Mike and Bruce Tour 2015

[Gregg]

I just said that I thought it was weird that they played the rodeo here in Austin. I wouldn't think it so odd if they played the rodeo in a city that was centered in an area that was largely agrarian/ranch though. I don't think that's music fan snobbism.

[filledeplage]

I just said that I thought it was weird that they played the rodeo here in Austin. I wouldn't think it so odd if they played the rodeo in a city that was centered in an area that was largely agrarian/ranch though. I don't think that's music fan snobbism.

Never been there (Austin) so I have no context, except shouldn't this band who started out playing high school dances get to choose where they want to play? And why all this venue snobbism?

The music is for the common man/woman, and they are found everywhere.

[Mendota Heights]

We need to get to the bottom with SB's anti-agrarian sentiments. I suggest we put Lieutenant Cowlumbo on this case.

[filledeplage]

We need to get to the bottom with SB's anti-agrarian sentiments. I suggest we put Lieutenant Cowlumbo on this case.

A poster here used to have the real Columbo as his avatar...

And I have no idea why there is any concern about venue "quality."

[Mendota Heights]

And I have no idea why there is any concern about venue "quality."

Bad/small venues will devalue the Beach Boys name and legacy.

[Gregg]

I just said that I thought it was weird that they played the rodeo here in Austin. I wouldn't think it so odd if they played the rodeo in a city that was centered in an area that was largely agrarian/ranch though. I don't think that's music fan snobbism.

Never been there (Austin) so I have no context, except shouldn't this band who started out playing high school dances get to choose where they want to play? And why all this venue snobbism?

The music is for the common man/woman, and they are found everywhere.

I think I made my point as clearly as possible, but for some reason you're not getting it.

Oh, well.

[Andrew G. Doe]

What is the oddest/most embarrassing venue that M&B have ever played? I'm sure it's a subjective question to ask, but what would be the candidates?

Have they ever actually played a car wash, or was that just a joke (I'm assuming the latter, but hard to actually know!)

I don't remember typing anything along the lines of Honest Doug's Soft-Touch Car Wash & Wax Emporium, Hooterville MN so I'd say no. Iffn you care to trawl through the gigs lists 1998-2015, I'm sure there's some oddities in there.

In terms of sheer oddness & embarrassment then 7/14/62 takes some beating - the Radio KOXR Diaper Derby in Oxnard. 

[Andrew G. Doe]

And I have no idea why there is any concern about venue "quality."

Bad/small venues will devalue the Beach Boys name and legacy.

I doubt anyone here who experienced it would doubt that the 7/5/81 nationally televised show at Long Beach gave the name and legacy an horrendous kicking, and in public. The venue is, basically, immaterial, except to the likes of us but a truly horrific live performance on national TV definitely takes the shine off (as did a 1991 Wembley gig I had the misfortune to attend: shocking sound, disinterested band).

[HeyJude]

The question isn’t whether there is still demand for Beach Boys concerts. That has never been in doubt. The music and its selling power is *that* strong. What we’re talking about is whether they would be playing larger, more prestigious and/or concert-focused venues if they had not toured incessantly for decades. They literally haven’t gone a single year without playing a show since 1961. They have been doing the 100-125 shows per year grind since the 80’s at least. It’s a cash cow, and it’s easy money, and it has been easier to scale back the size and prestige of the venues and markets in part because ticket prices have increased.

Should it be embarrassing for a band to be playing a rodeo? Or a state fair? A bowling alley? That’s a big question that surprisingly quickly raises a bunch of political/economic/class/culture debates. Part of the post-C50 debates did devolve into some references to “elite” media or fans who think it’s more important and better for the band’s brand and image to play Madison Square Garden than the Cleveland Rib Cook Off.

I’d love for the “C50” reunion lineup to play at my local school fundraiser, where I can walk to the show and every seat is a good seat because there’s only 150 people in the audience. I truly mean that. But we can also take the objective point of view, looking at how the industry and the public in general views things. In that sense, yes, the brand/band/trademark looks rather flaccid when it’s playing in a town nobody has ever heard of at a venue that maybe doesn’t even regularly host concerts as opposed to playing Radio City Music Hall or regular concert venues like sheds and arenas.  

