Al joining Mike and Bruce for Jones Beach show

[Andrew G. Doe]

If Brian Wilson sent Mike Love an e-mail that said no more shows, then the end of the tour is because of Brian Wilson and no one else.
   

Simple answer to that: if Brian's people don't deny sending the email, then it happened. Hopefully they won't wait six weeks.

[Nicko1234]

Simple answer to that: if Brian's people don't deny sending the email, then it happened. Hopefully they won't wait six weeks.

No comments from Mike about the current situation?

[ToneBender631]

If Brian Wilson sent Mike Love an e-mail that said no more shows, then the end of the tour is because of Brian Wilson and no one else.
   

Simple answer to that: if Brian's people don't deny sending the email, then it happened. Hopefully they won't wait six weeks.

But the "no more shows for Brian" claim has been made before, with the e-mail aspect being mentioned for the first time now. The key point though is that there is no statement as to when this e-mail was sent. If it was sent in June of 2012 that's very different than if it was sent in late August, isn't it? And again, why would this only be brought up two years later? My guess is that the reason it's only coming up now (given how much credence it would've given Mike's argument), is that later conversations superseded it.

[Jonathan Blum]

Simple answer to that: if Brian's people don't deny sending the email, then it happened. Hopefully they won't wait six weeks.

Simpler answer:  if Brian's people don't respond, they're just ignoring a fairly obscure Facebook stoush.  A non-answer is a non-answer.

Cheers,
Jon Blum

[HeyJude]

They got in a fight around the time of the Super Bowl appearance. It's a long, drawn-out story. Though as I recall, it had something to do with Al feeling disrespected.

The story has never been explained in enough detail considering how much acrimony it has apparently resulted in both publicly and within the group.

The 1998 Super Bowl thing didn’t cause anything as far as it appears. Rather, it was a symptom of what was already going on. Reading the Marks/Stebbins book, Al apparently knew it was likely “game over” some time in later 1997 when Marks started appearing with the group. Whether by early 1998 he thought there was any slim chance of salvaging it, I don’t know.

All the other stuff, interpersonal stuff about “respect” and all of that, may have all been part of the big ball of wax in those problems. But again, based on extant information and what is reported in the Marks/Stebbins book (and Peter Ames Carlin’s book as well), it was the business moves that Al didn’t agree with (and which Carl apparently didn’t put up a fight regarding) that led to the estrangement, splintering, whatever you want to call it.

Now, Peter Ames Carlin makes a quick passing reference in his book to an attempt to oust Al in 1990 (not “the 90s”, but 1990 specifically), and I’d still like to see more regarding that episode. That pre-dated the “Summer in Paradise” estrangement, and of course the later stuff that happened in the mid-late 90s.

[HeyJude]

The problem is, based on his apparent attitude towards the reunion, Mike has never expressed as much enthusiasm for the reunion tour as Brian (for a time) and Al (for a longer time) expressed, especially when it comes to doing more shows. Brian and Al never complained about the composition of the band, the vocal arrangements, the songwriting set up for the album (despite Rolling Stone depicting that Brian flat out rejected Al’s solo song while including Mike’s solo song), or made vague claims about the “honor” of someone involved in the project. It’s totally fine if Mike wants to feel that way about the reunion, but it’s a pretty clear indicator he was not enthusiastic and ready to do another tour in 2013 only for Brian to cancel it.

Even assuming this “Brian e-mail” occurred and the nature of it is as described, isn’t it quite possible Mike had already booked non-reunion shows before that alleged e-mail occurred? Wasn’t Bruce saying before the reunion even started that there was the “set end date” and whatnot? Based on the evidence at hand, my opinion is that Mike and Bruce were going to go back to their own tour and planned to do so before the reunion even began, regardless of its failure or success, and had a pretty firm date (September/October 2012) that this was going to occur. The only thing that messed it up was trying to shoehorn in around 23 more reunion shows that led to the reunion tour butting up against the non-reunion shows. Kudos to the entire band for booking 23 more shows for the fans, but it also indicates the firm end date for the reunion tour was set in stone perhaps before the reunion tour even began, and that date was dictated by non-reunion “Beach Boys” bookings, not Brian’s e-mail.

