I think the tracklistings we're working up kind of reinforce that a single-disc "Best of" compilation doesn't seem to be the best idea. A boxed set of rarities and outtakes would be more appropriate at this stage.

Don't get me wrong, I can come up with a single disc (or double disc) "best of" of stuff I like. I'd throw "Let It Shine" on there; I'm probably one of the few that would. But that's best left to making our own compilations. The world at large of non-fans aren't going to be enlightened to the genius of "Good Kind of Love" or "Forever She'll Be My Surfer Girl."

If anything, some sort of "Basement Tapes" type thing with the "Bedroom Tapes" (they can call it that even if it has a bunch of random solo rarities) would probably get better press and word-of-mouth than a "Best of" of mostly songs nobody has heard. With a "Bedroom Tapes" sort of release, it would be implicit from the get-go that it's unfamiliar stuff.

I dig this one. Nice, non-contrived sounding trade-off on the lead vocals. That is, they are all suited to the parts they're singing. It's not just a "take turns" approach.

The mix sounds a bit muddy and cluttered in that Al's voice is a tiny bit more buried than I'd like in certain spots. Much like Brian, Blondie has a nice lower register voice that works well on this one.

Probably the best of the hand full of tracks we've heard in full. The little live snippet of this one in the "trailer" for the PBS show sounds like it, too, might sounds a bit more clear and crisp in terms of lead vocals.

I'd prefer minor and in some cases major mix changes in a number of the tracks, but I know this is how Brian likes to mix stuff.

And, for the millionth time, WTF is up with Al's voice sounding so good? Someone needs to get him on more stuff. Coerce him into cutting another solo album. See if Brian can lend him a few songs he's been noodling around with. Something. Seriously.

I suppose I can’t muster any particular sentiment against a solo compilation. But I don’t think it’s needed. What would it accomplish for fans? I can tell you right now: We’d be buying an entire album for the inevitable one or two “new” tracks they would throw on it. That doesn’t excite me. We all own all of these tracks. I’m sure some of us are missing scattered non-album tracks released on random singles or compilations. But few of those are worth putting on a “best of “ compilation.

I’m sometimes surprised by the level of enthusiasm hardcore fans will give to hits/best-of compilations. Especially in the post-cassette era when you can burn (or rip) your own compilation. What is there to be excited about? Cover art? Liner notes?

Even if we just say, “Well, Brian should be held in high esteem and should have a compilation readily available”, I would say such a compilation would have to be either kind of messy and scattered (to be in all-inclusive), or would have to be less inclusive to have any sort of flow. It would just strike me as weird and messy to mix in a lot of covers (live or studio) with original stuff. The covers could be dropped, but then the pool of albums to pull from is much smaller. Then we’re basically down to mixing tracks from BW’88, Imagination, GIOMH, Lucky Old Sun, and NPP, and maybe Orange Crate Art.

Some sort of boxed set of rarities would be a good place to compile a disc of “rarities” that have been issued, and then a bunch of outtakes. There’s a bunch of even pre-solo era (as in pre-1988) solo stuff that they could get on there. They’ve put late 70’s/early 80’s stuff on the BW ’88 reissue, and there’s the ’75 demo on some of the exclusive versions of NPP. I’m thinking they could secure more “Brother-era” Brian-centric stuff for such a set.

The other thing they could do (and perhaps is what they *would* do if they decided to do a Brian comp) would be to make it an online-only compilation; they’ve done such things on iTunes before. It’s basically a downloadable pre-programmed iTunes playlist of songs to buy.

I’m sure licensing for a solo BW comp could be accomplished. It’s not an unsurmountable task; they aren’t as scattered in terms of ownership as it might initially seem. But that also doesn’t mean it would be the easiest thing, and someone has to justify the cost of putting such a comp together and judging how it might sell. As has been mentioned, Brian doesn’t really have any solo “hits” to work with (other than, arguably, the full “Smile” album), so it would be a compilation sold entirely on name recognition and prestige. I don’t think his entire solo catalog has been warmly embraced by critics. Some pieces have of course. Two of those (“Smile” and “That Lucky Old Sun”) are, not surprisingly, pieces that work better as full album experiences anyway.

In any event, I guess all of the above is more stream of consciousness than strongly advocating for any particular option. Objectively, for Brian’s “cred” in the industry and whatnot, I have mixed feelings about a “best of.” Selfishly as a fan, I’m not terribly interested considering I own all of his stuff (some of it several times over) and I continue to loathe buying entire albums for one or two extra tracks (tracks that only sometimes can be purchased on their own online).

