The Smiley Smile Message Board

http://www.examiner.com/review/brian-wilson-s-the-right-time-from-no-pier-pressure (http://www.examiner.com/review/brian-wilson-s-the-right-time-from-no-pier-pressure)

I disagree with the assertion that Matt is "doubling" Al. He (or whomever is doing the falsetto-type parts) is singing in the harmony stacks, not doubling Al's lead.

I'm also not sure why the review seems fixated on discussing Mike Love and reminding us it's not his "fault" he's not singing in this material. Brian's own press release for the album suggests this would/could have been another BB album. No more, no less. It surely wouldn't have been identical in composition as a BB album. But yeah, while it doesn't matter, it is probably by Mike's hand that he's not singing some of these sings with Brian as the BB's.

If it was indeed Mike's decision to not be involved in Brian's album than I think it was a really good decision on his part and we all benefit from it. Thank you Mike.

This article is more about defending M&B than BW's new song.

Even the name of the album could be taken as a dig at Mike. As HeyJude said: Brian's own press release suggested this could've been a Beach Boys album. I think it's something that Brian wants known. We're fans of the most SNAFU'd band in history  - it's completely logical for us to talk about the controversies on forums or in reviews.

For a review that tells us the music itself should take precedence over the controversies, it sure does spend a lot of time talking about those controversies...

maybe Mike is now writing articles about Brian and the Beach Boys under different Pen names.... :lol

Already 2 reader comment and they're both anti-Beard. One comment pointed to the fact that 28.9 % of the review was devoted to defending myKe luHv's absence on NPP. ::) ::) ::)

"Everybody knows this would've been a Beach Boys album if it wasn't for the greed and idiocy of Mike Love, he'll need a better PR campaign than David Beard to avoid the mockery coming his way in every review of this album."

I guess some people really don't like that article!

"... We don't wait for new Brian Wilson music because of who Brian is today, we wait because of the amazing music Wilson created between 1962-1970 as a member of The Beach Boys. That's the truth..."  Please don't include me in your "we," sir.  Yes, I fell in love with Brian's music in 1962, but I love Brian's solo work and his band, and have looked forward to each of his new records.  If there's one thing this record proves (as if "Brian Wilson," TLOS, and BWPS as examples, didn't), it's that it doesn't really matter who Brian's working with as long as they have the talent to express his creative vision.

+1

I don't think it's even a remote matter of "could"...

I must be reading a different story. I read it as Brian has a good song and possible better album on his, and his collaborators own merits rather than what Mike and the Beach Boys name could have bought to the table.



..'In fact, it is unfair to Wilson, Jardine, Marks, Blondie Chaplin (who appears on "Sail Away") and the myriad of other great artists who appear on No Pier Pressure, that anyone would take the time to make derogatory comments towards Brian's cousin, and/or spend any time not focused on Wilson's muse and how fortunate we are to have a brand new "Deluxe Edition" that includes 16 new Brian Wilson recordings. The music is the story, but they've got to get you to read their reviews somehow, so they cast dispersions to create controversy. That is a tremendously horrible thing to do to Brian on the eve of a brand new recording and music video.'...

@Pretty Funky

David Beard uses Brian's latest song as an excuse to defend Mike Love in this ongoing war kind of thing. So it comes across as a ML PR product and not so much as a review.

Please see my post above to see why there is steam coming out of my ears.  There is no excuse for that sentence to anyone who loves Brian's solo work.  Mr. Beard needs to speak for himself.  I'm perfectly capable of doing the same.

Whats this 'ongoing war'? I'm missing a lot today.

Debbie...Agreed. The use of 'we' can imply us all. Obviously not the case.

Thanks Pretty Funky...""... We don't wait for new Brian Wilson music because of who Brian is today..." just sends me into orbit!  We wait for Brian's new music because of whom, then?  It's so damn insulting to Brian, and a ridiculous statement.  Brian is Brian!  How can that possibly be debatable?

+1…

In fact it ain't really a review. There's practically no comment on the musical content/ arrangement/ melody etc.

The comment on the political situation relating to the line-up behind the album overwhelms it. A shame.

Sadly, I also  have to agree; and noting the >28.9% < comment above, I'd say it's more like 50% (or more) Love defense. What after all is this: 
>>As the late Terry Melcher once stated, "Brian's sound is about love." Do we really believe for one second that Wilson would be able to produce a new 16-track album if he couldn't find his muse? Could he really be so angry at Love, and still create beautiful music? Have you ever known Brian to be angry? Maybe the most important question is, why — when we've waited for three years — is anyone who isn't on the album even in the conversation? <<

Make one wonder why a > review < of NPP would  need to mention Mike Love at all !!   And has been pointed out, it didn't. Dave Beard has unfortunately crossed the line, over any protestations he will make now in his defense, to being a shill for Mike.
ESQ credibilty goes down the drain. 

