The Smiley Smile Message Board

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/bad-vibrations-beach-boys-frontman-sacks-founders-on-anniversary-tour-8176117.html

So, Mike "sacks the founder members" and they will be "replaced by session musicians" ? An article written by someone who's unaware of any Beach Boys touring activity before the anniversary shows...

The other side of the coin is that this tour it's Brian's band that is making they money. It's Brian's band or Mike's band. It's Brian's terms or Mike's terms. See?

It'll be lapped up with glee on A. N. Other forum.

Sadly you are correct. People are really grabbing the wrong end of the stick.

Sorry, I am not up to speed at all on any of this behind the scenes tour stuff.

So is Brian really "bummed" or not? Is the Al Jardine petition real? Or are all members complicit in Mike's plan to revert the touring BBs back to just him & Bruce?

Basic outline - Mike (accurately) announced that the post-C50 BB touring lineup would not include Brian, Alan and/or David, which given that a venue had advertised an October M&B gig as just that back in June is a canny piece of pre-emptive management. granted, the timing was very odd. According to his people, Brian is 'bummed' and 'disappointed'. The petition wasn't originated by Alan. Essentially, Mike is copping sh*t for announcing that the gameplan agreed in the first place by all concerned parties will be adhered to. The Blooies want his head on a plate, garnished with his cojones.

Fact is, give it a few months and no-one will care any more. M&B will be touring and Joe Q. Public will buy the tickets, Brian will be doing whatever he does between albums and Alan & David will go back to their previous lives. I'm minded of the football coach who (allegedly) finished his pre-game pep talk with "and remember, whatever happens out there tonight, there are a billion Chinese who couldn't give a f***".  ;D

Unbelievably shoddy 'back of a fag packet' journalism. And the 'Indy' is one of our best.

Thanks - much appreciated!

Here's another one from The Daily Mail (trash tabloid?):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2208817/Youre-fired-Three-Beach-Boys-founding-members-dumped-bands-frontman-Mike-Love.html

OK, with the s*** sufficiently stirred, it's time we got answers and a collective vision of the future from the BB; anxiety has reached its peak, let's settle this.. . .

Well, it's not like if there's anything we could do that would make a change, so of course we will stop caring, we'll just have to deal with it.

We're fans. We care.

I agree that a lot of these articles seem to have writers that are not knowledgable as to the history of the touring band.

I just have to say, I realize there are realities of the situation regarding this reunion, and heck, some people even get off on telling other fans they won't get more reunion stuff.

I'm just puzzled about this near glee about "breaking the news" to fellow fans that everything should just go back to the way it was and the reunion should end, in light of the other members showing an interest in more touring and recording.

Being is it's the Daily Mail, I presume they put the blame either on Muslims, the BBC, gays,or liberals.

The Daily Express are going to run with the exclusive that Mike Love killed Princess Diana tomorrow morning.

Good to know that the British rags are living up to their abysmal standards of "journalism".

This is my reaction precisely.

Why would someone act happy that this is the outcome, regardless of how preordained it actually was?

And if three of the five members are actively objecting, how preordained was it really?

I'd say its more accurate to say he's copping sh*t because Brian, Al and Dave have expressed their desire to alter said gameplan... to allow continuance of the current lineup, accept the dozens of gigs they've been offered, and record another album. Mike (for now) has chosen to resist that and stick with the original terms of the reunion. There would be far less whining if Brian had said, that's it, he's happy, the reunion is over etc... But he's saying he wants to keep the five together, as are Al and Dave. As long as they are saying that Mike will continue to be cast as the puppy killer.

good starting point......

Oh, I don't know.  Ten or so years ago that would be true, Jon.  Now, I'm Not sure.

Liberals are a good starting point!

Mike really is stupid, passing up group touring and albums for touring crappy venues with Bruce. The name of the BBs actually means something again with Brian wanting to lead the group.

Maybe Mike prefers being his own boss and not having to run everything past The Brian Wilson Management Machine?

This. And I wouldn't blame him if that were the case.

Nice NFL football reference Andrew! For the record, the coach was Cleveland Browns head coach Sam Rutigliano, who issued his comment to a tense locker room immediately prior to their January 4, 1981 AFC championship game against the Oakland Raiders - which included the infamous Red Right 88 interception pass.

I still think this is all merely a mountain being made from a molehill. Patience. The Beach Boys are still thinking three moves ahead of us.

I'd say its more accurate to say he's copping sh*t because Brian, Al and Dave have expressed their desire to alter said gameplan... to allow continuance of the current lineup, accept the dozens of gigs they've been offered, and record another album. Mike (for now) has chosen to resist that and stick with the original terms of the reunion. There would be far less whining if Brian had said, that's it, he's happy, the reunion is over etc... But he's saying he wants to keep the five together, as are Al and Dave. As long as they are saying that Mike will continue to be cast as the puppy killer.
[/quote]

I thought I read (an accurate?) quote from Mike Love that he would like to record another Beach Boys' album - if he could write some songs with Brian. Not ALL the songs (if I remember correctly), but SOME songs. Wouldn't that be considered continuing the reunion?

Also, if Brian, Al, and David continued touring with Mike & Bruce immediately after the scheduled reunion dates, where would they get the money to pay everyone? You would know better than me, aren't the performance fees for the upcoming Mike & Bruce shows already contractually agreed upon? And, you would know this better than anyone, would David agree to play with Mike & Bruce at a substantially lower pay than he is getting for the reunion shows? And, do you know how David would feel if a guitar player would get "bumped" if David joined the Mike & Bruce band for the upcoming shows?

EDIT: I was trying to quote Jon. Sorry it came out a little jumbled. I don't know how to fix it... :police:

Also, how many stage-techs/musicians did Mike employ in his own band before the 50th? He probably has loyalties to these people about returning to the usual pre-50th touring.

Its actually a pretty compact touring unit with:

Late 2007 – 2011
 
Mike Love – lead vocals

Bruce Johnston – keyboards, vocals
 
With supporting musicians:
 Scott Totten – guitar, vocals Musical Director
 Randell Kirsch – bass, vocals
 Tim Bonhomme – keyboards
 John Cowsill – drums, vocals
 Christian Love – electric and acoustic guitars, vocals
 John Stamos – electric guitar, drums, vocals, percussion (select shows)

True. The backup band used to be bigger. Back in 2000 the band consisted of Michael, Bruce, Adrian Baker, Chris Farmer, Tim Bonhomme, Joel Peskin, Mike Kowalski, Phil Bardowell, and Mike Meros.

I don't think there's really any reason to believe that they'll never work together again.  It's probable that they will: be it a new album or another stint of shows.  I don't see why we should really be upset over a small break until they come back again?  For Mike, the show must go on.  There are no hiatuses or large portions of the calendar marked off for "vacation."  The road is his life.  Brian, David and Al simply don't have that same life.  Why should Mike accommodate them when he's been doing it this way forever? 

Plus, as mentioned earlier, as much as the guys need a break, I have no doubt that Mike needs a break himself from jumping through hoops and walking on eggshells around the Brian "team."  Things obviously went great during this tour--no doubt because everyone was on their best behavior, I can see Mike just want a breather and go back to a simpler setup for a few months.  I think the Beach Boys legacy can withstand a few months of the Mike/Bruce show on the road until the full group comes together again later.....

Band got smaller, shows got a hell of a lot better. The show I went to in 2011 was great for what it was, summertime fun band.

wow, this is a perfect example of the media just taking a story and twisting it..

It's amusing to witness, especially when you know the truth

Saying John Stamos is a member of the backup band is like saying Billy Hinsche was one of the Beach Boys...they were CLOSE to being there, but not actual members. John Stamos is more of a cheerleader than Bruce is!

1988:
Howard Stern: "I mean what the hell is John Stamos doing in the Beach Boys?"
Brian Wilson: "Hahahahaha"

Thank you for those words. This is how I feel. I'm as much of a realist about this all as any BB fan, cynical too. I never thought the reunion was going to crumble half-way through or anything, simply because of the financial obligations involved. I assumed they would go back to the way it was in 2011 afterwards. I thought they would put more breathing room in between the end of the reunion and resuming Mike/Bruce shows, if for no other reason than to save Mike's band from being unfavorable compared to an inherently superior band/lineup.

The sole fact I don't understand is how big BB fans, who loved this reunion tour, are happily telling fans who are just pointing out "hey, look over there in the corner, Brian, Al, and David actually want to do more reunion shows!" that they are naive, etc., and also celebrating going back to how it was before. "Hey, Mike's band puts on a great show!" I'll bet he does now, and Totten and Cowsill proved it to me. But there's a BETTER band waiting in the wings!

I never celebrated going back to how it was before...I just said I wasn't surprised about it. Seriously...what about this is such a shock? It was known back in JUNE.

Thanks for clarifying things, Jon. Much appreciated!

I suppose the outrage isn't about things going back to the way they were, we did all know that was going to  happen. But a fundamental thing in the equation changed, and that is an *active* willingness from Brian, Al, and David to keep it going. I'm not shocked so much that Mike may not care about that, but it makes Mike going back to his own tour much more heartbreaking.

It's true that we probably would have been better off not knowing that the others wanted to keep it going.  :lol

Hopefully something yet will be worked out.  :)

Hey, I'd love to see the five-man tour go on as it is. But it's not happening, at least not right now.

Contracts were drawn up and plans were made while completly keeping in mind that the reunion tour was a one-time thing that had a start and end date.  Why do we assume that it's so easy for them to now break agreements and contracts and extend the tour indefinitely?  Mike and Bruce made plans for more shows in October...with a good group of other band members and crew prepared to take those shows on.  What does it mean to them that Mike will now break out of those commitments?  Let's just let the events pass and see what they do next year.  Right now, they're just following through with the plans they initiated earlier this year. 

I don't think it's an outlandish claim to say that Brianistas lack integrity and that they believe the rest of the world (meaning Michael Love) should fall in line behind their demands.

Seriously...this whole business was known by everyone here back in June. It wasn't even an open secret. There shouldn't even be a debate. The Beach Boys ended up receiving some of the best free publicity with this whole situation. When the Celebration tour returns it will be attended in even higher numbers than before.

There is no ulterior motive on any of the band members' parts. Like it or not, the music rags love to get behind the Beach Boys whenever they're involved in some kind of squabbling. It builds interest in the band and (gasp!) can even bring new fans into the fold. They probably know it better than most considering how many times they've ended up in the rags for whatever troubles they're involved in.

Plus...people seem to just overlook the paperwork involved with all of this.  This reunion tour was handled no different than any other tour by any other artist....there were terms and conditions and a set timeframe for the duration of the tour.  The only weird thing in this scenario is that Mike has another band which he tours with that bears the same name as the group he just finished a tour with.  It's so weird (and awkward) but Mike's other band is what he knows.  It's his go-to and that won't go away.  If the reunited group wants to continue on, Mike will treat the reunion group as something special.  It'll be his BMW that he drives around on special occasions when he's not driving around in his Camry   ;)

Exactly. It's refreshing to see some more mellowed responses to the situation. The Beach Boys aren't going to be splintering forever, never to reunite. There just happens to be a little bump in the road in the form of previous contractual obligations for the Michael and Bruce band. Besides...if there's to be another album I doubt Brian's going to be able to write on the road. Same with Al and David. Let them relax for a while and come up with some new stuff.

It's kinda struck me as funny how for years many fans assumed that Mike was desperate to work with Brian under any circumstances - now these same type of people are criticising him for not jumping at the click of Brian's fingers.

From where I sit, which is nowhere near the level most of you are at, the split personality of the band has always been its blessing as well as its curse.

The recording Beach Boys have always need(ed) the touring Beach Boys to survive and vice versa. Love (for whatever personal reasons) has doggedly and relentlessly kept the band in the public consciousness. Wilson has created the music and continues to be the spiritual driving force. They are two sides of the same coin. They complete each other. Every once in a while those vectors intersect and we are blessed with something that is greater than than sum of its parts.

Patterns. They won't change.  We've been through this before (see 'Brian's Back, all the lawsuits etc.").  It's part of the life of this band. To hope for the best is wonderful. To expect anything different is foolish.  The only difference now is the internet and those of us who feel so connected to the music can communicate about it so easily.

Personally, I would hate to see this incarnation of the band watered down. It's powerful, huge and tight with depth and soul. Great to see Marks getting the recognition and Jardine getting his due. All the ingredients are there (less Carl and Dennis). OR just hang it up after Wembley. Leave em wanting more. It was a great run but now it's over.

But no matter what we say or think, the DNA of the band/myth has always been fractious and fragile. And will always be so. Ancient hatchets are not buried so easily it seems. And, let's face it, they are 70ish now. How long can any one of them keep it up. It won't be long til summertime is through. Thank goodness this moment in time has been documented from every conceivable angle.

On the other hand, somehow, some way this band has always risen from its own ashes and surprised everyone. So who knows?

WOW...you just NAILED it, my friend.

yes, I agree, but why won't they say that instead of us; a 19 word press release will calm us down: "Mike and Bruce will do some shows while we rest up for the new album and the next tour."

I thought Mike would go hatless in public to write with Brian again. :lol

Correct, it's clear Brian can't create while on the road...it never worked in the past...why would it work now?  The logical thing is to have Brian (and Al and David) sit back and come up with something.  Well, what is Mike and Bruce supposed to do durng this time?  Stay home amd wait?

Previous experience dictates that the Beach Boys collectively and individually have their reasons that only they know.

Exactly. Besides, Michael has proven pretty decent at writing lyrics after hearing tracks over the phone on tour. Gee, this sounds like 1966 all over again!

I just think in business you never want to reveal your cards to the public, especially when there's no 100% guarantee that plans will come to fruition.  With a fanbase as aggressive (and greedy?) as the Beach Boys' are....they would be questioned at every moment when they would reunite again.  "But you said 3 months ago that there'd be a new tour...where is it??"   To avoid that unnecessary prodding....just keep it safe with a clear cut message: this tour is over.  No need to put in any teasers or carrots to dangle in front of us.   It's irrelevant.  If/when they do announce they're all coming back...the response will still be the same anyway: a resounding YES! 

It's the same method Mick Jagger and the Stones currently use.  They've stopped revealing tour plans to the press because everyone holds them to the flame on every single damn thing they say.  So now, he keeps mum and denies everything.  It's just safer that way and less of a pain in the ass than having to defend what you said 5 months ago when things looked a lot more differently than they do today....

I turned on the radio a few minutes ago and they were discussing the "break up"

People were talking about wanting refunds to the UK gigs. This is getting a little out of hand, a statement needs to be issued

Yes, it is.

Let them bitch about their refunds. And all this time I thought that John Bull's people were such HUGE Beach Boys fans...

A game Rutigliano lost with his boneheaded calls.

I lived in Cleveland then.  I moved out of Cleveland, but I haven't moved on!  The pain still aches!

Its my understanding that more offers became available for more reunion shows, so instead of stopping at say 75, they had offers for 10 or 20 more or something...more dates tacked on to the reunion tour...but these were turned down because Mike chose/planned/contracted to return to his pre-reunion set-up and his own bookings. I really don't know the motivation or details, just the generality that there were more reunion lineup offers left on the table, and from my impression Brian, Al and Dave were up for keeping it going, but Mike was not. Again i only have a general knowledge that this was the case, but no specifics as to how, why, where etc... And yes, Mike has said he'd like to record and write more with Brian, so hopefully that means with the five of them together.

But why? They want refunds for a show to protest the breakup that hasn't even happened yet?  All 5 BB will be on stage tomorrow...why would anyone refuse to see them now?   ??? Their loss! 

People think that it's going to be just Mike and Bruce on stage tomorrow and Friday..

All the articles making the rounds claim that 3 members have been fired. It's crazy

Oh okay.  Sheesh....still a little nuts if that's the case.  Never thought it'd be misinterpreted like that but it should be clear to anyone who actually reads the entire story and not just the headline.

Because, despite whatever the legality of the matter, he should realize it's not "his" band? That it belongs to him, Bruce, Brian, Al, and David and he should do the "human" thing and consider their feelings on the matter even though he has the authority to ignore them?

Don't get me wrong, I see both sides of this and the endless Mike bashing is, as always, tiring and too often (not always) coming from an ill informed kid-on-the-internet "HE DONE WRECKED SMILE, THE ASSHOLE" point of view. I can't believe people are actually accusing Mike of firing Brian, Al, and David now. I just wanted to say this, as I don't think it's irrational to expect him to consider such things. I know he has his kids and his friends to look after in regards to taking them out on the road, but it doesn't have to be like this.

It's so easy to get carried away with this. If people remember that he had former commitments to honor, he's a business man, he needs to do his thing. To do the dates he is contractually obligated to do, he has to do that with his "small band" to make money out of those deals. But when those dates are over, if he's a very good business man he'll at least think of making some changes to the way he markets his touring band when Brian, Al, and David aren't a part of it.

Because there are some dumba*s people out there!

Heck, I'd be offering to take them off their hands cheap and then making a killing outside the gig.

When this whole celebration thing was announced Dec 16, who here would have put money on Brian agreeing to 50 gigs then upping that to 70 plus THEN want to keep it going? Strange things happen!

No, they're just not real fans.

Yeah it doesn't have to be like "this"...but there's hardly anything really going on for us to be that worried about.  Mike/Bruce have booked what, like 2 or 3 shows after this tour?  Not really full tours/legs (yet)...so there's no reason to jump the gun here.  We don't know Mike's plans and how he plans to move forward.  All we know is, Mike booked a few shows some time back when it was very clear that the reunion tour would conclude by September.   Those Mike/Bruce shows will go on as scheduled, and there are no new dates planned for any more Mike/Bruce shows at this point.  We should keep that in mind.  8)

As Jon pointed out, the main problem here is that Al, Brian and Dave want to continue with the 50th and keep the current band together. And that's what most of the fans want to. It's a beautiful thing.

But Mike doesn't want to (for whatever reason); he'd rather adhere to the previous plan. Which is fine, but the organization must understand that it's really just bad PR at this point.

The thing I don't get is that so many fans here seem to be defending Mike's position ('this was already planned', 'he has the legal right', etc). Yes, we knew this was going to happen months ago ... but it doesn't change the current reality. What we're seeing in the media is the average public reaction.

The Beach Boys are probably the most important American group of all time. Regardless of the unfortunate things we've come to accept as fans over the years, a group touring as 'the Beach Boys' without Al, Brian and Dave at this point is tasteless.

Plans change. Keeping The Beach Boys together (whether this means cancelling the shows or including the rest of the guys) would be the right thing to do, all things considered. Something so obvious to anyone outside of the Beach Boys world seems foreign to some here who have come to accept the weirdness of the whole scene.

It's kinda easy to see that Brian likes it because he's Brian and leading concerts is something he still doesn't like to do. Although he still has his stage phobias, and looked nervous/scared/zonked sometimes on this tour, it must have been easier on him because he didn't have to worry about being the showman. Does he really want to go back to touring solo and having to take on those responsibilities again? I bet if he was the one with his piano upfront, trying to work the crowds, he wouldn't be so willing to keep on with these four bums....  :)

From what I understand some of the supporting band are fairly supportive of Mike and Bruce and are pretty keen for the tour to finish up!

Well the success of the reunion tour and the band's willingness to "continue" on really wasn't a reality when Mike booked these Mike/Bruce shows.  As far as he knew, the reunion would be done and over and everyone would be happy to move along.  It looks like everyone was surprised by how well the tour was going and were surprised to realize themselves that they wouldn't mind it continuing.  Too bad that Mike already made plans without them.  Now, Mike's gotta follow through with those plans.  It sucks...but I don't see any way around it.  We mentioned it earlier: it's great that Brian and Al are having a grand time on tour--but who's to say that Mike is having a great time having to answer to Brian's management for nearly every detail of this tour?  Al has said that every member needed to "give up something" to make this tour work--I have no doubt that Mike definitely had to give up a few things on his part in order to make this work.


I agree ...to a point.  But I think how Mike views the band and its legacy is far tougher than any of us care to see it.  I believe Mike believes that the Beach Boys legacy will sustain over any hardship--afterall, it always has!  Regardless of how things "unravel" after this reunion tour ends, even if he and Bruce go out on the road for 3 more years until Brian, Al, and David rejoin again---Mike is confident that the group will, once again, win.  The hype, the media and the fans will  all be there waiting for them.  We may treat their legacy a bit more carefully but Mike seems to believe that they will survive anything that comes their way. At the end of the day, Mike is a shrewd businessman who doesn't think with his heart---but just his brain.  That's the only way to do it.  Mike needs to move forward and if it means with his own band until the reunion group reforms again---so be it. 

It truely is amazing how much Mike Love and Chuck Berry are alike.  Mike has never been shy to admit just how much Chuck Berry was an influence on his lyric writing...well, the exact same can be said on Mike's business model.   He has followed Chuck's business mentality to the T:  push forward with very little/to no crew.  Chuck for years toured with a pickup band in every city.  He traveled all by himself from show to show.  This method resulted in very inconsistent shows with new musicians on every stop--with no rehearsal or soundcheck.  People grew concerned that his unwillingness to hire a steady band was in the end, hurting his legacy and his amazing catalog.  Going to see Chuck Berry was a gamble.   But with no crew/band, it meant for big checks for Chuck.   Thankfully today, Chuck now usually travels with his usual band when he goes from town to town.  So he eventually came around and learned that his way wasn't always the "only" way.  Hopefully Mike will come around one day too....

  Mike is alreaady planning to tour with his own band, as he was doing before the reunion shows, so I don't think it's a great analogy.
 Perhaps he's simply using the M&B shows as leverage to force the writing of new songs with Brian

To make the upcoming UK show "just perfect",  it would be SUPER  for  Mike and Bruce  to come out and start the show without the others, as if they've been fired. 

You missed the point.  Chuck stuck with a business plan because he thought it was the only thing best for him and his needs (travel light with no crew).  Mike is doing the same thing here by preferring to continue on with Bruce and their much smaller group instead of the larger crew that the reunion tour required.   Mike is unwilling to see things any other way except the only way he knows how to do things which is to carry on regardless of the situation.  Mike and Chuck have more in common than just lyrical chops.

