It's such a wonderful song, and it really does perplex me why (to my knowledge) nothing has surfaced.

Are there any recordings of the song being performed live? Did they even play it live?

No such performance has been documented.

Not quite true - I was the person who asked the BB about "All I Wanna Do" at their Grammy Museum appearance during the Q&A part with the audience, and while Brian seemed to not even recall it by name, Mike chimed in by quietly singing the chorus to Brian (to remind him of it), and this "performance" was captured on tape (albeit, very very quietly This embarrassing moment (of the band not even recalling their own songs off of their 2nd most praised album of all time) was written up about in the OC Weekly, if I recall correctly.

A live performance analogous with that of "Pom Pom Playgirl" from 1971?

I'll totally admit that it's a stretch to call Mike at Grammy Museum quietly singing to Brian (in front of an audience, mind you) of the chorus of "All I Wanna Do" an actual "performance", but it may be the closest we ever get to one! And it was recorded

You'll have to fill me in about the details of PPP from '71...  

It's such a wonderful song, and it really does perplex me why (to my knowledge) nothing has surfaced.

Are there any recordings of the song being performed live? Did they even play it live?

No such performance has been documented.

Not quite true - I was the person who asked the BB about "All I Wanna Do" at their Grammy Museum appearance during the Q&A part with the audience, and while Brian seemed to not even recall it by name, Mike chimed in by quietly singing the chorus to Brian (to remind him of it), and this "performance" was captured on tape (albeit, very very quietly This embarrassing moment (of the band not even recalling their own songs off of their 2nd most praised album of all time) was written up about in the OC Weekly, if I recall correctly.

I also got Bruce to sing a line or two of "Don't Run Away" when I ran into him there.

The band's history of ignoring and brushing aside the amazing "All I Wanna Do" is among the most perplexing things they've ever done (in a history of perplexing decisions). The song is a (hardcore) fan favorite, which deserves to be presented/officially released in instrumental and backing-track-only mixes at some point.

Crossing my fingers that Stephen W. Desper does a study video on it (hint, hint)...

The band seems to have recognized the "quality" of many other deep cuts in recent years, like "Time to Get Alone", "Soulful Old Man Shunshine", etc... but somehow AIWD gets no praise from the band themselves (or their compilers). I just don't get it.

[I think it’s overreaching a bit to suggest that Spector’s withdrawel somehow inspired Brian to do the same, consciously or not]

I think it’s overreaching a bit to suggest that Spector’s withdrawel somehow inspired Brian to do the same, consciously or not. It’s an opinion of course, but I have a hard time following that train of thought. Especially since, as others have pointed out, Brian actually was pretty productive even after Phil turned his back on the industry for a while.

Affirmative. I especially 2nd the 1st sentence. Brian is Spector's fan - so what? I find it really ridiculous to even suggest that Brian "became" mentally ill because Phil did the same thing. Brian was obsessed with the music, the wall of sound technique & so on, other than that he didn't idolize Spector much, on a character level, or he'd be extremely arrogant & possessed big ego. And also, it's a fact that Brian outdid Phil; what he created sounded more original, just compare Pet Sounds & "the best" Spector works. The arrangements on the latter all sound the same, while Brian went further with experimenting & studio trickery. Even Brian himself confirmed in some interview that he's better.

Of course, no disrespect to you, CenturyDeprived. I thoroughly enjoyed your other topics.

RangeRoverA1 - No disrespect felt here

However, I wasn't suggesting that BW "became" mentally ill because Phil did; it's more of BW learning/following actions of others by example, particularly (dysfunctional) actions of people that he looked up to as role models, to a certain extent. Similarly, if Murry hadn't been someone who stayed in bed for long periods of time when depressed, would Brian have done the same when he got super depressed? Maybe, but maybe not. Brian is influenced by those around him very much, and it seems (as an outsider) that he always has been.

Phil was undoubtedly a huge role model to BW in terms of music, production, technique, and BW obviously was itching to break out of the BB mold and produce other artists just like Phil (and BW did, even going back to the early days). I would think that Phil recording many songs that were arguably among the best and most progressive of his career in '65-'66 (and not releasing them), and Phil's general disappearance from the scene in some sense "legitimized" BW doing the same. Or at least it may have put the seeds in BW's head to a small extent.  Just IMHO, of course. But these things seem to line up to me.

Keep in mind - when Brian felt he'd been "beat" by The Beatles with their new sound of Strawberry Fields, it was another nail in the coffin that helped extinguish the fire in his belly to truly compete, and keep pushing forward to be the best/most successful, as had been drilled into him by Murry. I also think that Phil's breakdown from moving forward (Phil having himself felt he'd been "beaten" by progressive change within the music industry, or whatever insecurity-related reasons that caused Phil's abrupt 1966 sabbatical from the industry) helped Brian feel that maybe it was time for him to do the same.

