The Smiley Smile Message Board

Let me preface this by saying I truly intend this as an objective, pseudo-scholarly inquiry/discussion. It’s not a roundabout way to villainize anyone.

I was recently breezing through the Peter Ames Carlin Brian bio recently, and came across the bit discussing the goings-on with the touring band when Carl was ill in 1997, etc. It included a few quotes from a Rolling Stone article from around 1999 that I’ve never been able to track down again (probably a paid subscription to their archives would yield results).

In the quick rundowns of this period, it is usually mentioned that around August of 1997, Carl had to take a break due to his illness. But according to Carlin’s book (and the Rolling Stone article), at some point around this time Mike refused to appear on stage with Carl. The article (this is the portion in the Carlin book) included a quote from Elliott Lott mentioning that Mike didn’t want to appear with Carl out of love, with Lott specifically citing Carl wearing a wig and needing the use of oxygen. That is, Carl was in such bad shape that the implication is he felt it was no longer appropriate for Carl to appear on stage with the group. I’m not even getting into judging that decision/sentiment. What I’m curious about is, is there actually any indication that Carl was forced off the tour at that particular moment (or encouraged by Mike or management to take a break), rather than choosing to take time off? I also realize it’s beyond a moot issue considering Carl’s ultimate fate (so please feel free to avoid responding to this with a “why does it matter?” response). I’m just curious if there was any consternation among the group, and/or Mike and Carl specifically, concerning this.

Were these details simply glossed over or forgotten (by band members or the media or fans for that matter) because of Carl’s ultimate fate?

I believe it was that same old Rolling Stone article (which was published as I recall in relation to the 1999 “Family and Friends” related legal stuff) which was one of the only times it was specifically mentioned that Love also had by 1998 refused to appear on stage with Al Jardine. Most reports have never specifically mentioned whether Al was “kicked out” or he “left” the band, or it was just a mutual thing. It has been implied Al didn’t want to carry on immediately due to Carl’s death. But I believe that article mentioned the idea that Mike had refused to be on stage with Al. Other sources such as the Marks/Stebbins book also paint a clear picture that Al was being edged out in 1997 (while the Carlin book mentions an attempt to get rid of Al all the way back in 1990).

Any thoughts?

 I thought it was said that Carl developed a blood clot, and had to leave the tour for health/medical reasons.

I thought Al said in interview that he wanted to go out soon after Carl's passing on a symphonic and/or PS tour but Brian didn't want to and since Brian didn't want to Mike didn't want to.

Then Mike has said in interview that Al planned to do that tour but replacing him with Peter Cetera. Something like that.

The story, IIRC, is that Brian wanted to do a PS tour with the band but Carl didn't think he could do it. This is in the Carlin book, I believe, and Melinda made special note that it really bummed BW out.

Page 286 of the hardcover edition. Doesn't explicitly say whose idea it was or each guy's vote, but says:

"Carl vetoed an offer ... for the group to play a ten-show tour ... Of Pet Sounds. Brian's elaborate studio arrangements would simply be too hard to play onstage, Carl said. And besides, his big brother would never be able to recreate his own vocals onstage. 'He told me he didn't want to see Brian embarrassed in public, and there was no way Brian would be able to do it,' Melinda says. 'I have never told Brian that. But he picks up on things, you know. No one had to tell him anything.'"

HeyJude - there are any number of fans who made an effort to see Carl perform after the dreadful media announcement of Carl's diagnosis.  It is rare to see band members as kind as I saw them to Carl.  I saw him in late June.  The show was analogous to a 45 single played as a 33 rpm LP.  It was tailored to Carl, and he sat on a stool and sang as well and powerfully as ever. It defied logic and was one of the most courageous things I've ever seen.  He was saying goodbye to his beloved fans.  And we were witness to something extraordinary.

Frankly, I don't know how Mike mustered the courage to stand up in front of these audiences, day after day, and verify the media stories about Carl's condition.  His voice cracked.  There are plenty of people around who have their own "last concert" story that summer of 97.  By August, he must have had a very deteriorated health status.  It would perfect make sense if he didn't perform. Carl didn't owe us his almost last drop of strength, but he gladly gave it.

The Beach Boys played with Dave Marks in October of '97, and we were asked for prayers and good thoughts for Carl, who was not there at that point.  What the media or an author writes, is of no consequence to me, because I saw what I saw, and will never forget it, as Carl sang God Only Knows for the last time (for me) as well as those lucky others who made their way to get a ticket.  I've spoken to others who had a similar experience but who saw him later that summer when his condition had deteriorated further.  

David Beard and I went to Raleigh, NC to see the Beach Boys on June 13, 1997.  I had other family plans that weekend, but I had a gut feeling that it would be the last time I saw Carl alive.  Carl had a separate dressing room from the other guys, and he and Gina went straight from the dressing room to the stage before the show, and from the stage to the bus after the show, in order to keep Carl from being exposed to any germs.  The most interaction I was able to have with Carl was to shout, "We love you Carl" as he walked off the stage.  Carl played most of the show sitting on a stool, and was visibly wearing a hairpiece, but his voice was still amazing.

Dave and I had the opportunity to interview Bruce after the show.  I asked him how Carl was doing, and his response was, "You'll have to ask him.  I can't get an honest answer."  And Bruce was very candid that night (expressing frustration about the V2/Sean O'Hagan deal falling through among other things), so I think if he had truly known Carl's prognosis he would have shared it.

Lee

One thing about this era of Carl that's always confused me: yes, he'd been obviously wearing a hairpiece for some time... but still had a full beard. Can chemo be that selective ?

yes it can...and to compound things further..what it does to one person, it can do something totally opposite to another, even when on the same drugs and dosage.

Another point I witnessed first hand with a family member. She chose to shave her hair off and wear a wig once it started to fall out, rather than have thin or bits of hair, deciding that would look worse. She kept her eye brows and lashes.

There's a photo from August 1997 in the In Concert book, and Carl's beard looked kind of patchy.

Having been very close to someone who went through chemo and radiation, it did indeed quickly make the hair on his head fall out, while the beard stayed relatively intact. I remember back then thinking the same thing about Carl, but I found in this case that the exact same thing happened. I don't know if this is the norm, but having spent a lot of time at the infusion clinic talking with many people as they were undergoing their chemo, I found a number of others who had plenty of facial hair but had lost (and/or thus shaved) their head.

As was also mentioned, sometimes the beard will get a bit patchy, or the hair will not fall out but stop growing so rapidly.

What also happens with head hair is that it starts coming out in large amounts, but it doesn't just all fall out at once. One reason some choose to shave their head isn't just because "it's all going to fall out eventually anyway", but because it's like a dog shedding times ten when the hair first starts to fall out. It just falls around everywhere. So it's more convenient to shave the head in some cases.

This and other things may all be true. It just seems extra odd, especially if Carl *did* choose to take the leave of absence, for Elliott Lott to confirm that Mike didn't want to appear on stage with Carl (however justified or not his feelings may have been). That makes it sound like there was a disagreement about it at some point involving somebody. If Carl chose to leave, or was forced to, why would Mike or anyone else need to even express an opinion about whether they felt it was appropriate for Carl to be on stage?

Wasn't there a story of Carl showing up backstage at a concert sometime after he left touring for the final time where he looked really bad but told Mike he wished to return touring if his health improved? Maybe Mike was reacting to that.

It all doesn't matter at all in light of what happened with Carl, of course. But I'm just trying to get the sequence of events down historically, thus my previous mentioning of trying to avoid the "why does it matter?" commentary. It only matters when mapping out the band's timeline and history. It doesn't matter and has no relation to how we feel personally about Carl or his voice or his music.

In any event, I'm not talking about the media or an author. The manager of the group, Elliott Lott, said back around 1999 that Mike had let it be known that he didn't want to appear on stage with Carl. I'm just curious what that was all about. It seems an odd thing to not only mention, but elaborate on to the media, especially if it had no consequence.

Seems like another instance of Mike trying to appear like a great human being   



are you certain the Lott article was in RS?  I spoke to a collector that couldn't find anything similar in 1999 RS's. 

Have an ill Carl on stage was probably too much of a downer for Mike's positively jukebox. ::)

I remember it was a Rolling Stone online article that included the quotes from Elliott Lott. It may well be that those comments came from somewhere else, and both Rolling Stone and later Carlin pulled it from that (or some other) source.

But I strongly remember printing out a Rolling Stone website article from 1999 (or perhaps 2000, since it reported on the later 1999 injunctions against Al and whatnot) that featured the comments. I remember as well that Carlin's book was the first time I saw those comments after having read that article several years prior.

I have relayed this story on this board before, but will again because it seems appropriate for the thread. For reasons that are not relevant to get into, I was EXTREMELEY lucky and fortunate on August 3, 1997 to see the Beach Boys in Devore, CA and actually rode on their tour bus for about 100 yards.  I say this not to brag in any way because I am in fact a nobody.  It just happened as a complete fluke but because it did I can relay how Carl appeared that day. I sat across the bus aisle from him and Gina and spoke with him briefly on the bus and as we exited. Hairpiece--yes; full beard as always. He had his own dressing room that night which was different than in years past when he and Al would share. He was extremely bloated from his treatment.  There was no sign of oxygen on the bus, backstage or on the stage at any time during the concert. He was on a stool for almost the entire show. If you were to listen to only an audio taping of this show, you would have no idea anything was amiss with Carl except for the announcement that he was battling cancer and his welcoming of his doctors in the audience that night. He sang lead on all of his usual songs--GOK, WIBN, Darlin', GV and absolutely sang the sh*t out of SOS. As with others on this board who saw him that year, it was a lasting memory.

While I haven't been immersed in what has popped up in the most recent years, I've always thought it was odd that very little "circulates" among collectors as far as audio or video from the 1997 tour. I dunno if tapers just became bored because by the mid-late 90's the setlist was pretty stale, or what.

Anybody know what circulates from 1997? I recall very little. There are a few quick videos on Youtube (and I think even those are mostly from after Dave rejoined).

Searching, I pulled up these 3 quotes from the article, evidently featured at Rollingstone.com on 12/10/99, from the old site  rec.music.artists.beach-boys: 

<<
"Mike is the Beach Boys," said BRI [Brother Records] attorney Michael Flynn.
"He sang and wrote many of the original songs, and is recognizable to
audiences as the band's leader. To have Al out there touring as the Beach
Boys dilutes the trademark, but worst of all it confuses the public."
Jardine's lawyer, Vincent Chieffo, counters, "Alan is as much of a Beach Boy
as Mike, and it is deceptive for Mike to represent himself as 'The Beach
Boys.' Mike is touring as he has for years, but is keeping the profits once
claimed by Carl and Alan for himself."
>>
<<
 Jardine's inability to convince either Brian Wilson or Carl Wilson's
estate -- the other shareholders -- to vote with him cripples his position
(to convince either would bring about a deadlock). According to Flynn, the
Wilsons' position has little to do with family or friendship. "Mike has
maybe five years of touring left, and he generates a lot of income. Having
Al out there threatens this income and dilutes the trademark. So the Wilsons
are only protecting their own interests." Does this mean that a profit
motive has eclipsed friendship? "I don't think there's been any friendship
there for a while," he said.
  >>
<<
These struggles came to a head in 1997, when Love stated he would not appear
with either Jardine or Carl Wilson. BRI president (and Beach Boys manager)
Elliott Lott acknowledged the line was drawn, but defined it as an example
of tough love. "You need to put this into perspective," he said. "Carl was
very sick. He'd lost his hair and had to wear a wig. He needed oxygen after
every song. Mike didn't want to appear with Carl out of love for him."
>>

Followed by this posting from Derek Bill: 


<<

( quoted text hidden)
....and contains some AMAZING quotes from Mike's attorney, Al's
attroney, Elliott Lott (hope I got the right number of L's and T's in
there). Every time it seems like Mike can't possibly make a bigger ASS
out of himself.....he does.