The best headline so far

The Beach Boys Have Been Fired from The Beach Boys...

 :lol

http://www.thedailyswarm.com/headlines/beach-boys-have-been-fired-beach-boys/ (http://www.thedailyswarm.com/headlines/beach-boys-have-been-fired-beach-boys/)

I don't think people *have* been assuming that.  If anything, they've assumed that Mike was entirely happy to keep riding the ever-diminishing gravy train of touring without the others, based on the past nearly-fifteen years of that.  I don't think anyone figured that the reunion only came about now because *Brian* was playing hard-to-get...

Cheers,
Jon Blum

I don't recall anyone raging about whether or not the Eagles would tour again after Hell Freezes Over, or the first new album tour.  In both cases, they left the door explicitly open but without any firm plans.

If the press release in question had been as clear about leaving the door open, it wouldn't have stirred up such a hoo-hah...

Cheers,
Jon Blum

I am at my limit. . .. .  ..  . . they must release a clarifying statement that makes us all joyous in the next 2 minutes or else I will. . . .

see how impotent we are?

By the way, do not go on Mike Love's facebook page..

Ouch!

They didn't? If anything, that reveals more about Eagles fans than Beach Boys fans!  :lol  I don't see BB fans staying patient with the hopes of a new reunion tour right around the corner.  That's just my view, though. 

Lots of slanderous remarks on there. Not a good idea with Mr. Positivity.

But things are markedly different from the Eagles situation in a key way: They didn't do the "Hell Freezes Over" tour, and then have Don Henley ditch the other dudes but tour as "The Eagles." If a group as a whole decides they want another break, either because they can't stand each other again or to build demand, then that is easier for fans to accept. But when the tour goes way better than expected, and one or two members ditch the other guys but continue to tour under the name, it's more troubling to fans because it shows that *all* members have a willingness to keep touring under the name, but one or two members want to do it more cheaply by scaling back the musicians and singers and ditching some of the actual band members. Yes, before someone points it out, I'm well aware that Mike has been doing this same thing since 1998. The reason him doing this in 2012 is different is simple: The reunion, the *successful* reunion, changes the standard for a lot of things. To some fans at least.

I said months ago that I was surprised Mike did the reunion specifically because it would inevitably all of a sudden change the perception of "his" Beach Boys if/when he went back out with that lineup. Not enough to cause a revolt of the average joe concertgoer, but just enough to stir up the crap we're seeing in the papers now.

The BBs are nuts, just dig it man! :hat

Sure I see that!  Both Mike and Chuck sued Brian over song lyrics and won!

This is almost like reading a comic book. 

Funny that people mention the Eagles and Hell Freezes Over, which resulted in a massive lawsuit after Don Felder was kicked out of the band after that tour.  It's not all rainbows in Eagles land, either.

Brian Wilson fans make me tired.  Brian agreed to have Mike tour without him several years ago,  and now he's acting all butt-hurt over Mike living up to his BRI contract.  Which he and Melinda know will unleash their mentally unbalanced (there, I said it, and I mean those crazy Blueboarders) minions on the poor dude.  Play your games behind the scenes,  Brian and Melinda.  I know you dudes read this board.  Stop the shenanigans.  I know you want publicity, but this is ridiculous.

Honestly I bet most of this "drama" is playing out moreso in the papers rather than within the band itself.  It was reported several months ago that Love had already planned some post-reunion shows with his cover band version of the Beach Boys.  So I doubt that Brian, Al and Dave are all of a sudden quite as stunned by Mike's move as reported.  If they are truly that annoyed with Mike's actions, they're still hanging out with him while finishing up the reunion tour; why don't they just approach him face-to-face about it?  Why does Al have to resort to a lame Facebook petition over this when all he has to do is walk up to Mike and kick him in the junk and tell him to "cut the sh_t"?  And haven't they all said they were all open to doing future projects together?  So exactly where is this controversy coming from?

So now the fact that Mike apparently turned down additional reunion bookings that Brian, Al, and David wanted to do has morphed into Mike "living up to his BRI contract"? Believe me, I'm sure they worked *that* part of it out (Mike having the current license to use the name) well in advance of the tour. As long as Brian and Al (2/3 of the balance of "BRI") were on board for the tour, I'm sure BRI would have let the shows go on. In fact, I haven't heard any evidence that anything to do with the reunion violates Mike "living up to his BRI contract." And if it had, as I said, they would have had that worked out in advance of the tour.

WOW...someone else feels the same way I do.

I'm sure the situation within the band right now is indeed not nearly as dramatic. It has indeed been known for at least a few months that Mike had booked some non-reunion shows. Brian/Al/David indeed didn't say anything about this. It was only after the "press release" came out that all of this started. This tells me the other three knew Mike had a few shows booked, but to them the press release seemed more like a definitive statement for the forseeable future.

As for approaching Mike face to face, Al said in one of the interviews that he did ask Mike about it, and supposedly got a committment to at least sit down and talk about it, whatever that means.

Why would the other three put on a happy face even if they are upset over the situation? Simple. It would likely be a huge financial (and PR) problem to not do these two shows. They are pros, so they'll do it. And they're probably not even like secretly hating each other or anything. It's the next in a long line of awkward BB moments where they're kind of having a disagreement, but they continue to function.

I'm sure from Mike's perspective, he made a bargain and kept it, and now he wants to go back to a manner of performing that he's more comfortable with.  Regardless of how I as a fan might or might not prefer it to go down (and honestly, I didn't shell out to go see the tour and probably won't in the future, so my opinion and that of people like me is totally irrelevant to the bottom line) I can totally respect that.

The optics of it, however, are bad.  It just seems like it's the kind of thing that would have gone down better AFTER the last show, and perhaps worded a bit more inclusively.  However, Doe is likely right that in three months it won't matter.  Mike's weathered worse.

"So now the fact"....Is it now a fact? Are you coming to that conclusion from Jon Stebbins' post? Jon said, "I really don't know the motivation or details" I think the word "details" is pretty important. Actually, that's the whole issue. The details.

Without knowing the details, everything that everybody posts on this board is speculation. And, that's fine. This is a rock & roll message board. So, when you say, "morphed into Mike "living up to his BRI contract", you are implying that the fans who believe that point of view are wrong. And, of course, you KNOW they're wrong, right?  Even without - as Jon stated - knowing the details.

Very true. Most if not all of the bad press would have been avoided if Mike had waited until the new year, or even November or December, to book more shows, and made a quiet announcment after the tour was over.

That's basically it. It looks awful, and it's not due to mentally ill Brian Wilson Message Board posters or Melinda's flying monkeys. It's due to crappy timing of a poorly worded PR release for, what... some Texas gigs? Really? Well, I hope it's worth it for him.

I'm guessing that in 3 months, we'll be having the same damn conversations on here about this. Occasionally re-sparked by the same sort of vague, conflicting statements in interviews.

In between bitching about the tweezing and tweaking on the forthcoming releases!

Concerning the term "living up to his contact", I don't think it works here, because it pre-supposes there are terms requiring Mike to book shows immediately again as "The Beach Boys." I don't believe Mike is forced to book shows under his contract. Even if there was some provision in his licensing agreement requiring him to book at least a minimum number of shows each year, I doubt any such requirement is the reasoning behind booking shows in October for his band. Even the press release doesn't state anything to the affect that anything was obligatory about Mike booking these additional shows.

Obviously, we're guessing at all of this.

I will acknowledge that "fact" is an easy word to throw around. I certainly believe Jon Stebbins' assertion that some additional offers were made. I see no reason not to believe this, and he's probably closer to that inside bubble than most if not all of us. Yes, the terms of such potential shows are unknown. But all the terms for all of the shows are unknown, so how then do we discuss it at all?

Those that are suggesting Mike should do more reunion shows, are, at least as far as I can tell, not making this statement based on contacts or how a CPA would break down the numbers. We're saying that Mike should keep that lineup together because it's a really good lineup. We're not saying Mike should legally be forced to do more reunion shows. We're not saying he owes anything to anybody. Continuing his old, slim BB lineup while three actual BB's are left behind who want to do more reunion gigs, simply is something some fans believes reflects negatively on Mike as it relates to his place within the band. That's all.

The problem is, the world keeps turning and they have to publicize and book shows in advance.  I don't think anyone was thinking about that.

Also, it's entirely possible that Mike and friends make more money without booking a big tour.  Mike keeps expenses down.  In fact, he did his best to do that on the reunion tour, as well.  However, the bigger sound systems, etc. required for a bigger tour take up more revenue.  There's also the fact that Brian insisted on having his own personal tour bus.  I'm not sure if he paid that out of his own share or pocket, but if he didn't, that had to take some out of the bottom line.

There's also the fact that the entire band insisted that the reunion tour with all those members was a one-time only deal for the 50th anniversary.  Someone even posted an interview clip of Al Jardine saying that very emphatically, as well.  The fact is, would ticket sales have been as high if people believed they might have another opportunity to see the band on a different tour?  Possibly not.  The band was making a promise to the audience who chose to attend by saying it was their last time and last chance to see this line-up.  Now they want a do-over.  A lot of fans will see them again, but a number of people may well choose to stay home and they won't make as much money or be able to play the big venues.

BTW, the recent publicity has little to do with Mike's "poorly worded" press release about the Texas gig, which was released months ago.  The  recent spark of interest was provided by Brian Wilson's interview this past week with CNN, so the blame for those articles do seem to fall in his corner. In any case, all this talk in the press could eventually lead to some kind of court action if the parties involved aren't careful.  Or at least some hurt feelings that will result in the band not getting back together when they might have if it played out differently.  They all should have kept their mouths shut until the tour was completely over.  As it is, Mike may not be able to get as many bookings with his now-inferior line-up and he may be forced to go back with the reunion line-up and a reduced schedule of dates and revenue whether he wants that or not.  It's just unpleasant to read the childish people posting on the Blueboard and on Mike's Facebook fan page.  I'm not a huge fan of Mike, but those people make Brian Wilson fans look sooo bad.

I'm sure the reunion was a mammoth task to put together. I'm sure Mike held his tongue more than he cared to. I'm sure there were limits placed on the tour -- Bruce's nearly gleeful posts about its limited extent suggested as much.

But we ignore the fact that Brian and Mike are the yin and yang of this group, and that Brian never, ever handles anything directly. He orchestrated this reunion on his own, behind the scenes. He'd recorded most of the album before the guys came on board. It was a years-long process.

So BW goes on tour, which was kind of the spinach part of this reunion dinner. And he ended up liking it. He ended up, with his band being a part of it, liking it a lot. So what does he do? He talks up the reunion and talks about future plans. And somewhere in his head, Brian begins to think that the Beach Boys are his again, and that he should be at the head of the group.

But he knows that Mike would never stand his doing that outright. So he cozies up to Dave and Al. He drops some hints to Melinda, perhaps. And while he knows -- probably -- that there's a formal stop date, why would that matter to him? Does anything we know about BW suggest that such an arbitrary date would matter to him? Of course not.

And so Brian takes the path of least resistance, allowing the shows to continue, without challenging Mike too much or too fast. He keeps leaving hints, delaying any outright confrontation. But then the release comes out, and then the press calls. And Brian realizes -- even if it's at a gut level -- that this is the way he can confront Mike. He doesn't have to do it directly. He just has to say a few things, and the press takes care of the rest.

My point is that it's a power play by Brian. He wants a say in the ongoing group now. He has ownership of it. The reunion made him want to be a Beach Boy again, and he's not going to relinquish that role willingly. If that means pissing off Mike through the press -- well, he's good at that. He's done it a bunch in the past (remember all the "my band is way better than the Beach Boys" quotes?).

Mike is likely completely blindsided by this. He's a straight shooter in many respects, and I'm sure he's following every contractually obligated rule to the letter. But he didn't realize that when you hook up with Brian Wilson, you end up -- eventually -- playing by his rules.

That's untrue. Some gigs were known about earlier, but the "endless summer" press release is indeed new, and kicked all of this off.

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,14339.0.html

Press release came out Sept. 17.

OK, we both agree that the terms are unknown. But, yes, we can still discuss it.

What if the extra/added on reunion dates directly conflicted with the dates of the Mike & Bruce shows. What could Mike do? Cancel the Mike & Bruce dates? Can you say lawsuits? And I don't mean the ones filed BY Mike.

OK, we also don't know the amount/fee/$$$$$ that Mike & Bruce agreed to for their upcoming shows. Do you know - as a fact - how much they will receive? Do you know - as a fact - that Brian, Al, and David would accept such a reduced fee? Of course not. Nobody on this board knows.

Nobody has answered my question, but that's OK. I'll keep asking it. If Mike & Bruce (I'll use your word) morphed their upcoming tour into a continuation of the reunion tour, BASED ON THE ALREADY CONTRACTUALLY AGREED UPON MIKE & BRUCE FEES, how would Brian, Al, and David get paid?

Great analysis Wirestone, Brian really is a crafty planner.

I never, ever saw such a promise. Can you direct me to the tour posters, etc., that say this was the last-ever chance to see the reunited group?

Al's statement doesn't count, because he is, as everyone knows, categorically nuts.

It is definitely classic Wilsonian passive-aggressive manipulation alongside classic Mike Love alpha male power plays, isn't it? With Al being crazy on the side.

 What an appropriate conclusion to the Celebration. Somewhere the ghost of Murry cackles. SURRRRRGE, boys, SUUUUUUUUUUUURGE!

Michael and Bruce are only in it for the money and the others for the art. Who needs money when you can make art? DUH!

Word of the October gigs did indeed surface a few months ago. I don't know when the shows were solidly booked, or when tickets went on sale. They did need to be clearly publicized and whatnot. I don't think anybody denies that. I think that's part of what's painting Mike in a bad light here. He has to get right back out there with no break to make more money and do more shows. How about stepping back from the "He has to do the shows; they already booked them" reasoning (setting aside the fact that they could be cancelled potentially, as the Nutty Jerry's gig was) and going a step back to asking, why did he book the shows in the first place? To generate more revenue certainly. Maybe re-asserting ownership, the sort of "possession is 9/10 of the law" reasoning by continuing to use the band name too.

As to making money off the tour, I long ago, before and during the early stage of the tour, stated my belief that it was quite possible Mike made less money on the reunion tour than he would doing his own tour. Many costs were higher on this tour, no question. Bigger band, bigger crew, bigger stage rig, more of everything (food, buses, etc.), and of course splitting the pot with other BB's in some fashion most likely as well. That he did the tour is something that won Mike over some very hardened, cynical fans. Reversing that sort of spirit of taking one for the team is now re-confirming why fans didn't like him in the past. Whether fans are justified in their feelings or not, this was all good will that was Mike's to lose.

As to the "press release", I don't believe the statement was released months ago. I believe it was put out around 9/17 when it was posted here. That is what set off the bad publicity. Prior to that, to my belief, all we had was third-hand bits and pieces, basically just seeing the "Nutty Jerry's" gig publicized on the web (remember that ten minutes when we thought maybe it meant another added leg to the reunion tour?  :lol ), and then rumors of South American dates in October.

I'll answer these questions: We indeed don't know the details of all of these agreements. But I'm guessing if another reunion leg had been worked out, they could have cancelled or rescheduled the Mike/Bruce shows, or morphed them into reunion shows, with some or all of them taking less money. Mike cancelled the Nutty Jerry's show, and some Texas gigs back in April were cancelled as well. It could be done if the financial incentive from promoters offering money for more reunion shows was good enough.

Again, I see no evidence suggesting Mike and Bruce are doing these October gigs solely due to "oops, we are obligated to do them" reasoning. The press release didn't read "Mike and Bruce will be doing a few shows in October with their previous lineup due to previous commitments." It reads more like "the reunion tour is over, and now you'll be getting Mike and Bruce."

Great article that set's the story straight..

http://www.glidemagazine.com/hiddentrack/dont-believe-the-hype-original-beach-boys-werent-fired/ (http://www.glidemagazine.com/hiddentrack/dont-believe-the-hype-original-beach-boys-werent-fired/)

I thought that was one of the respectable things of this tour, that they didn't explictly state it was a "Farewell Tour." I remember McCartney years ago being asked about this, and he said it's always tempting to publicize something as a "farewell" to get more people to come out to the shows. The BB's didn't do this, and I never saw anything that indicated this. They didn't promise anything additional, either. But Al said on Charlie Rose he wanted to tour "every two years", which of course nobody believed was going to happen, at least with an actual pause of any BB shows for a year. Al did say they are reuniting this "one final time", but as I've said, that one final time could be 10 years for all we know.

They left things open-ended because they were just that; open-ended. Now three of the dudes want to keep it going.

That article gets closer to the truth, but still comes to some conclusions I don't agree with. I think he's missing some of the nuance of Brian and Al's reasoning for causing a stink now. He thinks it confirms Love's suspicions that he shouldn't cede any control to Brian or Al, rather than thinking that it perhaps indicates Brian and Al saw a way for some soft negotiating tactics to keep an awesome touring lineup going.

What other option was there?

I guess the only other thing that Mike could have done would have been to go through the entire tour and wait until the reunited group were absolutely and definitely finished before considering accepting any other gigs. As tours are generally planned months in advance and it takes a while to sell tickets that could have left him sitting around at home for ages. It was never going to happen.

Therefore the band members obviously came to the conclusion that the tour would end at a certain point so they could get on with other things. Al talked about this months ago and knew all about it. Brian obviously will have done too.

I'll answer these questions: We indeed don't know the details of all of these agreements. But I'm guessing if another reunion leg had been worked out, they could have cancelled or rescheduled the Mike/Bruce shows, or morphed them into reunion shows, with some or all of them taking less money. Mike cancelled the Nutty Jerry's show, and some Texas gigs back in April were cancelled as well. It could be done if the financial incentive from promoters offering money for more reunion shows was good enough.

 
[/quote]

Yeah, Mike & Bruce could cancel, blow-off, stick the promoter, re-schedule, break the contract, go back on their word, leave those little rinky-dink venues for bigger better ones - if, as you say, "the financial incentive from promoters offering money for more reunion shows was good enough."

Why do that? To appease Brian and Al? I can only imagine what people would say about Mike if he did cancel those gigs - to accept more money. Isn't he a better man for keeping the comittments? You don't have to answer that question. It was rhetorical.

EDIT: I apologize again; I don't know what's wrong with me tonight and these posts. The first quote was mine and the second quote was HeyJude's. Sorry for messing it up. This topic must be getting to me! :-D

...It's the idea that Brian's response to the press release is a "power play", but Mike putting out the press release isn't, that I'm not on board with.

At the end of the day, it's Mike who decided to make an official press statement about it, and before the end of the tour -- and a press statement which didn't make any concessions to the possibility of doing more together in the future, or of this being a mutual band decision.  I wouldn't call that "straight shooting"...

Cheers,
Jon Blum

''

Nice.  Is the author a member of this board?   :lol

I think the release was ill-timed and surely caused problems. But that's Mike's schtick, just as much as passive-aggression is Brian's. Mike will say something that's true, but in a really blunt way, and then act all surprised that anyone took it badly. Everyone is playing exactly according to type, and given how much they were playing against type before, that's what's so disappointing about all of this.

Could part of the problem be that the tour was intended to finish in August? I think that`s what was said originally. If that had happened then there would have been a bit of breathing space before the Mike and Bruce gigs and time to issue the statement.

Instead there is no time so it was either a matter of issuing a statement just before the tour finished (bad timing) or immediately after the tour finished (also bad timing and probably too late).

Mike has made it clear that he'd like to make another new album with Brian (of which Al and David will also be a part of no doubt). If this comes to fruition then they will all have a good reason to tour again to promote it. But the 50th Anniversary Reunion is over, done with, time to move on. Better to go out on a high, leaving the fans wanting more than to carry on to the point where the reunited lineup has lost all it's novelty value. Plus this is Brian Wilson we are talking of here; just because at the moment he wants to do more reunion shows is no guarantee that in two months time he won't decide that he doesn't want to be a Beach Boy again.

I'm not sure why they need such a huge band.  I wonder whose insistence it was they had to include just about every member of the Brian Wilson touring band on the reunion.  I'm not sure Brian toured with that many players on every tour or gig.  That could save some money right there, if they were to continue as a "reunited" band.

I can't blame Mike a bit for maybe wanting to get back to playing smaller pressure gigs with HIS guys and the life he's known for the past 15 years. It's probably been the happiest stretch of his life, so big deal. He has to know that people KNOW his "Beach Boys" isn't THE Beach Boys and will be able to ascertain the difference when/if the real Beach Boys are ever to tour again. Why deal with Al's drama and Brian's folk (excluding his kick-ass band members who were on this tour) and the crazy blueboard mob of angry villagers for the rest of your life if you don't have to? ..... I know it would be great for us fans, but we're talking about people's real lives here.

+1

Better to just end it for all time then, huh?

Because it's the best and truest representation of the music that's toured since the 70s, at least?

(http://images.yuku.com.s3.amazonaws.com/image/jpeg/f5c254daba66d5e466b24e6271045d982e96dd4.jpg)

I'll never get used to that image.  I think of Mike's hats as a permanent extension of his head...

Same here, Mike has been wearing them for so long...

yes. he should stay home and wait.
or do some shows as Mike & Bruce's Endless Summer or whatever if he just HAS to keep performing.

the reunion lineup should have been the only Beach Boys shows in 2012. period. booking "Beach Boys" shows in October with no intention of including the reunited lineup was a tasteless move. Even if the shows were booked 2 years ahead of time, before the reunion was even hinted at, they've had plenty of time to cancel those dates as was done with the Nutty Jerry's gig.

The reunited Beach Boys could be embarking on a triumphant tour across England, playing 10 more shows or whatever they were offered. Just think how many more times Mike could tell the story about being voted #1 over the Beatles and Stones!!!

instead, they've got to hurry and wrap things up in the UK so Mike & Bruce can play the Heart of Texas Fair & Rodeo in Waco,TX and call themselves The Beach Boys.

f*cking REALLY??!!??!!!

