Al joining Mike and Bruce for Jones Beach show

[Crow]

Regardless of who is right or wrong it always feels like Al is REALLY sensitive to stuff

[HeyJude]

Don't know about the rest of you, but I'm waiting for Melinda's comment on Ambah's statement about the "no more shows for Wilson's" email that was sent. I can't imagine Ambah made it up, and it does support Mike's comment about that last year. So, looks like it was the Wilson's who said no to more than 73 gigs.

Nah, that’s rather specious reasoning. I will totally buy that Brian’s “camp” could have easily made some hasty, weird comments as the tour wrapped up. I doubt this comment about an e-mail from Brian’s camp is totally made up; I also don’t find the source of this information as reliable as far as the context or details. When did Brian send an e-mail? What did it say? Did that e-mail happen before or after Mike had begun to book non-reunion shows? We get one paraphrased line of an approximately alleged two-year-old e-mail, mixed in with a bunch of weird internet vitriol (in response to plenty of vitriol, no question) and defensive language about a range of private and public crap.

The problem is, NOTHING else Mike had said (apart from that one passing comment about Brian saying “no more shows”) in the last two years in interviews washes with the idea that Brian and Brian alone is responsible for no more reunion shows. On the contrary, Mike’s language and attitude has indicated that he much prefers the way things are now. Mike has been the one to continually refer to there being a “term” to the reunion, dismissing the tour as “oh, that was just for the fans” as if we were getting tossed a bone, continually referencing how everybody is “going back to what they used to do.” Mike’s language and attitude has been crystal clear that he is back to doing what he prefers. Not once has Mike said “I want to keep all five of us together and keep touring and recording, but Brian refuses to do it” or “I’d do another reunion tour tomorrow if Brian wanted to.” Mike has not once referenced all those alleged offers for them to do more shows and do another album, etc. He has said some rather lukewarm if not negative things about other aspects of the reunion tour (the band was too big, etc.). Again, that’s all fine. But it’s very clear Mike doesn’t want to go back to that. He has made vague references to a series of conditions under which he would *consider* doing something again.

As I’ve mentioned in the past, maybe Mike started booking non-reunion shows, then Brian’s camp got all bothered about it and hastily threatened to take their ball and go home (although were they threatening something that was already happening anyway?), but then there were more offers for more shows and they wanted to do it. Whatever the sequence of events, it’s clear they made no attempt to regroup and reschedule more activities together. If Brian said no more shows, but Mike wanted to, but then at some later stage Brian said he in fact did want to do more shows, why was Mike’s reaction then to still tour on his own for the next two years? Even if we buy into the argument that Mike at that point had booked more shows on his own and needed to do them, etc. Why not get together in the aftermath of those statements to the press in 2012 and make arrangements for another 2013 tour?

It may well not be as simple as Mike being the sole reason for the demise of the reunion. But he has also made it abundantly clear that he prefers touring on his own to touring with the full group.

[Foster's Freeze]

“oh, that was just for the fans”

That irritated me bad when I first read it.  Tool.  Thanks for going through the motions Mike!

It may well not be as simple as Mike being the sole reason for the demise of the reunion. But he has also made it abundantly clear that he prefers touring on his own to touring with the full group.

Truth.

[HeyJude]

You have to admire Ambha's dedication to protecting her dad's reputation, but it's pretty sad that she feels the need to do so. Even so, this…

Brian is a genius and wrote several songs and arrangements

… made me LOL at the level of understatement.

It looks like she wrote that hastily. She forgot to add the word "classic" the first time but did the second time. I doubt she meant anything by it.

I hate the idea of any Beach Boys progeny feeling it necessary to take to Facebook to defend their parents. There's something very unsettling about that. That's not a knock on them, but rather an observation that the level of fan vitriol is embarrassing.

I can also say relatively objectively that the comments aren’t making her case or lending anything any credibility. I get it, we’re in the age of hastily-written, “write first and think about it later” internet commentary, where celebrities make asinine comments on twitter and then remove them two hours later when complains roll in.

I’m sure the families of these public figures are privy to far more than we are, and have to deal with things we don’t (they also live a lifestyle that we don’t ). But especially with these young folks posting about their Dads, they may, and I stress *may* not have a grasp on some of the historical context of where all this drama comes from, both in terms of the individuals involved (the band members and families) and the fans. That’s not to justify crazy fans (or dysfunctional rock stars), but it’s possible she doesn’t understand some of the weird stuff that festers among band members and fans over the course of 30, 40, 50 years.

[shelter]

If I'm Mike Love, and I and the rest of my BB bandmates are staring mortality in the face, I don't know that I could forgive myself if the the last Beach Boys gig isn't played by The Beach Boys. And with every additional gig that he books with his current backing band, instead of finding a way to co-exist with Brian, Al and David, the potential for that happening comes closer and closer to reality. They all need to make some compromises, but as long as Mike keeps control of the name, it ultimately falls on him, for better and worse.