I don't know, I don't think this review is all that surprising. While I'm sure we would all much prefer one that actually discusses the quality - or lack thereof- of the music, it's quite common to pad out reviews by talking about the band's/album's/singe's history, or your own personal history with the band/album/single. It's not a particularly good way of reviewing something, but a lot of people do it.

>> It's not a particularly good way of reviewing something, but a lot of people do it. << 
 I don't know about anyone else, and certainly can speak ONLY for myself, but what I expect from the >>editor and publisher of Endless Summer Quarterly the world’s leading Beach Boys fanzine<< is not a petty shilling for Mike Love.
And on further review, I'd say the non-Mike Love defense takes up 75% of the >>review<<

Only 3 sentences in this review actually talk about the song itself. I guess I find it ironic that the core message of the review is basically: talk about the music ("the music is the story") - and the review does pretty much the opposite. So it is surprising in that regard.

You could argue that it's an informed opinion piece about Beach Boys politics; you could argue that it's an opinion piece about the album line-up… but I think calling it a "review" is incorrect.

He seems to be reacting to the assumptions of other reviewers that Mike and Bruce are not on the album because of Mike.  He says that's lazy and inaccurate.  It looks like he's reacting to something, rather than simply defending Mike for the hell of it.  Doesn't mean he's a shill.  I'm not sure precisely what he's reacting to, but if there are lazy and inaccurate presentations of the politics being put about in other reviews, it's fine to take them up on it and most likely be a lone voice going against the tide.

Debbie, you selectively left out: "Brian has had plenty of interesting musical moments over the years, but without those career-defining albums from The Beach Boys, we wouldn't care.

But we do care. And we should.

We fall in love with Wilson's muse each time he releases anything musical. With good reason. Brian's knack for unique compositional and vocal arrangements are a one-of-a-kind. The California-based architect of music is a living legend, and if we spend our time on anything other than the music, we miss out."

This text echoes your sentiment.

You got it.

It was based on the nonsense that I read in this review: http://somethingelsereviews.com/2015/02/19/brian-wilson-the-right-time-review/

Your statement about Mike is inaccurate.  Maybe AGD will weigh in.

Not my statement. It's a comment from the Examiner, fyi.

On Brian's own website we read this: "Wilson initially envisioned the sessions for his new album with The Beach Boys in mind, but that was not to be."

It's there in black and white that this was originally planned as a Beach Boys album, including Mike and Bruce.

Bgas, you're a memorabilia collector.  What credibility do you have?

My review asks everyone to focus on the music.  Since this is only one song, and the press release mentions the fact that it was intended as Beach Boys album… Now, with one song, was the time to tackle it.

When the album is released, and all the tracks are reviewed, it will be done without any mention of Mike.

At this point, I'd say I have as much credibility as you.

You'd be wrong.

I don't even know what to say... I am indeed interested in Brian's music because of who he is today. If I only cared about young Brian, I wouldn't. It's what separates Brian from someone like Rod Stewart. That's all I gotta say about that, so yeah I agree Debbie.

Yes, I left that out - I'm not certain how "selectively" - as I was trying not to include the entire article in a single post.  I certainly don’t feel that your comments echo my sentiments.  Saying that there were, “interesting musical moments” hardly shows respect for his solo career.  You are still saying that "We don't wait for new Brian Wilson music because of who Brian is today" and I find that to be insulting to the man who produced this music far beyond 1970 - like in the last few years, which is the music you’re supposedly reviewing. “…but without those career-defining albums from The Beach Boys, we wouldn't care…” implies that the Beach Boys defined Brian as an artist, rather than the other way around.

The point being made was, without those career-defining hits, there would have been no Beach Boys or Brian Wilson. Meaning: because of Pet Sounds, and all the other great music (and hit songs), we always look forward to something new from Brian.    

What's that they say about opinions being  like you, Dave?

I think you took this out of context.  That Lucky Old Sun and Reimagines Gershwin are among my favorites.  I did not suggest he hasn't done anything worthwhile. 

Look in the mirror. 

Mike Love is destroying our fan base like he already did to the real Beach Boys.

Nah, I think we're doing a great job of that ourselves.

