Al would look good if he had only used sunscreen.  He looks like a guy who spent a lot of time outdoors without a hat or high SPF.  His face is youthful but weathering gives him very deep lines. I have a vague suspicion that Mike has had some work done in the past few years.  He looks younger than he did a few years ago.  If not some type of lift, maybe a skin peel. His skin has that shiny type of appearance.  I don't think he should mind someone saying that because if he did have something done, he should be glad someone noticed he had it done, because it's good and subtle if something was done.  If he didn't, then he can congratulate himself for looking naturally what other people have to pay for. 

Al is the only member of the band I've met, and that was back in 2005. Based on my recollection as well as looking at the photos I took and had taken at that time, Al in recent 2012 interviews seems to have aged quite a bit between 2005 and 2012. He didn't seem to have so many of those deep lines in 2005.

I kind of lost touch of paying a lot of attention to Brian on TV or in concert between 2007 (when I last saw him in concert prior to the reunion tour) and now, and he seems to have aged more than five years would normally seem.

They kind of all have, and that's probably because, well, they're old dudes. It's cool, it's how it's supposed to be. They all seem pretty energetic and in good voice for a group of five who collectively have almost 350 years.

I guess I'm just surprised at the widespread assumption that there will be a concert DVD, much less a decent one. We've already seen the first fruits of the tour filming -- a heavily overdubbed handful of songs featured on the PBS show. They couldn't even send a whole show to NPR -- just highlights from several shows awkwardly edited together.

We know a documentary is being made. We have multiple sources saying so. Not a single one of those sources has said they're doing a full concert release for DVD. Everyone here has just assumed it, and that makes me very uneasy.

I'd love a full, two-hour plus show. I'd love it more than words could say. But count me skeptical for now.

I'd have to back to see the exact wording of what Mike said during the QVC show, but he said a live DVD (seperate from the PBS special) comprising multiple shows was going to be released. I took that as no sort of promise of a full setlist being represented, or of full multiple shows. But it also seemed to be pitched as a DVD of live footage rather than simply a documentary.

The "Concert for George" DVD is indeed perfection but that is not the way I want to watch a Beach Boys show.  The reason that particular DVD worked so well was because of the occasion: it was a calm, subdued event for a recently passed musician.  It was intense but still very respectful--which is why it worked so well.  A Beach Boys show has several radical emotions, huge dips and peaks and I would not prefer this type of sleepy editing for "Fun, Fun, Fun."  

There needs to be a great balance between the fast paced MTV-style editing and the flacid in house shots.  The live show is a VERY dynamic and vibrant two and a half hours--the live DVD should capture that same feeling.  I hope the DVD tries to capture the feeling that every person who's seen the show felt as they left the venue: the overwhelming feeling of exhileration and love.  It shouldn't be misrepresented or tamed down.  That would be a huge disservice to the band and the music.

I agree with your sentiment. My issue is more about specifically the editing than it is the tone or "look" of it, although it's all important. See numerous McCartney live DVD's for evidence of some of the worst editing ever committed to film/videotape/disc. It's the style that is prevalent now, so I worry that it would infuse any BB video product. I don't like quick cuts, sideways shots, more shots of the audience than the band, etc. As I said, the St. Augustine show wasn't as bad as it could have been, but it wasn't too great either.

I have a particular issue with audience shots. I don't like it when we never see the audience (see, for a random example, the video of ELO's 1978 Wembly show; for all we know, it's an empty arena with a crowd dubbed in   ). But I don't like it when it's 50/50 (or worse) of the audience and the band. I want to see the band, and frankly, I don't need to see the audience (me included!   ). It's always either gratuitous shots of busty blondes in the front row, or it's a 60 year-old-due crying into his beer singing along to "Let It Be", or other generic "drunk baby boomers" footage.

We're not getting remasters, so why on earth would we be getting a full-length show? Capitol has already decided there's no market for such things.

I don't see how the remasters and the DVD are mutually exclusive.  How are they connected?

Are you saying that Capitol has decided that there is no market for a full length show or that there is no market for a DVD at all?  And when exactly did Capitol "decide that?" ....again, because they appear to not be releasing the remasters in the US?