"Wild Honey" looks and sounds great too. It's too bad it's logistically too difficult probably to get all those guys on stage on the full tour.

Pretty awesome to see Brian, Al, Ricky, and Blondie all on stage together. I actually caught Ricky playing with Brian and Al during an encore in January '07 for 40th Anniversary PS tour, and then saw Blondie of course with Brian, Al, and Dave at the same venue in 2013.

Watched the "trailer" and "The Right Time" again as well, and I really like both Ike and Matt both singing with the full band. Wonder if there's anyway to make that happen for the full tour.

Assuming these songs all make the cut on the PBS airing, I have to give them credit for including a bunch of "non-hits."

Any soundcheck footage of the band doing "Lookin' at Tomorrow" with Al?

Does Soundstage usually release a CD or DVD?  This really does sound like it's going to be an awesome show and I'd love to have a recording of it.

Scattered “Soundstage” episodes have been released on DVD and/or Blu-ray. Most haven’t I would guess. I think fewer have been issued on CD.

Also, as I mentioned before, this is not a standard episode of “Soundstage” but rather a “Soundstage Special.” It also appears, if the YouTube clips are any indication, that BriMel owns the rights to the show, or at least co-owns the rights. For all we know, BriMel may have produced the show themselves and are just licensing it to PBS (sort of like what was done with the “Doin’ it Again” special in 2012).

My total guess is that there’s at least a decent chance we’ll see this show released on DVD/Blu. If it does happen, it may not happen for awhile. The best immediate hope for those who can’t get it on TV might be if someone manages to get the show up on YouTube for any length of time.

[Jardine told us at last night's opening of the Good Vibrations: 50 Years of The Beach Boys exhibit at L.A.'s Grammy Museum that he'd just spoken to Love a few minutes earlier: "I said I really do feel you need to rethink it, because there's so many opportunities left for us, and I'd really appreciate talking to you about it -- and he was agreeable to that."]

The thing isn’t rocket science. Mike has never said he was dying to do more reunion stuff. Period. Early on, he used vary passive language to indicate that it was possible. “There is talk”, “I’m not opposed” etc. But he was never jumping up and saying “This is awesome! I want to keep it going.” There’s no stories of Mike desperately trying to get Brian and Al back to the table to work on future plans. Rather, he has gone on record with numerous complaints about the reunion (complaints no other band members have lodged), and offered passive “nothing was ever set it stone” language to try to get people to stop saying he’s the reason the reunion ended.

During the tour, he used the “we’ll see what happens” line of defense to get reporters off his jock about future plans. After the tour, he has used a laundry list of reasons (the “small markets” stuff from the LA Times letter, the “set end date” mantra, the aforementioned “nothing was ever set in stone” stuff) to get reporters to stop saying he broke the band up.

On the other hand, we have Brian and Al who both in the immediate aftermath expressed a pretty strong desire to continue. Did Brian and Al chase Mike down and desperately try to talk him into continuing? I was going to say no, but then I remembered this quote from Al from the Grammy Museum thing in September 2012,  a quote which wasn’t mentioned often afterwards (from WCSX Radio’s website):

Jardine told us at last night's opening of the Good Vibrations: 50 Years of The Beach Boys exhibit at L.A.'s Grammy Museum that he'd just spoken to Love a few minutes earlier: "I said I really do feel you need to rethink it, because there's so many opportunities left for us, and I'd really appreciate talking to you about it -- and he was agreeable to that."

Al certainly seemed to want to sit down and have a discussion. Mike told David Beard these discussions never took place. In that story, Mike wasn’t approaching Al to discuss it; Al was approaching Mike. Whatever happened, it appears such a conversation never took place. Whose fault is that? I dunno, but one of those two guys was already booking non-reunion shows, and later rattled off a list of stuff he didn’t like about the reunion. Who seemed to have less or more interest and enthusiasm about having such discussions?

Every little detail of what happened on C50 is not clear (and believe me, there are some 100% conflicting stories out there). But it’s difficult to take away from all of the available evidence that Mike had nothing to do with the demise, or that he was only equally responsible as they all were for simply not “working something out.”  

Unless the documents *forbade* the lineup from *ever* playing together again, then it was open-ended. To say nothing of the comments from numerous band members, including Mike, during the tour suggesting it was certainly *possible* for it to continue.  For that matter, even if the contractual agreements stated they could *never* play together again (which I’m sure was not the case), they could easily draw up *another* agreement voiding the first one. “Theoretically” is not a legal fiction. There is no scenario by which a continuation of the reunion was impossible.  To this day, it is still possible. If they do another reunion project, I would have no problem saying they broke up again at the end of 2012 and then re-formed again in whatever year.