I'm sure Brian was keenly aware of most every aspect of Phil's career trajectory (and abrupt withdrawal), and it couldn't have done wonders for Brian's own confidence, when his own role model threw in the towel. It must have been strange for Brian to witness at the time, and I just wonder what went through Brian's head at the time (in 1966) seeing Phil retreating like that. I don't think that he simply brushed it off and made it a 100% non-issue. I think it effected him in some fashion, at the very least on a subconscious level. We can all speculate on how much/how little, but I don't believe that many people can argue that Phil (Brian's biggest idol/influence) throwing in the towel in 1966 had zero effect on Brian, particularly coming at a time when Brian's own confidence was becoming increasingly shaky due to a great many factors.

Does anyone know the answer to the question that I asked in the original post, about if Brian (and/or other industry insiders and friends of Brian) were aware at the time of all these Phil Spector gems being recorded in '65-'66 and hoarded, remaining unreleased? I think I remember someone on this board saying that Brian (or Diane Rovell, working as Brian's assistant) was trying to get a hold of bootleg copies of some of these songs for Brian sometime in the 70s.  The whole idea of Brian feeling his SMiLE songs were "inappropriate" or just "not fit for release" had to have been legitimized to some small extent (IMHO) by watching his idol do the same.
 

Maybe Endless Summer would have played out exactly as it did, but I think, in particular, that the relentless touring of the 80s, 90s, and beyond would have been a different story.

I don't think many people can deny, even hard-core fans of the band like myself, that the brand name of the band has been "whored out" to an unimaginably ridiculous extent over the years, and I have to think that that is in part due to the bandmembers trying to make up for this unfortunate snafu in the history of the band.

People have made good points In this thread, especially concerning how other bands of the time similarly weren't super well known for their individual members.

But I think my original point of this thread was, the fact that the Beach Boys seem to have been the biggest and most high-profile band that I can think of of their era, to be as anonymous as they were/are.

From Brian be easily able to slip in and out of the band at will in the early days, to Al Jardine's nonappearance on the Summer Days album cover, to their lead singer Mike Love missing some concerts and having it not be any kind of big deal whatsoever in the media, to Mike and Bruce playing hundreds of shows without many audience members really noticing or caring who is onstage. I think this band is a league of their own for being as famous as they are, and as iconic as they are, to have been able to "get away with" this type of anonymity. And I guess I am searching for an answer for why this is, because it is such a bizarre situation.

I'm sure that the band is keenly aware of this themselves and they clearly have taken advantage of this over the years, because truthfully it benefits them to be able to use the band name at will without all members. It certainly may not benefit the brand name of the band in the big picture, from a quality control standpoint, but it has certainly provided short-term "benefits" and cash for the band over the years many, many times.

Didn't most 60's bands get screwed over by their management? The Rolling Stones? The Animals? The Grateful Dead?

Plus, back in the day most people in the industry though that pop music was ephemeral.  I mean, did the Murray deal really seem that outrageous when it was made, in 1970?

That may be true to an extent, but I imagine that to the Boys, it must've seemed like even more of a screw-job, having come from their father/uncle.

I imagine it hurt even worse to have something (their catalog) that was in their hands just bone-headedly slip out of their fingers in the manner in which it did, and the eventual repercussions of that were immense to their career tragectory, IMO.

I feel that the Boys losing the catalog like they did eventually led to the band to becoming bigger workaholics (and less about the "art") than they'd have been otherwise.

For one, I feel that this unfortunate event led the 70s/80s/90s BBs to be more money-grubbing and eventually in "sell-out" mode more than would have been the case if they'd had the (much) bigger bucks in their bank accounts which the catalog would've made possible. I'm sure many people would say that the BBs have always made $ a big priority in their careers, even in their mid 60s glory days, but I think Murry's sale of the catalog had many indirect consequences. (Some of them may have indirectly been good consequences).

Would M&B still be at it on the road?
Would the BRI voters have let M&B have the rights to tour with the name (to pad their own pockets) if their pockets were much fuller already?

It certainly seems like money was a big motivating factor in the band going on for as many years as it has.
Especially if the BBs felt "screwed" out of money that was rightfully theirs, and they were determined to be as rich as they "should have been" no matter what.

Perhaps they'd have broken up in the 70s?  (Then we wouldn't have "Love You", and that would be most unfortunate).
I simply cannot imagine the albums, tours, etc. post '69 turning out the same way in this alternate scenario. Big things would've been different in a major way, methinks.

I guess ultimately I wonder if Murry's sale of SOT eventually led to a series of events causing artistic decay within the band.