I don't even think there is anything that indicates Capitol would be the only label available to issue a live DVD/Blu-ray. Believe me, there are plenty of labels would would love to issue the DVD/Blu-ray from this 50th Anniversary tour. If Capitol were not interested (and I don't think there's any reason to think that), I could imagine Eagle Rock or Rhino or Shout or Image or numerous other labels putting it out.

Some of the shows were "professionally shot", but only for the purposes of in-house video systems. Whether the group even has rights to that footage would be unclear (although the venue certainly couldn't do anything with it either of course). They could certainly license it or have an agreement to use it.

Frankly, the more "generic" angles and editing of the live in-house video systems is preferable to the gimmicky, quick-cut stuff most bands put out when they have their own crew shoot a show. The St. Augustine footage isn't too bad, but the editing isn't too great, and the insistence on using that awful crane all the time where we have to look at nearly sideways shots of the band is annoying. I also don't like too much of the in-your-face close-ups, leading to mugging for the camera.

They should just have the same crew that shot the "Concert for George" at the Royal Albert Hall shoot the BB show in the same venue next month. A great look to the footage, and respectful, calm editing is used.

If they don't have adequate coverage of the additional deep cuts played on the tour, they should put out a call for audience HD-quality camcorder recordings and sync them to the soundboard recordings they undoubtedly have and  include them as DVD extras like a few other bands do.

I would certainly think and hope that they had adequate enough coverage of enough songs that they won't have to resort to audience-shot video footage.

I love the fact that we can see clips from a show on YouTube before the show is even over. But the choppy nature of a lot of that footage is off-putting. I'd like to see a professionally-shot full show.

They shouldn't have to do an archaelogical dig for footage of their own new tour.

There's also a version they did on the Easter Seals telethon in 1979 where Mike sang the lead. You can tell why it may have been the only time they tried it with Mike singing it. I couldn't find it on Youtube, but it's an interesting one to see and hear. With Al singing part of the song with Brian on this new tour, I think the only BB (apart from Marks) that we haven't heard a version from is Bruce.

I don't mind "Still Cruisin'" being in the setlist. It's an okay song, not my favorite, probably on the same level of enjoyment for me as "Getcha Back." I think it's kind of cool to hear them do something from another era, and to see Brian integrated into a few 80's era songs where he was originally somewhat estranged from the band. I don't think they should set out to do a song from each album or anything at the expense of picking good songs, but I don't think it's wrong for the 50th anniversary tour to have a few tracks from the 80's other than "Kokomo."

I'm still hoping they'll try "Goin' On."  

It's interesting that Mike did keep the title track in the setlist until 1998 or 1999. I remember first hearing the album after hearing the horrendous reviews, and it wasn't *quite* as bad as I thought it would be. A couple of tracks are catchy, specifically "Lahaina Aloha" and "Strange Things Happen." Okay, that may actually be kind of all.

Terrible production, though. Bad drum samples, digital recording that may have been ahead of its time in pioneering the use of ProTools, but actually sounds more harsh and grating and dated than the 80's digital recording heard on the '85 album.

Both shows that I attended some folks were yelling for Barbara Ann throughout the performance. The Boys are more known for it now, than The Regents. It would be missed. Even Brian had it in his encores since 1999.

I remember going back through the excellent BB Setlist Archive website, and I think there was a period of time around 1986 or so where the BB's experimented with opening with something other than "California Girls", and I think one of the experiments was opening the show with "Barbara Ann." I always wondered if that would quiet the people yelling for it for the entire show. Who knows, maybe they'd just want to hear it again.......

Actually, it looks like the experiment was opening with "Good Vibrations", and "Barbara Ann" was in the middle of the set. It's funny how not opening with "California Girls" was an exciting change for an 80's BB setlist.

This was discussed a bit in an old thread earlier in the tour. I think the way people ask is a big part of it. If you're standing and blocking people, but you're not otherwise being rude or belligerent or drunk, etc., and the person behinds you screams and swears at you, that's not right.