When people break up, do they not say “break up” anymore? “Sorry honey, this isn’t a break-up, we’re just going to go back to the status quo pre-our relationship”, or “Sweetie, I’m under no contractual obligation to continue to be in this relationship, so I’m going to go back to what I was doing before. It’s not a break-up though.”

The reunion was theoretically open-ended, so it amounts to a break-up I think. If it makes you feel better to think of it otherwise, more power to you.

We can't define the band as simply BRI. That's the holding company that controls the trademark and other business affairs. It isn't the band as long as you consider Dave and Bruce BB's.

C50 wasn't even BRI; it was 50 Big Ones Productions. Al wasn't even a part of it.

Some people aren’t super into the tropical, bossa nova sort of thing.

Fair enough, but bossa nova has nothing to do with tropical.  In this case, the lyrics give the song a tropical vibe because the singer is 'on the island'.  Other posters have said, "I'm not into that Jimmy Buffet, Private Life of Bill and Sue type of music, while referring to "On The Island".  Not the same thing at all.  I've never heard anybody say that they don't like "Busy Doin' Nothin'" because they don't like Jimmy Buffet style island music.    

I think that's just getting bogged down by the semantics of what a technical definition of a genre of music is or might be. Tropical and Bossa Nova are of course two separate things. If one likes neither, they may not like "On the Island." I can see how someone who doesn't like "Bill and Sue" might not like "On the Island" or "Busy Doin' Nothin'", regardless of the semantics of whether they fall under the same style or genre. They have enough similarities to elicit a similar response based on some folks' tastes.

All I can say is that C50 is an interesting, and divisive part of the band’s history and biography. If you’re not interested in biographical details, and just listen to the music, that’s cool. There are probably folks that do just that. But if you’re participating in discussions about their biographical details, then I would assume there is some sort of interest there. So yeah, I’m not big on breaking it all back down to “it’s all about the music.” Anyone with their head screwed on even halfway straight knows that. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I continue to listen to C50 stuff, Mike Love solo records, and new and old stuff without any reservations. This board is awesome, but I’d give it up (and/or give up talking about sordid historical details of the band) before I’d give up listening to the actual music.

This is a big board full of lots of informed folks. There’s no need to stop discussing something because it’s potentially divisive. Everything is potentially divisive. “I like 15 out of the 16 tracks on Brian’s album” can turn into a divisive argument. “Sgt. Pepper is better than Smile” can turn into divisiveness.

Not only is C50 a huge, current, important part of the band’s biography (certainly more than whether this member of that slept with someone, or their sister, or whatever), it was something the *directly* impacted the band’s composition, output (or lack thereof), touring configuration, and so on. When a member just makes a d**khead comment in an interview, that doesn’t usually matter in the grand scheme of things. But when the band reunites, and then there is a big blow-up over whether they should have or could have stayed together, that’s a HUGE part of the story that HUGELY impacts the future of the band, not to mention an important thing to document for their history/biography.

So if one wants to listen to the music and not know about all of the interpersonal turmoil and politics that certainly do bleed over into the fan community, then there’s nothing stopping them. If you’re interested in anything to do with their biography, then tune into more C50 discussions. Or don’t. Ignore it if you’re not into it. Is it circular? Yes, often. So what? My personal opinion is that a few one-line acknowledgments/stipulations from a key member or two and/or the same from a small section of fans would clear A LOT of the C50 fan discussion up very quickly, but that’s just my opinion. There are a myriad of other circular arguments and discussions in fandom, including here. Stamos, blight or national treasure? Playing in metropolitan areas versus playing in the sticks. Brian, still controlled or in control? Would Mike have made Pet Sounds or Smile better or worse? Did Al quit, or was he fired, or neither? “Just enjoy the music” is not a fair or ample answer to any such questions, however circular or asked-and-answered or divisive they might be.

I’ve heard “stop discussing C50” from folks who will write pages about Hal Blaine’s jockstrap size during the first four-hour block of time during the third “Good Vibrations” tracking session. We have intense Beach Boys beard discussions here (I’ve even done some intense research in the area, narrowing down the time of Al’s beard shaving between June 17 and July 4, 1983). So a discussion about the band effing essentially BROKE UP again a few years ago is kind of a big freaking deal. I’m surprised by anyone that would not think such a thing would be hugely divisive among the band and fans.

