There`s no doubt that Howie`s posts are harder hitting and they are very interesting to read but I wouldn`t say they are necessarily better examples of writing. Just different.

The ESQ article keeps things simple and to the point whereas Howie`s writing branches out more and, in places, I feel has a sense of `wish fulfillment` about it (not meant in a pejorative way). The comments about a Vegas residency for example...

I wasn’t particularly trying to suggest that Howie’s posts are the most well-written in terms of style. As I mentioned, if these posts had been published in a magazine or something along those lines, I would imagine the “editorial voice” would have been a bit different, and the thing would have been worded slightly differently. We’re talking about some message board posts.

I was speaking to the content and sentiment of what Howie wrote. But Howie publishes stuff as well, and his writing for news services and whatnot are as well-written as anything in ESQ. I’m sure Howie could have taken those posts and worked them into an editorial in ESQ or any other venue.

Those posts are the best writing on the demise of the reunion because they tell it like it is, they come from an uber-fan who understands the band as well as  anyone could, and who more than anything is coming from the place that most of us did, from a place of feeling the reunion was amazing. He doesn’t’ have an axe to grind with a particular member. He rightly points out the whole band fudged up the entire thing, but also calls bull**** on the tired, evasive “set end date” arguments. He points out the weaknesses in all of the members’ projects; the point being that getting them all together is what it makes it work.

As for the stuff like the Vegas residency, I didn’t take it so much as “wish fulfillment”, but more a case of pointing out what any band that has been going for half a century would entertain if they had even a modicum of organization or a sense of how to properly run a band/brand/franchise.

[Then, somewhere down the line, seemingly, Alan & Brian and/or his people decide they actually want to do more shows, despite signing off on not doing exactly that]

This is purely, 100% only my impression, but that article reads very similarly to the piece that was printed in the concurrent ESQ issue. The takeaway I get from both of the pieces is, and again this is only my impression, essentially “it’s a bummer the reunion couldn’t continue and Mike couldn't agree to more shows..."

But Mike, and everyone else, had already agreed to more shows: 24 over the original 50, in fact, and everyone signed off on those, with part of the agreement being that this was it, no more (which fits in nicely with the "no more shows for Wilsons" email Ambha mentioned). Then, somewhere down the line, seemingly, Alan & Brian and/or his people decide they actually want to do more shows, despite signing off on not doing exactly that and despite knowing that Mike was booking shows for himself as far back as June. I agree the timing of the September announcement was at best unfortunate but don't forget, it was made at the express instigation of Brian's management. It's not as simple as "Mike didn't want to do any more shows". These are The Beach Boys - if you asked them for the time you'd get five different answers, probably. They don't do "simple". For me, the wonder of the C50 tour is that it happened at all, that it was as astonishingly good as it was and that all the principals played every single gig: I would have bet good money on the last item not happening. Hope I'm around when the definitive recounting of the events of 2012 emerges.

Normally, this would be nitpicky, semantics sort of stuff, but I think that positing the following speaks volumes, to me anyway:

Then, somewhere down the line, seemingly, Alan & Brian and/or his people decide they actually want to do more shows, despite signing off on not doing exactly that

I don’t think this is true. It completely twists around how the situation unfolded and how a contract would work. As far as we know, and as would be extremely likely given typical contracts, the contract would have laid out what was going to happen, NOT what was not going to happen. In other words, they all agreed to X number of dates taking place on specific dates. I highly doubt anything was written into the agreement that Al and Brian were NOT going to entertain more reunion shows. To say they signed off “on not doing exactly that” is using, to me, some sort of reverse logic where now the accusation is that Brian and Al were trying to BREACH an agreement to NOT do more shows.

Agreeing to shows is not the same thing as agreeing to not do shows at any time that isn’t laid out in the contract to do shows. It’s like saying someone signs a five-album deal with a record company, and then claiming that implicit in that contract is that they will NEVER make another album after those five, and if they attempt to re-sign with the label, they’re going back on their word and trying to breach the contract.