So, Mike didn't want to go on stage with Carl toward the end, because
Carl was wearing a wig? This from a man who blinds birds when he takes
off his hat?


Derek
>>

A funny thing happened 5-7 years ago on one of these BB sites. A link was posted for some pictures of one of Car'ls last shows but 3 times when I clicked on them my computer locked up. Took it as a sign and have avoided any pictures/ video of a sick Carl since.

Derek Bill was on the money as ever! ;D

That's the article! The other bit that I remember that is of course pretty ironic is the lawyer's assertion that, in 1999, Mike had only "maybe five years of touring left."

I downloaded one of the '97 shows with Carl a few years back. From what I recall, you truly can't hear any difference in his vocals. He was amazing right up until the end.

Mike was one sick egomaniac from Kokomo on. Really thinks he is the whole BBs brand and Carl/Al weren't important anymore. I think Carl's death delayed something really important that happened during the C50, Brian righting the BBs unit and legacy.

I saw them in summer of 1997 -- my one time seeing the band with Carl -- and except for the fact that he sat down for some of the show, and that Mike made a fuss over him at one point, you wouldn't have any idea that things were amiss. He sounded perfect.

It's a mighty curious thought to think of how history might have been different if Kokomo had never happened. Maybe it's an exaggeration, but I think the power grab maneuvering that happened from the early 90s on, up until and including the events that happened around the time of Carl's passing, might have been more out of reach for Mike.  Or maybe not. (And I totally dig the song Kokomo, by the way - but the heightened egomania might have had ramifications that outweighed whatever good came out of the Kokomo #1 fluke).

I don't know what to think about Mike not wanting to play shows with Carl after a certain point. I want to think it was out of love and nothing more. I really do want to think that; still, it seems a bit baffling to understand as an outsider. People freak out at other peoples' illnesses and grieve in different ways, I'm well aware of that. That said, I'm not sure that the shoe would have ever been on the other foot, if it had been Mike who was ill.  I can't imagine his mates refusing to play onstage with him.

I used to think you were a parody account, but you really believe this stuff, don't you?

Look, after kokomo's success, Mike's ego went through the roof and he thought he really was the only important BB. This ego trip was carried out with his control of the liveshow with tackey cheerleaders and a stale setlist. But the real power moves were carried out behind the scenes to kick Al out and put an unwell David Marks in. Carl's illness provided an easier way to speed up this process.

No arguing that, but do you really think Mike cared little for Carl? I mean, really ?

He did in his own way, but refusing to appear on stage with him could be seen as a way to ease David Marks in the group to get rid of Al. I am surprised Mike would refuse Carl's wish of doing what he loved until the end.

Nah...I don't think Mike refused anything. I think Carl was getting far too sick at that point. I know I'd be uncomfortable watching a family member suffer through a terminal illness, esp. when you consider the grind of touring doesn't exactly have a positive effect on a healthy person.

As for Al....they shitcanned him for a bit in 1992, and Carl wasn't sick then, so...

Gotcha Billy, what the whole saga was really about was the real BBs falling apart into M&B.

I'm still not clear if the idea of getting David Marks into the band (with the ulterior motive to oust Al) was in progress in any way, even behind the scenes, before Carl got sick. Was Carl in any way aware of this?   Apologies if this has been covered before. From memory, I think I've read conflicting reports, but this whole very awkward era seems (understandably) somewhat shrouded in mystery.

Maybe someone could provide the actual quotes.

Oh, someone did.

Didn't Jon Stebbins say something about Dave being prepped to take Al's place before Carl's illness? I don't have the FAQ book nearby (been packing) but I could've sworn I read it there.

So when was it that Mike removed himself from the tour and Al and Carl carried on without him?

The hell?!

Are you talking to me?

Mid 1990.

Hmm. Elliott Lott implied it was while Carl was very sick. What were those dates?  Did I read it wrong?

Edit: no it says in 1997. How many dates did Mike sit out in 1997?

Yeah, because I wasn't sure what you were asking, or why. You know goodness well Mike didn't sit out in 1997. So, I'm not sure why you asked that.

Just more of his "Mike can do no wrong"

Because Lott said Mike refused to tour with Carl and Al in 1997 but apparently he didn't actually miss any dates. Just trying make sense of it all.

Gotcha. Well, we know what happened with Carl, and if Carl hadn't gotten too sick Al would've been out sooner.

Right but according to Lott Mike supposedly refused to tour with Al either in 1997 but he did, so, confusing.

If Carl hadn't gotten sick, Al would've been out sooner. Simple as that. They weren't going to replace TWO members that year, regardless of how much Mike wanted Al out for whatever reason.

Yeah. Page 217

quote re Carl's illness 1997.

...but the process initiated of welcoming David to participate in occasional Beach Boys concerts and media appearances had already begun years before.


Although it is on the same page as Al being on the outer, it does not directly say Dave was replacing Al. Al also say's Bruce was close to being replaced at the same time.

If Bruce was ousted then, or even better, back when Billy Hinsche was allegedly going to replace him...how different would BB history be now? Would Mike still have the BB name now? Would we be talking about BW vs the Mike and Al, or Mike and Dave bands? Or would he be touring under his own name, and Brian would've had the name? Would we have the Beach Boys as Brian, Al, and Bruce with Mike doing shows under his own name?

The mind boggles.

I bet there have been many times Mike would have been over the moon if 53 years ago the group had been called 'Mike Love and the Beach Boys'. He could have flicked off the trouble makers just like Frankie Valli, Paul Revere, Dave Clarke etc probably did. :lol

OK but the quote says he refused to tour with Carl AND Al and he toured with both and Al without Carl. Others are claiming Mike already had David groomed as a replacement. So it also may not be as simple as that.

Page 217 again

...The fact that Carl was sick and beginning chemotherapy, coupled with David drinking himself into big trouble again, temporarily shuffled Mike's plan.



Also keep in mind, unless I'm mistaken, the contract at the time still required 4 Beach Boys. Someone else may be able to confirm this.

Exactly,  PF.

If Carl were still alive, we would still have a legit BB's.

i think so, too.

Consider this: In the last few months that Carl toured with the group(June-August 1997), there is an exceedingly high chance that every single person who was onstage knew that Carl was dying, and pretty much any show could have been their last with Carl. Could you, or would you, be able to see your loved one struggle every single night to do their absolute best, when every ounce of reason told you that the only place the person should have been was in bed resting? Carl was hurting(imagine how his swelling feet felt?), and need oxygen after spending his energy on his fans and fellow bandmates. Can you really blame Mike for not wanting to have Carl out every night?

I can only imagine how hard that must've been for all involved. I also really wish I had gone to that show in 1997 at the Woodlands instead of changing my mind at the last minute.

Of course that "Mike refused to tour with his terminally-ill cousin" sounds outrageous. Just like the WIBN book where it says that Carl delayed treatment for Dennis under Dr. Landy due to Christmas Holiday and then Dennis died. Enough of this utter sh*t.

Regarding Mike during Carl's fight against cancer, we know both shared the stage. We know how fragile Carl's health was. I don't know what else is there to be said. Every person is entitled to deal with illness of their loved ones as they can. To suggest that Mike removed terminally-il Carl in order to pursue an ego-driven plan to take over the group is beyond insulting to everyone involved, alive or not.

Sadly, there are those here whose postings would indicate that this is exactly what they think. Even if they are joking in any degree, it's still insulting beyond belief to all concerned. Can't argue with this sort of Westboro Baptist mentality, so I'm not even going to waste my time and effort trying... but I will pity them.

Yes, agreed.  And there are more than a few posters who had a similar concert experience seeing Carl that last fateful summer.  And having seen him between the times of some of the accounts above, I know they had a similar experience.  I was close to the stage and can tell you I never knew he had a wig on.  I never saw oxygen in use.  He was on a stool singing at least SOS, and gave a performance which stupefied the audience. And he got more than one standing ovation, of considerable length.  Tears and cheers of considerable duration.

Hatred of the willful blind sort is anyone's choice but get your facts straight.  It is revisionist history at it's worst. There were gaps in his appearances due to back to back shows, which I read about in August.  And it is more consistent with exhaustion than purported exclusionary tactics.  And Carl appears by all indications to have been elated with the blockbuster hit, Kokomo.  It also appears that no one had to twist his arm to be involved in the video.  

The chronology is pretty irrelevant.  This was a band in grief, performing under enormous duress.  And there are those who would suggest otherwise.  It is highly offensive to those of us who witnessed otherwise.  

Bring it on.  

Agreed.

This seems to be the type of argument that Elliott Lott is making in that 1999 article. I'm not making a value judgement on such an attitude; we can't really say how someone else should deal with such a situation.

I'm simply curious why that attitude/opinion was even being voiced in late 1999, when not only was the point moot, but most other indications were that Carl and/or his illness dictated his departure (then hoped to be temporary) from the touring band. If Carl was forced to exit and chose to, why would someone else in the band need to suggest they didn't want to appear on stage with Carl?

The only scenario I can think of is that Carl needed to take time off and chose to, and voiced that he would return as soon as he could, and Mike took that opportunity to mention that he wouldn't appear on stage with Carl until he was well (and the only measure of "well" we have would be from Lott's comments about wearing a wig, needing oxygen, etc.). But even this seems like an odd sequence of events, and it's even more strange that the would volunteer this sentiment of Mike's nearly two years after Carl's death.

I went to great pains in my original post to make it explicitly clear that this was not about villainizing Mike. I’m not sure what the point is of creating a straw man argument that people are contending Mike was trying to boot the sick Carl Wilson out of the band in an ego-driven power play.

To the contrary; all the evidence including the words of Al, Dave, and Jon Stebbins’ books (and Carlin as well) make the case that, if anything, Mike was trying to get *Al* out in an ego-driven power play.

Despite what it seemed like in 1997 when Carl disappeared and David Marks almost immediately reappeared, the Stebbins/Marks book paints a clear picture of Dave being groomed as Al’s replacement. The implication is that Mike wanted the lineup to be himself, Bruce, Dave, and Carl. What he would have done after sh**canning Al in an alternate timeline had Carl survived, is obviously pure speculation. For that matter, had Carl been well, it’s unclear whether Mike would have so easily sh**canned Al.

For the most part, it appears getting Al out of the band and Carl’s illness were two mostly if not entirely separate issues going on with the band. They just happened to converge at a certain point.

This is why my main question amounts to a pretty simple, and very open-ended one: What is Elliott Lott talking about when he acknowledges Mike refused to appear on stage with Carl? Why, nearly two years after Carl’s death, in an article about the “Family & Friends” debacle, is he even broaching this subject?

What happened in mid-late 1997 that dictated that two years later, Lott was being asked a question about Mike refusing to appear on stage with Carl, and that Lott confirmed this? My recollection is that the attitude of even the most disgruntled fans back in 1998/1999 involved being bummed about Carl’s death, and off-put that Mike was continuing using the name without both Carl and Al. But I don’t recall anyone even mentioning, let alone harboring any animosity, regarding Mike having tried to pre-emptively get Carl to stop playing on tour in 1997. I’m just curious was elicited Lott’s comments.  

Apart from one poster in this thread, I don't see anyone else making offensive comments or suggesting Mike was selfishly booting Carl out of the band. Again, this is simply a straw man argument being created to voice outrage where none is needed. Manufactured outrage is not needed.

The chronology is NOT irrelevent. This is a board where people obsessively and sometimes combatively correct each other when the wrong song lyric is cited, or a photo is erroneously dated 1983 instead of 1982. But trying to figure out what the hell Elliott Lott is talking about when he volunteers the information that Mike let it be known he didn't want to appear on stage with Carl, that's "irrelevant?"

It's the exact oppposite of irrelevant, and if fans and scholars want to figure out what those comments and the timeline are all about, it doesn't mean they're secretly trying to imply some nefarious motive on Mike's or anybody else's part. In this particular case, I think those rushing to create this anti-Mike straw man are only showing thier predilection for defending Mike when nobody is attacking him.