Why have the BBs, almost since their very inception, been a band whose members were not particularly identifiable to many (or perhaps most) fans?
Granted, Dennis in the early days was a sex symbol, and the band got tons of early attention just for that fact alone.

But the fact that Brian, the group’s “leader” could get away with leaving the touring group in ‘63, and just subbing in alternate people (with it seemingly not affecting the machine that was/is the BBs) strikes me as a unique situation, or at least an unusual situation amongst their band peers.

Of course, this situation seems to have benefited the band at many times throughout their history. The band being as anonymous (member-wise) as they have been throughout the years seems to have helped the M&B show keep the ball rolling as they have, since many people have reported audience members not even knowing (or caring) who the band onstage consisted of, as long as it was (and sorta kinda sounded like) The Beach Boys.

Also, the general masses seemed to have not really noticed (or cared) when Carl/Brian/Dennis missed shows in the late 70s/early 80s… I’m sure that *some* fans knew what was going on, but for a band as famous as the BBs, it just seems they have been able to weather bandmates not being present (and have many, if not most audience members not even notice) much more than most other bands of their stature. Even when their “lead singer” Mike Love took leaves of absence for being sick a few times throughout the years, and the band kept chugging on, seemingly unblemished, or unbeknownst to many of the general public. I can’t think of many (if any) huge bands where the lead singer could miss chunks of shows without it being a huge, huge deal.

Ultimately, I wonder this: Why did a band like The Beatles (just to use an example), grow into an entity where each member was super well known, and it would’ve been a huge deal if any one of them missed a show, versus the Beach Boys, whose members seem almost anonymous to the public at large since their inception? Is it because the BB members were just much more boring by comparison, and didn’t make as big an impression to the average fan? Does this say something about BB fans too? Not superfans, but average fans.  I'm sure that latter-day Mike is glad that this unique situation isn't that much of a "problem" for the M&B show.

Particularly after recently reading The Beach Boys in Concert, I just find this phenomenon to be bizarre, and worthy of pondering from time to time.

Johnny Carson was was admired by Brian. I still maintain Spirit of America is one of the forgotten songs that should have been included in greatest hits packages since the release of Sounds Of Summer

Jet without wings

I also wonder if Carson ever said "hey thanks"  or something to that effect to acknowledge his namesake BB song. Although, I could imagine that its bizarre production would've made it a bit hard for JC to get into and be completely proud of.

I have thought about this topic many times. SOMETHING stopped Brian's motivation, drive, and productivity. Of course you can take your pick from a long, much-discussed list. But, yeah, I've often wondered about the Spector/Brian decline. Spector was more than an influence on Brian; he might've been considered an obsession.

Not to be a jerk, but I think the thread title should be Brian's decline coinciding with Phil Spector's decline.  

Sheriff - you are right on about the title - I changed it now

I really do think that Brian's obsession with Spector, and Spector's decline was at least a partial factor in Brian sort of "giving up" and shelving SMiLE (and subsequent personal decline).

It wasn't until the non-release of SMiLE that Brian really started shelving nearly finished works of incredible beauty. Or at least works that would otherwise be "releasable", that he'd worked so very hard composing.  Granted, there were BB outtakes from the early days, but nothing of such obvious magnitude and significance.

Granted, BW still did some increasingly sporadic output in the next few years, which I see as being something that he was coaxed into - had he been as isolated as Spector was without a family support system and friends who depended on him, I have a hunch we'd have seen far less BW output in the late '60s-early '70s.

I'm certain that BW latched onto the (admittedly beautiful) insanity that was present in Spector's work. It's just so obsessively beautiful, and buried within Spector's music, Brian surely heard some of that shared pain from abusive childhoods that the two (otherwise very different) men shared. Both PS and BW took their pain and funneled it into mindblowingly incredibly beautiful music as an escape.

In '66-'67, did the world at large (and more specifically, Brian) know that Spector had some super amazing completed tracks just sitting in the can, not being released? (Songs like "Paradise" and "This Could Be the Night"?) Was this common knowledge, or at least "insider" knowledge within the music scene? Because I imagine if BW knew, he'd be super frustrated as a fan to not hear songs by his musical idol, but also seemingly it would somehow "legitimize" in BW's mind the idea that a musical genius can in fact just take their best work and hide it away from the world (for what at that point seemed like) until the end of time. And to take that idea further, the more reclusive (and sick) Spector eventually became in the early 70s also coincided with Brian holing up at home and falling deeper into reclusiveness.

Didn't I read something on this board at some point talking about BW trying to get a hold of Spector's unreleased '60s songs on bootleg tapes in the late '70s?

Having been on a big Phil Spector kick lately, something occurred to me that I’m sure has crossed some other peoples’ minds.