Does anybody really think both Brian and Al were fabricating the offers from promoters for more shows, and another album, etc.?

[HeyJude]

Yeah but things can change.  I believe these two were a lot tighter in the 70's and the 80's, but it sounds like something eventually went awry.  Al was almost completely omitted from the Summer In Paradise sessions (well phase I of them anyway).  I used to stick up for Al back when he was being sued for using the "Beach Boys" name in his Family & Friends band.  But now I've come to the conclusion that Al can be kind of whiny and even oblivious and clueless at times, and he's probably created a lot of his own problems within the group.  This recent "about-face" with Mike is a good example.  

My sense is that Mike and Al probably always had pretty different personalities from each other. Their “alliance” in the 70’s in particular seemed to have less to do with shared personalities or being good buddies, and more to do with simply being the figurative, relative “teetotalers” in the group.

[HeyJude]

From what I remember, Al has stated publicly many times that he doesn't see how any one person (Mike) can claim to own the beach boys name and tour as "the beach boys".  The wedge this creates will never allow them to truly reconcile.

Mike does not 'own' The Beach Boys name, BRI is the registered owner of “The Beach Boys” trademark.

I’m sure Al understands that Mike has the license to the name and doesn’t own it. When Al has spoken of this, I would imagine he’s using a bit of hyperbole to express the frustration of being outvoted and effectively being kept from using the BB name while Mike uses it.

Keep in mind, there apparently was a period of time in the early-mid 2000’s where Al was barred from even saying he was a “Beach Boy” in promotions/press, etc. This was separate from the band naming issues (although it may have been a result of some of those legal messes). I think it was around the mid-2000s, around 2004-2005, when he regained the right to simply state he was a Beach Boy. The one time he signed stuff for me in 2005, I think he was cathartically (and I think purposely a bit tongue in cheek) signing some stuff “Al Jardine – The Beach Boy” or something along those lines, because he was allowed to say that again.

[HeyJude]

Whether Alan ever held a license is disputed. However, contrary to what you say, BRI did initially at least, vote to issue non-exclusive licences. Alan voted in favour. At this time Mike and Alan did not want to tour together and Brian not at all. So it is probable we are talking about two non-exclusive licences since the licenses were only available to the principals. Again, contrary to what you say, Alan was prepared to pay a royalty to BRI but the parties could not agree on the terms and conditions of the license. Alan continued to tour as variations of the Beach Boys and Family & Friends. During this time period, BRI sent Alan cease and desist letters objecting to his use of the trademark. in 2001 the district court granted summary judgment in favour of BRI and issued a permanent injunction against Alan's use of the trademark. That decision was upheld on  appeal before the Court of Appeals.

So you can see how things got out of hand pretty darn easily.

The ironic thing is, there’s no way realistically that two bands using the “Beach Boys” name would have worked long-term, even if everybody had initially agreed to terms with no problems. The “exclusive license” would have evolved regardless, in my opinion.  

[HeyJude]

I seem to remember an print interview with Al from about 10 years ago where he talked about the early 90s and the issues of the time. He was pushing for less shows with a more esoteric set list. Ring any bells?

I guess he had two young sons, had been on the road for 30 years singing the hits and wanted a change, as he thought the audience might.

Even now that would not sit well with Mike, let alone 20 years ago.

edit.
Checked on the Goldmine interview but no mention of less shows, only some with an orchestra. I'm sure there was another interview that went into that period in some detail.

There was probably some other tangential things that started to wear down the relationship. I think Al mentioned in the 1999/2000 Goldmine interview that, back in the 90’s, he had gotten in “trouble” for saying some negative stuff in an interview about the use of cheerleaders on stage, etc. It’s pretty clear Al didn’t like moves like that; it certainly did cheapen the live presentation.

But all of that was just background to what may have been the main rift, and that is the touring business arrangement changes described in the Marks/Stebbins book. However much Al didn’t handle the entire debacle smartly enough or strategically enough, I’m guessing that his concerns about what would happen with this business arrangement pretty much came to pass, and have helped lead to all of the things that came after: his 1998 departure, the naming lawsuits, the ease with which Mike went back to this band post-C50, and so on.

For all we know, Al may have realize that the whole situation was pre-ordained/out of his control, etc. by the mid-late 90’s.