If Brian's intentions were to have nobody ever think of Mike Love, or his role (or lack thereof) in this project, and all the history behind it, he wouldn't have entitled his album No Pier Pressure. It's a statement on *some* level. C'mon. To say it's NOT a statement is like saying that "I'm Bugged at My Old Man" is in no way, shape or form, remotely referencing Murry.

Much like in that instance, Brian is humorously laughing off someone who has been a thorn in his side. Some people may want to be ostriches and put their heads in the sand, but it's pretty clear to me. IMHO. For the article's author to suggest that actual history can somehow be removed from the subject when analyzing the record and thinking about its place in BB history, well... I think that's just plain ridiculous.

And also, the article suggests we must think about the past... in selective ways. Like saying, well be thankful for Mike Love because if not for him, Brian wouldn't have gotten famous (nor would the band), and you wouldn't be getting these wonderful BW gifts today. Which is true on some level. 

But at the same time, it's saying "specifically think about this historical series of events", and also specifically saying "don't think/talk/reference these other historical series of events". I get the idea that the author wants people to just be positive and not get caught up in negatives, but IMHO again, it's going about that good intention in the wrong way. You can't selectively ignore portions of the big picture. Some people in the story are simply going to reap what they've sewn.

Did not suggest to remove history, in fact, I address it.  In any given situation it takes two to tangle.  Mike is not individually responsible for a non follow up to TWGMTR.  For the record: If this were an album release by Mike & Co. (with Al, David, etc.) and Brian was left out, I'd be totally against any inappropriate shots taken at Brian. 

My stance, is to support The Beach Boys.  All of them.  Not because I have to, or that I am beholden to them.  It's because I owe them a debt of thanks for changing my life with their music.  I just LOVE the music.

So why didn't you just talk about the music instead of launching into a preemptive defense of Mike Love?

Please know: despite my gripes, I get that, and I respect that intention of yours.

I did.  Apparently not enough for those here.  It is one song.  The way I'm going to review the album is to take the tracks that are Brian, Al, Blondie, David, etc. — which are 11 songs total — and review those separate of the other five songs (with the younger guest vocalists).

Eleven new songs is a solid album.  That's what I'm looking forward to the most.

I found the review peculiar as well. It certainly now reads as though ESQ has taken a position in the dispute between Mike and Brian.

During the C50, Brian said he was done with a solo career, both in public and private. He has said he wrote these songs for the group. He also recruited a bunch of former Beach Boys to sing and play on the record. I don't know how, given this history, anyone can claim that Mike's decision to let the reunion fizzle isn't important, or doesn't provide valuable context for the music we're now hearing. Brian may indeed have refused to join Mike's touring band, or write alone with him in the proverbial room, or what not. But to dismiss Mike's role in this out of hand -- as the review does -- smacks of an attempt to curry favor.

Beach Boys Examiner is owned by AXS Entertainment.  Endless Summer Quarterly is not.  If you want to know what I — as the editor of ESQ — have to say about the song: It's gorgeous.  Very pretty.  Not quite a hair standing on your arms as "From There To Back Again," or as satisfying as "Pacific Coast Highway," but certainly as good as "That's Why God Made The Radio" and "Isn't It Time."

Brian's bass vocals are particularly interesting.  I'm willing to bet the best is yet to come.

That's my stance as the editor of ESQ on this message board.  

I see you've done some edits to the article since the original posting of it that I responded to by cutting and pasting it here for my reply.  That should be helpful.  I definitely saw no commentary in your review on TLOS or BWRG.

You've made a comment here that indicates another poster lacks credibility.  Since it is my understanding that Mike essentially removed himself from this record by ending the C50 tour, what can you share with us about what happened?

Do you really believe that Mike — alone — let the tour fizzle?  This is 2015, not 2012, and I don't dismiss anyone's role in what took place in 2012.  

My interview with Joe Thomas about "Our Special Love" in the Winter 2014 edition of ESQ revealed that only the first part was initially written with the BB in mind, but the rest of the song was developed as a solo recording, that eventually ended up with Peter Hollens on it.  

Debbie, Brian has had so many great moments in music, that I felt if I had gone into each one, then any conversation about "The Right Time" would be lost.  As it is, I think that's happened.  My first dance wedding song on 11-11-11 was "The Like In I Love You."  Okay?  Does that validate my love for Brian's music for you?

As for your question regarding 2012… Respectfully, there is nothing that I can share that is my business to share.  If and when those details come to light it will be done so by the members.  Brian and Mike have books coming out, so we might see something there.

Am I reading this right? You have one opinion for Examiner and a different opinion for ESQ/SmileySmile? Or does AXS dictate what you're allowed to say on Examiner?