We're often left discussing how threads always turn into Mike bashing threads and whatnot. But in this case, despite my attempt to ask folks to *not* dismiss the open question about Lott's comments with a "why does it matter?" response, and despite my attempt to specifically state that this is a fact-finding sort of inquiry and not a method to attack Mike, we have defenders of Mike assuming both of those positions.

Let me clarify, Mike loved Carl as his cousin and bandmate. But he wanted Al out of the group with David replacing him. Carl's illness changed his plans for doing the removal of Al. Using David to replace Carl was a way to get the plan back on track for Mike.  *Maybe* using  the hint of "not appearing on stage with Carl" to Carl that he need to leave the band to get medical treatment while David took his spot.

The only reason I can think of Mike not wanting Al in the band so bad is that Al actually has a mind of his own. You only get to be in the Mike band if you follow Mike's lead. Al always wants to throw a few of his songs into the setlist, and - get this - is actually sympathetic to Brian when Brian has his stuff together.

I still think that Foskett article was weird. It was like he was publicly bowing to his liege lord. "Mike even lets me visit castles!"

Regarding Carl, I went to see the Beach Boys as the New York State fair in Syracuse, NY on 8/21/97 (America opened the show). After a brief rain delay, the BB came on. IIRC Matt Jardine was also with them (and he sounded very good!). Carl looked a bit "bloated" from the chemo treatment I'd imagine and his beard gray-ish; but his voice was as strong and sweet as ever. Midway through, he sat on a stool for a bit. At one point during the show (encore?), the other guys (including Mike) did the bit where they knelt and bowed to Carl (in homage) while he played a guitar solo and he did the guitar line dance bit during Barbara Ann. From our seats, there didn't appear any issues between the band-mates.

As to the item about Al, I thought someplace on the board and in the books, it was said that Al had started to make plans and try to book some shows for a "symphonic" concert (not sure if only PS) without Mike et al. knowing and this, plus some other personality issues at this time, was the reason that Dave was to have replaced him. I'm just stating this from general memory and might stand to be corrected. Somewhat interesting in retrospect is that with the supposed Mike-Al tension at this time, Matt was touring.

HeyJude- at our own peril, do we believe all that we read.  When people say, "I read it on the internet..."do we really know its veracity?  Pseudo means fake, or false.  Pseudo-scholarly means that it is not scholarly.  I don't believe everything I read. But there are several eyewitnesses, and I personally know others who don't post here, who have told me amazing stories of their last "Carl" show.  

Carl had a serious illness, but sometimes people who have serious illnesses with a rest day in between can summon enough energy to get through something important, such as a wedding of a child, etc.  And in Carl's case, as many performances as humanly possible.  

Everyone that I know who had a similar experience, has had the same lasting effect.  And everyone onstage was "wired" to be aware of the slightest problem that Carl might have had they might assist with.  And, yes, hearing such allegations is disturbing, coming 17 years after-the-fact. All stage eyes and concertgoers' eyes were on him, hoping that whatever he was doing was not to his detriment.  I guess it feels "invasive" in an area of health matters, which are always personal, to dredge up what is isn't music-based, and the domain that is "off-stage." I regard that as off the table.  Not everyone agrees.

The outrage here, is hardly manufactured.  And there are some "scholars" and eyewitnesses who have different position.  And as against "eyewitness" who know and remember what they saw.

And, I have no idea what YouTubes might be online so people might get a sense of enormous inter band cooperation was going on, while traveling on this 1997 tour.  There is a good reason that "hearsay" is excluded in court, and why "eyewitnesses" have cred.  

He was obviously being specifically asked about that period of time so there is nothing strange at all about him giving those reasons.

To be frank, I’m not sure what you’re talking about. I actually don’t see anyone refuting yours or any other stories of Carl’s performances on tour.

If you’re outraged that someone disagrees that Carl performed well, or showed bravery, etc., then the source of what is offending you is manufactured. Nobody is making claims that Carl didn’t do his best on tour. This thread, at least as I intended it when I started it, had *nothing* to do with that.

In saying that you don’t necessarily believe what is reported, are you suggesting Rolling Stone fabricated the quote from the Beach Boys’ manager, Elliott Lott? Because that’s what I’m simply trying to get to the bottom of. What did his statements mean?

As I’ve said, if your take on that is “why does it matter?”, then that’s fine. Move on to another discussion. But shoehorning outrage about something that isn’t occurring is not furthering the conversation at all.

There is one other kind of sad note that you can hear on the audience recording of the Devore, CA August 1997 show.  I think it's about mid way through the show when Carl says "I was just saying to Mike(Meros) that it sure has been a great summer".  You can feel the emotion in his voice.  I think Carl truly felt things were coming to an end.

Well, duh. C’mon man. It goes without saying that, in a practical/mechanical sense, he’s answering a question because he was asked.

My point was that it would seem odd to get into any detail with a media outlet concerning something that no longer mattered, and objectively speaking, didn’t necessarily help paint anyone in the band in a better light.  

Because he clearly was trying to paint Mike in a better light by explaining just how sick Carl was. You can tell that quite clearly by how it is phrased. He specifically says, `Mike didn't want to appear with Carl out of love for him.`

Now I`m not saying whether Mike deserves criticism or not for his behaviour at that point but there is no question that Elliott Lott`s comments are an unequivocal defense of Mike.

Again, duh. It's clear that's what he was *trying* to do. I would submit that even commenting on the issue at all was a bad idea (although clearly all of this was soon forgotten by the media and fans), that defending an accusation and even addressing the issue at all in this case made Mike look more guilty than he probably was. Disclosing to the media that Carl was wearing a wig and had to use oxygen is, debatably, also not necessarily something I'd want the band's manager spending time discussing if I were in the band (or Carl's estate).

The main point here that I'm exploring is why Lott commented at all, and more importantly, what the content of these comments means as far as the timeline for the group in late 1997. Back to my original question: Did Mike actually at some point let it be known that he didn't want to appear on stage with Carl? Was there at any time a show that Carl wanted to play that Mike refused to play unless Carl left? If not, then why did he ever need to express the sentiment of not wanting to appear on stage with Carl?

No it doesn`t make Mike look more guilty. Nobody reading a quote like, `Mike didn't want to appear with Carl out of love for him.` could think it made Mike look more guilty unless they were looking for a negative connotation in the first place.

Your other questions are fairly obvious surely...

@ HeyJude
You know why Lott phrased it that way? Because of people like you who start a thread saying that it isn't a "Mike Basher", yet you "Duh" anyone defending Mike. Did you ever think that maybe Mike may have said something that in written word may not of come-off as intended? That Lott was trying to set things straight. I know if I had read Mike was refusing to be on stage with Carl, I would have been outraged. Doing it "out of love" kind of softens why it was said.

Evidently Lott's comments didn't make it to RS print. ( I just checked the RS archives for December 1999 and there was zero BBs)


That would mean that maybe there's a ML quote out there somewhere which Lott was trying to soften?    THAT would take a lot of searching....

I wish Brian would get his ass into gear and release the gosh-darned album... this is getting old fast.

While I don't have anything specific, the whole tone of the Lott comment sounds like back peddling on something Mike might have said earlier. They were in Atlantic City for a 2 or 3 day stay. Carl performed at the first show (Friday night), but at the show that I attended (Saturday night), it was announced before the curtain went up that Carl would not be performing due to his health. Phil Bardowell was announced by Mike as an emergency call up to fill in for Carl.

Goldmine July 28th 2000.
Alan Jardine
A Beach Boy still riding the waves
by Ken Sharp.

GM:  So what prompted your decision to stop touring with Love's version of The Beach Boys?

AJ:  We had a symphony tour lined up for the United States. Lots of interested symphonies that could give our music a breadth and depth that we didn't have before and get them a little extra business they needed. A lot of symphonies were going bankrupt. For instance, The San Diego Symphony was in a desperate state, and we were going to do our rehearsal concert there in San Diego. They would get one and we would get one. That kind of deal where they get one for their coffers and we'd get a chance to rehearse and get it under way. And then go to the Hollywood Bowl, get that wonderful place sold out and take it from there all over the country. Carry our charts with us and give them to all the different symphonies.

GM:  What happened?

AJ:  Love steadfastly refused to do it. He insisted Brian be there. I remember that remark which is not all wrong. I don't disagree with that. It would be great if Brian could be everywhere, but we all have to be realistic. He's not going to be predictable that way. He's got only so much energy for that kind of work. He's not built for it.

GM:  Brian never like to tour.

AJ: I think Brian was designing our songs back in the day so that we wouldn't be dependent on him. Anyway, I suggested that he conduct the concert at the Hollywood Bowl. I thought it would be neat if he could come out and take some credit for all that great work. Anyway, that wasn't to be. The concert series fell apart by and large because Mike refused to do it. I think it would have been a great tribute to Carl. It would have been built around the music, not the messenger. It wouldn't have been built around any of us.

GM: After Carl passed away you were still in the band and then decided to leave the Love touring line up sometime after that.

AJ: Right. It became one of those moments. Love continued to tour. He didn't stop touring. He just didn't want to stop touring in that modality. That just wasn't his idea of “fun, fun, fun.” [laughs] So he continued to work with his band, The California Beach Band, and he would go out and do dates and have surrogate singers to do Carl's parts. I thought that that was tasteless. While at the same time not going out with The Beach Boys because of Carl's passing so there's some kind of contradiction in that, in my opinion. In fact, my son Matthew at the time was still in that employ, which I did not disagree with because I don't want him not able to earn a living. But at some point it got uncomfortable.

GM: So at what point did you pack it in with that line-up?

AJ: When Mike refused to tour with The Beach Boys. He just refused to tour with us in any fashion. I can't go into detail with you right now, [but] it got reorganised where Love took the band with an exclusive licence and I didn't. And Bruce decided to go with the guy who sang all the big hits. Matthew had to make some big decisions of his own. We decided to form this entity – Beach Boys, Family And Friends, which I felt would more accurately define the harmonies and the vitality that was missing in the waning years of the band.


Is Mike Love Evil?
Taken from the December 2004 Edition of Mojo magazine.
 Bill Holdship

Love reserves most of his current animosity for the other living original Beach Boy, Al Jardine, who he alleges tried to orchestrate a Beach Boys symphonic tour with Peter Cetera and Brian – but without Mike – the week Carl Wilson died from lung cancer in 1998. There's a snide quality in his voice but still no real sense of anger. “Carl was always the mediator in The Beach Boys, so his absence created a very big void. I didn't feel like continuing with Al after that,  so that launched the whole thing where Al went off and did his own thing and I did mine with Bruce. It definitely created a schism which has lasted to this day. Alan has repeatedly brought lawsuits against Brother Records. But we've been successful at defending ourselves and so his antagonistic approach hasn't gotten him anywhere.”

I was “duh-ing” a very specific case of oversimplification and stating-the-obvious, in the form of suggesting that Lott answered a question because he was asked (duh), and that attempting to defend Mike was done in an effort to defend Mike (duh).

The thread was truly, honestly to simply delve into what Lott’s comments meant. Again, apart from one inflammatory case of someone with some anti-Mike rhetoric, all of the discussion of this thread of “anti-Mike” sort of stuff has come from those who seem too quick to be offended or outraged by anti-Mike rhetoric, which largely isn’t there.

Reading through this thread, it has been those people, not the “anti-Mike” folks, who have derailed the thread with straw man arguments and manufactured outrage. I’m just bummed that it appears some folks literally functionally cannot discuss certain topics. There’s more “anti-anti-Mike” rhetoric on this board now than actual “anti-Mike” rhetoric. I don’t even take issue with “anti-anti-Mike” rhetoric when it’s actually targeted at actual people or their comments. But in the case of this thread, it’s targeted at nobody and nothing, because it isn’t there.