[HeyJude]

If Brian Wilson sent Mike Love an e-mail that said no more shows, then the end of the tour is because of Brian Wilson and no one else.
  

Simple answer to that: if Brian's people don't deny sending the email, then it happened. Hopefully they won't wait six weeks.

That’s absolutely ridiculous. If all of us don’t answer every accusation and statement made about us on facebook, then it’s true? That reasoning is flawed logically, legally, and I think morally.

So if someone goes on Al’s facebook and says he was the real Vanilla Ice, and Al doesn’t deny it, that’s a passive admission that he’s Vanilla Ice. What if he doesn’t read the comment, or what if he reads it but doesn’t want to dignify it with a response? Not responding may or may not be effective, but it is not an admission of anything.

Oh yeah, and we also don’t even know the contents of this e-mail. We have one person on facebook paraphrasing it, at best.

So it’s not even a direct accusation Brian’s camp would not be responding to. It’s a vague reference based on a paraphrased partial sentence from an e-mail that the facebook poster may or may not have even seen.

I’m all for weighing the evidence accordingly. I’d love for Brian or his people to speak to all of this. But their non-comment is not an admission of anything. Maybe they’re too lazy to type a response. Who knows?

[Foster's Freeze]

You know, I love these guys but they can all be such fucking idiots.  

Now, I haven't followed the Mike and Bruce show at all after Carl's death.  Titles aside they are not "The Beach Boys" and as noted, I haven't paid attention to them even when they played in my town.  Reflecting on all the Mike and Al (and Brian) issues (while Bruce adjusts his microphone) lately has made me think about all the time that has passed since Carl died and what has happened to my favorite band.  As I've ignored Mike and Bruce, I'm sure this has happened hundreds of times but in my lifetime, I never thought that "The Beach Boys" would be playing shows at wineries.  Or as a middle of the bill group playing a 6 song set at a festival.  

Mike worried (yes, yes, yes, I know the details with Brian too) that too many C50 shows would de-value the brand and kill off demand for the brand?  No Mike, playing shitty venues like wineries, B level casinos and bar mitzvahs de-value the brand.

The Beach Boys *should* be playing places like Jones Beach on a regular basis not as the exception (and at that, trying to pimp Al and David as hired hands just to fill seats).

Jack Riley was right.  They have blown it and continue to blow it.

They are sitting on GEMS like the 1993 Paramount Unplugged shows and fans are begging for more material and yet the legacy (which is about gone because the only thing the press talks about is Mike's behavior, not the music) just continues to fade away.  This slide isn't just on Mike, they all are guilty of the demise of an "American institution".

BRI is a joke and Brian, Mike and Al have screwed us and so have the estates of Dennis and Carl.

O.k., time for a cup of morning coffee.

[Mike's Beard]

First of all, I don’t know about randomly blurting stuff to the press, but I think it would have been appropriate enough, had Brian nixed more reunion shows and everybody including Mike actively wanted to do more, for Mike (or anybody) to mention that it was Brian who ended the reunion.

I didn't type the above statement. I'm not sure why it's quoted as coming from me.

[Andrew G. Doe]

If Brian Wilson sent Mike Love an e-mail that said no more shows, then the end of the tour is because of Brian Wilson and no one else.
  

Simple answer to that: if Brian's people don't deny sending the email, then it happened. Hopefully they won't wait six weeks.

That’s absolutely ridiculous. If all of us don’t answer every accusation and statement made about us on facebook, then it’s true? That reasoning is flawed logically, legally, and I think morally.

So if someone goes on Al’s facebook and says he was the real Vanilla Ice, and Al doesn’t deny it, that’s a passive admission that he’s Vanilla Ice. What if he doesn’t read the comment, or what if he reads it but doesn’t want to dignify it with a response? Not responding may or may not be effective, but it is not an admission of anything.

Oh yeah, and we also don’t even know the contents of this e-mail. We have one person on facebook paraphrasing it, at best.

So it’s not even a direct accusation Brian’s camp would not be responding to. It’s a vague reference based on a paraphrased partial sentence from an e-mail that the facebook poster may or may not have even seen.

I’m all for weighing the evidence accordingly. I’d love for Brian or his people to speak to all of this. But their non-comment is not an admission of anything. Maybe they’re too lazy to type a response. Who knows?