I am so pissed off right now.  For most of today this forum has been aggravating.  Lemonade break!

You know I don't think there is any dispute between Brian and Mike. I think that when Brian goes in the studio his only interest is in serving the material, by any means necessary. I think he could care less about any disputes, real or imagined. There are some people on this board that love to get into the Brian vs. Mike bs. That does a disservice to Brian who is on a whole 'nother level from Mike. I firmly believe that Brian could care less. However this has been a very entertaining discussion.

I think I'm with you on this. I bet they still share a beer from time to time. People should share a beer - or a cocoa - more often.

The title 'No Pier Pressure' has been mentioned as a nod against Mike, which may be the case although its never been stated. I've read here for years that Mike can't hold a candle to Brian but now he's a Peer (Pier)? Wow!

Can I suggest it may also be a few other reasons, or does that not fit a few posters agenda?

-Brian attempting to show he is not afraid to come out from the shadows, is equal and not intimidated by his greatest work with 'The Beach Boys'.
-He is not afraid of having younger artists interpret his new work.
-He acknowledges Al Jardine still has the chops so has no problem giving him the lead on the current single.
-For what ever reason, Jeff Beck and others are no longer on the album. Did Brian decide "Nah....Don't need em."

In other words, has Brian made some choices regardless of what others may think? "I'm f***ing Brian Wilson and I'm over 70 years old and I can do as I want. I'll hire or cut anyone on this album!"

It's funny and sad that nearly everyone I would expect to whine about this article has come into this thread to do just that.  You guys seriously need to get out more.  You guys care more about this than Mike or Brian.  If one actually reads the article within context of what he was actually referring to, there is no controversy.  The only thing I take issue with is we wouldn't care about this if Brian wasn't doing anything from 1962-1970.  It's a "well duh" statement, but still I get what he's trying to say.    

Also, I think it's high time we get some facts about just WHY this isn't a Beach Boys album.  David, you clearly say it has not as simple as what people say, and AGD can back you up.  I've heard at least part of the story from a reliable source, but I know other things had to have been at play.  Would really burn any bridges if you guys are telling the truth of what happened?  Or do we have to wait until Mike or Brian's book to get the whole story?  Honestly I'm just sick of how childish most here act about it.

Brian Wilson: "I was so proud of how the Boys were singing. Then it just ended." "I was writing for the Boys, so I thought, 'What am I gonna do without them?'"

Brian Wilson:  "Mike not wanting or letting Al, David and me tour with the band, it sort of feels like we're being fired. What's a bummer to Al and me is that we have numerous offers to continue, so why wouldn't we want to?"

Another:

Brian Wilson: "While I appreciate the nice cool things Mike said about me in his letter, and I do and always will love him as my cousin and bandmate, at the same time I’m still left wondering why he doesn’t want to continue this great trip we're on. Al and I want to keep going because we believe we owe it to the music."

Again, you guys care more about this than Mike or Brian.  You also don't know the whole story. 

Care to enlighten us? 

And do you mean we care more about the issue than we care about Mike or Brian, or that we care more about the issue than Mike of Brian care about the issue?

There is no great mystery about the dissolution of the tour. Read the statements and interviews. Read relevant posts on this board. If there was some secret, huge reason for the split, it would be known by now (as opposed to wives bickering, or a bunch of other things we can imagine and are probably ultimately irrelevant).

Mike was unwilling to continue unless Brian did things differently. Brian was unwilling to change in the way that Mike wanted. Given that the contracts ran out at a certain point, Mike chose to let that to happen rather than make the compromises necessary to keep the band together. One can say that Brian refused to make the compromises, but he was at a fundamental disadvantage: Brian wanted to stay in the Beach Boys, and his fallback was being a solo artist. Mike's fallback position was to keep touring in a group called the Beach Boys. One of the two could win without changing a thing.

It's truly not complicated. What's complicated is if you're on Brian or Mike's side of this. It becomes easy to take parts of emails out of context (as if people never threatened things they didn't intend to do in negotiations) or make assertions without factual basis. Brian says it feels like being fired. Mike says they did what they set out to do.

Both are right. Both are wrong.

I'm a Brian fan, so I incline to his perspective on this. But I have never been an objective observer, and I've not claimed to be. But I do have sufficient perspective to know that the simplest decision can be spun an infinite number of ways given the number of observers and agendas involved. But that doesn't mean that something is being hidden.

I don't think being rude to others is going to advance or prove your argument.

Care to tell us the 'reliable source's' story?

Great summation Wirestone, many thanks.

The Cinncinati Kid though implies there's more stuff we don't know about, that hasn't been in the public domain… I'm intrigued.