To be perfectly honest, I think that if I'd be Mike Love, I'd be just fine touring with my regular "hired hands". Mike's already achieved everything any musician could dream of, and much more. In fact, he already did 45 years ago. So now he's 73 years old, still doing what he loves most, and for the majority of the past 16 years it's been pretty smooth sailing because he's in charge and everyone he works with is basically his employee. Yes, he could take Al or Brian on board, but we've all seen how that works out. Sure, you'll sell some extra tickets, but it turns into one big soap opera every time and somehow everyone ends up with a bitter taste in their mouth. I could understand it if Mike just doesn't want to deal with that anymore.

[JohnMill]

I don't have much to add to what has already been stated but as guitarfool2002 stated this is a sad situation all around.  From a professional perspective where Al Jardine felt it necessary to drop out of a concert more or less out of the blue which will no doubt disappoint fans.  To the fact that it was apparently personal matters the precipitated this decision on his part, whatever issues with Live Nation notwithstanding.  Also the whole crew needs to stay off Facebook.  Facebook, Twitter and social media in my opinion are not good forums for public figures to defend themselves against the masses.  Engaging social media in such a way always seems to manage to look shoddy or like they are slinging mud.  If the band needs to make an official announcement of some type that is what press releases or official statements are for. 

As for Ambah Love's posting unless there are some inaccuracies in her posting, that is about as cut and dry as you can get.

Don't know about the rest of you, but I'm waiting for Melinda's comment on Ambah's statement about the "no more shows for Wilson's" email that was sent. I can't imagine Ambah made it up, and it does support Mike's comment about that last year. So, looks like it was the Wilson's who said no to more than 73 gigs.

Yeah, I realize that comment "no more shows for Wilson's" isn't on topic for this particular thread, but the silence of the responses HERE is deafening. Pages and pages and pages of blaming Mike for "ending" the reunion tour...

That is what we were told.  Therefore that is what we believed.  For months we had no information other than what trended on Google and that was Mike Love "fired" Brian Wilson, Al Jardine and David Marks from the band so that he could return to touring venues with a smaller outfit.  I believe the reasoning given at the time was that certain venues were unavailable to Mike as long as he was aligned with the C50 band because the scope of the C50 show/band was too large for some venues to accommodate.  Therefore the reasoning given was that Mike Love wanted to play these other venues so he decided to "end the reunion tour".

Obviously more information has come down the pipeline since then (and I'm guessing it's not going to stop anytime soon) and people will have to reevaluate their individual stances.

[HeyJude]

Something doesn't add up here. Al receives notification from Live Nation about Jones Beach. He's (apparently) miffed that the offer comes through a third party. We do know that he posts about Jones Beach on his Facebook feed - but did he EVER pick up the phone (pretty much immediately) and contact Mike to settle the issue?

Something like - 'hey Mike, it's Al...I'm excited about Jones Beach man, but WTF...do you really want me down there? Is this really happening? Is this a one shot thing? What exactly is going on?'

A conversation like that should've gone down within 48 hours after hearing from Live Nation. Right? I mean, that's what normal people would do...

I'm happy about his shows with Bri, but sheez...all of this should've hit and breezed over a long time ago.

Regarding Ambha, I'm reminded about athletes' use of twitter. It's incredible to me how many people (regardless of their age) have no self governor when posting sh*t online. When the game's on the line (or the show's about to start) get your ass off twitter et al unless you know how to ride that media tiger. Many people, most people, don't.

Well, on the one hand, if Al took offense that Live Nation offered the gig instead of Mike, there would be no way to un-do that. He could talk to Mike all day and Mike could say he’d love to have Al there, but if Mike was egged on to allow Al back for one show by Live Nation, there’s no way Al wouldn’t take offense.

The issue then becomes, what happened after that? That still seems murky, because it appears Al attempted to strike a deal to do the show even after initially being “offended” by the source of the offer. I still wonder if some of the theories posted here about Al envisioning a more long-term, permanent situation with the touring “Beach Boys”, and that theoretical desire being squashed, might have had something to do with the deal falling apart. Again, what’s Al’s motivation to do a one-off if he’s not going to be back in full-time, especially if even the offer for the one-off show came at the impetus (or for all we know arm-twisting) of Live Nation.

I’m more taken aback by the idea that after some 15-plus years of assuming that the only way to get Mike and Al to play together was for them to personally get over whatever it is that makes them not be able to play together, it’s actually possible for a promoter to independently (to some degree; certainly Mike had to agree to it as well) make an offer to Al that could have theoretically worked.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Don't know about the rest of you, but I'm waiting for Melinda's comment on Ambah's statement about the "no more shows for Wilson's" email that was sent. I can't imagine Ambah made it up, and it does support Mike's comment about that last year. So, looks like it was the Wilson's who said no to more than 73 gigs.

Nah, that’s rather specious reasoning. I will totally buy that Brian’s “camp” could have easily made some hasty, weird comments as the tour wrapped up. I doubt this comment about an e-mail from Brian’s camp is totally made up; I also don’t find the source of this information as reliable as far as the context or details. When did Brian send an e-mail? What did it say? Did that e-mail happen before or after Mike had begun to book non-reunion shows? We get one paraphrased line of an approximately alleged two-year-old e-mail, mixed in with a bunch of weird internet vitriol (in response to plenty of vitriol, no question) and defensive language about a range of private and public crap.