But as far as I’m concerned, this is still all just variations on “set end date”, “this was how it was always going to be”, etc. It’s definitely the easy answer, and happens to conveniently be an answer that absolves Mike Love of most or all of any blame (to the degree blame needs to be assigned at this stage). I still believe Howie’s words on the topic succinctly speak to the typically cited “reasons” the reunion tour ended.

Stern has had some blunt, and sometimes simultaneously offensive and hilarious opinions on stuff like this. I remember when the Beatles did their reunion stuff in 1995, Stern was making fun of the whole thing. Pointing out (correctly) that the “Threetles” when interviewed together seemed kind of awkward, especially Harrison’s attitude towards McCartney. He played “Free As a Bird” and started singing over it with lyrics about Harrison needing money (it was in the papers, again apparently correctly, that Harrison was hurting in the funds department because of his ex-manager situation, and did the “Anthology” project at least in part for the funds).

I recall when he had Julian Lennon on that that was pretty entertaining as well. He was kind of brutal about Yoko as I recall.

His interviews with both Love and Brian (in 1998) are great. Yes, he asks some lewd questions, but he also asks a ton of stuff nobody else asks, and he often if not usually gets answers. His 1998 interview with Ringo is hilarious too.

And Stern does know the history of these groups more than probably most on the radio these days. He’s actually a fan. I remember at least once he made a random Brian reference on his show. Comedian Pat Cooper was going nuts about something, and he jokingly referenced, “I’ve just been handed a note. It says ‘Pat Cooper is nuts. Signed, Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys’.”

Of course, I haven’t heard Stern in probably 10 years at least, so I dunno if he’s better or worse now. Some are suggesting he toned down the boring stripper stuff (great, strippers on the radio?) and does good interviews.

[Doesn't it suck that we're even having this conversation? This tour was unbelievable. Finally it was The Beach Boys. It was arguably the best they've been since '75. Brian's band with Totten and Cowsill -- this thing was an embarrassment of riches. Everybody was there nailing it. And it's over before it even began. It's heartbreaking is that it has to go back to what it was before April. Mike and Bruce's show is tight and professional, but Mike's voice is shot from never taking a break over the years and the show includes a FULL HOUR of someone else singing the tunes while Mike points at his temple and waves. Al's show has never gained enough traction to ever evolve past rehearsal/soundcheck levels, and Brian's gigs have devolved at times into "Weekend At Bernie's" territory. But somehow when they all get together -- and together with David, who's happy, healthy, and batting .1000 -- it amazingly all fits. The carry each other and reach incredible heights together. It was masterful. The "timing" of the announcement is a moot point. I think a week into this tour everybody kinda looked at each other and thought, "Wow -- not only is this happening, but this is actually ART. This thing is what it was always SUPPOSED to be and always fell flat. It's not cheap, it's not lame." That this thing is running the risk of being a one-off is a sin. And I sincerely believe that despite a tour wrap set for England, the fact that this was the best live show running made everyone believe -- ESPECIALLY due to the fact that Mike Love has been pining to finally get Brian "back" for 15 years -- that this would be how it will play out (e.g. with panache and class and Brian Wilson for once wanting to be a Beach Boy.) Instead it's like a kid getting adopted by a rich family and being sent back to the orphanage after a year. Pointing out that that was always the plan doesn't mean anything in the grand scope of things. A choice was made and it was a poor choice. It was the wrong choice.]

This is a post about the 2012 breakup that ran on March 15, 2013.

http://www.examiner.com/article/mike-love-says-que-sera-sera-to-beach-boys-future

This is purely, 100% only my impression, but that article reads very similarly to the piece that was printed in the concurrent ESQ issue. The takeaway I get from both of the pieces is, and again this is only my impression, essentially “it’s a bummer the reunion couldn’t continue and Mike couldn't agree to more shows, but Mike likes to run his cheaper, leaner touring operation, and he’s old and stuck in his ways, so what can we do about it?”  I appreciate the degree of insight this offers, and I can’t say any of these points are inaccurate. But in the discussion earlier in this thread concerning what is hard-hitting versus pulling punches, this still veers more towards treating the situation with kid gloves.