You are sooooo fucking jingoistic. I'm American too, and proud of it, but shut the f*** up, please! And please don't keep telling people they aren't real fans because they don't live up to some stupid standard you set up for them in your mind.

From my "Limited Inside Knowledge", there is another reason (not to do with money, control, ego, power........), that no one has hit on, why Mike wants/likes to play these smaller venues not appropriate for the full Reunion band.  That's all I can say.

You know, a lesser moderator would probably just ban someone for that comment. I won't, even if you hate my guts and talk all manner of trash at me. Just remember that the next time you refer to me as the "worst moderator ever".

This has little to do with jingoism or national pride. It has everything to do with people who want things both ways. I still believe that all of this outrage among Beach Boys fans is just manufactured. People are looking for every reason to demonize Michael for a decision that has origins dating to June. We all debated that Rolling Stone article (if I remember correctly, that was the source) which reported the eventual return of the Michael and Bruce band after the tour was finished. Sure, maybe the press release the other day was botched and untimely. But it is what it is. I can't say I didn't see it coming.

I just don't see what the fuss is about. I think it's just crony behavior from a bunch of people who just can't understand why things don't always have the "proper" ending despite ALL of the evidence available to them with a mere Google search; they're all saying some of the most horrible things I've ever heard about Michael. Sure, I'm not thrilled about the fact that the reunion tour is ending and the Michael and Bruce band is coming back in its stead, but obligations are obligations. To be honest, I'd rather have the Michael and Bruce/Brian/Al/David setup for now so the five man group will be an EVENT like it was this summer. I don't want this setup to get stale and I doubt anyone else does, either. Keep it scarce. Build up demand. Let them tour every so often. Make these tours an EVENT.

The shit has spread to the AV Club now.
http://www.avclub.com/articles/mike-love-gives-three-of-the-beach-boys-the-boot,85461/

Sheesh...those comments are despicable.

Think about that for a second. Do you think it is in any way realistic???

The whole reason why Mike licensed the use of the name (and pays well for it) is because it sells tickets. The Endless Summer Band wouldn`t and didn`t.

Plus, if when the reunion was mooted Mike had thought to himself, `I could tour with the other 4 guys but then will never be able to use The Beach Boys name again except when they all fancy it`do you honestly think that the tour would have taken place??? It obviously wouldn`t.

Everyone knew the score including the hardcore fans. The tour would continue for a finite length of time and then things would get back to normal.

The reunited lineup is the new normal. There is no going back in most of the fans' eyes, and apparently Brian and Al feel the same way too.

Exactly.


Do you really not understand why people get upset with you? And then to threaten bannings? Sheesh.

I'm pretty sure if we go back back to the initial reunion threads many of us predicated this would end in disaster   :lol

The Boys never let us down!

I don't know. Who wants to bet that Mike says something really gracious and hopeful about the future at the Wembley show?

I kind of expect that he will. Easiest way to get the message out, and it will hopefully get another round of news coverage.

It isn`t and despite Brian and Al maybe fancying doing a few more concerts I have yet to see any comments where they`ve said that they would like to do world tours every year.

You didn`t answer the basic questions I asked I notice. Because you couldn`t I presume.

If you are referring to 'benefits' of small gigs, then yes, that has been mentioned in another thread.

I didn't threaten to ban anyone and wasn't even thinking of banning anyone. In fact, for someone who is apparently the "worst moderator ever", I'm pretty tolerant of people talking sh*t at me. But that's neither here nor there. I have nothing against anyone here at all. Discussions get heated. It's nothing personal. Let's keep it that way.

And the reason people get upset with me is because my input is just a bit more heated than most and I don't exactly have the most popular opinions. I love this band. I don't like all of the bullshit that has sprung up in the aftermath of this press release. It's bringing out such ugly and hateful sides in EVERYONE, myself included. People's toes are being stepped on. And the fanbase's reaction to this has done more to sour this reunion than anything the band members did. It's depressing, really.

I would think the reunion would have to have been pretty shoddy to let something like this kerfuffle change anything about it. It was an amazing summer, with amazing shows, and a decent record to boot. Nothing else matters or will be remembered. Not really.

the basic questions...
do i think it's realistic that Mike sit home and wait, or perform under a different moniker?

yes I do. he's had a good run calling himself The Beach Boys for the past decade-and-a-half but it's 2012 now. Brian, Al, and Dave are once again Beach Boys too. For Mike & Bruce to continue calling themselves The Beach Boys when Brian, Al, and Dave still want to be included is plain wrong. And false advertising.

do I think the Reunion Tour would have taken place if Mike had had an inkling that he & Bruce could no longer go out and call themselves The Beach Boys?

this is a moot point. Why should Mike be the one in control of the name? As I said, he had a good run but he does not own The Beach Boys name. He leases it. When the other Beach Boys want back in, especially the guy who conceived, wrote, and produced the majority of the band's music, they should have every right to be included. Nobody should have to answer to Mike. He's not the boss of The Beach Boys.

I hope you're right on the latter count.

Same here.

I understand where everyone is coming from as I see both sides of the argument.  Mike simply doesn't hold these issues as a priority as many of us here.  The Beach Boys-lite band will continue on and it will have no effect on the second reunion whenever it happens.  We're all reacting very emotionally about this but when we get over this hump, all will return back to normalcy.  And I think Mike realizes this and isn't blinking an eye about any of this.  He knows it will all blow over and will be forgotten when they reunite again.  He isn't worried about the fans who hate his guts---he knows they're not showing up at his shows anyway.

Lemme put it this way. If we have a really good boxed set, then next year a really good live album and tour doc, that's what people will remember. I do think Mike might want to do some sort of cleanup over the next day or two -- just to temper things -- but it's hard to know if this is just the press going nuts or a genuine band rift. If it's the latter, at least they finished the record this time.

But I don't think anyone hates his guts. Not really. If you love the band, you have to love Mike. At least a little bit. You may be dismayed by various things he does, but the man has genuine talent and abilities.

One of the things I noticed at both of the shows I saw this summer: Mike made believers out of the Brian fans. People were very impressed.

If he had handled the transition more gracefully -- if it could have been handled more gracefully in the first place -- he well could have had quite a few new fans.

I agree....I was always a Mike fan but this tour really sealed the deal for me.  New respect for the guy even despite this very awkward transition we're going through now.

But as far as people who "hate his guts"....I dunno....reading all the comments on other sites (FB and other links), we're seeing some very very despicable comments out there.   There's some awful things being said at the Stones board I visit about this story.  Mike is not exactly coming off as a saint here.  The way the media is spinning this, making it sound like Mike gave everyone the boot isn't helping either.  I know some people here on this board see things (somewhat) rationally but to Joe Public Mike is not everyone's favorite person right now.  And I think Mike knows that he really won't see these fans at shows unless Brian, Al and Dave are with him. 

Many people absolutely hate Mike, don't ever doubt it. Thank you, David Leaf (not that some of the anger toward Mike isn't warranted, but Jesus).

I still have to say Mike is correct and the others, or their rep's, have blown things out of proportion. Mike has handled himself so well since I would have to say, the Reagan deal early last year. It would be a shame if it is all ruined in the last 10 days or so.

Come on Mike. Make a statement that gives us some hope that this b!tching is not how its going to end!

Funny enough I was in a conversation with someone the other night who labeled Mike as the most hated man in rock and roll, saying Mike was a person you love to hate.  And the guy claimed he was a big fan of the band--even though he really didn't have his facts straight and believed Mike only wrote the chorus to "Good Vibrations" and nothing else and  continues to tour with his Beach Boys Lite band.  So Joe Public is still working with rather outdated and misinformed views of Mike.  This new story surely isn't improving matters.

Because he's the only one qualified to run it, mentally and physically. But, most importantly, he's the only one who ever WANTED it.

Somebody referred to Brian's current stance as a "power play". That was a good analogy. But, frankly, it's a little off-putting. For years, decades, almost 45 of their 51 years, Brian wanted to have as little to do with The Beach Boys as possible. First, he didn't want to tour with them. Then he didn't want to produce them. Then he didn't want to write songs for them (due in large part to increasing illness, I know). And, finally, over the last 15 years, he didn't want to have anything to do with them. He made comments like he didn't want to work with them, didn't want to talk with them, didn't like them, didn't want to be in the band, said that his band was superior to The Beach Boys, and on and on.

Now, after what, a five month tour, boy, has he changed his tune. This Beach Boys thing IS PRETTY GOOD isn't it? What happened to that "Mike has his thing, The Beach Boys, and I have my thing, my solo career". If I was Mike, I would resent it.

And, having written all that, I'm still not sure that Brian even wants to continue touring as a Beach Boy. :p I still need to hear more. Melinda!

wasn't Mike's big argument when Al wanted to tour as Beach Boys Family & Friends was that it "caused confusion" and the fans were not getting what they paid to see? isn't that precisely what going back to calling Mike & Bruce's band The Beach Boys does now?

you can't have it both ways Michael.

Mike is the only one qualified, mentally and physically?  :lol
You have seen his R'n'R Hall of Fame induction speech haven't you? Just one example of Mike's mental "fitness".

He's the only one who ever WANTED The Beach Boys name??!!! Didn't Al try to use it and get sued and shot down? Mike has used bullying tactics ever since the early days to get what he wanted, including ownership of the band name.

there's a reason Brian has wanted little or nothing to do with The Beach Boys since the late 60s. Can you guess his name?

I agree.  I'd imagine it must be very awkward for Mike to now open the door to everyone to permanently stay when it was mainly him (and Bruce) who's carried the Beach Boys banner for this long.  Considering the way they tour is significantly different than how this mega reunion tour went---I just don't see how Mike could have handled this any other way right now. 

"Can't we all just... get along... can't we all ... get along..."

I like Mike Love and I think he's really just doing things the way he has always done ... in some ways, he has more integrity than any other member. he's really a straight-shooter. He's a talented songwriter & a super great singer. The group would never have become what they were and are without him.

But really, this is going to be perceived as a 'dick move'; there's no way around it. And it kind of is (regardless of how long it's been planned).

In my fantasy, I position Mike as something of a Royal Tennenbaum:

Mike: "I've always been considered an asshole for about as long as I can remember. That's just my style. But I'd really feel blue if I didn't think you were going to forgive me."

Brian: "I don't think you're an asshole, Mike. I just think you're kind of a son of a bitch."

MIke: "Well, I really appreciate that."

Well Mike is featured as the lead vocalist on many Beach Boys songs (mainly the hits)...I see that as a fair point for him to bare the BB name.  Who else except Brian would really deserve the name?  Al?...seriously?

Brian has more clout and respect to go by the BBs name than Mike will ever have.

Mike should be willing to open the door because they are playing major halls and stadiums to massive crowds. They are hitting number 3 on Billboard and getting glowing reviews from most every publication and critic. Oh and they are FAMILY and they have REUNITED. Like Brian said the current lineup "are the real Beach Boys."

if you really think Mike & Bruce have "carried the banner" so wonderfully and respectfully that's your opinion, but most people would say that Mike's treatment of The Beach Boys name has been careless and self-serving and turned them into an oldies band and something of a laughingstock. He introduced cheerleaders to the live show. He strutted his stuff on Full House and Baywatch. He continues to treat Kokomo and John Stamos like they are the best thing that ever happened to the group. He has settled for playing county fairs and casinos, and now he has cut the magnificent reunion tour short so he & Bruce can play a rodeo in Waco.

call me crazy but WHAT THE F*CK??!!!

Oh God! We are back to the old Beach Boys name debate.Yawn..... I'm out of this one.

Nobody is saying Brian or Al should have the name instead of Mike. They are saying Brian, Mike, Al, Dave, and Bruce should have the name.

Yes, Al tried to USE it. And that makes all the difference.

Whether you agree that Mike & Bruce are good representatives of "The Beach Boys" when they tour - and I believe I already know how you feel about that - you have to agree that Mike's intention with the license was to BE The Beach Boys. And, not that you care or agree, but I think he (and Bruce) have been successful with that. To the thousands of fans they perform in front of each year, they are The Beach Boys.

I don't think Al, along with his family and Friends - and WITHOUT Mike's voice and stage presence and Bruce (another Beach Boy) - could ever pull it off. And that's not a knock on Al's shows; he puts on a fine show. People think Mike's tarnishing the legacy. Just think how it would've been with just Al and family claiming to be The Beach Boys over the last 15 years.

I'm tired. I'm going to listen to "Moon River" and go to sleep.

Yes, Mike and Bruce have for many year "carried the Beach Boys banner" to county fairs and birthday parties both far and wide.

I believe the Beach Boys are now important for their catalog of recorded music.

By the way, who could Al, Brian, and David find to replace Bruce and Mike? Does Bruce need to be replaced at all? I'm sure Brian's band members could take some lead lead vocals, but if they want a big "name" who would be good?

The Beach Boys are about beautiful voices, amazing songwriting, and a somewhat wholesome image...


Al still sounds like he's 20. Mike's voice is basically shot.

Al's setlist is truly diverse and includes deeper cuts that the true Beach Boys fan loves and appreciates. Mike sticks with mainly pre-66 material and Kokomo.

Al's stage presence is open and friendly, Mike's is macho and creepy.


I dunno, I think we'd be a lot better off with Al in charge since Carl's passing.

Seriously, if the Mike & Bruce show resume doing dates, I think that's great.  Smaller venues, cheaper productions, smaller footprint.  Nothing wrong with any of that.

Then, after that I will hope for a "second reunion" with the big group.

It's all good, as Dylan says.

ALSO, Mike and Brian really need to sit down in a studio for 6 weeks, come up with 18 songs on their own.  It would boggle everyone's mind and make SMiLe look like scheisst!

The Boys need to spend more time in the studio!  Rehearse, Boys!  Rehearse, Daddy-o!

(http://sphotos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/c0.0.240.240/p403x403/564721_10151183711822241_1354757730_n.jpg)


Stick a hat on Johnny and nobody would even notice!

I blame Phil for all this.  Didn't he predict this?

 ::) 

Tell me, how much did those county fair gigs really bother you when you watched all 5 BB on tour this past summer? Didn't bother me in the slightest--nor did it enter my mind.  Not sure it makes the show any less enjoyable. What's the difference what Mike/Bruce do when the reunion is on hiatus?  We just saw for ourselves how much it "tarnished' their legacy.  This summer was proof that the fans were there for the reunion regardless what county fairs and casino gigs Mike and Bruce have done.  Every show was a sellout and the whole thing was a complete success.  It doesn't matter what Mike does with his own band---the next reunion will be met with the same kind of hype and success both from fans and the media. 

I don't see how anyone can just be OK with things going back to the way they were before the reunion. Until the next reunion comes along? The Beach Boys are finally being taken seriously again. Brian is at the helm in the studio and they are topping the charts for the first time in decades. There should be no turning back.


Mike says it's not wise to "over-saturate" the market but he wants to keep touring as The Beach Boys in the meantime?

MAKES NO F*CKING SENSE.

I didn't get to see any shows from the summer tour. They didn't play in my neck of the woods.

And Mike's "own band" is called the "Beach Boys".

I'm sorry about your eye problem. You need to see a good neurologist as soon as possible.  :)

Well, I don't really care who or what takes the band "seriously" at this point anymore.  I know what this band's about and I don't need them to stay together to prove anything to me, they've already sold me---even with the separate camps on the road throughout the years.  Obviously: that's just me. 

I'd love for them to continue on but I just don't see how it's that easy when it's never been a secret how complicated things can become when you deal with Brian and/or his people.  Why would Mike willingly take that on permanently? Legacy, schmegacy.  I don't see Mike wanting to be near that any longer than he's agreed to be. 

The most ridiculous comments are coming from the know people who think they know about the Beach Boys because they read the blurbs on the Rolling Stone/NME/Pitchfork lists. People who are content to accept an opinion and adopt it as their own. AKA the worst people.

So most of the comments from Al and David's pages have been removed? Is this old news? Any word on why?

That is utter nonsense. If you look at the setlists that Al played since 1998 you will see that the vast majority contain almost exclusively the hits. Take a look at the track listing on his Live in Las Vegas CD for proof.

The Mike and Bruce shows vary according to the venue. For the casino and county fair shows they play the hits and for the theatre shows they often play some deeper cuts. I`m happy to say that I`ve heard them play Forever, Til I Die, Let Him Run Wild, Kiss Me Baby, Wendy, All this is That, Sail on Sailor, Please Let me Wonder, Disney Girls, Everyone`s in Love With You etc.

I know what it is,  the key phrase is "hit on," right?  Mike wants to score more babes at the gigs and he's too far away from the front row in the bigger venues to make eye contact with the best ladies.  With apologies to Mrs. Mike.  (just kidding, I think)

about half of what you listed is pre-66. Al played things like California Saga, Honkin Down the Highway, Wild Honey, Breakaway, Vegetables,  Girl Don't Tell Me, and didn't seem to tailor his set to the type of venue.

I think the best we can hope for is a 60th anniversary reunion in 2022.

I don't see them getting back together after this, it would probably years if they did and by that time Brian would likely be retiring from the road. Who knows really but I just don't see it.

6 songs and one of them is on the greatest hits albums. Wow.

Wipe the rapid foam from your mouth before you type. You are right that Al is comfortably the best singer of the remaining BBs. A valid point. But when half the stuff you right is clearly guff then it detracts from the rest of your posts.

PUH-PUH-PUH-POKUH-FACE
PUH PUH PUH PUH PUH
(PUH PUH PUH PUH)
PUH PUH PUH PUH PUH PUH
PUH PUH PUH PUH PUH
(PUH PUH PUH PUH)

You know the Beach Boys are making news when they're the first topic brought up in your journalism class..

I have a lot to say on this!  ;D

They were playing county fairs with Carl Dean Wilson at the helm. This debate is 30 years old.

I get the feeling I'm being played, but just in case...

I want it, runners!

I need it!! Thanks!!

and now yahoo has noted it also...

http://music.yahoo.com/blogs/stop-the-presses/mike-love-sprinkles-bad-vibrations-beach-boys-reunion-173511608.html

This pic is so awesome it makes the entire thread worthwhile.

Can someone enlighten me or point me to the post in the other thread that outlines these additional "benefits"? I'm genuinely just curious.

"He made a bargain and kept it." (Mike) You are correct.  The posters here, who looked up the decision in the lawsuit, seem to have their heads around what the past problems were.  One was the promotion from among a list.  Second, was some percentage formula.  I'm bad in math, so let's not go there...

If people take the time to read the decision, they will understand a little better what the background is and what the contested issues were.  No insults meant. The timing is indeed awful, because it is so close in time to reunion shows.  From my sidelines, I think Mike had to assure those venues and ticket holders that the show was going "on" as within the contract.  This is no time to undermine one another.  Things have gone better than ever imagined. The performances have been flawless.  And, it is so wonderful to see Brian and his band embrace this whole dimension that is absent in the solo performance dynamic.  I loved seeing Scott Bennett jumping up and down with Darian during the shows.  I think they all have Beach Boys Fever!  (Island Fever pun intended.)

The star is the music, and the delicate element here.  And the challenge; how to quell the firestorm which represents a reaction to a statement, "likely" to assure contract fulfillment.  I would be the first to say that post-Carl, I wondered how anyone could manage to rebuild the BB dynamic, in the "live" context.  The music was never going anywhere or becoming lost.  That is a fact.  And I was the first to buy tickets for the new fledgling band. Only diligence and hard work made it happen.  I have come to really respect Mike's professional work ethic.  The band just got better and better and with a true multigenerational audience.

The other two bands, who I would not miss for anything, because of the music, and the very fine "solo" work, are adult audiences.  Great shows, but not digging down to the grandchildren, getting the kids excited about their grandparents/parents brand of music.  That is the future. Mike cultivated that dynamic.  

They say that even bad publicity is good.  Here, I'm unconvinced.  And, ticket holders for these shows next week, have reasonable assurance that they will happen.  Is the applecart overturned? Ya. The touring calendar was always in place.  Is there room for future strategy? Of course. And writing collaboration.  That seems to be a "go" as well.

My guess is that this will work out, with "first things," first.  And, second, because "blood is still thicker than water."  

The principal members are somewhat a family dynamic.  They disagree, then, "get over it!"  ;)

sometimes being a hardcore fan has its disadvantages....  yes, we all know the real scoop, but now since this news headline has wondered into American websites, I'm getting bombarded with emails from friends/coworkers/family to 'fill me in' on the shocking news and ask for my reaction.  Yawn.

Yahoo has noted it with another inaccurate, biased article authored by someone named Wendy Geller.  Why do so few, if any, of these articles point out that Brian Wilson voted to give Mike the rights to tour under the Beach Boys?  It makes it sound like Mike "wrested" control of the Beach Boys name all by himself.  That puts in a slightly different light if people knew that.  Nor does it point out that Mike and the rest of the boys (when Brian's brothers were still around) toured without Brian for most of the Beach Boys' career.

For what it's worth, Mike just posted this on his Facebook page:

http://www.glidemagazine.com/hiddentrack/dont-believe-the-hype-original-beach-boys-werent-fired/ (http://www.glidemagazine.com/hiddentrack/dont-believe-the-hype-original-beach-boys-werent-fired/)

the man says yes please....

I did try to explain all this to people over at the Pollstar article ... which is the source for a lot of this crap. Don't know if it worked, though.

Someone just needs to post a version of this on every one of these stupid things. I'm a media person, and I hate the media at times like this ...

http://www.pollstar.com/news_article.aspx?ID=802788

the professor does not know how to start threads and hesitates to presume to do so, but should we have a new thread entitled "latest official news and reaction to the state of the band in the wake of the tour" or words to that effect?We are diving up the information on too many threads. I want quick access to the upcoming news (I hope) that clarifies all this and promises the new tour next year and the new album, with hints about the contents and focus of that album. anyone agree?

Well I certainly think a few of these threads can be merged together.  This one should be merged with the big "Endless Summer" one...the same things are being discussed in all these different threads. Might as well have it in one place.....

