The Smiley Smile Message Board

Hi All,

Recently I joined Pray for Surf podcaster Phil Miglioratti in interviewing author Jim Hirsch, who collaborated with Mike Love on Good Vibrations: My Life as a Beach Boy. He discusses his process working with Mike and we got into the current Beach Boys/Brian Wilson touring situation and the fallout from the 50th anniversary. We only scratched the surface and will do a part two next week. You can listen here: http://prayforsurfblog.blogspot.ca/.

Much appreciation for conducting and posting the interview. I especially appreciate that you at least attempted to point out to Hirsch that, for all of the complaints, come the end of C50 Brian wanted to continue and Mike didn't, so it *was* Mike who was functionally the one who had to and could have made the decision to continue. Hirsch of course didn't really have an answer for this, I suppose eventually sort of admitting through process of elimination that functionally it was Mike who said no.

No fault of your own, but despite Hirsch saying at one point that he doesn't want to come across as a Mike surrogate, that's of course precisely what he is and how he speaks. He doesn't it very politely, and I wouldn't expect the co-author of Mike's book to be anything other than this.

It's disappointing that he tries to further the "people around Brian" thing. I think there's a tactful way to point out that all of these guys, and Brian perhaps sometimes more so, have a barrier around them, and that people around them can constrain relationships. But he continues the pattern of inadvertently if not directly likening all of the "people around Brian" through his life to each other. Melinda isn't the same as Landy. Heck, even Murry wasn't the same as Landy.

Also still perplexed (though I guess not surprised) that both Mike and Hirsch can't offer *any* explanation for what happened between Mike and Al in the late 90s. Both in the book and in this interview it amounts to "relationships are bound to crumble eventually; it was surprising it lasted that long." Yes, Mike in the book mentions the "Al trying to plan a tour behind my back" thing, but that seems minimal. Completely ignored is what Stebbins and Marks mention in their book regarding Al not wanting to be an employee of Mike's production company.

I suspect that it must have been determined to be too difficult to put any kind of positive "spin" on how Al was treated in the late '90s, so it's just ducked and avoided like so many questions by presidential candidates. It's frankly pretty obvious to me that glaring omissions are omitted because there's little wiggle room for a certain someone to come off as anything other than having largely acted in a pretty lame, power-hungry fashion. 

I would imagine the idea that Al is still alive as are others and could easily refute things Mike said played a role in that.  Also, the threat of potential legal action might have affected that.

That and maybe the fact that Al is a class act who doesn't hold a grudge?

Mike states why/how the 2012 tour ended in his book… from his perspective.  Not sure how Mark asking the question would provide a new revelation.

You've already received your Mike apologist credentials, no need to continue to flaunt them here.  Where does Mark say he is asking for a new revelation about the breakup of C50?  Mike discusses Manson in his book, does that mean asking questions about Manson is off limits for all future interviews?  If so, why didn't you step in and proclaim that as a useless question when it was under discussion a few weeks ago?  Is there a anything else in the book that future interviews shouldn't bother with?  Maybe his discussion of the hit single Kokomo that didn't involve cousin Brian?

Other than further cementing your status as a Mike apologist what value did you intend when making this comment?

EoL

You've got to get both books.  No collection is complete without them.  

To Mark: Thank you for posting and linking to the interview. Good job as well on interjecting with some pertinent questions and clarifications during the interview itself.

I listened in full, and a few points made and comments stuck out enough for me to address them here. Perhaps some clarification or even just an addressing of some of these will follow in part 2 or even part 3, or here on the forum. I have listed some of Mr. Hirsch's comments with approximate times from the broadcast, as well as the relevant quotes themselves for reference. Both my own comments and questions will follow each quote, with relevant links or examples. Mr. Hirsch's comments are in italics:

7:10
I have not read Brian's book. I spent well over two years studying and researching Brian Wilson, one of the most fascinating figures in the history of pop music; I know Brian, and there's nothing in that book that I could learn about him that I don't already know. I would have loved to have sat down and spoken with him, and I tried to, but my requests were, well, they weren't even denied, they weren't even responded to. But I feel that I know Brian Wilson extremely well, and I really don't think I would learn anything in that book.

It's everyone's choice whether or not to read any book, but the reasoning given here, namely that there would be nothing "new" to learn about Brian in the new book couldn't be further from the truth. I'd definitely have read the book first before using this kind of rationale behind not reading it: The proof is in the pages of the book, there is indeed new info and more to learn about the man than has been revealed previously. There are also diehard fans who have read and researched everything they can get their hands on about the band in general, for decades beyond two years of research, who would most likely say as a consensus that they don't claim to know Brian or any of the band members based on research, reading, and the like.

18:50
You would think he (Brian) would want to embrace the family members he has left. I spent time with Mike's sister Maureen, and Mike's brother Stan. Now, Maureen and Brian were incredibly close when they were growing up, Maureen plays the harp, she played that instrument in a number of Brian's songs in the 60's. Stan was Brian's bodyguard, Stan is, you know, just loves Brian unconditionally. They are estranged from Brian Wilson. They cannot get to him.

They cannot get to him? Maybe a clarification would be in order. Maureen was just with Brian at his show earlier this month in Portland, and this is a photo that was taken of their meeting:

(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/brian%20maureen%20portland%202016_zpslesikt3s.jpg)

The photo is from 2006, but this is Stan, Brian, and Melinda watching Kevin Love at a basketball event when he was at UCLA:

(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/stan%20brian%20melinda%202006_zpstgskuajf.jpg)

According to people who were there, Stan was also backstage with Brian at the Hollywood Bowl show during the 50th anniversary tour. And Steve Love has said Brian was present at basketball games where Kevin was playing, in line with the photo above.

Speaking of Steve, I also found it a notable exclusion to the conversation not to mention Mike's brother Steve Love. Steve has been public about his issues with Mike, and in the past year wrote the following: "Yes, I am estranged from brother Mike. Believe me, I have my reasons."
I think there has to be a sharp line drawn between estrangement and suggesting there are efforts to lock people out entirely. There has been a lot of the latter, and as unfortunate as it may be to have a fractured family dynamic including estrangement between brothers, it's different from suggesting a plot to keep them separated and suggesting that for various reasons why certain people are not working together with others.



22:40
I think the schism between the two revolves more upon people who have surrounded Brian over the years, to be honest, I'm not taking Mike's side of the story, because I'm not in any way his shill
23:00
One of the insightful interviews I had was with the musician Carli Munoz...as Carli told me, what's tough about Brian is that throughout his adult life, he's always been behind a firewall. And you cannot get through that firewall. And there was time when the firewall was the bodyguards, there was time when it was his father, there was time when it was Landy, it was time when it was his conservator, now he's got other people who are there as his firewall.
(Phil) Now he's got Melinda, she's very much active in the production...
(Jim) Yeah
(Phil) ...and the executive end (?), dimensions...
(Jim) Yeah, Sure

Does the phrase "other people who are there as his firewall" refer to specific individuals? If so, who are these people? Or is it specifically his wife of 20 years, Melinda? If it is in fact supposed to be Melinda, I think it is in poor taste to put a man's wife of two decades in the same list with his conservator, bodyguards, and an ersatz "doctor" whose failings are well known, and suggest that's yet another issue "keeping people away" from Brian, whether personally or in terms of writing songs, or whatever else is at stake. Again, perhaps a clarification would be in order, because on the surface it doesn't come off very well on the very basis of putting issues of incompetence, and outright professional malpractice and quackery of the worst kind, on the same basis as a 20-year marriage.