Simply put, posing the question “Did Mike refuse to appear on stage with Carl Wilson?” (when the only reason the question is raised is because the band’s manager confirmed it) does NOT automatically mean it’s a veiled attempt at an anti-Mike thread. For those that are jumping to that conclusion, that’s on you.

I’m just interested in the band’s late 90’s timeline. There is still some confusion and ambiguity about that period of time.

Which, as I pointed out, leaves his supposed refusal to tour with Al which went on for almost another year. So Lott refers to something that didn't happen. Maybe it was said in desperation for Carl's health but that still leaves Mike not refusing to tour with Al for another year. Maybe Lott is getting two events mixed up after two or three years: an effort out of love toward Carl and a refusal to tour with Al after the replace-Mike-with-Peter-Cetera-the-week-after-Carl's-death tour. Who knows but it seems whatever Lott is referring to didn't happen the way he says. Or something.

I disagree. Again, I would submit that responding to the question, and the nature of Lott’s response, reeked of defensiveness and trying to salvage the situation PR-wise. I’m not looking for any connotation. I’m saying objectively, given all of the known factors, Lott’s comments did not help anyone. Unless they pulled his quotes from court documents or something where he was forced to give a deposition or something, he didn’t have to say anything.

I could think of numerous responses, if one *had* to give a response, that would have not been a case of lying, but just selectively and politely addresses the issue. For instance: “Carl was ill and had to take time off. Mike was looking forward to playing together with Carl again when/if he recovered.” Or “This is a non-issue. Mike never forced Carl to leave the band, and he would have continued to play with Carl as soon as he got better.”

I’m just perplexed and surprised that he said yes, Mike did refuse to appear on stage with Carl. Even if done “out of love”, it implies some sort of scenario where Carl wanted to keep touring and/or didn’t realize how bad he looked on stage or something. That’s why I’m trying to get the timeline down, and determine if the implication that Mike *had* to invoke his desire to not appear on stage with Carl means there was some point where Carl wanted to continue touring but was not allowed to. If people want to think this is just a way to knock Mike or something, feel free. But it’s not the case here. I’m just exploring the timeline and available evidence. This would be an extremely convoluted, unclear, time-consuming way to do an “anti Mike” thread.

The issue I’m trying to explore has *nothing* to do with Al. I’m addressing solely the point of Lott specifically stating that Mike refused to appear on stage with Carl. If you want to paste more stuff from 15 years ago about Al, feel free. But it doesn’t speak to Mike’s attitude towards Carl in late 1997. Lott’s comments are clear. I don’t think he’s confusing Carl and Al. If he was, then they *really* need new management.

Well, I'll say this, you do not "Duh" people if you expect folks to be part of a conversation. This thread, like many others veers off-course from the stated objective every now and then. As stated, I was at the first show without Carl when this all went down. The Lott explanation was clearly put there due to something Mike said in passing that was overheard or something. I can't imagine him even bringing it up like that unless something Mike said was going to eventually be taken out of context. I doubt that we will ever really know for sure. For Phil Bardowell to show up as quickly as he did, there must have been some discussion ahead of time to have someone else in place. Carl leaving before the end of the tour had to have been discussed before that last Saturday night in AC.

Lott's quote involves Al and Mike's refusal to tour with Carl AND Al involves Al.

So you believe Lott's statement is credible as far as Mike's refusal to tour with both Carl and Al during Carl's lifetime (which didn't happen) but you don't believe his statement is credible when he says it was with love?

Lott's statement is credible as far as I can tell. That's why I'm trying to figure out what was happening. Mike wouldn't bother to even let that opinion be known unless there was someone who disagreed. This simply contradicts the common story of Carl choosing to take time off. Either that, or Carl did just take time off and Mike, unprompted, refused to appear on stage with someone that wasn't in the band.

Your theory is possible. But my best guess is something in the Al/Family & Friends lawsuit paperwork cited Mike's refusal to play with Carl, and that's what Lott was responding to. It is then because Lott confirms this that I'm curious to know more details timeline-wise.

For what it's worth, Phil Miglioratti's interview with Warren Duffy discusses some of these issues. He contends that Al was being routinely fired and rehired during the 1970's without the public's knowledge. The conversation begins around 14 minutes in:

http://ia600409.us.archive.org/18/items/PhoneInnerviewWwarrenDuffyAug132009/DuffyConcallAug132009_vbr.mp3

I


Mike *never* refused to tour with the Beach Boys...which 'us' is Alan referring to?! Him and Brian? Brian was doing his own thing at the time. So, in other words, Al is referring to himself as 'The Beach Boys'. No wonder there was a lawsuit. Now, if he's saying Mike did in fact refuse to tour with the 'Beach Boys' after Carl died, then why in the blue gravy f*** didn't he use that bit of info when they were fighting over the license? Easy answer: it didn't happen.

Interesting, and I know you're just passing this along for what it's worth. But the guy sounds a bit sketchy. He continually refers to Al being the bass player (which, by the 70's, he was only rarely playing), and contends Al was the weak link vocally in the late 70's for the band, and that it was because Al continually fluffed his vocals and bass (?) and "kept his distance", that he was continually fired and rehired. This, despite the fact that during the era he's talking about, the mid-late 70's, Al was sometimes the only guy (along with Mike) holding the show together. He continually refers to "four part harmonies" as if Brian, Carl, and Mike had their s**t together 100% of the time and Al was the weak link. I'd actually buy the story more if it was that there were interpersonal clashes. But even most of those seemed to take hold in the 80's and moreso in the 90's.

It also completely goes against the power structure within the band in the late 70's, where Mike and the Loves (and Brian) needed Al's vote.

He sounds like a radio DJ who over the years dipped in and out of paying attention to the group.

His description of Al sounds like he's somehow conflating Al and Bruce and Dennis.  :lol

It's an odd turn of phrase. I think when he says this, he means Mike refused to tour with what was at that time the current incarnation of the Beach Boys, both lineup-wise and business-wise. If you're refusing to play with Al, and in some form or another supposedly refusing to tour with Carl, I would imagine Al read that as a refusal to tour with the correct or current incarnation of the band.

I don't think Al means Mike showed up to a meeting and simply went on strike. It's quite the opposite. He wanted to play *more* dates as the Beach Boys, just without Al (and by whatever circumstance, without Carl). Al may also be factoring in the vague stories of his "Pet Sounds" tour idea being turned down.

But the way the thing went down, since their previous organizational structure didn't allow for simply "firing" Al exactly, it did kind of come off a bit like essentially breaking the group up, and then reforming it without Al. Organizationally/Business-wise, that's kind of what was happening in the late 90's according to the info we have.

Yeah, and it flies in the face of what David Leaf told us in his book, that Mike and Al were as thick as thieves and opposed to Brian, Carl and Dennis's vision of the band.
Honestly, there are so many conflicting stories here, and so many hazy or just downright wrong memories from the principals involved that in the end all of this is speculation Every bit of it. Except maybe record release dates...oh wait...sometimes those are disputed too.

To quote Sgt. Schultz "I know nothiiiiiing".    ;D

Very true. While new info surprisingly continues to pop up years and years later, I would think that someone out of Stebbins or Leaf or White or Carlin or someone would have picked up some scrap of info if they had "fired and rehired" Al numerous times in the 70's.

I think Brian and Melinda had the Pet Sounds tour idea, which might be different than the symphonic tour. The only person who has ever mentioned that Peter Cetera thing . Peter Cetera has barely toured at all since he left Chicago .  That could be one of things with little credibility and something that has been twisted.

It's amazing how far people will go to defend Mike on things on this board now. This whole period is very interesting and has never been explored. But that's not going to happen here if every comment Mike ever made or action did needs to be defended.

Al has flubbed many a lyric over the years and while there could have been frustration with him, I don't think it ever reached the 90s frustration Mike had with him. His voice and role held MANY late 70s shows together. He is the only on who appears to even be trying on that 78 Australian tour and I'm very certain there is a quote where Dennis credited him with saving that tour.  ( Waiting for someone to claim that Mike's vocals on Country Pie and Everyone's In Love With you actually saved that tour in 5,4,5 :) )

The Peter Cetera thing always struck me as one of Al's flights of fancy, a hasty idea that probably wasn't super thought-out, and clearly wasn't feasible for a bunch of reasons.

Those articles that mentioned that Mike was pissed at Al because Al tried to arrange that Cetera tour behind his back after Carl died don't strike me as totally genuine if we're to believe the stories related in Carlin's book and the Stebbins/Marks book that Al was being angled out far earlier than that.

It's not that. You have people on here who don't even like Mike defending him because some of the claims made here are ridiculously over the top. I would suspect that more than a few people are tired of seeing every thread devolve into a "let's trash Mike-a-thon". I get it. He's an easy target but man oh man..day in and day out!  

Al still to this day fluffs the lyrics to songs. It's one of his trademarks at this stage. But that radio interview makes it sound like Al wasn't able to correctly sing four-part harmonies in some cases. The guy makes it sound like the late 70's Beach Boys were a slick, tight operation, and Al was stepping in and f***ing it up or something. Makes no sense. There were times when *all* of the guys sounded rather ragged or haggard. But Al, especially in those days, and especially when Carl went off the deep end for a bit, was kind of holding the thing together a bit vocally.

But at this stage in some cases I see folks pre-emptively calling out "Mike bashing" when it isn't even occurring. It has become pre-emptively uber-defensive in some cases. Again, as an example, asking "What do you think Elliott Lott meant when he said Mike refused to appear on stage with Carl?" is not a "Mike bashing" thread.

This thread has inadvertently become a prime example of the straw man that some "anti-anti-Mike" fans have started to create. Apart from one poster, I haven't seen any "Mike bashing" in this thread. Pondering something that *may* be construed as reflecting negatively on Mike is not a Mike bashing thread.

Are you not reading the responses to this thread? It starts about halfway down the first page.

Also HeyJude, you bring up a subject that we will never have a complete answer. When this type of stuff is put forth, it just devolves into opinion and taking sides. It's kind of a natural reaction.

Sure, that's absolutely true. I didn't expect concrete answers. My original post was simply trying to shake out any information fellow fans and scholars might have on the curious, and rarely-repeated or explored contention that Mike at some point in later 1997 refused to appear on stage with Carl.

I wasn't trying to elicit opinions on whether Mike's a good guy or bad guy, nor was I trying to elicit fond (or negative) memories of Carl's final tour (although those stories are great to read). It was simple: Here's what Elliott Lott said Mike said. What do you all think? Any other information out there about this? Does this make sense timeline-wise, or make sense in terms of simple logic?

Sorry just listened to it , Duffy comes out with a load of BS (wrong dates/facts etc....) - But he does admit at the start of the interview that he took a lot of drugs during the 1960's NUFF SAID  :police:

In HeyJude's defense he stated implicitly that it wasn't his intention to go in that direction but even Brian's BBC God Only Knows thread went off the rails. Man, it's tough to be a fan who likes all of The Beach Boys in this forum. My second favorite member after Brian is Dennis and allegedly he did a lot of lousy things to people (especially some women) but at some point you have to go...does any of this affect my enjoyment of the music?

A-FREAKIN'-MEN.

Back to the topic at hand: There's no way to speculate what anyone's motives were in a tragic situation like this. A friend of mine had terminal cancer and passed away last year. I'd watch him come in to work at the end stages. He'd walk up a flight of stairs, sit down in a chair and then after a few hours, walk down stairs and have to take a nap because the physical exertion of just doing THAT took the wind out of his sails.
Some of us were thinking "He shouldn't be doing this. It's sapping his strength. He needs that strength to stay alive and fight this" while some of use were saying "Doing this is what's keeping him going. Even if it's taking a horrible toll".

So who was right in that situation?

Maybe there was no right answer. Maybe in Carl's situation it was just sad all around.   

Well said.