I think most would agree the likely scenario is that one of Brian's contingencies was to have his touring band on this tour. It had the added benefit of being a versatile, pro band who knows the material, etc. But it is very much a comfort thing for Brian. I would then imagine the addition of two of Mike's guys was to have a bit of buffer so that Mike and Bruce wouldn't just feel like they were joining Brian's band.

The huge band also seemed to be something Mike had some mixed feelings about if his interviews are any indication. It was very subtle, but as someone else put it a few months back, I would guess Mike sees the huge band as a bit gluttonous or overkill, and certainly an additional cost he doesn't enjoy. He has said himself he likes to run a lean operation; Bruce has also supported this supposition.

This please!

There's no question that Brian has been able to pick and choose when it's a convenient for him to be a Beach Boys or to tour with the Beach Boys. But he's allowed to. Why? Because he's Brian Wilson, the dude who wrote most of the songs, blah, blah, blah, you know the rest. That's reason enough. And if that isn't, then let's also add the fact that he owns the trademark to the name along with the other BRI members.

As for nobody else wanting the BB name, I think that slew of court activity concerning Al and "BBFF" and all of that would tend to go against that idea. Also, in more recent years, it seemed like Al was kind of hinting he wanted back in, even just in Mike's version of the band.

How do you have that?

I think this comment may be true to how Mike actually may think about things, but this isn't how it should be. It's not Mike's band. It's a band that belongs to all of them, regardless of who has toured longer. Bruce has been in a touring Beach Boys longer than Al at this point, so does Bruce "outrank" Al now too in terms of moral entitlement to the name? Mike and Bruce only carried the banner because Brian didn't care, Carl was gone, and Al was forced out.

This does get us back into circa-2000 debate topic territory, but if you look back at that timeframe, Al was *attempting* to start up a band with a more diverse setlist in 1999. This was at time when the BB's (both with and without Al and Carl) were doing a pretty stale, short setlist over and over.

Al's band worked in stuff like "Lookin' at Tomorrow", "You're So Good To Me", "Girl Don't Tell Me", "You Still Believe in Me", "Wild Honey", and some others that the touring BB's hadn't and weren't doing regularly any time recently.

When Al was unable to use the BB name in *any* way, including just billing himself as a BB, he was unable to get many bookings. So when he was only able to scrape up Ed Carter, Billy Hinshce, et al. at random intervals every few weeks or months to do one or a few gigs, it didn't allow him to get a regularly-touring band up and running and working through more diverse setlists. He had to do more "county fair" bookings where the shows had to be shorter. There was no time (either rehearsal wise or in terms of actual show running time) to get much past the meat-and-potatoes numbers Mike was doing.

It has only been in more recent years that Mike has indeed worked up a sometimes more diverse setlist. Just wanted to get the historical record straight a bit here.

Al's setlist in 1999 was, when allowed to be a normal running time and not truncated, more varied than the BB's setlist had been, either pre-98 or even in 1999. Even in 1997, for whatever reason, it wasn't as easy for the BB's to add a bunch of rarities to the setlist.

I think once Brian started doing it and got some good reviews for it, and then Mike got some better guys in his backing band, then several years later we finally saw Mike's Beach Boys adding more rarities.
Then of course we start getting into picking apart the setlist and deciding what constitutes a "rarity", which of course muddies the whole discussion. Is "You're So Good to Me" a rarity for instance? Some say yes, some say no.

yes it could certainly be argued that it took Al and Brian playing deeper cuts in their respective shows in order for Mike to "up his game" and include a few himself. seems he was fairly resistant to adding things like Marcella and Our Prayer this time around. and who knows what else he may have just flat-out vetoed.

sorry forgot my 'rabid foam wipes' again  :p

In the context of tracks being performed live.. yes, YSGTM is a 'rarity'.  Because it has rarely been performed live (before 2012).  ;)


Of course one might also argue that there are basically no rarities whatsoever in their setlists (nor have there ever been), since all the songs they perform are commercially available everywhere and at all times...

You're So Good To Me was performed often in 1966, performed a lot in 1975, brought back in the late 1990s and been pretty common in the Michael and Bruce setlists since 2004...yup, a "rarity".

Why do the hardcore Brian Wilson fans have a problem with this?  As I recall, quite a number of them were saying that Brian looked unhappy onstage with the reunited Beach Boys and they feared it wasn't good for his well-being and he may have been "forced" into doing the reunion tour.  They also said they hated watching Mike Love onstage at the reunion shows.

Here's a solution for them:  have Brian Wilson go back to touring as a solo.  What Mike does or does not do has no effect on that.  Some of those folks were claiming that Brian looked sooo much happier onstage with his own band than he did on the Beach Boys reunion.  So now they're arguing that Brian was happier on the Beach Boys reunion tour?  Or that they actually didn't mind having to sit through Mike's nasal singing and schtick when they went to the reunion shows?  

It's called wanting it both ways.

also done at all the 1983 shows i went to...... :)

You're right! That slipped my mind. So even less of a rarity!

I only knew about the '66 and late '90s performances, and I'm not overly familiar with Mike&Bruce's setlists. So from my point of view (or level of knowledge) it was a 'live rarity'. Thanks for the additonal information. This board is really something. :hat

Have seen Chris Farmer sing it in 2004 and Christian Love sing it in 2008

Youtubing it as we speak...  :)

EDIT: Dammit, and I knew this clip of course: 1983 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEwY-hSY8oo)....  ::)

Also was done in 1990 and 1991.

Do you think so? Still?

I mean, yeah, Mike & Brian are related, but... They might be family in name only. In the last, say, 30 years, how many "family things" do you think they shared?

And, I'm not so sure they "get over" things so quickly anymore. I think they (including Al) are still carrying around a lot of baggage and hurt - inflicted on each other. They "got over" things to do this album and tour. Money can be a very strong motivator. It helps you get over a lot of things.

The dynamic or bond they do share is history, and I truly believe they carry that with them in the studio and on stage. Regardless of their sometimes humble appearance (especially Brian), they know who they are.

Am I the only one fairly pleased with these recent developments? I'm not saying i agree with the typically tactless way in which Mike has gone about doing it, but i think it's good for them to 'quit while they're ahead', so to speak. After all, this reunion has been a success and, as i've said previously, Summer's Gone makes for an absolutely beautiful, perfect finale, and it now seems unlikely another album will appear.

My only worry is if bad feelings re-emerge it might interfere with or affect the release of 'Made in California'.

The discussion about "You're So Good To Me" illustrates my point. I've seen it happening for many years now. When a debate breaks out over "rarities" in the setlist, we start disagreeing on what a "rarity" even is. Obviously, that particular song is kind of in that in-between area. It wasn't a "regular", but wasn't one of those oddball, played-on-one-tour-and-then-forgotten numbers either.

What about "Lady Lynda"? That was beaten to death from 1977 or 78 until early '82, but then never heard again other than briefly in '86 as "Lady Liberty" and apparently one one later UK tour as, sadly, "Little Lady."

Looks like Mike & Bruce have plans for New Year's Eve. Two shows in balmy Minnesota...

http://www.songkick.com/concerts/14140449-beach-boys-at-mystic-lake-showroom

Wonder who's to blame for "The Beach Boys 50" in the upper right?

This isn't applicable to the debate happening on this board right now. I stopped reading most other forums, including the "official" BW board, years ago. I don't know what's going on there. But the folks who are disappointed about the possible lack of additional reunion shows should not be lumped in with the skeptics that said Brian looked bored (he did look bored sometimes, fans of all sorts would agree I think), or some fringe super-negative fans that still hated on Mike Love during the reunion shows.

As I've said before, whether Mike knows or cares, he won over more formerly-disgruntled fans by doing this tour, and doing it well, than he has in years, decades, maybe ever. I know a number of very cynical, grizzled fans who have had no love for Mike or his touring in past years who were won over by both Mike individually and the collective presentation of the show on this reunion tour. That is why some fans are bummed. Not because they are "Brianistas" or because they "love to hate" Mike. They are bummed because, as some fans have put it, this reunion lineup has put on the best BB show in decades, since probably their heyday as a live band in the 70's. That's even more impressive considering they're doing it without Carl, who was one of the only reasons to catch a BB show in the 90's.

Nope, I flat out disagree with the idea that they should "quit while they're on top", etc. First of all, they aren't quitting if Mike continues to tour with the name. Secondly, they have more good songs to record together and awesome shows they could do in a live setting.

I appreciate those that are clear about their feeling happy about no more reunion stuff. I just can't agree with it when more good stuff could come of it, maybe even better than 2012. We don't know that 2012 was "ahead" or "on top." As recent events have demonstrated, we will likely never get a graceful, clear ending to their saga.

BRI needs to yank the touring lisence from Mike and Bruce. 14 years of touring is enough for these two now that the real group is ready to tour again.

I do wonder if and when the Mike/Bruce Beach Boys (the smaller group) have gotten together to rehearse.  Obviously, they all know the tunes, but I'm assuming they'd do at least a cursory rehearsal and/or run through to prepare for the upcoming Waco Fair concert?

That may be false.  The same site listed that the Stones were performing at the O2 in London in early 2013.   The Stones had to specifically send out a Tweet to warn people to ignore that site and not buy tickets because it was not true.

They have to vote on it first.

Let them vote then, I really want one BBs group at this point. Mike should tour under another name if he really wants to work those smaller venues so bad.

Even if the vote came up, we would still have the same situation.

I am not so sure about that at this point. The group is getting up there in age and time is running out for them to big time tour. Mike is also running his voice into the ground, I would rather he rest his voice until the group needs his services. Mike and Bruce had a great run, but their role is done with the full group back to tour again.

Great picture via pitchfork

(http://cdn2.pitchfork.com/news/48008/c440d05d.jpeg)

I agree...and like I said earlier, I'd rather just see the five-man band do sporadic tours instead of tons of gigs.

That would work with me as well, the sporadic touring would have demand and profits up, making everybody happy.

It probably depends on the license conditions BRI set out.  If it's a set license for a number of years, I don't think it can be re-opened if it's a legally binding contract, which it likely is.  Another alternative might be giving Mike some type of financial settlement and buying him out of the contract.  I'm sure it would not be a popular move in terms of fan reaction, but if they were the ones who entered the contract, it has to be settled somehow if they want him off the road.  He still has one kid in high school and it won't be cheap to send her to college if she goes to college, he has a gazillion grandkids, etc. 

I can't imagine any plausible financial scenario for Mike where he doesn't already have enough money to send a house full of kids to Ivy League colleges.

Nope

 :-X
Cough  :-X

okay, we get it, SurfRiderHawaii, you witnessed Mike being amorous backstage. whatever. bo-ring.

I don't get how Michael's (or indeed, any of the members) backstage behavior is anyone's fucking business.

After tonight's gig I picture the scenario in a few weeks time. Mike on the phone:

"hey mr guitar guy, Mike the Lovester Love here - I'm getting the gang back together and going back on the road! Yeah, I'm sorry you didn't make the grade for the gigs I just done with Cousin Brian (he wrote the music and I wrote the words, Y'know - wow does HE have a great band) but hey we can have fun, right? Anyway, we already have a great gig booked, to mark the opening of some new tennis courts over in Palm Springs… wassat? Hello? Hello?"

+ 1

Al was doing county fair and casino shows right from the beginning as BBF&F and the shows were often short. I agree that he did play those songs but not at the same gig. In most shows only 2 or 3 rarities were played. I agree that Al may have wanted to play more (he famously mentioned wanting to sing Be Here in the Morning) but reality got in the way and he realised that the audience wanted to hear Kokomo instead. The difference between his shows and M&B`s were negligible. They played Wendy, Summer in Paradise and Little Honda regularly if memory serves (albeit not at every concert).

Just pointing out that their are 'other' reasons Mike likes small venues (casinos, for example) vs. the larger venues the reunited group is playing.

The shows tend to be more intimate and probably more fun for the band in numerous ways.  I'm just saying Mike and Bruce have done this for 15+ years
and they have fun doing it.  So it's not necessarily about power, control, money, yada, yada.

Did I have a first hand, eye witness experience, which involved me personally? - YES. So, in that instance, it was very much my business!  Dude's a jerk!
But it's rock and roll and Mike Love, good and bad, is a legend!

Just to throw my two cents in...

This is probably more smoke than fire.  I'm not saying that there aren't ill feelings going on between members of the band right now...but as has been mentioned many times before: this is the plan that was in place for after the reunion shows ended.  More than anything else...this has just been poorly played from a PR standpoint...and the blame for that can be pointed at several factions.

Yes...from a personal standpoint...it would be sad if everything just returned to pre-2012 terms...but if that's what it is...I'm thankful we had this spring and summer.  It was magical.

The biggest concern for me is time.  They don't have a decade to "do their own thing" again.  Heck...even five years is pushing it.  I really hope that things are just being blown out of proportion and that behind-the-scenes things really aren't that fired up.  I guess time will tell!

Absolutely,SB. Besides cheapening the name, they're full fledged imposters by using the name as well. Beach Boys, the name now means alot more than it did before the tour-take the name away from Myke and Bruusee before they get a chance to run it into the sewer destroying the name for a long time to come. ::)

In his own insidious mind he is.

After reading the comment you pasted I noticed your avatar. Priceless!

But he pisses on Brian when Brian is asleep. That's not right. And then he says "lol pet sounds? more like sh*t sounds u fag" and then tells Bruce to piss on him too. That's what SurfRiderHawaii is talking about. That and liking the more "intimate" settings (in which he pisses on pictures of Brian/copies of pEt SoUnDz and sMiLe in an intimate manner (just he and bruce) (end other comma) and then intimately has sex with people less than a third of his own age and don't use no protection and then says "sup dawg i herd u didnt liek forming babby but i accidentally in your base" and then never pays child support even though he is extremely wealthy the bastard omg and then he grows a spiteful sort of moustache and records the red album)

You have got to be the least objective mod I've ever encountered on the Internet.

Why blame "Brianistas" for this?  You have a combination of Mike Love making poorly worded press statements and right-wing British tabloids doing what they do best here.  Is it a terrible crime to want to see the Beach Boys continue touring with more than one original member? 

Mike acknowledged this himself, in a way I found rather poignant, in the Rolling Stone article.  I wouldn't mind at all if they took a year or two off, with or without Mike and Bruce touring by themselves.  But if the band is going to do anything more in any meaningful form, it's going to have to be fairly soon. 

I'm entitled to an opinion as well, you know.

No, it's not a terrible crime to want to see the Beach Boys continue touring with more than one original member. I'd love to see the five-man group go on. But this whole situation was already known back in June. Sure, Michael's statement was rather poorly worded and the less said about John Bull's psuedo-journalism, the better. I'm not blaming Brianistas for this situation itself since, again, we knew it back in June. But some of the most hateful remarks I've ever seen thrown at anyone, let alone a member of the Beach Boys...it's a bit much. I understand that the guy's not perfect but it's just moronic behavior for its own sake, in my opinion.

This is entirely true.

Yesterday's Guardian : among Mike's crimes listed is the "come and look at my huge turd" story from that leading and notoriously accurate  :-D authority on The Beach Boys - Wouldn't It Be Nice :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/lostinshowbiz/2012/sep/27/mike-love-sacking-beach-boys

Well the beat goes on - this time, stateside.

I just saw the CBS Morning News do a 5 minute report entitled "Sunset for the Beach Boys". The piece basically reiterated the whole ML announcement c/o a finite tour schedule and Brian's apparent shock that Mike wouldn't allow Al and Brian to tour with him, quoting Brian - "since after all...we're the Beach Boys." They also included clips from their Sunday Morning Show interview and went on to report (in the reporter's opinion), that "during my interview, you could feel the tension between the guys...they were polite and deferential to one another, but you could sense the personal tension..." Charlie Rose even joined in on the panel discussion!

Pounding out like a rhythm, to the brain...

My point with Al's band is that he never had a chance to "regularly" tour becuase of the immediate problems with his band's name. Regardless of wether the naming issue was totally Al's fault or not, the reality was that he never got momentum going to get the variety of bookings that would allow for the "indoor" and "outdoor" setlist variations that Mike/Bruce have done where more rarities are added to the more intimate, indoor theaters and whatnot. His shows were typically shorter than even the Mike/Bruce shows of the era, yet he was still attempting to add rarities. He tried doing the "Strawberry Festival" gig with the "long" version of "Heroes and Villains" complete with the "three score at five" bit. He was trying. It's too bad it failed for all the reasons we know it did.

I think even in his first year of touring in 1999, there were already attempted injunctions to stop him from using the name, and bookings were being cancelled. I recall some reports which may or may not be true of Al "BBFF" gigs being cancelled and replaced with shows from Mike's "Beach Boys", and so on.

That article was one of the most vicious and unbalanced things I've ever read, sourcing reportedly discredited information.  My gut tells me that Mike could not "fire" anyone but members in the band he runs under the license. It would be nice (pun intended) if some "agency/corporations/business associations/practitioner" would check that out.  If, however, Mike merely asserted that he was going back to the Touring Band, then revisit the "Band of 5," outside of his prior/ongoing commitments, it seems inflammatory (and insulting) for no reason.  He has already proven himself to be a reasonable man.  He agreed to the tour.  He interrupted his long existing business, to go on tour.  

These appear to be board room decisions.  Facebook is not the boardroom.  Consensus and agreement dominate with advice and counsel.  Informed opinions.  Not public opinion.  They have the public validation a million times over.  The love for the music is overpowering.

And, yes, it was more than great to see them up there, performing together.  But it was always presented and "represented" as a "window." In terms of "reunion and time." And not a "door" to dissipation of the Touring Band via polling and petition.  Or, in the alternative, relegating the "Big Band" to the "Touring Band." One might be considered a "subset" of the other.  Frankly, that might even be a "demotion." JMHO

People think they have the right to every nugget of personal information about a public figure.  Once they go off the stage, they re-enter their private lives.  Just as the new princess being photo-stalked as was her late mother-in-law, the great Princess Diana; this just "crosses the line."
 

But it takes on a life of its own. And that's why professional PR people know what they're doing. Every word counts, and every word deleted counts as well. Jus' saying. It can all be swept away with a clear, concise explanation by 'someone important', but in that vacuum you have this viral thing going on. I mean yahoo tracking, CBS Morning News...where does it end?  :-\

People who know me know that I'm no Mike apologist (and especially not a Bruce apologist), but I'm stunned by how one-sided and black n white this whole media onslaught has been. Part of me thinks, 'sucks for you Mike' but really the whole charade is quite unnecessary.

Put the blame where the blame is due - Mike f***ed this up by using the wrong words and saying what was already known by some fans on this board in such a way to make it sound like something other than what it really is.

We knew the "band" situation months ago - however, at the same time it was reckless of him to come out with this kind of statement and make it appear that the three original members were cut off from "The Beach Boys". And that's how it appeared to me, knowing what the backstory was the whole time I was reading coverage.

Now there are tens of thousands of people thinking Mike fired a few fellow Beach Boys, that's his own fault for saying what he said as he said it and not leaving such things to the professionals they pay to work the PR angle.

Or maybe he really wants to be "the bad guy" in some strange way, because this dust-up surely hasn't helped his image and probably won't help ticket sales for his upcoming tour either.

I don't know why people like this can't just bask in their success of performing their music to enthusiastic crowds, enjoy what the hell they have and what they get paid to do, savor the moment, and shut the f*** up.

Mike knows what he did, and his immersion in "ego" in the Vedic sense is surprising.  He know better than to create division and pain.  We need a change of heart, a clarification. . . .sorry, but all your analysis is so good and correct that I can add nothing but childish hope; the song is love and the children show the way (know the way?).

Has anybody recorded the CBS morning news report or found an online link? Pretty please.

For um, research purposes. Yeah. That's the ticket.

I wonder, regardless of his intentions, how Mike can live with all the hatred he has fostered over the years. I mean, how can such a well-known guy from one of the greatest bands of all time continuously f*** up in some way. Someone here said he said the wrong thing, or failed to be concise about hwat he meant. I can understand that, but how can he be making such grave mistakes? Has he even doen a press release to explain it since the firestorm erupted? Either he is the biggest moron in rock or he is the mightiest troll of rock! Have I just been trolled by Myke Luhv? I certainly hope so.

GF2002 - just for a minute, I'm going to be the devil's advocate. (That is easy after listening to my peers dump on my favorite band for over a decade. Like child's play.)

Just suppose the venues were after Mike for "reasonable assurance" of performance of these already booked shows.  And, the venues were nervous about the possibility that the Touring Band would be a no show, and, they would have ticket holders madder than hornets in August. We now know that people book their vacations around the Band.  So plane tickets, hotels, rental cars.  That multiplied by the number of ticket holders.  People freaking out, relying on the word of the venue that the music would be there with the Touring Band. (I held a ticket for the Mararishi tour, so I can feel their pain.)

Suppose further, that Mike was asked to make a public statement because the venue kept getting hundreds of phone calls asking if the "Band" was going to perform. The purpose of the statement would be to assure the ticket holders and venues.
They have a right to that assurance.  Given that this reunion tour is closing less than a day or so prior to the booked dates, what was he to do?  

This is just a "hypothetical."  ;)

Could he win?  Either way?  

Right, Mike's hand was forced by the incredible power of a dinky venue in Waco, Texas... inundated as they were by hundreds of phone calls. Nutty Jerry's was a bloodbath and a repeat would be unthinkable! This is Mike "Alpha Male" Love we're talking about here. You think he's gonna break a sweat over swatting down some podunk promoter like a bug if that's what he needed to do? Or turning on the charm and making it work somehow if that's what he wanted?

Rather than these convoluted reasons, wouldn't the obvious answer be that this is what Mike Love prefers doing with his time? I mean, he's said as much. The guy can't stop and has been in love with the "lean and mean" touring setup for how many decades now? He doesn't want to take orders or accommodate Brian's camp, deal with Al's craziness -- he wants to tour on his own terms with his own people working as employees and not equal partners. Less aggravation, more money, random pointing at Ladies of a Certain Age and Type, a comfortable routine.