The problem is, NOTHING else Mike had said (apart from that one passing comment about Brian saying “no more shows”) in the last two years in interviews washes with the idea that Brian and Brian alone is responsible for no more reunion shows. On the contrary, Mike’s language and attitude has indicated that he much prefers the way things are now. Mike has been the one to continually refer to there being a “term” to the reunion, dismissing the tour as “oh, that was just for the fans” as if we were getting tossed a bone, continually referencing how everybody is “going back to what they used to do.” Mike’s language and attitude has been crystal clear that he is back to doing what he prefers. Not once has Mike said “I want to keep all five of us together and keep touring and recording, but Brian refuses to do it” or “I’d do another reunion tour tomorrow if Brian wanted to.” Mike has not once referenced all those alleged offers for them to do more shows and do another album, etc. He has said some rather lukewarm if not negative things about other aspects of the reunion tour (the band was too big, etc.). Again, that’s all fine. But it’s very clear Mike doesn’t want to go back to that. He has made vague references to a series of conditions under which he would *consider* doing something again.

As I’ve mentioned in the past, maybe Mike started booking non-reunion shows, then Brian’s camp got all bothered about it and hastily threatened to take their ball and go home (although were they threatening something that was already happening anyway?), but then there were more offers for more shows and they wanted to do it. Whatever the sequence of events, it’s clear they made no attempt to regroup and reschedule more activities together. If Brian said no more shows, but Mike wanted to, but then at some later stage Brian said he in fact did want to do more shows, why was Mike’s reaction then to still tour on his own for the next two years? Even if we buy into the argument that Mike at that point had booked more shows on his own and needed to them, etc. Why not get together in the aftermath of those statements to the press in 2012 and make arrangements for another 2013 tour?

It may well not be as simple as Mike being the sole reason for the demise of the reunion. But he has also made it abundantly clear that he prefers touring on his own to touring with the full group.

Let's see the response first... if there is one. If not, well, that's interesting. Mildly.

[HeyJude]

Don't know about the rest of you, but I'm waiting for Melinda's comment on Ambah's statement about the "no more shows for Wilson's" email that was sent. I can't imagine Ambah made it up, and it does support Mike's comment about that last year. So, looks like it was the Wilson's who said no to more than 73 gigs.

Yeah, I realize that comment "no more shows for Wilson's" isn't on topic for this particular thread, but the silence of the responses HERE is deafening. Pages and pages and pages of blaming Mike for "ending" the reunion tour...

I figured as soon as Mike made that odd comment about Brian saying “no more shows”, there was likely something to it. Problem is, while that may well indicate that the “Mike was 100% solely responsible for the reunion tour ending” accusations are inaccurate, it is nowhere near an indication that it all falls on Brian now. Why? Well, on the one hand we have one passing comment from Mike and one quick reference on facebook to an e-mail from Brian. On the other, we have every other action and comment Mike has made in the last nearly two years. You don’t start saying stuff like “there were too many voices and parts competing on stage” and criticize a #3 chart placement, and imply somebody is without “honor”, and so on, if you wanted that situation to continue. I’m not even getting into whether Mike’s comments are valid or not. But his comments make it very clear he didn’t like aspects of the reunion, and he much prefers touring on his own.

[HeyJude]

Don't know about the rest of you, but I'm waiting for Melinda's comment on Ambah's statement about the "no more shows for Wilson's" email that was sent. I can't imagine Ambah made it up, and it does support Mike's comment about that last year. So, looks like it was the Wilson's who said no to more than 73 gigs.

Nah, that’s rather specious reasoning. I will totally buy that Brian’s “camp” could have easily made some hasty, weird comments as the tour wrapped up. I doubt this comment about an e-mail from Brian’s camp is totally made up; I also don’t find the source of this information as reliable as far as the context or details. When did Brian send an e-mail? What did it say? Did that e-mail happen before or after Mike had begun to book non-reunion shows? We get one paraphrased line of an approximately alleged two-year-old e-mail, mixed in with a bunch of weird internet vitriol (in response to plenty of vitriol, no question) and defensive language about a range of private and public crap.

The problem is, NOTHING else Mike had said (apart from that one passing comment about Brian saying “no more shows”) in the last two years in interviews washes with the idea that Brian and Brian alone is responsible for no more reunion shows. On the contrary, Mike’s language and attitude has indicated that he much prefers the way things are now. Mike has been the one to continually refer to there being a “term” to the reunion, dismissing the tour as “oh, that was just for the fans” as if we were getting tossed a bone, continually referencing how everybody is “going back to what they used to do.” Mike’s language and attitude has been crystal clear that he is back to doing what he prefers. Not once has Mike said “I want to keep all five of us together and keep touring and recording, but Brian refuses to do it” or “I’d do another reunion tour tomorrow if Brian wanted to.” Mike has not once referenced all those alleged offers for them to do more shows and do another album, etc. He has said some rather lukewarm if not negative things about other aspects of the reunion tour (the band was too big, etc.). Again, that’s all fine. But it’s very clear Mike doesn’t want to go back to that. He has made vague references to a series of conditions under which he would *consider* doing something again.

