Mike and Bruce Tour 2015

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Especially if they're perfectly capable of turning around and calling his cousin a fucking slimeball.

Ok, this has been mentioned enough times to suggest putting an end to repeating and reposting it. The point has been made, no need to keep hammering it into the ground.

If it's perfectly OK to post it in the first place, then it's perfectly OK to talk about it.

Wasn't ok in the first place, though.

But yeah, this going back and forth is getting tiresome,  and I'm *not* just talking to you, either.

People talk about mentioning that Brian created the reality that all Beach Boys are not required to be onstage at all times as some offense to class, yet everyone's just fine with someone calling Mike Love a fucking slimeball?

Yeah, our definitions of class most certainly differ.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

You mean I should have just called him a fucking slimeball?

To keep repeating this, it's now been at least 6 times so far, is getting into baiting/provoking territory, and I'll repeat again it does not need to be reposted another time.

And of course you take issue with talking about it rather than any issue with the original statement itself....

Yeah, class again.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Jesus Christ, dude, i said I DID have a problem with the post you were responding to. I was sticking up for you, and now you're turning on me, too?

Hell with this mess. I'm trying like hell to be objective here but you're making it next to impossible.

[CenturyDeprived]

Especially if they're perfectly capable of turning around and calling his cousin a fucking slimeball.

Ok, this has been mentioned enough times to suggest putting an end to repeating and reposting it. The point has been made, no need to keep hammering it into the ground.

If it's perfectly OK to post it in the first place, then it's perfectly OK to talk about it.

Wasn't ok in the first place, though.

But yeah, this going back and forth is getting tiresome,  and I'm *not* just talking to you, either.

People talk about mentioning that Brian created the reality that all Beach Boys are not required to be onstage at all times as some offense to class, yet everyone's just fine with someone calling Mike Love a fucking slimeball?

Yeah, our definitions of class most certainly differ.

I get the original point you were trying to make, that a not-every-member-is-necessarily-always-present precedent was set early on... but if we're talking about the legitimacy of a post C50 "BB" band out there, it's really irrelevant to bring up the past circumstances, which were completely different. Just like the Endless Summer Concept Album - one can call something anything they want. There's no law that is broken by that press release, nor is there a law broken by a post C50 (in the manner that it imploded) M&B project. But in both cases, it's the "laws" of common sense and class that have been violated.  In both cases, it's just lame, and grudging acceptance is the best truth one can find.

And one more thing, Pinder - I do believe that you weren't viciously intentionally trivializing Brian's mental problems in your post, but I think that you wound up inadvertently doing it anyway. Or not realizing how your words could very obviously be taken to mean such by others. And the same repeatedly goes for the guy who you always come to defense of.  

[guitarfool2002]

You mean I should have just called him a fucking slimeball?

To keep repeating this, it's now been at least 6 times so far, is getting into baiting/provoking territory, and I'll repeat again it does not need to be reposted another time.

And of course you take issue with talking about it rather than any issue with the original statement itself....

Yeah, class again.

The issue was addressed while I was on the road working this afternoon and unable to view or post to the board. It was addressed, it should have dropped into the history of the thread, but instead you've reposted it over and over, including several times after being asked not to.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I've stepped in...Pinder is out for seven days.

No more of this garbage.

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

Hey, who do we have to thank for creating the original schism to where it's perfectly OK for all Beach Boys not to appear on stage together?

If the circumstance for the schism is because the overly-stretched-too-thin brains of the operation wanted to take time off the road to write gorgeous songs for the group, thus funneling a bunch of super awesomeness right back into the group to make the group even better... then yeah, I'll give that schism-causer a pass.

So damn well said CD. And who do we have to thank for shitcanning Al after Carl died and ending the C50 tour because he couldn't have things his own way?  

[CenturyDeprived]

Hey, who do we have to thank for creating the original schism to where it's perfectly OK for all Beach Boys not to appear on stage together?

If the circumstance for the schism is because the overly-stretched-too-thin brains of the operation wanted to take time off the road to write gorgeous songs for the group, thus funneling a bunch of super awesomeness right back into the group to make the group even better... then yeah, I'll give that schism-causer a pass.

So damn well said CD. And who do we have to thank for shitcanning Al after Carl died and ending the C50 tour because he couldn't have things his own way?  

I can only imagine what Al Jardine really, truly, in his heart, thinks of Mike Love. Like, seriously. I'm sure he's grateful to cash his BRI checks, and is grateful for the success of the band, which is partially due to Mike, and I know Al was classy enough to appear at Mike's award show... but I feel confident that Mike wouldn't have if the shoe was on the other foot, if somehow Al had caused Mike to actually be fired, and then 14 years later to "feel" fired, respectively.
Brian is (and has always been) too nice for his own good, but Al is devoid of any family ties to Mike. An Al autobio would be super too.

