Mike *thinks* he has the evidence/track record backing his theory that a BB album needs to be Wilson/Love co-writes

Unlikely IMHO. If that were the case, Mike wouldn't have done the TWGMTR album.

maybe some execs at Capitol were aware of Mike's recent songwriting proclivities, maybe they had listened to "Summer in Paradise", and maybe they didn't want an album FULL of Mike Love lyrics.

HIGHLY unlikely IMHO. Or is SMiLE Brian a Capitol exec? I don't think Mike insists on a full album of just Wilson/Love penned songs either.

There's also the issue of whether, perhaps, Brian just didn't want to write with Mike in the "old style." For whatever reason, whether it makes him uncomfortable or he feels it's not going to produce the best results, or whatever.

Very likely I think - why else would Brian not agree to write with Mike?

As I mentioned, I think TWGMTR was a begrudging compromise, having more to do with expediting getting the album and tour together. I don’t think Mike thinks a BB album *has* to be Wilson/Love tracks (otherwise he wouldn’t have released SIP). But he certainly feels that’s a formula that will result in better product. The track record of recent years or decades doesn’t particularly support this, especially considering Mike seems to measure success more by sales and sustained chart success rather than critical praise.

And of course Mike presumably isn’t implying any BB album should be nothing but Wilson/Love co-writes. But he also feels that his level of songwriting credits on TWGMTR was not at all significant input, even though his name is on 4 of the 12 songs. So I would presume even half of an album with his input might not be enough, if 1/3 of the album featuring his name is something he doesn’t consider as a significant amount of input. Also, when Mike has discussed TWGMTR, he hasn’t suggested that Al or Dave or Bruce should have significant input. I’m not suggesting he would be opposed to those guys having input. But the idea of them having input doesn’t appear to enter into his mind enough to even suggest it. He also seems to specifically be off-put by using pre-existing Wilson/Thomas co-writes. So it sounds like he is advocating for an album dominated by newly-written-from-scratch Wilson/Love songs.

My theory about Capitol having any misgivings about heavy Mike lyrical involvement was just a theory. It’s plausible, nothing more. We do have comments from band members that Capitol execs had some level of control over the album’s track selection. We also know they scored the deal based off of Wilson/Thomas tracks. So I don’t think it’s out of line to suggest perhaps Capitol would not have been amenable to a shift towards mostly newly-written Wilson/Love tracks.

For those searching your local listings, keep in mind that different PBS stations air these types of things on different dates at different times. An “air date” usually gives a good frame of reference for the week or weekend that it will air in most markets. But some stations will sometimes take several extra weeks to air something like this (or will re-air it again within a few weeks). Folks following the “Doin’ It Again” PBS airing from back in 2012 will probably remember that different areas/stations got different air dates in some cases.

My recollection is that my local stations usually premiere episodes of things like “Soundstage” and “Austin City Limits” on weekends, so I’m not sure April 9th (a Thursday) will be the date here.

You know what you should ask him next though? What he thinks of 'The Right Time'. Would make a good question I think.

I think Mike may just agree to a Smiley Smile Q&A, which perhaps would go something like this:

Q: Mike, what’s your favorite pizza?

A: Set end date.

Yesterday, because it was down, it was lame, today, it's Mike's '88 speech.  

Pulling such articles is lame, as is altering them after publication (other than fixing typos or correcting factual inaccuracies; in which case, most publications add an addendum at the bottom stating when and what was changed).

Once the article is up (any version of it), characterizing that article is a whole separate issue. So yes, one day it came be lame for being pulled, and the next day be characterized as being like Mike’s ’88 speech once it’s back up.

Very easy for me to say, but if I was trying to simply find out what Mike thinks of the new Brian track, and I got *that* response, I wouldn’t run it. My immediate thought would be “Hmm, I think I’m just being used as a de facto PR agent for an unprompted, inflammatory essay.” Perhaps such an e-mail might be usable later when putting a large piece together getting into the band’s feelings about each other and C50 and future projects, etc.

But, even if you think for some reason that the “NPP” press release was the biggest a-hole press release of all time, and you think Mike is being persecuted, even then it would be patently obvious that publishing such an e-mail from Mike would just inflame things. If one feels it’s okay to inflame things in such a way, then cool. But then it doesn’t compute to me to then be incredulous about the inevitable inflamed reaction.

The article appeared on Examiner.com.  It won't be appearing in ESQ.  Mike has said all he has to say about subject. 

Which is one of the reasons both the context of this article and its response have done nothing but made things worse. To slip in with such an inflammatory piece and then say “that’s all I have to say” does nobody any favors, including Mike.

Perhaps next time somebody (whether Mike or somebody else) starts citing the “Mr. Positivity” character, we can point to this article, which takes the seemingly innocuous question “Have you heard the new Brian song?” into a negative diatribe filled with insinuations and backhanded compliments.

I guess I’m citing some very obvious irony in pointing out that this article itself has become a bit like Mike’s position within the article. Some would offer that Mike needs to really just plainly admit that, whether justified or not, he put the brakes on the reunion. Similarly, with this article, I think it needs to be acknowledged that it did nothing but make things worse for fans, for Mike, for the other band members, for ESQ, for everybody, and also that it was poor journalism.

Seriously. I would certainly assume and hope that one little article wouldn’t really have an impact on Mike and Brian’s relationship, but how could an article like this do anything but even very slightly in the short term hurt their relationship, even if just their professional relationship?

I guess that's basically it. Mike wants to be treated as an equal, but Brian likes to use him as a commodity. Hey, I need some petty lyrics finished, here, you can do that. Sing your parts, and let me create. That would bruise my ego, too. Of course, Mike could show greatness and say, all right, I'll do it anyway because it's my genius cousin, but Mike's human, and I can absolutely understand him not willing to once more bowing to Brian's wishes. And I can understand too that he's not publically admitting being hurt. It's Mike's misfortune that he contradicts himself in interviews trying to conceal that.

