Me”, “Break Away”, “Wild Honey”).

But I’ve often said that Al, especially in more recent years, should stop booking a few state fairs here and there, stop simply doing the odd gig here or there singing “Little Deuce Coupe” and “Help Me Rhonda” with the “Surf City All Stars”, and book small club and/or theater tours doing shows more along the lines of his NYC show a couple months ago. If he’d play venues with audiences that will cater to a bunch of deep cuts and folk songs, it would be a far more interesting show.

I do think Al’s circa 1999 setlists were much more viscerally impressive back then, when the main points of comparison were Mike’s shows (where he was still doing the oldies cover sets with stuff like “Duke of Earl” and “Sherry”), and the often by-rote, autopilot performances and setlists of the touring BB’s with Mike/Bruce/Al/Carl in the 90’s. Brian was doing more impressive setlists by 1999/2000, and eventually Mike started spicing up his setlist too.

Scott has a fantastic voice he could and should handle more leads in my opinion.

I don`t think they performed Breakaway or Wild Honey much at all. They were added just before Al had to stop using the name I believe.

The 3 rarities BB F&F performed most often were Girl Don`t Tell Me, You`re So Good To Me and You Still Believe in Me.

And I can`t see Mike wanting to perform Breakaway. I could be wrong but when they did the podcast for TWOTS this was the only song that Mike didn`t have anything positive to say about. Possibly because Murry co-wrote it. The fact they haven`t even performed it in the U.K. where it was a big hit speaks volumes though.

Al did probably intend to play more rarities but the shows listed on Eric`s website (I know it doesn`t list every show) indicate that there was actually not too much difference between The Beach Boys setlists in 1997 and the BB F&F setlists.

The BBs were often playing maybe 2 or 3 rarities in You`re So Good to Me, Summer in Paradise and Sail on Sailor (or sometimes Warmth of the Sun). I personally wouldn`t count I Can Hear Music or Little Honda as rarities even though they weren`t played every year.

When BB F&F played concerts of a similar length they would normally include 3 rarities and would rotate them to some degree.

I would certainly agree that Al was playing a more interesting setlist than Mike at the time (and I personally think that the overall sound of Al`s group if you include lead vocals was the most impressive of all 3 touring acts) but there wasn`t a huge amount of difference.


I absolutely agree. It`s a terrible shame that the strongest vocalist with the group has performed so little since 1998 (C50 apart). And that when Al did tour under his own name his group started playing even more oldies like Little GTO, Sea Cruise and Runaway.

The show earlier this year where he played a stack of rarities is a bittersweet hint at what might have been.

I saw Alan do Welfare Song in Topeka Kansas, in late 1999. It was surreal.
Of course I mean Looking at Tomorrow.

Was at the show in Torrington last night, here's the setlist:

Do It Again
Goin' to the Beach
Catch a Wave
Hawaii
Surf City
Surfin' Safari
Surfer Girl
Wendy
Getcha Back
Kiss Me, Baby
Why Do Fools Fall in Love
When I Grow Up (to Be a Man)
Darlin'
Be True to Your School
Ballad of Ole' Betsy
Don't Worry Baby
Little Deuce Coupe
409
Shut Down
I Get Around
Intermission
California Dreamin'
Then I Kissed Her
California Girls
Sloop John B
Wouldn't It Be Nice
Their Hearts Were Full of Spring
Disney Girls
Pisces Brother
Cool Head, Warm Heart
The Warmth of the Sun
God Only Knows
Good Vibrations
Kokomo
Help Me, Rhonda
Do You Wanna Dance?
Barbara Ann
Surfin' U.S.A.
Encore:
Wild Honey
Fun, Fun, Fun

Pretty nice setlist, Kiss Me Baby was definitely a surprise. Show sounded great, theater is beautiful. Bruce also sounded incredibly strong on Wendy, where I know he's sounded a bit weak before.

Now that's a nice Mike and Bruce show, at least for the US. When they get the right theatre venue, Mike and Scott really bring out the goodies!

After four M&B shows, I've still never heard them do Wendy, Kiss Me Baby, Full of Spring, Pisces Brother, or Warmth of The Sun. Now, counting C50 and and a B/A/D show, that list trims down to Pisces Brothers and Warmth of The Sun.  ;)

Anyway, hope we see more lengthy shows like this over the year!

 never seen the Beach Boys live.hope I am financially able to see some incarnation of these fellers before I die.

I see Scott is here, you rock, Scott! Why do fools from c 50was tha sh*t!

I was there. Mike sounded great, and the set list was definitely what I was hoping for with the theatre venue. Cool Head Warm Heart went over like a lead balloon   but Pisces Brothers went over great.  I think In My Room or Please Let Me Wonder would have worked better in place of Cool Head but that's a small picky personal thing. Kiss Me Baby was NAILED by Mike and I love Scott on Warmth of the Sun!

I've got tickets to every UK show. It's been a long time coming...I'm completely ready to Mike Out!

You never  mention Bruce

I named my second son after him  :lol :lol is that not enough for you people?  :lol

Yeah It is not enough, how did you become a kokomaoist?

Probably not the same way you became a fan of your side. Mike would be rolling around in his emperor size bed if he saw the results of what you post against the teaching of the 'little bed book' the kokomaoists follow. but while you are there feeling guillty, i'll be Miking Out allsummer long!

Don't waste your money like that, I bet you skipped the C50.

'Waste' is a term generally reserved for people like you who throw money at the stage when Brian sits on it. I went to C50 and sat with my brother Bobby and we enjoyed it yes, but you don't understand the difference between the two. It's better M&B tour the way they do now. Did your know their setlists in the UK span over 50 songs? More like setlust for me  :lol :lol :lol :lol

Gotcha there
(http://media.syracuse.com/entertainment/photo/10362356-large.jpg)

*Pow*

Thanks for the setlist, Mayoman. Wow, 39 songs including:

-  "Kiss Me, Baby"
-  "Then I Kissed Her"
-  "Their Hearts Were Full Of Spring"
-  "Pieces Brother"
-  "Cool Head, Warm Heart"
-  "The Warmth Of The Sun"
-  "Wild Honey"

...can't get much better than that! I'll bet the audience was singing, clapping, and dancing along. And, probably lots of smiles in the parking lot walking to the cars after the show, too...

SIP Mike, why would you want BW to not be there? He is the BBs after all...

Brian is not the Beach Boys. He's not even the Brian Wilson Band. If Brian didn't have his amazing band, and it was just him and a keyboard, it would not be a good show. Just like Brian's band made the C50 tour so good, apart from the sentimental value and-sometimes-okay singing from Brian being there.

I'm taking my son to see the Mike & Bruce show in August. It will be his first concert. It's a good choice for the little guy, I think. Family friendly and everything, can't go wrong.

First live video I've seen of Pisces Brothers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3KgAlwwvo4

Also note that Brian and Al are in some of the photos used on the screen.

Thanks for posting.

A nice performance and a good use of the photos to emphasize the meaning of the song.

Thought Mike's voice sounded pretty weak on that...still don't care for the song. And I know this was written years ago, but releasing this now just seems like a disgusting attempt at leaping on The Beatles bandwagon this year with all the 50th anniversary business. Mike spent a little bit of time with them in 1968....and frankly, none of the fabs look too thrilled to be with him in those pictures.

You mean because Mike is making so much money from Pisces Brothers?

You are entitled to your opinion.  I saw Mike do Pisces Brothers at several shows last week.  You could hear a pin drop, it was that riveting for the audience. And the audience response was tremendous. They were blown away by its' beauty.

It was exactly appropriate to release this song, contemporaneous to the anniversary.  It is no less a tribute, than the release of Like a Brother for Carl, after his passing, to keep his memory alive, and POB for Dennis, a few years back. 

People associate events with music.  This song is awesome, in my opinion. The applause was strong at every single show I saw. You could not have experienced 60's music and not have been affected by George Harrison. You say Mike spent a "little time" with them.  But it was time that appears to have been "formative" philosophically for all of them.  And Mike has put his money where his mouth is, supporting TM in the urban schools, as an alternative to violence. 

 And the Touring Band does a fantastic job on the accompaniment.

Contrary to what America may elect to believe, The Beatles 50th anniversary was in 2012. Thus your point is entirely invalid.

Even though I think the song is kinda garbage, it would be cool if he actually would RELEASE it. Cuz all he did as far as I know is put it up to be listened to on SoundCloud, which means as far as I know it's only being used as a promotional tool, because for some reason Mike doesn't have the guts to release his solo album.


Yeah, but The Beatles (or rather Paul, Ringo and Apple) have put a bit into selling the whole "50 years since they came to America" thing. Which meant that biggest "Beatles" moves were happening since probably the 9-9-09 reissuing of their catalogue. And one could probably say that Mike could be trying to "ride that wave". But of course, since he didn't release the song, I don't think he is.

This is ridiculous. The poster was clearly referencing the promotional push that Apple and Capitol/Universal have made this year concerning the 50th Anniversary of the Beatles’ arrival in the USA. It has been huge, regardless of the motives behind it or the semantics concerning actual anniversary dates.

Whatever Mike’s motives are (I would imagine his initial airing of this song and decision to start sharing it is not entirely coincidental in relation to the hype and press behind this anniversary), it’s anything but invalid to point to the hyping and selling of this Beatles anniversary.

I don’t see anything particular wrong with the timing of the “release” of this song (whatever constitutes a “release” these days). A good song is a good song, and so on.

To me, less than the timing, what seems kind of tacky and cheesy is Mike’s penchant for variations on “name dropping” (and “accomplishment dropping” for lack of a better term).  He mentions “Uncle Jessie” at shows even when Stamos isn’t there. He mentions that freaking NME poll all the time. The “Back in the USSR” story, etc.  He seems to relish talking about George Harrison in part because he can say he knew George, that he hung out with him, etc. Most people drop these names or accomplishments from time to time, but I’m always fascinated by why someone who is the lead singer on numerous hits by one of the biggest bands ever, needs to tell us he knows Uncle Jessie, that he hung out with George Harrison and the Beatles (conveniently leaving out the end of the story when the Beatles left India in 1968 with not so pleasant feelings about the whole experience; and yes, I acknowledge it was a formative experience, at least for George I suppose, maybe not so much the other Beatles).

I suppose what’s additionally a bit odd is that not only did George Harrison rarely even utter the name “The Beach Boys” (let alone Brian Wilson or Mike Love), but Mike himself hasn’t terribly often discussed George. To me, he’s sort of doing a retroactive “Uncle Jessie”, attempting to earn some “cred” by name dropping someone. That doesn’t mean his tribute isn’t heartfelt (I’m sure Mike also very much truly is fond of John Stamos), and it doesn’t mean he doesn’t look back and feel a connection to George, but it seems a bit tacky as opposed to the Beach Boys paying tribute to Carl or Dennis or Paul McCartney paying tribute to George or John in concert.

It’s a bit like when Mike sang “Imagine” in concert back in 1983. The tribute can be heartfelt or well-intended, but when you’re sharing that tribute with an audience who is there to see you, you also have to factor in (or should factor in) how you are perceived by the audience and how you will be perceived in comparison or contrast to the subject of your tribute.

That being said, all of this perception is just mine, and at most, may be a feeling partially shared with a very small group of fans. I’m not at all surprised that Mike’s tribute to George goes over well with his audience. The subject matter probably also keeps fans from otherwise using the “new” song as their beer/bathroom break song (and this isn’t a criticism of Mike; this is just how a lot of shows are, even when fans pay $500 for a McCartney ticket, I’ve watched seemingly a couple thousand people collectively get up as soon as he announced “here’s one off the new album.”)

I think he probably did the song on the TV show (and “released” it online) because it related to the Beatles’ anniversary. From there, it was just a springboard to including it in some live shows. He’s not literally “cashing in”, because indeed he hasn’t sold the song anywhere and isn’t selling more tickets because fans are hoping they’ll hear that song. As I mentioned before, I think airing it live is partly cut from the same grain as the reason he talks about Stamos in concert. Aside from that, he’s just doing it as he’s performed “Cool Head, Warm Heart” on and off in concert for the last however-many-years.

I remember George Harrison told Al Jardine and Carl that Mike "didn't follow the Maharishi's teachings" after Mike's HOF debacle in 1988.

It's the 50th Anniversary of their coming to America. That's all anyone has promoted in America or anywhere else this year. Maybe you should get your sh*t straight before claiming who exactly is invalid.

Exactly. It doesn't make RubberSoul13's point invalid at all.. ???

The idea that performing the song is `disgusting` is barking mad though. For a long time M&B were criticized for only playing the same oldies every night. When they add a new song (and they always promote new songs as they did with Santa`s Going to Kokomo and Cool Head Warm Heart) they get criticized too...

I assumed that Mike decided to issue something new due to the attention he was going to get from the Ella Awards and appearing on Queen Latifah. Now because it`s the 50th anniversary he may have plumped for this song which makes good sense. It seems from the reports that the audiences have responded well to it and the use of photos with the performance works nicely.

This is all strictly opinion based. That being said, I can't help it if all the "new" songs Mike tries to plug are awful.

Goin' To The Beach is OK and that's a leftover from the 70's...Isn't it Time is a great song, but much like Pisces Brothers, was performed at a very distasteful time in my opinion.

What exactly is `disgusting` about it though (a genuine question)?

Mike is not making any money or selling any tickets by this. So if he thinks, `This song will be enjoyed by the audience right now` then where is the problem with that?

It's great that Pisces Brothers is performed live. I can't see any reason to dislike the fact that it's being performed. Seriously, get over it, it's a good song. Same folks would be appraising it if Brian had wrote it.

I was having a walk just a minute ago and was thinking this song. What's the reason it was added to the setlist and why all the promote? Is Mike preparing to release a solo album or what? I'd love to hear a full album with songs like Pisces Brothers and Daybreak Over the Ocean. Maybe even produced like Holland's Big Sur... At this point I'd propably be much more enthusiastic about that if it was confirmed, than Brian's album which seems to take 5 years to make...

I wish he would play Dallas live. Hearing the 'chalice' chorus in concert would make me so happy

I'm surprised Mike doesn't release his projects/solo albums by himself. He's gotta be a multi-millionaire, the alimony and child support payments ended years ago, and, if the releases tank, which they probably would, he has a nice big tax write off.

As I said above, it's not the song (although it does have a very cheesy backing track and the lyrics are quite lazy) that is disgusting, but the timing....as it ALWAYS is with Mr. Love....you need good timin'....

And he IS actually making money off of it with a ticket, whether the folks came to hear that song or not.

Well if they didn`t come to hear it (they obviously didn`t), playing that song earns him no more money than if they were to play anything else.

And again, what is disgusting about the timing?  :)

I can't figure out what's so disgusting about it, either. People were criticizing Mike for always talking about how Brian let him down by not getting alone in a room with him to write songs for the last album. So, Mike is now presenting a few of his own songs. Why is that so bad? It's not any different than playing Kokomo, which is a song Brian did not participate in. Also, a lot of classic rock bands have their vocalists doing solo material, including the Eagles and Fleetwood Mac.

Brian would never write a song like that. Joe Thomas would though.

Honestly, I think he's perhaps afraid to go through with releasing a full-on solo album these days (in anything resembling a proper release fashion - even a release as low key as "A Postcard From California") under his own name, because he doesn't want to face a giant tidal wave backlash of haters. It's sad to say, but I think this may be big part of it.  I don't think he wants to go through with putting something out (a whole album, promotion, etc), and getting the kind of reaction that he would in all probability get from many corners of the internet. There doesn't seem to be much incentive for him, that I can see. Next to none financially, and not much (IMO) emotionally, in all likelihood. And this is unfortunate.

I think "Pisces Brothers" that he released on Soundcloud was probably viewed as a safe choice for whatever cred the George Harrison connection could bring to it, plus it was piggybacking on the Beatles Anniversary being in the public eye. But I also think that many of the criticisms of the song are valid. I think the obvious timing piggybacking thing is tacky in and of itself. I'm still glad that he put *something* out though.

I do really like "Cool Head, Warm Heart" (I think it's the best of the "new" songs on the Songs From Here & Back CD, and even though Al and Brian's competition on that CD wasn't stiff, I still was honestly impressed with Mike for that feat)... and I'd like to think he has "the goods" that could result in a decent current solo album. Not sure that he does, but CHWH gave me a bit of hope. I'm just not sure that there's much that he can do (regardless of the album's quality) to stop the onslaught of negativity it would bring these days.

Of all songs...I just cannot fathom that Mike really sang "Imagine" while wearing a hat with a giant Radio Shack logo on it.  
Honestly. I just can't believe that he did that, but check out the video from 1983 - it happened. Maybe it's just me, but it just seems a bit out of touch. Just a wee bit.

Ay carumba.