While small venues do typically result in better concert experiences than huge arenas and stadiums, it also tends to depend on the type of audience certain venues and bookings attract. A lot of the state fairs and county fairs and free shows I’ve attended attract non-fans and at best casual fans who really don’t know or care who is singing on stage and will throw a brick at the stage if they don’t hear “Barbara Ann” and “Kokomo.” I’d rather see the show in an arena frankly, even if I have to get binoculars out to see the stage and even if I have to drive two hours to see the show.

[rab2591]

As Swedish Frog says, I think some fans look down on the Beach Boys playing rodeos and other venues of that type because it cheapens the name and legacy of the Beach Boys...call it snobbery but it's completely understandable. Imagine if Ringo Starr decided to start a touring band called 'The Beatles' that didn't include Paul. And then, instead of playing exclusively at prominent venues, he took 'The Beatles' to play the parking lot of Lucky Strike Lanes and Lounge or to play on a spinning stage in the middle of a mud and sh*t filled pile....that's how I see it. It would seem like a joke because they're the flippin' Beatles for crying out loud. For those who know nothing about the Beatles it would probably be a great experience to hear some great music. For those who feel a spiritual connection to their music, it would probably seem jaw-droppingly ridiculous.

If a kid at one of Mike's concerts feels a connection with the music and goes out and buys a Beach Boys compilation, then I say good for Mike's band. If they put on smile on just one person's face, no matter where the gig is at, I say good for Mike and his band. But I can definitely see why some fans get flustered about these certain venues.

[HeyJude]

This rodeo show is worse than seaworld. Mike is quite literally putting the BBs name through the mud (and sh*t) of the rodeo.

Smile Brian - BB/BW fans come from the four corners of the earth.  

Why would the band/s ignore any one of them?

And disrespect and discriminate against them because of location-based bias?

This rodeo/seaworld argument is weak and intolerant.  

And mean as against those fans who come from an agrarian/ranch area.  

I get your point, but Austin isn't exactly an "agrarian/ranch area". As a matter of fact, it is often called the "live music capitol of the world".

And a certain little film/music festival is going on here right now. 

Don't get me wrong. I'm glad they are still entertaining the crowds, but playing the Austin Livestock and Rodeo is kinda weird.

Glad you understand my point.

They've played for young and old and rich and poor for over five decades. They play for people everywhere.  

What difference is the location? A fan is a fan is a fan.  

Is this music fan snobbism?

It’s not snobbish in my opinion to humbly suggest that the band and its legacy (and the value of its trademark) deserve quality venues and bookings that attract an audience it deserves.

I’d rather see any iteration of the Beach Boys play 25-50 shows per year in higher end venues and markets that attract audiences that won’t riot if they hear “Lookin’ at Tomorrow” and don’t hear “Kokomo.”  

Some artists and bands lose public interest (sometimes undeservedly so), and/or have not enough name recognition, and have no choice but to play small markets and small venues with small audiences. Al Jardine’s solo gigs have essentially come to this, for instance. But any iteration of “The Beach Boys” has the luxury, with the right planning and marketing, to play prestigious venues and bookings. In this sense, they’ve rarely taken that opportunity. Even in the 80’s they were playing post-game gigs in stadiums to bemused or indifferent audiences. Look at that ’83 Seattle gig that floats around on video. The audience looks disinterested and restless.

[filledeplage]

And I have no idea why there is any concern about venue "quality."

Bad/small venues will devalue the Beach Boys name and legacy.

I doubt anyone here who experienced it would doubt that the 7/5/81 nationally televised show at Long Beach gave the name and legacy an horrendous kicking, and in public. The venue is, basically, immaterial, except to the likes of us but a truly horrific live performance on national TV definitely takes the shine off (as did a 1991 Wembley gig I had the misfortune to attend: shocking sound, disinterested band).

My take on the pejorative venue comments, centered around the locale v. lively performance. 

And an indirect smack for the end of C50.

All roads seem to lead back to Rome...

And the purported "fall of the empire."

Seen my share of under-promoted low attendance shows...had a good time regardless...

[HeyJude]

I just said that I thought it was weird that they played the rodeo here in Austin. I wouldn't think it so odd if they played the rodeo in a city that was centered in an area that was largely agrarian/ranch though. I don't think that's music fan snobbism.