Unfortunately, while Mike *thinks* he has the evidence/track record backing his theory that a BB album needs to be Wilson/Love co-writes, I don't think the evidence supports that.

First of all, everybody was apparently aware that they scored the record deal based on some Wilson/Thomas songs. Mike signed on for that. Additionally, it seems as though the whole C50 thing happened on a relatively accelerated timeframe. Once they signed the deal, they couldn't then hold sporadic songwriting sessions and *hope* something good comes out of it. They had more than an album's worth of good material ready to go, and that material was what got them the record deal and was what Capitol was probably expecting them to produce.

I don't mean this as a little swipe at Mike, but maybe some execs at Capitol were aware of Mike's recent songwriting proclivities, maybe they had listened to "Summer in Paradise", and maybe they didn't want an album FULL of Mike Love lyrics.

There's also the issue of whether, perhaps, Brian just didn't want to write with Mike in the "old style." For whatever reason, whether it makes him uncomfortable or he feels it's not going to produce the best results, or whatever. At that stage, what's more important? To help Mike's ego and force a collaboration, or to let Brian do what he needs to do to make an album happen?

It should be about producing the best music, the best album.

In the case of what we’re discussing, and what Mike was discussing in this recent piece, I don’t think the specific problem is that he’s not telling us he’s hurt. If he did feel that way and expressed it in a humble way, that might help to humanize him a little more. That’s a separate issue worth exploring.

But in the case of the C50 stuff, I find it interesting that a small group of folks seem to feel that “hey, he’s just telling it like it is; he’s just being honest”, because I think it’s the exact opposite, and in my opinion it all boils down to not wanting to take responsibility. He’s clearly sensitive about the (technically/legally) incorrect statements that he “fired” Brian; I think he didn’t expect those types of reports. So then the explanations become more convoluted in my opinion, more off-topic. You get stuff like Mike being asked if he’s heard the new Brian/Al track, and the response is essentially “I didn’t break up the Beach Boys!!!!”  

All of the qualifications and explanations obscure the main issue. All of the “set end date”, “we needed to play small markets”, the band was too expensive, there were “too many musicians and singers competing for parts on stage”, the “a #3 album is okay, but……”, it all obscures the issue. I think, just my opinion, he doesn’t want to just say “I don’t want to work with Brian Wilson or the Beach Boys under the conditions that were present during the 50th anniversary.” Because, if he says that, then he’s the one that broke the thing up. It doesn’t matter how valid or invalid his reasons are. He then is the one that broke it up. So we get the list of those “conditions” that he didn’t like, slowly, over the course of numerous interviews, and we get a bunch of other peripheral factoids that don’t particularly matter (the pre-reunion “oldies” album discussion), but no verbiage that says “The other guys wanted to keep going and I didn’t. It was my decision, and I had my reasons.”

Why is it so hard to actually say the words? I don’t ask this as a rhetorical question. Really, why is it so hard? I can only guess. I think the HUGE success both critically and commercially of the reunion was at least part of the reason. If ticket sales had been poor, if critics had said the live shows blew, if the album had tanked, then I think it’s possible Mike would have much easily just said at the end “Yeah, it didn’t do that well. Brian wanted to do more shows and an album, but I thought it was better to end it and go back to my own thing.”

How is not hearing a song an example of B.S?

Wouldn't saying "Oh yeah, I heard it and it's fantastic" when you really hadn't be a better example of B.S?

Maybe we ought to take a look at how we treat each other on this board before we sanctimoniously criticize a guy we don't know for being ...... rude or full of B.S....

C'mon. It isn't "not listening" to the song that is BS. It's not listening to it, but then going on a diatribe about the song and its accompanying album with seemingly no prompting, and criticizing an album press release for something it didn't say (and then also implying said press release was done without Brian's consent or approval).

If one is asked if they've heard a song, and nothing else, and the answer is "no", and the answer is as long as that e-mail response, then it's BS, because it's either off-topic or talking about something they haven't heard.  

I asked many follow up questions throughout the course of 2012 that appeared in various editions of ESQ, so that's covered.  As for the Examiner article, Mike's response was emailed, and it was a "one time" statement.  Could I have gone back and picked at that emotional scab?  Sure.  But why would I do that to him?  

I would say soliciting the comments from Mike in the first place was what was picking at the scab. Nobody much seemed to care at this stage, in 2015, that "No Pier Pressure" was not a Beach Boys album.

When I listened to "The Right Time", at no point did Mike Love enter into my thoughts. I never thought "this tracks sucks; if only Mike could have let Brian make a BB album, then Mike would singing on this, and it would be for the better."

If you listen to "The Right Time", and at any point while listening to the track or considering it you think "you know, it's total bull**** to criticize Mike as if he didn't allow another BB album to be made!", then who is turning a positive (a solid new BW track with Al and Dave on it) into a negative?

It's doubly perplexing, because anybody that was or is opining that the album would have been better off with Mike on it is actually paying Mike a compliment! Right?

So why, then, did a review of "The Right Time" even need to mention Mike Love? Because one other random online preview/review mentioned Mike in passing? I would say the one-two punch of the weird "Right Time" review that goes on and on about not blaming Mike for not being on it, and this recent solicited "response" e-mail from Mike, have created more wounds/scabs than any discussion of "NPP" was creating prior.

Mike probably didn't listen to the new song because it may actually upset him, 3 bandmates are on it and he's not (whether he chose that or not).  It would upset me and I'd be a bit envious/slighted.   Did Brian even ask Mike to be on it? If not, why not?  It looks like a snub.  IMO.   Also, I like all the BB's.  The bashing is boring, if you feel the hate so strongly about someone you don't even know, who has never done anything personally to you,  you have issues.