The person who told me can enlighten you if he wants.  He has posted in this thread.  At the time he asked that I keep it between me and him, so I'll respect that.  I can tell you that he's a very well respected member of this board.

I mean that you guys care more about the issue than Mike or Brian do.  I really do enjoy reading everyone's posts here, but I just roll my eyes when I see this continue to get brought up over two years after the tour ended.    

I certainly appreciate your edits to your original story from:  "... We don't wait for new Brian Wilson music because of who Brian is today, we wait because of the amazing music Wilson created between 1962-1970 as a member of The Beach Boys..."  to:  "We wait for new Brian Wilson music because of the amazing music he created between 1962-1970 as a member of The Beach Boys..."  I'm glad you paid attention to our objections.

I asked about 2012 since the article referenced it, as did your comments to another poster that he lacked credibility in his version of what happened.  I'm quite satisfied with my understanding of events, which is what Brian said publicly and the only thing that makes any sense.  So if you weren't implying anything else, that's great...no need to re-write history.

Oh God, please spare us.  ::)

Except for the fact that Brian chose to directly reference it in the marketing for his new album...

Well...THIS sure has been an interesting 3 pages worth of reading. >:D  I have NO idea what the album might have sounded like with Mike and Bruce participating vocally.  It may even be that Bruce has been kind of forced into the corner he occupies because of the corner he occupies...rather than due to having a realistic choice in the matter.  'Cause EVERYBODY here knows how much Bruce admires and likes Brian.   :hat   Otherwise 4 of the 5 surviving Beach Boys might well have been on the album.  Then?  We would clearly see that, while a KEY contributor to the sound and success historically, one of the least creative members of the unit holds all of the leverage on the use of the group's name.  In essence then?  Mike Love ...and Mike Love alone... is the Beach Boys. :o

1962 to 1970 [with time off for bad behavior/Smiley Smile] was foundational and provides some of the the gist of why we attend here...and buy the new releases.  It's 'The whole 9 yards' which contributes majorly to why we flock to Brian's concerts...because they are important events which include LOADS of music from his newest releases as well as the classics.  IF he had finished his career in 1970?  One can only speculate.  I think that concept pretty much sells the man short and gives him nowhere near the credit he has earned.

To dismiss bgas as only being a collector is assholish.  First consider why he collects WHAT he collects.  Man!!!  So you only wrote the 'review' of the new song so you could ride in on your white mule to defend Mikeddy?  And you did that because he provides a useful "quote" to help promote/validate your fanzine?  See what I just did there?  THAT was a stupid thing to say too.  [And I KNOW it.  Don't mean it.  Just making a point]

Like I said, other than 30 second clips, I can't comment on the new album...BUT...I do own TWGMTR...and I hear what the BBs sound like of late.  I do watch LIVE concerts online and I hear what they sound like both as a group and as a duo.  Brian's backing crew is more impressive than Mike's.  More expensive too I'd wager.  Jeff will help Mike and the Beach Boys...but...the absolute weekest notes sung collectively or by the two distinct units come from Michael Edward.  It's just an age thing.  That and the FACT that he really didn't have as much to work with to begin with.

Yes he's made the most of it.  Yes he tours and brings outstanding music to millions of grateful fans EVERY year.  Yes he is lining the bank account of BRI with his efforts.  Yes he cares about the Beach Boys.  But it's HIS Beach Boys he cares about most.  He is who he is and who he's been from WAY back when ... when gradually it stopped being just 'his' Beach Boys...like in 1966 going forward.  That he ISN'T on No 'Peer' Pressure does not bother me at all.  

Maybe on his 'solo album' he can give us HIS version of One For the Boys?

Ya right.

Bgas' attack on me was unwarranted.  If defending myself, doesn't sit well with you, then so be it. 

I stand beside all the Beach Boys, and they know it.  I follow a moral code, but I'm not someone who thinks they are anything special.  In life I have been called to be a father, a husband, a Tenor in a church choir, and someone who loves to listen and write about The Beach Boys.  I'm very blessed.

Any quotes from the Boys in support of me or ESQ are old, but have been earned.

My 2 cents in reading these posts: The new song isn't anything special. I wish it were, but honestly, it sounds like a TWGMTR reject. I suspect Brian being surrounded by people who think he's The Messiah doesn't help..."hey, another classic Brian!", "Best ever boss". No Mike Love to dare question anything....and speaking of Brian/Mike, for my second point,  those who think they have a beer and talk, you are WRONG. Very wrong...