I'm contemplating going to see Mike & Bruce (the tour's listed as 'The Beach Boys') in the UK but was wondering if it would be worth it. For those who have seen the tour, who sings lead on most of the songs (I'm guessing Mike & Bruce share lead and Bruce sings lead on 'Endless Harmony') and how the backing band is in terms of the harmonies etc, thanks.

Mike & Bruce have been touring as the licensed "Beach Boys" for a long time now. Backing band is stellar. Mike does all his usual leads, some band members have guest spots (his son Christian being the 'Carl' among them) and Bruce has his 2-3 songs to shine as well. Go see them!

Go with an open mind instead of thinking "well, it's not Brian". The band are excellent - John Cowsill may just be the best drummer they've ever had.

However, I shall be outstandingly surprised if Bruce - or anyone else - sings lead on "Endless Harmony".  ;D

   Looking forward to seeing Mike & Bruce in Columbus OH this summer - my first time with this edition of the band. Opening act will be America.

The Beach Boys found a band with less original members than they have!?!

I'll be seeing Mike and Bruce in Derry this June

Not excited, just expecting a decent gig and a nice day out

Don`t America still have the same 2 members they have had for decades?

Well, since they've been opening for The Beach Boys in the 80's till now, yes.

Can`t really go wrong for the very low ticket price.

Great songs performed by a fine band.

Exactly

I didn't even know about the gig till today, my friend who's a casual fan bought two tickets knowing id go.

I really like this girl too, maybe I can swoon her during Disney girls

If it is a meat and potatoes show then they may well not play Disney Girls.

Goin to the Beach will have to suffice instead.  ;)

America has two thirds of the original line up, and has since 1977. M&B has one third of real Beach Boys.

I never said otherwise!  ;D

A late reply to this comment but I really don`t think this is the case.

When Mike recorded his unreleased solo album he was obviously trying to shop it around and was also talking about it frequently in interviews (hence the MOJO interview mentioned a while back). He (optimistically) hoped to get a major label to release it and when that didn`t happen, it was left to gather dust.

The songs that have been released (Cool Head, Warm Heart, Daybreak and Pisces Brothers) certainly haven`t brought any hate and the youtube comments on some of the unreleased songs have been benign and fairly positive.

The release of 2 (Cool Head, Warm Heart, Daybreak) out of those 3 songs was under the "BBs" brand name, and the one song that was released (if you count Soundcloud as a proper release) did in fact get a good enough amount of flack. In 2004, while there were plenty of online haters, I think the hater thing has snowballed since then quite a bit.  One would hope that Mike (like Al did) would realize that a major label release just isn’t in the cards anymore and to simply release it for art’s sake, but I just don't think he has the motivation to do so.

I want Mike to release the fackin' album. I'd buy it. But yeah, calling on Mike Love to do something "for art's sake" is kind of a joke. I won't deny that he's done a lot of great art, but he is in it for the commerce, and obviously his solo album isn't gonna promote much commerce. Maybe a few hundred, or if he's lucky a couple thousand.

Also, don't forget that he also released "Love Like in Fairytales" (also known as "Glow Crescent Glow", which is also known as song to sing to your 25 year old wife in the hot tub) on the CD The Boys Of Summer, which also had "Cool Head, Warm Heart" on it.

This is a very good 7 member band.  I saw them twice over the past year, both times in performing arts centers. These were among the best performances I have seen this line up do over the past  several years.  Excellent shows.  Dancing in the isles. On a good night, this band hits a grand slam (much credit to John Cowsill) of a performance.  Don't miss it.

Not so - "CH,WH" was released on a BB album, but listed as a Mike Love recording. A little accuracy, please.

Released on a BBs album still means using the brand name. Even if it says ML on the back and/or in the notes (which is merely being honest/accurate).



Good to know someone's watching out for accuracy in these parts, though. :)

Mike should press up some solo CD's and sell them at the Beach Boys' merch stand at each tour stop. I'm sure it could sell a few or even several thousand, eventually, with cumulative sales.  The fact he's doing two songs at some tour stops could indicate he's considering that.  Didn't Al put some copies of his solo CD at the reunion merch stands?

I agree that Mike won`t release it for `art`s sake` as he wouldn`t want it to just disappear as Al`s album did (if that`s the right way of putting it). It`s a shame as if he released it online and sold it at concerts it would probably shift a few copies simply because Mike and Bruce play so many shows.

But no, the hater thing certainly hasn`t snowballed over the past 10 years. Obviously Mike got a bad press when C50 ended but he has always had a bad press. And Mike Love, Not War would have coincided with David Leaf`s Beautiful Dreamer doc so his reputation wasn`t any higher then.

Yes he has always had bad press, but methinks that with the advent of social media - mainly Youtube, Facebook, and the exponential proliferation of unfiltered comments (including that notorious "Why I hate Mike Love" blog), I just think that pure blind hatred is at least more "visibly out there", if that makes any sense. That's how it seems to me, at least... and I've been a fan since before then, so I feel like I've witnessed it happening. Yes, 2004 surely wasn't a great press year for him either.  

So that's *part* of the reason why IMO I think that he isn't particularly interested in releasing/distributing an album online (the only real way he can at this point) with any kind of visible push/promo, because online has largely not been good to him. If he felt very warmly regarded by the interwebs and huge heaps of adoration from giant swaths of fans (like Brian does), I think it might be a different story (even if Mike couldn't get the album released on a major label, the internet would have its emotional welcome mat out as an incentive).

Selling the CD album at live shows (directly to less judgmental M&B fans) would almost certainly be a more attractive option, but as stated previously, I'm just not sure that he has the incentive to do so. But I'd love to see him prove me wrong.

I've attended my share of Mike & Bruce shows and, in my opinion, the overwhelming - OVERWHELMING - impression I get is appreciation and ENJOYMENT of Mike Love's work, both on record and on the stage, by the millions of fans who attend the concerts. Like I mentioned above, I'm surprised that by now (2014!!!!) Mike hasn't just gone ahead and produced/manufactured/marketed his solo recordings by himself. If Mike Love CD's were available at the merchandise booths at a Beach Boys/Mike & Bruce show (or an online site), I can't see how Mike couldn't profit from their sales, maybe not in the short run, but at least over time.

I agree - I really think he should sell them at booths at M&B shows. No doubt. 

It`s a fair opinion but as several of the songs have been on Youtube for many years, I doubt it is a big factor.

I think time has shown that if Mike is offered the right opportunity to showcase his songs then he will take it (whether that`s a TV appearance, a Hallmark CD or an ESQ CD). But, as you say, there isn`t really the motivation there to go down the self-publishing route.

Just my opinion, obviously, but the anti-Love stuff on the internet has not snowballed in the last decade. It has actually decreased in terms of the proportion of negative-to-neutral-to-positive. It was pretty uniformly negative stuff back in the late 90’s and early 2000’s, probably in part because the wounds of the remnants of the band splitting were still fresh, and also because even many Mike Love superfans would agree that the live show he had put together in 1998-1999 was relatively sub-par, especially in comparison to a decade later.

By the mid-late 2000’s, it seemed to die down to some degree, probably due to a mixture of time passing, Mike’s live show improving, fans become rather apathetic to the cause of demanding Mike stop using the BB name, Brian’s solo career being an actual going concern, and so on. Certainly, the decades-old negative impression has never gone away, and we’ve spent thread after thread trying to dissect how much of all the old negative crap (“don’t f*** with the formula, “Smile”, etc.) concerning Mike is fair or not.

I’ve rambled about this numerous times, but Mike gained a HUGE amount of goodwill and positive commentary for doing the reunion in 2012, from some of the most jaded, crusty, cynical Beach Boys fans ever (and the press as well). Unfortunately, the aftermath of the reunion pulled the rug out from under some of those cranky fans so severely, it led to a disproportionately huge negative backlash.

Agreed.

I remember ages ago there was a Mike Love Fan Club page where the level of hate spilled over into Brianistas handing out death threats to other posters on occasion, for example.

(I didn`t know that Ambha Love had to go to school with a bodyguard after receiving a death threat several years ago until I saw it while searching for something else on this site though).

I used to be proud to call myself a Brianista (old school, late 1970s), but the current iteration - blinkered, rabid in their hate of anyone who isn't Brian and generally knowing nothing at all about the band - is enough to put you off being a BB fan at all.

Found a video of "Back in The USSR" from Abbey Road On The River: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2fPyKOkKzs

for comparison look at this version....  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUQAjwADXvM   :)

Nice video. If only the sound was better, eh?

Do like the "Don't have the moves like Jagger, don't have the moves like Jagger" comment. :lol

 This is very sad, any way you look at it.

Jeez, Mike is just a vocalist.
You would think the guy was a serial-rapist or something...

Does anyone know if tickets have been discounted in any cities for this tour? I'm thinking about going to the one in Peachtree City, but I don't want a repeat of the last time I saw Brian where I paid full price only for Groupon to sell seats that were just as good for $40 less.

Thanks for posting this. They sound pretty darn good here.

Also now uploaded are Dear Prudence and I Saw Her Standing There:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ef9sonhDQqw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njhCfavTbQ8

Dear Prudence sounds as ropey as hell to me and, in contrast with Back in the USSR, the thinness of his voice is very apparent.

Totten especially - he really fills everything in.

His voice isn't as strong as it used to be, but if they had played the song a few steps lower he would have sounded much better...it just sounds like its a little bit out of his comfortable range.

Mike's biggest problem - in the eyes of some, at any rate - is sadly unfixable. He's not Brian. Yup, that simple, that stupid. But then, some BB fans were never overburdened with smarts.

November European dates:

21 - Paris
22 - Frederikshaven
23 - Ballerup
24 - Trondheim
25 - Dublin
26 - Belfast
27 - London
29 - Tel Aviv (first ever Israel gig)

Who was singing "I Saw Her Standing There?"

Can't find any info anywhere else but checked Bellagio (why that wasn't my first port of call I don't know) and they're playing Wembley Arena? I'm quite amazed.

Yeah, they do. Hey, today is Paul McCartney's birthday! And, speaking of "Back In The USSR" and Paul McCartney and Mike Love....Did you know that while India in 1967, Mike had breakfast with....

Yeah, that's much bigger than, say, Hammersmith, where they've played in the past.  It's also where the reunited band played their last gig.  I'm wondering if Mike and Bruce can fill it okay, or even if people might go to it expecting the full line-up.  Anyway, I want to go.

Hrrmmm. Right or wrong, most people that seem to have a problem with Mike don't seem to have that same problem with any or all of Carl, Dennis, Al, Bruce, Dave, Blondie, Ricky, Totten, Foskett, Glen Campbell, and so on. Seems like, however right or wrong these people are, they are reacting more to Mike and less to his not being Brian. Otherwise, every other BB would have a similar negative following and/or perception. The other guys didn't do some of the things for which Mike has been criticized by some fans.

In other words, this "Anti-Mike = Pro-Brian" or "Anti-Mike = Anti-Anybody-Who's-Not Brian" business is silly in my opinion. There are always a few like that, and I've certainly seen a few inordinately "Pro-Mike" people who will shoot down anything Jardine or Brian do. It doesn' t mean all people who like Mike dislike Brian, or dislike anybody who isn't Mike.

Think it's Randell Kirsch.

My thoughts exactly. I was at the Wembley concert in 2012 and I got the impression they only chose that venue (and RAH) based on the buzz and pull of the reunion. Here M&B have aimed more at medium-sized venues like, as you say, Hammersmith Apollo and venues like the O2 Academies and City Hall-like venues. It's just a bit of a shock to me for them to be playing an arena. Regardless I'm eagerly awaiting ticket details.

I know that it's still soon. But, what are the chances that we can see 50+ songs setlists like in 2004 or 2008?
If it's the case it would be worth attending any of these shows.

This is the Mike & Bruce gig I've been waiting for (ie not a festival or racecourse etc).  I have never seen them and have never forgivenmyself for missing the 08 gigs.  A slightly smaller venue may have been better, but if they fill it then fab.

Cool, thanks!

You're being charitable with the "some BB fans were never overburdened with smarts" bit.

A new interview with Mike as well (apologies if it has already been posted):

http://laughlinentertainer.com/?p=1511

"Kokomo” is our No. 1, biggest sing-along song in our show"

Nice. Class. And the beat goes on...

(http://i62.tinypic.com/sljxch.png)

Hey...it's the difference between a fine steak and a quick drive through the Taco Bell. That's how I see it. Guilty of I guess, a discerning palate. Enjoy your kokomo a go go.

Proof, yet again, that some folks simply are not Beach Boys fans!

Steak every damn night would get boring..... Brian himself knows this better than anyone. Throw in some donuts and burgers and life is that much more tasty :)

In fact: I'll take that steak, medium rare, with a side of Kokomo  ;D

Try looking on mikelove.com.  ;D

When does AGD.com launch? ;)

BRIANISTA!

We need to come up with a derogatory term for someone who loves THE BEACH BOYS!!!

Boystafarian?

Beach-Type-Personitst?

Boyzi?

Tommy Bahamist?

Beacheopath?

Guitarist compliments guitarist. Non-drummer will compliment the drummer: great job, Mr. Cowsill!

I liked the Dear Prudence cover too, actually. Nothing ropey to these ears. Imagine how cool it would be if they performed "And Your Bird Can Sing", with Scott doubling guitar. One of my favorite Beatles tunes. Randell sounds almost identical to the way Paul sang the original (as opposed to actual voice similarity, if that makes sense).

Would've been great if Mike had brought out a balalaika during USSR and played a solo. He would in that moment win my heart completely.

DONT NOT sh*t ME, WOODSTOKC

Mike is known for his playing of cute instruments.!!$

I recall seeing them in 1993 when they played Sheffield and Manchester on consecutive nights… one of the gigs had a reasonable audience but the other – Sheffield, if memory serves – wasn't even half-full. The dangers of a by-then less popular band playing big capacity gigs within not too great a distance.

I'd be surprised if the Wembley gig has a huge audience, but I intend to swell it by at least one!

I think there's little chance the Wembley show, at least, won't be a long set.  Which is good, cos' I'm not going to their racecourse etc shows this summer.  Hopefully, they'll play some of the same deeper cuts as last time, like Til I Die and Here Today, but it would be great if they pull other stuff out of the bag.  If they're gonna do some of the lesser known Pet Sounds songs, I hope they throw in That's Not Me.  Would love to hear Mike singing that.

I see above that Mike's championing Kokomo as a sing-along, which is fine, but he should judge that according to the location.  In Britain, it's not widely known and it killed the momentum in the Albert Hall in 2012.  It had a spot in the setlist where an assured classic should be, but over here, people don't really know it and don't go crazy for it.  He ought to stick it in the first set or something.

I'll attend both outdoor amphitheater shows in Spain this summer, which they will surely be great like in Catalonia and Madrid in 2010 and 2011. The highlights were Hearts, Disney Girls, Bluebirds OVer the Mountain, Good To My Baby, etc.
But if these November shows are going to be like in 2004 or 2008 (with Til I Die, Everyone's in Love With You, You Still Believe In Me, All This Is That, etc), I'd like to know it. Maybe I'd consider attending the Paris or Wembley ones.

A new project with BB music...

...sponsored by Target, perhaps?

(http://i.imgur.com/Y7QSnQN.jpg)

While they may not play 54 songs again, I would have thought there is little doubt that the Wembley show will be a very long setlist with several rarities. The only way I could see it being otherwise is if a support band were announced to try to shift tickets.

There's gotta be another band, I don't see Mike and Bruce cutting it. Have they EVER played Wembley on their own?

Or perhaps there won't be another band, maybe just other band members.........

It does make me happy to see they are playing Israel as it did that the Rolling Stones did as well with anti-semites like Roger Waters trying to start a boycott.  Nice to know people aren't taking him seriously.

Yes. Maybe the Wembley show will be the european Jones Beach show. Let's wait and see...

Gotta love the huge leaps of pure illogic displayed here.  ;D

Mike & Bruce can't possibly fill Wembley Arena, ego there has to be either a support band, or there might be other members appearing.

When Brian played the Birmingham NIA (capacity 12,800) in 2005, did he fill it ? No, and they knew he wouldn't so maybe 75% of the venue was curtained off. I'm guessing the same may happen in November to some degree or other. As for the possibility of other members... we'll see, but I have my doubts.

I can't see a support act bringing in the crowds.  I hope there isn't one.  Possibly, MnB are just hoping for bigger crowds, and based on the buzz of the reunion, trying to get into a bigger market.

Anyway, it's not there on mikelove.com now.  Guess it's still tentative.