When Phil abruptly “retired” in 1966 after the US chart failure of River Deep, Mountain High, he also had a slew of unreleased (and super amazing) songs recorded around that time which went unreleased. It seems that he kept these songs unreleased due to fear of failure (maybe specifically due to the winds of change sweeping the pop music landscape), and of course as a sickly demented method to keep Ronnie Spector down, and under his thumb.

What I wonder is, if Brian (being probably the biggest Spector fanboy in pop music at the time) wound up subconsciously copying some of Phil’s actions with the non-release of SMiLE? Of course there were many other factors involved (which have been discussed ad nauseam), but it’s just too much of a coincidence to me that Brian’s musical hero became a recluse in ’66 and dramatically scaled back his productivity (and kept great recordings unreleased), and that Brian did a similar pattern soon thereafter.

Much like Brian’s pattern of following others around him by example (staying in bed when depressed, just like Murry), I venture to guess that BW (who felt his music was aligned with the Spector style, to a degree) also sadly went along with copying this type of behavior when BW’s decline started in ’67. IMHO, I feel that Phil’s actions contributed another nail in the coffin of BW feeling his huge production/echo chamber/orchestrated music style was now “dated” and not worth pursuing anymore.

I just wonder, if Spector hadn’t thrown in the towel when he did in 1966, in the manner that he did, and kept making music/pushing forward, would that have changed the trajectory of Brian’s actions (even a little bit) around that time?

What I Really Want for Christmas.
I actually have never listened to it all the way through in its entirely.
That being said, I kinda sorta dig the new songs on the album, as well as the BBs remakes (which I thought were surprisingly good).

Did Craig Breedlove (the driver of Spirit of America) ever meet the BBs?  There aren't many people (especially non-musicians) who can say that they were namechecked in a BB song. I guess most of the people mentioned in Do You Remember were already (or would in the future be) associates of the BBs.

Has Alexandra Morgan ever commented about working with Brian? Has anyone ever tried to ask/interview her?

Do we know anything about her at all, besides her being Landy's companion/widow (and his former patient, apparently), and having been an actress?

I assume she just went along with what Landy was doing, and was more or less thought to be someone who stood by while Brian was being manipulated/abused by Landy, but I wonder if there's any more to it than that.

And I also wonder what (if anything) she genuinely contributed to BW's 80s output...

Bruce will need to dig his Big Dog sweater out of his closet.

What are the odds that Bruce still has that Big Dog sweater? I say 50/50.

This apparently is really happening.

http://www.inquisitr.com/1018472/full-house-to-launch-sequel-series-with-adult-tanner-girls/

How long before Mike is on the phone to Stamos, dropping hints about a M&B cameo?

And yes, I'm totally serious - I bet the phone call may have already taken place!

When Mike said, "I look forward to them being an opening act for the Beach Boys next summer (2013)", in my opinion, and not trying to start anything  , I think he was probably referring to the Mike & Bruce version, which, based only/specifically on touring - are The Beach Boys.

Again, in my opinion, while there might've been some preliminary talk about a follow-up album to TWGMTR, reunion-wise, I really don't think anybody (with the possible exception of Al Jardine) was looking ahead that far, to the summer of 2013.

So based on your assumption of Mike having meant the M&B show when he said this in July 2012... would that mean that Mike thought that BAD would be “cool” with his eventual actions to return to the M&B version? And that the Cal Saga kids would be cool to tour with M&B?

As far as the Cal Saga kids, I agree with what Nicko1234 said. Maybe Mike was getting carried away and not really thinking about what he was saying; we know he was emotional during his speech. But, he might've been hoping! I'm sure he would've been open to some arrangement with Cal Saga, and I don't think we've heard or seen the last of them. I hope politics didn't come into play but it probably did. This is The Beach Boys we're talking about...

Maybe you're right, and that ML was just thinking/wishing/hoping/praying that Cal Saga would just happily join a tour consisting of *whatever* incarnation of the BBs that would exist the following summer. And that even though the 2013 BB incarnation was at the time uncertain as of July 2012, that ML hoped this joint tour would still come to fruition.

However, since he specifically mentioned a "summer" tour, the very nature of a joint tour didn't seem to come out of thin air. It seemed like there was some previous preliminary thought/details behind the statement. Still, maybe the joint tour idea had just been hatched, if they all just had chatted about a hypothetical tour in the green room.

Maybe I am reading way too much into ML's Grammy Museum statement. Still, I guess I'm still trying to understand the un-understandable question: did ML really think that it was plausible that BAD would just happily go their separate ways with no hard feelings, and that everyone in Cal Saga wouldn't mind either? Is that a scenario  that could actually have happened in a million years? It's just one of those many baffling things in BB-land that makes zero sense to me. These guys are bonkers. There surely is no answer for this, even though I'm still searching for one.