The “Soundstage” special looks f***in’ awesome, about ten times better than I expected, and we’ve only seen two full songs and a four minute trailer. To objective point out why some might not be superfans of Zooey Deschanel’s bit is not a terribly “negative” outlook. I don’t even dislike her performance. It seemed fine. I don’t want to start a s**tstorm by actually voicing a potentially negative opinion about a song or two on this album, but “On the Island” as a song doesn’t sound terribly interesting to me. Zooey Deschanel’s voice isn’t less interesting than the song itself, and therein may lie why some folks might come away with a sort of “meh” attitude about that one little clip. Some people aren’t super into the tropical, bossa nova sort of thing.

I’ve heard some of her other stuff, and none of it sounded bad. Her cover of “Christmas Day” was charming. I think there was some other “She & Him” stuff I heard that sounded better than anything BB-related she’s done. I have a recollection of hearing some stuff from one of those albums and it sounded a little more groovy and interesting, a bit of a hippy late 60’s vibe.

Brian and Mike make the distinction between promoter talk and group talk and make the claims that the group talk didn't happen, you're not arguing with me.

Nope, they have not made these distinctions clear whatsoever. The fact that Brian and Mike's LA Times letters in 2012 were so at odds, and that Mike's "interview" with David Beard completely contradicted what he said to Howie Edelson is evidence of that. I haven't seen anyone but you parse selective words into a "Brian and Mike agree!" argument. Even some staunch Mike Love defenders would agree the Beard and Edelson interviews are completely at odds.

Mike gave his reasons why the reunion line up didn't continue for the pre-booked 2012 shows. There were his practical/financial reasons but one of the reasons was he, Brian, and Al had agreed they wouldn't be in those shows.

Nope, not buying that failed string of logic again. Brian and Al didn’t agree to not be in shows post-C50 anymore than they have continually agreed year after year to not play in my backyard once per month. An agreement that lays out X, Y, and Z is not an agreement to NOT do something else after.

It would be fair to say nobody was under any contractual obligation to continue the C50 lineup. But it’s total crap to say Brian and Al “agreed” to not be a part of any further shows after the contract ran out. That’s like signing someone up to a one-year employment contract and then, instead of saying “you’re fired” or “we no longer need your services”, saying instead “you agreed to not be a part of this company after one year.” You can’t agree to something that hasn’t and may not happen. An agreement with an end date is an acknowledgment that anything could happen after that agreement. But Al could also catch a cold and race in the Indy 500 after the scheduled end of C50. It doesn’t mean he “agreed” to it.

So that post-C50 group discussion was something that Brian and Mike  both wagged their chin about being important but both say it didn't happen.  They should have gotten together for that group discussion that would have set in stone post-C50 things instead talking past each other and pointing fingers at each other in the press about all of the promoter talk.

Apparently the interested promoters themselves were the ones talking up the year delay to the group: “You’ve got to be careful not to get overexposed,” Love said. “There are promoters who are interested, but they’ve said, ‘Give it a rest for a year.’ “   Mike Love LA Times Sept. 27 2012

It's total BS to imply Brian and Mike both wanted to continue the reunion but the "group discussion" never happened; as if they just didn't logistically make arrangements for a little group sit-down; as if a "group discussion" would have led to more reunion shows. The evidence indicates Mike had his own shows booked before the reunion was over. You continue to ignore Mike's own words about the things he didn't like about C50. Everybody else had nothing but good things to say. It was Mike, and only Mike, saying the band was too big, too many voices completing for parts, that the songwriting setup was not optimal, downplaying the magnitude of a #3 album chart placement, and so on. One more time, all together now, Mike didn't want to continue with the reunion lineup the way things were set up. Nobody else seemed to have a problem with it.

As for promoters, we also have indications promoters were interested in immediately booking more shows. We also have anecdotal evidence that the BB's collectively became a laughing stock of the industry for ending the reunion before most of the big money was even made.

I’d like to find out what promoter suggested to Mike objectively that the reunion should immediately stop and “build up demand”, but that Mike should continue to tour under the exact same name during that “break.” Does anyone really think Mike was ready to do another reunion leg, but stopped when he was advised to “give it a rest” for a year? And if that was the case, I guess I missed the 2014 reunion tour; it must not have come to my area.