[SMiLE Brian]

Keep it clean-The Al Jardine story.

[bgas]

Hey, who do we have to thank for creating the original schism to where it's perfectly OK for all Beach Boys not to appear on stage together?

If the circumstance for the schism is because the overly-stretched-too-thin brains of the operation wanted to take time off the road to write gorgeous songs for the group, thus funneling a bunch of super awesomeness right back into the group to make the group even better... then yeah, I'll give that schism-causer a pass.

So damn well said CD. And who do we have to thank for shitcanning Al after Carl died and ending the C50 tour because he couldn't have things his own way?  

I can only imagine what Al Jardine really, truly, in his heart, thinks of Mike Love. Like, seriously. I'm sure he's grateful to cash his BRI checks, and is grateful for the success of the band, which is partially due to Mike. I know Al was classy enough to appear at Mike's award show, but I feel confident that Mike wouldn't have if the shoe was on the other foot, and Al had caused Mike to feel fired from the BBs.
Brian is (and has always been) too nice for his own good, but Al is devoid of any family ties to Mike. An Al autobio would be super too.

The only way Al could publish an autobio is by using autotune

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

[CenturyDeprived]

I just wanna say that I'm being bowled over by the KAEOS tunes, and for whatever crap I may be giving the Lovester for his actions, he (along with all the Boys) are just ruling the school on those tracks. So, so, so good. It's in stark contrast of real life 50 years later where a situation is essentially down to ego issues, control freakery, and BS, preventing a proper final act for this wonderful band, and that bugs the hell out of me, as much as I wish it didn't. I'm sure Mike "did what he had to do" in order to be happy, but to make the understatement of the year, damn if that man isn't short sighted. Mine, and most fans' deep frustrations (which obviously we have to simply "get over") are in direct proportion to how insanely great this band was, and should be thought of as such by many more people, but aren't - in large part to that very short-sightedness. It's the Beach Boys Endless Loop Of Awesomeness And Frustration.

[Dave in KC]

Just got back. Big honkin' billboard on I-35 in KC advertising the BB coming February 13. This is something rarely seen in this town; highway signs?  Truly amazing.

[guitarfool2002]

Just got back. Big honkin' billboard on I-35 in KC advertising the BB coming February 13. This is something rarely seen in this town; highway signs?  Truly amazing.

Do you think phase 2 of the advertising campaign will include any of these around town? 

[Micha]

Pinder, we get that ML is your hero.

SMiLE Brian, we get that you hate Mike's guts with religious fervor and there's nothing we can do to relieve you from your hate.

Personally, I prefer enjoying both Brian's and Mike's positive contributions to their music without having to hate them. And yes, Brian's contribution is about 100 times as Mike's.

I don't get why you guys are so negative about Brian Wilson

Who is, actually? If you count "not slamming Mike" as "being negative about Brian", well, yes, then, but... that's not the case.

[Micha]

And one more thing, Pinder - I do believe that you weren't viciously intentionally trivializing Brian's mental problems in your post, but I think that you wound up inadvertently doing it anyway.

I'm afraid this may have actually been the case. But I'm surprised it earned him a ban. I'm not saying it isn't a good thing to end a pointless discussion, I'm just surprised.

[Andrew G. Doe]

This is all very confusing to me: so someone can get banned for repeating something unpleasant that someone else posted... but the original poster doesn't ?

By this "logic", I've got a free pass to call anyone on here anything I like, as long as I don't repeat it, but anyone who repeats my description gets canned. Have I got that right ? 'Cause that's what it looks like from this side of the pond.

It's tempting... very very tempting... but no. I won't lower myself to their level. Unseemly and unbecoming an Englishman of my advanced years and impeccable manners*.

I shall, however, think terrible things of them. 

[* irony alert, with a light frosting of sarcasm]

[Cam Mott]

Did anyone, who has these questions about where the ES concept claims came from or got published, done anything to get an explanation from the record company, venues, or dealers who published it?

Maybe some actual info from those who actually put it out might be more helpful than repetitive name calling and so-far unfounded suspicions have been. Just a thought.

[Nicko1234]

This thread has been preposterous from the first post...which was doubtless the OP's intention.

[Sheriff John Stone]

Especially if they're perfectly capable of turning around and calling his cousin a fucking slimeball.

Ok, this has been mentioned enough times to suggest putting an end to repeating and reposting it. The point has been made, no need to keep hammering it into the ground.

Why can't he hammer it into the ground? Other posters are constantly hammering the same point into the ground? Perhaps Pinder should've called Mike a "conniving, little dipshit of a man" like Wirestone did. The moderators seemed to be OK with that. Hypocrites.

[Nicko1234]

I want to add a few thoughts on the directions this discussion has taken, and in general some of the comments which have been posted.