When Mike said, "I look forward to them being an opening act for the Beach Boys next summer (2013)", in my opinion, and not trying to start anything  , I think he was probably referring to the Mike & Bruce version, which, based only/specifically on touring - are The Beach Boys.

Again, in my opinion, while there might've been some preliminary talk about a follow-up album to TWGMTR, reunion-wise, I really don't think anybody (with the possible exception of Al Jardine) was looking ahead that far, to the summer of 2013.

Well, Mike was obviously looking forward to summer 2013 based on what he said on the video. It's probably the only 2012 evidence of Mike specifically referring to plans for 2013.

So based on your assumption of Mike having meant the M&B show when he said this in July 2012... would that mean that Mike thought that BAD would be “cool” with his eventual actions to return to the M&B version?  And that the Cal Saga kids would be cool to tour with M&B? It just doesn’t quite add up to me that ML could have been thinking that way, even in the nutty world of questionable BB member decisions/thought processes.  

I think *maybe* things were going well enough in July 2012 for things to have panned out better, maybe for BAD involvement to have continued in some capacity (maybe in an on-and-off capacity), but that between that date and the end of the C50 shows, something bad happened behind the scenes to sour everything.

This hypothetical 2013 Cal Saga/BB summer tour could only have happened if the sh*t didn’t hit the fan (as it did), so was ML so completely unaware that there would be hurt feelings by holding to a “set end date”? Did he think everyone would just go their separate ways, no problemo, and that the Cal Saga kids would happily tour with M&B onstage (after having just all played together with the full BB band at Hollywood Bowl + Irvine)? If one is to assume that on this Grammy Museum video that Mike was thinking of the M&B version touring with Cal Saga in 2013, one would almost have to assume he was unaware that any repercussions to his eventual actions would occur.
 
Obviously, plans in BB-land weren’t thought out well too many steps ahead of where they were at the time, but surely ML wouldn’t have mentioned a 2013 Cal Saga/BB summer tour in front of a Grammy Museum audience of fans, unless it was something that was maybe going to happen. I speculate that, for a brief moment in time in July 2012, there were some plans for 2013 panning out in a better manner than they did (plans that even ML was negotiating at the time).  

It’s obvious that long-term plans for all parties involved weren’t really well thought out, and everyone probably took a wait-and-see approach. But this is a kernel of evidence of something that was going on behind the scenes, which could obviously have panned out in any number of ways.

I guess I’m most interested in what the intentions were at the time ML said this stuff at the Grammy Museum. Not that we can ever know for sure, but it’s interesting to speculate. I, for one, can’t quite phantom that Mike was proposing/referring to a 2013 Cal Saga/M&B tour.

I just mean AGD going on and on about how Mike did everything right on the C50 and its a good thing M&B are back with their shows.

Take a straw poll and I think you'll find most folk here, and elsewhere, are glad Brian's away from Mike. Which rather contradicts the desire for the C50 to reconvene. Can't have it both ways. Summer 2012 was an extended moment that will never happen again. I was as amazed as anyone that it worked as well as it did.

One interesting thing to think about, is that at the Grammy Museum performance for California Saga (on July 10, 2012), which happened a few months before the full Beach Boys performance there, Mike was in the audience and joined the band onstage for California Girls. There's a video of part of Mike's onstage appearance, which Justin filmed, on YouTube.

Anyway, during Mike's onstage appearance (at 2:35 in the Youtube video), he mentioned that California Saga would be joining the Beach Boys *next* summer on tour.  His words were "I  look forward to them [Cal Saga] being an opening act for the Beach Boys next summer [2013]". It seemed as though that was an actual plan of sorts that was to have taken fruition, from the way Mike proudly mentioned it.  Even if a Cal Saga/BBs tour was not booked "officially" yet (it was probably just "talk" that they were all collectively discussing as a possibility), it seemed like ML was totally serious about it happening.Fdddd

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xe5y7G8RQQ8

I'm trying to wrap my head around it. Because at that point (based on the nature of his comments), it seemed like Mike had anything but a "set end date" in mind. The California Saga-touring-with-the-Beach-Boys talk certainly gave me the impression (obviously I was wrong) that he was thinking about long-term reunion stuff happening (in some capacity), and that the kids would be joining them for a proper tour, which surely would've been wonderful.

I was there, a few feet away from the Lovester when he said these words captured on the video, and I guess witnessing those words in person made it all the more disappointing when the sh*t hit the fan so soon afterwards.

I was wondering if this possibly throws a monkey wrench into the whole idea that the reunion was in fact going to end as a planned thing. Or if something really messed up happened (post July 10, 2012) to interfere with the BBs relationships at some point after that initial Grammy Museum appearance.  I can't possibly think that Mike would believe that California Saga would tour with the Mike & Bruce show. Could that have been what he was actually thinking about? That's more than a little nutty of an idea. I wish some interviewer would ask him.