Taking issue with or questioning comments these guys make is not "hating" them.

As for whether Mike chose whether or not to be on the track, are we really still debating that? Why in the world would Brian invite Mike to sing on it? Mike has specifically said he didn't prefer the setup of just singing on tracks Brian writes without Mike (and/or with Joe Thomas). In the interview excerpt Howie Edelson posted, Mike seemed to only begrudgingly offer positive comments about even being offered the chance to add lyrics to songs already written by Brian and/or Joe.

Brian has indicated he would have done another BB album. So, if "The Right Time" had ended up on that album, it actually isn't terribly a stretch to say that Mike would have been singing on that very song.

My personal guess is that other than being a possibly peripheral, brief annoyance (in the same way that, say, Brian losing Foskett might be to Brian), I don't think Mike cares much about Brian's new album, or Brian's albums in general. Mike doesn't seem to be super interested in recording albums himself.

Jeez.... Maybe Mike just hadn't heard the dang song at that moment and provided an un-self edited and off the cuff answer to the question .... He basically compliments Al's voice and hopes there's no auto tune: a thing that has caused torrents of heated thread debate on this very board ... Sheesh. How about we just learn to live with the guy's answer rather than attack the interviewer, ESQ and anything/everything related?

It doesn't take a Myke Luver to see how silly this has gotten.

It goes without saying that we have to "live" with the interview. It doesn't mean people shouldn't call BS on it if it's warranted. The BB's have all offered *plenty* of odd, head-scratcher, aggravating, WTF-style interviews over the years. This newest interview (or e-mail essay essentially) is one of the more irksome, contradictory interviews in recent times. It shouldn't be a surprise that it's causing plenty of discussion, especially since it was also attached to some rather weird motives/execution on the part of the author.

As for the "haven't heard the song" thing, it's clear going back to the 2004 "Smile" time period that, for whatever reason, Mike chooses to not listen to Brian's stuff (or at least is saying he doesn't). I was going to suggest the sympathetic interpretation, that Mike would maybe forego listening to avoid having to comment on it. Sort of like the "code" among ex-presidents to not criticize later presidents. But, Mike actually ended up essentially commenting on the new BW song and the album even after citing that he hadn't heard the song, and even offered a back-handed compliment to boot. The autotune comment would be like if Al commented on a new Mike song: "No, I haven't heard it. But I'm sure it'll be a wonderful song as long as Mike doesn't mention beaches, or surfing, or cars, or cite the lyrics to past Beach Boys hits, or sing in a nasaly voice, or wear a hat while he's singing it."

But there are problems with this. Firstly, I think it’s potentially absurd to expect “concrete things in writing” when considering recording another album or considering another tour. I’m not seeing anything like “I was ready to do another album and tour just like we did in 2012, but I never got anything in writing so I went back to my own thing.” He was *already* going back to his own thing. I think you’re placing more emphasis on “something concrete in writing” being the reason Mike didn’t do more reunion activities than he is.

Before the tour was even over, we have interviews with Al Jardine at the Grammy Museum event where he already seems to be desperately trying to convince Mike not to just go back to his own tour.

The simplified, pared-down question is this: Was Mike ready and willing to do another album and tour, with the demise of such plans consisting of Mike not being presented with “concrete offers in writing”? Or, was Mike dissatisfied with elements of the reunion tour and album, and already planning post-reunion activities before the reunion was even over? Given the evidence at hand, the latter seems far more likely.

We’ve had brief moments where things almost seem to converge and everybody’s answer almost makes sense. For instance, a new Beach Boys album didn’t happen. Mike seems to acknowledge that that album, in Brian’s mind, was going to follow the TWGMTR format of more Brian/Joe songs forming the basis. Mike has also said in the past that he didn’t find that Brian/Joe songwriting basis as his preference, and has also stated his preference both in the past and going forward is to write songs from scratch, and alone, with Brian. The problem is that it stops there. There’s no “therefore, that’s why I didn’t want to do another Beach Boys album with Brian. It wasn’t the type of album I wanted to do.” Then it digresses even further into other justifications and backhanded compliments (I’m sure the song with Brian and Al would sound great, IF there’s no autotune…)

I don't know anything about booking world class bands but Mike does and has had the license and already had bookings. I would find it odd if he just accepted talk over something in hand definite concrete in writing. Especially if he was already suspicious of the talk behind it, a date in October, and something booked by Phish, a "prediction" without follow up, etc..

Mike complained sure but he is also complimentary and he was still open to it and asking for that something in hand definite concrete in writing but nothing was ever made "concrete".

It's fine if Mike wants to do his own bookings instead of working out more reunion shows. But in that case, he needs to *own* that decision. As many have said, they could have easily made more reunion shows happen. Buy off any Mike/Bruce dates, reschedule, replace with "reunion" shows.... it could have been done.

One group of guys says "we're ready, let's do more shows and another album!", and other dude says "nah, I don't have anything in writing, and I already booked some other shows, and I kinda didn't like some of the aspects of the tour or the album, so I'm gonna do my own shows and take a pass on recording more Brian/Joe songs." That's all fine (if unfortunately and disagreeable to some fans). But that one dude then can't pass the buck on whose "fault" the end of the reunion is.

This "in writing" and "concrete" BS is as ridiculous as the "set end date" nonsense. You can't put anything in writing, you can't make anything concrete, when one of the involved parties has *already* decided against it.

Regarding "suspicious" concert bookings, I'm wary of any implications of that sort. Again, I ask, what is the implication exactly? Fraudulent bookings from con-men? After a HUGELY successful 73-date tour, does anybody really think that Brian and Al were ready to accept a deal for a gig from some shady guy that was going to, what, book the show and then when the Beach Boys show up and Phish is loading their gear, then suggest the Beach Boys move their gig to the local skating rink?