I think one of the strengths of this board and the community that keeps the board active is the ability to discuss, debate, and fact-check when necessary issues that get put into the conversation. We have fans, historians, researchers, published authors, musicians on board...everyone knows that. Historians in most if not all fields tend to argue and debate each other! There are specific facts which are established, then after that it's open season. Look at any area of history, you'll find debate and disagreement among those who study it.

On this board, some of the history and fact-checking has been valuable beyond what I think we realize sometimes. If there are incorrect dates-places-credits, whatever the case, there are people on this board who have raised an eyebrow and said "that doesn't sound right", and the corrections have opened up and established a lot of solid information important to telling the history of this band and their music. In some cases it was widely held beliefs or "myths" which got busted. Case in point: How many classic 60's tracks were not played by the session musicians but rather played by the Beach Boys themselves. A widely held and reported factual error that board members here have corrected. That's a good thing.

What came up in this thread via some of those press releases and news articles related to promoting the current tour may have struck a similar chord among other members here. Some of the wording or claims didn't sound right, they didn't seem to agree with other published information including what some of the band members themselves have said. So we put it on the table, and pointed out the discrepancies. Endless Summer was one of those. Seeing a 2015 show billed as an anniversary show was another.

One of them turned into being an actual error, which was forwarded and will be corrected/addressed as necessary. The other, the Endless Summer issue, turned into something different. I'll use my own rationale on that one, and say when that link to the Ryman show was posted and the wording said the ES project was Mike's concept album, it didn't sound right to me. I had seen a similar article this fall saying Mike produced the album, it turns out I had posted that article among others in the thread which got locked down and didn't mention it there. Then I remembered Mike directly addressed it in that '92 Goldmine interview, and reposted all of them together to compare and open the discussion.

I thought that was or could be an error in what was written in those press releases and promotion. It didn't line up with what was known about that album previously. I even asked if there was new info to consider, and suggested again that the info in those PR writings didn't ring true.

If that kind of discussion and questioning is going to be labeled "bashing", what does that mean to any similar fact-checking, correcting, or just plain ol' discussing things like this going forward? Something gets published that a board member here feels isn't accurate, or even wants to explore further with an eye toward it being inaccurate, isn't that what the board has always done? We have dates fact-checked and corrected, we have events fact-checked and corrected, we have enough people who actively read and follow these things and have done so for decades on board to run these topics through the wringer and know enough about the history to decide what is accurate and to also call bullshit on something where it fits.

In the case of Endless Summer, the claims written in those releases doesn't agree with the history, at least to me, and I think it can be discussed here without being labeled "bashing". These are facts which can be researched and considered just like the Wrecking Crew-Beach Boys credit issues. Either the claims add up or they do not.

That contract issue with the billing and labeling: It's good it's being corrected. But when some previous documents or information related to this suggested a disagreement with what was said here, and some posters pointed that out, look what the reaction was. It reached a point of finger-pointing and requests to find other cases of "bashing" to compare or make relevant. What about the original issue from several pages ago, does that just disappear into all of the offshoot discussions and comments or is it a valid enough question to put on the table and discuss? How and why do these mistakes continue to happen if there are editorial controls in place within the system of marketing and promoting live shows? How and why does a band member who no longer plays in the band end up in promotional material for an upcoming show? How is a two-year old long-gone anniversary tour mentioned in promotions for a 2015 show? If anything, maybe fans genuinely care about the perception all of this might be sending out, or might want to suggest some controls need to be tightened or at least looked at so a band photo or a concert billing actually represents the current tour accurately and current to 2014-5 rather than several years old. Are some of the ways of expressing it and stating opinions on it sometimes a little too personal and passionate...I'd say yes. But it doesn't mean that simply pointing these things out equals bashing or anything like it as a general rule.

I like the debate, the discussion, the historians arguing the points, in anything I read or jump into. But maybe trying to deflect and distract and put the original issues into all kinds of subplots and subtexts and even totally unrelated stuff as a general rule when there are legitimate facts and points to consider does lead to some unnecessary interactions. However, pointing out various things said in PR releases or tour promotions or related media is part of what the board has always been and has always done.

The best rule of thumb, I think...offer up the facts. And it's said the character never said it directly, but there is really no substitute for "just the facts" according to Joe Friday. In a few of these cases in this thread, just as an example it's a simple case of did Mike produce Endless Summer or did he not, and instead of pinning a bashing label on the question, how about offering up some facts to agree or disagree with that statement taken from one of the news articles? It might uncover some interesting info, if we can get beyond trying to label someone anti-Mike or a hater for bringing it up.

Which will be dismissed as myths by people who don`t want to accept them eh... 

[Micha]

Why can't he hammer it into the ground?