Were any post C50 Mike & Bruce shows booked already by this point? Was ML thinking that the Mike & Bruce band would play *some* shows post C50, and that the full BBs (with BAD in tow) would rejoin the lineup in summer 2013, and Cal Saga would then happily tour with them then? To me, that seems to be the most logical theory which would’ve been Mike’s thought process at the time… but Brian/Al not being happy about those plans (to have the M&B show continue at that point) caused the plans to derail. Maybe Mike always ideally wanted to have BAD rejoin the “BBs” touring group in summer 2013, but the  Brian/Al feeling hurt and then starting a press sh*tstorm made that an impossibility.

This is all so confusing, but one really has to wonder what ML's intentions were at the time. Trying to figure this out is like trying to get inside the head of a crazy person, and figure out why they do the things they do.

Either way, this segment in the video tells me there's more to the whole C50 implosion story than meets the eye.

Not sure if anyone had any initial thoughts my above post (since nobody replied to it), but just wanted to ask the board again - does the fact that Mike mentioned in July 2012 that Cal Saga would be touring with the BBs in summer 2013 seem to hint to anyone else that as of July 2012, Mike thought the summer 2013 BBs would include the BAD lineup too?

Maybe it means Mike is a 72 year old guy who gets things confused in his head here and there.

Let's keep in mind these are guys who were batshit insane as it was in their fighting years

No doubt Mike (and all of these guys) are all a bit nuts from being rock stars for 50 years... but it seems like he really had a plan, or at least had hatched the beginnings of a plan for a summer 2013 Cal Saga/BB tour to happen.

Unless he was just ad libbing an idea that popped into his head onstage, which I think is very unlikely. It seems like, from the way he said it, that there were already some talks happening behind the scenes, to some degree.

Maybe someone needs to ask a Cal Saga member.

I think it's important and beneficial to gain a deeper understanding of why things went down the way they did with C50, because the vagueness and unknown factors only seem to make people in general more blindly and unfairly pissed at ML. I want to personally gain more of an understanding. I would think that uncovering more of the facts will probably help balance overall opinion out to a more "nuanced" ground.  

Maybe I'm wrong, but  I have a hunch that this "planned" Cal Saga/BB 2013 joint tour might have some interesting implications.

I don't think it was ever going to fly myself. That would have made what, 20 onstage singers/ musicians to haul around on tour? The numbers would not have worked IMO.

Maybe it wouldn't have worked.

But regardless, I guess what I'm wondering, is that if ML had even been in the planning stages of attempting to make it happen (as it seems from the video), that would have implications (which we'd have to speculate on) that he was at that point considering for the BB reunion to either go on until the next summer, or at least "pick up" at next summer. Unless of course he was thinking Cal Saga would tour with M&B, which doesn't compute in my head.

We of course can't know for sure, but we can speculate. With the still missing pieces (that AGD has hinted at) regarding the unknown factors which messed up the reunion in the last few months of C50, ML's July 2012 intentions (as he stated on the video) for a Cal Saga/BBs 2013 summer tour seems to be a piece of the puzzle that I think could be important.

I just mean AGD going on and on about how Mike did everything right on the C50 and its a good thing M&B are back with their shows.

Take a straw poll and I think you'll find most folk here, and elsewhere, are glad Brian's away from Mike. Which rather contradicts the desire for the C50 to reconvene. Can't have it both ways. Summer 2012 was an extended moment that will never happen again. I was as amazed as anyone that it worked as well as it did.

One interesting thing to think about, is that at the Grammy Museum performance for California Saga (on July 10, 2012), which happened a few months before the full Beach Boys performance there, Mike was in the audience and joined the band onstage for California Girls. There's a video of part of Mike's onstage appearance, which Justin filmed, on YouTube.

Anyway, during Mike's onstage appearance (at 2:35 in the Youtube video), he mentioned that California Saga would be joining the Beach Boys *next* summer on tour.  His words were "I  look forward to them [Cal Saga] being an opening act for the Beach Boys next summer [2013]". It seemed as though that was an actual plan of sorts that was to have taken fruition, from the way Mike proudly mentioned it.  Even if a Cal Saga/BBs tour was not booked "officially" yet (it was probably just "talk" that they were all collectively discussing as a possibility), it seemed like ML was totally serious about it happening.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xe5y7G8RQQ8

I'm trying to wrap my head around it. Because at that point (based on the nature of his comments), it seemed like Mike had anything but a "set end date" in mind. The California Saga-touring-with-the-Beach-Boys talk certainly gave me the impression (obviously I was wrong) that he was thinking about long-term reunion stuff happening (in some capacity), and that the kids would be joining them for a proper tour, which surely would've been wonderful.