But as I said, if someone behind you politely asks if you could please sit down, and you get mad at them or tell them no, then you're kinda being a d**k, at least if nobody in front of you is standing.

The psychology and behavior aspect is kind of funny. All it takes is the people in the front row to stand, and then everybody else has to stand whether they want to or not in order to see. I usually see this happen at concerts. If I'm standing only because the person in front of me is standing, and someone behind me asks me to sit down, I'd probably just point to the people in front of me and say that I'm only standing because I have to.

If there is just a random strip of people standing and everybody in front and behind them are sitting, then it's easier for those people to sit if asked. In other words, you standing and blocking someone else's view while they sit is hindering their experience way more than you not being able to stand hinders your experience.

And yes, it seems like most people don't take into account possible physical issues people may have. Sure, some people just want to sit because they want to sit. But many literally have to sit, or need to sit to avoid immense pain. For that matter, I wouldn't immediately say anything to someone standing either. Sometimes back problems mean people have to get up and stand and move a bit as well. However, I think the majority of people standing for most or all of a show probably don't have this issue.

Surprisingly, from the recorded evidence I've heard, Baker sounded the worst during his 1981 stint. The stuff from 1990-91 isn't too bad, just extremely nasaly and whiney. When they brought Matt Jardine on full time, that was definitely much better.

It was a bit off-putting in the late 90's and early 2000's that he was singing "Sherry" at Beach Boys concerts and whatnot. The whole deal a few years back when they "traded" Baker to "Papa Doo Run Run" for Randell Kirsch was kind of weird. It ultimately apparently made Mike's band better, but I remember reading comments and reports from around that time that were kind of weird in terms of the circumstances of all of that.

This quote is hilarious:

“We used some of the guys in Brian Wilson’s band and some of the guys from ours. And I think they’re surprised at the pace that we run at, you know? They’re great players, those guys, but they’re used to days off. I get nervous when there’s a day off.”

I'm not trying to stir it up, I don't think this is a big dig at anybody or anything. But I just think it's funny that the guy who arguably does the least heavy lifting in the entire band (even Brian takes more leads than Bruce does) has this "hey guys, catch up to me" attitude.

I'd also be curious to know if the current tour schedule is particularly more grueling than some of Brian's heaviest touring schedules. It just seems to me that Brian's band is enthusiastic and ready to whip out some rarities. I don't see any indication of them lagging. A few comments from "unnamed" backing band members early in the tour seemed to suggest that they felt the "Beach Boys" format of touring was almost more constraining than Brian's tours in some way.

I'm no Mike apologist, but I think he's done a commendable job so far with this. He let Brian make the album Brian wanted to make, by all accounts. Sure, he jokes about the suite being a downer, but he's always done that. And he still sang on it, and he sang like Mike Love, which is a sound Brian has been missing for some time now. The Wondermints are great singers, but their voices don't have the personality of an Al or a Mike or even a Bruce voice. He's been supportive of his cousin throughout this whole process, and I don't think it's lip service just to see some dollars. He's a Brian fan too, after all. He's ceded enormous chunks of the show to Brian and Al's rotating wish lists. Even if those songs don't end up staying in every night, they're there, and he's learning them and performing them. I give Mike a lot of credit on this entire C50 thing. He's learned from past mistakes, and I give him kudos for that.

Going back to a conversation a little back on another thread, is there any evidence of how much Al has personally added to the setlist? Anything besides "California Saga"? The bits we've heard about soundchecks and setlist discussions suggest Mike is still, for whatever reason, the gatekeeper of the setlist and has been thankfully convinced to add various songs. But I don't think Al has come in with a list of suggestions and Mike had signed off on all of them. Al apparently suggested "Our Prayer" at some point, although it could have been Brian or his band that suggested that as well.

I think the thing with Mike is that he is being much more diplomatic and open to "change" for this reunion than we all would have probably guessed. But he's still Mike, and that still means he brings some sensibilities to the reunion that will never be undone, because that's the way he is. I'm amazed at how varied the setlist has been. But it sounds like Mike is still defensive about it, as if they would lose all their fans if they skipped "Little Deuce Coupe" one night or something.