Nah, I’ve run into this a million times with people on any range of subjects. It’s a common pattern with some folks’ logic. They reach a decision, but don’t want to own the decision and/or explain the real reasons for the decision, so they search for a bunch of other plausible (and not so plausible) reasons. It’s like breaking up with someone because you simply don’t want to be with them anymore, but continually saying “no, no, it was just a timing thing, we just never discussed and fleshed out our feelings, and I’ve had some friends tell me that maybe we should just take a break for awhile”, instead of just owning it and saying “I don’t want to be with you anymore. I don’t like this, so even though you want to stay together, I’m leaving.”  

["There's talk of another album, yeah. Y'know, the record company's completely stoked about how well this whole project has gone. There's the Grammys coming up next year and there's talk of us going back and doing a return to the Grammys and there's talk of doin' a new album together. So, we'll just have to see what happens in the future. There's nothin' definitely in stone, but there's a lot of ideas bein' floated around -- and there's been some very successful concerts. Y'know, 17-and-a-half thousand people at the Hollywood Bowl sold out and there's interest from promoters, obviously, 'cause that's how they make money."and. . . "After this year completing the 50th anniversary reunion, we'll entertain doing some more studio work and see what we'll come up with and then we'll look at what to do in the future."]

I wasn't referring to the press release. It was on topic imo and Mike did both: explained why he did the venues he did with the non-C50 band and why the 2012 post C50 venues were not appropriate for the C50 band and that the promoters in 2012 were promoting for venues in 2013. As far as talk v. discussion, maybe you missed where Brian said the same thing as Mike.

Did you miss Howie Edelson’s interview transcript where Mike mentioned talk of another album and more touring? I’m sure you didn’t, which means we’re back to the ridiculous “talk vs. discussion” semantics to try to explain that awful diatribe Mike wrote to David Beard. Don’t need to go there again.

As to the talk of post-C50 shows that had already been booked, as has been mentioned in the past, those shows could have easily been bought off or rescheduled or converted to C50 shows if they had been inclined to continue C50 (or, gasp, Mike could have just done those few shows on his own and then went back to more reunion shows). As I’ve said a million times, the reunion didn’t ground to a halt because of a few shows Mike had, *oops* booked and couldn’t get out of. It appears he booked more shows before the reunion tour was over because, in my opinion, he didn’t want to do more reunion shows and wanted to do more of his own shows. The simple explanation makes the most sense. Why he nor you can just say that plainly and simply, I do not know.

It’s like someone asking their spouse, “So what you’re saying is you want to end the marriage?” and the other answering “The thing is, I’ve already planned some dates for after our divorce, and these dates aren’t really conducive to incorporating my ex, so what can I do?” instead of just saying “Yes, I want to end this marriage.”

"There was never any discussions within the group either during, at the end or after the scheduled and agreed upon ending of the reunion tour."

"As for more offers…I was presented with very nebulous offers, in other words, offers without documentation (i.e none). I asked for the offers to be presented in writing from the offering party, but never received a formal offer. It sounded odd to me that Wrigley Field wanted a show in October. Madison Square Garden for New Year's Eve was a stretch considering Phish was already booked." 
Mike Love Examiner  February 25, 2015



"There's only one 50th anniversary, obviously, but... there's talk of us going and doing a return to the Grammys next year, and there's talk about doing another album together,

 "There's nothing in stone, but there's a lot of ideas being floated around. So after this year, after completing the 50th anniversary reunion, we'll entertain doing some more studio work and see what we can come up with and can do in the future." 
Mike Love June 27 2012 Billboard



" So, we'll just have to see what happens in the future. There's nothin' definitely in stone, but there's a lot of ideas bein' floated around -- and there's been some very successful concerts. Y'know, 17-and-a-half thousand people at the Hollywood Bowl sold out and there's interest from promoters, obviously, 'cause that's how they make money."

"After this year completing the 50th anniversary reunion, we'll entertain doing some more studio work and see what we'll come up with and then we'll look at what to do in the future."
Mike Love to Howie Edelson during C50 tour



"I'm disappointed that Mike would now say that the release was done at the request of my representative. The first I heard about it was at the Grammy Museum event. We hadn't even discussed as a band what we were going to do with all the offers that were coming in for more 50th shows.
Al and I just assumed based on everyone's enthusiasm we would at least want to take those offers into consideration since we all knew about them. I mean, who wouldn't want to play the Hollywood Bowl again, Madison Square Garden and Wrigley Field? And what better way to celebrate New Year's Eve than with the 50th band? "
Brian Wilson LA Times Oct 9 2012

I read it. They all agree promoters, Capitol, Grammys were talking but there was never discussion within the group about the promoters, Capitol, Grammys talk of offers. Brian and Mike make a distinction but it is getting ignored for some reason imo.