Okay, I’m not trying to be snarky here, but I seriously thought, up until the point that Mike referenced Foskett, that they had re-used a Mike interview from a year ago for this thing. I’m still confused as to how at least a few of the lines are word-for-word identical. Isn't this kind of a weird coincidence? I know Mike has expressed very similar sentiments (the ridiculous "term" bit for instance, and the "it was just like 1965, but...." stuff) in multiple interviews, but this is word-for-word identical. I guess this saves me from having to do more commentary on Mike's sometimes specious reasoning, as it's the same stuff I commented on a year ago. Check out these two "interviews", published almost a year apart:

June 17, 2014 (Laughlin Entertainer) :

It was a good thing to do to mark the 50th anniversary of the group. A lot of the fans enjoyed seeing us all together. Brian’s been doing his solo thing for 15 years, and I and Bruce have done our thing for over 50 years now. I had a wonderful experience being in the studio together. Brian has lost none of his ability to structure those melodies and chord progressions, and when we heard us singing together coming back over the speakers, it sounded like 1965 again. Touring was more for the fans.  It was a great experience. It had a term to it and now everyone’s going on with their ways of doing things.    Brian is working on a soundtrack, which is part of a movie project about his life. We’re doing 125 shows this year, so we stay pretty busy.

July 4, 2013 (UK Guardian):

I had a wonderful experience being in the studio together. Brian has lost none of his ability to structure those melodies and chord progressions, and when we heard us singing together coming back over the speakers it sounded like 1965 again. Touring was more for the fans.  Brian has a great band and he does his own thing, and Bruce and I have a fabulous band and we enjoy going places, big and small. But that configuration that happened last year you can only do in so many places and so often. So it was an agreed 50 shows that grew to 73 because of demand. But there was always a term, then we were always going back to what we do. Brian is in the studio again. He loves the studio. It was a great experience, it had a term to it, and now everyone's going on with their ways of doing things.

Either a very lazy churnalist padding out a fresh interview with stolen quotes, or Mike's PR recycling already approved material in subsequent press releases?

My money's on lazy journo.  :-D

Despite that odd occurrence that HeyJude has pointed out, there actually were a few kinda interesting things in that "interview" (or whatever it was)...

First off we have the question, "Despite all the rumors flying around, did you and Brian part as friends with the idea for future collaborations?"

Mike, while somewhat avoiding the question did give an interesting answer, saying, "Originally, before the 50th anniversary album project, Brian and I wanted to do a rock and roll album of songs we didn’t write. But it never happened. His management team went another direction—they have their own ideas about how to do things The relationship between Brian and I, when we’re left alone, is great."

This is interesting. We had heard sometime in 2013 (I'm pretty sure) that Mike mentioned that at one point there was the idea to record some of their favorites tunes or whatever. And at least I kinda took that to mean that maybe Mike wanted to do a 14ᵗʰ version of "Fun, Fun, Fun" and "Surfin' U.S.A." or whatever. However, an album of rock 'n roll oldies may have been kinda interesting. Obviously, I'm very, very glad that they did That's Why God Made The Radio and it produced better results than a covers album probably would have. However, I do think any album of songs that really gets the guys going would be pretty interesting. I wouldn't doubt that in their private conversations (if there were any) that Brian and Mike probably did somewhat plan and get excited by this idea. And the reason I believe that this is probably something Brian wanted (or wants) is that he's talked quite a bit about doing a "rock 'n roll" album and I think if he were totally left to his own devices, that rock 'n roll album would probably feature a bunch of covers, arranged in that Wilson or Spector-esque way, kinda like "I'm Into Something Good". And even though I much prefer to hear Brian doing new originals these days and I thought his Disney album was kind of a sleepwalk, I think he would be super into an album of his favorite oldies. Just my opinion. And I wouldn't mind such an album.

Also interesting, and maybe it's just a case of Mike not really knowing, but he mentions how "Brian is working on a soundtrack, which is part of a movie project about his life." Does he just mean Brian's upcoming album? Or is Brian also involved with new recordings for the soundtrack for the movie? Interesting...

And finally, on current projects he says "I’ve been working up some songs over the last three decades and recorded songs that never came out. I’m working on an album and a single on my own. I’m looking at songs we’ve done and trying to figure out how to make them commercially viable in this day and age. I’m looking at songs that were done in the ’80s and fine tuning them. I want to make them evoke the feeling of the ’80s with the sound of today without sacrificing anything."

So maybe Mike really is gonna open up the vault and let us hear all this stuff he's stored up through the years. Honestly, most of it probably won't be very good, but I'll buy it if he releases this stuff. And I think it'd be a gutsy move. We'll see I suppose.

That's what I was told last year at Henley. I'd buy First Love. Country Love... ummmmmmmmmmmmm...

Wait, he told you he was actually gonna release a bunch of the stuff he's recorded over the years? Really. That would be an interesting development.

And I'm with you. I'd buy First Love. I'd buy a new Mike Love album. I'd buy a reissue of Looking Back With Love. I would not buy Country Love, no way, no how.

Anyways, did he indicate whether any of this would be happening anytime soon? Apparently not very soon, since he told you last year, ha.

That's what he said.

Looks like the new publicity picture for this years line-up. New boy Jeff at the rear. :lol

http://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/names/2014/06/23/beach-boys-and-megan-hilty-headline-july-boston-pops-show/fIfuTZxU5YKL8TWIV9Z9ZO/story.html

Mike again talking about making his projected solo lp "commercially viable". What does that even mean? A Mike Love solo release can only ever be a niche lp, sold to already existing fans. He's not going to do a Tony Bennett or a Johnny Cash and find a new, young audience -- he's more like a Peter Noone or Mark Lindsay.

Just put out a CD, Mike, and sell it at Beach Boys concerts along with the other band merchandise.

All of these guys (well, I guess not David yet?) are in their 70's and it has been relatively if not exceedingly easy for artists to sell their material online (both physical and download product) for 10-15 years. At this point we have to assume it's just a lucky accident (e.g. "A Postcard from California") if any of these guys (other than Brian and David) put out any amount of archival or new solo material (let alone "opening up the archives"), and the same goes for the group collectively. Whether they lack focus, or organization, or are waiting to get "a hit", it just hasn't been happening.

These guys have so much stuff recorded and archived that they would never have to write or record another note for the rest of their lives and they could still release oodles of material (of varying quality no doubt).

Seeing this photo and calling Mike, Bruce and a bunch of guys other than Foskett I don't even know "The Beach Boys" makes me more pissed.

Even after all these years when I try to tell people about a BEACH BOYS album they see a picture of these chumps and think "oh these are the guys on Pet Sounds?"

Damn you Mike Love.

(http://c.o0bg.com/rf/image_371w/Boston/2011-2020/2014/06/24/BostonGlobe.com/Lifestyle/Images/untitled-6855v2edit.jpg)

If it makes you feel any better, two of the guys on Pet Sounds are dead. And the musical backing tracks are mostly session musicians. And Brian never toured with the band when they were playing Pet Sounds material when it was more or less new.  It was Bruce taking Brian's place on tours of that era.

Has anyone honestly thought that band recorded Pet Sounds? Come on.....really? Scott Totten and Tim B. don't even look like they were alive in 1966!

Any word on on-sale date for tickets?



PS: Mike's site lists the venue as "Wembly Arena" … "Great Brittan". That'd be Leon Brittan perhaps? At Wembly Swim & Racquet Club (www.wembly.org/)?

Yes. Later.

What is the difference between the Beach Boys 2014 and Mike Love's Endless Summer Beach Band back in the 70s? I think the ESBB played their first gig here in Atlanta, with Mike and Jeff Foskett, at Lake Lanier, they sounded good, but I thought even back then, Mike Love is not the Beach Boys!

There`s no chance of hearing the song Looking Back With Love!  ;D

I attended the Lake Lanier show. Randell Kirsch was also in the band.

Mike is The Beach Boy, Bruce is The Beach Buddy.

Oh my gosh, everytime I read about a UK/Europe show, I get SO jealous. I just wish they'd stop by Indiana and on a whim, perform one of those setlist! I don't care if it's Everyone's in Love with You or the whole Country Love album! Actually, I'd much rather prefer they perform Looking Back with Love, First Love, Celebration, or Side 1 of the Almost Summer soundtrack albums.

Had the pleasure of watching The Beach Boys at Newbury on Saturday and, having watched Brian and Al just a fortnight ago, feel in a good position to make a few comparative points. I haven't watched Mike and Bruce since the 2008 tour with David and their performance on Saturday was in a completely different universe to that show. Vocally the band were excellent and Jeff's addition to the band has been very positive in terms of both sound and energy. Several of the songs on Saturday were absolutely brilliant - I Get Around, California Girls and Surfin USA notably better in my view than Brian and Al at Hop Farm. They also did great up tempo versions of Then I Kissed Her and a frenetic Barbara Ann, much better than the C50 rendition in my opinion. That said I felt the Brian show did a better job with Sloop, Nice and Rhonda and I stand by my comments about Matt  Jardine's version of Wild Honey being supreme. Over the years I have always been in the Brian's band is better camp previously but have to say that in my view now there really isn't a heck of a lot to choose between the two bands. It looked presentationally to me that Jeff is very much up front as one of a front four with Mike, Bruce and Scott Totten who was hugely impressive both vocally and instrumentally. I have decided , like several other posters recently, that time is ticking and it makes sense to catch them while we still can in whatever incarnation we might find them. Big crowd at Newbury had a great time and the music was done complete justice and then some .

  I'll be seeing Mike, Bruce, Jeff, & Band at the Ohio State Fair 7/29. America is on the bill. I've never seen this version of the band, so the curiosity factor is high. My friend - not a major fan - was surprised to discover there would be no Wilsons or even a Jardine, but he is on board as much for America as The Beach Boys anyway.

I'd go see em , but only cos Foskett's there .
How did he end up there and not in Brian's band anyway ?

Brian has only booked four shows so far this year and I'm not sure he's ever played more than 50 or so dates in a year. The Beach Boys play more than 100 in a year. He had already left Brian's employ before Mike decided to hire him after Christian Love left. In fact, Jeff already had a gig with the band America, but the Beach Boys offer came along and he took it.

Most shows Brian's played in a year is 73 or so.

Yeah, he has. You are right that touring with The BBs will provide a better income for Jeff though presumably.

Jeff told Brian he was moving on after the Beck tour last fall... in the spring Christian told dad he was doing the same... Mike made the call... Jeff said yes.

Brian had no immediate plans to do much touring this year due to recording his new album.  That may have been a factor.  If he were doing over 70 shows this year, who knows, maybe Jeff would have stayed.

Moon Dawg - We recently saw America play with the Buffalo Philharmonic Orchestra and they sounded very good. Should be an enjoyable concert - good harmonies throughout the day!

BTW, years ago we saw America and The Beach Boys at the NY State Fair just a few weeks before Carl passed away. His voice was still so wonderful. A bittersweet memory.

I haven't seen Brian's gigs this year so can't compare the two at the moment but I would say that Mike and Bruce have currently got their show spot on. I saw them last in 2011 and was pleasantly surprised at the quality of the sound and harmonies etc. Since then those harmonies have got a lot tighter and the quality has gone up a gear. Bringing Foskett into the mix has made a big difference and I have to say at times (notably Disney Girls at Hampton Court, UK) I found myself thinking 'is this the original track?' - they were nearly that good!

I always have such a great time at the M&B shows and this year is no different. I dance and sing myself hoarse to every song and it's totally worth the money. If they play the UK later in the year then they have another customer in me.

At the end of the day I have no time for the age old 'Brian vs M&B' argument, I just feel grateful they still play live and I get the chance to see any of the band perform songs that were written decades before I was even born.

Nice to read this...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gerald-christian/the-quadriplegic-rock-sta_b_5604263.html


EDIT  Oops... Sorry, just saw this has a separate thread.

Lengthy videos of a recent Spain show:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msVU_kxew6s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmyIS7l-S30

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js78b_EsXBo

In all fairness, I only watch the first three minutes....but could anyone else hear Bruce's harmony sticking out on the chorus of "Do it Again" in ALL the wrong ways?....

They sound great here.  Love hearing Jeff in the blend.

Admittedly, there is only one camera angle and he's featured as a result, but this vid really demonstrates Scott Totten's guitar chops.  The guy is very good.

Looks like I'll get to report some first hand experience this summer....just got tix to see Mike and Bruce in Lancaster on Monday. John Stamos was added to the show, and my girlfriend hasn't seen them with him in the lineup, so we went for it! Looking forward to *hopefully* a longer theatre set.

Saw them at the AMT in Lancaster (granted nine years ago...) and the setlist was kinda halfway between the meat & potatoes 90 minutes GH and a  2 hours plus UK theater setlist. 43 songs including, astonishingly, "'Til I Die" and "All This Is That". Since then Cowsill has taken over the drum stool and Scott T is now MD, so musical excellence is assured.

Cool videos, great audio. The summer shows are really fun, that's when they add a lot of goodies to the setlist, particularly the opening set. I love hearing Summer Means Fun, and in the past, It's OK in the opening set. I wish the whole show was posted. Alas, I'll have to wait till next week when I see then in Ventura!

They have also played It`s OK at shows this summer. M&B have certainly made things more interesting for the fans (and presumably themselves) by changing the set lists on a regular basis recently. There was a time when you could predict with certainty the exact order and choice of songs but nowadays they seem to rotate many of the `non-essential` songs like Summer Means Fun, All Summer Long, It`s OK, Dance Dance Dance, Good to my Baby, Spring, Summertime Blues etc.

They're very open to suggestion: at Epsom recently pre-gig I was asked by Scott if "Darlin'" was a hit here, and what might be dropped to accommodate it given the strict 90-minute curfew.

They still did "Barbara-fucking-Ann" anyway.  >:(

 :woot

Marbella, Spain at the Starlite Festival, a venue placed in a quarry.
Why Do Fools Fall In Love and Please Let Me Wonder were played without drums beacuse of a technical problem, which resulted in very interesting versions of the songs.
Still Cruisin', a song never played in Spain since 1990, was dedicated to some spanish fans in the audience by request.
Incredible show, terrific sound and great acoustics. The same as Madrid two nights before.

http://youtu.be/Y5Xt7PhDNq8?t=1m10s

If M&B played in my town for free, I'd definitely go see them and expect to enjoy it! :)

The best part of those Madrid videos was seeing ambha love walk off the stage

She's a beauty

.....errr....isn't she like 14?

She's off to college in the fall. Born 1/4/96. Very nice kid, polite, loves her parents and can be as funny as hell. And yes, cute as a bug.

Still Cruisin' in Marbella. July 23rd, 2014.

http://youtu.be/BY2KjdpOqA0

Wow. Mike's vibrato sounds really good. Didn't even know he had that in him.

Fun, Fun, Fun in York with Roy Wood

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdGHKu_fAms

They also apparently covered The Move's "Fire Brigade".

Interesting to read that they did The Move song Fire Brigade with Roy Wood last night at York

Sorry posted this at same time as someone else  ::)

No, no... that has to be wrong, or a fake: it's a well known, unequivocally established fact that all Mike & Bruce ever do is songs about cars, girls & surfin'. #humor #sarcasm

Let us pray someone recorded it.

Don't forget about a song about sharing a sign of the Zodiac  ;D

That was the surprise of the night and got a great reception from the crowd, as did pretty much everything. Overall a much more enthusiastic crowd than I've ever seen at an M&B show; first time I've ever seen the band here up north (or anywhere else other than in/around London) and the crowd ate everything up; made the crowd at Epsom last week seem downright dour in comparison :p

Odd you should say that - the Epsom crowd around me (roughly halfway back to the light tower/mixing desk, just in front of the bus) were going apeshit, yet a friend tells me that further forward, they were indeed metaphorically sitting on their hands. Go figure.

Yeah up-front it was a pretty austere affair. Hardly any noise made during the opening to Do It Again and the band coming on. Seemed very strange.

It was OSD and friends. ;D

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...  ;D

Thoughts on Mike & Bruce (and Stamos) in Lancaster....

  John Stamos was definitely entertaining and it wsa fun to see him there and shake things up a bit. However, I can definitely see why people get annoyed that he's there. The overall musicianship definitely took a hit. There were way too many songs without John Cowsill on drums, and it showed. Stamos played a lot more than I expected, or remembered from my first Beach Boys concert in 2010.
 
  Anyway, the setlist was basically a Greatest Hits Plus type show. The more unusual songs included "Please Let Me Wonder", "Still Cruisin", "Forever"(of course), "Pisces Brothers" and "All Summer Long". I guess it isn't that odd that Pisces Brothers was played but let's just say, I won't be losing sleep if I never hear it again.

  There were a lot of vocal blips all across the board. From what I could hear, it was mostly Foskett & Mike. I really do not know why they gave Jeffrey all of Randell's leads. Randell was definitely much stronger last year. As I said, Mike was also hitting a lot of bum notes in the harmony stack. "Why Do Fools Fall in Love" was pretty rough. However, there is plenty of positivity to report on! Mike's leads sound strong as ever. All those early surf/car song medleys are great as always. John Cowsill is probably the biggest asset this band has. As I said, it's a shame he spent so much time off the kit last night however, his vocals nearly made up for it. "Darlin" was superb as always and it was really great to have him down front on "Help Me Rhonda" for a change, he's a great frontman....better than Mike!! There was no "Wild Honey" last night....bummer.