 It's not because of the horrible pressure of living up to incredibly difficult to extract yourself from Waco commitments. This is what the man does and the time for spouting "whole is greater the sum of it's parts" bullsh*t is about OVER. Back to business as usual tomorrow.

Cabin-Luhv all the above names for Myke Luhv. Mightiest troll(that's what they like to call me around here), the biggest moron in rock, and don't forget what I've been saying for years here-The Most Hated Person In A Rock and Roll Band Ever-Myke Luhv. And remember, don't feed the troll(me)!! ;)

Is Mike performing for the Branch Davidians at their compound?

I'm thinking of a double night casino gig on a long holiday weekend.  I don't care if they were playing in a church hall.  A contract is a contract.  And as I recall (I could be incorrect.) there was confusion as to "whom" would be playing.  Which band.  

Frankly, after having seen them play at a charity event, I did not get the impression that they took those responsibilities any less seriously.  They gave it their "all" and did not deliver a lesser show, because they were not playing in front of "big wheels."  

The "artist", in the case Mike and "The Beach Boys" (minus Al, Brian, Dave), usually has little or no direct connection to how shows are booked, how tickets are made available and sold, how a concert at a given venue is advertised or promoted.

Basically, they are a small part of the machine, and on the level of The Beach Boys, there are professionals and professional agencies in place to handle these kinds of day-to-day logistics and operational matters, especially on tour.

Bands and artists pay (often very well) groups of agents, PR firms, agencies, marketers, and all who are employed under that umbrella. The artists will give interviews to promote upcoming shows in the local media, local to those towns and cities, but as far as actually doing the nuts-and-bolts organizing and scheduling, the artist needs to either get into a car and be driven to a radio or TV station, or simply take a phone call at a specific time to give a prescheduled interview.

The artist would not be responsible for any or all dealings with the actual ticketholders, as all of that is handled by those hired and paid to handle it...or contracted to do this service.

What Mike did was f*** it up by saying things that probably should not have been said in public while a tour is still going on.

There is no way around the responsibility finger pointing directly at him, because had he not said anything and left it to the professionals, there would be no room for misinterpretation nor any of the firestorm that has erupted over this.

I have to restate, even after knowing what this band scenario would be after the "Reunion" tour, the wording was awful. Which is why big stars hire pros to handle this kind of thing.

It is ironic that so far - as of right this moment - the only reaction from the BB/Mike camp has been an "official" canned statement from Mike's spokesperson. I think a personal reply would be in order, in light of what I see as a lot of hurt feelings and misunderstandings of a simple issue that was reported months ago.

That is not the picture I'm seeing.  This seems to be a fan petition, gone viral.  And, not under a buffered umbrella of a PR person. 

And while I realize that there are many layers from soup-to-nuts - from booking to performance, my take is that it is a very "hands on" operation, and the Band is very responsive to the requests of the people booking the band, and that means of doing business has made the Touring Band such a success. 

That old saying...if "you want something done right, you do it yourself."  Sure they have agents, etc., and they aren't lugging amps and equipment around, and are transported, but seem to have their finger on the pulse of their gigs.   

Outstanding, well written, defining, spot on, brilliant, captivating, honest, heartfelt, factual,intriguing , eye opening article. Well done, Guardian!!

I'd hate to see what you'd say if you read The Great Gatsby.

Nutty Jerry's Entertainment Complex didn't realize that the band they were booking was NOT the full 50th Anniversary version of the band...but rather Mike's touring band??  Shame on them for not doing their due dilligence.  Seriously? 

What is wrong with Mike et al stating the truth as it stood at the time in reaction to a misunderstanding by a vendor as to who was going to be at the future post reunion concerts to avoid future confusion? It seems to me the only real problem is a bunch of over reaction to a truth.

That's beyond Nutty Jerry's abilities.  That's why he refers to himself as Nutty Jerry.  

Mike and Brian and Al and David need to come forward and address this - stepping back a bit, the reaction to this is unreal. Putting out an "official spokesperson" comes off looking like a cop-out.

I can see some blame on all sides, actually, and especially if some venue owner can't read a booking contract it's not the band's fault. However, there seems to be a huge misunderstanding...HUGE...even within the BB's camp, and it needs to be addressed for the sake of the fans. It has already gotten ugly.

But why would an individual contract or booking issue with one venue on an upcoming tour be aired out in public? If it had stayed business-like on all sides, and no public comment was even offered on it short of advertising the actual gig when it came up, none of it would have been picked up as a news story. The vendor, the booking agency, management, etc. works it out and the deals are signed - no need to turn it into anything but clearing up a contract issue with a concert venue and promoter.

If the Mike and Bruce touring Beach Boys did not prepare for these inevitable issues to come up in advance, then we have to think someone in that camp who was booking these fall concerts may have dropped the ball, because anyone could see where there *might be* confusion as to which band will be booked. We, here, were even joking about that months ago on this board!

Is the suggestion now being offered that all of this was in reaction to a question about a single venue booking a show? All of those deals are handled with contracts and private meetings, so why not keep it that way instead of opening up a public case file on it?

Because it is now "newsworthy" - no less so, in 1967, when Carl was arrested for "draft dodging." And in the middle of a tour.  How would ticket holders reading in the newspapers, and watching TV, know that Carl would show up for the concert.
My first BB concert. April 28, 1967!  ;)

And, Carl did "appear and perform."

Here's the story (not the video) from this morning's show.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505270_162-57522120/beach-boys-members-to-reunite-perhaps-for-last-time-in-london/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505270_162-57522120/beach-boys-members-to-reunite-perhaps-for-last-time-in-london/)

Perhaps the full video will surface in the next few days, along with the panel discussion afterwards. Like I said, it's just an echo of the general story that's gone viral. Nuance? Who needs that? All you need is LOVE (and Bruce)

I'll restate that I was one who was joking about those poor non-fan spouses, girlfriends/boyfriends, etc who would buy Beach Boys tickets thinking it was for the "reunion" band versus the "Mike and Bruce" touring band, and possibly get a big surprise when they actually went to the show. But there should not be any confusion in the first place!

Now that is an easy one - if it isn't made explicitly clear who you are buying a ticket to see, it becomes an issue of fraud or deceptive business practices. In this case, I need to say it again, if there was even an inkling that there would be such confusion about which Beach Boys band would be playing at which venue, to the point where Mike himself had to step in and publicly "clarify" what was going on in an interview (the 2012 equivalent of adjusting the microphone at the HOF induction???  ;D  ), then someone who they are paying to book and promote these shows didn't do their job...period.

What bugs me even more, now, is that details we knew on this board months ago seem to have escaped the other band members, and not just the press/media.

I'd suggest there wouldn't have been such misunderstandings in the first place if it were handled correctly all around. I mean, seriously, you can't take a story this far out of context and blow it so far out of proportion without something to trigger that kind of reaction in the first place.

A failure to communicate has always been much of the problem regarding the band's history. Same as everyone else, I guess.

Actually, music journalist Alexis Petridis - who wrote this (very, very funny) article in the Guardian - is a very well-respected music writer and very well-informed, particuarly on the Beach Boys, of whom he is a big fan.
His reviews of The SMiLE Sessions, That's Why God Made The Radio and Brian's dreadful xmas album are brilliant, accurate, knowledgeable and well-written and i strongly recommend reading them.
So he got his source wrong on the notorious Mike Love turd story? Not a biggie (the error, not the turd). Like most Beach Boy fans i imagine he's probably reluctant to have to re-read Wouldn't It Be Nice, even if just skim-reading for a quote.
Feel free to dismiss as 'sh*t stirring' any articles by non-fan rush-job hacks, but Alexis Petridis knows his stuff... 

See "Getting Straight"(1967-68) Elliot Gould. Probably before your time. :lol

I wasn't dismissing the article or writer, I was just amused at the adjectiferous praise of OldMikeFan.

Seen it, it is from 1970. Guess you're too old to remember details like that.

Ah ok. Well for those who've never read him, here's Alexis's excellent review of All I Want For Xmas (written, of course, prior to the release of That Lucky Old Sun):

In the five years since meeting LA indie band the Wondermints, Brian Wilson has done things that no one had previously thought possible. The former Beach Boys leader has re-created his 1966 masterpiece, Pet Sounds, live. Last year, he finally completed the most famous unfinished album in rock history, 1967's Smile.

Amid the critical acclaim, however, Wilson and the Wondermints' other release of 2004, Gettin' in Over My Head, proved much more problematic. It too went to unbelievable lengths - panning 14 years' worth of unreleased songs for material and calling upon the services of Paul McCartney, Elton John and Eric Clapton - but proved only that Wilson was incapable of making a decent new album. With that in mind, and no more unfinished masterpieces to complete, the Wilson-Wondermints partnership should have retired with dignity intact after Smile. But Wilson is probably more famous now than at any time since the mid-1960s, and there is money to be made.

You can see why Wilson might want another go at producing a Christmas album: it was the one thing his rival Phil Spector achieved that Wilson, despite several attempts, couldn't top - at least until Spector managed to get himself charged with murdering a B-movie actress. Even at 22, when Wilson seemed capable of pretty much anything, he couldn't manage it. The Beach Boys Christmas Album was released in 1964, the year of I Get Around, Don't Worry Baby, Fun Fun Fun, and All Summer Long. But it was their fourth album in 12 months, their ninth in two years. Two weeks after it was released, Wilson had a nervous breakdown en route to a gig in Houston. Few Beach Boys releases bear such stark testament to the crippling pressure their songwriter and producer was under. The material is thin - on one bootleg, Wilson himself is heard describing Christmas Day as "a fucking piece of sh*t" - and the arrangements schmaltzy. Played next to Spector's legendary A Christmas Gift for You, it sounds desperately hokey.

Played next to their later effort, however - 1977's Merry Christmas From the Beach Boys - it sounds like a work of untrammelled genius. A contractual obligation album so pitiful that the label they were contractually obliged to turned it down, the 1977 effort features a song called (Loop de Loop Flip Flop) Santa's Got an Airplane and another containing the chorus: "Melekalikimaka is 'Happy Christmas' in Hawaiian talk-a." These, it should be noted, were the tracks eventually considered worthy of release 20 years later. They left the really bad stuff in the vaults.

That, sadly, is where What I Really Want for Christmas should be. For all its awfulness, at least Merry Christmas From the Beach Boys has a horrible fascination about it, albeit of the craning-your-neck-to-see-inside-the-ambulance variety. What I Really Want For Christmas is the least fascinating album of Wilson's career, and may well be the least fascinating album of Christmas - which, given the seasonal presence of G4 in the charts, is not a phrase to bandy lightly. It features two new songs: Christmassy, which is appalling, and the title track, which is even worse.

There are remakes of the two best tracks from the Beach Boys' Christmas Album, Little Saint Nick and The Man With All the Toys, which - thanks to the weirdly emotionless, strained bark that constitutes Wilson's default vocal setting these days - conclusively wring the last drops of joy from the material. The rest are carols, rendered in a peculiarly unappealing Pet Sounds-cum-1980s-AOR style. They serve no purpose whatsoever beyond proving that the Wondermints can do a pretty accurate Beach Boys impression, something even the most bewildered observer - plucking a name at random, Brian Wilson, say - must have worked out by now.

You have to concede that Wilson's relationship with the Wondermints has given him a new lease of life. But to what end? To bark his way haltingly through We Wish You a Merry Christmas like a hostage reading a prepared statement from his captors? If the organisation around Wilson really wanted to give Beach Boys fans a Christmas present, they should, as Pet Sounds suggested, go away for a while and leave this fragile, confused man in peace. This, by contrast, is pure humbug.

Consider this, I know I have been doing that after watching this thing grow and grow...This is CBS news, the LA Times, Rolling Stone - they're not fanzines, they're not rags, they're not someone's cheap-ass blog where they live out an "Almost Famous" fantasy of being a rock critic writing on an iPad while waiting for algebra class to start...these publications and sources have entire teams of supposed fact-checkers and legal advisers whose sole job it is to make sure the stories are accurate and that they won't get sued for libel or worse before they hit the public.

So it becomes a case of either those major media outlets being *that sloppy* in their journalism, or the way this was handled by the Beach Boys and certain members and managers being either that true, or them being that naive or incompetent to not see storm clouds forming over these comments.

Mike's press release didn't seem to be aimed at clearing up confusion about one particular gig. It read as a warning (couched in favorable terms, the good vibrations will continue, etc.) to any and all who would read the statement that after 9/28, you will be getting his version of the BB's at any future show. Yes, informationally, this is 100% accurate. Nobody is debating that. They are debating the timing of it, and the need to do it at all. Additionally of course is the issue of stopping more potential reunion shows.

AGD awhile back pointed out correctly that the press release is a bit of extra CYA in case venues or promoters or ticket buyers express concern or confusion. But it probably wasn't even absolutely needed. Venues that are already booked may have asked for such a press release, but that (as with most everything) is only speculation.

And consider that anyone in a leadership role in either the booking, management, or publicity departments in general for any party involved should have anticipated and planned ahead for such confusion, and perhaps have NOT...

...I repeat...NOT...have allowed any band member to issue statements like this, especially before a major gig generally seen as the last stop of a successful, positive tour.

But, that's the Beach Boys for ya.  :) It really has saddened me to see all of this trying to overshadow the actual positives of this past summer.

If it does overshadow the tour and album, it is the fault of the "fans" in my opinion, who find far, far more enjoyment in hating Mike Love than they do in loving The Beach Boys.

As much as fan-dom gets taken to extremes, that only goes so far when you now have major media outlets reporting the story as it has been reported today. Those media people for the most part are not that type of fan who decides to use their free time to circulate petitions about what their fave band The Beach Boys should or shouldn't do - they're in the business of reporting (and making money for their sponsors), and look at what the coverage has produced so far! If it were the online petition people only doing this, we'd chalk it up to typical fanboy antics, but this went beyond that realm. Now "The Eagles" have chimed in...oh, great!

It is surreal to see all of this.

The media caters to the closest point of group hysteria. Without all the hatred, they wouldn't bother to sensationalize it. Also, the behaviour of the "fans" can't be helping the situation within the band at all. They should thank themselves when the true Beach Boys never reunite again.

You make a really valid point about social media.  As fun as it seems, and a game changer socially, as we've seen with Egypt last year, it can be treacherous. And, here, wow, the waters are muddied.  You also make a good point as to clarity for people such as non-fan spouses who buy tix, and don't know, that as a result of the reunion, there might be confusion.

It is cool to post photos, and updates.  Some people put out TMI and minute-by-minute stuff. Most people have Facebook pages, and now employers feel they can investigate whether a person drinks,  and voila, the job candidate has posted, or had a friend post a photo of them dancing on a table!  No job!  So prudence is much in need for this kind of media.  And people and old friends can connect, but, just as many horror stories emerge.  

I read that book and I was troubled reading it.  I found it overly voyeuristic as Facebook can be.  And some of these bullying cases and deaths by suicide have resulted from this compulsion to "put it all out there."  That media comes with a price.  Is facebook a "tool" or a "weapon?"  

And,  now, there is the  "two banner" phenomenon.  We (here, for the most part) know the differences, because we've made it our business to know who the players are, but the casual fans might not.  And, for them,  a statement such as was made, might have been required.  Was it a "pink slip?"  I guess that is the question or the crux of the misunderstanding.

Exactly. I'm constantly seeing reposts / shares by casual or non fans who feel free to pontificate and pile on. In that world, I'm trying to calm people off the ledge and engage them in the big picture. But when I'm amongst fans, I'm tempted to push Mike and Bruce off the same ledge! Funny that...

I kind of feel the same way when I discuss the economics of baseball and the bottom-dollar skinflint ownership of the Pittsburgh Pirates.

Indeed :(

I know this won't be a popular opinion: but perhaps if so many "fans" hadn't spent the last 30 + years openly and gleefully bashing, trashing, insulting, denigrating Mike Love, he might, at this late date, consider giving a rats ass what they think about his decisions or behavior.

it's just something to think about.

I disagree that it's the fault of the fans, or that they enjoy hating Mike more than loving the BB's. I dunno what's being said on facebook and twitter and all of that, where a bunch of semi-fans or even non-fan s***-disturbers can easily pile on Mike (or anybody else).

But among fans on this board, for instance, I'm seeing largely a sense of our love for the Beach Boys being the root of frustration over Mike's recent decisions and announcements. That magic of the reunion only works with all of them there, including Mike.

As long as there is the ability to put together all five surviving Beach Boys with a great backing band and have them do a FREAKING 61-SONG SET like they did last night, I'm more than willing to say that that is now the standard by which anything that comes after it will be measured, in terms of live shows anyway.

I wasn't speaking of this board. But it is a mistake to assume the attitudes and behaviour here reflects that of the fanbase at large. What I saw on Facebook and other places is fairly horrifying.

As long as we're splitting hairs here, "adjectiferous", is not a word in the English language. The one you should have used is adjectival. :p

I know that, I just wanted to evoke the hilariosity of your praiseification.

Right.  The magic was there during the reunion....but the reunion is now over.  Mike is moving on with his own band, clearly not labeling it as a reunion.  The world goes on and Mike isn't stopping for anyone or anything. 


The more I think about this, the more I realize just how impossible it is to think that this current arrangement could possibly go on forever.  It just can't.  It's as if we all just attended the best house party in the world and we want the host and hostess to throw a party every weekend now.  Easy for us to say...we're just attending.  We're not the ones planning it, preparing for it and paying for it.  They'll probaly reunite again...just not right now.  Until then, things go back to how they were.  The band has survived Dennis' passing and then Carl's passing without even blinking an eye; they still marched on.  Why would this reunion suddenly change the gameplan?

Right. So, you know, just ignore all the petty lawsuits, dubious politics and horrendous Hall of Fame speeches... Mike acts like an arse, hence people - fans and others - think he's one. Something else to think about.

Let's all chill out and head over to Nutty Jerry's.  It will be a nutty time!

I'll need to pass on the blood sausage app but I'll try one of those "Fried pickles." NUTTY!

http://nuttyjerrys.com/images/NuttyJerrys%20Menu.pdf

We probably shouldn't go while Don Gay's Championship Bullride National Finals is going on, tho.

What some fans are saying is not surprising.  I did a search of Beach Boys videos a few months ago on YouTube, and almost all of them were filled with really ugly comments about Mike Love.  Even if I hated Mike Love, I can't imagine saying things like "I'd like to kick Mike Love in the nutsack until he vomits," or wish other terrible things on him.   Along with more than a few comments that Mike Love was the one person responsible for Brian Wilson becoming mentally ill.  There's actually quite a few people on the Internet who seem to believe that.  I'm sure a lot of it comes from reading Brian's "autobiography" or articles that were inspired by either that or the Leaf and Priore books. The truth is more complex than that, of course, but it amazes me that people take what happens to Brian Wilson so personally.  It's a little scary and if I were Brian and his family, I'd worry more about a few of those fans and their excessive admiration than I would about Mike Love.

Oh, I'm sure Brian has been absolutely petrified of his fans for decades.

Is Nutty Jerry's considered a good gig in that area? I guess the odd name suggests a booking worthy of Spinal Tap, but without knowing the place or the area I don't want to assume too much.  ;D

Will the puppet show be before or after The Beach Boys?

As much as I'd like to hear more about that place, I don't want the facts to disturb my mental picture of a Texas entrepreneur named "Nutty Jerry"

As long as the Boys have bigger dressing rooms than the puppets.  ;D

I'm thinking Ol' Jerry might have a special tap installed in his place that pours barbecue sauce instead of beer.

Or maybe the puppets and the Boys all share the same wardrobe stylist:

http://www.maryrobinettekowal.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Top-17.jpg

That  ^^^^ is an excellent article/review. Obviously, I agree with it. OK, back to today's debacle...

I understand this sentiment. But I refer back to some earlier posts where I mentioned that I don't think wanting more reunion shows is some kind of pie-in-the-sky, wishful thinking, can't-get-over-it sentiment when three of the five guys are willing to do it and they aren't getting any younger. Nobody believed this reunion would or could go on forever. In fact, part of the reason I for one have a bit of a sense of urgency about doing more reunion stuff is because the time is not on anybody's side. If they are ever inclined to do more reunion stuff, 2013 is better than waiting until the 55th or 60th anniversary.

For me, the sadness about possibly no future reunion shows and Mike going back out is not about some large conceptual thing where they need to "go out on a high note" or "not tarnish the name" or anything like that. It's a very immediate, functional issue of a band that currently has a ready-to-go awesome lineup of players and songs who could very easily do more of these shows, and three of the guys at least willing to do it (and I'd wager Bruce probably wouldn't mind doing more reunion stuff either, and if he does mind, well, that's a whole seperate discussion regarding Bruce and his weird glee about a 2/5 Beach Boys lineup).

If Brian didn't want to do more shows, or if the shows had only been so-so, or if David Marks and Al Jardine had a prior committment to go to carpentry school; if there were any apparent hindrances other than apparently Mike not wanting to do it (and Mike certainly isn't the reason in and of itself; he has reasons he may not want to do it), then any wishes for more shows would indeed be wishful thinking, living in la-la land, etc.

HeyJude, I really enjoy your writing and reading your thoughts. But, could you please stop saying that Mike doesn't want the reunion to continue. Please.

I know you said "apparently" in the above post, but you are insinuating that it's true. I have expressed my displeasure with people taking certain quotes as fact - due the history of The Beach Boys showing us that. They are all full of sh--. But, in this specific case, Mike said that he WANTED to record another Beach Boys album with Brian. And, he NEVER said that he didn't want to continue touring with Brian, Al, and David. He was only referring to the already booked Mike & Bruce shows happening IMMEDIATELY after the reunion shows are over. Come on, you know better than that. I don't understand why you keep going down that road.

I just feel there is more going on here than any of us fans currently know.  We found out a few months ago that Mike was going to carry on with his "Mike & Bruce" show after the reunion tour was done.  So why is it now a problem for everyone, including the other Beach Boys themselves?  Something just does not add up...