24:00
Mark's question on the 50th reunion tour.

26:20
My point is, I think if it were just Mike and Brian, yes: They would go out on tour, absolutely. But there are too many people around them that will ensure that that does not happen.

Is this comment suggesting a two-way street in terms of making demands and concessions in order to facilitate such a joint tour, or is it again suggesting Brian is being kept away from touring with Mike by those around him? Strip the issue down to the basics, and what if Brian simply does not want to tour with Mike, what if Mike does not want to tour with Brian, and what if the organizational and operational demands coming from all sides would not or could not be agreed on to suit all parties? There are so many variables, perhaps many more than a suggestion that the people around them are more to blame.

27:32
The reality of the 50th anniversary tour was that it lost money on the domestic side, because the band was so big, the costs were too high, given the revenue that these concerts were generating. And the concern that Mike had going forward was that well, if we start not just losing money ourselves, but if our promoters are losing money, if the venues are losing money, then we're going to jeopardize the brand. And so those economic factors were very much a part of their concern

This information fascinated me as well as raised some questions, especially in terms of the numbers, so I went to probably the best industry resource for tour data and sales info, Pollstar. They list annually the top 200 domestic tours of each year, and also do mid-year updates on current tours. I will list direct links for anyone interested in the facts and figures behind these tours.

According to Pollstar's "Top 200 North American Tours" 2012 year end report http://www.pollstarpro.com/files/charts2012/2012YearEndTop200NorthAmericanTours.pdf (http://www.pollstarpro.com/files/charts2012/2012YearEndTop200NorthAmericanTours.pdf), rounding off the numbers, The Beach Boys 50th tour in 2012 grossed 15 million dollars, playing 53 shows in 50 cities. Average ticket price $68, average tickets sold 4,400 (factoring in most venues were mid-level), total tickets sold 219,000 with an average gross of $300,000. That boils down to the band playing 11 weeks of domestic shows, with the five band members and ten backing band members. After Nicky Wonder left due to illness, it equates to a stage of 14 musicians in total, twice the size of Mike's current touring band with 7 or 8 musicians on stage most times.

Pollstar's 2013 Top 200 http://www.pollstarpro.com/files/charts2013/2013YearEndTop200NorthAmericanTours.pdf (http://www.pollstarpro.com/files/charts2013/2013YearEndTop200NorthAmericanTours.pdf) did not list the Beach Boys as having made the cut for the top 200.

Pollstar's 2014 Top 200 http://www.pollstarpro.com/files/charts2014/2014YearEndTop200NorthAmericanTours.pdf (http://www.pollstarpro.com/files/charts2014/2014YearEndTop200NorthAmericanTours.pdf) lists the Beach Boys as follows: They grossed 8.7 million, average ticket price $47, average tickets sold 2,300 and total tickets sold 106,000. No info given on number of shows/cities, perhaps someone can provide that number.

Pollstar's 2015 Top 200 http://www.pollstarpro.com/files/charts2015/2015YearEndTop200NorthAmericanTours.pdf (http://www.pollstarpro.com/files/charts2015/2015YearEndTop200NorthAmericanTours.pdf) lists the Beach Boys as follows: Grossed 11.4 million, average ticket price $48, average tickets sold 2,600 and total tickets sold 235,000. Average gross $124,000. 99 domestic shows in 92 cities.

Pollstar's mid-year Top 100 report for the first 6 months of 2016 ending June 30th http://www.pollstarpro.com/files/charts2016/2016MidYearTop100NorthAmericanTours.pdf (http://www.pollstarpro.com/files/charts2016/2016MidYearTop100NorthAmericanTours.pdf) lists the Beach Boys as follows: So far 2016 has grossed 5.5 million, average ticket price $65, average ticket sales 1,600 with total tickets sold 85,500. Average gross $106,000. 54 domestic shows in 52 cities.

It's a lot of numbers, but if we crunch some of those numbers in terms of the variables, and there are many beyond this list for sure, I'm not seeing on paper how the C50 tour domestically had lost money if that is the reasoning given above. Is there an explanation for this discrepancy, or proof of this beyond the industry data as reported by Pollstar? On paper, the most basic division and multiplication might suggest the C50 tour had twice as many musicians on stage, yet also earned just under twice as much as the band after C50 earned in 2014 and subsequent years, the percentage of course shifting by year. And they did so playing half the amount of shows in both similar and slightly larger capacity venues. And a large majority of the C50 shows were sellouts or close to sellouts, which is when the industry took notice and came calling with more offers for the anniversary lineup to continue the tour.

Was C50 losing money domestically a factor in how it unfolded, and in comparison to the subsequent years' tour data relative to domestic touring, did it really lose money? With all the factors including the number of shows played, ticket prices, and the size of the venues, I'm not seeing the proof in that data from Pollstar.

Interesting guitarfool. Thanks for that post!


You would think he (Brian) would want to embrace the family members he has left. I spent time with Mike's sister Maureen, and Mike's brother Stan. Now, Maureen and Brian were incredibly close when they were growing up, Maureen plays the harp, she played that instrument in a number of Brian's songs in the 60's. Stan was Brian's bodyguard, Stan is, you know, just loves Brian unconditionally. They are estranged from Brian Wilson. They cannot get to him.


When it comes to Mike not being able to see/talk to Brian, according to eye-witness Ray Lawlor there were several times during the Beach Boys tour that he and Brian sat at a table during catering and Mike could have come by at any time. Didn't even try. I think Ray posted that somewhere on this site.



According to Pollstar's "Top 200 North American Tours" 2012 year end report http://www.pollstarpro.com/files/charts2012/2012YearEndTop200NorthAmericanTours.pdf, rounding off the numbers, The Beach Boys 50th tour in 2012 grossed 15 million dollars, playing 53 shows in 50 cities. Average ticket price $68, average tickets sold 4,400 (factoring in most venues were mid-level), total tickets sold 219,000 with an average gross of $300,000. That boils down to the band playing 11 weeks of domestic shows, with the five band members and ten backing band members. After Nicky Wonder left due to illness, it equates to a stage of 14 musicians in total, twice the size of Mike's current touring band with 7 or 8 musicians on stage most times.


By all accounts the Beach Boys tour did much, much better than anyone expected. So does this mean that they planned the tour as being a failure so that when it does better than expected, they still lose money?