I hypothesized awhile back that Mike could potentially make less money on a reunion tour than he does on his own. In his own operation, he takes the money off the top and everybody else gets paid salary. He doesn't split the money with the other members of BRI. He only splits the licensing fee with the members of BRI, which is just a small percentage of total proceeds. And even that small percentage is shared equally by Mike as well.

Nobody apparently knows what the financial structure is on this reunion tour, but one has to assume it isn't set up for Mike to get everything off the top and only pay everybody else salary. I would imagine Brian and Mike and possibly Al as a member of BRI each split some money off the top, and everybody else is paid salary. And yes, the overheard on this tour is way larger than a Mike/Bruce tour.

I don't think Mike is literally losing money on this tour, but he might make less personally touring in 2012 than he did in 2011.

As I mentioned in another thread, the booking of non-reunion shows and all of those types of scenarios had to be known to all parties when the tour started. The only unknown was how much blowback or bad publicity Mike would get for going back to his own version of the BB's. Doing the reunion was a big thing for Mike to put himself out there to do, because he's basically re-reminding people of what the "real" BB's should look like, and his own BB's-Lite with two actual BB's and a smaller backing band may be judged differently now, at least in some quarters.

I do think that the chances for confusion and controversy increase exponentially if they are doing non-reunion gigs literally within weeks of a reunion gig.

It's nearly a month later, in a different continent and even now the article makes it clear that Brian won't be there, and that Alan & David very likely won't. Anyone who turns up expecting the full C50 experience totally deserves all the disappointment they're going to get.

Or to be less charitable about it, stupid is as stupid does.

I'm not saying anybody would have a legitimate reason to be confused. I'm just saying objectively that confusion could occur. Sometimes stupid people book concerts, promote concerts, buy ticket, and attend concerts.

I do think that the chances for confusion and controversy increase exponentially if they are doing non-reunion gigs literally within weeks of a reunion gig. Or, even more confusingly, if there are still possible future reunion gigs too and they do Mike/Bruce shows in between. Mike used to do this with his "Endless Summer Band" or whatever it was called in the 80's and 90's, but that was never billed as the BB's.

Bands have fought over use of band names for ages, and we have seen different lineups go out with the same names. But it is rare for a full-fledged reunion for a band to be followed within weeks by a band with the same name but 2/5 of the reunion lineup. Again, though, these are things they must have factored in when doing the reunion.

I don't think Mike and Bruce are going to have a bunch of mass walk-outs at gigs because people realize they aren't "reunion" gigs. At the same time, they may run into instances of confusion among venues, concert promoters, and ticket buyers. I don't think if this happens from time to time over the next few months/year, it will kill Mike's tour or anything. But it is ironic that Mike may run into a problem slighlty similar to the reason he had a beef with Al touring in 1999 as "BBFF", where some venus incorrect billed it as the actual BB's.

But there is a big difference here in that Mike has the license to use the name. Keep in mind that although I don't know how long each "license" is in duration (e.g. year to year, or every two years, etc.), but if Brian decided on this tour that afterwards he no longer wanted Mike using the BB name, he could vote to pull the license.

I'd have to believe that within all the negotiations for this reunion tour, they all understood what could or would happen after. I would hope they built it a contingency for more reunion dates if they felt like it. But whatever happens after this tour, it's going to be something all the parties were aware could happen.

The only unknown would have been how much the public would latch on to the idea of a reunion and all of a sudden view the same Mike/Bruce band with skepticism after that band touring for over a decade.

I've seen plenty of odd mistakes with concert promotions, but this is weird. It would be one thing if the website just listed a BB show without any information about the lineup. But there would have to be a pretty big mixup for someone to be told it was specifically the reunion lineup when it wasn't.

There has been a lot of speculation about what the Mike/Bruce show might do. I figured there was a strong liklihood they would do more gigs in the future. I am surprised if they are doing one this quickly after the reunion, though.

Given the amount of media attention given to the reunion, I would wonder if there might be some confusion from ticket buyers if a bunch of Mike/Bruce shows are booked as soon as October.