Based on these posts, it looks like we are never going to get a true report of Brian and Mike's relationship or Brian's relationship with the Beach Boys.  I'm going to wait until I get the details from both 1st party sources, Brian and Mike, together.

The Right Time would only be the what? -- 8th or 9th best song on an lp like Today! Which is actually fairly high praise -- Brian is still adding, if not classic, at least good songs to his already extensive oeuvre. I'm excited to hear anything new from my favorite songwriter.

I think it has been established that Brian wanted this to be a Beach Boys record, but that Mike, for some still undisclosed reason, didn't. Maybe Mike's reason is justified, hard to say without knowing what it is.

My objection to this article is that it hints that Mike is not to blame for NPP being a solo rather than a group lp. David knows a secret, but he's not telling us. We are just to take his word for it. Not fair journalism. Either spill the beans, or don't even touch on the subject.

Lee, for bgas to have a little conniption and proclaim ESQ no longer has any credibility on the basis of his take on the article is equally assholish (sounds like a niche lubricant, btw). Will you call bgas on that?

And for you to "call" David assholish is, well...as noted. First consider why he writes WHAT he writes.

So, there we have it - bgas took a crack at David, David took a crack at bgas, you took a crack at David, I'm taking a crack at you (and maybe bgas as well).  Nothin' like new BB or BW product to bring out the best in us all, is there.

   You're such a slub Dave.  I called you on what you wrote; you don't like it. Gee,  too bad; don't write crap to pad your articles then edit them later to try to make yourself look better


Alan Alan....  If you're taking a crack at me, don't forget to take one at Brian and Al for writing Crack at Your Love

 ;D "Wilson, Jardine, in my office, now!"

Great song! 

I'm reachin' out to you, bgas (in my mind).

so you have "Bgas in mind? well it's been too much time.." lol

Some interesting thoughts!

Agree, interesting comment… but - if accurate - I don't think Mike would be the man to ask to be the quality filter for Brian's work.

I just saw the 5 star rating and crossed the page off.

Maybe it's because I'm from a younger generation, but once I read that I was like 'Nice review'. Didn't need to go further  :hat

So because of the five stars you bought the song?

I never buy single songs, seems pointless.

Seeing the 5 stars gave me an ego boost for enjoying the song, that simple.  :hat

That vehement backtracking "LOL I'M NOT DEFENDING MIKE LOVE IN MY REVIEW!!!!11!!one!1! I TALKED ABOUT THE MUSIC IN MY REVIEW NOT ABOUT WHAT OTHER PEOPLE THINK OF THE MUSIC IN MY REVIEW".... Wouldnt be so bad if ESQ Editor didn't go into extreeeeeeeeemely defensive damage control mode immediately after people started talking about his abortion of a song review....

Quite off-putting. The review this thread is about isn't even barely about the song in question, it's about what other people are saying about the song and the past history of the people involved/not-involved in the song.

Of course, this whole "internet journalism" thing isn't about, and never has been about, the  music. It's about whatever gets the most people to click URLS so the people in charge of websites get their fractions of a penny advertising revenue anytime somebody has the misfortune of clicking the links to the "music reviews".



The "review" obviously isn't about the music, otherwise there would be no mention of artists who have jack squat to do with the song in question.


And you can trust my opinion on all this stuff, I'm an "internet music review expert opinion giver" expert.  ::)

What a fucking shambles. Honestly we have so much to look forward to and you guys turn it to sh*t. You guys means everybody! Pull your fucking heads in the lot of you..

Hey, I thought the song was great, a definite ear worm, and a logical evolution from the tracks on Brian's "God Made Radio" album.

Looking forward to the whole album.


It's shoddy clickbait "journalism" that brings the whole entire internet down a peg, not me.


PS: I  Love U

So then you agree with the rest of what I wrote?  You only disagree with the part...and respond to the part...and DEFEND the part where I concluded by clearly saying..." See what I just did there?  THAT was a stupid thing to say too.  [And I KNOW it.  Don't mean it.  Just making a point]'

David...it wasn't really a review.  It still isn't.  Well...maybe 'quarterly'.  The other 3/4 though...  Oh and the 'review' you reacted to?  T'Was pretty accurate.  Anyway...not looking to fight.  Being "assholish" doesn't mean that I think that's what or who you are.   I do it frequently.  If this particular 'opine' of yours didn't 'nail it'...think of all the ones you wrote that did. :hat
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meanwhile here's a MINI review of the ALBUM from Bruce Johnston...YES...T H A T  Bruce Johnston...

http://www.boards2go.com/boards/board.cgi?action=read&id=1424531813.92145&user=bellagio

My subconscious informed me of a connection between The right time and Lay down burdon, at least in the chorus. Not that it matters....