It would be cool if Mr. Hirsch would stop by this board and do a Q&A chat. Maybe that would clear some things up. What he is saying in this interview is sounding very much like your typical Mike Love interview which of course is consequent as he worked with him. I just wonder what sources he had besides Mike himself.

I'd also suggest to Mr. Hirsch that researching Brian for two years doesn't constitute knowing him or fully understanding him.

I've been studying him for 30-plus years and I wouldn't say I fully understand him.

Also stunned that Hirsch thinks he doesn't need to read Brian's book.

Regarding Brian not talking to Hirsch, Dillon pointed out in the interview that Brian's contract with his publisher precluded him from talking to other authors.

Well, Hirsch has already written his Mike Love book. Why would he need to read Brian's book now that his research is complete? Is he somehow required to keep abreast of all things Beach Boys from now on?

Maybe he's had enough of the Beach Boys for now. I really don't get this criticism...

If Hirsch wants to be like Keith Badman and come across as someone who knew little, took the writing gig because it was a gig, and tried to shortcut being an expert, that's fine. But then everything he says will be weighed accordingly

That is not the point. Here (quoted from guitarfool's post):

I have not read Brian's book. I spent well over two years studying and researching Brian Wilson, one of the most fascinating figures in the history of pop music; I know Brian, and there's nothing in that book that I could learn about him that I don't already know.


He says he didn't read Brian's book but then at the same time judges it ("there's nothing in that book that I could learn about him that I don't already know").

Mark Dillon... looks good questions for Part 2,
Phil

It sort of seems like he's maybe AFRAID to read it and potentially learn something new that might change his mind about Mike and the things written in Mike's book.

I don't know about his reasons and it's none of my business. But the above mentioned part is just bogus

I also find it a little ironic that Hirsch has an attitude that he doesn't need to read Brian's book, yet Mike supporters, immediately upon publication of Mike's book, started relentlessly asking people if they had read Mike's book and suggested that if they hadn't read Mike's book, they shouldn't be commenting.

I find it quite odd that Hirsch didn't just say "no, I haven't had a chance to read Brian's book yet" and leave it at that, but instead says he doesn't need to read Brian's book. Really? Isn't he giving fans a strong reason then to not read Mike's book. As in, "Sh*t, if Hirsch doesn't need to read Brian's book after studying Brian for two years, then I certainly don't need to read Mike's book if I've been studying Mike for decades!"

I think the supposition/theory that Hirsch is afraid of what reading Brian's book might make him think about his own book about Mike or about Mike's positions/opinions is, while most certainly just a theory, certainly is not craziest theory I've heard. It seems totally plausible to me, and his "I don't need to read Brian's book" attitude is what makes me think it's plausible. It sounds a little defensive to me. And/or like he's annoyed that Brian didn't give him an interview for Mike's book.

Statements like that cast doubt on everything else Hirsch says.

He and Bruce also skipped that huge dinner that pretty much everyone else went to towards the end of the tour.

I also find it odd to cast aspersions on Brian for not remaining in contact with people he knew 50-60 years ago, whether friends or extended family. There could be countless reasons for that. And, obviously, it's pretty funny he makes that comment mere days/weeks after Brian was photographed with Maureen.

It also sounds pretty silly for Hirsch to not understand that possibility that Brian wouldn't want to be close buds with the other Love brothers, as they were in the middle of some tumultuous times for the band and Brian.

If there are people from Brian's past who aren't able to socialize with him now, maybe it's for the same reason that this occurs with countless famous folks. Their fame, and schedule, etc. makes them less accessible. Ironically, my position is that if Carli Munoz or a Love brother can't get through to Brian, it's far more likely that they should be blaming Brian rather than people "around" Brian. And/or, Brian has the same machinations around him that any famous person does. Brian may just be preoccupied, or maybe he has a reason for not talking to these people. I guess it's just human nature to want to have some *other* reason for someone not wanting to talk to you or be with you instead of admitting it might just be that person's choice.

It appears Mike *chose* not to be with Brian during and/or after C50. He obviously feels he had reasons, but nevertheless it was his choice.

Evidently Melinda wasn't even there for large portions of C50. Plus, there's always the option of actually continuing to try to have a relationship with Brian *and* Melinda. It's not like Mike is the only person in that organization who has to suck it up and get over stuff, and/or get past stuff. Does Mike not think maybe someone in the organization feels the same way about him as he does about Melinda? The difference being that they got over it and worked with Mike anyway?

I also find the claims of C50 losing money until the final legs as curious and questionable.

The way I'm thinking it might have worked is that Brian and Mike got cash guarantees up front to do the tour (as part of 50 Big Ones with Joe Thomas), and thus they certainly made *plenty* of money up front, as did the salaried musicians (including Al, Bruce, and Dave). Maybe Mike just didn't make a bunch of money on top of his guarantee. Does Mike ever mention a cash guarantee as one of those "overhead costs"?

Perhaps someone can ask Mike if he got a cash advance to do the tour, and if so, did he ever consider deferring his cash advance to ensure the tour was profitable first?

I want heyjude's BBs book dammit!

(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/d6/d6c137af05f23efdf3819e5222190ec330f47f8db52d3e1807d0bbf6d5dce612.jpg)

:D

Billycop! :lol

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/3a/51/2f/3a512fa92e76275bec8b4876add0f659.jpg)
:D

Billy! :lol

I haven't run across any Beach Boys fans worth their salt that haven't read both books, so the whole "Mike supporters" thing I don't get or will ever get. Basically, if you're a Beach Boys fan you owe it to yourself to read them both. It seems silly not to. 
Hirsch points out in the interview that he's not really a big fan to begin with so I wouldn't expect him to read Brian's book. However, I also found it strange for him to say he knew everything about Brian because he sounds like a casual fan at best. Maybe if Brian's book had been published before he was working on Mike's he could have gotten some info from it, but it's a little late for that now. I think it's cool that he agreed to the interview, but it sure didn't sound to me like he's going to be rushing out to buy the SMiLE sessions box and join a fan forum any time soon.   

I'm so sick of the C50 talk. It should be pretty straightforward to anyone.
Either Mike dumps his band and being the boss of his own business and joins up with Brian's band... or Brian dumps his band and the comfort of being the boss to join Mike's band. These guys are in their twilight years and don't have to or want to answer to anybody. It ain't gonna happen. It made sense to do it for the 50th because that was a good PR hook (although let's not kid ourselves, that was NOT two touring acts joining together...it was M & B along with Scott and John joining Brian's band) but Mike clearly doesn't get along with Melinda so that's that....on top of all the other things I just mentioned.

Mike threw it all away to quote bob Dylan. ::)

If Jim Hirsch read Brian's book he would more readily understand that Brian's mental health, while much, much better than it has been in the past, is still subject to ups and downs, and that as a result he needs to have the flexibility to be reclusive. That makes perfect sense, and would explain why Brian is only intermittently socially gregarious. But, as Ray Lawlor notes in several of his posts that are scattered around these pages, Brian is hardly inaccessible. It appears that Mike wants Brian to come to him, which under the circumstances seems highly unlikely.