First of all if Mike had refused to appear with anyone in 1997 HE would have been absent from the tour not Carl or Al. This didn't happen so Mike did not refuse to appear with Carl or Al in 1997. So Lott is wrong.

Lott's claim is confusing when compared to reality but Mike's reason is right there in Lott's quote: love. So your smoking gun is Mike loved his cousin Carl. Case closed.

Shows & sessions 1997 (http://www.esquarterly.com/bellagio/gigs97.html)

Number of shows played: 94
Number of shows Mike was absent from: 0

To be entirely fair to Lott, he didn't say Mike refused to play with Carl and carried out his stated intention: what he actually said was ...

"You need to put this into perspective," he said. "Carl  very sick. He'd lost his hair and had to wear a wig. He needed oxygen after
every song. Mike didn't want to appear with Carl out of love for him."

Looks to me like Mike changed his mind, either off his own bat, or was talked around. Is all. Irrefutable fact is, Mike played all the shows in 1997 that Carl played. How many of us have said "well I'm not doing that !", and then have ? Difference being, we didn't have a manager who told everyone two years later. It shoudl be further noted that, according to the recollections of many posters here, Carl didn't need oxygen after every song as Lott stated.

Move along, nothing to see here...

Good point.

Again, the whole point of investigating this was NOT to make a judgment on whether such a sentiment as “not wanting to appear” with someone sick is acceptable or not. It goes without saying that every case is different, and each person’s attitude is different. I’ve faced very similar circumstances myself. This was PURELY about collecting information about the timeline.

I know the situation with Carl was and is a sensitive subject for fans (to say nothing of those actually in the band or close to band members). But I’m just curious to know more about what happened with the band at this time. With all due respect to AGD, this isn’t a case of “nothing to see here.” It’s a vastly complex situation, clearly. Again, I’m perplexed as to why we can be sticklers here about release dates, and which session player played which thing on what, and we can have threads about “What if the Beach Boys were born women?”, but a discussion of the band’s manager making a curious statement (and yes, addressing a potentially inflammatory topic) is somehow beyond the scope of topics worthy of discussion?

I always figured that *if* the assertion that Mike refused to appear on stage with Carl was correct, it wouldn’t have been a case of Mike quitting the tour. Rather, it would be a case of politely telling Carl to take time off, as in “I don’t feel comfortable appearing on stage with Carl in his current state. I think he needs to be asked to take some time off.”

*That* is one of the main reasons I raised this issue, to find out if the stories of Carl *choosing* to take time off are actually accurate or not. And as I’ve mentioned a million times now, this area of study of the band’s history is a case of minutiae, but I think it’s BS to dismiss this question with “who cares?” and then turn around dissect which month of which year a photo of the band was taken or something.

Nobody knows anymore than what has been written here so far. I think we're soon to the point of  :deadhorse

I feel pretty certain that at least a few folks who post here at some sort of interval do actually know more about all of this than what we currently know. They understandably may not be able to add more. I hoped either folks in that category, or some fans who remember any tidbits, might have been able to have more insight into the situation, something beyond defending Mike against charges that nobody is making.

That scenario makes Lott look like an idiot, though. Why would he confirm Mike refused to appear on stage with Carl if Mike actually ended up changing his mind? *Especially* two years after Carl’s death, when nothing would be gained by even discussing the topic in the first place. Why would he overstate Carl’s need for oxygen? I know that if my manager erroneously confirmed an accusation that I refused to appear on stage with an ill band member, I’d be pretty close to firing that manager.

That being said, the crux of what I’ve been interested in involves what the hell Lott was talking about here. One possibly answer is that he wasn’t entirely accurate with his statement. If we’re able to deduce that from this discussion, then that’s a good little tidbit of information to have. To me, anyway. Clearly not much of anybody else cares.

Despite the "disclaimer," that preceded the thread, it is very hard to regard the interest as purely "informational" and you are correct that people have strong feelings about that last season in '97.  But body language says a lot in my book. I saw the band members, including Mike turn their backs on the audience during C50 for GOK to watch the screen, for both Dennis and Carl.  

Actions speak louder than words.  Even now, in the absence of video, the "blue lights" become illuminated, and those who can trace their concert history back to the later 60's know it is both tribute to this magnificent song, and to Carl.  

But, I guess that there is, for me a cred problem, as I clicked onto your blog.  And it illustrates, in my opinion, the position.
It begs the question as to why BB fans are hounded to "choose" a side, as in a soccer, or football game.  It diminished slightly during C50 when the group reunited for a pre-agreed upon and finite number of performances.  And why can't fans like and embrace all forms of the music performed, whether by Al, Mike or Brian?  I've seen each lineup except the "Family and Friends" thing, but have seen Al's fabulous band.  This "divide and conquer" thing is getting old, as is a thinly-veiled "research" effort.  It is back to "business as usual" with the attacks on individual band members.  

Managers come and go, but where the "rubber meets the road" is when they take the stage and do their thing.  And as I've learned, not every book is credible.  Mostly, thanks to this board, I've learned a lot and continue to learn.

And while it might be "interesting" to know how many shows Carl did, and as others, I suspect he was sick a lot longer than we knew he was.  Looking back at photos from 1996, shows a "worn appearance" and maybe he suffered longer than any of us would know.  Really, health is a private matter.  He just shared what he had left.  

But if you check out videos from C50, before they combined the emotionally intense "dedication" to both Dennis and Carl, you'll see a band, including, and especially Mike, turning right around and watch the video, large enough to swallow us all. And it was great to read all the eyewitnesses post their reflections, who saw Carl and shared that memory.  Thanks for that.  
 

I'm with you on this, thanks for the great post. I also see this as a thinly-veiled research effort. To what ends does knowing about this do for history? Carl has always been my favorite band member, yet I have never needed to know down to the last second what went down that Friday night or Saturday before the show in Atlantic City. To me it is a private band matter better left untouched this some 17 years later.

OK but I think that is an unusual assumption and goes against the claim. Mike supposedly said he would not appear. If he doesn't appear he is not there, but Al and Carl would be there because they are the reason he did not appear. You have it backwards it seems to me. Why would you assume that if Mike will not appear that it would be Al and Carl that would not appear instead? How would Mike even keep them from appearing?

It's just about getting a timeline down. No veil in place. There are less convoluted ways to rail against Mike if one chooses.  I'm not researching a book. Was just curious. I'm bummed some folks are so circumspect and unwilling to discuss such a topic. But I tried.

Given he's willingly chosen to manage The (almost unmanageable) Beach Boys for close to 25 years, I'd have to say his smarts have to be questioned, however good his heart.  ;D

Here's a little illustration about the fallibility of memory: my parents & I would have sworn black was white that we heard that Herbert Lom had died in the early 1990s (long before he really did in 2012), to the extent that, when he was introduced to present an award on some TV show after his "passing", we all chorused as one "BUT HE'S DEAD !!".

I know that we are just here to argue semantics about arguments, but I would guess that the interview posted above referencing all of the times "Al" screwed up his vocals and couldn't play bass are probably a misremembered Brian Wilson, whose voice WAS shot and occasionally played bass? I didn't actually listen to the interview, but it sounds like a case of mistaken identity to me.

Anyways, if you take Mike at his word (shortly after the incident at hand), he brought champagne to Dennis' wake to celebrate his life, not his demise. I believe that version of events. If you take Lott at his word, Mike expressed concern about "business as usual" during Carl's cancer battle, out of love for his cousin/bandmate. I believe that version of events.

This is getting too circular. A theoretical/potential explanation is cited above in my previous post, and makes more sense in light of the obvious fact that Mike never missed shows in 1997. It certainly makes more sense than citing Mike not missing any shows as evidence of.. what? That Elliott Lott just pulled that confirmation of the story out of his a**?

It's all theoretical, but I don't know how to be more clear. Again, THOERETICAL, it's simple: I don't want to appear on stage with X = We need to remove X from the stage.

It may well be that Carl needing to depart and Mike feeling Carl should take some time off both happened around the same time. It *could* be that simple.

For the last near decade I was under the false impression that Wilfred Brimley was dead. Not just an assumption; I could have sworn I saw news reports of it. But the guy is still alive! I guess it made jokes about him on "Family Guy" somewhat less distasteful.  :lol

Listening to the guy, he sounds like some of the people I overhear at concerts. Their perception of their knowledge of the band is about a hundred times larger than what they actually know. It's weird though, because the guy remembers Al raising horses in Big Sur and all of that. He clearly remembers which guy Al is. But the only guy in the late 70's who was anything close to being "continually fired and rehired" was Dennis.

You can question the motives for starting this thread all you want. In this case, you're wrong. It was 100% informational. There are far easier ways, and far more damning assertions to make, if one is inclined to start a thread intended to purposely reflect poorly on Mike. This was literally a case of "The books say Carl left, then Elliott Lott said this, so what could have happened?"



And? Who said otherwise? And what does this have to do with what happened in 1997? This is just a bunch of "argumentum ad passions."




You mean the blog titled specifically "Beach Boys Opinion Page?"


I see far more attacking of other posters and fans (mostly straw men) than I do any attacks on band members.

Asking "Did Mike refuse to appear on stage with Carl?" is not an attack on Mike, especially when the group's manager discussed and confirmed it.

Possible explanation (the dope aside):

"I can't tell them apart: it's the beards." - Priscilla Presley's sister, then Brother Studios receptionist.

I can believe Mike said something about not wanting Carl to tour when he was so ill. He may have even said he would not appear because of love if Carl did tour. I do not believe that he could or would prevent Carl or Al from appearing. I think you've got it backwards there with your assumption. So timeline-wise, if it happened at all, it could have happened as soon as they knew how sick Carl was in 1997 through Carl's death because Mike never missed a tour date with Carl or Al.

I love that! I should add that to my signature line!

And I guess it's kinda true....

(http://images.smh.com.au/2011/12/18/2847233/ipad-art-wide-38467550-420x0.jpg)

Or maybe the guy was mixing these three guys up:

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_4XfpQrkOzM/Ukt2VgKpemI/AAAAAAAACjc/jXkdnLhH1d8/s1600/Beach+Boys+1979+by+Ron+Galella.jpg)

It appears to be a "fishing expedition." And, about a sensitive topic to both fans, band, and band-related personnel, not only concerning  "the voice" that remains unparalleled, also a result of the lasting impression that a terminally-ill Beach Boy "put on his shoes" for as long as he was physically able, and courageously sang to his fans and appears to remain a role model to his bandmates. 

Many have come forward to write about what they saw.  It was such a profound experience that people are less likely to forget details.  (I wrote an account a day or so later so I can refer to that. ) and have a few "mediocre" photos.  I'm not strictly relying on my memory. 

Sorry, that is my impression. 

You know, you don't actually have to "use" those quotes "all the time."

That's why you gotta love Carl. He marched on through the pain and he gave his best. You gotta admire that.

It doesn't seem out of bounds to think that Mike's refusal to appear with Carl, in addition to being motivated in part out of love and desire to see his cousin rest and not put himself (Carl) through more than he could take, could also have been partially motivated by a sense of opportunism, even if inadvertent. At the very least, Mike's actions possibly could have served a dual purpose since the timeline coincidentally converged with the Al Jardine-related politics of the time.  To me, it's not unquestionable to think this *may*, and I stress the word *may*, be the case. I don't think that even Mike's biggest defenders would dispute that Mike seems to be a guy who, if he sees an opportunity, he'll grab it, particularly if it means a power play situation where he can finagle a situation to get his ultimate way in the end.  

Even *if* that's the case, that doesn't mean that Mike's motivations weren't still largely done out of love.

That's exactly the way I heard that it happened, at the time of the event. Carl had a blood clot in his leg, which was getting increasingly painful. There's a huge risk whenever someone gets a blood clot in the leg -- it can move to the lungs and cause fatigue and worse. The docs decided that the clot needed to be removed immediately and that's why Carl left the tour.