Also according to Mike the reunion shows promoters were talking were  in 2013 after giving the reunion a year off at the promoters' suggestion.  Either Brian was talking NYE at MSG in 2013 on October 9 2012 or he was unaware that Phish had already announced on October 2 2012 it was playing NYE at MSG.

So I guess we will just disagree for now.

Here's the full quote Howie Edelson offered from his interview from the middle of the tour in 2012:

"There's talk of another album, yeah. Y'know, the record company's completely stoked about how well this whole project has gone. There's the Grammys coming up next year and there's talk of us going back and doing a return to the Grammys and there's talk of doin' a new album together. So, we'll just have to see what happens in the future. There's nothin' definitely in stone, but there's a lot of ideas bein' floated around -- and there's been some very successful concerts. Y'know, 17-and-a-half thousand people at the Hollywood Bowl sold out and there's interest from promoters, obviously, 'cause that's how they make money."

and. . .

"After this year completing the 50th anniversary reunion, we'll entertain doing some more studio work and see what we'll come up with and then we'll look at what to do in the future."

You continue to imply that the reunion ended because "discussion" never took place, and/or nothing was set in stone. This ignores any reasonable definition of "discussion" in my opinion, and ignores the zillion other indications that Mike simply didn't like the reunion setup and wanted to go back to his own thing.

Even Mike listed off in some interviews (which you did not reproduce above) a bunch of stuff he didn't like about the reunion. Why is it hard to grasp or admit that he just would rather do his own thing? Actions indicate he'd rather play the rodeo with his lineup than do more reunion shows the way C50 was set up.

The "build up demand" stuff is BS in my opinion. We don't know who made this suggestion to him, and the fact that it's 2015 and there hasn't been more reunion activity suggests the idea of building up demand for a year or two was meaningless and in my opinion a way to get interviewers  to stop bugging him back in 2012 by implying the break was short term.

It’s also worth mentioning that it’s possible to do classy, well-thought out “small” gigs. Like Brian did at the Roxy. Or playing a run of shows at BB Kings. If one’s inclination is to be close to an audience and have a small, intimate atmosphere, that can be done with class. It can be a hip, cool thing.

Like it was December 28th, 29th & 30th 2000 when Mike & Bruce played BB Kings in NYC ?

Sure. I didn't say they never did such gigs. Playing that many shows per year, every year, I would assume and expect they've played every type of venue imaginable, from Royal Albert Hall to stadiums to bowling alleys. I'm sure a hunk of he bookings Mike does are at fine venues; he books some of the same venues Brian does and C50 did. The question/discussion seems to revolve around the incessant touring and how that either drives or is driven by booking small markets and unconventional venues.

One of the big criticisms of Deschanel’s music is that her voice is very average, and it’s the whole package (the look, the inflection, the “whimsy”) that attracts people to it. This clip reinforces that. It’s a kind of bland, but totally on-key, performance. She has a pleasant voice. But it’s the whimsical, retro nature of the whole thing that probably attracts people to it.

This clip probably makes things worse because she does give the visual impression to me that she’s kind of bored. She probably isn’t, but it kind of seems that way. It also appears they are either lip-syncing to the finished take or that they used different recording footage compared to what’s actually on the recording.

"Hey Brian! What is your favorite song from the Love You album?"

""Ding Dang" because I like my brother Carl's vocal"

Different answer to what he said here.

The *best* part of these interviews is when we get a different answer. Seriously. Brian does seem to still have an affinity for “Ding Dang.” He abruptly started playing it when he did that QVC live show back in 2000.

It’s sad that I know this, but I think there are three or four BB appearances on “Full House.” There’s the first one (DJ wins tickets to the BB show and doesn’t know who to take) with all five BB’s. Then Mike made an appearance on an episode singing “Be True to Your School” a year or two later. Then there are one or two episodes in the SIP/Forever era with Mike and Bruce (and also Carl in the “music video” for “Forever”); these are the ones where Bruce makes the decision to “allow” Uncle Jesse to cover “Forever”, ignoring that anybody can cover any song as long as they pay royalties.

Watching Brian’s 1989 appearance on “Full House” will now be infinitely more amusing. I’ll now watch it assuming the experience was so cheesy and traumatizing that Brian blocked it out of his memory.