As I’ve mentioned in the past, maybe Mike started booking non-reunion shows, then Brian’s camp got all bothered about it and hastily threatened to take their ball and go home (although were they threatening something that was already happening anyway?), but then there were more offers for more shows and they wanted to do it. Whatever the sequence of events, it’s clear they made no attempt to regroup and reschedule more activities together. If Brian said no more shows, but Mike wanted to, but then at some later stage Brian said he in fact did want to do more shows, why was Mike’s reaction then to still tour on his own for the next two years? Even if we buy into the argument that Mike at that point had booked more shows on his own and needed to them, etc. Why not get together in the aftermath of those statements to the press in 2012 and make arrangements for another 2013 tour?

It may well not be as simple as Mike being the sole reason for the demise of the reunion. But he has also made it abundantly clear that he prefers touring on his own to touring with the full group.

Let's see the response first... if there is one. If not, well, that's interesting. Mildly.

If I were any of the parties involved in any of this, the big takeaway from all of this would be to not respond at all. Still after all this, I sense the only one in the band that has any particular interest in keeping the full band reunited is Al. Dave would probably dig it. Brian either doesn’t care or is over it. Mike clearly prefers doing his own thing, and Bruce goes where Mike does. What’s left to address? The fans who enjoyed C50 surely care much more about who “ended” the tour than Brian’s camp does at this stage, so I wouldn’t expect them to respond.

Lack of response isn’t an indicator of much, certainly not fault or guilt. If that were the case, then we’d still be wondering why Mike never addressed Brian and Al’s mention of more offers for reunion shows, another album, etc.

Don’t get me wrong, I would love for all of these parties to clarify as much as possible for us. I’d love LOTS of information, and without the drama and vitriol and bad internet grammar. We are unlikely to get the information, though; and if we do, it will no doubt be filled with the brand of drama that only the BB’s can offer.

[Foster's Freeze]

Don’t get me wrong, I would love for all of these parties to clarify as much as possible for us. I’d love LOTS of information, and without the drama and vitriol and bad internet grammar. We are unlikely to get the information, though; and if we do, it will no doubt be filled with the brand of drama that only the BB’s can offer.

Again, very well said.

[Wirestone]

If anyone is seriously re-evaluating anything they've thought because of online posts from a teenager, they're nuts.

As stated several times here, the supposed importance of "no more shows" is nonsensical given 99 percent of Mike's post tour comments. And Melinda Wilson herself has told interviewers about the difficulty of booking tours with Brian when he changes his mind day to day about what he wants to do. My guess is Brian indeed said something like that in passing during the 2012 tour, but it had zero effect on how the end of the thing went down (Brian made other, on the record comments, about never wanting to work with anyone else and being a BB full time ...)

[startBBtoday]

Don't know about the rest of you, but I'm waiting for Melinda's comment on Ambah's statement about the "no more shows for Wilson's" email that was sent. I can't imagine Ambah made it up, and it does support Mike's comment about that last year. So, looks like it was the Wilson's who said no to more than 73 gigs.

Nah, that’s rather specious reasoning. I will totally buy that Brian’s “camp” could have easily made some hasty, weird comments as the tour wrapped up. I doubt this comment about an e-mail from Brian’s camp is totally made up; I also don’t find the source of this information as reliable as far as the context or details. When did Brian send an e-mail? What did it say? Did that e-mail happen before or after Mike had begun to book non-reunion shows? We get one paraphrased line of an approximately alleged two-year-old e-mail, mixed in with a bunch of weird internet vitriol (in response to plenty of vitriol, no question) and defensive language about a range of private and public crap.

The problem is, NOTHING else Mike had said (apart from that one passing comment about Brian saying “no more shows”) in the last two years in interviews washes with the idea that Brian and Brian alone is responsible for no more reunion shows. On the contrary, Mike’s language and attitude has indicated that he much prefers the way things are now. Mike has been the one to continually refer to there being a “term” to the reunion, dismissing the tour as “oh, that was just for the fans” as if we were getting tossed a bone, continually referencing how everybody is “going back to what they used to do.” Mike’s language and attitude has been crystal clear that he is back to doing what he prefers. Not once has Mike said “I want to keep all five of us together and keep touring and recording, but Brian refuses to do it” or “I’d do another reunion tour tomorrow if Brian wanted to.” Mike has not once referenced all those alleged offers for them to do more shows and do another album, etc. He has said some rather lukewarm if not negative things about other aspects of the reunion tour (the band was too big, etc.). Again, that’s all fine. But it’s very clear Mike doesn’t want to go back to that. He has made vague references to a series of conditions under which he would *consider* doing something again.