I think we are getting close to being on the same page finally. Like some were trying to say a bunch of pages ago, Mike is saying (in 2012 and 2015) there was a lot of talk without follow up, talk without discussion. He/they were open to more dates and albums but when the C50 agreement ended the talk never amounted to something in-writing/set-in-stone/concrete that came before them or was discussed.

One of the arguments that Mike brought up back in 2012 was to “give it a rest” for a year to build up demand. Whether he really was serious about the idea or was just trying to get people off his back about why they weren’t going right back out on the road and into the studio, I don’t know. But Brian was talking in his LA Times article about more show offers presumably in 2012, not 2014. 

If anything, perhaps Mike thought that he could use the “give it a rest for a year to build up demand" thing as an excuse, to buy time and hopefully get Brian to cave to Mike's demands in the meantime. It was really just a made-up excuse though. C'mon. There's no way you can tell me a guy like Mike Love ever actually wants to give anything a rest touring-wise. If he wrote songs with Brian in a room and got to remain the center of attention in C50, he'd not have wanted to give it a rest.

Mike can claim that, and it might make logical sense to some people reading his side of the story, and get some people behind him, but ultimately it fails as an excuse. It's not consistent with any of Mike's touring actions, ever.

While we as hardcore fans, as well as promoters, know the difference between Mike’s “Beach Boys” and the C50 “Beach Boys”, I think his “give it a rest” argument lost a lot of credibility when the concurrent discussion also involved that he was *immediately* going back out on the road as “The Beach Boys.”

I mean, wouldn’t it build up *even more* demand if you literally take the BB name off the market for even just one season?

These are obviously rhetorical questions that are even more meaningless in light of that fact that, in my opinion, factors such as “market demand” had little or nothing to do with the reunion’s demise.

Or maybe this means that even Mike knows that his little merry band of bald guys, fat guys, and guys wearing girl jeans isn't The Beach Boys, and therefore him touring as "The Beach Boys" wouldn't have any effect on demand.

But at the same time, let's be honest: he obviously was just doing the whole "take a year away" thing so people would be off of his back. I don't believe he had any intention to reunite again unless it meant that Brian joined Mike's band and decided to do an album of covers and Wilson/Love co-writes.

Yes, even at the time, the “give it a rest” argument seemed like a case of trying to get people to drop the subject, especially while they had to deal with the press and finish out the C50 tour dates. Even then, let us not forget another one of the “Spinal Tap-esque” moments where the Eagles management had to call Mike out in relation to the “market oversaturation” topic.

I think we are getting close to being on the same page finally. Like some were trying to say a bunch of pages ago, Mike is saying (in 2012 and 2015) there was a lot of talk without follow up, talk without discussion. He/they were open to more dates and albums but when the C50 agreement ended the talk never amounted to something in-writing/set-in-stone/concrete that came before them or was discussed.

Maybe it’s just me, but that’s not on the same page at all. “Talk” versus “Discussion”; Clearly we have different ideas of what those two words constitute. Mike may have some other definition. Either way, the NPP press release says nothing other than Brian wanted to do another album. So I’m still unclear why Mike is criticizing that press release.

Given all the other evidence at our disposal, I’m not prepared to say that Mike’s recent interview conveys anything other than Mike seems to now be completely perplexed all of a sudden at the mere idea of another album being considered.

I think *previous* comments from Mike indicate varying levels of interest or willingness to do another album and tour, but your wording suggests those things never took place simply because nothing was ever set in stone. So basically, we’re back to the specious argument that “they didn’t do another tour because they didn’t do another tour.” The question is, why didn’t they work towards setting anything in stone? That gets us back to who was willing and able to do another album and tour in the immediate aftermath of C50. *That* seems crystal clear based on comments from all parties involved. Brian and Al (and presumably Dave) were ready and willing. They couldn’t set anything in stone until *all* parties had a willingness to continue. Booking non-reunion shows before the reunion tour is even done doesn’t show that willingness or intent.

Remember as well, part of the at least on-the-surface disagreement about more reunion activity seemed to stem from timing. One of the arguments that Mike brought up back in 2012 was to “give it a rest” for a year to build up demand. Whether he really was serious about the idea or was just trying to get people off his back about why they weren’t going right back out on the road and into the studio, I don’t know. But Brian was talking in his LA Times article about more show offers presumably in 2012, not 2014. 

I can talk about a lot of stuff and you could hear me but we haven't discussed a thing. Somebody else could talk about a lot of things they want to do for both of us and we listened but we haven't discussed anything. Discussion was also in the context of "within the group" about concrete things in writing which according to Mike, as I take it, was still in the future in September 2012 and in 2015 had never happened back then or since.

But there are problems with this. Firstly, I think it’s potentially absurd to expect “concrete things in writing” when considering recording another album or considering another tour. I’m not seeing anything like “I was ready to do another album and tour just like we did in 2012, but I never got anything in writing so I went back to my own thing.” He was *already* going back to his own thing. I think you’re placing more emphasis on “something concrete in writing” being the reason Mike didn’t do more reunion activities than he is.

Before the tour was even over, we have interviews with Al Jardine at the Grammy Museum event where he already seems to be desperately trying to convince Mike not to just go back to his own tour.

The simplified, pared-down question is this: Was Mike ready and willing to do another album and tour, with the demise of such plans consisting of Mike not being presented with “concrete offers in writing”? Or, was Mike dissatisfied with elements of the reunion tour and album, and already planning post-reunion activities before the reunion was even over? Given the evidence at hand, the latter seems far more likely.