To me, this is what needed to be written (obviously, it would have a bit more of an editorial “voice” if printed in a magazine, etc.). This is Howie Edelson on this board, October 1, 2012:

Doesn't it suck that we're even having this conversation? This tour was unbelievable. Finally it was The Beach Boys. It was arguably the best they've been since '75. Brian's band with Totten and Cowsill -- this thing was an embarrassment of riches. Everybody was there nailing it. And it's over before it even began. It's heartbreaking is that it has to go back to what it was before April. Mike and Bruce's show is tight and professional, but Mike's voice is shot from never taking a break over the years and the show includes a FULL HOUR of someone else singing the tunes while Mike points at his temple and waves. Al's show has never gained enough traction to ever evolve past rehearsal/soundcheck levels, and Brian's gigs have devolved at times into "Weekend At Bernie's" territory. But somehow when they all get together -- and together with David, who's happy, healthy, and batting .1000 -- it amazingly all fits. The carry each other and reach incredible heights together. It was masterful.

The "timing" of the announcement is a moot point. I think a week into this tour everybody kinda looked at each other and thought, "Wow -- not only is this happening, but this is actually ART. This thing is what it was always SUPPOSED to be and always fell flat. It's not cheap, it's not lame." That this thing is running the risk of being a one-off is a sin. And I sincerely believe that despite a tour wrap set for England, the fact that this was the best live show running made everyone believe -- ESPECIALLY due to the fact that Mike Love has been pining to finally get Brian "back" for 15 years -- that this would be how it will play out (e.g. with panache and class and Brian Wilson for once wanting to be a Beach Boy.) Instead it's like a kid getting adopted by a rich family and being sent back to the orphanage after a year. Pointing out that that was always the plan doesn't mean anything in the grand scope of things. A choice was made and it was a poor choice. It was the wrong choice.

Here's more from Howie, September 30, 2012:

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

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

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

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

Another from September 30, 2012:

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

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

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

December 15, 2013:

The reunion tour should've just wrapped this week with gigs in China after having played a South American tour and second smaller North American and European return legs.
Great memories aside it was a botched affair. Its demise being one of the dumber episodes in the saga.
2014 should've seen them moving into their first Vegas residency for a ton of money.
The reason why the reunion ended had more to do with power than money and the number of dates.

These posts from Howie, along with a few others (including the one he reprinted earlier in the thread) are still the best writing on the demise of the reunion I've read.

I think this Beck thing is just a case of what happens when you stick two guys together that are very, very different, and I’m not even talking particularly musically.

Beck is temperamental. He doesn’t seem to go in for showbiz niceties and all of that. He’s a private guy as well, which probably made the meet-and-greet VIP thing from the tour a particular annoyance for him. A friend of mine is a *huge* Beck fan, and also coincidentally share’s Beck’s interest in old cars. Back in the 80’s or 90’s, he spotted Beck at a local car show, and since he already had his camera with him, he started snapping some pics of Beck. From afar. Not obtrusively particularly, and never said a word to him or got any closer than probably 30 feet. Snapped a few photos. Beck gave him a look (hilariously captured in photograph from) like he wanted to kill him. Now, there’s a debate to be had about whether even this was obtrusive and whatnot. But the takeaway from this and other events (he has seen Beck at several car shows, and Beck clearly wants to be left alone) is that he’s a cranky, private guy. He’s also blunt.

This does not bode well for great interpersonal interactions with Brian Wilson. To everybody’s credit, it sounds like they *didn’t* treat the situation with extra kid gloves and brief everyone on how to act and what to say and have a bunch of go-betweens and handlers. It looks like they just stuck Beck in there. The result was some awkwardness. I also think, much like Mike Love’s post-C50 comments about the “TWGMTR” album, the story of how disagreeable the situation was changed some time after it occurred. Months and even years later, the story changes from polite positive comments to “oh my God, it was so weird and awful.”

As for Beck’s career, I think he has had his built-in fanbase for years. It was pretty darn 50/50 in terms of fanbase at the show I went to in Oakland last year. Beck’s guitar playing is amazing and unique. Most of his material is rather tedious, especially the way he presents it in concert. If you’re not into serious guitar wankery, the show is pretty much background music. I didn’t feel worse off for having seen his show. I also am still guessing that some of the stuff he cut with Brian in the studio could sound amazing. It sucks that it may well be Beck’s own bad attitude that is the main factor in the material largely not being heard.