It’s also worth mentioning that it’s possible to do classy, well-thought out “small” gigs. Like Brian did at the Roxy. Or playing a run of shows at BB Kings. If one’s inclination is to be close to an audience and have a small, intimate atmosphere, that can be done with class. It can be a hip, cool thing.

If Mike did a club tour or something, that could be cool. It’s what I wish Al would do. Playing to a thousand or a few thousand at a rodeo venue is certainly not about getting back to basics or doing some small, deep cut-filled shows for hardcore fans. It’s about working the touring circuit, it’s about the grind of doing as many shows as possible for whatever venue will have you and can meet your tour rider guidelines and monetary guarantee.   

I wasn't referring to the press release. It was on topic imo and Mike did both: explained why he did the venues he did with the non-C50 band and why the 2012 post C50 venues were not appropriate for the C50 band and that the promoters in 2012 were promoting for venues in 2013. As far as talk v. discussion, maybe you missed where Brian said the same thing as Mike.

Did you miss Howie Edelson’s interview transcript where Mike mentioned talk of another album and more touring? I’m sure you didn’t, which means we’re back to the ridiculous “talk vs. discussion” semantics to try to explain that awful diatribe Mike wrote to David Beard. Don’t need to go there again.

As to the talk of post-C50 shows that had already been booked, as has been mentioned in the past, those shows could have easily been bought off or rescheduled or converted to C50 shows if they had been inclined to continue C50 (or, gasp, Mike could have just done those few shows on his own and then went back to more reunion shows). As I’ve said a million times, the reunion didn’t ground to a halt because of a few shows Mike had, *oops* booked and couldn’t get out of. It appears he booked more shows before the reunion tour was over because, in my opinion, he didn’t want to do more reunion shows and wanted to do more of his own shows. The simple explanation makes the most sense. Why he nor you can just say that plainly and simply, I do not know.

It’s like someone asking their spouse, “So what you’re saying is you want to end the marriage?” and the other answering “The thing is, I’ve already planned some dates for after our divorce, and these dates aren’t really conducive to incorporating my ex, so what can I do?” instead of just saying “Yes, I want to end this marriage.”

To those who seem so incredulous when we’re talking about the smaller venues and markets being played, keep in mind that Mike Love himself cited in his 2012 LA Times letter that the need to play those smaller markets was part of the reason to not continue on with the C50 lineup. I would also argue that the desire on the part of some members to tour in such a fashion probably impacted group member relationships and decisions going back years, decades.

In other words, the type of market and venue the current BB touring lineup is playing *directly* and indirectly is related to numerous past and ongoing issues related to the band, including the actual composition of its current lineup. How such things impact the legacy of the band and its individual members is another issue, which is both an interesting and long conversation.

Didn't he say that it wasn't financially feasible to play those 2012 shows with the C50 group that were already booked for the not-C50 group? He also said the extended dates that "promoter" were talking at them about in 2012 were dates for 2013 after they gave it a break for a year, the dates that were never presented in writing and never discussed within the band as Mike and Brian said.

No, I think you’re interpreting a meaning from Mike’s letter that isn’t there; a meaning that suits your needs. When he talked about needing to play the vital smaller markets, I don’t think he was speaking to already-booked shows for his band. I think it was just a more general point meant to refer to his normal mode of touring.

The rest of the stuff you’re talking about has nothing to do with the issue being discussed regarding markets/venues/cities for tours. I’m not going to entertain the “talk” vs. “discussion” debate again. Mike said there was talk of another album and more shows. He didn’t want to do more with the C50 lineup, and apparenty couldn’t bring himself even in 2015 to just say that plainly and simply.

To those who seem so incredulous when we’re talking about the smaller venues and markets being played, keep in mind that Mike Love himself cited in his 2012 LA Times letter that the need to play those smaller markets was part of the reason to not continue on with the C50 lineup. I would also argue that the desire on the part of some members to tour in such a fashion probably impacted group member relationships and decisions going back years, decades.

In other words, the type of market and venue the current BB touring lineup is playing *directly* and indirectly is related to numerous past and ongoing issues related to the band, including the actual composition of its current lineup. How such things impact the legacy of the band and its individual members is another issue, which is both an interesting and long conversation.

I just said that I thought it was weird that they played the rodeo here in Austin. I wouldn't think it so odd if they played the rodeo in a city that was centered in an area that was largely agrarian/ranch though. I don't think that's music fan snobbism.

Never been there (Austin) so I have no context, except shouldn't this band who started out playing high school dances get to choose where they want to play? And why all this venue snobbism?

The music is for the common man/woman, and they are found everywhere.