We’ve had brief moments where things almost seem to converge and everybody’s answer almost makes sense. For instance, a new Beach Boys album didn’t happen. Mike seems to acknowledge that that album, in Brian’s mind, was going to follow the TWGMTR format of more Brian/Joe songs forming the basis. Mike has also said in the past that he didn’t find that Brian/Joe songwriting basis as his preference, and has also stated his preference both in the past and going forward is to write songs from scratch, and alone, with Brian. The problem is that it stops there. There’s no “therefore, that’s why I didn’t want to do another Beach Boys album with Brian. It wasn’t the type of album I wanted to do.” Then it digresses even further into other justifications and backhanded compliments (I’m sure the song with Brian and Al would sound great, IF there’s no autotune…)

I think we are getting close to being on the same page finally. Like some were trying to say a bunch of pages ago, Mike is saying (in 2012 and 2015) there was a lot of talk without follow up, talk without discussion. He/they were open to more dates and albums but when the C50 agreement ended the talk never amounted to something in-writing/set-in-stone/concrete that came before them or was discussed.

One of the arguments that Mike brought up back in 2012 was to “give it a rest” for a year to build up demand. Whether he really was serious about the idea or was just trying to get people off his back about why they weren’t going right back out on the road and into the studio, I don’t know. But Brian was talking in his LA Times article about more show offers presumably in 2012, not 2014. 

If anything, perhaps Mike thought that he could use the “give it a rest for a year to build up demand" thing as an excuse, to buy time and hopefully get Brian to cave to Mike's demands in the meantime. It was really just a made-up excuse though. C'mon. There's no way you can tell me a guy like Mike Love ever actually wants to give anything a rest touring-wise. If he wrote songs with Brian in a room and got to remain the center of attention in C50, he'd not have wanted to give it a rest.

Mike can claim that, and it might make logical sense to some people reading his side of the story, and get some people behind him, but ultimately it fails as an excuse. It's not consistent with any of Mike's touring actions, ever.

While we as hardcore fans, as well as promoters, know the difference between Mike’s “Beach Boys” and the C50 “Beach Boys”, I think his “give it a rest” argument lost a lot of credibility when the concurrent discussion also involved that he was *immediately* going back out on the road as “The Beach Boys.”

I mean, wouldn’t it build up *even more* demand if you literally take the BB name off the market for even just one season?

These are obviously rhetorical questions that are even more meaningless in light of that fact that, in my opinion, factors such as “market demand” had little or nothing to do with the reunion’s demise.

it wouldn't make a lot of sense to do a rock'n'roll covers album on the heels of a #3 release of original material.

nor would it make sense to break up the reunion and revert back to playing Sea World and state fairs with John Stamos instead of the actual Beach Boys. so there you go.

The only reason I could think of that a rock'n'roll covers album on the heels of a #3 release of original material would be because it would have been a very passive project, relatively free of emotional roadblocks that would come with dealing with a bandmember whose demands meant that Brian wouldn't have been able to properly express himself creatively.  Mike's demands would have been a much smaller thorn in Brian's side if it was just covers that were gonna be done.

After all, isn't that likely why a project like 15 Big Ones exists, and why after being berated for Adult Child, Brian reverted to doing a bunch of covers in the late 70s/early 80s?

I'd say we came out ahead with NPP existing.

I think we’re losing the plot here, though. Apart from David Beard’s interpretation of the Mike Love essay he prompted, I don’t see *any* indication that “oldies covers” album was something being considered once the actual reunion started. I don’t even read Mike’s new interview as suggesting that.

The couple of times Mike has mentioned the “covers” album, I think he’s simply saying “here’s another example of how something changed.”

All indications are that the “covers” album idea was thrown around well before the record deal and recording of TWGMTR. I have a vague recollection that one interview mentioned that those “covers” album discussions (which certainly sounded like nothing more than batting ideas around) took place as much as a year or two before the actual reunion took place. That idea clearly was dropped, and Brian and Joe got a deal with Capitol for a BB album based on Brian/Joe songs. Mike signed on for that at some point obviously. He later indicated in interviews that he would have preferred for either that BB album and/or a future BB album to feature he and Brian writing songs alone. Then, Brian wanted to do another album. That never happened. Mike’s own comments seemed highly indicative then of *why* that album didn’t happen the way Brian had hoped/wanted.

It would probably save everybody a lot of ink and typing and debating if we could just get a statement along the lines of “I don’t want to do another Beach Boys album where Brian and Joe write most of the songs with little or no input from me.” That sentiment would be disagreeable to some fans, but at least it would be clear and unambiguous.

I think we are getting close to being on the same page finally. Like some were trying to say a bunch of pages ago, Mike is saying (in 2012 and 2015) there was a lot of talk without follow up, talk without discussion. He/they were open to more dates and albums but when the C50 agreement ended the talk never amounted to something in-writing/set-in-stone/concrete that came before them or was discussed.

Maybe it’s just me, but that’s not on the same page at all. “Talk” versus “Discussion”; Clearly we have different ideas of what those two words constitute. Mike may have some other definition. Either way, the NPP press release says nothing other than Brian wanted to do another album. So I’m still unclear why Mike is criticizing that press release.

Given all the other evidence at our disposal, I’m not prepared to say that Mike’s recent interview conveys anything other than Mike seems to now be completely perplexed all of a sudden at the mere idea of another album being considered.

I think *previous* comments from Mike indicate varying levels of interest or willingness to do another album and tour, but your wording suggests those things never took place simply because nothing was ever set in stone. So basically, we’re back to the specious argument that “they didn’t do another tour because they didn’t do another tour.” The question is, why didn’t they work towards setting anything in stone? That gets us back to who was willing and able to do another album and tour in the immediate aftermath of C50. *That* seems crystal clear based on comments from all parties involved. Brian and Al (and presumably Dave) were ready and willing. They couldn’t set anything in stone until *all* parties had a willingness to continue. Booking non-reunion shows before the reunion tour is even done doesn’t show that willingness or intent.