The most frustrating part of Beck’s comments to me are not his negative bits about Brian, but his passive stance on having done the tour with Brian. He acts like someone made him do the tour. He may well be right that it would have been a better idea to finish recording before touring. But he signed on for the tour. He agreed to the VIP packages. He agreed to whatever dictated he had be at the gig by a certain time to shake hands and take pictures. If he thought it was such a bad idea, he could have passed.

I was at the June 1st gig at the Greek Theater in Berkeley, and he was at that show as far as I can remember.

Beck's observations about Brian are probably accurate and nothing new. He should have known or been told what he was getting into. As for studio work, I think that's Beck's idiosyncrasies more than Brian's. As others have mentioned, he has as different approach in the studio. He did a whole "guitar concerto" with McCartney that never came out. It's a bummer though, the description of his work with Brian sounded really interesting. Now, I would imagine Brian's camp will get all butthurt and we'll never hear most of the stuff. I say Brian should put the stuff out anyway at some point.

I have a super vague recollection of someone mentioning years back that Greenwood thought well enough of the movie that he would screen it for friends for some time after the movie aired.

This movie is awesome, as in "best worst movies" awesome. I watched this with a non-fan once, and they obviously didn't find it as funny since they weren't aware of all the factual inaccuracies. But they got a kick out of the awful stereotypes and bad bears, etc.

They also agreed with me that the guy playing Murry was sufficiently terrifying. I though the Murry in "Summer Dreams" was much more effective than the one in "An American Family." However inaccurate it is, that scene where he snaps and comes out into the studio is briefly intense.

I still randomly quote lines from this movie. "You're out of the band buckwheat!", "Duh, Al.", "I can't have music in my head if I'm always on the road!"

I recently saw the guy who played Mike in "Summer Dreams" in some sitcom, and funnily enough he kind of looks like Mike does now. Goatee, white hair, etc.

They don't sound bad at all but seriously pick one vocalist for Sloop and Wouldn't It Be Nice and stick to it i think the whole band is singing that intro to sloop and be nice had like 3 different vocalists, its definitely two of their weaker songs.

"Wouldn't It Be Nice" has been a potential trainwreck since the mid-late 80's. There's that semi pro-shot video of them in Arizona in 1988 where Mike, Al, Carl, and Foskett are all singing it at the same time. At certain points in the 80's and 90's, they would kind of leave Carl alone and just have him sing it (similar to Al in the 70's). Even on the 2012 tour, you could never tell how much of Al or Foskett you were hearing.

One of my favorite live versions is from the July 4th 1980 show. They cut "WIBN" from the live TV special/video, but it was of course all broadcast live. This was the era where Al and Brian were both kind of singing it. Near the end, the sort of slowed down bit ("you know it seems the more we talk about it...."), Brian is singing with the guys and then his voice literally trails off like a tape deck running out of batteries. It literally goes "it only makes it worse to liiiiivvvvv......."

Mike would occasionally seem to butt in on the leads on just a few songs in the 80's and 90's. "WIBN" was one of them. Also for some strange reason he would double Al's lead on "Help Me Rhonda" on things like the 1980 shows (DC and Knebworth). I don't know if they planned it that way, but it always sounded messy, because Mike would eventually stop singing after a bit.

Can't believe they interrupted both California Girls and Good Vibrations to talk to a couple celebrating their 50th Anniversary... that's cool and all, but there's a time and a place, and that time and place is not during the first verses of two epic songs. That is all. Very enjoyable concert overall.

There was/is a "C50" joke in there somewhere, but I'm not creative enough to think of one right now. 

Did he really announce the song's airing *after* it aired? What would be the point of that?

Hopefully they can make it available online. I'm not super enthused based on the song title, as I'm trying to envision what a Carl song might sound like with that title that might also sound like his solo album stuff. But obviously, I'm basing that off of nothing but my imagination. Hope to hear it, and hope it's good!