Because it's boring. Even without a mindset that makes you go mad when someone defends Mike, I wish he'd not repeated it that often. There's really no point to that. Whether that makes him eligible for being banned - I'd rather not discuss that.

[Nicko1234]

If people were banned everytime they were boring then there wouldn`t exactly be many people left.

[filledeplage]

This is all very confusing to me: so someone can get banned for repeating something unpleasant that someone else posted... but the original poster doesn't ?

By this "logic", I've got a free pass to call anyone on here anything I like, as long as I don't repeat it, but anyone who repeats my description gets canned. Have I got that right ? 'Cause that's what it looks like from this side of the pond.

It's tempting... very very tempting... but no. I won't lower myself to their level. Unseemly and unbecoming an Englishman of my advanced years and impeccable manners*.

I shall, however, think terrible things of them.  

[* irony alert, with a light frosting of sarcasm]

Andrew - my take on the banning was that the "reposting" was perceived to be "provocation" and not for content-based. Pinder looks at this from a bigger picture. He appears passionate about it.  None of us would be here, but for the enormous  corpus of fabulous music and vocals.  The music would not have the vocal spectrum without Mike's baritone and Brian's falsetto.  Brian wrote and arranged for every voice.  

Some of this is reminding me of students with a substitute teacher sufficiently harassing them to leave the scene and generally for amusement.  And those who are "hyper-focused" - and "fixated" in the case of Attention Deficit Disorder.  

Andrew - Please don't take the bait, as you are one of the "adults in the room."  And I don't mean age, strictly.  I respect your scholarship even if we don't agree on other issues.  I'd hate to see you banned for getting into a joust with a poster or a faction of posters, who had nothing to do but try to provoke you and send barbs your way and "raise your ire."  

Further below, a poster wisely pointed out that the intent was a repetition of the recently locked thread, under another pretext. (Nicko1234) One for you!  

The tendency to run an analysis in 2014, on 1965 events or interview is ridiculously absurd.   Adding a "fantasy" spin on very innocuous "likes and hates" for a nearly half-century old teen mag is in the same category, in my view.  It is revisionism at its worst.

The intended audience for that article was pre-teens and teens.  I only learned recently that the record companies owned, and/or operated a lot of these print publications that were music-based.  They certainly weren't intended for high-level scrutiny by music historians 50 years post, but, largely for "teeny boppers" (as I was at the time) who contemporaneously were readers and listeners "at that time." And actively in the "marketplace" with a small disposable income, as consumers!  Who knew we had all that power back then?  

I hope Rule 2 is enforced.  The "presumption" is a good name for each and every member.  Personal attacks should not be permitted.  Can one be constructively critical of the actual music? Ya.  Could things have been done differently? Of course. But, value judgments about "perceived" events or "reported" events should be off the table, as well as personal attacks on individual band members.


 

[Nicko1234]

Andrew - my take on the banning was that the "reposting" was perceived to be "provocation" and not for content-based. Pinder looks at this from a bigger picture. He appears passionate about it.  None of us would be here, but for the enormous  corpus of fabulous music and vocals.  The music would not have the vocal spectrum without Mike's baritone and Brian's falsetto.  Brian wrote and arranged for every voice.  

Some of this is reminding me of students with a substitute teacher sufficiently harassing them to leave the scene and generally for amusement.  And those who are "hyper-focused" - and "fixated" in the case of Attention Deficit Disorder.  

Andrew - Please don't take the bait, as you are one of the "adults in the room."  And I don't mean age, strictly.  I respect your scholarship even if we don't agree on other issues.  I'd hate to see you banned for getting into a joust with a poster or a faction of posters, who had nothing to do but try to provoke you and send barbs your way and "raise your ire."  

Further below, a poster wisely pointed out that the intent was a repetition of the recently locked thread, under another pretext. (Nicko1234) One for you!  

The tendency to run an 2014 analysis on 1965 events or interview is ridiculously absurd.   Adding a "fantasy" spin on very innocuous "likes and hates" for a nearly half-century old teen mag is in the same category, in my view.  It is revisionism at its worst.

The intended audience for that article was pre-teens and teens.  I only learned recently that the record companies owned and or operated a lot of these print publications that were music-based.  They certainly weren't intended for high-level scrutiny by music historians 50 years post, but, largely for "teeny boppers" (as I was at the time) who contemporaneously were readers and listeners "at that time." And actively in the "marketplace" with a small disposable income, as consumers!  Who knew we had all that power back then?  

I hope Rule 2 is enforced.  The "presumption" is a good name for each and every member.  Personal attacks should not be permitted.  Can one be constructively critical of the actual music? Ya.  Could things have been done differently? Of course. But, value judgments about "perceived" events or "reported" events should be off the table, as well as personal attacks on individual band members.


 

Thank you kindly sir. 

I think quite a few people who should know better have been played in this thread...