David Beard is completely correct that both books need to be in every dedicated fan's library. However, that doesn't mean that we will find each book to be equally satisfying, illluminating, or well-written. I hope Mark Dillon will find time to ask Jim Hirsch about how much editing was done to his manuscript after he completed his draft. And whether there was anything that he wrote that Mike decided had to be taken out...

The answer to the latter could be interesting...

This is why the comment that C50 domestically had lost money was such a jolt as I listened. I think as I did with the other points that a clarification is necessary. It doesn't appear straightforward enough if a tour which was labeled a success is now being described as having lost money.

And thanks to "Rocker" and his post with pure logic on the subject, I was able to go beyond the numbers and stats I posted from Pollstar's data on the tours from 2012 to the present and look at the basic, brass tacks of the whole thing as he did.

Rocker's point should be made again: The C50 tour was reported as it not only met expectations but exceeded them. It over-performed according to the industry, and that also led to requests for more bookings. That's all in the reports from that time.

So how could a tour which was meeting and exceeding expectations now four years in retrospect be reported as losing money as all of this was unfolding and the box office receipts and sales figures were coming in? The full quote is in my post above on page 1, but it's crystal clear that the point is being made that C50 lost money domestically.

My questions as follow ups would be where is the proof of this, and is there proof of this...or did everyone reporting on it in the press and in the industry get it wrong in 2012-13? And did the success of the tour which saw a large number of sellouts and very little empty seats at the various venues across the US suggest the tour was engineered to lose money if it's now reported as having lost money, or something...It doesn't add up.

A point I originally left out but wanted to mention, especially if a follow up part 2 or clarification could be forthcoming.

Mr. Hirsch speaks of his research on the early 90's lawsuits, and says the following:

5:16 - 6:35
Then finally, and most important, Mike and the Beach Boys were involved in a series of lawsuits in the early 1990's...(here he describes the various lawsuits and people involved)...What I would tell anyone who wants to write about the history of the Beach Boys, that is where you start. Because you have all of these depositions, people talking under oath, and that gave me the clearest sense of what actually happened, particularly in the early days of this band and going right on through the 60's and 70's, up until to the time of those lawsuits.

Where is the 2005 lawsuit? It's been available to read for the past decade, people have read it and discussed it here and elsewhere. End result, Mike lost and continued to appeal the decision which handed him a definitive loss (with penalty), and the subsequent appeals lasting years failed as well. There were also instances of misconduct that were also addressed by the court regarding a particular witness for Mike's case and the testimony of that witness when the facts presented were called into question.

Yet the crux of that original filing revealed some of the issues under the surface, and especially since Al Jardine's relationship with Mike was discussed later in this interview, what Mike said about Al in this 2005 filing would be pertinent and more than relevant to getting a sense of what was going on between those two Beach Boys in the years leading up to and after Carl's passing. To say Mike wasn't kind to Al in that 2005 document would be an understatement. In fact why Al was even named at all in the filing remains a mystery, since he was not named as a defendant in the case yet almost as much ink was spent on the documents laying out Mike's issues with Al as on those issues with the actual named defendants.

Why is or was Mike's 2005 lawsuit ignored both in this interview and in the actual text when such insight into other band issues and dynamics was described as having come from reading the previous 90's lawsuits' documentation? For one, 2005 puts on the record Mike's feelings toward Brian, Al, and his role in the band and the band's legacy into a legal document submitted under oath just like the 90's documents. It could also be used to show what the band dynamic was after Brian had been seeing his biggest success as a solo artist after releasing Smile, and Al as well after Al lost his suit regarding the Family And Friends naming issue.

Because it doesn't fit his narrative.

+1

I haven't read either Mike's or Brian's books, but I did read James Hirsch's excellent Willie Mays bio a few years back - it was excellent, very detailed. If Mike's book is as good, I will have to read it.

OMG everybody is so ready to put unwarranted labels on people. So I'm "not worth my salt" because I haven't read Mike's book, not do I plan to after reading the excerpts? Sheesh, forget about darn C50, I'm so sick of THAT.
Added to left signature.

It doesn't add up because you're only going by the ticket grosses Pollstar supplies. Mike's gripes are about the C50's tour expenses and overhead that included claims of mismanagement right down to tour merchandise. It's not uncommon for tours to have great ticket sales but wind up losing money (just ask Pink Floyd). Not saying it's true, but it sure does happen.

That budgetary info (bus rentals, promoter fee's, etc) is the kind of info Pollstar or the average fan wouldn't have. Your best bet for getting any real information about this would be for Brian and Melinda (and presumably Joe Thomas) to openly dispute Mike's claims or enter litigation (the book's only been out for little over a month) and make the results public or maybe someone goes through every example in Mike's book alleging extravagant spending and manages to get ahold of the documents (a BRI wikileaks?).

If I had to guess we may hear some refuting Mike's claims years down the line. It doesn't seem to be a priority for any of the principles right now.

Spare me the fake outrage. I have no idea who you are and have no opinion about you one way or the other...but if you're asking me if I think someone like GF who's read both Mike and Brian's books is more knowledgable than someone who hasn't then the answer is obviously yes.   

Oh, I got a fast answer, ty for that.
Fake? It's as real as they come. I have exactly the same right to call myself a BB fan as you, even if I don't read ML's book.
You not knowing who I am * has no bearing on this matter. I don't know who 99% of the people here are, and don't care. I care only about what they post here.

* However, if you really want to know, I am the main villain in the excellent "Watership Down" novel by Richard Adams. Here, I masqueraded as "Thorgil" for a while.

lol Then I DO know who you are. Thorgil is a name I recognize. I take it back! Ha!

Regarding asking Hirsch what was cut out of the book (at the behest of either he or Mike), I would guess that answer wouldn't be forthcoming in that in many cases things are cut out due to legal issues (or rather, the risk of potential legal issues).

Regarding reading both books, I'm of a very mixed mind on that. I think, long-term, it makes sense for any huge fan or scholar to read both. I think the loaded "have you read the book yet?" stuff, which was coming from a couple of Mike supporters online seemingly the moment the book was released, is excessive. We're still at the stage where the books have only been out for a few weeks and days respectively. It's feasible someone wants to read both at this stage and hasn't found the time yet.

I also think the need or requirement to have read the books depends on what the discussion is. Having read Mike's book (I haven't yet been able to sit down to do Brian's book; I kind of want to do that one all at once rather than piecemeal, which is why I haven't done it yet not having found that time), I can't say that one would need to have read Mike's book to be conversant in general on the band or Mike. There are no game-changing things in Mike's book. I think if the discussion topic is Mike's book itself, then having read it might be a requirement (though if we're only picking apart one excerpt that is available to all, that can be done without having read the whole thing).