To be fair, ESQ has certainly done career spanning interviews with Al and Bruce (maybe other members as well) in the past. These interviews were fine and I can`t fault the questions asked at all but the answers given were mostly not dissimilar to the ones we have all heard a hundred times. One of the reasons why I think asking lots of questions about a short period of time such as one album will get specific answers, whereas covering the band`s entire career isn`t such a great idea.

The focus on those interviews usually at least begins with one particular topic, and that's fine. But that Goldmine interview wasn't just wide-ranging, it was *long*. With length (both in terms of time spent doing the interview and space to print it), you can get a lot of interesting stuff covered. As I recall, even that Goldmine interview, as long as it was, was slightly edited down (a different "edit" later appeared in "Record Collector").

I don't recall ever seeing something as epic as that Goldmine interview in ESQ. Obviously, that's just one example.

I agree, album "specials" would be nice, especially focusing on the stuff other outlets won't cover, and it does give interview subjects a particular area to focus in on.

I can’t add much to what folks like Howie and Nicko have mentioned. Like Nicko, I’ve been a subscriber but it lapsed a bit back. I’ve been reading ESQ since the 90’s. I used to buy it at Tower Records, and then eventually I got a subscription which has been on-again-off-again for a good 15 years or so.

Meat on the bones is a good term. Something like “Beatlefan”, which in the past has been dubbed as “the Newsweek of Beatles magazines.” ESQ is great with exclusives with the band members, and many articles and features have been great. However, while it’s not quite as if there has never been one bit of negative criticism in the magazine, it has always skewed very heavily toward treating the band with kid gloves. Sure, maybe an album review might mention a few weak songs or something. But in-depth editorial pieces that take an in-depth and, when needed, critical view of the band , have not been a staple of the magazine in the years I’ve read.

The aftermath of C50 should have, in my opinion, been covered with less punches being pulled. It says something to me that, from my point of view, Howie Edelson’s three or four posts on the C50 aftermath are still the most well-written pieces on the subject. We’re talking three or four posts, maybe a paragraph or two each. Clear, succinct, and critical but not erratically or unreasonably so. Those Edelson pieces, or something like them, should have been what I read alongside Mike and Brian’s reprinted letters in ESQ. I readily admit that the topic should not have been beat to death the way I and others have done so on this board (which isn’t always a bad thing; but these boards are a more appropriate forum for that). We shouldn’t have seen ESQ devote a year’s worth of issues to complaining about the end of C50. But if ESQ ever wanted to be the magazine of record for the BB’s, if they wanted to “advance the dialogue” as someone else mentioned, there should have been a full issue of essays and opinion pieces discussing C50’s aftermath. I noted in my blog back in 2012/13 that the ESQ piece on the end of C50 did include a few slightly critical comments directed at some members, and I also noted how this was surprising and rare for ESQ. But David’s mentioning that they pulled back on that article makes sense; that editorial read precisely like punches were being pulled.

As others have mentioned, the Jan & Dean stuff isn’t of any interest to me. I would also say that the issue that had both a making of/track-by-track annotation *and* review of the “Bamboo Trading Company” album was a bit ridiculous; it kind of read like an infomercial for that album, which had only the most tangential link to anything to do with the BB’s. A brief review of that album makes sense, it has a few BB backing band guys in it. But devoting a big hunk of an issue to the making of that album was both off-topic and came across as extra plugging.

I would say that, rather than having a lot of off-topic features in the magazine, I’d rather see vintage articles and interviews reprinted. I’m sure there’s a great trove of old interviews to pull from. If ESQ has no plans to compile that material into a book, then reprinting select pieces, especially if news in the BB world is slow during that “quarter”, that would be preferable to stuff like features on the Bamboo Trading Company. I realize ESQ has re-published things in select issues (e.g. the Carl/Dennis tribute issue).

I would also agree that if there ever is going to be a place to get into rather hardcore, detailed areas of BB study that other publications won’t touch, ESQ is that place. I’ve never seen in ESQ something like that extensive interview Goldmine published with Al in 2000. Can ESQ do something like that with these guys once every few years? Extensive, detailed, thoughtful interviews that touch on the good and the bad, negative and positive, new and old projects. Rather than specific remembrance from band members of one particular album or song, or just discussion of their new project, how about a career-spanning interview?