Thanks for sharing! "Age appropriate" - that sounds like a very, um, appropriate description of the stuff we got to hear, for better or worse.

Aye "age-appropriate" is an amusing term… I mean, what should these Beach Lads be doing as they enter their 70s? Producing Doris Day albums? :lol

I'd like to comment as well, but first I think something should be addressed if not clarified, and the opportunity given to do so.

Since the original article was published on Examiner and since the link appeared here with follow up comments, it looks like the original text has been changed and edited at the source. What this sets up is a situation where members here read it at some point yesterday, posted reactions to what they read, and sometime in the middle of all that the original text was changed. Those who may have read after the changes were made or who will read now or in the future will see text that has been edited if not nuanced to alter some of the original passages readers here had addressed specifically, if not disagreed with outright.

Why change the original text, and was it changed after readers questioned some of the content?

I thought it was very classy from Bruce to post that review. The fact that he'll outwardly, publically, praise Brian's new album, with all it implies, is a gentleman's gesture.

Agree. An explanation would be in order.


Agree.


Also agree.

I don't care. David has an opinion and a outlet for it. He can change his mind. We all can disagree or agree. Why all of the drama?

Let me clarify that statement. Bgas is a collector and an asshole.   Howsat?  :P

THAT'S harmony. :lol

You da best Mikie. :hat

It does seem to be a bit odd, doesn't it?  Particularly with the young artists that are on this and the notable timelessness of Brian's music - God Only Knows a hit again, recently.  It did make me consider what music and performances might be age-inappropriate.  Brian's work isn't what came to mind. ;-)

I usually like giving Bruce grief on these boards, but I don't think he really meant anything bad with the "age-appropriate" thing. Let's remember that  Bruce was basically over making rock 'n roll of any kind by like 1966, with the oh-so-classic Bob Sled & the Toboggans being his last music that could even loosely be called "rock 'n roll." Shoot, he was even calling himself a "Rock and Roll Survivor" by the mid '70s. I think he looks upon rock 'n roll as something that affluent people over, say....35 shouldn't be playing. And that's his call. We all have our own taste.

But it is amusing nearly all the music he claps along to every night was written by guys around the ages of 20 to 30.

Brian's new music should be enjoyed and celebrated. Even if you think it's nothing special.

My 'take' on what Bruce meant by "age-appropriate" is that lyrically...it's been written for adults...for those of us who've accompanied Brian along his path.  And now that he and we are older...it's age appropriate.

Dancing Bear???  John Phillips wrote a song called 'Dancing Bear' for the Ms and Ps.  They recorded it even though he never really felt like he had finished it...that it still had significant polishing to be done...especially the ending part.  Sadly...that'll never happen.  Anyway...Any relation there in terms of the name?

I'm fairly sure the text was changed after people here questioned the content, you can see it happening through the posts.  Why?  He may have agreed with what some had posted about his review and changed it. Probably as simple as that.

Yes, it was as simple as that.

I owe The Beach Boys (and everyone who has read the review) an apology.  I allowed myself to get off topic, and sucked into the drama stirred up in the Something Else Reviews! article.  That's what I reacted to…it admittedly upset me.  That was reflected in the article.  
 
A purely musical review will happen, as well as an article about misconceptions within the group dynamic since 2012.

And I'll be reading them. :hat

S'all good David.  Sometimes here...is seems there's this FAN...and every now and then the 'sh*t' hits it...and kabloouie!!! :jedi

I should point out the reason whine my reference btw, for anyone not up to speed on Bruce's recent album credits:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Heart_(Doris_Day_album)

:)

Ah, now, THAT I look forward to reading with uncommon interest !

I can only repeat what I kept telling that idiot Cohen repeatedly, and have also stated here in a different context: you start revealing in a public forum, or even PMs, what your sources have told you in strict confidence and suddenly they're former sources more rapidly that you'd believe possible. The whole end of C50 thing isn't anything close to as black and white as some here and elsewhere would want it to be - and that's not rocket science or arcane insider knowledge, these are The Beach Boys, only a half wit, maybe a quarter wit would think it's all heroes & villains - and hopefully Brian & Mike's books will address this. Snag there is, you'll still be getting two takes on the same nonsense, albeit from a closer viewpoint.

I can also only stand back in amazement that any single thread can erupt in such spectacular fasion without any contribution from me ! Guess I'm slipping...  ;D

I agreed with some of the points made in the Something Else review, especially the one about how Brian, Al and David may not have the name but they have the sound.