How do you know with such certainty that what Ambha said is a paraphrase ? Suppose that was the exact wording ?

[Robbie Mac]

If Brian Wilson sent Mike Love an e-mail that said no more shows, then the end of the tour is because of Brian Wilson and no one else.
   

Simple answer to that: if Brian's people don't deny sending the email, then it happened. Hopefully they won't wait six weeks.

This wouldn't necessarily be a smoking gun. Maybe Brian's people would rather not get into this or anyone else's pissing match, which may be why they would not be responding.

[HeyJude]

If Brian Wilson sent Mike Love an e-mail that said no more shows, then the end of the tour is because of Brian Wilson and no one else.
  

Simple answer to that: if Brian's people don't deny sending the email, then it happened. Hopefully they won't wait six weeks.

That’s absolutely ridiculous. If all of us don’t answer every accusation and statement made about us on facebook, then it’s true? That reasoning is flawed logically, legally, and I think morally.

So if someone goes on Al’s facebook and says he was the real Vanilla Ice, and Al doesn’t deny it, that’s a passive admission that he’s Vanilla Ice. What if he doesn’t read the comment, or what if he reads it but doesn’t want to dignify it with a response? Not responding may or may not be effective, but it is not an admission of anything.

Oh yeah, and we also don’t even know the contents of this e-mail. We have one person on facebook paraphrasing it, at best.

So it’s not even a direct accusation Brian’s camp would not be responding to. It’s a vague reference based on a paraphrased partial sentence from an e-mail that the facebook poster may or may not have even seen.

I’m all for weighing the evidence accordingly. I’d love for Brian or his people to speak to all of this. But their non-comment is not an admission of anything. Maybe they’re too lazy to type a response. Who knows?

How do you know with such certainty that what Ambha said is a paraphrase ? Suppose that was the exact wording ?

If a one-liner email came from Brian, and that was the sole reason Mike didn't continue the reunion, then that would have been exceedingly easy to mention in the LA Times letter, as well as any number of interviews. Perhaps because Brian apparently soon after changed his mind, and perhaps because Mike liked going back to the status quo, the email may have been seen as irrelevant at that stage, and appears to have possibly been largely irrelevant when it was written.

Had Mike alread booked his own shows when that email was written? Were the "Wilsons" saying no to something that wasn't happening anyway? Kind of like leaving a party you weren't invited to in the first place?

[urbanite]

These are adults, there's nothing ambiguous about "no more shows."  Why can't you accept that he made that statement and the people who run the group accepted it.

[guitarfool2002]

Does anybody really think both Brian and Al were fabricating the offers from promoters for more shows, and another album, etc.?

If there are people thinking that, then they're delusional or just totally misinformed or something. Because a simple look back at the LA Times series of articles from late-summer and early-fall 2012 spell it out, and that includes Mike making a statement about getting offers from promoters to do more shows, but then he also mentioned them recommending a cooling-off period ('give it a rest for a year'), and also being careful about over-exposure.

Then he got into a war of words with the band The Eagles by making a comment that upset them, about selling tickets for $5, which led to an angry reply from the Eagles' PR offices, and *then* led to Mike's publicist issuing a public apology to the Eagles.

And...that apology included Mike sending "gift bags" to the managers of the band members as a token of apology.

That statement was made by Mike at the Grammy Museum event, prior to the band playing the UK and within a day or few days after his press release that caused all the controversy was issued.

So if anyone is pushing a theory that Al and Brian or whoever else were inventing phony tour/show offers or anything of the sort, they're crazy...because Mike himself got the offers and spoke to those offers specifically at the Grammy event.

There is more, of course. I'm still curious what was in Mike's "gift bags" that were sent to the Eagles as a peace offering.

Those might be the biggest mystery of the C50 aftermath...

[HeyJude]

These are adults, there's nothing ambiguous about "no more shows."  Why can't you accept that he made that statement and the people who run the group accepted it.