I was there, a few feet away from the Lovester when he said these words captured on the video, and I guess witnessing those words in person made it all the more disappointing when the sh*t hit the fan so soon afterwards.

I was wondering if this possibly throws a monkey wrench into the whole idea that the reunion was in fact going to end as a planned thing. Or if something really messed up happened (post July 10, 2012) to interfere with the BBs relationships at some point after that initial Grammy Museum appearance.  I can't possibly think that Mike would believe that California Saga would tour with the Mike & Bruce show. Could that have been what he was actually thinking about? That's more than a little nutty of an idea. I wish some interviewer would ask him.

Were any post C50 Mike & Bruce shows booked already by this point? Was ML thinking that the Mike & Bruce band would play *some* shows post C50, and that the full BBs (with BAD in tow) would rejoin the lineup in summer 2013, and Cal Saga would then happily tour with them then? To me, that seems to be the most logical theory which would’ve been Mike’s thought process at the time… but Brian/Al not being happy about those plans (to have the M&B show continue at that point) caused the plans to derail. Maybe Mike always ideally wanted to have BAD rejoin the “BBs” touring group in summer 2013, but the  Brian/Al feeling hurt and then starting a press sh*tstorm made that an impossibility.

This is all so confusing, but one really has to wonder what ML's intentions were at the time. Trying to figure this out is like trying to get inside the head of a crazy person, and figure out why they do the things they do.

Either way, this segment in the video tells me there's more to the whole C50 implosion story than meets the eye.

Not sure if anyone had any initial thoughts my above post (since nobody replied to it), but just wanted to ask the board again - does the fact that Mike mentioned in July 2012 that Cal Saga would be touring with the BBs in summer 2013 seem to hint to anyone else that as of July 2012, Mike thought the summer 2013 BBs would include the BAD lineup too?

Brian didn't fire Michael for one very simple reason - he was a founding member and was vital to the band's sound and live image. Brian is Michael's biggest fan, and vice versa. The two of them have a bond that none of us will ever understand. Blood runs thicker than water. I know that's tough for a certain radical pro-Brian faction on here to take but it's the truth.

There's an even simpler reason, and it's the same one which explains why Mike didn't fire anyone post-C50: he couldn't, without the support of his brothers. The band were formally incorporated on 3rd April 1964 as Beach Boys Entertainment Enterprises Inc., with Brian, Carl, Dennis & Mike as directors. As much as he may have wanted to (which was almost certainly - not), "you're out of the band, buckwheat !" was never a solo option.

I'm guessing that if Al had never left, he'd have probably been included in this '64 incorporation? I'm pretty sure I've read this somewhere, but just to double check - is the presumed reason that Al wasn't included on this incorporation based out of some sort of "punishment" for him leaving the group for a spell in '62? Or because Murry knew that Al would stick around to be part of a (now) famous group regardless of being left out of the incorporation, so why give him any extra bucks/power if they didn't have to? Or because he was not family? (Or all of the above)?

I just mean AGD going on and on about how Mike did everything right on the C50 and its a good thing M&B are back with their shows.

Take a straw poll and I think you'll find most folk here, and elsewhere, are glad Brian's away from Mike. Which rather contradicts the desire for the C50 to reconvene. Can't have it both ways. Summer 2012 was an extended moment that will never happen again. I was as amazed as anyone that it worked as well as it did.

One interesting thing to think about, is that at the Grammy Museum performance for California Saga (on July 10, 2012), which happened a few months before the full Beach Boys performance there, Mike was in the audience and joined the band onstage for California Girls. There's a video of part of Mike's onstage appearance, which Justin filmed, on YouTube.

Anyway, during Mike's onstage appearance (at 2:35 in the Youtube video), he mentioned that California Saga would be joining the Beach Boys *next* summer on tour.  His words were "I  look forward to them [Cal Saga] being an opening act for the Beach Boys next summer [2013]". It seemed as though that was an actual plan of sorts that was to have taken fruition, from the way Mike proudly mentioned it.  Even if a Cal Saga/BBs tour was not booked "officially" yet (it was probably just "talk" that they were all collectively discussing as a possibility), it seemed like ML was totally serious about it happening.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xe5y7G8RQQ8

I'm trying to wrap my head around it. Because at that point (based on the nature of his comments), it seemed like Mike had anything but a "set end date" in mind. The California Saga-touring-with-the-Beach-Boys talk certainly gave me the impression (obviously I was wrong) that he was thinking about long-term reunion stuff happening (in some capacity), and that the kids would be joining them for a proper tour, which surely would've been wonderful.

I was there, a few feet away from the Lovester when he said these words captured on the video, and I guess witnessing those words in person made it all the more disappointing when the sh*t hit the fan so soon afterwards.