I think after a year or more, the excuses among scholars of the band for having not read the books become a lot more shaky. By that point, one could save up for the book if they need to, they will have easy access to check it out at a library or have easy access to a cheap used copy, and so on.

I had to hold my nose and read Mike's book. There is some raw information in the book that is no doubt useful, especially concerning his earliest days. There are some moments where Mike's book disappointingly just comes across as a re-write of Steven Gaines, other times where new information is presented but doesn't seem to pass the smell test to me, some passages where things we know about are completely ignored (the 2005 lawsuit, etc.), and so on.

I suppose in a weird way it makes sense that from Mike's point of view (and let's be honest, Hirsch's POV is Mike's POV, for several reasons) that the early 90s songwriting lawsuit should be the "starting point" for learning about the band, because Mike seems to place such strong emphasis on his songwriting credits being withheld. He talks about it in every interview.

Perhaps because Hirsch wasn't a fan before he did the book (and perhaps, tellingly, isn't so much of a big fan even now), he doesn't realize how telling it is for him to suggest the 90s songwriting lawsuit is like the lynchpin of the entire BB saga.

On a somewhat separate but related note, it would take a seeming lack of empathy and understanding of Brian's situation in the final days and early aftermath of the Landy saga to suggest that Brian's testimony in that early 90s songwriting lawsuit would be any huge insight into Brian or his place in the band. It has been well established, even by Mike himself, that Brian had a legal team at the time that wasn't necessarily doing Brian any favors.

As for the 2005 lawsuit, I wouldn't be surprised if Hirsch didn't even know a great deal about it. If someone could ask him about *that* lawsuit, and ask him to explain or admit both the inflammatory and insulting language in its background section and the fact that Mike was laughed out of the courtroom and his legal team admonished at multiple points, that would be interesting.

Ok, then I'll "grant" a leave of absence to the the worthy General and "generally" relent. :)

This is what Jim Hirsch said in the interview, I'm going on this quote and the conversation surrounding it about C50:

27:32
The reality of the 50th anniversary tour was that it lost money on the domestic side, because the band was so big, the costs were too high, given the revenue that these concerts were generating. And the concern that Mike had going forward was that well, if we start not just losing money ourselves, but if our promoters are losing money, if the venues are losing money, then we're going to jeopardize the brand. And so those economic factors were very much a part of their concern

The specific mention of the promoters losing money, of the venues losing money...if the tour was outperforming, and they were selling out the venues and making money for the promoters in the process, Mike was worried hypothetically about that not happening and jeopardizing the brand?

Consider Pollstar yet again - The "brand" in 2013 didn't even make the Top 200 list with their tour revenue the year after C50. Yet if the average number of shows played applied to 2013, they were playing around 100 shows that year as they have each year up to the present. C50 was 50 domestic shows that brought in 15 million gross.

There has to be more information provided to back up that statement and reasoning that C50 lost money domestically. Having to rent more Fender Twins and slow sales at the T-shirt stand wouldn't account for an 11 week tour that grossed 15 mil running in the red.

There are plenty of reasons/information mentioned in the book, practically a long laundry list of them. Whether or not they're accurate is anyone's guess and they're also kind of vague but they're there in black and white. If someone wanted to go through all of them one by one....well, I'm sure it's doable but it would probably be a lengthy project (talking to promoters/vendors all over the country, crew members, etc.) with very little of anything as a payoff at the end. Maybe someday someone will write a book about the reunion tour itself, or more likely, write a long chapter about it in a new book about the group.

Right, but I'm commenting specifically on the statements made by Mr. Hirsch in this interview, that C50 lost money domestically. After reading what Rocker said, it could be as basic as asking how is it possible for a tour that both met then exceeded expectations to end up running in the red. The reasoning in the book and in the interview above would be easier to accept if the tour itself was playing to venues with 25% or more empty seats and unsold tickets, but on nearly every stop of C50 it was either a sellout or close to a sellout, at worst it was averaging at least above 90% in both sales and actual people in the seats for these shows.

It goes to Rocker's point that unless the tour was somehow set up to run over budget and in the red, the results both in sales/attendance for each show and the gross revenue after all the domestic shows were tallied up do not show a tour that ran a deficit. I don't know how various backers and interests would agree to invest in a tour plan that would see it outperforming yet still losing money and damaging the brand. And promoters would not be asking for more bookings and dates if the tour had been tanking and under-performing, and the opposite was true. There had to be a prospectus of sorts presented before the contracts were signed - Assuming projected sales and profits and the like. Would people have signed on to a tour which would be running in debt even though it was selling out the venues and outperforming the initial expectations as it unfolded?

Well, I think the quote was (and I don't have it in front of me) that "budgets were ignored".

Personally, I think Mike wasn't concerned about the C50 $$, even though it may well have been less than what had been hoped for--rather, I think his worry was that if the C50 tour continued on for too long with greater success and acclaim, it would jeopardize his ability to go out in his M&B incarnation and keep that operation viable.

That's getting into the book, but I'd ask: Ignored to the point of erasing the roughly 1.3 million gross ticket revenue the tour was taking in each week of that tour in the US? 50 US cities, 53 shows, 11 weeks: 15 million gross. This comes back to the statement made in the interview, how the tour lost money domestically. Going over budget is one thing, but to the tune of erasing those numbers? And going back to my original reaction, where is the proof of this to back up such a statement?

Back to Rocker's point, it does not agree with the logic of setting up a tour if a tour actually does better than expected, sells out venues, and has promoters asking for more shows to be added, yet runs under a deficit to the point of jeopardizing the brand and causing concern that promoters and venues would lose money.

If promoters and venues were worried about losing money, they wouldn't be calling for more bookings as they were.

That's the issue, isn't it? We don't have the proof because we're not involved with BRI, and info like that wouldn't be publicly available to fans anyway. We only have one principle speaking about how the tour did domestically and that's Mike. We can only wait to hear different from others who were actually part of the business strategy.

I'd say we have enough doubt to at least challenge or question the claims that the C50 tour domestically lost money, it's in the published numbers and sales/ticket figures. Looking at Jim Hirsch's interview comments, if the concern from Mike was promoters and venues losing money, the fact that those promoters and venues came to the band asking for more bookings would refute that aspect of it. If the tour was tanking or if the feeling was that it would tank and lose money, they would not have come calling for more dates.

As long as Mike doesn't lay out *all* the overhead costs, then what led to "losing money" on the North American leg is a huge open question.

As I mentioned before, if that overhead cost included a big fat cash guarantee paid out to the two band members who were shareholders in the "50 Big Ones" production company, namely Brian and Mike, then that would account for a huge amount of the overhead costs.

I don't believe Mike Love would have even signed on for a tour that *clearly* had him not making any money through most of it. I don't think he would have signed on without a certain guarantee. He wouldn't have done a tour with a huge outlay of costs for musicians, etc. unless he had a cash guarantee up front. Just my opinion.