Because it obscures the motives of everybody else in the group. What if Mike had already booked his own shows? What if Mike was done with more shows, then Brian e-mailed saying no more shows, and then Brian changed his mind and wanted to accept more offers, and Mike didn’t? Whose fault is the end of the reunion then? Mike has never said “I wanted to do more shows, then Brian said “no more shows”, and then I gave up on my aspirations for more reunion shows and reluctantly started booking my own shows, then when Brian changed his mind, it was too late and I couldn’t cancel my bookings, and for some unknown reason didn’t pursue more reunion shows after I performed the shows I had already booked.”

Again, it’s a bit Spinal Tap-ish, but did Brian’s camp really say “no more shows” after it was already obvious no more shows were going to happen? That seems like a bit of a diva-ish thing that could come from them.

We also don’t know, did anybody ask for a bit of follow-up info to that e-mail? If your spouse sends you a one-line e-mail that reads “no more marriage.. ok bye”, do you attempt to have an additional conversation about it?

[Ray Lawlor]

If Brian Wilson sent Mike Love an e-mail that said no more shows, then the end of the tour is because of Brian Wilson and no one else.
  

Simple answer to that: if Brian's people don't deny sending the email, then it happened. Hopefully they won't wait six weeks.

That’s absolutely ridiculous. If all of us don’t answer every accusation and statement made about us on facebook, then it’s true? That reasoning is flawed logically, legally, and I think morally.

So if someone goes on Al’s facebook and says he was the real Vanilla Ice, and Al doesn’t deny it, that’s a passive admission that he’s Vanilla Ice. What if he doesn’t read the comment, or what if he reads it but doesn’t want to dignify it with a response? Not responding may or may not be effective, but it is not an admission of anything.

Oh yeah, and we also don’t even know the contents of this e-mail. We have one person on facebook paraphrasing it, at best.

So it’s not even a direct accusation Brian’s camp would not be responding to. It’s a vague reference based on a paraphrased partial sentence from an e-mail that the facebook poster may or may not have even seen.

I’m all for weighing the evidence accordingly. I’d love for Brian or his people to speak to all of this. But their non-comment is not an admission of anything. Maybe they’re too lazy to type a response. Who knows?

G'day.  what nonsense this all is.  How does a discussion of Al not joining Mike at Jones Beach morph back into the "lets pin the end of C50 on Brian" agenda ? What's next ; are we going to trot out "Brian did drugs " again , despite the fact that he hasn't touched anything in thirty some odd years ?  I don't know about this or any other email sent between the parties ; I am sure there are hundreds of them; but common sense would dictate a few sure things ; no email like that would be sent in a vacuum ; there would be Pre and post emails as well pertaining to the subject at hand. If this does exist , why wasn't it floated from Day 1 , when Mike was taking all sorts of incoming ICBM's from across the fan base?  Why was there several different reasons given for the termination of C50 ( M&B wanted to play the smaller places that could not accommodate the C50 cost and size, promoters telling Mike to sit down C50 for a year, Mike didn't want to overexposed the brand ....I can keep going)   But in none of the press releases , letters to LA Times and all of that  was mentioned "Brian wanted no more shows" .

Fact is that he wanted to continue and said as much several times, even prior to the termination of C50; I can't be sure but I believe there was even an interview where he said he was henceforth a Beach Boy and was only interested in cutting a new Beach Boys album. That was prior to the end , someone on this board may recall that.  I know personally there was so much more on the table for The Beach Boys ; Madison Square Garden , a huge UK tour , and of course an album deal with Capitol. And Brian was pumped to do all of it. Too bad. I always fly over for the London shows; it's magic ; C50 at RAH is exhibit "A".

As far as Melinda Wilson responding ; why the hell would she even deal with this BS ?
Reply to one Facebook post sent by a teenager put in the absurd position of defending her Dad to a bunch of morons shouting at her ? Or to posts on a web site ??

Now on to Ambah Love's posts.  I talked to B&M both two nights ago and I can say that they felt really bad that Ambah is put in a position that she has to defend her Dad.  They say its often difficult when their own children read hurtful things about them , and they have had to restrain their kids from responding to people who take pleasure in spreading rumors and negativity. They feel that children should not be brought into any adult world squabbles.

Finally , this fiction about "the people around Brian" , the "wifeandmanagers" or as one poster recently put it " Brian brings along a steamboat full of people" ( I am paraphrasing ) ..so I ask again....who are they ? What are their names ? I would like to meet them .  What do they do for Brian ? And Melinda Wilson doesn't count , she is his wife . Jean Sievers doesn't count , she is his manager/publicist.  So someone please inform me who they are . Names please.