I have friends who went through clot experiences. In both cases, they didn't have to have surgery, but had to be hospitalized for at least a week and stay out of work for a while beyond that to recover. In Carl's case, he had other health issues in play to compound the time he needed to recover from the surgery.

I deeply appreciate what Carl did, going on tour that last time and reaching out to the fans the way he did. I was one of the fans he sang a verse of GOK to personally (looking straight into my eyes and pointing at me from the stage) at the Raleigh show, and I'll never forget that.

Yes, I might have used italics as a substitute. It is aggravating on an iPad. Plenty of posters write very poorly but their ideas are always welcome.  This isn't a grammar class.

However, quotes may be used for terms used in a special way.

Examples.  

It's an oil-extraction method known as "fracking."

He did some "experimenting" in his college days.

I had a visit from my "friend" the tax man.

From grammarbook.com

The lack of quotes is a prime reason that students are cited for plagiarism. Attribution of work.

I never have a fuckin' clue what filledpage is ever talking about. It's always very, very, very loosely tangentially related to the topic at hand. I don't get it.

I went through that myself.  I had clots in both lungs, and it got so bad I could not walk from my living room to the bathroom (about 30 feet) without gasping for air.  Had about a four day hospital stay, and was out of work for a couple of weeks.  They told me that if I'd have waited much longer to go to the hospital, I might not have made it.

No clue?

Getting called out on quotes is lame, in my view, and a distractor.  I've never called out anyone on spelling or grammar.  And I think the rules of the road (quotes omitted) on this board, call for respect to each other.  

The issue in this thread concerns info on the 97 tour.  

And this is the type of info I was hoping I could elicit; anecdotal info and remembrances from fans who remember that time period. Thank you! It's obviously not happy information at all, but this is the sort of stuff I hoped folks could add.

In this case it may even raise more questions than it answers, but that sort of info is welcomed.

It's not a fishing expedition, unless we can call it fishing for more information about that time period. What else would I be fishing for? You continue to imply some nefarious motive for my post, and it's frankly becoming insulting and rude.

I appreciate the anecdotes about Carl on tour. They don't really relate specifically to the questions I was raising in my original post. Thus, your continued invoking of how brave Carl was on tour and how great the band was towards him has falsely and rudely implied I or others have suggested anything to the contrary. You keep producing evidence as if anybody has said anything to the contrary.

Or - and this is a "radical notion", but one that I feel has "merit" - you might just "stop doing it". It comes across as "extremely condescending". This is a "Beach Boys" forum, not a "grammar class" as you rightly state. We've "had" this "conversation" before.

Stop it, you're making too much sense and being too logical and civil about it.  ;D

That's one of the reasons I'm bummed about the trajectory of this thread. I went out of my way to not even say something like what is mentioned above, which is very plausible and simply stated. I tried to make it even more hands-off than that. Here's a fact: Elliott Lott said X. What does this mean?

The answer to that question is apparently "Carl was brave on the tour and sang great", with an implication that I or anybody said otherwise.

If that is what you wanted, then that was brought up in the 2nd post, page one. We wasted 5 pages when it was there all along. Just kidding. ;)

Yes, Andrew, it isn't a grammar class, but a place for idea and info exchange in a respectful manner.  But, under any number of pretexts, it has often become a bashing forum. JMO

My account was intended to respond to your question with first hand knowledge in response to Elliott Lott's quote.  I was able to see what Carl's condition was, albeit briefly, as late as August 3, 1997. In direct response to Lott's quote--yes, he was wearing a wig.  No, he was not using oxygen and there was no sign of oxygen on stage, on their tour bus or anywhere in the backstage area.  My intention in describing his performance was not to cast Carl as being brave, but rather (again in response to your original post) show that at least to the paying public he was the opposite of an embarrassment to the band.

Yes, I should clarify that anecdotes about the tour such as yours do help. I appreciate those. The anecdotes that simply report what someone saw on that tour, and how what they saw might contradict Lott's comments, are helpful.

I was speaking more to those (one really) who are implying that I or others have swept in with the accusation that Mike coldly kicked Carl to the curb during the 1997 tour. Not only is it a case of shooting the messenger (I didn't say it, Lott did), but it also ignores that my original post calls into question how much sense Lott's comments make. Not only is his comment demonstrably false in terms of the reference to oxygen (or, one could argue, his statement isn't so much false but overgeneralized), but the timeline of Mike not wanting to appear on stage with Carl doesn't necessarily mesh with the other stories of Carl needing/choosing to take time off.

Is any of this relevant?

"He died last year on February 6th," he said. "What was scary is my Jackie is a registered surgical nurse especially pulmonary stuff. And I remember on December 7th the year before last that Carl had to go back to the hospital because they couldn’t stop the bleeding down into his lungs and chest from all the radiation. And Jackie told me that that’s not a good sign at all and she gave him two months. That was December 7th, I remember because it was Pearl Harbor Day and on February 6th, two months later almost exactly, he passed away.

I mean we’re all subject to anything but hey he fought it as best he could. We were in Atlantic City at the Resorts a year ago last August when he developed a blood clot and had to go. That was his last show. Right up until then he just focused on trying to surmount the problem but it just spread too far and it was a real shock. Believe me, it’s been an adjustment."

Mike Love 2/5/1999


How dates did Carl do in 1997? Is it possible he only ever intended to do the Summer shows?


"Even though he was diagnosed with cancer last year and going through treatment for a year, he was a real fighter," said publicist Alyson Dutch. "He participated in the (group's) entire summer tour this year."

Beach Boy Carl Wilson dead at 51
CNN February 7, 1998

I recall the sad days of 97/98 and see similarities with the end of the C50.

'Mike Love Refuses To Tour With Carl Wilson' and 'Mike Love Fires Brian Wilson' make better press than what may actually have gone down.

The excerpts Cam reprinted above are relevant, and seem to go along with the idea that has been usually put around, which is that Carl's health forced him to take time off.

But Elliott Lott isn't a member of the ignorant press. He's the band's manager. Maybe this is more about Lott than the Beach Boys, I don't know. I just find it beyond odd that their manager wouldn't say "that's ridiculous; Mike always wanted Carl there, and then Carl needed to take some time off" or something like that, rather than confirming Mike refused to appear on stage. Lott may or may not be an awesome manager, I don't know. Considering how much we talk about this band, we seem to know relatively little about the guy. But I don't find it particularly plausible that he was just utterly wrong in his comment to the press. I think it's likely that it's rooted in something, some incident or discussion.

Could Carl have taken time off, and then wanted to come back, but at that stage Mike felt it was inappropriate? There doesn't seem to be much of a time frame available for even that to have taken place. The Stebbins/Marks book relates Carl hearing of David's return to the band in October, and nothing is mentioned in terms of Carl having any desire or interest or even focusing much attention on the touring band, as he was busy with his health and his mother's health.

I don't know anything about Elliott Lott, either, but I think his statement was - at the very least - poorly worded, if not just flat out wrong. Mike may have strongly suggested to Carl that he not worry about touring again until his health was improved, and gotten a response from Carl to the effect "don't worry about it, Mike, I'm there", to which Mike said "cool, if you feel up to it, let's go do it". I know it's popular around here to portray Mike as a devil that only cares about making money, money, and more money, but this is family. I have absolutely no doubt that Mike deeply loved his cousin, even if those feelings of love may not be something he finds easy to express publicly. It's too bad, though, that there was such bad blood between he and Al, they seemed to be good buddies during the crazy years of the late 70's.

I agree with this. So much in this thread seems to hinge on Lott's statement which is poorly worded at best.

"Mike refused to appear with Carl (What? That bastard! That egomaniacal cretin, that...) out of love for Carl" (Huh? Wha? What does that even mean?). 

I would think the anecdotes and pieces of information others have offered in this thread present more of a coherent picture than Lott's blurb.

"Last year, The Beach Boys undertook their 36th anniversary tour and at the time of Carl's death, the group were lining up a 1998 US tour to be accompanied by a symphony orchestra."

NME  LUNG CANCER CLAIMS BEACH BOY CARL WILSON (1946 - 1998)

If accurate, perhaps Lott's recall is tied up in the pre-season planning of this. Al said that Brian nor Mike wanted to participate in this tour. Then there is the story that Carl didn't want Brian to participate, if this is the same tour. If Lott's claim was Mike's reason, it would make sense and explain how Mike did not fail to appear at any shows in 1997 with Carl or Al, or prevent Carl or Al from touring either, and still feel Mike's love towards Carl was justified.

I can confirm the story about Carl having to go into the hospital in early Dec. 1997 for bleeding. His sons mentioned that episode in a speech when they appeared at one of the CWF events (forget which one specifically).

As for Elliott Lott, has anyone considered the possibility that he was misquoted? It happens all the time in the press. (And apologies in advance if someone has already mentioned that possibility.)

 Just to be clear, I last saw Carl on August 3, 1997.  AS OF THAT DATE, there was no oxygen to be seen.  For all I know Carl began to need it the following day, although it seems from other posters here that may not have been the case.

It's certainly technically possible, but given the context and the composition of the article, it doesn't seem particularly likely to me.

It was a sensitive time due to the legal stuff with Family & Friends and whatnot, so I would think they would have been quick to correct any mis-quotes.

Carl Wilson, founding member and lead guitarist of the Beach Boys, has been diagnosed with cancer in his brain and lung. But, according to his spokesperson, Wilson is "in good spirits" and expects a "speedy recovery."
The 50-year-old Wilson is currently undergoing chemotherapy and radiation treatment to prevent the disease, which was detected last week, from spreading. "The doctors feel the situation is under control," says Alyson Dutch, the band's spokesperson. "Apparently they caught it in time, and he will be able to tour by May."
That's when the Beach Boys' annual summer tour kicks off. This year the band will be playing 16 dates throughout the United States, co-headlining with fellow oldies act Chicago.

E Online! NEWS/ Beach Boy Carl Wilson Has Cancer Apr. 3 1997

God bless Carl Wilson.  He was not only a great singer/guitar player/entertainer, but a very good – and brave – man.  Wish he were still with us today.

1997 gigs of Carl:

March     
  1 - Mar-a-Lago Club, Palm Beach FL
  7 - Station Casino, Kansas City MO#
20 - Centroplex Exhibition Hall, Baton Rouge LA (benefit)

April   
17 - Hartwall Areena, Helsinki, Finland [w/Jomas] [no Carl]
  
May   
24 - Harrah’s, Laughlin NV
25 - Harrah’s, Laughlin NV
30 - Riverport Amphitheater, St Louis MO [w/Chicago]
31 - Polaris Amphitheater, Columbus OH [w/Chicago]

 June     
  1 - Deer Creek Music Center, Indianapolis IN [w/Chicago]
  3 - Marcus Amphitheater, Milwaukee WI [w/Chicago]
  5 - Sioux City Stadium, Sioux City IA [w/Chicago]
  6 - Sandstone Amphitheater, Kansas City KS [w/Chicago]
  7 - Starplex Amphitheater, Dallas TX [w/Chicago]
  8 - Woodlands Amphitheater, Houston TX [w/Chicago]
10 - Chastain Park, Atlanta GA [w/Chicago]
12 - Coliseum, Charleston SC [w/Chicago]
13 - Walnut Creek, Raleigh NC [w/Chicago]
14 - Amphitheater, Virginia Beach VA [w/Chicago]
15 - Blossom Music Center, Cleveland OH [w/Chicago]
17 - Merriweather Post, Washington DC [w/Chicago]
18 - Amphitheater, Hershey PA [w/Chicago]
20 - The Meadows Music Theatre, Hartford CT [w/Chicago]
21 - Harbor Lights, Boston MA [w/Chicago]
26 - Golden Eagle Casino, Horton KS
30 - House of Blues, North Myrtle Beach SC

July   
  1 - House of Blues, North Myrtle Beach SC
  2 - House of Blues, North Myrtle Beach SC
  3 - Richmond VA
  4 - Jackson NJ
  5 - Eagle Crest Aerodrome, Lewes DE
19 - A & P Tennis Tournament, Mahwah NJ
20 - Starlake Amphitheater, Burgettstown PA

August     
  2 - Concord Pavilion, Concord CA
  3 - Blockbuster Pavilion, Devore CA
  9 - Reno Hilton Amphitheater NV
10 - Reno Hilton Amphitheater NV
10 - Cashman Stadium, Las Vegas NV
19 - Rosemont Theater, Rosemont IL
20 - Pine Knob, Clarkston MI
21 - Syracuse State Fairgrounds, Syracuse NY
23 - Jones Beach NY
24 - Jones Beach NY
24 - Garden State Arts Center, Holmdel NJ
26 - Resorts Casino, Atlantic City NJ
27 - Resorts Casino, Atlantic City NJ
28 - Resorts Casino, Atlantic City NJ
29 - Resorts Casino, Atlantic City NJ [Carl's last show]

Ahh...so he WASN'T at the show in the Woodlands in August. That makes me feel better...all this time I thought I had missed out on seeing him, yet now I see I didn't have a chance anyway. Oddly comforting, I know.