Thanks for your well-thought out words as well. I do dig this type of discussion. I do try to throw in words like allegedy/apparently and so on to try to indicate something that I don't have irrefutable evidence of. Let me be more specific: Jon Stebbins' recent comments concerning offers for future shows, coupled the few statements we do have from Al and Brian, indicate that they wished to carry on in a more immediate term with reunion shows and they feel Mike does not.

Let me pull a few pertinent quotes from the "press release":

"The post 50th anniversary configuration will not include Brian Wilson, Al Jardine and David Marks. The 50th Reunion Tour was designed to be a set tour with a beginning and an end to mark a special 50-year milestone for the band."

To me, the above sentences indicate that any post-50th anniversary configuration will not include the other three. It doesn't say "the handfull of shows already booked for October will not include Brian/Al/David." It certainly doesn't emphatically rule out any more reunion shows. But it's a more definitive statement than speaking specifically to a few October shows. So I don't think Mike's statement was meant to only refer to the already-booked October shows.

Another quote:

Several North American dates in October have already gone on sale and concert dates will continue to be announced for The Beach Boys which include Rock and Roll Hall of Famers Mike Love and Bruce Johnston supported musically and vocally by Christian Love, Randell Kirsch, Tim Bonhomme, John Cowsill and Scott Totten, who serves as musical director.

Again, this clearly states that *additional* shows with this configuration will continue to be announced.

Clearly, Mike has not ruled out ever doing more albums and tours with the guys. But as time goes by, the chances of getting this crew back together will not increase, at least in my opinion.  Also, if Mike had a strong feeling that they will do more shows and albums at some point, he could have put some bit in that press release vaguely referring to simply *hoping* to do more recording and touring. That he didn't even include a small statement along those lines tells me he's not even leaning strongly towards that, or at least not willing to commit to something else, which is fine. It is true that shows need to be booked well in advance, so if we start seeing him booking shows soon into 2013, that tells me he's not interested in any reunion touring soon.

Well, you can't say that I didn't ask ya.... :-D

I'm starting to burn out on this subject (not that I can't be re-charged by a boneheaded post), so I can't engage in much more dialogue regarding this mess. But, I would like to ask you a fairly straightforward question. But first, imagine - or assume(?) - that this could happen.

What if Brian knocked on Mike's hotel door, and the two of them spent a few moments talking. And, Brian said to Mike, "You know, Mike, I can't believe how much I enjoyed this tour. I really didn't want to do it, and I had my doubts, but I'm glad we did it. We were pretty good for a bunch of old men weren't we? I actually had such a good time that I wouldn't mind doing more touring like this. What do YOU think about that?"

If that would happen (imagine it happening), and knowing what you know about The Beach Boys, what do think Mike would say to Brian?

That Petridis review is hyperbolic nonsense. As is basically everything of his I've seen.

Because, really, writing a review of a Christmas record is really the place to suggest the lead singer is being held hostage by his wife and managers.

Just say you don't like the freaking album. It's fine.

I appreciate your response.

But how much do these issues really weigh in when you have to perhaps consider the fact that although Mike enjoyed himself on this tour he does not necessarily 1) like the large crew/stage/setup to perform shows 2) like the costs of such a tour and 3) enjoy walking on eggshells near Brian and/or his managers/people?  Time not being on their side is a valid concern but when Mike is possibly faced with these much larger issues it is no surprise that he'd want a break from that for a while.  

It looks to me that you're looking at this at a very emotional level.  Glass half empty kind of thing.  The press release is meticulously worded so that no confusion can occur for any dopey fan out there who thinks the show they're seeing at the Red Roof Inn is still the reunion show that toured this summer.  The press release does not rule anything out for future plans but mainly rules out any misconception for any shows in the forseeable future.  It needed to be said.  The way it came across may have been taken badly but that's nothing a new press release 3 or 6 months from now announcing a new reunion tour won't fix.  We should all stop looking at this as some end of the world doomsday thing but rather with just a little bit more foresight and rational thinking.

Yeah, there is certainly some inciting factor that we aren't seeing. Maybe a deal that is hinged on the reunion guys being the only group that is called the Beach Boys from now on? I don't think for half a second that Brian Wilson feels sad he's not invited to Nutty Jerry's. I could believe that Al/Dave/Brian don't want Mike watering down their newly reestablished street cred and did this to force him to cancel the upcoming gigs. But even that seems like a stretch. There has to be something more.

w/r/t the discussion of Mike not wanting to tour with the reunion guys in the future, I can't believe that that is anywhere near true. Let's not forget Mike's speech at the Cal Saga Grammy Museum show. The Beach Boys is Mike's whole life, personal and professional. He gives credit to Brian at every opportunity. He knows what a this reunion has meant to the fans and I'm confident that it has meant infinitely more to him.

I would bet good money that this all comes down to poor communication and binding contracts. It will be a blip in the BB history within a year.

Whether the reunion Beach Boys record or tour again will all come down to Brian('s camp.)

Why can't we just take this factual statement as a factual statement at the time it was given? What it says is all it means. Brian, Al and David agreed to set amount of dates in a given timeframe. The reunion tour is coming to the established end and the non-reunion dates are about to begin. How is it bad timing to state what was agreed to especially when there is already confusion because of the reunion tour.

Frankly it seems childish of the Brian and Al to presume something other than they agreed to. And what the heck is up with all of their presumptuous statements and linking to dumbass "news" and insulting petitions. That petition flat out insults Mike and they are sharing it when the statement that it references says only what they agreed to. What is this, kindergarten. Lordy Miss Mitchell, I'm embarrassed for them.

I think all of the issues you raise may well very be some of if not most of the main issues that would lead to Mike wanting to step away from more reunion shows right now. The question is whether any given fan feels that those are valid enough concerns to warrant not doing more reunion shows. Mike sacrificed for the reunion tour, no question. It's all relative of course, as he may have sacrificed more money for less but still substantial money, sacrificed total control over all aspects for some control but still more than most of the people in the organization (the "50 Big Ones" production company is supposedly Brian, Mike, and Joe Thomas), and so on.

Mike may not want to make those sacrifices to make way for amazing additional reunion shows. He can do that, and fans can choose to say that such a decision still paints him in a negative light.

I make no assumptions about what the future holds. It's not a doomsday scenario for me. But it also doesn't appear to me that Mike just booked a few shows on his own and is really actively supporting more reunion activity. If that is the case, then that is another artistic decision Mike has chosen to make regarding this band that I feel reflects negatively on him and is a bummer for the band and its fans.

Good question. My guess is it would be something non-committal, wavering between trying to put a positive spin on it but still coming across as kind of egotistical and interested in the bottom line/profit. Somethink like "Yeah, Brian, I had a good time on the tour too. I'd love to maybe do some more stuff at some point too. But we gotta write some more stuff together, like more upbeat stuff. The show is great, but that band is really expensive. I don't think you're that into doing a lot of gigs all year long. So I'll go out next year, and maybe we'll try to write and record later on, and then maybe we can talk about some more shows."

Nowhere in the answer would Al or David even come up as topics, nor would their possible interest in doing more shows sooner.

Simple: It sounds like Brian, Al, and David *changed their minds* and want to do more reunion gigs. Some fans feel that is the most wonderful decision changing we could ask for.  :)

So then, we can agree that the reasons above are very plausible for why Mike would want to take a breather from any more reunion shows (and why perhaps he had no problem booking more shows after this tour)?  Well if we're all so very cautious of Brian, Al and Dave's "feelings" about wanting them to continue, shouldn't we also consider Mike's feelings?  If we can agree that these issues are his concerns---why should we FORCE Mike to put them aside and push through with more reunion shows when it still doesn't solve any of those issues (the large scale show, high costs, and dealing with Brian/his peeps)?  Those issues will STILL be there.  Regardless if we do not believe those issues hold any water---they hold water for Mike.  We have to accept that--and most of all respect that.  Why should we respect Brian's wishes and not Mike's?  The secret for this tour was that everyone WANTED to be there.  Everyone wanted to sacrifice their own issues for this to work.  The expiration date for this tour has now passed.  Mike is ready to go back to a less stressful arrangement for a little while.  Is that really so bad?

Mike's feelings don't count, remember? He's just the balding, no talent hack who ruined Smile and should be pumping gas for a living, blah blah blah.

Absolutely it is.  Well if all parties are really up for it...why not make a bigger compromise if they REALLY want to continue?  They've done the large scale tour....can they scale it back?  Can they skip the large stage?  Bring the prices down?  Play the casinos once in a while?  It seems that there are two extremes here and no one is suggesting an even middle area for them to work with here.....

As a fan, I'm obvious biased towards the feelings and decisions of band members that result in more amazing reunion shows. Mike is placing his interests first, presumably. So are all the others. Their interest is in working together as a full group and doing more shows. Mike's interest is in making more money and having more control and less headaches. Makes sense for him, but he is going to be characterized thusly by fans. Of course it's not literally as simple as Mike placing money over everything else, but that certainly *appears* to be part of what's going on if the possible reasons for him not wanting more reunion shows right now that we've discussed are accurate.

After Mike's statement they proclaimed this, right? Mike's statement was before they expressed these desires to continue on the non-reunion tour and started linking to petitions and such and was accurate and according to the wishes the others had approved at the time the statement was given. Is that right?

I'm certainly open for seeing some evidence of some compromise. It doesn't sound like it got to that level of discussion, though. Is it as simple as more reunion shows being offered, Brian, Al, and David saying yes and Mike (and thus Bruce) saying no, end of story? That we don't know.

Yes, of course. The statements from Al and Brian and the petitions were in direct response to Mike's press release. That's a main crux of this whole debacle, that the others didn't know of Mike's decision or plans, or at least the degree to which he would carry on his own band and not do reunion shows.

Regardless of the money issue...you don't think the "headaches" as you put it aren't valid enough?  Dealing with the added stress of more people/crew and then most of all the Brian management team--isn't something one would feel sympathetic for, regardless of your biases as a fan?  That issue alone is bigger than the "money" issue, to me.

That's a tough question, and one we of course can't speak to for certain. I would lean towards what may well be a slightly less sympathetic position that they all did it in 2012, and are still touring comfortably (by industry standards) and making plenty of money, so it could be done again in 2013, and/or could have been done on a slightly extended schedule in 2012 and/or 2013.

The BB's don't owe us anything, let me make that clear. That's a debate that has raged in every fan community I've been a part of.

I believe it's a tough question for many to answer because no one simply wants to answer it.  Can't we all simply admit that it may possibly not be "all about the money" but rather it's Mike's resistance to deal with Brian/management and their issues?  Only Mike can answer that but knowing what we know about Brian, how he works and how much his band (and Jeff) have to support him, working with Brian is a HUGE package deal.  It's not just Brian you're getting.  It's Brian plus about 20 additional people (that includes Melinda, of course).  Mike played nice and worked around them for this special anniversary.  At this point, Mike hasn't shared when or how he'd work with them again.

I find it very convenient that we've all now just turned a blind eye to Brian and his issues, and we have "no idea" why Mike has hesitations about working with Brian again.

Well the fan reaction and the Boys reactions make no sense. So Mike is doing only what was agreed. They set the rules, Mike states their rules, their rules apply, but some how Mike is wrong because he said what they agreed to. So where since the Boys have expressed their disregard for their own rules has Mike said that more reunion shows are off the table, or anything that justifies the fan/Boys reactions and that petition?

I do think it's simply a question of what we value. We're ardent fans, so the big band, diverse setlist shows are things we think are inherently worthwhile. Mike likes to play quickly and easily, do a lot of shows, and not be encumbered by a lot of hand-holding of various parties. These are entirely justifiable positions, but they are quite separate concerns from the artier ones that a lot of fans hold.

Mike, going into this, certainly did not intend to give up the way he spends most of his time -- touring with Bruce and their small band. So even if he sympathizes with the artistic concerns (and I'm sure he can comprehend them, if not necessarily agree with them), they're not going to retool how he lives his life and spends his career. He's already decided that, for better or worse. Brian and Al have accepted lives of sporadic touring and a lot of time at home. Mike has never accepted that, and I'm sure he sees this new action as an attempt to make him semi-retire. Not going to happen.

As for the challenges of working with the BW org, I'm sure there's truth to that as well. But you can't separate Brian from his hangers-on. They are part of the package, and how he manipulates situations for his own ends. Brian orchestrated the reunion, and clearly sees himself as Mike's equal (or superior) in the band's balance of power. That must unsettle Mike a bit, especially as Brian is a tad less easily manipulated these days.


They aren't rules. They are simply agreements. Some parties wanted the agreements changed, and their feelings were hurt when others refuse to do so. That's how human beings work. Humans aren't contract-robots. We have feelings, and what those feelings are evolve over time.

All likely possibilities. But a project like that is inherently a compromise, so I lean towards seeing Mike being hesitant about doing this sort of thing again, and others being more enthusiastic about it, as Mike being less willing to compromise. Mike apparently had this production company with Brian and Joe Thomas to do this tour, and we've also heard pretty much everybody say that Mike was the "gatekeeper" of the setlist, and had one of "his" guys as co-musical director, so I think he still appeared to yield a good amount of control on this reunion. Just because it was less than his autonomous, solo "Beach Boys" operation, doesn't mean he's being extremely put out by making it a compromise situation.

I'm glad Brian has his confidence back and is willing to deal as Mike's equal in the BBs.

Um, yeah, I guess this may just boil down to whether one likes the idea of "sticking to the agreement" more than some of the band changing their minds and doing more reunion gigs. I vote for the latter, and Mike's statement/decision is the former apparently. That's why we're getting this reaction. It makes sense if you like the idea of more reunion shows.

Mike's statement is based on all there was when he gave the statement: the agreement of the Boys. You are holding Mike accountable to a choice that is not made with the statement, is not address in the statement because it was not on the table from the Boys at the time of the statement, and hasn't been expressed by Mike.

If offers for additional shows were made, then there may have been an offer "on the table" at some point.

This isn't a logic problem. It's about human feelings and desires. They change. They are hedged. Sometimes they are hidden.

Yeah, it sucks that people aren't all automatons or easy to read. But that's the way it is.

Just because someone knows he's good looking and smarter than most people doesn't mean he runs around telling everyone about it at the top of his lungs, in the bluntest possible fashion. It may be true, he may have the right to do it, but it surely proves annoying to most folks after awhile.

The offer from the Boys about doing more shows then they agreed to was not on the table until after the statement, it hadn't been publically proclaimed. It would have been pretty presumptious of Mike to release a statement about continuing the reunion before the Boys had agreed to it.

All these points are very good and lend a good perspective to the dynamics that could be going on.
Here's a further scenario for consideration: The scheduled concerts by M&B are at venues that financially can't support the reunion group; being scheduled the reunion group can't take on more concerts because of conflicting dates etc.; Brian et. al. don't want to do a lot of dates going forward in 2013 but M&B do; its difficult (impossible?) to have some concerts as M&B and others as the entire outfit - that's a PR nightmare.
There really is no easy answer to the situation given everyone's perceived preferences, the financial implications; and otherwise. No one is right and no one is wrong.

To comment on Justin's observation about respecting Mike's feelings, I can only speak for myself - the clock is ticking. Let him continue on his way and perform some quick and dirty little shows at the Poughkeepsie community theater, but come January I'll be very interested to see what happens next.

If, and it's a very big if, Mike's appreciation of a down-scaled hit machine is the norm, then he's fully deserving of the scorn and ridicule of the fan base. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Spock said that, and I agree. Till then, let him play his dinky shows and let Bruce get the crowd up on their feet.

That`s something that I can`t believe for a second. Members of this board have known about the gigs coming up for months, Bruce has said in interviews for ages that the reunion tour has a definite end date by which time they have to be finished, Brian I think was asked about M&B South American shows a while back. Are we seriously suggesting that Brian and Al, two members of BRI, were unaware of this and that all of their managers/associates were also ignorant. They knew.

The reason it came to a head when the press release was issued is because then the band members were asked what their opinions were. Naturally they said that they wanted the reunion to continue.

Agreed. Great post.

You know what's kind of a shock to me...that they didn't have an end game for this whole thing.  Or perhaps, given what is sometimes implied about lines of communication in the band, I shouldn't be.  But it just seems like something that should have been discussed and gamed out and some kind of unified statement put out there that had a nod to everyone's desires (including the fans') but made a clear statement about what was going to happen next.

I can certainly imagine a few (very plausible, though I have no inside knowledge) scenarios why that didn't happen.  But I guess it's just surprising, becuase that's what bands on that level supposedly do.  Have a business meeting, figure out the plan, let tempers be heard, reach a decision, and the publicist sorts it out.  Seems like things just moved along parallel lines and (pure speculation here) Mike wanted to get out in front of an evolving situation that he might not be able to control and (not for the first time) made himself look bad in the process.

Given the different people and centers of power involved, it's amazing it held together as long as it has.  There's something poetic in a way about it having this kind of period on it, even though there's a bitter aftertaste to it.  It was a really impressive achievement.

Indeed. Definitely a few possible scenarios, and some that may have been more complicated than meets the eye.


I'll throw a [potentially worthless] possibility out there...and my apologies if any of this has already been more succinctly stated:


That is, even though the tour may have originally been agreed upon by all parties as a finite plan with a definite end game, and possibly agreed upon by a certain member *only* with those conditions firmly in place (ML), I can't help but wonder if another certain member went into this whole shebang hoping and wishing he could change that game plan all along, despite what he may have openly agreed to (AJ). All the while hoping that, yet, another (obviously key and fragile) member might find out he didn't want the tour to be so finite after all, and once he found himself actually enjoying everything again (BW). In return, giving member number two the leverage he hoped for all along to change the ultimate outcome (AJ again). Hence, the maneuvering and power plays we're seeing right now in order to reconcile all these agendas, and the resulting disarray that has occurred. In a nutshell, the end game might only be muddled because some members' motives or intents with the tour reunion may not have been perfectly "pure" or definite to begin with, while another's may have been as clear as a bell.


Thus, I'm not sure that any initial communication may have prevented or resolved this with so many fuzzy variables in play. Though, at the same time, I do have to wonder what kind of verbal evolution might have occurred, if any, while the tour was taking place? As Al hinted in the RS interview, communication and camaraderie weren't exactly what he had hoped for at that point.


(**The above scenario -- pure speculation on my part of course**)


Look, it's no secret that Al has wanted to get the "real" Beach Boys back together for some time. At one point he called it his dream. Can any fan blame him? He's also the one major player with probably the most to win or lose at this point (And I say this with the utmost respect for Al. He's unquestionably my favorite vocalist on that current BBs stage, and he got to sing what is, arguably, the band's first masterpiece-of-a-track in decades. Maybe their last.). When he joined up with Brian's tour on his own dime, I'd reckon it wasn't just to exchange pleasantries -- musical or otherwise. I'd also reckon that Al realizes how difficult it might be to put it all back together, again, if everyone parts ways at this point. Especially in the always complicated world that involves Brian. Thus, I'm not really surprised at what's happening right now. I'm also not surprised that Brian would be the wild card in all of this, or that Mike would be the one with his own unwavering plan. I also think early 2013 will probably be the tipping point where we see whether everything can truly be reconciled. Once those upcoming dates are satisfied by Mike and Bruce (and we also see whether those dates or personal relationships suffered any fallout from what's currently happening), I think we'll know where everyone's true motives and future intentions lie. At that point, there will be no place to hide in this card game. Let's just hope that a certain fragile, and noted wild card member is still interested in playing along. Without him, all this is academic.


Personally...I wouldn't mind more new music. I'll always want more new music from the unit as a complete whole. Though, if it doesn't happen, I really can't complain in light of what we got this year. For me, "Summer's Gone" would be the perfect capper to an amazing musical story.

First post here, but I have been a longtime lurker.

I think the main problem here is that Mike scheduled shows with him and Bruce so close to the end of the reunion. I mean, isn't there a M&B show tomorrow night! If Mike had waited until the new year, I don't think he would have gotten the kind of splashback he is getting now. When the reunion was announced, I honestly thought that the only BB shows in 2012 would be for the reunited band.

This also gets at something that I have been thinking of concerning Mike--his relentless need to be on the road. I mean, he just played 75 shows over 5 months, he's 71 years old, yet he is going right back on the road, with barely a break. Ever since I read that blog post from his daughter that someone recently posted about how he has never really been a father to her and how she misses him, I have been thinking about sad it is that Mike obviously uses the road to avoid connecting with his family. (I have no doubt that he would do 365 shows a year if he could.) You would think that an emotionally healthy person, after spending the better part of the last six months touring, even if he loved being on the road more than anything else, would be happy to spend at least a few months home with his family. The fact that Mike can't do that is something I find very sad and very telling about how deep his insecurties are, and how they will most likely never be resolved.  

Some interesting perspective there. Welcome.

The cynic in me might say that, right or wrong, Mike knew all along that booking dates *immediately* after this tour ended would be his best chance to "ride the wave" or snag a few more flies...so to speak. Unfortunately, as you stated, he may not have realized the backlash that would outweigh any possible financial uptick. More importantly, and considering those dates that were already canceled by the promoter in the summer after finding out it wasn't the real deal, I'm not sure he's completely out of the woods yet with these upcoming shows. Press releases can only do so much. The court of public opinion may indeed have their own opinion after the viral stuff.


(All speculation on my part, again, of course)

Please remember that these Mike & Bruce shows were originally scheduled before the reunion dates and originally to start well over a month after the original reunion ending date. The UK shows were added much later in the tour.

Post of the century! Great writing, Dave.

I just wanted to add that it was Al, more than any of the guys, who in interviews made it a point to say that he/they were making SACRIFICES in leaving their other bands and careers to reunite. Whenever he would say this, I would immediately say to myself, "Yeah, right, Al..." By no means do I hate or even dislike Al; I like ALL of The Beach Boys. But, to me, Al has very little credibility. For years, I wondered why Mike was dismissing Al, considering they were once very close. I even asked the question(s) on this board when threads concerning the Summer In Paradise sessions (without Al) and Al's subsequent dismissal from the touring band came up. Very few direct, factual answers were given, just speculation. I don't have to ask the questions anymore.