As I’ve mentioned in the past, maybe Mike started booking non-reunion shows, then Brian’s camp got all bothered about it and hastily threatened to take their ball and go home (although were they threatening something that was already happening anyway?), but then there were more offers for more shows and they wanted to do it. Whatever the sequence of events, it’s clear they made no attempt to regroup and reschedule more activities together. If Brian said no more shows, but Mike wanted to, but then at some later stage Brian said he in fact did want to do more shows, why was Mike’s reaction then to still tour on his own for the next two years? Even if we buy into the argument that Mike at that point had booked more shows on his own and needed to do them, etc. Why not get together in the aftermath of those statements to the press in 2012 and make arrangements for another 2013 tour?

It may well not be as simple as Mike being the sole reason for the demise of the reunion. But he has also made it abundantly clear that he prefers touring on his own to touring with the full group.

I'm sure, like most things in life, there is fault in both parties.

Real quick, though, how would it benefit Mike Love to play the victim in this scenario and say that it was Brian who ended the reunion, not him? Mike knows everyone's always going to love Brian more than him. And why would Mike say that what he's doing now, touring as The Beach Boys without Al, Brian or David, is somehow inferior or not what he wants to be doing? Mike does what's best for business, and with how the chips fell, what's best for business is him acting like he's totally happy touring on his own without all the extra drama.

And that probably is what he prefers, but I also believe it's what Brian's wifeandmanagers prefer, as well.

I think Brian's new situation has, overall, been beneficial, but let's also not ignore that we can count on one hand how many times Brian has been a "Beach Boy" for the last 20 years. C50, Stars & Stripes, Beach Boys monument, Capitol building reunion. Am I missing any?

[filledeplage]

If anyone is seriously re-evaluating anything they've thought because of online posts from a teenager, they're nuts.

As stated several times here, the supposed importance of "no more shows" is nonsensical given 99 percent of Mike's post tour comments. And Melinda Wilson herself has told interviewers about the difficulty of booking tours with Brian when he changes his mind day to day about what he wants to do. My guess is Brian indeed said something like that in passing during the 2012 tour, but it had zero effect on how the end of the thing went down (Brian made other, on the record comments, about never wanting to work with anyone else and being a BB full time ...)

Ambha might be a teen in the opinion of many.  But what she has is first-hand knowledge.  I like that she has the courage of her convictions.  I like that she gets involved in an issue about which she has passion.  And right or wrong she'll take her lumps along the way. But that is part of the game. 

She is not a passive young "valley girl." She appears to have strong opinions and she voices them. That, in my opinion is the sign of leader.  She isn't the first to be out there, in a opinionated fashion. Carnie gets out there and speaks her mind, as well and right or wrong, she still gets "out there" in the arena so issues are discussed, whether they are uncomfortable or not and opens up the discussion.

Bravo to you, Ambha! She is getting out the information to weigh two sides of the coin, and that is never a bad thing.

Maybe Ambha will go to law school or go into politics! We need courageous young women leaders! 

[SurfRiderHawaii]

Brian probably did say "no more shows" mid-tour when his back was killing him. But at a certain point, if I recall, he had some procedure on his back during a tour break and felt much better. He started having fun.

At that point, he and Al wanted to carry on but Mike didn't and was booking dates for the M/B show. In typical BB fashion, communication was bad and the end turned into a PR fiasco. That's how I think it happened.

[SMiLE Brian]

I think its sad that Mike can be the "beach boy" all he wants while Brian and Al cannot be in the band they founded along with Mike.

[HeyJude]

Don't know about the rest of you, but I'm waiting for Melinda's comment on Ambah's statement about the "no more shows for Wilson's" email that was sent. I can't imagine Ambah made it up, and it does support Mike's comment about that last year. So, looks like it was the Wilson's who said no to more than 73 gigs.

Nah, that’s rather specious reasoning. I will totally buy that Brian’s “camp” could have easily made some hasty, weird comments as the tour wrapped up. I doubt this comment about an e-mail from Brian’s camp is totally made up; I also don’t find the source of this information as reliable as far as the context or details. When did Brian send an e-mail? What did it say? Did that e-mail happen before or after Mike had begun to book non-reunion shows? We get one paraphrased line of an approximately alleged two-year-old e-mail, mixed in with a bunch of weird internet vitriol (in response to plenty of vitriol, no question) and defensive language about a range of private and public crap.

The problem is, NOTHING else Mike had said (apart from that one passing comment about Brian saying “no more shows”) in the last two years in interviews washes with the idea that Brian and Brian alone is responsible for no more reunion shows. On the contrary, Mike’s language and attitude has indicated that he much prefers the way things are now. Mike has been the one to continually refer to there being a “term” to the reunion, dismissing the tour as “oh, that was just for the fans” as if we were getting tossed a bone, continually referencing how everybody is “going back to what they used to do.” Mike’s language and attitude has been crystal clear that he is back to doing what he prefers. Not once has Mike said “I want to keep all five of us together and keep touring and recording, but Brian refuses to do it” or “I’d do another reunion tour tomorrow if Brian wanted to.” Mike has not once referenced all those alleged offers for them to do more shows and do another album, etc. He has said some rather lukewarm if not negative things about other aspects of the reunion tour (the band was too big, etc.). Again, that’s all fine. But it’s very clear Mike doesn’t want to go back to that. He has made vague references to a series of conditions under which he would *consider* doing something again.