If he did get a cash advance against touring profits, then his complaints about overhead costs would ring rather hollow. It would also make sense in light of how the tour went down. He didn't call to cancel the tour half-way through (which some tours *WOULD* do if the tour was literally *losing* money). I'm guessing he got a big cash advance to do the tour, took the money, hoped obviously that it would make even more money for him, and saw that on top of all of the pain in the ass things about the tour (dealing with Melinda, Brian getting more applause, having to negotiate on setlists, etc.), it wasn't as lean of an operation that would allow for quicker profits, and skedaddled back to his own thing.

When/if the C50 story gets a full retelling, I think one of the big takeaways is going to be that Mike only did the tour mostly because someone waved a big check in front of him. There's no way in my opinion/guesstimation that he would have compromised as much as he did *and* not made any money *at all.*

If one wants to construe a huge set of numbers in such a way as to indicate something lost money, it can be done easily. Here's a rather famous "Harry Potter" example, where the film grossed almost $1 billion, yet the profit sheet shows the "project" lost money:

(http://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/harry-potter-net-profits.jpg?w=605)

I question whether the domestic leg of C50 lost money. But let's be clear. Even if it *DID* run at a loss, it doesn't mean a bunch of people still didn't make a ton of money. I believe Brian and Mike made a ton of money on the tour (as did presumably Joe Thomas), and the other three BBs got their salary as well.

Winner, winner! Chicken dinner!!!

Mike ALWAYS had the most to lose by doing C50.

I can only speak to the one C50 show I attended,  but when I went, merchandise was flying off the stands. lines were very long,  and stuff was selling out.

I think that nails it.

Totally. Why is it so hard for this to simply be admitted to?

Don Malcom just dropped the Mic! :hat

Hasn't it been? It's obvious that Mike would rather tour with the setup that he controls rather than joining Brian's band. He more or less says that in his book. I think the only way Mike would give up the ship is if his touring Beach Boys were flopping (and of course, they're not right now) or if Brian, Al and Carl's estate came up with some legal reason to stop him (and they don't appear to be interested..the "Brian Wilson" brand isn't hurting for ticket sales either). Of course, Brian could disband his own group and join Mike's...which would put him in the awkward position of entering a new touring agreement with Mike while paying himself to play his own songs.

And Stig accidentally sues himself.

+1

Well the thing that Mike hasn't exactly admitted to is that he was obviously afraid of losing control of the M&B operation which he was in control of for a decade plus, and that being in charge was important than silly little insignificant things like touring with 3 other original members.  And you'll never hear him talk about the great things that went away as soon as C50 evaporated, like Al's voice, the incredible backing band, not to mention Brian's presence... etc. All that stuff is just ignored, because to acknowledge that stuff doesn't fit in with Mike's narrative.

Said it before, I'll say it again: Mike needed to check his ego a bit more at the door, and give things a chance to play out, let another album or two happen *without* demands, and let old wounds heal some more. If Mike had actually in 2011/2012 actually publicly copped to his role in SMiLE's demise, made an actual sincere public apology to Brian while in a group setting on tape, this could have been a start to ice thawing more. Of course, this is a dream scenario, but decades-old issues were never fully resolved, and even if Brian doesn't seem to outwardly hold a grudge to Mike about, say, the SMiLE issue anymore (despite going out of his way to finger Mike in the Beautiful Dreamer doc), you can bet that Melinda, who is looking out for Brian's well-being and emotional health, took notice of Mike being up to the same old self-serving ego trip stuff that Mike is infamous for.

While it is not a completely one-side black and white situation, Mike's ego problems were truly, ultimately what killed the tour.  If Brian is to be held ultimately responsible for SMiLE's demise, so should Mike be ultimately held responsible for imploding C50.

One can have real empathy for Mike's plight over decades of the crediting issues (as I legitimately feel for him), yet still believe this to be a sad truth about C50 that has never been owned up to by Mike. It's just excuses, excuses, excuses, and zero self-awareness.

Mike doesn't want to admit he's actively rejecting the other members. I think that's the hangup some fans have. He'll say everybody's "doin' their own thing" and all of that, or he'll say that it was a "set end date" on the reunion, or he'll say he had prior tour commitments. My issue with all of these things is that he says these things as if they're generated or decided upon by someone else. But he's making all of these decisions. So he kinda sorta owns the decisions, but not really.

His new book certainly is somewhat more blunt on some of these issues, but it's all still couched in these terms as if he's not rejecting Brian, but instead a bunch of events and/or people have conspired to keep them apart.

My total guess is that Mike was surprised and pissed that Brian and Al told everyone at the end of C50 that they wanted to continue. It was totally a bluff-calling maneuver so people knew by whose hand the reunion was not continuing.

As I believe Howie Edelson termed it, Mike essentially *quit* in 2012, and he doesn't want to admit he was quitter.

Which begs the question... what would happen of Mike admitted he was the quitter? What's the boogie man that Mike is so afraid of? Many people - including myself - would respect him MORE for just admitting that he has ego issues and needs to have a certain level of adulation (directed JUST at him), control, etc to remain happy, after being unfairly deprived of all sorts of spoils as a result of the crediting issue (as I'd assume his line of thinking would dictate).

Once can easily draw these conclusions by looking at the actions he took (and the gripes he won't let go of), but it's another thing entirely to hear it from the horse's mouth. Does anyone really think these are inaccurate assumptions?

The thing that Mike really doesn't get is the level of respect and love he was getting on the C50. Hardcore fans were forgiving him for past actions and actually being to appreciate Mike's role after all the years. He threw that all away and hardened the worst ideas of fans when he ended the tour.

I know I would.

Very, VERY true.

This is the ultimate, real tragedy of Mike's story. The inability to realize that he needs to deflate his ego in order to build up his reputation in a real way, and be respected in a manner approximating the manner that he wishes he was. It's way, way too late now though.

A person cannot demand that people respect them, or publicly complain about lack of respect. No artist ever, and I mean ever, has gotten anybody (and certainly not any real institution/critics/award shows of any consequence) to actually respect them MORE by complaining about lack of respect. All that does is come off as egotistical and have the opposite effect - even if their gripes are partly, or fully true. Billy Corgan, Phil Spector, among others (I'm sure there are many, many more examples) have severely hurt their reputation by letting their egos show way, way, way too much. And those are people far more talented than Mike.

Basically, I cannot fathom how someone can shoot themselves in the foot so many times. Mike needs to borrow the foot statue from Watt.

I'd put Mike over Billy Corgan, but otherwise I agree 100%

Off topic, but Mike absolutely has talent for hooks, and has delivered many awesome leads, but he is not a super-prolific one-man songwriting/producing machine. Corgan is like Brian in that regard (plus a majorly talented/severely underrated guitar player too), and much of Corgan's best material is not especially well-known outside of the more hardcore fans. That said, one could write a dissertation about Corgan's tragic ego issues. Apples and oranges, but Mike doesn't hold a candle to Corgan.

Ahh...I'm only familiar with the well-known Smashing Pumpkins songs, so I may be a bit out of my element here!