  Also, I'd like to take a moment for Bruce! I was ragging on his vocals in a clip on the last page, but his vocals were VERY loud last night, and spot on. "Please Let Me Wonder" was especially gorgeous. That was probably the highlight of the show for me, actually. "Disney Girls" was remarkable as well and all his falsetto lines throughout the night were of a much greater quality than Foskett's.

  On "Surfin' USA" a few folks from this otherwise dead crowd ran down the stage, I thought for sure they'd get dragged off but nope! They stayed! So we went down on the encore and were basically in the front row for the encore. Mike waved to my girlfriend (of course...) and pointed at me on "A lot of guys try to catch her..." just like on C50. I called Bruce's name at the end as we were almost in front of him but he didn't even twitch. Foskett walked by and shook a few hands but not the woman next to me, who decided the appropriate response to being ignored by a back-up beach boy was "SHAKE MY HAND ASSHOLE!"....needless to say, he just kept walking.  8)

Seems Lancaster crowds are classy like that: back in '05 my friends & I were giving "Sail On, Sailor" a good telling off and a blue-rinsed old biddy turned around and screeched "I paid good money to hear THEM sing, not YOU !"

So of course we did the only possible thing. Sang louder.  ;D

 :lol

This venue is about the only place in Lancaster where anything happens. It was a sold out show, and I'm pretty sure the entire AARP age bracket of Lancaster County  had a late night Monday. Another funnier moment, Mike encouraged everyone to shine their cell phones on "Surfer Girl" but he had to call the roadie out to do it for him....and of course, none of the old folks in the crowd knew what they were doing or even had cell phones....

I had a similar experience on "Wouldn't it Be Nice" during the C50 tour in Detroit.  I responded that I was only following Bruce's conducting, but the guy didn't seem impressed by my answer.

Yup, back then I was easily one of the three youngest people there - in some cases by several decades - and in May 2005 I was 49 !

I'm quite annoyed to hear that the front of the crowd at Epsom was indeed as quiet as I thought it was. We were trying our hardest to get as near to the stage as we could but no one wanted to budge! We danced the night away but I can count on one hand the amount of people doing the same in front of us. I don't know why they took our spot when they obviously couldn't have cared less! Grrrrr.

I was at the Lancaster show last night. I loved it.  It was lacking a certain magic, but honestly, like was said above, I think it was because of the crowd. They had sticks up their bums. Being a big fan, I wasn't thrilled with their set list. If I never heard a car song again, I'd be fine. All that being said though...it was a good show. I couldn't find anything wrong with the band or the performance.

As far as John Stamos, I wish people would be nicer to him. He is a thoughtful and talented gentleman who obviously has really good taste in music. He was very kind and thankful before, during, and after the show ( I did the VIP experience and waited by the stage door afterward). He made sure that every fan he came in contact with was happy.

How impolite.

Anybody go to Ventura last night? Saw this clip on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h09QbCsCR5A

I'm gonna go see them in Saratoga tonight, say hi to me if you're there.

So, were those girlies fawning over Mike or one John Stamos?

Geez....why doesn't Stamos just tour by himself? He's the one getting all the reaction!

Mike sounded unusually croaky on that one.

Really glad to hear they are playing well.   I just got tix for their Aug. 12th performance at the Pormona NY minor league ball park, with Peter Noone as the opener!    I'll be taking my 13 year old daughter for her first concert.   She should know all the songs (except Pisces Bros!)  since she's been stuck in enough long car rides during her childhood with me controlling the music.  

I was there! Great show, shorter setlist because it's a fair, but great energy from the band and the crowd!

Hope they let Dave do Getcha Back at these shows.

You gotta admit they all look like they're having a blast.

That said, from that clip I don't like what I'm hearing or seeing. I've been saying it for a while, the touring Beach Boys are a cheap, very cheap imitation of what The Beach Boys were. A knock off brand, it's nice to have them around for the general public but it doesn't do any justice to what that band was.

Each to their own...

Personally I would say that they sound better than pretty much anyone could have imagined in 1998 when the decision was first made to grant Mike a licence.

.

No getcha back, but he did sing lead on Do you wanna dance.

Controversial opinion, but from a purely musical perspective, the touring band often sounds better now than they did in the 90s when Al and Carl were still in the band. But a lot of that is simply due to Cowsill vs. Kowalski.

When was the last time you attended a full Mike & Bruce show, as opposed to checking out a few minutes of cell phone footage ? I've seen them in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2008, 2011, 2013 and 2014, and the standard has increased almost exponentially. Is it currently as good as 2012 ?  Of course not. Is it as good as Brian can be ?  Judgement call, I'd have to say Brian at his very best would edge them, but overall it'd be a photo finish. Hopefully we'll get a chance to compare over the next few months. As for being a cheap imitation of The Beach Boys... isn't that exactly what the band themselves were, by and large, from the late seventies ?

+1.

I mean, how many renditions of "I Get Around" and "Little Deuce Coupe", for example, played at utterly sluggish tempos that killed the groove of both entirely did fans endure at BB concerts during the 1980s and 1990s? Those two in particular in the 1980s and 1990s always sounded like they were being played for the first time during a rehearsal session intended to break in a couple of new band members who were altogether unfamiliar with BB music. They're supposed to be energetic mid-tempo songs and under Kowalski's reign they bordered on sounding like funeral dirges. Contrast that to Cowsill, who consistently brings that proto-proto-punk/young Dennis-Wilson vibe to all the surf and car songs in concert, and it's night and day. IMO, Cowsill is the best thing to happen in BB Land Drums since Ricky Fataar in the early 1970s.

As far as Mike & Bruce (or Brian, or Al and Brian, or Al, Brian and David, or Mike, Bruce and David or...) in general go, it is what it is (to use a cliche that I hate because it's absurd). The days of the real Beach Boys are long over, C50 notwithstanding. The end of such has arguably come about incrementally since the late 1970s -with particular low ebbs during 1983 and 1998 that effectively ended even the legitimate nostalgia of what was once a vital, living band. Today we have shifting and simmering factions of former Beach Boys and Beach Boys cohorts attempting to credibly recreate something without the unique chemistry of all or most of the other parties that made the original outfit what it was, and naturally the results are mixed and strained. That said, I still figure we should enjoy as best we can what we have here and now because the day will sadly come -probably sooner rather than later- when we will no longer have even that much in terms of touring BBs. (That happy thought aside, I do think the music itself will be around and have its ardent supporters for some time to come because, well, to use another cliche, the cream always rises to the top.)   

This person posted several quality videos of last night's show w/ David:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m25N1d_q830&list=UU2M6BVrNGCvlVRlS1WujjgQ

Also Bruce sings GOK here, listen for that keyboard note that he plays at the beginning.

The backing band or the touring band? Because if it's the latter, that's comical.

Not too shabby. California Girls is done too slowly, more than just a hair. Bruce overwhelms with his conducting. What about that note?

Has anyone ever figured out why Bruce doesn't really play his keyboard?

Yes, I noticed that, too. Scott T. or John C. are you out there? Are we just imagining it? ;D

SJS, several years ago I noticed this at a local show and wrote about it here. Scott T. answered the next day and said he timed it out with old performances and the original recording and that I was right, but only by a little bit. I stated that the music lives in my head and he said it does with him too. I guess he prefers the slowed down version, no matter how slight it is to him. You can fool some of the people some of the time.............

That was actually the first time I heard Bruce sing GOK.  He sounded great!

That's interesting. I appreciate when songs are performed at their original speed/time, but "California Girls" was always one of The Beach Boys' songs that I preferred slightly faster live. It seemed to rock more and get the people moving more. However, in all fairness, that's when they were opening with it, too, and the people were pumped and ready.

I agree. I kind of wish Mike and Bruce didn't pursue the use of the Carl Wilson recording after C50. It was a really special thing to do during that time in 2012, especially for Brian to be onstage with it. But it does seem to cheapen the concept a bit in this M&B setting.

When I saw them in OC last year they did this and I could hear the old woman next to me lean to her husband and go "Carl Wilson was the father, right?"........point being, probably about 90% of Mike and Bruce's usual crowd simply do not care.

Agreed on Cal. Girls, that and Catch a Wave always sounded better sped up to my ears.

Anyone have a set from either show with Dave so far?

Same thing happened to me when I saw them at the Puyallup Fair (Western Washington) circa '06. Mike mentioned Carl before GOK, and an elderly gentleman to my right asked me the same thing. What can you do? I politely explained.

The band has always marketed the music over the personalities. Kinda good in a way, kinda unfortunate.

Mike and Bruce a cheap imitation of the old band? I see where you're coming from but I disagree. Brian is Brian but I wouldn't say his gigs make me think 'oh that's what it would have been like 50 years ago'. I am 29 but I can't imagine that the original band were set up like Brian's band? To me Brian's gigs are a bit like a live version of Pet Sounds - Brian and a bunch of brilliant musicians, but not the fun and togetherness of the Beach Boys. There always seems to be something slightly missing and I think that may be stage presence.

I never saw any original line up gigs but I'd imagine that most of them in the mid 60s/late 70s at least would have been more like the current BB set up? I don't know, but I don't see anything wrong with what M&B are doing. They are playing BB songs at a very high standard and encouraging the crowd to have fun. I don't personally see how that could possibly ruin any legacy at all. Constant in-fighting and public spats however.....

I agree.

Ive seen Brian a smattering of times over the last 5 years as well as M+B. I think they are both good shows and very similar when it all boils down.

Mike and Bruce seem like they want to play the hits and get the crowd really engaged and every now and then throw in a couple surprises but it's very predictable and I'm not sure if I will ever see them again.

Brian on the other hand I will probably see again if he is ever in the area. He seems like he is always having an off night and it really brings the show down for me.
This isn't just from shows I have seen either. The performance I see online almost seem identical. Brian not really playing the keys, or really even singing for that matter.
He plays a few more songs off of Pet Sounds than M+B but the setlist is typically very close and almost the same every time he comes through.

So I guess overall I am just trying to say that they are both way too similar and I don't get what all the hubbub is about.

Brian tends to get much better as the tour goes on, but still has his off nights. He was in control by the time I saw the Jeff Beck tour last Fall.

Well I kind of said that. Mike and Bruce's touring band are perfect for the masses. They probably play in front of hundreds of thousands of people every year, I personally don't have a problem with that many people getting to see "The Beach Boys".

The problem is I don't think they sound very good. I've seen Mike and Bruce's band twice, 2011 and 14, it was nice but the songs weren't represented very well live, that's my one issue...the band is limited, they literally butchered WIBN the last time I saw them.

But hey, those Mike and Bruce shows are a fun night out for 99.9% of people who attend those shows, I got no issue with that.

A 73 minute video of a recent show in very good sound quality:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMYEAfpPgsc

Something tells me the camera person might just be a Stamos fan.  ;)

Jeff sounds fine on Don`t Worry Baby but his falsetto is otherwise not to my tastes.

Forever dedicated to Nelson Bragg.

I don't have the time to watch now but seriously? :lol

Yep, a nice touch.  :)

Noticing from the video just posted that Al and Brian are again in photos shown on the screen. This wasn't the case earlier this year. I'm glad, because it's kind of strange seeing a world presented where the only Beach Boys ever were Mike, Carl, Dennis, and Bruce. Also I'm surprised to see they show the original WIBN 45 with the Wilson-Asher credit. You'd think Mike would've had his name photoshopped in there.  :lol

Sail On Sailor with an awesome lead by Cowsill: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXzSLM3ZWkc

I thought the issue was that Brian and Al didn't give permission for their photos to be used.  That must have changed?

I've heard him do it live, absolutely nails it!   On the other hand there was also a link to Sloop and WIBN and I think those are the 2 songs that Mike and Bruce are the weakest on.  It has to do with the lack of a strong lead vocalist. It sounded like Sloop was a combo of Bruce, Mike, and Stamos....

Cool photo from Mike's Facebook page:

(http://oi57.tinypic.com/2bnvr7.jpg)

I love the caps the guys wear and have quite a few of my own, but do you think if the Beatles were still around they'd be wearing hats with their logo?  It's either an ego thing or just trying to make sure everyone knows who they are!  For the record I loved the Beach Boys t-shirts Dennis used to wear (maybe grabbed from the merch stand?).

Here's the setlist from a show w/ David: http://www.setlist.fm/setlist/the-beach-boys/2014/the-mountain-winery-saratoga-ca-23ceb8d7.html

having viewed that concert I must say I am grateful for Jeff moving to the Mike&Bruce show. Somehow he sounds better there and is mixed more proportionately into the sound. The band sounds alive and energetic. Almost all the singing was solid! Hmm, they are coming to Trondheim, maybe I should check em out ^^

I saw them the night before, minus 11 of these songs, but with Still Cruisin added.  It was a fair, so I wasn't expecting a long setlist.  It was a very fun show, but looking forward to a longer setlist at Humphrey's in October!

Best Beach Boys drummers:

1. Dennis (drum tracks he cut in the studio always felt great. Live, even when sloppy he gave the band a much needed kick of the unpredictable.... He was also .... Dennis. Nuff said)
2. Cowsill (For all the awesome reasons folks have been posting about ..... I should put Nelson in there with him as well since they made such a great team for the C50 tour .... Nelson IS a great kit drummer
himself, I can tell you)
3. Bobby Figeroua (I just love his style. Perfect mix of finesse/technique and looseness. He kills it on POB and Bambu as well. Dennis himself didn't hire him for no reason.
4. Ricky Fattar .... The only reason he's not number 2 is because I much prefer Dennis or Cowsill on the "classic" stuff. Otherwise, he's likely the most awesome of the bunch.
5. Hal Blaine (I know I know, 5??? But a think a lot of his studio drumming with The Beach Boys is boring, with the exception of Kiss Me Baby, California Girls, Our Car Club.
6. Mike Kowalski (I know he's been getting slammed a bit, but he's great on a lot of boots from earlier periods. He got lazy or something later on)

Am I leaving anyone out?

Well, I do have to say that the reason they are wearing hats at all is mostly out of vanity. Mike is embarrassed of his baldness. No secret there. And apparently Dave feels the same. Because when he used to have his kinda greasy Italian-American pizza shop owner look in the '90s, he didn't seem to wear a hat as much. And to exemplify Dave's '90s look,  here's a photo...

(http://a1.ec-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/24/60f989071cf8557ef6c86fb9355a539c/l.jpg)


But now that he's bald he usually wears the hat. Which is odd because he actually looks decent without the hat. He was a handsome young guy, kinda looked like scumbag in his 40s and 50s, but actually looks like a pretty refined guy in his '60s. Actually so does Mike. And Mike's not fooling anybody. Anybody who can see him can tell he's bald.

Now Bruce on the other hand, he kinda just looks like sh*t these days. His hair seems to have thinned, but he doesn't seem to be balding at all, so he's not covering baldness. Maybe it's just the grayness. Or to have solidarity with Mike. Regardless, Bruce's "hat look" really isn't a good look for him. He manages to make himself look even cheesier than he usually does without one. Which is quite an accomplishment.

(http://chb.live.mediaspanonline.com/assets/341998/Image-2-Column---New-bruce-johnston.jpg)

*Also funny is that the above photo was usually the one news outlets used when they reported Bruce's asinine comments about President Obama.

Hey, to quote Mike: "We can't all be Wilsons"  >:D


Just look at the head of hair on this handsome son of a gun!

(http://i57.tinypic.com/2mmcv9j.jpg)

Ahem

(http://southdakotamagazine.com/pub/photo/thumb/JohnStamos_fitbox_350x350.jpg)

No way would they wear hats with their logo on it. You don't see The Who or the Stones doing it either.

Brooth looks like a dork hat or no hat. Dave looks pretty cool with the Fender hat he wears. I thought Mike looked best in the hats he was wearing in the 60's. The logo ball cap looks cheesy.

I thought I put the word "best" in there someplace ;)

If the actual Beach Boys can't wear caps with their logo, who should wear them?
I love when they wear those caps!

Mike looks great without a cap. Too bad he didn't go for that hatless look in the last couple decades or so.

Agree with your list, Pinder.
Regarding Kowalski dragging the tempos, it should be noted that it was Carl who counted and set the pace. Apparently, the idea to slow down songs like Fun Fun Fun while hurrying Surfer Girl was his. Kowalski, even in his prime when he was a sort of virtuoso, favored a questionable cymbal-dominated beat.

I used to love seeing the hats, still do, but can't help feeling that it should be fans wearing them not the group.  It comes across as 'hey, we're the Beach Boys in case you're wondering'.  Especially when they do it at awards shows and such like. In concert is fine but elsewhere it seems like it's an insecurity thing.  Like when Mike always feels the need to mention 'cousin Brian, or hanging out with the Beatles in India.  I guess a lot of people wouldn't know who they were otherwise, unlike say the Beatles, the Stones or the Who.  They also used to wear some cool Nike hats in the 80s and 90s.