As I’ve mentioned in the past, maybe Mike started booking non-reunion shows, then Brian’s camp got all bothered about it and hastily threatened to take their ball and go home (although were they threatening something that was already happening anyway?), but then there were more offers for more shows and they wanted to do it. Whatever the sequence of events, it’s clear they made no attempt to regroup and reschedule more activities together. If Brian said no more shows, but Mike wanted to, but then at some later stage Brian said he in fact did want to do more shows, why was Mike’s reaction then to still tour on his own for the next two years? Even if we buy into the argument that Mike at that point had booked more shows on his own and needed to do them, etc. Why not get together in the aftermath of those statements to the press in 2012 and make arrangements for another 2013 tour?

It may well not be as simple as Mike being the sole reason for the demise of the reunion. But he has also made it abundantly clear that he prefers touring on his own to touring with the full group.

I'm sure, like most things in life, there is fault in both parties.

Real quick, though, how would it benefit Mike Love to play the victim in this scenario and say that it was Brian who ended the reunion, not him? Mike knows everyone's always going to love Brian more than him. And why would Mike say that what he's doing now, touring as The Beach Boys without Al, Brian or David, is somehow inferior or not what he wants to be doing? Mike does what's best for business, and with how the chips fell, what's best for business is him acting like he's totally happy touring on his own without all the extra drama.

And that probably is what he prefers, but I also believe it's what Brian's wifeandmanagers prefer, as well.

I think Brian's new situation has, overall, been beneficial, but let's also not ignore that we can count on one hand how many times Brian has been a "Beach Boy" for the last 20 years. C50, Stars & Stripes, Beach Boys monument, Capitol building reunion. Am I missing any?

Will Mike ever be able to un-do the perception that he or Brian has among fans and spectators? Probably not. But that doesn’t mean he should be resigned to what anyone else thinks. More importantly, it’s clear he’s not resigned, and continues to try to counter critics and naysayers to varying degrees in interviews.

How would putting the blame on Brian for ending the tour benefit Mike? In a very simple and specific way. “Mike Love fires Brian Wilson” was a huge headline, a “trending” online topic, in 2012. Mike could have easily cleared up everything by stating in his letter to the LA Times that “I don’t know what anyone is talking about. I wanted to continue the reunion, but Brian refused to do any more shows.” Mike never said anything along those lines in his statement. He went on about a “set end date”, how they went above and beyond by extended the tour, discussed how the reunion tour didn’t allow him to play small markets, and so on, the same stuff we got in subsequent interviews. Every indication was that he indeed did not want to do more reunion shows. He could have easily said instead that he would have been happy to do more shows, but Brian didn’t want to. Why didn’t that happen? My guess is because Mike was happy to go back to his own touring, and everything he has said and done has supported that assertion. He says in interviews that he enjoys touring with his band. Meanwhile, he has minimized the reunion tour and said some moderately critical things about some aspects of it.

[Andrew G. Doe]

The back procedure came before the tour extension.

[HeyJude]

If anyone is seriously re-evaluating anything they've thought because of online posts from a teenager, they're nuts.

As stated several times here, the supposed importance of "no more shows" is nonsensical given 99 percent of Mike's post tour comments. And Melinda Wilson herself has told interviewers about the difficulty of booking tours with Brian when he changes his mind day to day about what he wants to do. My guess is Brian indeed said something like that in passing during the 2012 tour, but it had zero effect on how the end of the thing went down (Brian made other, on the record comments, about never wanting to work with anyone else and being a BB full time ...)

Ambha might be a teen in the opinion of many.  But what she has is first-hand knowledge.  I like that she has the courage of her convictions.  I like that she gets involved in an issue about which she has passion.  And right or wrong she'll take her lumps along the way. But that is part of the game.  

She is not a passive young "valley girl." She appears to have strong opinions and she voices them. That, in my opinion is the sign of leader.  She isn't the first to be out there, in a opinionated fashion. Carnie gets out there and speaks her mind, as well and right or wrong, she still gets "out there" in the arena so issues are discussed, whether they are uncomfortable or not and opens up the discussion.

Bravo to you, Ambha! She is getting out the information to weigh two sides of the coin, and that is never a bad thing.

Maybe Ambha will go to law school or go into politics! We need courageous young women leaders!  

If I were any of these band members, or their family members, or their PR people, or agents, or managers, I would not want any of that crap online. It’s not well-written or eloquent, its lack of eloquence undermines its credibility and believability, and as I’ve mentioned elsewhere, it has a tone that strongly suggests to me that it lacks any historical context or knowledge of the band and its fans. Hmm, how could something like that happen? If the person in question is very young perhaps?