Remember as well, part of the at least on-the-surface disagreement about more reunion activity seemed to stem from timing. One of the arguments that Mike brought up back in 2012 was to “give it a rest” for a year to build up demand. Whether he really was serious about the idea or was just trying to get people off his back about why they weren’t going right back out on the road and into the studio, I don’t know. But Brian was talking in his LA Times article about more show offers presumably in 2012, not 2014. 

Mike stated that Brian mentioned doing a rock and roll album of covers of their favorite songs.  That was the only idea being floated that Mike was aware of… So, no reason to ask a follow up.  Not one track on NPP is a rock and roll cover song, so the distinction is clear.

Mike had previously mentioned in another interview some time back that he had discussed a “covers” album with Brian. As I recall, this *pre-dated* the record deal and the recording of TWGMTR.

Then, *after* TWGMTR came out, during the 50th tour, Mike said in interviews that they had discussed the possibility of another album.

Beyond that issue, there are *countless* follow-up questions that could have and should have been asked in that interview. If it wasn’t possible to ask any, that’s one thing (in which case, I would suggest holding off on printing it until follow-up can be done). But if you asked one question about whether Mike had heard the new BW track, and he gave you *that* response, and you didn’t feel there was any need to ask *any* follow-up questions, that is stunning.

That “covers” album idea has ZERO to do with NPP. I’m not sure why you’re trying to conflate those ideas just so you can claim NPP *isn’t* that non-existent album. The “covers” album is as much if not more of a “theoretical” album than the “could have been” follow-up BB album.

It’s patently clear Brian wanted to record a NEW Beach Boys album of NEW material, after TWGMTR. It doesn’t appear Al Jardine or David Marks said no. Not only did they continue to record with Brian, but Al specifically mentioned in interviews that they had extra songs from TWGMTR they could have worked with; Al seemed more enthusiastic for another BB album than Brian did. Brian clearly wrote/prepared additional material with an eye towards more BB recordings. The “NPP” press release was polite and diplomatic enough to not go beyond “it was not to be” when discussing what *could* have been another BB album.

Why is it so difficult to just acknowledge that another BB album could have, and perhaps would have occurred had things gone the way Brian (and Al) wanted. That’s all. Brian and most fans have gotten over it. NPP sounds like it will be cool. But that doesn’t mean reviews or band members or fans should refrain from mentioning in passing “oh yeah, that would have been interesting if Brian could have made another BB album like he wanted to.”

All back to the lack of proper communications between band members and the lack of specific Beach Bous management referenced by Howie. Doesn't matter how many times they chatted about the prospects of another album in be C50 dressing rooms, it needed formalising into a contract and no one picked that up and went with it. When one member says "we didn't talk about" I feel that means "we didn't talk about it formally". When another says "we did talk about it" I reckon that, likewise, they mean it was discussed informally ("wouldn't it be nice if?) but nothing substantial was put on the table for a formal BRI or band member meeting. They're still talking round in circles and I still think it was an opportunity missed, with no individual party to blame. Brian's album will be a beauty, I'm sure; and I'm sure that at one stage it might have been a Beach Boys album, either "as well as", or "instead of".

No matter, life goes on… and we lap up whatever crumbs they throw our way.

The problem is, if Mike simply means that nothing “formal” was set in stone for another BB album and only casual discussion took place, but then seems to take issue with the NPP press release, then it makes no sense. The NPP press release don’t say any formal talks took place. In fact, the NPP press release doesn’t even suggest *any* talks took place. It simply says that Brian envisioned another album.

The whole article seems to be predicated on Mike taking issue with the NPP press release. *That* is why his commentary comes across as if the mere idea of another BB album is insane, as if nobody ever mentioned anything about it.

I believe one has to do A LOT of bending and molding to take the 2012 “there’s talk of another album” and this recent Mike commentary and NOT find it pretty directly contradictory.

To me, it’s kind of a lousy move towards fans to give interviews indicating there’s talk of another album, and then less than three years later literally say “there was never any discussions within the group.” Fans obviously have to keep appropriate (e.g. extremely low) expectations, but there’s a point at which the contradiction between two interviews is more than just an empirical observation, and becomes a demonstration of what one’s attitude is towards fans.

It's not an interview though - it's a rambling reply to an innocuous "have you heard Brian's latest?" query. That's my take on the original piece posted, anyway. And as such, I wouldn't expect a carefully worded, considers response which went back to the source materials. I'd simply expect Mike to ramble on off the top of his head, without regard for the minutia. When I'm gassing wih pals in the pub, I don't carry a box of reference books; and that's the atmosphere I'm assuming applied here. I'm more surprised that David saw fit to share it than by anybinvoices Mike said. Have to make allowances.

But that gets back to the context of the article in the first place. I agree that your description is closer what the end result actually is. But the article doesn’t seem to be intended that way. It’s set up as if the author is deeply concerned with other media outlets saying something he disagrees with, and thus he’s going to the ultimate source to get to the bottom of the issue.

If the article had been a case of “Hey, I ran into Mike Love and just innocently asked him if he had heard the new BW single. Take a look at this monologue he went off on….”, then it would be more just a curiosity; essentially just another personal story of someone striking up a conversation with someone from the band.

This article was not presented that way, and my *guess* is that the author doesn’t want it to be taken that lightly.

I think the reason a lot of folks are taking issue with the article is that the hypothesis that the article starts with is flawed, and the response he got from Mike was confusing and contradictory. While I can suggest that more questions and/or follow-up questions could have been asked, I can’t of course fault the interviewer for what the interviewee said. But any sort of additional commentary, fair commentary, could have cleared at least some of that up. A quick “Love had mentioned in 2012 that there *had* been discussions of another album, but we were unable to track him down for follow-up questions” would have least slightly mitigated everything that came before it in the article.