I feel it should also be mentioned that Pete Townshend is bald as sh*t, but he's confident enough not to have to wear a hat like ever.

No, Bruce is balding, hides it pretty well though most of the time....
(http://ph.cdn.photos.upi.com/slideshow/lbox/fa68479128ac9d9d5e1754ebf3e72aff/MLB-DODGERS-PIRATES.jpg)
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/04/12/article-2128545-128C7F7F000005DC-672_634x404.jpg)

Anyone have any video of David doing a lead with M&B recently?

Wow, so he is. I still don't think that's the reason for the hats. He seems to have been wearing the hats on stage since the early '90s at least. And I don't get why. It's not a good look for him. But as I said earlier, he's aged pretty horribly. Which is usually the case for baby-faced people like him. They manage to still very young look for a long time, but when time finally catches up, boy do they look shitty!

Bruce also seems to have stopped dying his hair since the C50 tour. All throughout the 2013/2014 shows I've seen, it's been white popping out of that hat....not "McCartney Brown"  :lol

Ah yes, Bruce's hair....phew! Honestly, Macca's hair doesn't bother me. Obviously he's dying it, but it just seems to come off so much better than Bruce's. Bruce's that totally unnatural orangish brown. Compare....Paul's looks like an older guy with a dye job. Bruce's looks like grandma's quick shitty dye job.

(http://alloveralbany.com/images/paul_mccartney.jpg) (http://www2.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Bruce+Johnston+54th+Annual+GRAMMY+Awards+Press+Bp4szQVGQzPl.jpg)

Man, the fellas are getting old. Better than the alternative, though. As a 45 year old guy myself, I can testify that getting old sucks.

I dunno, I don't think they look that bad for guys in between their late 60s and their mid 70s. I definitely know some people who aren't even that old that look much worse.

No hats changes everything. Brian and Al look way younger once all hats are removed.

Having had a Mike-like hairdo since I was in my late 20's, like my dad, caps or hats of one kind or another have been a long, long part of my daily routine. First of all, being outside in the hot sun without one is asking for all kinds of trouble (I don't wear one inside). At the same time, since I don't really like this horseshoe hair style all that much, as in: not at all, yes, a topper takes care of that to a certain degree, and a nice non-baseball type lid can be fairly stylish as well. At some point, they just become part of your persona, like it has with Mike, Bruce and Dave for whatever reason. Has nothing to do with vanity or ego or confidence, simply what you're comfortable with - or want to do.  If Pete Townshend doesn't feel the need to wear a cap, well bully for him. Doesn't mean a thing and it really shouldn't concern us.

Quit hating on those who live with male pattern baldness! That's hairism!

 First of all, are we certain all of Paul's hair is actually his?

 Second, Bruce looks good for a guy in his early seventies. Not a great dye job to be sure though.

 Third, yes Mike's occasional hatless looks in the early 70's were cool. He did have a wisp or two of hair left on his forehead in those days.

I say this completely genuinely: When Mike goes without the hat, he looks quite dignified. I recall being taken aback that he went hat-less when interviewed for a 2000 ABC TV special on the Beatles, I think it was called something generic like "The Beatles Revolution."

He doesn't seem to be opposed to being photographed or interviewed without a hat. As to why he uses "Beach Boys" hats, I've had several people, non-fans, comment that they find that kind of funny and tacky. Yes, Dennis did wear BB shirts in the 70's and 80's. But I always imagined in my mind that that was more of an off-the-cuff thing, like Dennis just showed up to gigs with no shirt and they would just snag him a shirt from the concession stand.  :lol

As for McCartney, I don't think anyone has anything definitive. I've seen suggestion of some sort of weave or something more than a wig. He makes fun of himself as far as dyeing his hair in one of his commentary tracks on his "McCartney Years" set. I think it was during his 1986 "Press" video, where he notes that he has some grey hair in that yet doesn't have any now.

His hair style has seemed to get more unruly in the last several years, which would make me think it's not a wig or weave. I remember when he cropped it close in the late 90's, and had it pretty short in the early 2000's as well. These days, I've seen him sometimes seeming starting to reform that epic circa-1976 Wings mullet.

Reminds me of a classic John Wayne quote, while lecturing at a radical college during the Vietnam war: a student looked pointedly at his head and asked loudly "is that real hair ?". The Duke replied "Yessir, that's real hair - ain't mine, but it's real hair".

Being both grey and bald, I have come to notice how other guys handle this fact of life.  A lot of dye is used and a lot of hats are worn, and sometimes we just let the bald and grey hang out.   Much more acceptable in this day and time.  Those commercials that sell hair replacement suggesting that being bald is unacceptable are as bad as the ones that tell women they need breast, buttox, and face lifts before going out in public.  Its ok to toy with looking younger  just for fun but folks shouldn't feel compelled to hide their true natural  appearance when it involves implants and surgery.
When Macca was asked about hair dyea few years back, he replied that he'd actually been engaging in that develish practice for years.  Straight up answer and I think the dye looks just fine on him.  Looks ok on me as well :smokin

McCartney's hair is his....he started dying it when he started touring solo in '89. It looked alright then and he would even leave some grey in. But now sometiems it looks a bit ridiculous being 72 with dark brown hair. Although, I can't imagine him waking up one day and saying sod it and going white....

It`s worked ok for Tom Jones though.  ;)

My Dad got to exchange a few words with McCartney briefly at a private event in 2005. He said he was shocked at how noticable his bald spot was.

I feel that Paul's hair looked better around 2007 not because he was younger, but he didn't dye it as much. Now, I feel like he drenches his hair with brown dye. Regarding Bruce, I don't think his hair is that bad but he definitely needs to lose the shorts and put some long pants on. I don't think anyone wants to see his "unique" legs.

Hey, I've got tix to M&B for tomorrow night at Provident Stadium in Rockland Co. NY.  The prediction is thunderstorms and possibly heavy rain.   Um, do they usually play in these conditions? 

No. Same thing last week.

http://www.ksfy.com/story/26217103/rain-washes-out-the-beach-boys-concert

Do Mike & Bruce/ BRI still get paid if the concert is canceled due to weather? 

I wonder why Mike and the others never invested in a good hair piece? Or is that just for old country and gospel singers?

I would imagine that would be written into the contracts with the promoters. But I would assume other than some sort of potential non-refundable advance/deposit paid to the band, the band wouldn’t get the bulk of proceeds if the show is canceled due to weather.

Pretty much every outdoor concert I’ve had tickets for says “Rain or Shine” on the ticket. Obviously, that doesn’t mean they won’t cancel if weather is bad enough.

But I’m sure various contingencies are written into tour contracts. Sometimes they will reschedule, which doesn’t necessitate as many refunds being paid out, etc.

Many festival/outdoor venue contracts stipulate that if the show is canceled due to weather, and if the performer is present and ready to perform, the performer gets pain in full. Others will state that the event will be rescheduled with the artist.

Wow, that's a bit severe, isn't it? ;)

No pain, no gain.

(http://oi60.tinypic.com/jb3bs7.jpg)

LOL! Some venues are tougher than others.

I saw the Everly Brothers, it started raining, the tempo got faster on every song after that!

Prince doing the halftime show at the Super Bowl a few years ago - soaking rain/downpour, equipment getting drenched, he kept going. Made for a cool visual. Actually, so did that old concert video of U2 Live at Red Rocks around '83, the raindrops falling down the camera lens created a cool visual, along with the cloudy-foggy conditions in general.

Seriously, though: That's in every performance contract from local bands to major artists, usually the conditions including cancellation due to "acts of nature" like severe weather are listed, and sometimes short of rescheduling the band will still get a percentage of their fee even if the venue was unable to stage the show due to weather or other unforeseen events.

Finally a picture of Mike that doesn't make me think, "damn he's getting old"

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bu4i7XKIUAEcjcG.jpg)

That's because of the colourful chicks.

  Can you begin to imagine how badly Mike would be ridiculed if he ever sported a hairpiece? He'd never hear the end of it!

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TdpCUkUjdP0/TsQdYovulJI/AAAAAAAADCs/N0gsXk0a7B4/s1600/Alec+Guinness+Star+Wars.PNG)


 ;D

The Atlanta Symphony Orchestra owns the Verizon Wireless Amphitheatre (profits fund the orchestra).  It is a 12,000 seat venue that books a lot of major acts.  I went to an engagement where the keynote speaker was the ASO CFO.  He stated that for many acts the competition is so fierce that payment is guaranteed, even if the act itself cancels.

Went to the M&B show last night was fantastic, also they added Keep An Eye On Summer to the set and it was fantastic! great lead by Jeff

Keep an eye on summer is just one of the most beautiful songs th Beach Boys ever did! Great to see it getting some recognition

I see Getcha Back was played at Newport, who took the lead?

Mike sang it this afternoon in Webster, Mass. I loved hearing it, but it might have been the least tight song of the set.

Any surprises in the set?

'Stolen' from Mike's Facebook page. ;D

(http://oi61.tinypic.com/bfg75j.jpg)

Pretty good set

Saw M&B this afternoon at Indian Ranch in Webster MA. As far as M&B shows go, this one was the BEST one I've seen (seen M&B ten times). Wow!! Great Concert!! Scott Totten was kickin' some serious ass on the leads, and Jeff Foskett sounded incredible! I was lucky enough to meet Foskett after the show. What a great guy! He autographed my ticket stub and even told me that he liked my Pacific Ocean Blue T-Shirt. Thanks Jeff!! Also I picked up a copy of the Beach Boys On Tour 1966 book which Bruce Johnston autographed apparently a few minutes before I bought it. Score!! I gotta tell you guys, the band was incredible today! Mike Love (wearing a loud orange shirt and matching shoes) was spot on. Cowsill was a powerhouse! I haven't seen the Beach Boys since the 50th Reunion, and even though I knew I was going to have a good time I didn't know HOW GOOD OF A TIME I WAS GONNA HAVE! The band rocked harder than I was expecting them to. Ambah Love joined the band for Darlin which was really cool. Bruce was his usual self, clowning around and making us laugh. Good times all around! Now that I'm home and in my jammies I'm going to enjoy my On Tour 1966 book. Have a good night everybody!  8)

That setlist ain't too shabby. It's at least better than Brian's. Mike seems to really love Goin' to the Beach so much that he plays it at every show but didn't release it in the 80's.  :-D

Yeah, it was a great set. Good To My Baby, Keep An Eye On Summer, Betsy, Kiss Me Baby and Getcha Back were nice surprises. I could have done without Surf City, but all in all, it was a great show. Watching Mike, it looks like he could do this for another 10 years.

Al's name wasn't mentioned at all. The only time they mentioned Brian was when Bruce intro'd Foskett, saying the Beach Boys got him back from Brian's band. Bruce mentioned Carl a couple times before and after singing God Only Knows. When Bruce went into "Do You Wanna Dance," he yelled out "Dennis Wilson!"

Foskett adds a great voice and some needed history to the touring band. Scott's an incredible guitarist and sounded great vocally on Betsy, Wouldn't It Be Nice, Fools and Sloop. Cowsill's a fantastic drummer and took leads on Rhonda and California Dreamin. Blends really well in the vocal mix overall. Randall took lead on When I Grow Up, which fits his voice very well.

Bruce had leads on Summer Means Fun, God Only Knows and Do You Wanna Dance, and he took Brian's lead on Surfer Girl.

If there's one corny thing I could do without (I've accepted "rev up the hot rods one more time" and Mike's "wheeeeeeeeeeen," it would be Scott playing guitar over a random girl during Barbara Ann.)

The crowd, which was older, in general, was really into the show. I think the band really shines on some of the older songs. The car medley at the end is so tight.

I think the audience was a little hesitant when Ambha was called to the stage, but as soon as she started singing, they were clearly impressed. I thought she sounded great on Darlin'.

Where'd ya get the Pacific Ocean Blue t-shirt? 

Here's some:  http://www.ebay.com/itm/291122779693       

.

.

That would very possibly be his random wife.  :)

Mike's daughter probably sings Darlin' in a different key than Cowsill.

I don't remember the seller but I bought it on the internet around six years ago.

I was looking for one myself a couple of weeks ago.

http://www.ebay.de/itm/DENNIS-WILSON-T-SHIRT-Beach-Boys-Pacific-Ocean-Gene-Clark-Big-Star-Neil-Young-/291122779693?pt=UK_Men_s_T_Shirts&var=&hash=item43c845162d

It was not the Mike and Bruce show when I saw them in Georgia last month. It was the Mile, Bruce, and Uncle Jesse show. And let me tell you. I've never seen so many females, from late teens to post-menopausal go nuts for a man like they did Stamos.

It was a different woman than this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGOaBOoD7NI

I asked a band member about the written out keys once, and he said that historically there'd been some screwups (my word, not his) regarding those particular songs. Therefore, they are always written out. Re: Darlin', I'd say RubberSoul is right

Here are some videos from Webster:

Ambha Love on "Darlin": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJXkBT9PJ9k
Car Medley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZsMgePpQIM
Dance, Dance, Dance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U1P1tEvp2I
Bruce on God Only Knows: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crIdm_b7ZvA
Why Do Fools Fall In Love: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZZfkqTforE
First 15 minutes of the set: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0NzyNa2hcw
Betsy + Car Medley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0Nj50Ly5S0

Here's some soundcheck slips from June that I haven't seen posted:

Disney Girls: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ztBiMQQnTM&list=UUNxn7DKpUfHX8kUO_QE7UTw
Please Let Me Wonder: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWI6aaWqBgk&list=UUNxn7DKpUfHX8kUO_QE7UTw
Kiss Me Baby: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iAwRYL72RE&list=UUNxn7DKpUfHX8kUO_QE7UTw&index=4

I've always loved Bruce on Please Let Me Wonder, although I haven't caught it live in concert in over 20 years but he's still got it. Slightly different take on it than Brian but right up there.

Also he really loves that song, which adds something to it.

Bruce did an excellent job on this last month when I saw them. It was the highlight/surprise of the show for me.

He sings it with a different kind of soul than Brian. However, I prefer the version I heard on C50 with Brian taking the lead.

Is that his random wife too?

I like Ambah's take on "Darlin", but it's a little weird hearing her sing "I was livin like half a man..." :lol

Don't tell a soul, but... Scotty's a closet Mormon, hence the term "random wife"...  ;D

Seriously, everytime I've seen him do that it's been Mrs. T, but then that would be on a UK tour.

Getcha Back w/ Mike back on lead: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAJ37Qac0T0&list=UUT7P5w8eHXOyNdPRYsE0vvg

Good to hear that Mike is singing that one again...really don`t like Jeff`s falsetto on it though.

Mike doing the ice bucket challenge...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jp-lHils0_Q

I clicked that link prepared to be rickrolled, but I wasn't!  :o

Fair play , but at least Mike didn't get his hair wet  :lol

For a guy who gets ragged on constantly Mike Love is a good sport a lot of the time.

Mike seems to be a fun enough guy when he's in his own element, doing what he wants, on his terms. I don't mean that in a derogatory way at all. It's frankly the only thing that doesn't make me ill about the reunion lineup breaking up. If Mike really is *that* off-put by doing things the way they were on C50, then it does indeed make more sense to not force any of these guys to be together, and let him do his own thing.

You realise you can substitute "Brian" for "Mike" without invalidating the truth of that sentence by one iota ?  :)

I don't really care much for Ambha Love's vocal on Darlin. She sounds a bit off key to me, and a bit too loud. She's still young, so hopefully her voice will improve a bit more with some training.

I think that kind of goes without saying. Nearly everyone on the face of the planet is more comfortable doing everything the way they want, on their own terms. The difference, which I was trying to avoid going into in great detail (in order to avoid another A versus B debate about band members), is that some people still are able to be their same selves when having to compromise, and/or let someone else be in charge, etc. Not just “put up” with it, or tolerate it.

In other words, Jardine or Johnston or Marks for instance don’t have to own the license, pick the setlist, pick the band members, be the band leader, pick the type of venues, etc. in order to be happy and not gripe about being in the band. I would also argue that Brian, while needing a laundry list of conditions in order to function, especially on the road, does so in part not out of ego, but out of simply the fragility of what it takes to get him out there. Is that a double standard? Arguably, yes. But when you’re the guy responsible for the group, you get that benefit of the doubt sometimes.

The point is, I see that Mike is less ill-at-ease doing his own thing. He even pretty much admits as much. He has said in numerous interviews that he likes doing things his own way. He doesn’t just prefer the logistical setup of his band. He prefers that that setup is *his*. He set it up, he runs it, he answers to no one. His interviews read a bit more like “Hey, Brian likes vanilla, I like chocolate, Al likes unflavored ice milk, we’re all just doing our own thing.” The difference is that Mike likes his thing because it’s his own thing. Post C-50, the one difference is that Brian and Al didn’t prefer to go back to their own thing (and in the case of Al, he has usually not been doing his own thing by choice; but rather due to lack of anything else to do). In that moment, their preference was not doing something simply because they would be in charge and run everything. They wanted to do another round of staying together, compromising, maybe doing a few things here and there that weren’t their preference, because that was still ultimately what they thought would be best.