Never been there (Austin) so I have no context, except shouldn't this band who started out playing high school dances get to choose where they want to play? And why all this venue snobbism?

The music is for the common man/woman, and they are found everywhere.

And if the Beach Boys booked a nice, indoor theater somewhere, that same fan can get off their a** and drive a bit farther out see and hear a much better show.

The implication that a band has to play small markets in small towns to reach their fans is simply incorrect. I’d say otherwise if the alternative was something like the Cream reunion gigs where you had a choice of four gigs in London and then three gigs in New York and nothing else. But something like C50 allowed most regions in the US (and some other regions in the world) a chance to see the band if they were willing to travel a bit farther.

The quality of the show and venue (and, as Mike reasoned out in how LA Times article, the actual membership of the touring band) should not be dictated by the need or desire to play small markets.

I’d rather see the full reunion lineup do 25 shows per year even if it I couldn’t afford to make it to one of those gigs, than see a pared-down lineup (to say nothing of the stage presentation or setlist) play 125 shows including one within a ten minute driving distance with cheaper tickets.

[HeyJude]

To those who seem so incredulous when we’re talking about the smaller venues and markets being played, keep in mind that Mike Love himself cited in his 2012 LA Times letter that the need to play those smaller markets was part of the reason to not continue on with the C50 lineup. I would also argue that the desire on the part of some members to tour in such a fashion probably impacted group member relationships and decisions going back years, decades.

In other words, the type of market and venue the current BB touring lineup is playing *directly* and indirectly is related to numerous past and ongoing issues related to the band, including the actual composition of its current lineup. How such things impact the legacy of the band and its individual members is another issue, which is both an interesting and long conversation.

[Cam Mott]

To me the results are in. The band has not been able to ruin or cheapen or lessen their legacy and or trademark no matter how hard they all have tried for the past 50+ years. Every supposed trademark and legacy ruining comp and concert continues to sell prodigiously and their legacy and trademark continue to be rock solid and bulletproof. I think all the things people blame are maybe what is actually pumping up the legacy and trademark some how.

[Andrew G. Doe]

It's not advanced particle theory to realise that had the BB gone down the route of the Stones and staged a major tour every five years or so, they'd be much more highly regarded in the music world. I for one would prefer that. But, fact is, they've been touring to excess since the mid-sixties. The pattern was established early on. It's what they do. Would it be any different if Carl were still with us ? No.

The very fewest gigs they did in one calendar year (1961 excepted, of course) was 48, in 1977. Here's the 'bottom ten':

48 - 1977
50 - 1976
50 - 1998
67 - 1971
73 - 1994
73 - 1996
77 - 1997
78 - 1978
79 - 1979
82 - 1980

... and for purposes of comparison, the 'top ten':

165 - 1988
159 - 1999*
158 - 1987
154 - 1982
149 - 1964
146 - 1966
145 - 2005*
141 - 2014*
137 - 2001*
136 - 1963

[Cam Mott]

To those who seem so incredulous when we’re talking about the smaller venues and markets being played, keep in mind that Mike Love himself cited in his 2012 LA Times letter that the need to play those smaller markets was part of the reason to not continue on with the C50 lineup. I would also argue that the desire on the part of some members to tour in such a fashion probably impacted group member relationships and decisions going back years, decades.

In other words, the type of market and venue the current BB touring lineup is playing *directly* and indirectly is related to numerous past and ongoing issues related to the band, including the actual composition of its current lineup. How such things impact the legacy of the band and its individual members is another issue, which is both an interesting and long conversation.

Didn't he say that it wasn't financially feasible to play those 2012 shows with the C50 group that were already booked for the not-C50 group? He also said the extended dates that "promoter" were talking at them about in 2012 were dates for 2013 after they gave it a break for a year, the dates that were never presented in writing and never discussed within the band as Mike and Brian said.

[Mendota Heights]

To me the results are in. The band has not been able to ruin or cheapen or lessen their legacy and or trademark no matter how hard they all have tried for the past 50+ years.

And to scientifically know that you have to create a parallel timeline/universe in order to be able to observe differences in "legacy outcome". We know what their legacy is as of now, but not would it could have been. Claiming actions do not affect someone's legacy is more than nonsensical - actions make up someone's legacy.  

Let's say today's legacy is 54 on scale of 1 to 100. With better decisions in the past their legacy might have been 87. Or 92. Or some other number.