It certainly wasn't given as a reason in this interview with Jim Hirsch. The statements and reasoning were made clear, the notion that C50 was losing money and Mike was concerned the promoters and venues would lose money, thereby hurting the brand. And unless there is clarification, that reasoning doesn't appear to be supported by the facts and figures. The numbers are all there, as are the reports of the tour's success.

The C50 tour talk was a wee bit of a half hour interview about his career, how they wrote it, etc. They briefly touched on it at best (although given the 3 pages of comments here I suspect some of the things mentioned will be in part 2).

What does it matter how long this or any of the topics were discussed in the interview? It was and still is one of the key issues among fans, from those wondering about 2012 to those fans still pining for yet another C50 style "reunion" with all the band members on stage together, including Mr. Hirsch and the two principles talking to him in the interview who also expand on the issue of Mike and Brian getting back together...if only it weren't for "those around them" keeping them apart. That is another topic altogether, another rationale that doesn't line up with the facts, ultimately. And the answer given about C50's finances doesn't line up with the facts and figures unless this band grossing 1.3 million every week of the US leg of C50 found a way to negate all of that income by going over budget, or T-shirt sales weren't as brisk as expected to the tune of 6-7 figures.

If it were as basic as admitting to something or giving another reason, that reason would have been given instead of putting the reasoning squarely and definitively onto the tour having lost money and Mike being worried about promoters and venues losing money. And it just doesn't hold water.

For the other topics, from Maureen Love to Steve Love to the 2005 lawsuit's non-inclusion alongside the other lawsuits, to all the rest, I included times and quotes in my comments so everyone can find exactly where the comments were made in the interview, whether one line or a few minutes of talk.

And again, kudos for Mark during the interview for clarifying the issue of Brian not speaking to other authors as part of his publishing agreement - That is how records are set straight, using the simple facts, not speculation or obfuscation or outright distortion.

Why are you trying to make it seem like Hirsch is contradicting himself by repeating the claim in the book that the tour lost money? It's in the book. I know you have the book. Did you expect him to read the entire chapter aloud during the interview so that every single point Mike lists for reasons why he didn't enjoy the tour or the tour lost money are in the interview? You could just buy the audio version of Mikes book to hear that.

Honestly, GF, I respect your knowledge of the band and I respect your right to not believe Mike is being truthful. I get that. Everyone's entitled to their opinion , but again, you have the book yourself. Why not just go through all of the points Mike makes one by one yourself? You've already presented your stuff from Pollstar so evidently you're satisfied with that. Is the point here to try to shame Hirsch or something?

There are other claims in the interview and in the book that are equally as bad, if not more so. The lies about not having access to Maureen and Stan Love are just two of them, but ones that strike me .

Hirsch was indeed wrong about Maureen, however that was up on Brian's page only a few weeks ago and only Phil and Mark can tell us when they actually recorded that interview or if Hirsch had even seen it at the time of recording (I didn't even see it myself until a week after it was up).

The photo of a Brian and Stan is 10 years old. Brian recently revealed in his book that he also met up with Mike around that time (though the fans never knew it at the time ).

I thought Hirsch was referring to not seeing Mike or Stan after the C50 tour ? Not saying it's true or not true ( I'm not an insider or a fan who claims to be one). Actually, I don't even remember that part of the interview all that well. The things that stuck out to me were Hirsch basically moving into Mike's house, etc.

Mr. Hirsch does not strike me as exactly the kind of person I'd like to move into my house. But to everybody their own. :angel:

I transcribed and posted the relevant quotes in my first post to the discussion, page 1. These are what stood out to me after listening. Here it is:

One of the reasons I'm raising these points specific to the Jim Hirsch interview is because Mark Dillon posted it, and he was one of the interviewers - And the possibility of a part 2 or a follow-up on the same podcast series was mentioned, so here is a chance for fans like me who listened and had a few points come up where a clarification or question could be in order to post those points, and it goes right to the source. If there is a follow-up conversation, the ball is in their court if they wish to raise any of these points and offer Mr. Hirsch a chance to address them. It's a chance fans don't get whenever Mike has given an interview that fans may have taken issue with, and it just gets left as printed with no chance to ask follow ups.

This is the fans' chance to ask follow ups. Because some points made in the interview simply don't add up, beyond C50. And some of the reasons why they don't add up are posted above.

Test

I’m not so quick to dismiss the claim that C50 (not Mike personally) lost money domestically.  When you think about all the costs that went into it (payroll, meals, hotel rooms- not just for the band members and crew but also family members, travel expenses- airfare and limo/coach/van rentals, shipping costs, equipment rentals, phone costs, rehearsal space rentals, just to name a few off the top of my head) along with the up front costs to pay Brian, Mike and Joe Thomas along with the 3 other principals, it is not out of the realm of possibility that the tour lost money.  The venues take a cut of the merch sold (typically 10-30% depending on the items).  One thing that I’m sure was a nice chunk of change for the band was the VIP and meet and greet packages they sold.  I’m sure these were accounted for separately.  They pay a percentage to VIP Nation for each one sold and pocket the rest.  It’s nice, easy money.  That’s why so many acts do it nowadays.  I’m not sure if Live Nation was the promoter for the entire tour but I know they were for at least the East Coast dates.  I doubt Live Nation lost any money on the tour and I’m sure all 5 band members made money as well.  But I definitely see how the “tour” itself could possibly lose money.  Even if you are selling out mid-size venues, after everyone takes their cut, if you aren’t watching your other expenses, it could be a losing proposition. 

This goes back to what Rocker posted on page 1, the basic logic of the scenario. If the tour was under-performing and playing to venues that had half empty seats, it would be plausible to assume it wasn't making enough money. If the tour were meeting original expectations and projections for revenue and sales, it would be harder to assume it was running a deficit.

This tour exceeded original projections and expectations. Ticket sales alone, domestically, 15 million gross. That averages 1.3 million gross as a take every week C50 was touring the US. Factor in the other variables - Merch, meet-n-greet, all of those. It's hard to accept that this tour lost money. Factor in Mike's concern that booking agents, venues, promoters, etc would lose money moving forward - If they were calling for more bookings and more shows to be added, common sense would say they were not jumping on board a sinking ship, nor would they want to join a venture which would cause them to lose money.

And as Rocker suggested, if it did indeed lose money while exceeding expectations, it must have been organized to fail financially even if it met all projected sales and revenue figures. Do we believe that?

GF- I’m not saying that promoters lost money.  In fact I said just the opposite that I highly doubt Live Nation lost any money.  I’m not saying venues lost money either, although I’m sure some of the casino shows may have as many casino venues look at entertainment as loss leaders.  Again, the meet and greets and VIP packages were possibly accounted for separately from the tour itself.  None of the principal band members lost money, none of the backing band members lost money but the “tour” itself may have lost money.  I mean Mike makes the claim in his book that certain vendors were never paid.  Showing a loss on paper for the tour is not unreasonable.  Not that it was “designed to fail” as you say but spending on things that weren’t budgeted for or spending more than what was budgeted for certain things can certainly take a bite out of potential profit, even if you are exceeding or meeting goals for ticket sales. 