More to the point, I don’t see the same tone and personality changes in Al or Brian (or Dave or Bruce) between C50 and post-C50 that I see in Mike. To come back around to my original point in my previous post, which truly wasn’t meant as a weird backhanded compliment, my point was that I accept and acknowledge that Mike is happier when everything goes his way, on his terms, and that’s the most acceptable, legitimate reason from a fan perspective that I can think of to find the end of the reunion palatable.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, but Brian used to say stuff about "doing his own thing" and "calling the shots" with his band in the late 90's and early 2000's. Why is Mike always signaled out for this stuff? I don't believe he has a monopoly on liking to do things his own way.

My previous post points out that inherently pretty much everybody likes things their own way. I’m not sure how you could take away from that statement that I feel anyone has a monopoly on feeling that way.

Brian’s band isn’t called “The Beach Boys”, e.g. the same band name as the band that toured in 2012. That’s one difference. One could argue there is inherently more room (and I’m not talking about legalities) for Brian Wilson to be in charge of a tour that goes by the name “Brian Wilson.”

But again, my original point wasn’t to criticize Mike for liking things his own way. I was pointing out that this was a practical reason for feeling the reunion should have or had to end. If Mike supporters (or whatever we want to call various opinions and factions) feel this still is not fair enough to Mike, I’m not sure what else I’m supposed to say. Even Mike has said he likes doing things his own way. I didn’t even mention Brian or any other members in my original post talking about this point regarding Mike.

I was, believe it or not, trying to not let it devolve into the typical Brian vs. Mike debate. It’s easy to go down that road.

For instance, I don’t believe the “calling the shots” factor is the same for Brian and Mike (and certainly not for the other guys). Case in point: The C50 tour was a compromise. They all got some things they wanted, and had to do a few things differently than they would have on their own. At the end of it, who wanted to continue that way and who wanted to end it and go back to their own thing?

I think it`s fair to say that Brian had a fair amount more of what he wanted though...

I do agree with the idea that the reason the end of the C50 tour is more palatable to some people is because they feel that it could only continue if they all wanted it to which is the way it has been for a long time.

Perhaps from the outside it appears Brian got more of what he wanted. But he and Mike had an equal stake in the production company. Further, what each faction wanted as it relates to what fans like or want isn't to be totally ignored either. The seemingly Brian-invoked conditions like using mostly his band is not something that many fans tended to disagree with.

We can also deduce from Mike's current setup some of the possible things he would change as compared to C50, and none of the things I can see are preferable to C50 from a fan perspective. There are no doubt MANY things behind the scenes that are preferable for him. And that's fine. It also means it will be characterized as such by some fans. It is an operation that is run the way he wants, to his preference, and theoretically at least occurring in contrast to a full reunion setup preferable to many fans and by all accounts still highly beneficial to all band members. Just not beneficial enough for some.

To be honest, I was trying to get back to your original point and you seem to be moving further away from it.  ;)

Your point seemed to be, `Mike enjoys doing his current thing with Bruce and that is one factor as to why some can understand why the C50 stuff didn`t continue`.

Exactly. As I mentioned before, I didn’t mention any other band members in my original post. It was indeed meant to stand on its own. It was a hugely obvious point to make, but I thought worth making in an attempt to find the C50 demise somehow more palatable.

It has since been met with a couple of “what about Brian?” type of comments. I’ve been addressing those, because people seem to not be able to accept the premise of my original thought without having to add an addendum concerning Brian. I commented on Mike. I didn’t single him out. The thread is about his band.

I’m happy to delve into the (often admittedly tired and repetitive) comparisons between the Brian and Mike, or between any band members. We know enough about these guys, so we’re able to make relatively well-informed comparisons. But my original point was one of those times where no comparisons or contrasts had to be drawn, and I didn’t. Those came from others, and if others need to immediately invoke a “Brian does it too!” defense for some reason, I’m happy to have that discussion too and point out where I feel the comparison is apt and where it isn’t.

Geez, really that obvious? Not really. Mike's license allows him to put together, hire who he wants in the touring band. BRI has nothing to do with that. Mike calls the shots. C50 was a different animal, either outside Mike's license or a specialty added to it for a finite time. Mike did give up partial control for the C50 Tour. Brian basically got his whole backing band included, had input on the setlists that Mike would have had 100% control over in his license. When the C50 Tour was over, it reverted back to Mike's license and he calls all the shots again. Because Mike has a license from BRI, that is how it affects on the Beach Boys name.

The obvious point involved Mike preferring to do things his own way, as most people do. I'm not sure why the license situation, which we all understand well, is even being referenced.

The reason Mike pursued and continues to use the license is because he likes to do things his own way. That's the only way the license relates at all to what I originally addressed.

That may be overstating it a bit. Being able to use the name to tour doesn't give one member the authority to stage the show any way he may choose - meaning if someone got the rights to tour as the Beach Boys, and chose to present a show full of non-Beach Boys cover songs or even radical reworkings or rearrangements of Beach Boys songs to the point where they strayed from the original sound of those songs that fans paid to hear, BRI as the owner of that name I think would have the control over that name enough to suspend the license. It would be on the grounds that the name Beach Boys was being used to sell tickets for a show that wasn't giving fans what they were paying to see, which was a Beach Boys show. I know similar agreements are in place with many touring and "name" bands, where use of the name is not an absolute ownership of that name, and whatever entity has control of the name has to present that band's music in a certain way to comply with their agreement to headline shows under that band's name.

I'm just saying that because allowing Mike or any other band member or family member going forward to use the name Beach Boys does not give that entity absolute control over that name and the power to present whatever they want on stage.

I believe that was a pretty strong condition made in the agreements, so it wouldn't become a situation where the brand name could be used to present just anything on stage as the Beach Boys, including poor-quality shows or even a revue type of show where the setlists and the songs didn't reflect what the brand name represented.

And I could be wrong, but I believe BRI still has the ownership enough to suspend the license if such things were to happen. And this goes beyond Mike or anyone else in 2014, and was probably looking ahead to a situation like the "Glenn Miller Orchestra" or Elvis' "TCB Band" staging live shows decades after the namesake of the show has passed away. The estates and owners still have control over what gets presented under those artists' name, and are very specific about using original arrangements and the like so it doesn't get ugly for fans and the reputation alike.

So it's not entirely a situation where Mike or anyone else could decide to stage a show full of 50's doo-wop and pop covers and call it the Beach Boys. BRI could step in and say "that's not representative of the name" and suspend it. I think.  :)

The license is what allows him to do things his own way, otherwise everyone within BRI would have the power to say who is in the touring band, who's not, who the backup musicians are, etc. The license is the device that allows Mike to have full control of the touring band.

I am sure Mike has to stay within the limits of the license, but I'd bet he has leeway to pick what he wants song-wise that was recorded by the band. He has included others like the Duke of Earl that was never covered by the band, yet stayed in the setlist for quite a few years. He has never abused it, so really has never been an issue.

All good points. There are certainly “terms” to the license. How strictly they are enforced, and how specific those terms were written, we of course don’t know.

I do recall that back circa 1999, one of the articles on the band name “issues” included BRI citing cases of Jardine having female singers on stage, performing songs that weren’t “representative” of the band’s image (which couldn’t have been anything beyond deep cuts like “Lookin’ at Tomorrow”, etc.), and for shows being advertised in a misleading fashion.

At that time, BRI obviously had a specific interest in seeking out these potential violations and citing them. These days, with nobody else vying for the license (as far as we know), we do not see BRI citing Mike having his daughter sing on stage, or Mike performing deep cuts like Al was in 1999, or for the couple of instances of Mike’s shows being promoted with pictures, etc. of the C50 lineup.

There would have to, I’m guessing, be a huge, obvious, heinous violation for BRI to scrape up any interest among the other members in taking any action. So yes, if Mike started performing nothing but AC/DC songs, or had a stripper on stage every night, maybe then something would happen.

Yeah, I was sensing that this was the road you were heading down. I simply disagree your premise, because it starts with Mike having the exclusive license, and then tries to reason out why he does everything his way. In that scenario, then of course it’s a simple as can be. Mike has the license, and the license allows him to do things his own way.

The problem is, this doesn’t address why he has the license in the first place. The license was not thrust upon him unwillingly. Mike SOUGHT the license, and did so I believe precisely because he wanted to do things his own way. There is evidence of this pattern even when Al and Carl were still in the band. Bits of this are described in the Marks/Stebbins book and I believe Stebbins’ FAQ book. It is also addressed in Peter Ames Carlin’s book. There was a continued pattern of wanting to the run the band his way, and slowly he accomplished this both through action and circumstance.

Mike doesn’t do things his way because the license landed in his lap and thus allows him to, or forces him to be in charge. He wanted to do things his way, then procured the license in order to accomplish that, and now can do things the way he wants to. I’m not sure why it’s objectionable to point out that he wants full control and wants to do everything his own way.  

He or anyone else with the license to use the name has to stay within limits because they do not own the name, and do not have full control over how it is presented. BRI as the owner still has "ownership", which I believe gives them veto power if the show being presented as the Beach Boys is determined not to be up to standard. And keep in mind, I believe this was also set up for the future situations where there may not be any original members available to tour under that name, and the name could potentially be licensed to any number of family members or even band members as has been done with other "name" bands. It gets into potentials beyond the present situation to prevent the official Beach Boys touring name from being a local tribute band using the name to sell substandard shows.

With C50, as we all know, when you had all surviving original members on stage and on board, there had to be a give and take where Mike or anyone else would not have the absolute "power" as it was suggested to dictate what songs, what musicians, what kind of show in general would be presented. Otherwise, I doubt the other members and even additional band members would have signed on in the first place if it were a case of Brian, Al, and David essentially joining Mike's existing band for these shows and being told what would happen. There had to be compromises.

I'm just mentioning all this because there seemed to be some confusion between buying rights to use the name through licensing and billing live shows and actually owning or even controlling the use of that name. In a corporate and legal sense, BRI still owns and therefore ultimately controls the name "Beach Boys" and how it is used, and in this case it is specifically for live shows.

Maybe it can be simplified by comparing it to any franchise. There are people who buy into the franchise and become owners, but they are still legally and financially bound to follow whatever the franchisers and owners of the name have in place as standards for that business. If you buy into a McDonalds franchise, you're buying into the selling power and distribution/procedure elements of that name, but you're not able to decide whether to change how the Big Mac is made or even how the interior looks without approval. And if you fall below the standards of that company, they can strip you of the franchise.

The license has very specific terms that cover pretty much every aspect of advertising, performing, revenue, and the division thereof, and they are very strictly enforced. Obviously there's a degree of leeway regarding setlists but otherwise the terms are inflexible. To break them would be to risk forfeiting the license.

Of course. To not spell all the terms out in explicit detail would be irresponsible.

The terms would only be as inflexible as BRI's willingness to take any action, especially when it comes to minor infractions. I'm by no means suggesting there's any way the license is not being abided by.

But I'm also not convinced BRI, which includes Mike himself, and a group otherwise unmotivated to change the status quo, would take serious action against minor potential infractions.

It's all theoretical hypothetical gobbledygook of course. I'm just talking in general about contract breaches versus enforcement of breaches.

Considering the reports of BRI having not undertaken any vote on the license since 1999 or 2000, we really don't know how firmly the license terms are enforced, especially the ones that might be subjective (set list, stage setup, wardrobe, etc.) if present in the license terms.

Of course he has power, as long as he stays within the limits of the license. Just like gf2000 said, like a McDonald's franchise. You must stay in the limits of the agreement, but you have some leeway as to who is hired to cook the food and wait at the counter. Just have to wear the same uniform. ;)

Of course there are terms to the license, and probably very specific terms. That goes without saying; that's not even an issue. But whether Mike stringently adheres to those terms, or more relevantly, whether some of the BRI members even care or monitors the situation is another question.

I assume that Al is pretty aware of what Mike is doing with The Beach Boys. But, before the C50 tour, I wonder if Brian Wilson could name ALL of the members of the then Beach Boys band. As far as the setlists, I doubt that Brian or Carl's estate are checking them on even a casual basis. The same goes for the venues they (Mike & Bruce) are playing. I think one reason they don't monitor it is because they trust Mike. Does anybody think that Mike EVER has to defend or explain what he is doing? Who cares other than Al? I think the main reason they don't care is because money continues to be directly deposited into their checking accounts. It was mentioned above in this thread I believe, but, once the ticket sales are affected - in other words $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ - then BRI will start to look at the Christian Loves of the world and the performances of "Duke Of Earl".

Let me ask, who do you think is not up to par in the touring band that anyone in BRI would question? Isn't all of this moot if Mike is performing pretty much what the Beach Boys were doing in 1996 when both Carl & Al were still there? As for the Duke of Earl or Sherry, what is wrong with playing two songs that Mike or Bruce might happen to like? In the 60's they were doing the Wanderer and Runaway when by that time they had more than enough of their own material to do a show.

To answer your question, and to be perfectly clear, it's not who I think would "be in question", but who anyone in BRI would question. I really don't care what they do anymore. However, the only one in BRI who I think would ever challenge the license would be Al, and I DON'T THINK HE WILL EVER formally or officially make a challenge. He knows he can't win. The money will always defeat him. He'll take cheap shots in the media instead.

Just to play devil's advocate, one could've questioned the merits of Mike Kowalski, Christian Love ('s onstage presence, or lack of), and Ahmba Love's singing talent (or lack of). But again, it wasn't going to affect the license, nothing significant was ever gonna come out of that, and it never will. Eventually ALL of The Beach Boys will be replaced by Loves, Wilsons, and Jardines anyway.

Hey, drbeachboy, I basically agree with you. Giving the license to Mike was hardly a gamble. It was more like business as usual.

As far as shows go, Mike is the most recognizable member of the band. Most front-men are. Christian was a backup band member, he doesn't have to have a lot of stage presence. I don't see Scott or Randall having a lot either. Ahmba's a guest, usually for one song and has no bearing on the band itself. Man, we do nit-pick. And it is "Business as usual", mainly due to it being a business. You put the people in place that will make you the most money. From everything I have ever read, the Boys have always been in it for the money. It is/was a big lifestyle that is supported by the music, that is for sure. ;)

If Al had paid the money there would have been no problem though imo.

I'm not so sure. If Al had no license, then there would be no reason to cite what he was doing. I remember those issues with Al's show being raised as items that were not allowed in a licensed Beach Boys band.

I haven't been able to track down that Rolling Stone article from 1999. It had some interesting info. It had a manager, as I recall, acknowledging that a member (not Al) was refusing to appear on stage with Carl "out of love" due to his condition. It also had the manager saying something like "Mike only has a few years left of touring left in him." That was 15 years ago.

The only time there may be a BRI business interest in the setlists would be if fans in significant numbers started to complain that they weren't getting the Beach Boys music they had bought tickets and even expected to see the Beach Boys band play live. Then, it becomes a case of whoever holds the name rights possibly trying to promote or sell something other than the Beach Boys musical image to a group of fans who expect to hear certain things from that name band. It's very similar again to how I mentioned the "name bands" like the Glenn Miller Orchestra - still playing shows 70 years after Miller himself passed away. The music and the original band book of arrangements sells the tickets. If the Miller band started playing something other than In The Mood and Moonlight Serenade and started doing doo-wop, they'd probably get a cease and desist order because it's not what they agreed to play when they "bought" the name rights.

Would that *ever* happen with the Beach Boys in the near future? I doubt it, it's just for discussion purposes.

At the same time, the C50 tour may have touched on some of these issues regarding what to play and what not to play, where perhaps Mike's idea of a setlist from *his* shows combined with Brian's ideas of a setlist from *his* shows could have been up for discussion and compromise. Who knows, but the possibility is there.

And at that point, even though Mike had the rights to the name, the fact that Brian-Al-David were there along with various backing musicians from their camps may have removed some of Mike's ability to be make the final calls on setlists and other show decisions. Again, such a deal to even allow all the members to join forces had to touch on some of these things ahead of time so there wasn't a major butting of heads before every show regarding final word - it probably had to be a group decision (and compromise).

I'm thinking too it had to be set up so it was almost a separate entity apart from the band Mike was fronting before and continues to front after C50, and of course short of seeing the full agreements and everything else that can only be assumed what went into all of that.

Well, yes there would.

The whole point of the lawyer`s arguments at the time was to show that having a band out there called, `Beach Boys Family and Friends` was confusing people as they thought they were going to see the genuine Beach Boys and that Al shouldn`t be able to use that name without paying. If he`d paid then there`s no way that Carl`s estate and or Brian`s people would have been bothered about Carnie or Wendy being onstage imo.