And if the Beach Boys booked a nice, indoor theater somewhere, that same fan can get off their a** and drive a bit farther out see and hear a much better show.

The implication that a band has to play small markets in small towns to reach their fans is simply incorrect. I’d say otherwise if the alternative was something like the Cream reunion gigs where you had a choice of four gigs in London and then three gigs in New York and nothing else. But something like C50 allowed most regions in the US (and some other regions in the world) a chance to see the band if they were willing to travel a bit farther.

The quality of the show and venue (and, as Mike reasoned out in how LA Times article, the actual membership of the touring band) should not be dictated by the need or desire to play small markets.

I’d rather see the full reunion lineup do 25 shows per year even if it I couldn’t afford to make it to one of those gigs, than see a pared-down lineup (to say nothing of the stage presentation or setlist) play 125 shows including one within a ten minute driving distance with cheaper tickets.

This rodeo show is worse than seaworld. Mike is quite literally putting the BBs name through the mud (and sh*t) of the rodeo.

Smile Brian - BB/BW fans come from the four corners of the earth.  

Why would the band/s ignore any one of them?

And disrespect and discriminate against them because of location-based bias?

This rodeo/seaworld argument is weak and intolerant.  

And mean as against those fans who come from an agrarian/ranch area.  

I get your point, but Austin isn't exactly an "agrarian/ranch area". As a matter of fact, it is often called the "live music capitol of the world".

And a certain little film/music festival is going on here right now. 

Don't get me wrong. I'm glad they are still entertaining the crowds, but playing the Austin Livestock and Rodeo is kinda weird.

Glad you understand my point.

They've played for young and old and rich and poor for over five decades. They play for people everywhere.  

What difference is the location? A fan is a fan is a fan.  

Is this music fan snobbism?

It’s not snobbish in my opinion to humbly suggest that the band and its legacy (and the value of its trademark) deserve quality venues and bookings that attract an audience it deserves.

I’d rather see any iteration of the Beach Boys play 25-50 shows per year in higher end venues and markets that attract audiences that won’t riot if they hear “Lookin’ at Tomorrow” and don’t hear “Kokomo.”  

Some artists and bands lose public interest (sometimes undeservedly so), and/or have not enough name recognition, and have no choice but to play small markets and small venues with small audiences. Al Jardine’s solo gigs have essentially come to this, for instance. But any iteration of “The Beach Boys” has the luxury, with the right planning and marketing, to play prestigious venues and bookings. In this sense, they’ve rarely taken that opportunity. Even in the 80’s they were playing post-game gigs in stadiums to bemused or indifferent audiences. Look at that ’83 Seattle gig that floats around on video. The audience looks disinterested and restless.

The question isn’t whether there is still demand for Beach Boys concerts. That has never been in doubt. The music and its selling power is *that* strong. What we’re talking about is whether they would be playing larger, more prestigious and/or concert-focused venues if they had not toured incessantly for decades. They literally haven’t gone a single year without playing a show since 1961. They have been doing the 100-125 shows per year grind since the 80’s at least. It’s a cash cow, and it’s easy money, and it has been easier to scale back the size and prestige of the venues and markets in part because ticket prices have increased.

Should it be embarrassing for a band to be playing a rodeo? Or a state fair? A bowling alley? That’s a big question that surprisingly quickly raises a bunch of political/economic/class/culture debates. Part of the post-C50 debates did devolve into some references to “elite” media or fans who think it’s more important and better for the band’s brand and image to play Madison Square Garden than the Cleveland Rib Cook Off.

I’d love for the “C50” reunion lineup to play at my local school fundraiser, where I can walk to the show and every seat is a good seat because there’s only 150 people in the audience. I truly mean that. But we can also take the objective point of view, looking at how the industry and the public in general views things. In that sense, yes, the brand/band/trademark looks rather flaccid when it’s playing in a town nobody has ever heard of at a venue that maybe doesn’t even regularly host concerts as opposed to playing Radio City Music Hall or regular concert venues like sheds and arenas.  

While small venues do typically result in better concert experiences than huge arenas and stadiums, it also tends to depend on the type of audience certain venues and bookings attract. A lot of the state fairs and county fairs and free shows I’ve attended attract non-fans and at best casual fans who really don’t know or care who is singing on stage and will throw a brick at the stage if they don’t hear “Barbara Ann” and “Kokomo.” I’d rather see the show in an arena frankly, even if I have to get binoculars out to see the stage and even if I have to drive two hours to see the show.