Also, while it may be even more far-fetched now given this thread, I would specifically recommend getting Howie Edelson to do some news pieces and articles on the group if both parties are willing or inclined.

In my experience with the individual Beach Boys, if you ask them a pointed, serious question they answer it.

That's my experience too.  My interviews always reveal something…just not the dirt.  

Take the 1996 Beatles Anthology for example: The interviewer asked Paul, George and Ringo about visiting Elvis' house.  He even went so far as to ask the "soft ball" question of "Do you remember what type of dress Priscilla was wearing?"  Why does that matter?  Who cares?  They each answered the question.  George couldn't really remember because he says, "I was busy trying to find some reefer."  

If the interviewer had said to George, "Isn't it true you were trying to score pot @ Elvis' house?"  George may or may NOT be comfortable answering THAT question.  That's the type of question that — in my opinion — pins the interviewee DOWN.  When you do that…Well, let's just say that you don't get as much from the person as you would if they are relaxed.  

For the recent ALL SUMMER LONG Summer 2014 edition of ESQ I had to ask Mike about the firing of Murry because I felt it was my journalistic duty to properly put into context the way the mood / vibe of the recording sessions changed once they fired Murry, which in turn had Mike moved to the control booth during much of the recordings for that album.  Once that was established in context, I moved on to a musical discussion.  I could have pressed more, but saw no value in it, because it would draw away from the album sessions.  As I always point out, it's about the music.

As for the fallout back in 2012, I had written a very lengthy article, but I let someone talked me out of running it.  So I went with an abridged version.  Maybe, one day, I'll post it somewhere.
 

Concerning the Beatles Anthology, they did *dozens of hours* of interviews with each of the surviving Beatles, so it was much easier to get into the minutiae and touch on common and uncommon stories and topics.

Also, I'd say quirky, superficially inconsequential questions are different than questions that have been asked and answered a million times, or being overtly apprehensive about asking anything potentially controversial.

Also, with the Beatles Anthology, that was a sanctioned, in-house, authorized project. That their authorized project had more controversial content than some non-sanctioned projects or articles or interviews is noteworthy. The Beatles of course still overlooked topics they didn't want to get into (Pete Best for instance), but I thought the Anthology interviews were pretty good for an authorized project.

Do Mike & Bruce/ BRI still get paid if the concert is canceled due to weather? 

I would imagine that would be written into the contracts with the promoters. But I would assume other than some sort of potential non-refundable advance/deposit paid to the band, the band wouldn’t get the bulk of proceeds if the show is canceled due to weather.

Pretty much every outdoor concert I’ve had tickets for says “Rain or Shine” on the ticket. Obviously, that doesn’t mean they won’t cancel if weather is bad enough.

But I’m sure various contingencies are written into tour contracts. Sometimes they will reschedule, which doesn’t necessitate as many refunds being paid out, etc.

Is there any strong evidence they were seriously considering releasing this as a Brian Wilson solo album? I remember a discussion of this years ago, and the theory that makes sense to me is that it was going to be a Beach Boys album titled “Brian Loves You”, which then changed to “The Beach Boys Love You.” 

Other than in the early pre-recording stages as perhaps a vague floated idea, I can’t imagine this was going to be a Brian solo album. The other BB’s are still on numerous tracks (and some of the BB’s sang some of Brian’s vocals in early/rough takes). More importantly, the band knew they owed Warner one (and later two as it turned out) more album, and I’m not sure a solo Brian album would have even counted toward their deal.

After intently watching Brian at both C50 and on the Jeff Beck tour......I can't say I heard his piano once.

As for Bruce, I only hear his keyboard on Disney Girls. It sounds like a cheesy 80's electric piano and is very audbile on the last verse when it's stripped down.

As long as we're picking apart the keyboardists....when's the last time anyone heard what the hell Al Jardine was playing on his guitar in concert?!?......seems to be a trend with the boys after they picked up their big ole backing bands.

Like Brian and Bruce, Al can play much more and much better than he usually does in concert. He's a good rhythm guitarist, and he can even do some of the Carl/Dave lead stuff as well, as I saw him do it at a gig in 2005.