Er... no... because the Woodlands show was on June 8th.

Andrew, the 29th cannot be correct. I attended either the 28th or 29th show and Carl did not play that night.

I was at the June 2 1997 show in Milwaukee. Carl sat on a stool a lot of the time. I took some nice close ups of  Carl. I can't locate mine at present. However I traded it with Emdeeh. Perhaps she can locate it and post it.

With this info on Carl's illness at the end I find it extremely  hard to imagine that after Carl left the tour in late August and then deteriorated to the point of hospitalization in early December and even further to his death in early February that there was ever a time after August that Carl felt up to considering rejoining the tour. Anybody know different? God rest Carl's soul.

Somebody could ask Lott but it looks more and more to me like the claim attributed to him gets further and further from any version of reality. Maybe it's  just me.

Uhhh...why did i think all this time it was on 31 Aug 1997? Had a bald moment*...don't mind me.


*it's like a blonde moment, only for men.


Oddly enough, 8 June happens to be the same date I saw the C50 show in 2012 at the exact same venue.

Then you attended the 28th - I'll amend. Carl's last show was definitely the 29th.

Not questioning the validity of this assertion, but just wondering what the sources are for the 29th being the last show for Carl. So he played the 26th, 27th, missed the 28th, played again the 29th?

It does seem a little odd that he would miss a single day. Even odder that it was in the middle of a group of shows. it makes sense that he would not be able to make the full grouping of shows, but you'd think he'd miss the last day(or two). He was sick enough to miss a show, and be ok for the very next one?  :brow

I think it's a feasible scenario. Just curious about what actually happened.

I haven't commented in this discussion until now, but I have had experience (as have many others on the board) with loved ones fighting cancer. In the past 8 years I lost both parents who were fighting cancer, and what I'd like to add is that from what I witnessed with them and others, it can be a day-to-day existence and struggle, even an hour-by-hour situation.

My dad, who was also named Carl and whose birthday would have been coming up next week, had good days and bad days, just like everyone else battling cancer or any other illness. In those last years when I was taking care of things with him, he'd have a day where he'd be up and around, doing things - cooking, walking around, suggesting going out for a meal, etc. - then the next day he had no energy or stamina at all, and I saw how it really brought him down that he wasn't able to do his "normal" routine. Of all that happened, that was one of the toughest things to witness. Going from active to just not having the strength or energy to get up out of the chair, again on a day-to-day basis. And that got worse with time. Likewise, in retrospect it was really tough to watch what would go on when we'd go to the cancer treatment center, sometimes on a weekly basis, depending on the treatments at the time. Same with my mom before that. You'd be sitting in the waiting areas with people, you'd get to know or recognize them and their families, and some days they'd look energetic, smiling, whatever...and other days you could tell it wasn't a good day. Then there were those who were the "regulars" that would come in every time we were there, then one week you wouldn't see them. Bless those people who work in that field, to handle that emotion on a daily basis.

So the fact that Carl Wilson was sick and couldn't do a show one day but played one the next isn't surprising at all, nor is it out of the ordinary. Again, from what I saw one of the toughest personal struggles was the desire to do the things you wanted to do, were accustomed to doing, or even loved to do, but which the illness physically (or mentally) prevented you from doing. And if there were a "good day" so to speak, you'd want to get back into that normal routine as much as you could. Carl was a musician, he loved being a musician and playing music for people: I'm sure like all of those who have battled cancer, he'd try any way he could to do just that and do what he loved and wanted to do, but some days the illness just kept him from doing so.

GuitarFool;

Very sorry about your parents ; cancer is hideous, a horror to any family that has had to deal with it.

The crux of Hey Jude's question , I believe, is what was Elliott Lott referring to in Carlin's book and the Rolling Stone article; i.e. Mike's stating he would not appear with Carl ; with Carl being very ill , wearing a wig  and requiring oxygen in between songs ect.  What Elliott Lott was defending, was the letter that Mike had sent to BRI effectively demanding that Carl should step down from touring ; if not , then he (Mike) was going to quit. I remember that Brian's reponse to the letter was that he felt Carl should tour as long as he felt like he could, and that it should be up to Carl when he stops. Elliott was attempting to define it as tough love from Mike in getting Carl to step down.

I never knew about the letter. I guess the next question is...when Carl left the tour, did he do it on his own?

Yeah , Billy ; that is the question. 

Thank you, Ray for sharing that with us. My next question is this: didn't MIke realize that his action might be interpreted by less sympathetic (to Mike) as an act of cold heartedness?  I realize it had to be difficult for Miike, but I don't think I could have made such a demand if I was in Mike's shoes.

Thank you for sharing this information. This is definitely the type of information I hoped might me elicited, and it makes Lott's comments make much more sense, as it potentially does Al's comments that Mike refused "to tour with the Beach Boys."

As others have mentioned, I'm curious whether it has any impact on when Carl took time off. I'm curious when that letter was written.

 Andy , you're welcome , but  I believe that info has been around for awhile.  I think that sometimes when things are written , they can look devoid of emotion or feeling . That is why Elliott Lott was attempting to quantify Mike's perspective, and what he meant in his letter. At least that's the way I am reading it.

I'd imagine this was the first and last time Mike ever threatened quit the BBs in some fashion.

Maybe it could be best explained as an act of tough love amidst a time of incredible sadness and unrelated politics. I would tend to doubt that a letter like that had zero effect whatsoever. Was a sick man bravely dealing with his illness really going to be able to work with a person who doesn't want him onstage (even for a reason that person, Mike, believes to be legit)? With as much as he had on his plate at the time, it's mighty hard to phathom Carl trying navigate the vibes playing in a band with a bandmate who has gone to such lengths as write a letter, with a threat of an ultimatum, to see that Carl would stop touring. I'm not passing judgment on reasoning, but I would think that such a letter would have had *some* perceptible impact.

Those that attended shows at the time witnessed Carl's beautiful voice and commitment as a performer, even through pain. They were also witnesses, at least for an hour and a half, of the seriousness of Carl's battle for his health. No doubt his cousin witnessed a whole lot more during those days, and had reason to put on the table such a dramatic request (say what you will, but seen from today's perspective, there has to be something very serious and painful going on in order for ML to consider quitting a tour). Also, if I remember correctly, by mid-1997 there were hopes in the family that Carl might recover, and these hopes vanished by the end of the year (please correct!), so maybe the group, or Mike, or Carl himself thought that he could work better at recovery if not touring.

I can't comment on what it was like to see Carl on stage in 1997 after he took ill ; the last BB concert I saw before C50 was in 1993 in NYC at the Paramount; they were great that night; especially in the unplugged set; one of the great live versions ever, that night, of "Caroline, No" by Carl. From reading the eyewitness audience accounts of Carl's last tour, it sounds like it was great to hear , but really sad to see.  I would think it must have been really tough to be up there on stage with him,  as I would assume everyone present had to know that he may have been playing his last tour .  I didn't really know Carl , but met him several times over the years ; the last time in LA, the fall of 97 after he had stopped touring. Just terrible ; fu..king cancer.

Interesting that after Ray posted this largely previously unknown info, certain parties haven't had anything to say. Sure is interesting.

No need: when Ray's in the 'hood, usually no further comment required, especially when he adds this coda:

"I think that sometimes when things are written, they can look devoid of emotion or feeling. That is why Elliott Lott was attempting to quantify Mike's perspective, and what he meant in his letter. At least that's the way I am reading it."

And as he also noted, this isn't entirely previously unknown info.

Ironically, at Audree's funeral a lot of folk thought Carl looked pretty good (considering) and were hoping for the best... then, after Brian watched the 1998 Super Bowl with him (I think at Jerry Schilling's place), he reportedly told Melinda on the way back "I don't think we're gonna see him again". That was on January 25th. Carl died 12 days later.

It still breaks my heart that he is gone.  :(

Me too. :(

I still love that man very much -- he was a good one.

FWIW, when I saw Al at Resorts back in June of this year, he commented on-stage that the last time they had played that room was Carl's final show.

I had the same feeling (as I stated earlier) it seemed like a clumsily worded statement at best. 

Thanks Ray for the confirmation that it did happen.

Never a day passes that Carl's voice isn't part of it...

Singing from Heaven....how lucky are we?

Loved your story of that last concert with him singing right to you...

Thanks for that.

Just want to mention that Carl's works on the Beckley Lamm Wilson CD - especially I Wish for You and Like a Brother - are sometimes forgotten but so very good too and a recall what a great voice he was.

Carl was one of a kind.  I did not know him, but was grateful for having met him.

Is there anyone anywhere not grateful for having met Carl?

Wait.  Brian has an album coming out?

Something called Peer No Pleasure.

Just to chip in my two cents as a fan...

Carl's death devastated me, like many of you. Two things also floated through my head: 1) I had seen the Beach Boys in the summer of 1996 for the first time (and, except for C50, the ONLY time), and I recall being very pleasantly surprised after all I heard about the tackiness of the cheerleaders (turns out they had just stopped using them!), Mike's 20-year-old scripted dialog (as a first-timer, it actually sounded fresh to my ears), and overall..just the ENERGY that came from that stage...the musical energy, that is (not PERSONAL energy -- let's face it, it was just five guy standing in one place and singing and strumming and not doing anything else)...and when I heard of Carl's death, I thought: I'll never experience that energy again; and 2) please, please, PLEEEEEEEASE, if Mike continues touring, do NOT call it "The Beach Boys." No Wilsons = no Beach Boys, period. That's how I felt then, that's how I felt now, PERIOD. I don't care what the BRI lawyers say -- one original Beach Boy plus a non-original two-time Beach Boy and a bunch of "Who??" are NOT "The Beach Boys." To me, that's like Paul McCartney and Jimmy Nichol getting together with two unknown guitarists and calling themselves "The Beatles."

Now...someone had asked about the paucity of visual documentation of the 1997 tour. I'm sure I mentioned it before, but in the concert book that came out not too long ago, there is a picture of Carl onstage from 1997 (I think from Rosemont, IL) -- and if you didn't know it was Carl, you'd never know there was anything wrong...just looks like some guy, you know? But...some years ago I was at someone's apartment and a friend was showing audience video of one of the '97 shows, specifically "Sail On, Sailor" with special guest Blondie Chaplin. Carl was sitting down and playing guitar. Other than that, I didn't find anything unusual. his head might have been a little puffier than normal, but there was no question that it was the Carl we all know and love, and he had a huge smile on his face from ear to ear...heck, I might have been GIVEN that tape; I'll have to check...the only other things I've seen were from camcorder footage taken from FAR back, so far that you couldn't really make out who was who.