They certainly wouldn`t have been bothered about the setlist as Mike`s band were doing things like Sherry, Duke of Earl, I Saw Her Standing There, Pasadena, Summer in Paradise at the time.

Honestly, anybody who thought that a band billing itself as "the Beach Boys" and a band billing itself as "Beach Boys Family and Friends" must be incredibly stupid.

That lawsuit against Al was completely unjustified.

BRI didn’t want another person out there using the BB trademark without a license. So the issue would be whether one has the license or not. If they don’t have a license, it doesn’t matter whether they are perfectly abiding by the terms of the license or completely subverting the terms.

I think the reason all that stuff was brought up regarding Al’s band was two-fold: It was just general negative stuff to build a case against him (e.g. not only does he not have a license, but he’s also shirking the responsibilities that would go along with a license). But also, Al was arguing in 1999 that he had a valid license, and then made the sort of side-argument that essentially amounted to “I’ve got a valid license, but if you decide that I don’t, then I don’t need one and never needed one anyway.” This is not a legally invalid argument in theory, you can argue two sort of opposing points like that. Al obviously ultimately failed in one or both of these arguments.

In some of the court documents, even the court itself seems to leave it ambiguous and/or not be clear as to whether Al may have had a somehow valid license in 1999. I think both sides never got to fully argue that point, because once the exclusive license was executed and the injunctions against Al using the BBFF name were finally starting to be granted, it didn’t matter anymore.

But I think the issues raised (female singers, setlist, etc.) were raised as it pertained to the terms of a license, because in 1999 BRI had to not only argue that he didn’t have a license, but in the event that the court somehow ruled in favor of Al’s contention that he did have a valid license in 1999, BRI would need to show that he was violating the terms of that license.

Separate from all of this, none of that “non-exclusive” license stuff would have been feasible long term. Even if Al had paid for a non-exclusive license, and even if BRI hadn’t been a stickler on the details of the license and not bugged Al about having female singers and a “weird” setlist, the two bands touring at the same time wouldn’t have worked. I think BRI within short order would have specifically voted to change the set up to one exclusive licensee (which is kind of what they did end up doing anyway), to avoid confusion and dilution of the trademark. If that hadn’t happened, there was already allegedly pressure being exerted on venues/promoters to not book Al’s band and book Mike’s instead. I have a vague recollection of an alleged case as early as 1999 of Al shows were being booked, then the venues/promoters would cancel Al’s band and book Mike’s instead. (Yes, I realize one could argue this was not at the behest of anybody and the venue was simply changing around to booking the “real” “Beach Boys”).

I don`t really think so...

Now Al can bill himself as `founder member of The Beach Boys` but he can`t seem to get bookings in the same way that he could when he could use the former name. That indicates there was obviously confusion out there about what people were getting.

I guess it all depends on how profitable it would have been. I really don`t imagine that dilution of the trademark would have mattered that much if they were bringing money in. And if any pressure was exerted then I guess it was because Al was using promoters not approved by BRI.

Al must have been confused and feeling a bit stupid also. As a member of BRI he was suing himself. :lol

Love v. Jardine headed to trial
4:00 AM PST 02/01/2007 by Associated Press, AP

The Beach Boys used to sing about endless summers. These days, at least two of them seem to be caught up in endless litigation.

The latest round came Tuesday when a judge rejected Beach Boys' singer Mike Love's motion to rule in his favor in Love's lawsuit against former bandmate Al Jardine. Instead, Superior Court Judge James R. Dunn ruled there was sufficient evidence for the matter to go to trial.

Dunn didn't immediately set a trial date, but Jardine's lawyer, Lawrence Noble, said he told attorneys for both sides to get in touch with him by the end of February to let him know the status of the dispute.

"The judge will then decide on a trial date, or if there should be mediation or additional motions," Noble said Wednesday. "Hopefully, this case will go away and Al Jardine can focus on making his music for his fans and not fending off this litigation."

Love's attorney, Phil Stillman, did not return a call for comment.

The Love-Jardine legal battle dates to 2001, when Jardine filed a $4 million action against Love and the Beach Boys' Brother Records Inc., alleging Love excluded him from concerts that year. The complaint was eventually dismissed and Love sued Jardine in 2003.

Dunn threw out part of Love's suit last September but allowed him to continue to seek $2 million in court costs and $1 million in earnings he says Jardine wrongly was paid for using the Beach Boys' name.

Love maintains only he has the legal right to perform under the name, and federal courts ruled in 2003 that Jardine must stop using Beach Boys in the title of his other bands. He had been performing under such names as Beach Boys Family & Friends and Al Jardine of the Beach Boys, but now calls his group Al Jardine's Endless Summer Band.

The Beach Boys were founded in 1961 by brothers Brian, Carl and Dennis Wilson, their cousin Love and Brian Wilson's friend Jardine.

Dennis Wilson died in 1983 and Carl Wilson died in 1998.

That's part of the story. We got all of the info piecemeal back then a bit. The first legal action from BRI dates to 1999. That was when I believe attempts at injunctions were made. They started sticking near the end of 1999 as I recall.

BBFF was never going to bring near the same amount of money. The issue of potential confusion notwithstanding, BBFF is not a name that will get as many bookings or sell as many tickets.

I never took the idea of canceling Al shows and rebooking them as "Beach Boys" shows as an issue regarding booking agencies, but rather simply a way to corner the market and minimize the competition. This has occurred with other bands with name rights issues. One example was the competing iterations of Badfinger in the early 80's.

The BB situation was of course cleared up relatively easily once the exclusive license was issued.

But I still don't think Al would have been allowed to continue to tour as BBFF even if he had agreed to license terms. I think the balance of power has shifted too far. I think they would have issued Mike the exclusive license regardless by 2000 or so. By issuing that exclusive license, they were dropping the idea of Carl's estate of offering nonexclusive licenses to all. Al's shenanigans may have accelerated that process a bit, but it would have happened either way.

Here are a few recent news articles from various local and regional news outlets with interviews and info on some upcoming shows, and some previous ones as well, for those who may not have seen them:


50 years of 'Fun, Fun, Fun': The Beach Boys come to Napa
October 22, 2014 1:58 pm
The Beach Boys at the Uptown
The Beach Boys
Uptown Theatre Napa
For ages 10 and over; under 16 must be accompanied by an adult. 
Friday, Jan. 23, 8 p.m.
Tickets: $70, $85, $105
Info, 707-259-0123, ext. 6
The Beach Boys, troubadours of the endless California summer, come to Napa to perform at the Uptown Theatre on Jan. 23.
Since they formed in 1961 in Hawthorne, the rock band, then consisting of brothers Brian, Dennis and Carl Wilson, and their cousin Mike Love and friend Al Jardine, the group epitomized the California sound and lifestyle, the music, surfing, cars and young love with hit after hit, including “Surfin’ Safari,” “Good Vibrations,” “Surfin’ USA,” “Surfer Girl,” “I Get Around,” “Fun, Fun, Fun (Till Her Daddy Takes the T-Bird Away)” and “California Girls.”
Brian Wilson went onto a solo career, Dennis Wilson drowned and Carl Wilson died of lung cancer, but Mike Love, who produced the “Endless Summer” album in 1974, now leads the group, and with Bruce Johnston, Jeff Foskett, Randell Kirsch, Tim Bonhomme, John Cowsill and Scott Totten continues to tour and perform an average of 150 shows a year.
Al Jardine and Brian Wilson will not be part of this show, which is not part of the 50th anniversary tour, which briefly united the surviving members of the group.
Tickets for the show are $70, $85 and $105 for age 10 and over; those under 16 must be accompanied by an adult. A VIP ticket option includes a reserved seat, access to “Club Kokomo” preshow meet and greet with Beach Boys, a Q-and-A with private sound-check following the meet and greet, a personal photograph with the Beach Boys and an autographed laminate that includes a USB with two albums’ worth of Beach Boys music.
Tickets are on sale to the general public now and can be purchased at UptownTheatreNapa.com, through Ticketmaster or in person at the theater box office open Monday through Saturday, at 1350 Third St., Napa. For more info call 707-259-0123, ext. 6.





Beach Boys to perform two North Jersey shows
October 22, 2014    Last updated: Wednesday, October 22, 2014, 1:21 AM By BRIAN ABERBACK SPECIAL TO THE RECORD |  The Record
MUSIC
Beach Boys frontman Mike Love, second from right, says the band's staying power comes from its harmonies and the love in the music.
WHO: The Beach Boys.
WHAT: Pop and rock.
IN TOWN: 8 p.m. Tuesday, Bergen Performing Arts Center, 30 N. Van Brunt St., Englewood; 201-227-1030 or bergenpac.org. $49, $79, $119.
ALSO PERFORMING: 8 p.m. Thursday, Mayo Performing Arts Center, 100 South St., Morristown; 973-539-8008 or mayoarts.org. $59 to $99.
MORE INFO: thebeachboys.com.
The Beach Boys have been sending out good vibrations to multiple generations of fans the world over for more than 50 years, a fact not lost upon singer Mike Love. "To still be going and have the songs resonate five decades later is pretty miraculous in a way," Love said ahead of the band's upcoming shows in Englewood and Morristown.
"It's quite a blessing to all of us who started the band," Love said. He was a founding member, along with his cousins, Brian, Carl and Dennis Wilson, and school friend Al Jardine.
Love said there is a common denominator to the staying power of the iconic band's endless hit parade, from surf pop-rock classics like "Surfin' USA," "Fun, Fun, Fun" and "Help Me Rhonda" to ballads such as "God Only Knows" and "Warmth of the Sun," to name a very small sampling.
"The real magic comes from the harmonies and the love that resonates in the notes," Love said by phone from his California home. "That's what brought us together in the first place."
Those sublime harmonies define the Beach Boys, who have sold more than 100 million albums worldwide and are one of the most influential pop and rock bands to ever take the stage.
The Beach Boys' current tour was preceded by a bittersweet personnel change for Love. His son, guitarist Christian Love, left the band after an eight-year stint to pursue a solo career.
"I do miss having him on tour," the elder Love said. "He has an amazing voice."
Christian Love's spot has been filled by Grammy Award-winning singer-guitarist Jeffrey Foskett, who performed with the Beach Boys periodically from 1981 to 1991. Foskett also appears on the band's most recent studio album, "That's Why God Made the Radio" (2012).
In addition to permanent members Love, Foskett and singer-keyboardist Bruce Johnston, the Beach Boys' touring lineup includes bassist Randell Kirsch, keyboardist Tim Bonhomme, drummer John Cowsill and guitarist Scott Totten. Though not on the road, Brian Wilson, Jardine and guitarist David Marks remain members of the Beach Boys. Dennis Wilson drowned in 1983 and Carl Wilson died of cancer in 1998.
The seeds of the Beach Boys were planted in 1958 when then-16-year-old Brian Wilson taught his brothers to sing harmonies to songs by popular vocal groups like the Four Freshmen. Love would sing with his cousins at family gatherings.
The Beach Boys formed in 1961. The title track to the band's 1962 debut album, "Surfin' Safari," reached No. 14 on the singles charts. The hits celebrating Southern California's surfing and car culture came in waves, including the No. 1 singles "I Get Around" and "Good Vibrations."
In 1966 the band expanded its sound and lyrical themes on famed album "Pet Sounds," which includes "Good Vibrations," "Wouldn't It Be Nice," "God Only Knows" and "Sloop John B." "Pet Sounds," which incorporated symphonic arrangements, jazz and sound effects into the Beach Boys' fundamental sound, is regarded as one of the most influential albums in pop and rock history. It was ranked second on Rolling Stone magazine's 2003 list of the Top 500 Albums of All Time, behind only the Beatles' "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band."
The Beach Boys were more moderately successful in the '70s and '80s. Brian Wilson's mental illness reduced his involvement with the band, which also suffered from infighting, lawsuits and for a time, competing tours. They returned to the top of the charts in 1988 with "Kokomo," which was featured in the Tom Cruise film "Cocktail." All the surviving members reunited briefly for a 50th anniversary tour in 2012.
In February, Love released the new single, "Pisces Brothers," about his longtime friend, the late Beatle George Harrison, and their shared devotion to transcendental meditation. "It's a special, sentimental, emotional song," Love said. "Pisces Brothers" is part of the Beach Boys' current setlist.
Over the course of their career, the Beach Boys have received countless awards and honors, and played to hundreds of millions of people. On one day alone — July 4, 1985 — they performed in front of nearly 2 million fans at shows in Philadelphia and Washington, D.C.
Love said the Beach Boys' concerts in the nation's capital are some of his favorite memories. The band had performed at the National Mall on Independence Day in the early 1980s, but in 1983 then-U.S. Secretary of the Interior James G. Watt banned rock concerts at the site. When it came to the Beach Boys, however, Watt's decision was overruled from above. "Nancy Reagan said, 'Ronnie and I have always been fans,' " Love said. "After that the White House called pretty quickly and asked us to come back."





The Beach Boys bringing 'Good Vibrations' to Luhrs Center Oct. 25
Performance on Oct. 25 is part of Shippensburg University homecoming festivities
Staff report
Posted:   10/21/2014 06:33:26 PM EDT
SHIPPENSBURG >> They started out as five guys from California singing about riding waves, and now more than 50 years later the Beach Boys have ridden a wave of success into American music history.
The Beach Boys will return to H. Ric Luhrs Performing Arts Center at 7:30 p.m. Oct. 25. Tickets cost between $45 and $70. If you want to go, be sure to get tickets as soon as possible; The Beach Boys previously performed at the Luhrs Center to sold-out crowds on Feb. 29, 2008 and Oct. 13, 2011.
Original member, Mike Love, and Bruce Johnston, a member since 1965, are keeping The Beach Boys history alive with the help of five additions. Together, they and Jeffrey Foskett, Randell Kirsch, Tim Bonhomme, John Cowsill and Scott Totten take fans back to yesteryear and the hits that played through it.
It has been more than 50 years since lead singer Mike Love wrote the band's first hit, "Surfin'" in 1961. Dozens of chart-topping hits followed and became eternal anthems of American youth: "Surfin' USA," "Surfer Girl," "Fun, Fun, Fun," "I Get Around," "California Girls," "Help Me Rhonda," "Barbara Ann," "Good Vibrations," "Wouldn't It Be Nice," "Rock and Roll Music" and "Kokomo."
The Beach Boys have sold 100 million records around the world, and have more than 33 RIAA Platinum and Gold awards. Members of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, the band received the Lifetime Achievement Award at the Grammy's in 2001.

The Beach Boys have a ton of experience performing live shows -- they actually hold the title for putting on the most concerts out of any other major rock band in history. The band have five decades of touring under their collective belt.
The Beach Boys performance will be part of Shippensburg University's homecoming celebrations. To go along with the show, Luhrs Center will have an exhibit of vintage beach-themed toys and related items, in the Orrstown Bank lobby on the second floor of the building. Bob Smith, associate dean of students at Shippensburg University, will display more than 500 items from his collection of vintage sand pails, sand sifters, beach shovels, vintage swim suits, tin toy boats, photographs and postcards.
The same exhibit has been enjoyed at historical museums in Ocean City, New Jersey and Rehoboth Beach, Delaware.
The exhibit will be on display 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Oct. 24 and 25, as well as during The Beach Boys concert. There is no admission to view the exhibit.
Don't forget to get your tickets for the concert ahead of time. Call the Luhrs Center box office at 477-7469 or go to www.luhrscenter.com.