I don't think anyone is outright completely dismissing the idea that C50 didn't make any money for the first 2/3 of the tour. I just highly question it, especially considering the 27 different ways one can measure what is considered "profitable."

Also worth noting is that C50 was essentially a NEW company, a startup with no previous precise track record. Yes, they had previous Brian and Mike tours to work off of as a baseline, and they probably used a bunch of BRI gear on tour and all of that (you still see BRI flightcases backstage at Brian/Al gigs).

Look at it this way. A brand-new startup turned profitable within a few months. That didn't even presumably factor in the ancillary things generated by the tour (two Blu-ray/DVD releases, a live album, continued C50 merch sales online). They were profitable before the end of the tour, and any company like "50 Big Ones" could sit down and hash out how to refine their moneymaking process going forward. The thing started at the end of April and went through the end of September. Five months. That was it. Mike cut it short, and thus we can never know if 2013 could have been even MORE profitable with refinements.

Mike and Brian made a BUTT LOAD of money on the C50 tour I believe, up front, and the other three BBs probably made a decent salary.

According to what Jim Hirsch said in the interview, Mike's issue was a concern that promoters and venues would lose money, and the brand would be jeopardized.

27:32
The reality of the 50th anniversary tour was that it lost money on the domestic side, because the band was so big, the costs were too high, given the revenue that these concerts were generating. And the concern that Mike had going forward was that well, if we start not just losing money ourselves, but if our promoters are losing money, if the venues are losing money, then we're going to jeopardize the brand. And so those economic factors were very much a part of their concern

Do you agree with that?

What venues or promoters were losing money, and if losing money was their concern why were they looking for additional bookings from the band? Back to my analogy, these interests would not as a general rule try to board a sinking ship.

Keep in mind that C50 beyond the tour itself was - as mentioned by HeyJude and others - a multi faceted venture. Besides the merch, and other tie-ins and sponsorships/relationships, consider the band was ostensibly touring behind and promoting That's Why God Made The Radio, and Capitol was involved and had an interest too. Factor in the live releases, DVD and CD, whatever opinions are of them they sold, and they are still generating revenue.

Again, the basic logic: Would a tour be organized, spec'ed out, planned, and presented to all of these interests which would lose money if it performed even at the most acceptable level of success and expectation? This one exceeded it, and this was known as the tour was getting underway and kicking into gear. The sales exceeded expectations. The Beach Boys for the first time in years were "hot" and in the public eye, a top 5 album, TV appearances, and a tour which the industry was buzzing about. And Mike was concerned about jeopardizing the brand, and promoters losing money when the band was as hot as it had been in years? I don't know how much more logic can be applied.

You know, this thread has turned into something a little pathetic.  The author of Mike's book is nice enough to do an interview and all the thanks he gets around here is mostly Mike-hatred and by extension hatred of himself by many on this board.  Sad....

Well, hell,  when things are said that contradicted the truth and are easily disproven, what else would you expect? NOt just isolated here....that's how things work.

Precisely!

Sheesh, nobody has expressed "hatred" toward Hirsch on this thread. He's towing the line that is put forth by Mike and in the book, and people are responding.

That he seems nice and polite but then also doesn't seem to be a particularly big fan and flippantly says he doesn't need to read Brian's book are things that aren't going to particularly endear him to many fans.

GF- I’m not disputing anything that you said.  All of the tie-ins on C50 however, would not be tied into the accounting of the tour such as TWGMTR, live DVDs, etc. with the exception of sponsors (which I can’t recall any corporate sponsors of that tour). Yes, the Beach Boys were hot then.  What seems to be the sticking point is when Mike says the brand could be jeopardized and promoters losing money.  Notice what he did there?  He said they COULD end up losing money.  Not that they did.  Again, I highly doubt promoters lost money on the tour.  What I’m saying, and let me make it as clear as I can, the “tour” in the strictest sense could have shown a loss on paper domestically even with meeting all ticket sale goals or exceeding them.  This does NOT mean that any one person or company lost money, ie. Any band member, promoter, etc.  Mike does make the claim in his book that vendors weren’t paid.  He doesn’t say who and he doesn’t say what type of vendor it was.  All I’m saying is that cost overruns could make the “tour” on paper appear that it was losing money domestically, which is what Mike and Hirsch are claiming.  That doesn’t mean that anyone didn’t make what they thought they would be making.  If promoters made money, if venues made money then clearly that would explain why there were more offers for other shows.  Mike said that promoters COULD lose money and venues COULD lose money if they continued.  This is obviously speculation on his part and no one is saying that it did happen.  The only claim that is being made here is that the “tour” which I believe they are using the strictest sense of the word, lost money.  And showing a loss on paper is not out of the realm of possibility.  Do you agree with that being a possibility?

Mike undercuts his own argument in terms of the *plausibility* of future touring losing money by pointing out that the tour didn't "lose money" by the time they got to the later legs outside North America.

Yes, it's *possible* any tour can lose money at any stage for any number of reasons. But the trend even within the C50 tour itself was that it was increasing revenue and profitability as it continued, even by Mike's own words.

Mike didn't want to work with Brian or Al (or Melinda) anymore, and prioritized doing his own thing and having no one to answer to over actually keeping the full band together. The other reasons he provides are simply a continuing laundry list of *potential* reasons he could come up with for ending it. And a bunch of the reasons contradict each other to varying degrees. The "set end date" reasoning for instance suggests it has nothing to do with economics. But then he also says the operation was too expensive. He didn't offer the "tour almost didn't make a profit" argument until his book came out, four years after the fact. Then he said they should "give it a rest" and build up demand, which I don't think anyone particularly believed (this argument seemed to suggest he wanted to revisit the same lineup and format, but simply wanted to wait a year or two), and we know that never happened.

So all of these ancillary reasons Mike has offered over the years are, to varying degrees, plausible. They're the sort of reasons you could come up with if you were giving a persuasive speech in a speech class or something. But many of the reasons were clearly just an exercise in coming up with theoretical justifications for ending the reunion in order to avoid bluntly stating he didn't want to work with the band anymore. Thus, I'm not going to weigh particularly strongly either his credibility or genuineness in stating these other reasons.

That I can agree with.  Mike has come up with a number of reasons why C50 ended and my personal belief is that it is as simple as wanting to be the sole boss again and not have to constantly butt heads with others (ie. Melinda).  He seems to be throwing out these various reasons, excuses to more or less justify it in his own head.  While I would have much rather seen them continue together or at least by this point get back and do another tour, he is entitled to do what he wants, whether we like it or not.

Yes, and I've said on many occasions that a reunion under duress is not only implausible, but not something anyone wants.

As time has gone by, I'm guessing even Brian and Al have less and less thought to themselves "Man, I wish we were touring with Mike again."