But what I'm questioning is not the quasi-sudden lack of pictures and video from the 1997 tour...it's the lack of ANYTHING about Carl. It just occurs to me that we don't really know a heck of a lot about the guy, and if there's one Beach Boy we probably WOULD want to know about, it'd definitely be Carl. From all I gather, he was the one with the clear head and was able to keep his sh*t together amidst all the problems the band had. (And by his own admission, the amount of scandal and other problems that had gotten out about the Beach Boys didn't even scratch the surface.) What kept him level-headed? What was he all about? What made him tick?

Yeah, you can blame the smoking (and as a vehement anti-tobacco guy I certainly do, especially after hearing from someone who [says he] worked with the Beach Boys for a long time that Carl kept smoking almost until his dying day), but I firmly believe that simply being not just a Beach Boy but the Wilson brother who had to keep it all together, dealing with Dennis's addictions and violent outbursts, dealing with Brian's problems, (and think about how many times Carl's phone rang and he wondered if it was finally going to be the dreaded message that Brian or Dennis finally was no more), the times Mike would cause trouble with the band (often related to fasting and other Maharishi-related crap), other scuffles within the band, etc., were contributing factors to Carl's early demise as well.

The experts here will correct me if I'm wrong, but I was told that Carl stopped smoking sometime in the 80's. As far as learning much about the guy, the best thing out there is Billy Hinsche's DVD "Carl Wilson: Here and Now". Lots of stories about the man and the musician from family and friends. Sure wish someone would write a book about him, though. One of the reasons we never learned a lot about him is that even when he was giving interviews, so many of the questions were about Brian. I agree that being the Wilson brother who kept it all together took it's toll on Carl. And the Beach Boys have not been the Beach Boys - to me - since his passing.

This just turned up on youtube. Carl Wilson fighting illness but still singing like only he could. 1997.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUiWjUYUhOg

Not me, that's for sure. Met him on numerous occasions and what a warm, kind, COURTEOUS, man he was. Seemed he always made time to talk to people-at least that's the way he made you feel. Brian , too.

I looked up the date because I wanted to get it right.  The Beach Boys played the Borrough of York Stadium June 26, 1971.  Alice Cooper, Lighthouse, Steppenwolf, Bread , Blood Rock were also part of it.  Steppenwolf closed it.  The Beach Boys played during the afternoon.  I had backstage access due to being involved with a small high school based promotions company we called 'Magic Bus'.  Cymba [or maybe it was spelled Cimba...] was the promoting company for this show and we had a good relationship with them.  They'd go on to become CPI...Concert Productions International.  They were HUGE.

As the boys wrapped up their portion of the show I waited at the bottom of the stairs leading off of the stage for Carl.  As he reached me I asked him how Brian was.  He replied that Brian was doing OK and that they had hopes that he might be rejoining them again a little further along the path.  Then I asked him what David was up to and was he still in contact with him?   That was the question he wanted to answer.  He and Dave were pretty good buddies and I guess Carl figured that I must know something about something if I was interested to know what was happening with their old band-mate, friend and neighbour from across the street.

The guys were staying a bit of a drive away at The old Beverly Hills Motor Inn and the limo was leaving.  Carl said come on with us.  We'll have some lunch and talk.  I didn't have to be asked twice.  I mean I had just wrapped up my high school daze about 2 weeks previous.  [No final exams]  And here I was headin' out for lunch with a guy who, to me, was like a part of my family.  I'd been listening to him and the boys and reading as much as I could about them since the summer of '63.  So in a sense they were always in my home and participating in my life.  I had never stopped listening.  I had everything they'd recorded [even Smiley Smile] and I guess Holland was pretty much recorded and in the can at this point [June/71]

So we went back to the Motor Inn, had a nice leisurely lunch, chatted about various things, Carl introduced me to the rest of the guys, Dennis and Mike were heading out to have some fun and made fun of Carl for being stuck with me, and not too long after that it all wrapped up smoothly and nicely.  Carl asked if there was anything more I wanted to know.  I said no and thanked him.  Then I got up to leave.  He said are you going back to the stadium?  I replied that I was.  Carl then said hold on...I'll get the limo for you.  In no time...there I was being limo'd back to link up with my concert going friends and to enjoy the rest of the night.  I missed Alice Cooper and another act or two.  I didn't care...AT ALL.  I'd really only gone to see and hear the Beach Boys anyway.  What a great day.  That was 43 years ago.  16 months later...while I was still in college...my radio career began.

I saw Carl maybe another 6 or 7 times after that...at various concerts I MC'd in Winnipeg and Toronto.  He was always surrounded by plenty of folks and he was always accomodating.  We spoke of our wee lunch once...I guess it must have been about 12 years later...and he remembered it.  Not the normal routine I guess.  Last time I can remember having direct contact would have been the early 90s during the box set tour.  Carl was a really, REALLY nice man.  He was a sensational talent.  His voice ... was just magnificent.

I'm glad folks care[d] about him.  Carl Wilson was a truly caring person...in every way, shape and form.  

"The smile you send out...

Wow. Chills. That is moving watching him fight and sing that well at that stage.

I would like to think the existence of this clip would mean that somewhere in the news station's archives, there might be more pro-shot footage of that show. Maybe.

Yes, an amazing day I'll never forget. 

Thanks to the fabulous person, who preserved and uploaded it, and to you, Funky Pretty for linking it.

Carl was later was on a stool but was just as amazing, and his voice was still powerful.

And, still so missed.   :love

Carl sounds really good in that clip. As many observers have noted of the 1997 tour dates, if you were listening to the show, you'd never know anything was amiss. I also miss that blend, with Mike, Al, and Carl.

I was horrified to see this thread pop back up. I started it, with an honest attempt to examine a key period in the band's history. That all went to s**t, but I'm glad to see the thread back up to show us how good Carl sounded in 1997. I'd also say, while the angles aren't super close up and it's obviously from an old VHS tape, Carl looks *relatively* okay too. I know some folks have seemed taken aback by the photos of Carl from 1997, and that one from '97 or early '98 printed one time in ESQ. But I've never seen a truly *horrible* picture of Carl from 1997. The one in the Stebbins/Rusten book is perhaps the least flattering. But he looked (and definitely sounded) to be holding up quite well considering what was going on.

You'd know that something was amiss because Mike briefed the audience about Carl's condition, at the beginning of the show.  And Carl did really well, but the audience was on eggshells, as I suppose his bandmates were.  And toward the end of the summer, things seemed to fall apart, but we knew we were in the presence of greatness and courage.

So glad it was posted. 

That is an incredible story!

Now, folks, this is an example of a thread that turned itself around into something truly worthwhile. Kudos to all, but especially to Ray (for being the straight-ahead, great guy that he is, making one of the most perectly-timed thread entries in the history of Western civilization!!) and to Add Some (for a story that is a beautiful reminder of just how special a person Carl Wilson was).

And to HeyJude, for perseverance above and beyond the call of duty.

That was wonderful. Thank you for sharing that. That genuinely moves me.

That video is a great find! Oftentimes, local news stations will be allowed to video for the first ten minutes or so of the concert, then would need to leave after that. The key was for them to just get a few glimpses of the show to air on the local news, and nothing more. "I can hear music" was often the second song in the setlist in 1997, right after California Girls, so I surmise that's what happened here.

I echo HeyJude's thoughts that Carl looks relatively ok here, and that it wasn't obvious that he was battling cancer.

Granted the video is taken from quite a distance back...hard to get a true feel for the realities.  But that's just as well I think.  He sounds really good.  They all do. :hat

Carl looks a little heavier in that clip, but not bad at all, and sounds just as he always did. That man was blessed with one of the most beautiful voices on the planet, and he never lost it.

Obviously, my reference was to hearing a given song performance and not hearing anything amiss. I'm well aware Mike spoke about Carl during this string of shows. I certainly hope that's what Carl wanted and that mentioning this during shows was *his* idea; I personally wouldn't have wanted that brought up night after night if I were Carl, for a number of different reasons, but that's just me.

Carl actually sounds *better* in some 1997 clips I've heard than he did at some random other points during the 90's. Strange, and wonderful.

My bad if I was not thorough, explaining.  Prior to that tour, there was a press release/story in the newspapers, announcing Carl's diagnosis.  Mike's dealing with the audience was clearly easier than Carl having to do so, himself, energy draining as it would be. 

As Mike spoke to the audience (clearly not easy for him) you could almost feel collective grief among the audience.  People were shaking their heads, after Mike confirmed what they already read in the news.  "The show must go on," and it did, as we/they were making the best of a bad situation. But, Carl's performance, was so outstanding, that it defies logic, even now. 

And, where it might be "night after night" after having toured all those decades, Carl/the guys would know that each audience was different, but all having the same news stories, heralding this tour.  And there was likely some "predetermined info" that was agreed upon prior to it, to be released to the audience, who first, already knew the diagnosis from the news, and second, gave (Carl) the most rousing applause I've ever seen, at a BB show, before or since.

On that day, around the 20th or 21st of June, and outdoors, that song was probably in the second set,(as Eric A. noted) after some God-awful warm up act, because the taping shows it was darker, like at dusk, despite it being the on or near the summer solstice. It was very bright when the BB's took the stage.

But fans (guilty as charged!) kept drifting down toward the stage to take photographs and for their farewell look at the guy with most amazing voice, ever, in rock and roll.  And security was unusually and thankfully lax that day. 

Again, thanks to the person who preserved the tape, and second to Pretty Funky.  ;)

My first concert was The Beach Boys w/ America on June 29, 1994 @ Finger Lakes Performing Arts Center, Canandaigua NY. I was 9 yrs old. I vaguely remember it. Anybody have footage or pics..!?

I could read people's Carl stories all night. What a beautiful soul - and a voice to match. I sing a little and people have asked me a few times which singers I most admire - I've always said if I could have any voice it would be Carl Wilson's. I'm increasingly envious of and aspiring to match his generous spirit too.

I agree that Carl sounded great in '97! Better than he had in years. ( Not that he ever sounded bad)

Well...there was once...was it in Australia?   :o  [hic - up]  If I was a singer and I could sound like Carl...I'd be freekin' excellent.  Sounding like either Nat King Cole or Brook Benton would be fine with me too.  [And then there's reality. :lol]

Not to try to turn this into a general Carl thread if it isn't already, but has anyone ever heard a more beautiful God Only Knows than the Knebworth version? I know he nailed it practically every night, but man, the richness of his voice on that recording is something else. Best I recall hearing.

Yes, I prefer the 1993 box set tour version. It's all subjective.

The '67 Hawaii "rehearsal" for me.  With the stripped-down arrangement, it almost becomes a lullabye.  Takes my breath away.

Cheers,
Jon Blum

I believe Alan Boyd directed a documentary of the 1991 UK Tour.  There's a great version on that, as well as Bruce doing Please Let Me Wonder.  There's also group interviews and stuff.  Maybe Alan can chip in here and tell us more.  I wonder why it was never released?

IMO, Knebworth is way too fast. Bugged me that they used that version for the C50, but oh well.

Yes, I like that version almost better than the original! And a close second is the Live In London version. Unfortunately Al's vocals is too silent in during the ending. Otherwise it's aperfect version

My feelings exactly

My favorite might be the Carnegie Hall version ( which should be released)  The Carl/Dennis/Al tag is incredible.

My favorite live version of "God Only Knows", and the one I was hoping they would use for the C50 tour, was from the 1989 Endless Summer TV show. A later version, with a little rougher vocal from Carl, but still exceptional, was from the 1996 Farm Aid concert.

.

?

I decided to delete my post. I didn't know about Mike's letter to BRI about Carl and because something similar happened at my work place I have a very strong opinion about it, voiced it, but didn't want to have potential backlash about it so deleted it :)

I will say, Wild-Honey, that I saw your original post and I didn't think there was anything inappropriate about it. And it actually related very well to the topic at hand. But it's your choice...

Bring it back!!! 
Pictures!!!!!!!!

Mine too, Sheriff.