All back to the lack of proper communications between band members and the lack of specific Beach Bous management referenced by Howie. Doesn't matter how many times they chatted about the prospects of another album in be C50 dressing rooms, it needed formalising into a contract and no one picked that up and went with it. When one member says "we didn't talk about" I feel that means "we didn't talk about it formally". When another says "we did talk about it" I reckon that, likewise, they mean it was discussed informally ("wouldn't it be nice if?) but nothing substantial was put on the table for a formal BRI or band member meeting. They're still talking round in circles and I still think it was an opportunity missed, with no individual party to blame. Brian's album will be a beauty, I'm sure; and I'm sure that at one stage it might have been a Beach Boys album, either "as well as", or "instead of".

No matter, life goes on… and we lap up whatever crumbs they throw our way.

The problem is, if Mike simply means that nothing “formal” was set in stone for another BB album and only casual discussion took place, but then seems to take issue with the NPP press release, then it makes no sense. The NPP press release don’t say any formal talks took place. In fact, the NPP press release doesn’t even suggest *any* talks took place. It simply says that Brian envisioned another album.

The whole article seems to be predicated on Mike taking issue with the NPP press release. *That* is why his commentary comes across as if the mere idea of another BB album is insane, as if nobody ever mentioned anything about it.

I believe one has to do A LOT of bending and molding to take the 2012 “there’s talk of another album” and this recent Mike commentary and NOT find it pretty directly contradictory.

To me, it’s kind of a lousy move towards fans to give interviews indicating there’s talk of another album, and then less than three years later literally say “there was never any discussions within the group.” Fans obviously have to keep appropriate (e.g. extremely low) expectations, but there’s a point at which the contradiction between two interviews is more than just an empirical observation, and becomes a demonstration of what one’s attitude is towards fans.

Re: The article getting pulled.

If the interviewer in that Mike interview saw what the answer was to the supposedly innocuous (HEAVILY loaded) question regarding his opinion on his bandmates' (whom there is nothing but badmouthing and bad blood) new single -- he could've turned it, explored it, gone deeper, if for no other reason than to adhere to party line that ESQ is unbiased. Which, frankly, it is not. (The simple fact that Ian and Jon's book -- the most important tome of the past 15 years in BB-dom -- went all but unexplored while the Bamboo band got heavy coverage in ESQ as if it was an actual professional Beach Boys offshoot group proves that. ESQ was involved in one of those projects and not in the other.)

Okay Howie… I am answering these charges as ESQEditor because that's where you're carelessly swinging your high and mighty axe.
1)  You don't know what is happening with the article, do you?

2)  What are your sources that indicate that there isn't something happening right now that explores the topic deeper?  Content that appears on Beach Boys Examiner is often exclusive of ESQ, so the two are not a self-contained entity.  They share one commonality… me.    

3)  You're wrong, ESQ — the magazine — is unbiased.  Unless you have read every edition of ESQ since 1993, then how could you comment on such a topic?  To make it easy for you, go to http://esquarterly.com/buy-ESQ.html and look at the contents.  Have there been more interviews recently with Mike (in 2014)?  Yes.  About the Beach Boys albums, and concert memories.  As you know, I also interviewed Al.  Brian's unavailability is why he did not appear, and the door is ALWAYS open to David.  Plain and simple.  Making anything more of it than that is simply untrue.  Don't believe me?  Ask them.  And I know you can.

4)   Jon and Ian's book is astounding, and I'm currently working with Ian to continue the discussion in ESQ since more information has come to light since the book was published.  I felt my four-star two-page spread review (Spring 2014 issue of ESQ) was ample space upon its release.  You could have very easily submitted an extended review of the book to run in ESQ.  That would have been fascinating.  The door remains open.  

5)   You really have a splinter up your ass about The Bamboo Trading Company.  I am sorry you didn't enjoy it.  I take that very seriously.  But please don't make a broad stroked comment about ESQ, because it is not fair to Lee Dempsey.  So it's, David Beard, not ESQ, that was extremely proud of his little pet project with a group of really gifted artists.  Unless, of course, you're saying that Gary Griffin, Randell Kirsch, Philip Bardowell, Matt Jardine, Probyn Gregory, Dean Torrence and David Marks are unfit for coverage, because that is who appears on the album.  There were two other members — Miami Dan Yoe and Chris English — who also had a chance to fulfill a lifelong wish of working with top drawer musicians.  But I get it, it isn't for you.

I don’t think it’s fair to post vague, open-ended questions to readers of your article suggesting they don’t know what you have planned for the article in question, or future articles.

I would suggest that *nothing* should be happening with the article now. That is, present tense, nothing should be happening. Maybe that’s part of what’s throwing some people off, and causing some questions in terms of journalistic methods. Typically, articles are written/composed, then published. The end. Whether nobody reads the article or a million people do and they’re all angry about it. It shouldn’t be pulled, or reformatted, or altered. It shouldn’t be suggested to readers that something *else* could still be happening to the article, or that the article shouldn’t be criticized because future unknown potential articles *may* shed additional light on the topic.

The article that was published should (and does) stand on its own. The article is an invitation to an unchallenged monologue/diatribe presented as some sort of interview or editorial. That the article was also pulled and reformatted is just more bizarre and rather unsettling from the point of view of a reader not to mention any historians/scholars of the group.

The point isn’t whether there is something *else* at some point coming that you feel will more deeply explore the topic. The article as it is has to stand on its own, and it comes across as a soap box opportunity for Mike to speak unchallenged. If there is more to this, if follow-up questions WERE asked *at the time* (not follow-up questions weeks or months later due to the uproar caused by the article), then that should have been included in the article.

As a reader and fan of this group, I was beyond perplexed that an interviewer would allow such a blatantly contradictory thing to be said (namely, that there was never any discussion of another BB album) without even attempting to challenge it. Why was there not at the *very* least a quick follow-up that went something like “Thanks for your thoughts Mike. Now, I do recall that back in 2012 you mentioned in some interviews that there had been discussions of another album, a return to the Grammies, etc. Can you clarify this?”