Exactly, and that's an important point, maybe THE point. And, somebody (I think it was Nicko1234) made the point awhile back.

People are finding yet another reason to criticize Mike by saying, "I can't believe how SOON Mike and Bruce are going out after the last reunion gig..." But, originally it wasn't that way. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the reunion tour EXTENDED by a month and a half to two months? (As an aside, obviously Mike agreed to those extra dates). If they didn't extend the reunion tour, Mike & Bruce would've waited about two months before resuming touring, and as somebody else pointed out awhile back, things would've died down and it wouldn't "looked" as bad, as if Mike & Bruce couldn't wait to get out there again.

Did I mention that Mike must've agreed to the extra/extended reuinion dates?

Wasn't the Sept. 30 M&B date just recently added?

Yes, and it looks to be a benefit show in San Diego.

we need answers, after our 10 days of acute and often generous speculation and rationalization.

Are these Bruce and Mike shows mainly contractual and not indicative of the band's ending. Is the next album scheduled to start production; will they support the next single with full band appearances; will a"we are no longer saturating the market and are ready to be out there" tour occur with all the members. . . . .

answers answers answers. . . .

I think the timeframe during which these October shows were booked only matter in terms of talking about how the timing of that press release seemed bad in PR terms. Doing those gigs so soon after the reunion gigs just looks bad. I'm less concerned with when those shows are taking place, and more concerned with booking those and likely more shows being an indicator of not particularly even entertaining the idea of more reunion shows.

I refer back to one of my old questions, which is why did he have to book October gigs at all? That was totally by choice. Why not just go take a break until the new year? The answer may well be all the standbys, "He's a road warrior, that's what he does", or "He wants to generate more revenue", etc. Those are all reasons that make sense for Mike, no question. But he is then going to be painted in a negative light accordingly if he needed so desperately to do more gigs.

The fact that they didn't at least have one part of the game plan for this reunion set up, which was to perhaps institute some sort of "no non-reunion shows in 2012 to avoid confusion and bad PR" does speak to adamghost's point that even as dysfunctional as the BB's can apparently be, it's surprising they didn't have a little bit more set in stone.

Do we really know that any or all of these October  tour dates were scheduled before the reunion dates? Were the scheduled before the reunion tour began, or scheduled before the reunion shows were even schedules? I don't think we know, and I think there is some circumstantial evidence that, at the very least, these October dates could have been cancelled, rescheduled, or postponed if they were indeed booked a long time ago.

I think it's quite possible that post-reunion shows were still being booked or firmed up after the reunion tour was scheduled and perhaps had begun.

I also don't understand why it matters much that these October dates were some sort of "prior committment." First of all, I'm no 100% convinced that is absolutely the case. But even if it is, we've seen evidence that they are going to book and play more Mike/Bruce shows. The press release states that more shows with this lineup will be announced. I think Mike's ultimate intentions for the immediate aftermath of the reunion tour never changed, either before, during, or after any stage of the reunion. That's totally his decision, but again it will paint him in a negative light with some fans because it may indicate less flexibility in keeping a reunion going sooner rather than later.

I think we need to follow Adam's lead here and just sit back for a moment and marvel at what an amazing accomplishment this tour has really been!! I remember back when I bought my Irvine tickets, I honestly felt in the pit of my stomach that the tour would likely implode before they even got to Irvine. Or, at the very  least, Brian would have quit and been back at home in bed. We're talking about a very complicated family/old friends situation here that just also happens to be a corporation employing various configurations of people. I don't think anyone here (other than OSD who was already 40 when Surfin Safari was released) is 70 + or still in the same band with their high school friends. We can only imagine what such relationships will be like at that juncture. I say we just relax and see what happens in June or beyond. No need to be concerned with Mike and Historical touring non-stop in the meantime. They could be playing the local old-folks Bingo hall down the street from me tonight, and I would likely not even have a clue. If/when the "real" beach Boys come back, we will all be in the loop.

You should be convinced.  They were listed on Beachboysband.net before, during and after.  No surprise, and always a disclaimer attached that it was the Touring Band and not the reunion band.  And, there was a 50 show initial plan, which became expanded to about 75.  

They were booked before the any Reunion shows. As many times as this has been stated, it keeps falling on deaf ears.

That is so true, it was a marvel, and every band member had his own journey in life, sometimes very difficult and they did rise to the occasion.  As a fan, for so long, listening to their individual voices every day, even and especially Carl's and remembering Dennis' high spirited personality, it was easy to be overtaken at how overwhelmingly emotional, this has been.  As that video wall flashed the various stages they invented, it brought back my own life, high school, college, etc.

It was like a dream watching them all perform together and and so well, bolstered by fabulous young musicians, taken under the wing of these masters. 

And now, it is morning, after this dream, more and better than anyone imagined.  And, it looks as if emotion has supplanted reason.  And the old factions have re-emerged.  During the tour, people were united and now they are sadly divided. 

In this mess, somewhere there is likely some compromise to be arrived at, because of the underlying indestructible bond they share, and best handled privately.    ;)

The October shows were booked before. It was on the net and discussed on this board.

The reason he chose to do October gigs is because they had to pick a point at some time when they thought the reunion tour would be finished. As the original agreement was to do 50 shows and for it to stop in August in Japan, October probably seemed like a sensible time.

Why didn`t they have an agreement to only use the reunion group in 2012? Because for Mike to have agreed to that Brian would probably have had to sign up for close to 100 shows right from the beginning which was never likely to happen.

It WAS all set in stone in terms of the reunion tour having to finish by a certain time. Bruce said it months ago and I`m certain that all of the members were aware of it. The mistake that has been made, as Adam rightly said, is that they have been singing from a different hymn sheet over the past couple of weeks. Mike certainly hasn`t helped himself but Brian and Al haven`t helped things either.

As others have said, the most important thing is that the reunion tour was a huge success and that is what will be remembered.

Ambha Love posted a defense of her father on his Facebook fan page.  It's a few posts down on the fan postings.  Several people gave her supportive replies, including her sisters Teresa and Melinda.  Her cousins on the Wilson side, Jonah and Carl B., also left her positive messages.  I thought it was nice.  There are a lot of nasty messages posted to Mike on the page, and the people running his page seem not to be deleting them.

Why would Brian or anybody have to sign up for 100 shows? Why couldn't Mike just do the reunion gigs, whether 50 or 75 or more, and committ to no non-reunion shows until 2013, whether the reunion ended in July or September or whenever? A lot of comments seem to be predicated on the idea that Mike *has* to keep booking shows throughout the years. That is at least part of the reason that is leading to some of the negative characterizations of him, that he can't just leave the band's name alone for a few months. Yes, I know why he wants to keep going; it's the same reason he didn't want to take, say, some or all of 1998 to get past Carl's death, and so on. He does what he wants to do, what he feels is best. That's fine, but I don't think anyone should be surprised that it leaves him open to criticism if he needs to wring every bit of revenue out of the band's name as he can.

yes, it all makes sense,but why don't they please tell us that. . . . . . .

It does really suck that families have to be dragged into this, especially in this internet age where everything is so accessible. Comes with the territory for the performer - but when you're that performer's child, it must really hurt to have those things said about one of the most important people in your life.

She's right on one level, Mike Love didn't do anything wrong persay - it's just the way that this whole thing was handled and publicised. Maybe it was that way on purpose, maybe it wasn't. Hopefully this will blow over and will only be remembered in brief by uber fans like us...."hey, remember that time Mike 'fired' Brian???"

Or everybody could do what they agreed to do [done] and if something extra can be worked out, fine [yet to be seen]. If not: no harm, no foul, at least they got what they agreed to. There is always [hopefully] next year.

To me, the issue is not announcing the gigs or even going out again, but announcing them the week before the tour finale.  As Al indicated, that's not good timin'.

If they were booking and announcing gigs even before the press release, they were clearly under no obligation to put that announcement out right then; they could have waited another week before issuing the press release, and expressed it in a way which indicates that the whole band would still like to work together in future.

Regards,
Jon Blum

Just curious, and forgive me if I missed it, but is there concrete verification that these upcoming Mike-Bruce shows were indeed booked *before* the reunion tour (which would've have literally meant [probably well] before December 2011 when the tour was announced)? That is, my only recollection of an initial mention in the press was the old Rolling Stone piece that noted "Mike booking new shows for his band as of June 2012."

I guess I don't understand what difference it makes when they were booked, they are after the final date the other Boys had committed themselves to for the tour.  They had not expressed a desire to continue past the agreed dates until after the statement, until well after they had been booked. So they had been booked well before the other Boys decided they could do more dates whether it was before the reunion tour or during the reunion tour.

Additional salient point: the original closing date of the C50 tour was August 15th.

They were announced a long time ago as well. To me, the press release just read like a clarification -- the reunion tour was getting more press again, with the Grammy show and so on, so they thought it wise to tell people "these aren't the reunion shows" in case anyone bought tickets and was disappointed.

It doesn't at all. It was Mike's right to do what he did, according to what he and BRI had agreed upon long ago, and in terms of booking logistics. As I said a few posts back, I think that the end game problems arose because some members' motives or intents with the reunion may not have been perfectly "pure" or definite to begin with in their minds, while another's may have been as clear as a bell in his (all speculative of course). Thus, the main onus has to be on Al and Brian. There's no denying it was they who put forth all the "shock and dismay" out there.....when they probably knew better.

However...

Even taking into account that the 50th tour was extended after the fact, I can also see how someone can view the upcoming bookings with a rolling eye towards Mike. If only for the fact that it probably would've been a good idea for him not to put another, watered-down "Beach Boys" on the road for *several* months, maybe a year, after-the-fact, if he did indeed view the 50th as an absolute one-time-only deal (back when the 50th was being conceived to begin with...and beyond), and if only out of respect for the enormity and historical significance that he had to know a tour like this would bring.

Furthermore, when it was decided to indeed extend the 50th, and even if Al and Brian hadn't stirred the sauce, he probably should have realized that having the big tour instantly turn into the "county fair" one might be a PR/cred nightmare or in terms of potential confusion with ticket buyers -- preemptive press releases aside. That is, it might just *look* tacky or like a quick cash-grab to the cynical.

I mean, if "BB saturation" truly was a concern in his mind, and also taking into account his initial viewing of the big tour as a one-and-done deal, couldn't he have just waited until next spring to resume his activities? Were cancellations or postponements (where applicable) an option? That would still leave open the possibility for a potential, big reunion change of heart after that.

Most of us have known about these upcoming concerts for a while. Bruce Johnston gleefully told anybody who would listen as much. A lot of us have also known that this tour happened solely at the mercy of Melinda Wilson and Jackie Love and that come the final stretch of dates how THAT relationship played out would determine the future of the Beach Boys. Regardless of whether the Mike band had a bunch of dates booked, the "this tour had a specific end date" excuse really is bulls*** -- because EVERYONE IN AND AROUND THE TOUR knew that if the powers that if be said it's going to continue, it would. The fact than none of this "specific end date" or “our final tour” talk was brought up during their global round of recent interviews proves that either this was being kept away from the general public because it would sully the celebratory aspects of the reunion -- or no one was absolutely sure what was going to go down. And trust me – no one was sure. The prevailing attitude was “let’s just get through this tour.” Would Mike keep the side band for corporate dates and/or "off season shows" -- a lot of things were kept purposely ambiguous. I honestly believe that things are still up in the air about the future of the band. I personally believe there will be some type of middle ground met. I think we’re all in agreement that it could've been done more professionally and with far more class.

When I last spoke at length to Mike in late June, I pressed him hard about what 2013 would hold in store for the band and he made it seem that after the tour the principles would regroup to record at some point -- preferably on songs he and Brian co-wrote -- and discuss future dates. He stressed that the show was more expensive than he would have liked and that he actually regretted having to only play large venues. He had ample chances to say to me that it was permanently going back to the way it was before and he did not. He loved everything about the 50th tour from the song selection to his bandmates' performances -- but (my words) he resented having to lose money paying for such a big machine. Apart from that, he gave me ZERO INDICATION that this was a finite thing. Mike telling the audience at the CalSaga Grammy performance that the group would be opening for the Beach Boys next summer certainly seemed to indicate that the co-founders would be hitting the road again. (Two members of CalSaga told me that the announcement was actually news to them.)

While talking about the tour -- and specifically the "50 Big Ones Productions" headed by Joe Thomas -- Mike gushed that no one else could have pulled this thing together. When I asked him if BRI has ever thought of hiring someone "in house" to run operations like that year-round, he admitted they never have considered it. I offered up former manager Jerry Schilling's name.

The press release issued just prior to the Grammy show was needed to explain the situation before fans started buying tickets to shows and walk out pissed at seeing "imposters." It really wasn’t the d*ck move that the press are labeling it – but the timing was both comically and typically horrible. The fact that it was bereft of any emotion, class, good will, or respect for the co-founders is why this mess happened in the first place. It was ugly and it reeked of "the bottom line." And the thing that's so dispiriting about this is that this thing was truly magnificent. It really was. It rose to every occasion. The rock press coverage was astounding. For a band with zero presence on classic rock radio, they were covered as much -- if not more -- than McCartney and The Who's tours. A hit album and massive, massive exposure. They went from Frankie Valli to Mick Jagger OVERNIGHT. Even Bruce Johnston calling Barrack Obama an as shole couldn't cause a dent in the power of this reunion. But having "Mike Love Fires Brian Wilson" being one of the top tweets and trends online coupled with the Eagles calling Mike out for being an idiot, is press so bad I doubt the brand can fully recover. All that positivity, all that good will GONE in a day. Even the cynics are speechless. What a stupid avoidable mess.

If a promoter/venue causes confusion or misleads the public then shame on them. I guess I also don't see what is wrong with going back to the normal after the special or how it is less special or tarnished by proximity to the normal. Seems to me it polishs up the specialness if anything. If the special does become the normal, cool, for however long it lasts. The BBs' legacy seems to be bullletproof either way.

Howie, when you're on, you're on. Brilliant summation / analysis.

Yeah, good one, Howie.

Thank you for such an insightful and well-written post, Mr. Edelson.

One question: am I right to infer that Mrs. Wilson and Mrs. Love got along just fine?

Agreed wholeheartedly.

Yes, a compelling clarification and historical summary by Howie. Unfortunately its truths confirm the best possible reading of the events (it makes sense for Mike to go back to touring at least for now) and the worst possible revelation about how it was done (callously and stupidly so as to tarnish the band and imperil its future art, popularity, press and very existence).

What now?

I agree with Howie, that was a great post.

It also agrees with what others have said over the past dozen pages or so: Beyond the whole thing being lifted to a level of both the surreal and the pathetic for no discernible reason, it was handled terribly, and unless I'm mistaken *NO ONE* actually in the band has made an attempt to publicly clarify any part of it. If something goes this far, shouldn't Mike himself or Mike and the rest of the band issue a joint public statement or even make an online video to explain to their fans what is happening?

It's just speculation after assumption, fueled by not a single personal word (as of yet...) to ease the tensions a bit.

It tells me perhaps a case of "any publicity is good publicity" is what we're seeing. Or else it was truly major mistake or misunderstanding that can't be fixed so easily.

The absence of a follow-up statement or comment from an actual band member other than a hired spokesperson seems very sketchy...and worrisome.

Mike is a musical genius and a brilliant front man but what a truly a horrible person.

Howie - Those two ladies, Melinda, and Jacqui, are women who are involved and appear to work actively with, and for their husbands' businesses.  News flash: We, women can vote, be doctors, lawyers, and Secretaries' of State.  And be lifelong passionate Beach Boys fans.

And, frankly a "wait and see" approach of prudence to see how the tour came together, was not a bad thing, with Brian's mobility issues, as well as anything else that could have sprung up.  I find that your comments discredit their contributions to the operations, which do have a track record that is credible.  Friends who attended the shows and saw Brian in such discomfort were hoping and praying, that he would last through the tour, and Thank God, he did.  The fans held their breath, too.

This media campaign, at the close of the tour, has been a nightmare. A lesson in Facebook 101.  

But, clarity for ticket holders of the Touring Band, which you disparagingly describe as a "side" band, is difficult to reckon for me. The "side band" members (Totten and Cowsill) brought an "oomph" to this reunion.  The "backbeat and brains" as it were.  They had to take direction from someone younger.  They sang better, were more precise as a result, and the performances were more or less letter perfect.  

Going on the road at 70 in an over the top caravan, and it was, a "caravan" might have truly been perceived as wasteful.  And that is not just an "opinion" but and "informed" opinion, if Mike did speak about it, and info from someone who ran the business.  With help from a woman, who should be credited as a businesswoman, as much as Melinda has been instrumental, in Brian's business.  

Maybe in these lean economic times, a little prudence with money, which translates to a lower ticket price, and more fan attendance, is not a bad thing.  You've mentioned that not all the venues might not have been the first choice.  Mike is making money, surely, but he is bringing the music more places, more reasonably for the fans.  That is commendable.  Because people can bring their families.

But, that little "side band" could teach the world of rock and roll a thing or two. I saw Steve Stills in a smaller, but packed and more intimate setting last fall, and it was a clearly fulfilling event for all.  Bigger is not always better.  And, Mike makes the music more "accessible" to outlying areas, whose money is green, too.  And it seems "market saturation" is valid.  I live in a state where there is a war over casino placement, close in proximity to failing or struggling casinos.  Were the Eagles' tix $5? If it is true, then, it was their (Eagles) pride that was hurt.  

Funny, when a man is gifted in business, he is respected, but when a women is equally gifted, there is still an undertone of disrespect.  And, that is what I take from your post; that it is the fault of two hardworking, spouses.  

I look at it differently, and said as much earlier.  They were 4 entities: 1) Big Band, 2) Touring Band, 3)Brian Band, 4) Al Band.  The 2, 3 and 4 being subsets or entities of 1) Big Band.  

Band 2) could probaby not fire Band 1) - and your suggestion is that the "spouses" of Band 2) and Band 3) ended the reunion? I taught 4 year olds for many years; I have to keep it simple, sweetie.  The KISS rule.  Hence the numbered subsets.

And, I think you owe those ladies (Mrs. Wilson and Mrs. Love) an apology; I hope surf does not "freeze over" before you do.

Its funny that Howie basically relates very truthfully that Melinda and Jaqui are the bottom line, in charge, calling the shots, wielding the power...and Fildepage somehow takes that as an "undertone of disrespect".

Thanks, Teach. Sure glad you reminded us of that.   ::)

Fillthepage, I don't think Howie owes any of the Beach Boys' wives an apology for anything.  He's just tellin' it like it is.

Well, that story is a 180 degree turn from last week.  Last week Mike was the villain. Splashed globally.  Now it is the wives?

Melinda's a tyrant

Why would anyone make a statement like that?  Sorry.  So they are in the Yoko Ono category?  And history blames her for no Beatle reunion, as if Lennon did not have a mind of his own?  

One would think people would be given the benefit of the doubt, until you know them personally.

Mike wants the next stage of the band reunion to be a new album with more artistic input from him than TWGMTR had. He wants to co-write songs with Brian again. This is not going to happen with Brian still on the road as part of a neverending anniversary tour. And Mike knows he can do the Mike & Bruce Shows in his sleep meanwhile.

I'll restate my question/concern before it gets lost in the discussion again...

Are there any opinions on why no one who really matters (i.e. an actual band member) has, as of now, come forward to say something about this? It obviously spun out of control, it took on a life of it's own, etc.

If it were in fact a "simple misunderstanding", why didn't someone other than an anonymous publicist come out to clarify any of it a few days ago? Solve it with a simple appearance or statement, and it's a done deal - move ahead.

Something just ain't quite right, as they say.

Actions speak louder than words

Filledeplage what are you even talking about???

You've missed EVERY point.

Literally.

Howie's reports are great and really have been getting at the true story behind the scenes without the BS.

The villain is the horrible way this was handled as far as inflaming the public perception that the Beach Boys are firing each other etc... It could have easily been avoided, and the Mike press release, the wording of it, the Beach Boys reluctance to mitigate that by giving an explanation that no one was fired etc... All of that was stupid and ugly. The behind the scenes truth is that Melinda and Jaqui essentially pull the levers of the two integrated organizations that have made this reunion possible. If they were currently operating in harmony as they were throughout most of this reunion, this most likely would not have happened. Seems obvious. You are the first person in this exchange to label them as villains. I'd view them as being in charge, and as having done a fantastic job with all reunion related issues...until now.

Howie - I don't think so.  My impression is that in trying to get a "back story" for example the CalSaga thing, Mike seemed to make what I could "aspirational" or hopeful statement about the new band, opening up some shows.  Then, you take that conversation, and ask a CalSaga member, who does not seem to be aware of Mike's hopes, which I use loosely, if things aren't cast in stone, and tell us about the "inconsistency" in what you report.  I heard him make that statement at some even that was on YouTube, where he performed California Girls.  And, it was that opening up the shows would be something to work towards.  Sounded more like a aspirational goal.

At another point, you claim to "press Mike" about details, that maybe aren't cast in stone, either.  Maybe he wanted to keep his business plan to himself.

But, people (all of us) should be more careful about stereotyping, whether is it gender or other bias.  And what you seem to be saying, that it is the fault of "the women."  And it has a "Yoko Ono" tone from the 60's and 70's.  I thought we were long past that.  

No one can have it both ways.  They world blames Mike.  And, and now, it is "the women."

Every point.
You missed it.

Yes, I agree. The feminist rhetorical battle here is dully academic and anachronistic--a bit too Helen Reddy for my scholarly tastes. Without any gendered political jargon, let's just say the various emotional, interpersonal and familial forces, like waves, can be tidal waves or waves of love: they have done much good.