I was wondering if this possibly throws a monkey wrench into the whole idea that the reunion was in fact going to end as a planned thing. Or if something really messed up happened (post July 10, 2012) to interfere with the BBs relationships at some point after that initial Grammy Museum appearance.  I can't possibly think that Mike would believe that California Saga would tour with the Mike & Bruce show. Could that have been what he was actually thinking about? That's more than a little nutty of an idea. I wish some interviewer would ask him.

Were any post C50 Mike & Bruce shows booked already by this point? Was ML thinking that the Mike & Bruce band would play *some* shows post C50, and that the full BBs (with BAD in tow) would rejoin the lineup in summer 2013, and Cal Saga would then happily tour with them then? To me, that seems to be the most logical theory which would’ve been Mike’s thought process at the time… but Brian/Al not being happy about those plans (to have the M&B show continue at that point) caused the plans to derail. Maybe Mike always ideally wanted to have BAD rejoin the “BBs” touring group in summer 2013, but the  Brian/Al feeling hurt and then starting a press sh*tstorm made that an impossibility.

This is all so confusing, but one really has to wonder what ML's intentions were at the time. Trying to figure this out is like trying to get inside the head of a crazy person, and figure out why they do the things they do.

Either way, this segment in the video tells me there's more to the whole C50 implosion story than meets the eye.

Who really cares when or why Mike noticed? The thing is, as a cowriter he deserved credit regardless of how one feels about him.

At what point does the piss-and-vinegar seen in the pages of Billboard come out as it's actually happening in real time, never mind 30 years later? Or as I asked about 5 pages ago, what stopped Mike from taking action at that time?

I just wonder if Mike feeling (rightfully) super slighted by the ongoing lack of ML credits situation (especially when Brian credits his younger bro Carl for Dance, Dance, Dance) is what helped lead to instances of ML's questionable behavior towards BW over the years. Mike had a right to feel slighted, but holding in that grudge didn't do anyone any favors.  Grudges always seep out in one way or another. Still, I can't help but still think that even if ML had gotten proper credits all along, BB history may have still otherwise played out similarly.

I still don't understand how Mike wrote the lyrics to a huge hit, California Girls, got no credit (to his great financial detriment ), and did nothing about it for 20 some years. I mean, how could he sing it, see it on the charts, the 45s, LPs, all missing his name, and do nothing about it?

It's very possible that he did; we don't know for sure that he didn't. You have to admit it would be out of character for Mike Love to NOT pursue it to some extent, even a little bit.

The Beach Boys were touring extensively, having hit records, making TV appearances, and making money. Basically they were well on their way to becoming one of the most popular groups in the world. Mike probably didn't want to risk going from all of that to becoming the lead singer of The Marksmen.

I don't know. Makes no sense. Song hit #3 in the US. The BBs were at their popular peak. Mike was already credited on a bunch of hits.

Murry or not, I woulda been on that. What, Murry is gonna fire the lead singer? Mike was dispensable?

To you and me, no, Mike was not dispensable. But who knows what Murry was capable of doing. I know David Marks was much more dispensible than Mike and look what happened to him (thus my Marksmen reference). We do that Murry was very confident that he could take a couple of guys - The Sunrays - and turn them into "another Beach Boys". So, maybe Murry thought Mike was expendable. More importantly, maybe MIKE THOUGHT MURRY THOUGHT Mike was expendable. Just sayin'...  

EDIT: Also, after Summer Days (And Summer Nights), the album that "California Girls" appears on, Mike had a, shall we say, reduced role in the next two studio albums, Pet Sounds and SMiLE. Coincidence? It's possible that Mike sensed some "changes"....

You really can't help but wonder if so much of Mike's resistance to those albums was based not only on fear of the band's new music "failing" in general, but more about him throwing a passive aggressive lyric-questioning tantrum out of him feeling threatened that the place he had attained in the band that was being stripped away from him in favor of cousin Brian's "art" music. He surely felt he needed/wasn't wanted anymore (or as much as before).

I can empathize with how that must've felt, and it must've sucked... but still, how one wishes Mike could've held onto his ego more at the time.  If Mike could just fess up to this (to however small a degree), it would go miles to making improving what people think of him. He'd be humanized as a person who has made some mistakes, but has some self awareness. There's no part of me that believes that Mike hasn't thought about this to himself at one point or another. And maybe that sad fact is what fascinates me about the Lovester (who I do not hate, just feel sad that he can't/won't change)... I'm holding out hope that while these guys are still on planet Earth, that this past stuff can still be acknowledged and made better to some degree. Sometimes, people only want to hear the word "sorry" from others (I know some people think Mike has nothing to apologize for, ever, but I just don't see it that way).