I remember thinking they might do something like this, especially since I figured they'd be doing long shows and would want a longer break.

Hopefully they are still doing "Add Some Music" as well to open the second set with the full BB band.

I think part of the problem is that it's been a long time since the entire BB group has done a big press tour and whatnot. I've followed, for instance, McCartney over the years, and even setting aside the same freaking Beatles questions he still gets asked ("Yesterday" was "Scrambled Eggs", John helping him with "Hey Jude", what it was like to land in America in 1964, etc.), it's the same round of questions and answers when it comes to whatever "new" project is going on. Often, the artist feeds the endless cycle by giving the same answers word-for-word every time. It's a cycle. Sometimes the artist is sick of the questions, but they can't control the questions, so they give the same answers. Hence, David Marks telling us a million times that "it's just like a family reunion", etc. A non-hardcore fan also doesn't follow the band to every interview, so the answers sound fresh to the masses.

But the interviewers (not our great fan-friendly, knowledgeable folks like Mr. Edelson) are a big part of the problem, and even when not prompted to ask anything or not ask anything, they all ask the same thing anyway. "What's it like to get back together?" Unless you can phrase that in a way that gets a different answer, what do you think the guys are going to say. "We hate it, but we signed on to finish the tour?"

The pattern for "new" songs being added to the setlist is that it usually seems to be a deeper cut that either Brian's or Mike's band has done within the last 5 or 7 years in their shows. How many songs have they done on this tour that neither band had ever done, aside from the two new album cuts? Even "California Saga" had been done by Brian's band during the handfull of shows Al did with him in 06/07.

So I would imagine likely candidates would be things like "Good Timin'" that both bands have done in the past. I've been hoping for "Goin' On" as my extreme long shot. It would be cool to hear that band do those ascending/descending harmonies. Heck, they even have Mertens there to do the 80's sax solo. The song was dropped like a bad habit before the end of the 1980 tour.

I'm still surprised they never did "Come Go With Me", not that I miss it terribly. If they added it the setlist without deleting a cool song or an Al song, I'd be for hearing it. But I'm surprised simply because it was in the setlist for so many years and was a relative hit in 1981.

Beyond songs either band has done in the past, I suppose we would look at songs the band members have mentioned. So yeah, things like "Graduation Day", "Vegetables", "Our Prayer", "Farmer's Daughter", and also maybe songs they've done in the past that we know some of the band members like. Mike has said he likes "Wonderful", so that's a slight possibility, as would be "Warmth of the Sun."

I'm still hoping someone convinces them to do the extended "Heroes and Villains" just to see if Mike will actually do the "Cantina" bit. If someone explained to him that he would probably at least temporarily win over a lot of the hipster/indie young fans by doing that bit, maybe he'd do it.  

Maybe AGD can refresh my memory about this. I recall that the multitracks hadn't been found for this track, only a rough mixdown. I would hope at least the fidelity of that mixdown in the vaults would be better than what "circulates", which sounds like a fifth-generation cassette dub.

As for 15BO, I actually think "That Same Song" and to a lesser extend "TM Song" are two of the better tracks on the album. They are more enjoyable to me than the limp oldies covers.

As long as Brian wasn't wearing the leather pants from the the Dick Clark "Night Time" performance from 1988...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGfwkkm-GQI

Yes, I am going to find as many ways as possible to reference that peformance.   

New U.S. tour date for the fall? October 6 at Nutty Jerry's in Winnie, TX.

From http://blogs.houstonpress.com/rocks/2012/06/the_beach_boys_coming_to_nutty.php

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

Interesting! Hopefully they'll hit some markets they didn't hit on the first "leg", and also maybe do a second show in markets they only did one show in. I was wondering if something like this would happen; they may not want to do another 70-date tour in 2013, but maybe take a little break and cram in some more shows in 2012, just to wring as much as they can out of the "50th Anniversary" year. Maybe they booked "Nutty Jerry's" after they discovered they still had  a warehouse full of "50th Anniversary" tour merchandise to sell.