So the results are not in. Unless Cam creates that parallel universe.

[CenturyDeprived]

Question: are there people on here who would say that there is not a single place that M&B could possibly play which would quantify as embarrassing? How about a Jack in the Box employee lounge? Or an oversized bathroom stall at somebody's house? How about a slaughterhouse? Deodorant Factory? Tampon Emporium? There are people here who would never, ever draw the line anywhere, right?  

I'm totally serious in this question, by the way.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Question: are there people on here who would say that there is not a single place that M&B could possibly play which would quantify as embarrassing?

Probably, just as there are people on here who would find fault if they played St. Peters at the express request of the Pope in a concert to celebrate World Peace. 

[HeyJude]

To those who seem so incredulous when we’re talking about the smaller venues and markets being played, keep in mind that Mike Love himself cited in his 2012 LA Times letter that the need to play those smaller markets was part of the reason to not continue on with the C50 lineup. I would also argue that the desire on the part of some members to tour in such a fashion probably impacted group member relationships and decisions going back years, decades.

In other words, the type of market and venue the current BB touring lineup is playing *directly* and indirectly is related to numerous past and ongoing issues related to the band, including the actual composition of its current lineup. How such things impact the legacy of the band and its individual members is another issue, which is both an interesting and long conversation.

Didn't he say that it wasn't financially feasible to play those 2012 shows with the C50 group that were already booked for the not-C50 group? He also said the extended dates that "promoter" were talking at them about in 2012 were dates for 2013 after they gave it a break for a year, the dates that were never presented in writing and never discussed within the band as Mike and Brian said.

No, I think you’re interpreting a meaning from Mike’s letter that isn’t there; a meaning that suits your needs. When he talked about needing to play the vital smaller markets, I don’t think he was speaking to already-booked shows for his band. I think it was just a more general point meant to refer to his normal mode of touring.

The rest of the stuff you’re talking about has nothing to do with the issue being discussed regarding markets/venues/cities for tours. I’m not going to entertain the “talk” vs. “discussion” debate again. Mike said there was talk of another album and more shows. He didn’t want to do more with the C50 lineup, and apparenty couldn’t bring himself even in 2015 to just say that plainly and simply.

[CenturyDeprived]

To those who seem so incredulous when we’re talking about the smaller venues and markets being played, keep in mind that Mike Love himself cited in his 2012 LA Times letter that the need to play those smaller markets was part of the reason to not continue on with the C50 lineup. I would also argue that the desire on the part of some members to tour in such a fashion probably impacted group member relationships and decisions going back years, decades.

In other words, the type of market and venue the current BB touring lineup is playing *directly* and indirectly is related to numerous past and ongoing issues related to the band, including the actual composition of its current lineup. How such things impact the legacy of the band and its individual members is another issue, which is both an interesting and long conversation.

Didn't he say that it wasn't financially feasible to play those 2012 shows with the C50 group that were already booked for the not-C50 group? He also said the extended dates that "promoter" were talking at them about in 2012 were dates for 2013 after they gave it a break for a year, the dates that were never presented in writing and never discussed within the band as Mike and Brian said.

No, I think you’re interpreting a meaning from Mike’s letter that isn’t there; a meaning that suits your needs. When he talked about needing to play the vital smaller markets, I don’t think he was speaking to already-booked shows for his band. I think it was just a more general point meant to refer to his normal mode of touring.

The rest of the stuff you’re talking about has nothing to do with the issue being discussed regarding markets/venues/cities for tours. I’m not going to entertain the “talk” vs. “discussion” debate again. Mike said there was talk of another album and more shows. He didn’t want to do more with the C50 lineup, and apparenty couldn’t bring himself even in 2015 to just say that plainly and simply.

There's no way he can bring himself to be publicly honest about his answer, and everyone knows it.

[Andrew G. Doe]

And once more, we're headed down The Road Taken Way Too Often...  

[Cam Mott]

And once more, we're headed down The Road Taken Way Too Often...  

(giggle)

[drbeachboy]

And I have no idea why there is any concern about venue "quality."

Bad/small venues will devalue the Beach Boys name and legacy.

No it will not. Where and who they play for rarely comes up when researching Beach Boys and their legacy. The only place where that topic ever comes up, is right here.