Two over exaggerated, overly defensive, extreme opinions on opposite sides of the spectrum are not the “two sides of the coin” that I want to read. Some thoughtful, even-handed commentary from these folks would be great. They are never going to be impartial, but “all he cares about is music fans and meditation” is not the sort of commentary that anybody will lend credibility to. If I were the person in question being discussed, I would find it comically overly simplified to refer to me as someone who only cares about those two things. I’m a totally boring person, and I’m not that simple and easy to generalize about.  

[HeyJude]

The back procedure came before the tour extension.

It likely has no bearing on this whatsoever, but the results of a back procedure and one’s prognosis (both in terms of condition and pain level) can take weeks or months (or longer) to determine. If Brian’s back issues had anything to do with booking or not booking more shows, then we can’t simply use strict cut-off dates to try to guess when one would know how they’re going to feel in the future.

Also, again, nothing about Brian’s not wanting to continue was mentioned in Mike’s LA Times letter. Clearly, at some point, Brian (and presumably Al) wanted to take offers to do more gigs and Mike refused. Even if Brian initially refused to do more dates (whether this is true, or the nature of Brian’s feelings on this, are still quite unclear), it seems BEFORE the tour even ended he was down for more dates. So, apart from whatever dates Mike had already booked, they presumably could have booked more reunion shows. Why didn’t they? It doesn’t sound like Brian and Al stopped that from happening. 

[filledeplage]

If anyone is seriously re-evaluating anything they've thought because of online posts from a teenager, they're nuts.

As stated several times here, the supposed importance of "no more shows" is nonsensical given 99 percent of Mike's post tour comments. And Melinda Wilson herself has told interviewers about the difficulty of booking tours with Brian when he changes his mind day to day about what he wants to do. My guess is Brian indeed said something like that in passing during the 2012 tour, but it had zero effect on how the end of the thing went down (Brian made other, on the record comments, about never wanting to work with anyone else and being a BB full time ...)

Ambha might be a teen in the opinion of many.  But what she has is first-hand knowledge.  I like that she has the courage of her convictions.  I like that she gets involved in an issue about which she has passion.  And right or wrong she'll take her lumps along the way. But that is part of the game.  

She is not a passive young "valley girl." She appears to have strong opinions and she voices them. That, in my opinion is the sign of leader.  She isn't the first to be out there, in a opinionated fashion. Carnie gets out there and speaks her mind, as well and right or wrong, she still gets "out there" in the arena so issues are discussed, whether they are uncomfortable or not and opens up the discussion.

Bravo to you, Ambha! She is getting out the information to weigh two sides of the coin, and that is never a bad thing.

Maybe Ambha will go to law school or go into politics! We need courageous young women leaders!  

If I were any of these band members, or their family members, or their PR people, or agents, or managers, I would not want any of that crap online. It’s not well-written or eloquent, its lack of eloquence undermines its credibility and believability, and as I’ve mentioned elsewhere, it has a tone that strongly suggests to me that it lacks any historical context or knowledge of the band and its fans. Hmm, how could something like that happen? If the person in question is very young perhaps?

Two over exaggerated, overly defensive, extreme opinions on opposite sides of the spectrum are not the “two sides of the coin” that I want to read. Some thoughtful, even-handed commentary from these folks would be great. They are never going to be impartial, but “all he cares about is music and meditation” is not the sort of commentary that anybody will lend credibility to. If I were the person in question being discussed, I would find it comically overly simplified to refer to me as someone who only cares about those two things. I’m a totally boring person, and I’m not that simple and easy to generalize about.  

It is not too far afield from Dennis' interview with Peter Fornatale.  

Parents have a choice in bringing up their kids.  They either teach them to "go along to get along" ( and for some that works well) and some are "permissive and tolerant" about kids speaking up and without without censorship.  Sometimes there is no harmony as between the PR people, and the players, as Jay Carney told it so well, after leaving the top PR post at the White House last month, "We tell the truth, slowly."  Only a bit at a time.  It is too manipulative for my way of thinking.  

[guitarfool2002]

JohnMill wrote the line "unless there are some inaccuracies in her posting..." about Ms. Love's reply to a fan, and I feel compelled to add again: Isn't it obvious?

My issue and challenge is *not* someone defending their father, but rather using something which not only is untrue but is also so far from the truth as to be ridiculous bordering on malicious, depending on how you look at it.

Let me say first: If it was a poor choice of wording, perhaps not clear enough or written to hastily and angrily in the heat of the moment, it should be clarified.

But here is my issue:

If anyone, I mean anyone, can prove that this statement is true as of June 2014, taken verbatim from her reply: Plus Brian doesn't make any of his own decisions he's controlled by people when really my dad and him are friends and people continue to try to split them apart.

I'll send them a crisp $100 bill within 24 hours of such proof being offered.

Like the guy offering to eat his hat on another thread, I have no worries about losing any of my money because it's not true, and it can be proven not to be true if the parties involved would even dignify such a statement with a response. I could pony up 10,000 dollars and I wouldn't worry about losing it because it's complete crap.

There I said it.

Now before we praise someone for replying like that, isn't there even a sliver of responsibility to be learned and applied when posting on an "official" social media site? That responsibility involves being sure what you're posting is the truth before posting it...and if you're not sure it's true, than don't post it.