I stand duly corrected, and thank you.

Ah... wait... isn't that the Jason Fine article ?

Yep! However biased the guy's reports may be, Brian did say those words though.

So was Surf's Up played in its entirety during a rehearsal or during an actual show?  Where/when was it played either way?

Definitely only during soundcheck. Not sure if this happened anywhere beyond the Oslo report.

Here’s the post/thread about the show from the 50th tour that I was thinking of. It was a soundcheck in Oslo where, apparently, they rehearsed “Surf’s Up”, “The Warmth of the Sun”, and “I Can Hear Music.” Not sure who sang the latter two, although I would imagine perhaps Foskett on “Warmth” at least.

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php?action=printpage;topic=14417.0

[upcoming tour]

we talked about the new album and upcoming tour.

I'm surprised no one has picked up on this yet.  Ray, if you're at liberty to say anything, is there a tour in the works beyond the three shows that have been announced so far?  And, I'd also like to say how great it is to read your 'insiders' perspective.  You've got me very excited for the new tunes.  Cheers!

I know Brian has done very short spurts of shows sometimes. But I still would guess that the three dates announced so far are not the only dates. It seems odd to do one show at the end of August, take a five week break, and do two more shows. I dunno if they'll precisely fill in the gap between the end of August and October, but I would imagine we'll see at least a hand full of additional shows announced at some point, perhaps in conjunction with an announcement of the album.

I don't think it was necessarily something that was dropped from contention in the setlist early on. They were rehearsing it *late* in the tour, as I mentioned above. Why it never made it into the show, I don't know.

I remember thinking it was a little factoid from the tour that sort of slipped under the radar, that someone had caught a performance of "Surf's Up" during one of the VIP soundchecks. I think there may have been at least one other song they did in those soundchecks that never made it into the setlist, but I can't remember what it was.

[Brian Wilson was deep into writing songs for a new Beach Boys album when Mike Love pulled the plug on the group's 2012 reunion tour. "It was a shock," Wilson says. "I was so proud of how the Boys were singing. Then it just ended."For a while, Wilson let the music go: "I was writing for the Boys, so I thought, 'What am I gonna do without them?'"]

Chances are I'm missing something, but as I recall, Brian made just the one post-C50 statement, in the LA Times in response to Mike's letter a few days earlier. I'm pretty sure every other item just quoted that. May be wrong of course and if so, welcome correction.

Brian was quoted in the recent July 18th, 2014 Rolling Stone article:

Brian Wilson was deep into writing songs for a new Beach Boys album when Mike Love pulled the plug on the group's 2012 reunion tour. "It was a shock," Wilson says. "I was so proud of how the Boys were singing. Then it just ended."

For a while, Wilson let the music go: "I was writing for the Boys, so I thought, 'What am I gonna do without them?'"

  C50 was a wonderful event in sum, but any thoughts as to why "Surf's Up", one of the crown jewels in The Beach Boys' catalog, was omitted from the setlist?

   1) Too obscure to the general public? Well, maybe, but we know C50 attracted the hardcore fans and many songs played on the tour ("Ballad of Ole Betsy", "All This Is That") are arguably less familiar.

   2) Too hard to play? Brian and his band did it justice on the SMILE tour circa 2004.

   3) Maybe group members (Brian and Mike) didn't want to play it. Why?


 

Supposedly, someone (I believe in Europe or Australia) later in the tour saw them do “Surf’s Up” during soundcheck with Scott Totten singing the lead and Al reprising his end vocal part from the original record.

Given the songs they did perform on the tour, I would imagine they just never fit it in. Had they done another leg, perhaps it would have been rotated in at some point.

Stamos got the Beach Boys on his previous sitcom, the short-lived "You Again", circa 1986, and there the group actually had probably a more prominent "acting" part and plot involvement than they did on most of the "Full House" episodes.

Ironically, my recollection of the plot is that Stamos' character gets a chance to do a gig with the BB's, but can't read the sheet music or something.

I believe this pic is from that 1986 sitcom shoot; several years before their "debut" on "Full House."