The question is, what now?  The entire issue can be resolved publicly only if it is resolved privately.  If the BB themselves, who are not children needing approval of their parents or wives, want to establish a clear plan they can.  We are open to that plan, which I describe as follows (for the 10th time):

"Mike and Bruce will be our ambassadors for a while, fulfilling prior commitments and keeping the BB alive throughout the world while Brian, Al, and Dave gear up for the next album and future full-band tours. So stay tuned for more from Americas's greatest band in 2013."

It's as simple as that as a final equation if Mike and Brian commit to write together and Mike commits to full band work on the album and in selected tours.  Heavens, Mike is right about not wanting to do this juggernaut perpetually.  Bring it down to 20 dates next summer?

The smartest thing that they could have done is announce that Mike is fulfilling his commitments through the end of the year (while simply but adequately explaining the BRI license agreement once and for all) while listing all the wonderful accomplishments of 2012.

Then on or around Thanksgiving, announce the box set as well as two Staples Center shows for December 30th and December 31st to wrap the 50th anniversary.

It's that easy.
It's beyond a no-brainer.
It's Showbiz 101.
How do these guys not know how to do this thing by now?

Howie, will they listen to you if you tell them that, likely for the 20th time? We can only hope that all our efforts here are actually part of a real line of communication to the band.

Is that on that cards?

Jon - if "villain" is too harsh, then, I apologize, it must be the H&W lyrics.  Since we are in that BB land of discourse.  Just for a second, I'll follow your concept of the evolution of this tour.  And, suppose "the ladies" are to credit for this wonderful series of events, is anyone saying "Thanks" to them?  I'm not hearing it.  Did the ladies "negotiate?"  Saying they are "pulling the levers" of the integrated organizations, is equally strong language on your part.  (If women headed every nation of the world, I doubt we would be at war.  That is a fact.)  So, they should get their proper respect for helping make it happen.

The wild card was the petition.  And, I've run through it several times.  And, my old political days, checking nomination papers, would have thrown out the "anonymous" ones.  And the many "doubles." A fan petition is great.  But, when it becomes attached to a principal's web page, there could be a problem.  That is where it took on a life of its' own.  

Is there a message that fans want the Big Band?  Do people get that?  Ya.  But, if people turn back the clock, post-Carl, there was a definite "void" of Beach Boys music that Mike's Band filled.  And, they were ok at the beginning, and frankly, it was like seeking life after a family death.  But, he stuck with it, and plugged in some fabulous musicians, and, now, they sell out plenty of shows and are real crowd pleasers. They (Mike and Bruce) filled that void, for fans for all this time, and, now, are considered "disposable?"  No one is saying that, but, it is the impression that is being cultivated.

And no one is addressing it, yet call it a "side band."  Does the baby get thrown out with the proverbial bath water?  Or, can some accord be reached? My guess is that it can.  

And, if "the ladies" could get to "yes" once; they can again.    ;)

Maybe they should run the White House.

Last I looked, feminists were about women having their own careers, not living off their husband's money, talents, and reflected glories.  Men who do the same to their own talented wives (such as Mr. Celine Dion, Rene whathisname) have the same suspicions cast on them, and they should, so it's fair to speculate on their motives or more importantly, whether they're competent and professional and able to cast aside their personal biases towards their spouses for the good of the organization. 

Brilliant and genius? Myke Luhv? Huh? Those words are non applicable when speaking of the cheezster. I'll gladly go with "...truly a horrible person", hitting the nail on that shiny head of his. :thumbsup

Those ladies seem to work alongside their husbands.  Being independent does not exclude working in a "family business."

They must be competent. We got a 50th reunion tour.

Men, can be feminists.   

filledeplage has a record of seeing "offending" things, that only her is offended by. Most of the time, it's because those "offending" things aren't even there to begin with.

Thanks a lot to Howie for his enlightening post about what happened, and might still be happening, behind the scenes.



Just spotted this gem and literally laughed out loud :lol

Maybe, if the wives of Mike or Brian read this board, they might not like being referred to in terms that have been enumerated above.  They are public figures, so it might come with the turf. 

This is largely a well informed, primarily male poster/readership, and so, much of what I read, I take with a grain of salt.  This, is different, dissing the wives.  And, a little restraint, and looking at things from the other side of the coin might not hurt.  As a woman, it is interesting to me, that the wives crafted the accord to get to the reunion.  In a sense, they are like ambassadors.  Who doesn't respect that? 

Some of this stuff, particularly offensive stuff was on Mike's Facebook page and the petition. People can say they don't like someone without being insulting and hurtful.  And this week has been very nasty with insult hurling.   And, all coming from music.  Great music. 

Fille - Your posts are generally filled with great analysis and insight, but I can't see where Howie, in any way, shape, or form, was "dissing the wives".

God this topic has become so mind-numbingly boring to read, although I must say Howie made a great post before all of this dull feminist jargon started to take over.

I concur, Sam!

Thanks - Custom Machine - for your very kind words.  It is just the way it struck me, that I disagreed with Howie.  

This has been a wild week.  And not, a harmonic convergence.  At this point, after all this incredible work, maybe people just need some space.  

Thanks again.  :kiss

While you're kissing people filledpage...........

I kid, I kid..

This thread needs a bit of humor  ;D

what a nice choice of smiley, fdp  ::)

Yes, indeed!  :kiss

So, in your opinion, because we're men, we're misogynists by default until proven otherwise ? That's pretty misandric.

I didn't think howie was dissing the wives, either.  It was just an observation that they were heavily involved in the negotiations and it could be one more complicating factor.  If Brian and Mike sat down and discussed this among themselves, things could be better, or worse.  It's also possible there are other people involved in this situation such as managers and publicists.  It's more a PR problem than anything else.  I'm also not sure this ever would have gotten so blown up if it weren't for the nature of the British press.

I don't see how this statement was mishandled or ill-timed from the bit I've read. Is the full press release available somewhere? I guess it is just a matter of opinion?

I do see how the Boys' reactions to it were mishandled and ill-timed. I don't understand why Brian and Al don't clear up the mess their reactions and repostings have created.

Certainly not, unless the Neanderthal tendencies suddenly appear!  :lol (only kidding )

Misandric?  Absolutely not.  

Many who gather here, are enlightened men...

And are not misogynist, either.  

And, if you re-read my quote, I think I said, "well-informed."

That was a compliment, and gender neutral.   ;)

Well said.

But Cam, he's essentially saying that the way they (all parties involved) handled it was a mistake. So on one hand, you're saying you don't see how it was mishandled answering what I said about it being mishandled earlier, and on the other you're agreeing with Howie when he says it could have been handled better, especially with 50 years of handling the media under their belts.

I'll just say it all could have been handled better, and again there seems to have been a major miscommunication within the band and the lack of an official direct response/clarification from any band members is troubling.

Too late.

http://www.twincities.com/alllistings/ci_21646540/beach-boys-at-mystic-lake-new-years-eve?source=rss

I have gone out of my way to give them respect. I have personally thanked both of them multiple times this summer for this unbelievably great reunion tour. I have thanked them for all of the fans, and told them what they have done means the world to all of us. In fact just moments after one of these thanks, and after mentioning it must have taken a lot of compromise to see this through, they laughed and agreed...and posed for this nice picture.
(http://i1158.photobucket.com/albums/p614/Jonstebbins/MelindaandJaqui.jpg)

READ: Go to sleep Filledeplage.

Jacqueline is one of the most charming ladies you could meet.  She's very personable and incredibly warm.  She's no doubt one of the secret ingredients for this tour working as well as it has. 

That's my view.  Just simply let him do his thing and we'll just see what 2013 brings. If Mike feels he needs a break and wants to "reward" himself with a few of his own shows---that's fine with me.  If/when they reunite again, it will be all over the internet, hyped to death all over again and all of this stuff won't matter anymore.



Some fine posts there--well done. 

Well, it is kind of complicated. I think Howie earlier in another post expressed his opinion that he thought Mike's timing was off. I don't see that, the timing was not the problem and neither was the statement.

Here I do agree with Howie that it would have been better to have a comprehensive statement [regardless of the timing imo] which would have avoided the only problem which was the other Boys' separate reactions and the press hype of their reactions. The content of Mike's statement was necessary and true and the timing of such a statement was timely for its intent. Does that make sense?

To a point it does, to a small degree it does, but I can't help but think if it was handled better, or more competently, and perhaps if the timing had been a little more appropriate, I doubt we'd see even a fraction of the sh*t-storm which happened after the comments were made and reported. If you say it right, make it concise, and yes...make it more universal and less self-centered (ducks for cover...), you're less likely to have those words misinterpreted in any way.

Look at a few posts in this thread - suggestions were offered for a concise, respectful press statement which could have left no room for mistakes or misinterpreted meanings.

And I do have a problem with the timing of it - why not wait until a week later? Points:

- Was it that big of a rush to promote the new set of shows that he had to say it last week when the media attention was at its strongest since it was the "Farewell Show" coming up?

- If you bask in the moment of a successful tour, good press, happy fans, and a general feeling of goodwill among fans and concertgoers, why not bask in THAT moment of harmony, ride it out, and when everyone gets back to the States and goes their own way, start doing press about your concerts coming up. It's a thing with me about enjoying a great moment and living it up in that moment.

Seriously, what the heck was the rush to get in a few words about upcoming shows when everyone was jazzed about the finale to a great reunion tour and a great comeback album?

Some would say it was a ham-fisted attempt at self-promotion or bandwagon-jumping that backfired. If he had waited another week or even another few days, would we have seen the backlash? Most likely not.

question(s):  is this meant to imply that the BBs lost $$ on this tour? or:
 that Mike felt he personally wasn't making as much $$?  or:
Mike felt the big machine cost more than it was worth to the process?  or??

They didn't lose money. Mike's point, I think, is that they could have gotten the same-sized audiences with a far smaller band and fewer backstage perks. There was also speculation that -- on top of the costs just mentioned -- having to split the money with other BBs as full participants meant Mike was making less on this tour than he might otherwise, even with the bigger venues.

Just a guess: Logistics and finances? Overhead? It might not be possible to make enough of a profit in returns (ticket sales, merch sales, whatever else, etc) from those concerts already booked at smaller venues in order to pay for the operational stuff needed to move all those additional musicians, support staff, equipment, stage sets, tour buses and semi trucks, etc. from venue to venue. If Mike's smaller touring band books smaller venues, they can still call it profitable with the smaller band. If they would need to sell, say, 10,000 seats to meet the budget, and the venue only holds 5,000 people, it's a loss.

I was backstage, in the dressing rooms in Eugene.  If you call a few snacks and bottles of water and juice perks; yeah, it was lavish! 

I was amazed at how little there was.

Sometimes you have to look at the big picture. Sure, he may have made less for a gig but standing with the band for a few M&G pictures must have topped that loss up some. Throw in money for the new album and all the reissues PLUS whatever live album/ DVD we have upcoming and Mike will have done ok this year.

In terms of backstage perks I meant stuff like Brian's separate tour bus and accommodations for all the families who traveled with the principals ...

Jon - that is a great photo!  Thanks for posting it in this hotly debated thread.  No one is suggesting disrespect on your part.   The upside of this discussion, might be that there is a working alliance.  Discussion such as this, causes facts to emerge and that is a great thing.  There are no absolutes here.  I guess one thing that I find troubling, is that people have expressed the sentiment that because principals were expressing a desire to be "ready, willing and able" to return to BB status, that Mike ( and forgive my frankness) should dismantle a business, and only do the "Band of 5" (for ease of description) because "they" (the other three) were now ready.  There are many who feel similarly and it may not be the politically correct position, but it's out there.  

Now, that perspective comes, not as an author, such as yourself, but, just a fan, who followed the three configurations as they emerged post-Carl.  I remember taking one of my sons to see Brian, and he never took his eyes off him, almost as though he had seen a living legend.  He read what he could about Brian, and as a lot of young people, not a 60's kid, as his mom, considered Pet Sounds, particularly God Only Knows to be the greatest song ever written.  He's in good company.  

What is troubling, too, is a reporter's/author's compulsion ( and this is not directed at you) but generally, to feel entitled to get beyond the necessary information to tell a story, with a global amount of accuracy, to delve into what might be considered "crossing the line" in an entitled fashion, and render the story tabloid-like.  I don't need (as a fan) to know all the inner workings.  I just want to know that "things are working" and, can be spared the details.  This last week became a tabloid.  

But, I don't find that the damage is as bad as people perceive it.  And I do think that some accord will be reached; they've come too far.  

Disclaimer: I'm playing devil's advocate and having a bit of a laugh with this one, don't take this too seriously...



...but what if this were a media-fueled attempt to humiliate Mike because he's a Republican? Let's face it, these media outlets reported something which not only isn't true, but isn't even close to what the story actually was or is, and they made Mike look like the guy who "fired" the Beach Boys.  ;D


(...ducks for cover...)   >:D

I am joking, but why let a good conspiracy theory go to waste?  ;)

This is just one of those opinion things I suppose. What I've heard didn't sound like a self promotion but a clarification. I take it Howie agrees? It seems very necessary in light of a concert already being cancelled due to lack of clarity.

The announcement timing seems right to me if the purpose was information and clarity for a concert series soon to begin. If Mike had waited and none of the overreaction had happened I can imagine we would have a multi page thread about how wrong it was to inform/clarify the upcoming concert series so late especially in the light of the line up being so recently different and the confusion that had already happened. Maybe not [yeah we would].

But really I don't think timing would have even been a discussion if the real problem of the overaction/press reaction hadn't happened. To me the timing is only brought up because of the stink the other Boys/press created, there is no good/timely time to cause an unjustified stink. So in my view the announcement was right and timely but the unjustified stink was wrong and untimely.

But to clarify a few things, wasn't Mike in the UK when the announcement was made? If so, why would he feel the UK or the fans in the UK and Europe would need to know about upcoming gigs in mid-level American venues like Texas Jack's or Rattlesnake Joe's or whatever that place that made the deep-fried pickles is called? He could have waited a few days until he was done with the "Reunion" part of his calendar year, and made the announcement, say, tomorrow, in the US. Possibility?

checking the BBFC site, they have shows listed starting today. which means waiting until, say, tomorrow, would have been a bit late for an announcement to try and preclude angry ticket buyers...  

>>MIKE LOVE & BRUCE JOHNSTON

Mike Love has licensed the Beach Boys' name for his tour, which also features fellow Beach Boy Bruce Johnston. Please note that Mike and Bruce are the ONLY Beach Boys on this tour. The duo's backup band includes Randell Kirsch, John Cowsill, Tim Bonhomme, Christian Love, and Scott Totten. (See also the BB Band website.).
 •Sept. 30 — San Diego, CA (“The Legacy Concert for the Children” benefit event, 8170 Caminito Santaluz E)**
•Oct. 5 — Waco, TX (Extraco Events Center)*
 •Oct. 6 — Austin, TX (The Backyard at Bee Cave)*
 •Oct. 12-13 — Biloxi, MS (Beau Rivage)*
 •Oct. 26 — Santiago, Chile (Movistar Arena)  <<

Oops didn't see the part about the asterisks:  >>All tour dates are subject to change. An asterisk (*) indicates a date confirmed by BRI, two asterisks (**) indicate a confirmed date from another source.<<

(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Music/Pix/pictures/2008/08/19/BillOReilly460x276.jpg)

The press release came prior to the Grammy Museum event, which was prior to leaving for the UK.

Thanks for the clarification, honestly I didn't know for sure.

It makes the (over)reaction and the announcement that Mike "fired" the Beach Boys even more suspicious.

(cue Bill O'Reilly...)  :-D

I typed a long thing and it timed out and I lost it but others have already said it.

Anyways regarding timing of the announcement, I just think it is demonstrable that the announcements timing is not the problem. It actually was announced,  discussed, and reported in late June that there would be BrianAlDavidless post Reunion Tour October dates and that was when the Reunion was to end in mid-September. So it is demonstrated that the timing of the Mike's announcement is not the problem, the Reunion Tour marched merrily on for almost 4 months under the weight of the announcement with no stink after the announcement. The problem is the wrongful stink raised by the other Boys statements and postings, and the yellow press [shakes fist at Bill O'Reilly].

This appeared 10 days ago in a publication called the "Rancho Santa Fe Review": http://www.ranchosantafereview.com/2012/09/19/the-beach-boys-to-perform-at-benefit-at-the-santaluz-club/ (http://www.ranchosantafereview.com/2012/09/19/the-beach-boys-to-perform-at-benefit-at-the-santaluz-club/)

The Beach Boys to perform at benefit at The Santaluz Club

As they wrap up their global 50th anniversary tour, The Beach Boys will perform on Sunday, Sept. 30, at “The Legacy Concert for the Children” at The Santaluz Club.

The event will benefit The Foundation for the Children of the Californias, a tri-national collaboration with the United States, Canada and Mexico, endeavoring to improve the health and nutrition for the children in the border region through the operation and expansion of a model pediatric specialty medical and education complex, located one half a mile into Baja California, Mexico.

The Hospital Infantil de las Californias pediatric complex offers outpatient services in 26 specialties in a 50,000-square-foot complex, plus community outreach.  Approximately 70 percent of the hospital’s and medical personnel donate their professional service.

To find out more and for event time, tickets, go to: www.usfcc.org

Note specifically they say it will be a "Reunion" event and not a Mike and Bruce -led Beach Boys show.

Now go to this link: http://www.usfcc.org/ (http://www.usfcc.org/)

...And you'll see a promo photo of the Mike-and-Bruce led band, yet if you click on the "Beach Boys" link on this page for concert info, you'll see the same mention of the "Reunion" tour wrapping up with this event. Copied from the site:

The Legacy Concert for the Children
We cordially invite you to join us for “The Legacy Concert for the Children” with The Beach Boys as they wrap up their 50th Anniversary world-wide tour. This exclusive event will take place at The Santaluz Club on Sunday, September 30th, 2012.
Santaluz Club
8170 Caminito Santaluz E.
San Diego, CA 92127



So someone was either very, very mistaken, or someone either deliberately or mistakenly billed this Sept. 30 show (tonight, BTW...) as a "Reunion" event...which even the non-diehard fans would most likely assume meant the same band who was doing the "reunion" tour, with Brian-Al-David on stage.

Someone in the information chain f***ed this one up. Deliberate?

Brian's over-reaction is especially confusing as there are reports from late June of Brian being informed there are October post Reunion Mike/Bruce dates. His reaction was he was not aware of it, more less the same reaction he gave in October*.

*Should be "September" since October hasn't happened yet.

What do you make of the concert which is happening today, info posted above?

Not much yet. Who actually played this?

I hear Toni Tennille was the lead singer.

Love, Mike Love won't keep us together...





Sorry, I had to.

We'll have to wait for the post-game report on this one, because it's happening now or just happened within the past 8 hours, I would think, unless someone on this board was there and can report...but judging from the photo on the website (links found in my post), it shows the standard Mike and Bruce touring Beach Boys band, yet both the website and the newspaper (and others) were saying it was the last show of the reunion tour. So if I saw the photo, I'd assume it was a Mike and Bruce show, if I read the press and the same site's own press releases, I'd assume it was a full reunion show. Confusion, again someone messed this up.

Something doesn't fit, there - I was wondering if that raised an eyebrow or what you thought of it.

Someone has to!  :-D

I can't tell if he's serious or not about Tennille - but if Toni Tennille were singing with them tonight I'd want to get a ticket.

While there were Mike and Bruce shows popping up online earlier in the tour, Cam, there was no official announcement or press release about them until a week or so ago. So no, it wasn't widely known or understood. Given that one of those dates was then cancelled, there was still a lot of fan confusion about the band's plans.

It would seem at least one of the venues was also confused. Not good.

Definitely NOT serious.   :lol

(snaps fingers...)  Damn!   ;D

No, the announcement is exactly the problem.  We saw that simply announcing some gigs without the full lineup didn't get the bad publicity, any more than the band touring without Brian and Dennis in 1982 did.  But putting out a press release to celebrate the lineup change, and presenting the reduced lineup as the Beach Boys from that point onwards, with no indication of the full group ever working together again or even hoping to work together again, is a much bigger story.  And doing it just before their final show-of-unity concerts is just plain bizarre timing.

Regards,
Jon Blum

I disagree, the plan has long been known and public. Even after the recent September announcement there was no stink until like a week to 10 days later when the other Boys' announcements claiming confusion and the press suggestions someone was being fired began. You might even narrow it down further to the real problem being baseless and speculative fan reaction.

I still argue that confusing reaction was the ill timed problem and not the old news announcement. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

It is a matter of recorded and verifiable fact that the current Mike & Bruce dates were arranged months ago, I think even before the 50th anniversary tour began.

We have had, for 14 years now, the default "Beach Boys" show being the M&B deal, with Brian, Al etc. doing their own thing.

The 50th anniversary tour was a special event.

We have returned to the default situation. As arranged. As agreed. As announced - prior to the 50th anniversary tour beginning.

Would I like to see all 5 Beach Boys play together again? Hell yes. But I was never under any illusions that the guys would do anything other than they announced. And they are doing what they announced.

The news media whipped up the controversy with this silly, and false, idea that Brian and co. had been fired by Mike.

Mike can sure be a d*ckhead but he's done nothing here to fire anyone.

Very good - the concept of "special event."

Others will counter that the "default band" are the principals.   ;)

Put on your flack jacket!  :lol

No one can accuse this forum of being dull.

No, Cam.  The press release was less than two weeks ago, on September 17th.  It hit Rolling Stone within a day.  They played the Grammy Museum on the 18th, and the stories about that the next day (in places like Billboard and the LA Times) all mentioned the split.  Four days later it had hit CNN.  The story was picked up, the "stink" was out there.

Brian and Al didn't issue a press release, they were asked for their comments because the story had broken.

You've always been really good at rewriting history, but this is way too fresh in peoples' memories to get away with it.

Regards,
Jon Blum

Exactly. Badly timed. Badly worded. Brian's reaction was to the press quizzing him on a taint they'd already picked up on. I chatted with CNN reporters at the Grammy Museum thing and that's all they could talk about, how cold the announcement from Mike's camp seemed...and how the timing seemed provocative.