Simple as that. It's also why corporations, business interests, and any other money-making venture will often run the official statements through a legal department to check things out before going public. And it's also why many, many employees have been fired and celebrities have needed to apologize in the wake of posting things they shouldn't have posted in the heat of the moment.

The C50 issue wasn't mentioned because the parties directly involved know what happened that we're not privy too and in that case, if they want they could clear the air rather quickly, I'd imagine. That's a typical BB's inter-band issue as has been raging for decades, it's part and parcel of the band's DNA to have things like this intervene in the "good vibrations".

But in the case of challenging Brian's daily life and how he lives it, I'd suggest treading *VERY light* when posting on social media before making such a definitive public claim about what the man does or doesn't do especially if you don't know. Remember, what you "think" is the truth isn't necessarily the truth. Was it possibly more correct at times in the 80's or early 90's? That has nothing to do with June 2014.

It sure as hell has nothing to do with Jones Beach, July 5, 2014.

And in this case, it should never have been posted, as I mentioned before.

That $100 is waiting.

[HeyJude]

If anyone is seriously re-evaluating anything they've thought because of online posts from a teenager, they're nuts.

As stated several times here, the supposed importance of "no more shows" is nonsensical given 99 percent of Mike's post tour comments. And Melinda Wilson herself has told interviewers about the difficulty of booking tours with Brian when he changes his mind day to day about what he wants to do. My guess is Brian indeed said something like that in passing during the 2012 tour, but it had zero effect on how the end of the thing went down (Brian made other, on the record comments, about never wanting to work with anyone else and being a BB full time ...)

Ambha might be a teen in the opinion of many.  But what she has is first-hand knowledge.  I like that she has the courage of her convictions.  I like that she gets involved in an issue about which she has passion.  And right or wrong she'll take her lumps along the way. But that is part of the game.  

She is not a passive young "valley girl." She appears to have strong opinions and she voices them. That, in my opinion is the sign of leader.  She isn't the first to be out there, in a opinionated fashion. Carnie gets out there and speaks her mind, as well and right or wrong, she still gets "out there" in the arena so issues are discussed, whether they are uncomfortable or not and opens up the discussion.

Bravo to you, Ambha! She is getting out the information to weigh two sides of the coin, and that is never a bad thing.

Maybe Ambha will go to law school or go into politics! We need courageous young women leaders!  

If I were any of these band members, or their family members, or their PR people, or agents, or managers, I would not want any of that crap online. It’s not well-written or eloquent, its lack of eloquence undermines its credibility and believability, and as I’ve mentioned elsewhere, it has a tone that strongly suggests to me that it lacks any historical context or knowledge of the band and its fans. Hmm, how could something like that happen? If the person in question is very young perhaps?

Two over exaggerated, overly defensive, extreme opinions on opposite sides of the spectrum are not the “two sides of the coin” that I want to read. Some thoughtful, even-handed commentary from these folks would be great. They are never going to be impartial, but “all he cares about is music and meditation” is not the sort of commentary that anybody will lend credibility to. If I were the person in question being discussed, I would find it comically overly simplified to refer to me as someone who only cares about those two things. I’m a totally boring person, and I’m not that simple and easy to generalize about.  

It is not too far afield from Dennis' interview with Peter Fornatale.  

Parents have a choice in bringing up their kids.  They either teach them to "go along to get along" ( and for some that works well) and some are "permissive and tolerant" about kids speaking up and without without censorship.  Sometimes there is no harmony as between the PR people, and the players, as Jay Carney told it so well, after leaving the top PR post at the White House last month, "We tell the truth, slowly."  Only a bit at a time.  It is too manipulative for my way of thinking.  

If I were a public figure (or actually, even if I wasn’t), and someone posted the following online trying to defend me, I might appreciate very much that they love me and they’re trying to defend me, and I might appreciate and agree with all of the sentiments contained therein, but I would tell them to stop posting crap like this, because it doesn’t help anyone:

Half of you don't know what the hell you're talking about my dad doesn't do sh*t wrong he's the only beach boy that has NEVER STOPPED TOURING ONCE. Show some love respect and appreciation for all of them instead of adding fuel to the fire. My dad has nothing but love for everyone he's not a "dick" or "asshole" or whatever else you think he is. It's fucking pathetic all he cares about is the music fans and meditation. He's not this money hungry prick you all seem to think he is. Take it from someone who actually knows what they're talking about. Have fun continuing to talk sh*t on a good person. Peace and love, mikes daughter ambha love.

[Foster's Freeze]

If anyone, I mean anyone, can prove that this statement is true as of June 2014, taken verbatim from her reply: Plus Brian doesn't make any of his own decisions he's controlled by people when really my dad and him are friends and people continue to try to split them apart.

Playing the role of devil's advocate, can you prove it's not true?

[Mikie]

Gee, Ambha seemed like a sweet kid when she sang Sail On Sailor in concert a couple of years ago. I have a hard time believing that's really her saying those things on Facebook. Wouldn't be at all surprised it's somebody else writing that crap.