Given the style of ESQ articles and editorials in the past, I don’t think it’s unfair for readers/fans/scholars to assume or least wonder if a future editorial/piece will not necessarily appropriately and deeply address this whole reunion/C50/NPP issue in a hard-hitting fashion.

Further, I would also offer that while there isn’t much meat to the article outside of Mike’s monologue, I would strongly disagree with the commentary that there is “no real substantiation to the accusations” that a “30th Beach Boys album did not happen because of actions taken (or not taken) by Mike Love.” While it is a complex issue in many ways, there are plenty of indicators based on interviews/comments from many of the parties involved that there is plenty of substantiation. In fact, pretty much everything *but* this recent Mike commentary, including past interviews from Mike himself, substantiate that story to varying degrees. That doesn’t mean it was the *only* factor involved, and as the “set end date” thing proves, there are apparently widely differing opinions as to whether “inaction” is an action in and of itself. But to frame the story as if there is *nothing* to the story that indicates this is truly bizarre.

Guys, the original article is back online, that is, a slightly revised version of it at the place it originally was. Mike's statements were reformatted, but the contents are unchanged.

http://www.examiner.com/article/mike-love-states-his-case

Original version:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.examiner.com/article/mike-love-states-his-case

I must say, like Pinder I don't find Mike's statements not that outraging at all. Everybody makes contradictory statements once in a while. Mike's done worse stuff than this.

And there is no mentioning of "handlers". It is unclear whether Mike means to say the press release originates from some unnamed management, a wife Mike doesn't like or elusive evil people who keep Brian under control.

Some posters suggested that while the press release was certainly not written by Brian, it may still describe Brian's true feelings about the whole matter. That could very well be the case, and Brian may just not dare to confront Mike in person. So Mike's perception that Brian "is a kind, and gentle spirit without a bitter bone in his body", if this is is really Mike's honest opinion, may result from Brian just not showing his bitter bones in Mike's presence.

Human relations tend to be so complicated...

While there is no mention of the word “handlers” in the interview, the whole idea that the press release *couldn’t* have actually come from Brian but rather from someone else is, in my opinion, a continuation of the sentiment and verbiage that has been continually used to refer to those “around” Brian acting for him and/or against his wishes.

As you say, the possibility that Brian actually feels the way his press releases/agents, etc. portray him but simply doesn’t say it to Mike’s face is something Mike doesn’t allow as a possibility apparently.

But more to the point, there is NOTHING confrontational in the NPP press release, whether Brian wrote it himself or Stephen King wrote it. It conveys that Brian was planning on working on another BB album, but that didn’t happen, so he cut a solo album.

Beard’s current “version” of the article that is up online excerpts the NPP press release, then vaguely references other media outlets and how they may have interpreted the NPP press release. Yet, in the interview, Mike references NOT those other articles, but the original NPP press release, but seems to react to the NPP press release as if it is some inflammatory piece that points the finger at Mike. Why was this not followed up on?

I appreciate Dave's comments. A bit more of that from any or all quarters would perhaps help things at least a bit.

I will say that, while Dave may not have intended it this way, I take his comment as an admonition of not only fans, but of some of the other band members as well. Fans get caught up in it and sometimes take the negativity and run with it. But some of the band members have and do engage in it as well, and when they "get the word out" to fans, they are roping the fans into it too.

Check out no less an authority than Dave's own book with Jon Stebbins just to see the "band politics" that were involved in adding Dave to the band in 1997. Dave was unaware of it, but found out later it had occurred, as reported in the book.

Ask even the backing band members and whatnot, and you'll find it's hard to *not* get wrapped up in some level of "band politics" at one stage or another when you work with these guys. Being a fan is, sometimes, kind of an extension of that.

Unfortunately, a lot of Twitter and Facebook stuff makes actual "Message Board" seem like peer-reviewed academic journals in comparison. It's like the "comments" section on YouTube. Just stay away.

Perhaps Dave can come by this board, as Brian and Mike (and Bruce at one point I believe) have. I have legit questions for Dave, not questions about his favorite pizza!

Even when the guys try to scrape together the next best thing and move on and do something artistically valid, like Brian is trying with NPP, now someone has to s**t on that for some reason? I mean, has anybody seen Brian busting on Mike's band? He doesn't even discuss it. Al does, but Al's comments are usually a case of kind of desperately wishing the whole band was together rather than what Mike's doing.

I don't think anyone is taking a dump on NPP.  Sure, Mike made the comment about autotune, but bunch of people here always complain/are concerned about that when it come to Joe T.

I didn't mean so much the autotune comment. I was speaking more about just turning the whole issue of the album's existence and it's press release into a venue for sniping (or baiting members to snipe).

I'm just astonished if this is really a case of David Beard getting rankled about one NPP review to the point of crafting more than one article that stirs the pot about something that isn't an issue, and going so far as to pull Mike Love into it. Not only is the "it could have been a Beach Boys album" thing not worth this degree of acrimony, the assertion itself isn't even false. This *could* have been a BB album. Saying so doesn't imply fault, regardless of whether a reviewer somewhere out there might think so. The press release for the album ascribed no fault to anybody about anything.

Just please, someone tell David Beard not to e-mail Mike to ask him if he has seen the trailer or the film reviews! 

Surely it's time that someone closes and locks the doors on this thread.

I enjoy some Mike griping as much the next fan, but I'm getting tired of this nonsense.

Or, the sniping folks can take to PM or something.

I think discussing this *article*, rather than just Mike vis-à-vis Brian or whatever, is worth doing. If we can pick apart Wrecking Crew books and films and what's wrong with those, then I think this article can or should be discussed.

But maybe we are all discussed-out.