Mike Love’s inner peace
Beth Roessner, The Desert Sun 4:12 p.m. PDT October 1,
Meditation is Mike Love’s drug of choice.
The Beach Boys co-founder was introduced to the practice of transcendental meditation back in 1967. He’s been a devotee ever since, meditating twice daily.
“With TM, it’s kind of like a secret weapon for me,” said the 73-year-old singer, who wrote the lyrics to songs like “Fun, Fun, Fun” and “California Girls.” “When you practice TM, you find a level of thought that transcends and goes to the source of thought.”
Transcendental meditation is a relaxation technique involving cleansing breaths in which the body reaches a deep level of rest — deeper than the deepest levels of sleep, according to Love. Through the practice, Love says he’s able to maintain high energy levels clarity in his thoughts.
He also credits TM for the longevity of his music career — more than 50 years and counting. On Friday, Love and the latest Beach Boys lineup featuring long-time member Bruce Johnston will perform at The Show Agua Caliente Casino Resort Spa in Rancho Mirage. (Beach Boys co-founders Brian Wilson and Al Jardine are not a part of the current tour.)
Love became a student of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in the late-1960s. He accompanied The Beatles to visit him in India, which is where Love formed a bond with guitarist George Harrison. After Harrison died in 2001, Love wrote the song “Pisces Brothers” as a tribute.
“He was a very spiritual guy and loved meditation,” Love said. “It’s sentimental in a mystical kind of way.”
What originally attracted Love to TM was a promise made by Maharishi.
“If enough people were to learn to meditate it would be an entirely different world, meaning world peace, prosperity and health,” he said. “That appealed to my altruistic nature.”
Love also benefited from the practice creatively. With his consciousness able to expand, he was able to explore his thoughts and find inspiration for songs.
And unlike many habits of the era, it was a technique that didn’t require outside chemicals.
“You feel better naturally,” Love said. “Not needing a drink of alcohol or smoking pot, or any kinds of pills. With these things, there always seems to be a side effect.”
While many rock stars of the time indulged in “non-prescribed recreationals,” Love abstained. Drug use within the Beach Boys, he said, created a kind of schism on a philosophical and lifestyle level.
But meditation was and still is his outlet.
“You can restore your batteries by transcending, and taking in deep breaths,” Love said. “Maharishi used to call it drawing the arrow back.”
If you go
What: The Beach Boys in concert featuring founding member Mike Love
When: 9 p.m. Friday,
Where: Agua Caliente Casino Resort Spa, 32-250 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage
Tickets: $45-$75
Information: www.hotwatercasino.com or 888-999-1995
What is transcendental meditation?
Founded by the late Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, TM is designed to help a person reach quieter levels of thought without concentration or control of the mind.
It is practiced for 20 minutes, twice daily, and is said to help reduce anxiety, improve memory and normalize blood pressure.
Over six million people worldwide have learned the practice.
To learn more, visit www.tm.org.

Saw this on facebook:


Beach Boys: ‘End Doesn’t Seem To Be Anywhere In Sight,’ Mike Love Says


The Beach Boys were a defining band of the 1960s, with their innovative sound inspiring a generation of musicians, and founding member Mike Love said the band is still going strong now five decades later.

The founding member of the group, who is still actively touring under its latest lineup, recently said that he sees the Beach Boys continuing to tour into the foreseeable future.

“It has been a pretty amazing career so far, and the end doesn’t seem to be anywhere in sight,” Love said.

The Beach Boys have been one of the busiest acts in music, playing an average of 150 concerts a year. The group is now made up of founding member Love and a rotation of longtime collaborators — currently Bruce Johnston, Jeffrey Foskett, Randell Kirsch, Tim Bonhomme, John Cowsill, and Scott Totten.

Love said the group has been successful because it’s sticking to its origins as a pioneer of surf rock.

“I’ve always thought of The Beach Boys as a sonic oasis,” Love said. “Our music is unique in both the subject matter and the arrangement of instrumentation, which makes for a really neat package. Our mission now is to re-create our live songs so they sound as close to the record as we possibly can. We just loved doing the music, the harmonies and singing together as kids and were just fortunate enough to have had the career that we ended up with.”

Even Love, the longest-serving member, said he is impressed with how the Beach Boys have managed to stay relevant — and popular.

“To still be going and have the songs resonate five decades later is pretty miraculous in a way,” Love said

Mike Love said he sees the power and universal appeal of the Beach Boys through the non-stop touring. At a recent show, he said he witnessed a 90-year-old fan dancing with a 9-year-old, a site he described as “amazing.”




http://www.inquisitr.com/1559717/beach-boys-end-doesnt-seem-to-be-anywhere-in-sight-mike-love-says/#z1CdGmFUJzbUSmTT.99

Wondering why the writer of that "Inquisitr" article saw the need to use the phrase "founding member" three times in the first five sentences of his piece. Overkill, just a bit?  ;D

Insecurity. ;)

Wow, nice of him to keep attacking the Wilsons for using “non-prescribed recreationals" in 2014. I'm sure his Pisces Brother would've really loved that. It's just a puff piece but he's gotta drag that out again to help pimp his ridiculously expensive Maharishi hobby... whew. And he accuses Al of being bitter and holding grudges? Yeesh, let it go and meditate on forgiveness and compassion, Michael Edward!

I think the funniest is the "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" profile mention of drug use. Literally the first thing out of his mouth with a sh*t-eating grin, apropos of nothing... straight out of nowhere, but the main thing on his mind. Other than cutlery. Class act.

FANTASY MIKE LOVE: "It's great to be performing in Long Branch, one of my favorite areas of New Jersey and I know the state really well because I really get around, as the song I wrote the hook for and won the legal case to have the credit amended says. By the way, some of The Beach Boys did drugs and alcohol but I didn't after a certain point. Surf's up!"

Hater.  Some people will just never understand Mike's obligation to spread positivity.

I witnessed a 32 year old dancing with a 58 year old and it was amazing.

 :lol now that's positive.

Unleash the love! What I can't wait for are the interviews reacting to Love and Mercy and that book project. Hopefully the Stamos film will provide positivity and balance and he'll threaten his own memoir, which would be blissful, incredible entertainment. Just imagine the chapter titles!

The bio will be called "I wrote the hits and the Wilsons did drugs" ;)

When Brian was fishing Mike Love came up with the hook.

He is a fascinating and deeply weird man. Somebody please get him a book deal! With audiobook reading preferably.

Saw Mike and Bruce tonight they were fantastic as usual, was surprised to see that they are now using Dennis pre recorded vocals as tribute on Do You Wanna Dance, and I have to say it sounded really weird and out of place different from the Carl video on God, which btw malfunctioned tonight forcing Bruce to sing what was a really weak vocal on the song.

Interesting! Was it a live Dennis vocal, or the studio track? It's also interesting that these are both songs that Bruce sang on in recent years. DYWD since the 90s, GOK since 99 (they didn't do it in 1998).

Bruce usually gets one or two showcase leads these days. Disney Girls, Wendy, Please Let Me Wonder, Summer Means Fun.

I don`t think even Dennis could have got away with singing that in concert!

We know what was on your mind though at least...  ;)

It took me a while to figure out what you meant! Thanks for catching that, I will fix it. That's what I get for accessing this board on a phone!

It was the Dennis studio track

TM is going mainstream, now, even, and especially in the medical setting. It is being used successfully in school systems, to have kids de-stress and have alternative responses to violent behavior.  It is also being used in drug treatment programs to calm the patient, alongside acupuncture, and other alternative and other successful methods, to reduce blood pressure and reduce violent reacting on impulse which often results in jail time.  His financial support is helping, directly or indirectly in reducing violent behavior. Of course if it is taught it American schools, it must be taught in a religious-neutral context. 

Looking at a twenty year old interview in a 2014 context is absurd, in my opinion. Are we always judged by what we did as teens? Do people change?  Do they rehab themselves? People have a better understanding of addiction and drug use because of the emerging areas of neuroscience, brain scans that identify drug damaged regions, as a broken leg is,  and I would bet that Mike stays up on that.  Had this door been open to the Wilsons, and everyone else for that matter, there might not be catastrophic events such as the Landy era.  He looked good at the time.  Today, not so much.

TM is scam, its basic hindu meditation teachings sold to westerners for thousands of dollars. If the TM people and Mike Love were really into helping people, they would not charge huge amounts of money per session.


Its only a step above the scam of scams, scientology.

"Probably the least believable claim of TMers is that they can fly—well, not really fly, more like hop. TM loudly promoted levitation in its early days.* Television news programs featured clips of TMers  hopping around in the lotus position, claiming to be hovering. Apparently, this claim was too easily disproved and now TMers do not claim to be able to fly or hover, but say they believe that they can advance so that some day in the future they will be able to truly levitate and gain other super powers (sidhis) as have many holy ones before them."
 http://skepdic.com/tm.html

Well, at least David Lynch can give an interview, plug TM, and not attack his family doing it. He even trots out the same antidrug stuff but it's a lot less harsh and personal... Maybe he's more serene due to all that coffee and chainsmoking.

DIVE DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP! DIVE REAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAL DEEEEEEEEEP!

(http://sgtr.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/lynchcig.jpg)

PS. Mike Love as Frank Booth in Blue Velvet: The Musical. Stamos, call me! A nasal twang belting out "baby wants to f***!" is off-Broadway GOLD.

It is interesting.  Some other universities, such as Stamford would argue against that.  I won't comment on the Free Exercise of Religion, guaranteed in the States.  Separating a "brand" from centuries-old techniques from the East is the overriding issue.  

Having spent several decades, teaching in an often violent city school system with metal detectors at the door demonstrates a need to find way and means to teach students to calm themselves, look inward ( regardless of their individual family practiced beliefs) and behave in a non-violent manner.  Having been assaulted in my own classroom, more than once, having taken away a firearm from a ten year old supports that need for some solutions.  And FYI, most school violence goes unreported, because the schools don't want the bad publicity.  And they get away with it. There is a big rug under which much is swept, especially violence.

Teachers act in a capacity of nurse, cop, and social worker.  They need a neutral means of de-stressing, because they aren't getting it at home.  And if any kind of meditation can give results that make teaching and learning safer, teachers are for it.

Mike has supported City Year.  I have had direct experience with them going back 20 years.  They do good work, are able to communicate with very poor children, in housing projects where I have taught 12 years of my career, often develop commitment to go back into teaching or working with youth who are being raised by grandparents.  

Anyone who doesn't believe it, go be a substitute teacher in an urban school system. See if you can control a classroom of 15 year olds from violent backgrounds.  Let alone teach anything. Uneducated kids often end up on drugs and in jail.  I'm sick of paying that bill.  52% to be probably conservative.

We often see violent kids because that is all they know and think that that is the only way they've learned to deal with conflict.  If meditation is taught in a "non religious" or "branded" text, and under scrutiny because public schools cannot espouse one religion or belief system over another.  

Doctors have marveled that people who meditate can lower their blood pressure very quickly. We can learn from that. Mike's open support and promotion of City Year while on tour with photo ops and tix for participants, sort of makes it relevant in this thread.  The term "pimps" is probably extreme.  The term "promotion" might work better.   ;)

Let the conspiracy theories begin  :P

(http://ll-media.tmz.com/2014/07/22/0722-stamos-landscape-1.jpg)

Your source for Mike personally charging "huge amounts of money", please ? Because that's precisely what you've posted, no getting around it.

Well he is a part of an organization that charges 2500 dollars for basic stress relief concepts. Plus gives out the same mantras to thousands of people. TM is a cult that nearly derailed the BBs in the 1970s, funny how "crazy" BW doesnt follow it.

 
Besides, TM now only charges $960 instead of $1500 for the introductory adult course. Or initial payment of $240 and 3 additional monthly payments of $240. I simply don't understand how anybody could get the idea it was a scam!

You can really get good value for the money if you bring your significant other,  initial payment of $420 and 3 additional monthly payments of $420 for both... act now!

Mike practises TM, he's not part of the controlling organisation. Yes, like pretty much every organised religion, there's an element of soaking and misleading the adherents but... supposing I was a practising Roman Catholic (I'm not, but for the purposes of illustration...): would that make me answerable for the decades of sexual abuse inflicted by RC priests on the children in their spiritual care ? By your logic yes: I practise the religion, ergo I am responsible. To return to my original question: your source for Mike personally chatging the amounts you've stated here, please.

BTW, I think you'll find it was 1968 when TM adversely affected the band's financial position... and if we're going to apportion blame fairly, it was Dennis who first persuaded the others to meet with Maharishi.  :)

Is Mike definitely not part of the controlling organization? He certainly likes to promote it in every single concert/interview.

Well, Paul McCartney is not part of the controlling organization of PETA but he promotes the hell out of it too.

Amazing how Dennis was the first to introduce TM and riding the oldies train through his meetings and later hiring of Guercio, yet Mike gets credited/blamed for both. It is amazing how the actual facts have done nothing to change perceptions.

Well, hopefully you guys will be able to fix that and get more people furious at Dennis Wilson or something.

Yeah, well we sure do get furious with Mike now, don't we?

He seems to step in it an awful lot. I guess as Curly put it, Mike is just "a victim of circumstance!"

Some pics from a couple weeks ago taken by my brother at a private show:

(http://i61.tinypic.com/vct1sx.jpg)

(http://i58.tinypic.com/2lkcjr6.jpg)

(http://i57.tinypic.com/icpk7o.jpg)

(http://i59.tinypic.com/2zxzi2g.jpg)

I believe these were part of a business/tech conference called Dreamforce '14.

Yes, and we do our damnedest to condemn him whether for the truth or for the fiction which we want to believe as true. Curly also said "truth is stranger than fiction, Judgy, Wudgy".

Yeah, but Moe said "Only fools are positive," so that cancels him out and we have to turn to Larry for wisdom.

:lol Did Larry ever say anything that memorable?

Bwhahahah! My favorite is the immortal "hey! This looks like a kid's game!"

We now return to the condemnation and dome porn in progress.

plus Mike is running all those high dollar events with David Lynch. It would take a fool not to see Mike is in the top ranks of TM since he has been obsessed with it since the 1960s. Mike seems to enjoy promoting it  in song and dance as a senior elder .

I have friends who are intensely religious, and speak of their faith as often as possible... but none of them are the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Hey, TM might hit your pocket at the outset, but from my experience organized religion hits your wallet and bank accounts throughout your whole lifetime. $900 sounds like a bargain to me. ;)

That's just the introductory course!

I guess you don't get levitation lessons for the introductory price?

I wonder what they charge to learn to levitate and fly across the room? That must be worth more than a few Franklins.

Holy sh*t, Mike Love can fly! :lol

Again, a source for this as yet unproved claim ? "All these" events ? I recall one or two, a few years ago. Macca & Ringo turned up too, so by your logic they're in on the scam too. Clint Eastwood and Howard Stern also.

Seriously, it would take a fool not to see your claims as nothing less than an hilariously inept attempt at advanced Mike-bashing. Sad and, in truth, really rather pathetic.

 Even if it is, it fits right into the general tone of this board, so why quibble that it's wrong and pathetic even if it is?  Mike has certainly endured worse he can take it and still be happy

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-K0C8QevgT8w/UfGRkXMWb4I/AAAAAAAABoE/6xFuMwB33jI/s1600/RedHerring.png)

...or appeal to non-authorities.

Has Mike really been involved with David Lynch that much? I've always thought that was more of Al's thing.

you could use some TM in your life. ;)

Not hearing everything like I'm sitting in the deep end of a full swimming pool would probably make my disposition somewhat sunnier.

Being mad at Mike's part in the C50 ending is one thing...attacking one's spiritual beliefs is another, and rather offensive. 

Is someone attacking someone else's spiritual beliefs?

Pretty sure people have been joking about TM since about 1968

Al should take Bruce's part on the tag, because that part gets lost in Brian's band and you can't hear it.

Right, so that makes it okay.

TM is generally referred to as a form of Meditation Technique, rather than a spiritual belief.
At least that's what maharishi mahesh yogi said( and if he believes it, then Mike does too, right? )   

http://www.tm.org/blog/maharishi/maharishi-tm-religion/

A very expensive one.... ;)

Sigh...

This comparison isn't quite apt in my opinion. Smile Brian's issue is that the TM organization is bilking people for money. Consequently, if Mike were doing (paid or unpaid) PR for TM (and I'm not saying he is or isn't), then he would be, in effect, contributing directly to the bilking. If the Catholic Church demanded an entry fee, and you went around telling people how great Catholicism is with a desire that people join the church too, then you would be likewise part of the bilking. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the facts of Smile Brian's statement, he is plainly not accusing Mike of being answerable for systemic issues that he has no control over and have no connection to his own day to day practices.

It's just like making any purchase in your life. People advertise to you for your dollars. It's up to you whether what they say makes sense to you and worth the expense to have it. Nobody is bilking anyone. It is all about choice. Just because TM is an intangible doesn't mean that it doesn't have worth.

Maybe not, though I think the issue is far more nuanced than simply saying "It is all about choice," as does, surely, every company in the world who spends money on advertising. My point, though, is not to say that TM is bilking anyone -- I was simply stating what I thought Smile Brian's argument to be. My point, rather, was to say that the Catholic church comparison didn't make sense.

That was my point expressed way better than I could say it. 8)

This isn't the forum for it, but I do disagree: someone's spiritual beliefs are as fair to attack as his or her political beliefs (or any other beliefs). If one is free to believe, one is free to challenge (someone else's beliefs). Though ideally it is done civilly, respectfully, making "attack" an imperfect word.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10426255_733118416767002_1296261609782930479_n.png?oh=a889cd89f2dc69d40d33893bbe0a7fa6&oe=54E770AD&__gda__=1424318229_a3caa65aca47a2a4f57dd5d5cb1d7c8b (https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10426255_733118416767002_1296261609782930479_n.png?oh=a889cd89f2dc69d40d33893bbe0a7fa6&oe=54E770AD&__gda__=1424318229_a3caa65aca47a2a4f57dd5d5cb1d7c8b)

I see intro Brian and intro Dennis on here. I know someone posted earlier about Dennis' tribute, but they're not doing one for Brian on The Warmth Of The Sun are they? That would seem...odd.