Have a great day , Ray

[KittyKat]

I think the Beach Boys reunion could have gotten future offers. However, the two specific dates that were mentioned sounded a little odd. One was Wrigley Field in Chicago, which would not have come to pass until the following year, due to Chicago weather. Wrigley Field has a seating capacity of up to 64,000 for a concert. I'm not sure the reunited Beach Boys could draw 64,000 people, at least on their own. The other was Madison Square Garden, and I'm not sure where I read it, but supposedly Madison Square Garden on New Year's Eve. It so happens that Phish has been playing that venue for years on New Year's Eve, as well as days around it. The venue also would have already been booked long before for that date. So, would the Beach Boys have been opening up for Phish? Would they have been on a bill with other bands for Wrigley, too, in order to draw a crowd large enough to fill that stadium? They may not have been fabricating those dates out of nothing, but there may have been some details left out and/or the offers weren't completely firm without certain contingencies.

As for a second album for the reunion, that album proposal was a fact. That's why Brian is recording for Capitol right now. But it's also taking him a long time, over 15 months. To add to that, where would the time have come to do many tour dates if a second album recording had been undertaken? Of course, a Beach Boy project might have gone faster, if Brian had tour deadlines to meet. TWGMTR was made fairly quickly. But the other part of the equation is whether Brian would have been up to doing 100 dates or more a year, or even 70 dates a year, for the past couple of years. He didn't just have one back operation, he had two. The first one failed and he needed a second one, as I recall.

[J.G. Dev]

Does anybody really think both Brian and Al were fabricating the offers from promoters for more shows, and another album, etc.?

Then he got into a war of words with the band The Eagles by making a comment that upset them, about selling tickets for $5, which led to an angry reply from the Eagles' PR offices, and *then* led to Mike's publicist issuing a public apology to the Eagles.

And...that apology included Mike sending "gift bags" to the managers of the band members as a token of apology.

That statement was made by Mike at the Grammy Museum event, prior to the band playing the UK and within a day or few days after his press release that caused all the controversy was issued.

So if anyone is pushing a theory that Al and Brian or whoever else were inventing phony tour/show offers or anything of the sort, they're crazy...because Mike himself got the offers and spoke to those offers specifically at the Grammy event.

There is more, of course. I'm still curious what was in Mike's "gift bags" that were sent to the Eagles as a peace offering.

Those might be the biggest mystery of the C50 aftermath...

Backsage passes to "Klub Kokomo" and a USB with Shut Down and All Summer Long

[guitarfool2002]

I think the Beach Boys reunion could have gotten future offers.

At some point, the reality of what happened needs to sink in. Not "could", they DID get more offers. Why obscure or try to muddy the waters? Mike addressed the offers at the Grammy Museum, Brian and Al addressed them, etc.

There is no gray area here. It happened, they did get more offers.

[HeyJude]

Does anybody really think both Brian and Al were fabricating the offers from promoters for more shows, and another album, etc.?

Then he got into a war of words with the band The Eagles by making a comment that upset them, about selling tickets for $5, which led to an angry reply from the Eagles' PR offices, and *then* led to Mike's publicist issuing a public apology to the Eagles.

And...that apology included Mike sending "gift bags" to the managers of the band members as a token of apology.

That statement was made by Mike at the Grammy Museum event, prior to the band playing the UK and within a day or few days after his press release that caused all the controversy was issued.

So if anyone is pushing a theory that Al and Brian or whoever else were inventing phony tour/show offers or anything of the sort, they're crazy...because Mike himself got the offers and spoke to those offers specifically at the Grammy event.

There is more, of course. I'm still curious what was in Mike's "gift bags" that were sent to the Eagles as a peace offering.

Those might be the biggest mystery of the C50 aftermath...

Backsage passes to "Klub Kokomo" and a USB with Shut Down and All Summer Long

No "Postcard from California" CD?  

[guitarfool2002]

Was each gift bag personalized for each member of the Eagles? I'm thinking at least a Rolls Royce baseball cap from Mike's collection could have gone to Don Henley...