As for the end of the C50, I can understand why it is impossible to reveal information without losing sources but the 'I have a secret and I won't tell' explanation wouldn't be acceptable in a court of law and it isn't acceptable anywhere really. You can't refute anything with hints. Mike took a lot of flak after the end of the C50 - if he had evidence that laid it at someone else's door, why didn't he reveal it? Leaking it to a few friends, who feel unwilling to lose his confidence, isn't enough. HE could have revealed this himself in his letter to the LA Times  - 'I did not fire Brian Wilson ' blah de blah. Until he is prepared to come clean, he can't expect anyone to believe him. BUT - even had Brian hypothetically told Mike 'I've had enough! That's it!' - the way this was announced by Mike and the timing of the announcement were down to Mike and seem to have been made that way for maximum embarrassment or with an incredible lack of consideration.

Well, that's just too bad. And this place is, if anything a kangaroo court.


I fully agree that Mike's post-C50 press release and the timing thereof was, to be polite, regrettable. As for "evidence", he has revealed it. As for "Until he is prepared to come clean, he can't expect anyone to believe him", your implication is that he has something to hide. Here's some news for you: everyone has something to hide. You... me... Brian... the Pope... everyone.

Maybe I've missed something - but then Mike's reasons were so numerous I've perhaps lost track. Was it the existing M&B tour plans with the lead piping in the conservatory, or maybe the over exposure with the candlestick in the dining room,  or Mike's daughter's suggestion of the shady people surrounding Brian Wilson (with God knows what weapon and presumably in all of the rooms...).

'Regrettable' is incredibly polite - I wonder if you would have let any of those people with whom you are so impatient off so lightly.

My implication is that Mike has not provided to the best of my knowledge (which leaves room for manoeuvre admittedly) anything that I would consider convincing proof that the end of the C50 and the manner of its ending was the decision of anyone other than Mike himself. Of course, he could be reluctant to tell all he knows (I'll avoid the 'come clean' this time which suggests he isn't clean at the moment) simply because he is protecting other people. Perhaps Brian's and Mike's respective biographies will elucidate. But those letters to the LA Times didn't. Had Brian been happy with the way it ended all he had to do after Mike's letter was absolutely nothing, or if he felt particularly happy about it, issue a statement to the effect that the C50 was always intended to be a finite arrangement, it was fun, now it's over and perhaps they could 'do it again' at some point in the future.

Everytime Mike Love is interviewed he gives you his evidence.  The issue isn't black and white but it's right in front of your face.  There is enough evidence right in front of your face as to why the members of The Beach Boys aren't touring inclusively of each other, why "No Pier Pressure" isn't the the latest Beach Boys record and all the rest.  Mike Love ever since the end of the C50 has been asked every which way about why the group isn't carrying on inclusive of one another and he's given the same answer everytime.  There were certain aspects of the C50 he enjoyed but one huge aspect where he felt he was misled.  Now is there more to the story than Mike Love is sharing with the general public?  Probably but when it comes to matters like this, most public figures don't want to air their dirty laundry out for everyone to see.  

But the fact of the matter is you don't need to inspect every nuance regarding this issue to understand it.  I've understood it perfectly since around four months or so after it was announced that the C50 was not going to be continuing in any way, shape or form.  The only other thing to add to that is yes things were handled badly in how the aforementioned information was initially relayed to the public but there is not much anyone can do about that now.  For Beach Boys fans the whole thing is unfortunate but in the end Mike Love is still out there touring to enthusiastic audiences and Brian Wilson has what seems like a spectacular new record he's about to drop on us and a tour of his own waiting in the wings as well.  So if you want to look at this as a glass half full scenario, there it is for you.

I'd say that the glass is closer to 80% full.  It has always taken 2 to tango.  Nobody was playin' solitaire.  Expectations weren't met.  But really?  I personally don't think that *we*, the fans, are suffering because of it.  The only one's incurring any negativity, backlash and missed opportunity used to wear striped shirts to work.

Those days are done.  So too should those expectations be done.

Mike has given his reasons - I wouldn't call what he has said evidence because some of it doesn't add up. I can understand why Mike and Bruce felt they had to honour tour commitments but this was a temporary obstacle only. The over-exposure thing is downright silly in the light of the number of shows Mike and Bruce do (and brought more bad Press from the Eagles management). The stuff about shady people cited by Mike's daughter was vague. The most honest of the reasons seems to be Mike's disappointment at not being able to write more with Brian but I think Mike was hoping for a return to the successes of the past and probably for the same kind of music as they did in the past which IMO was unrealistic.

I certainly don't consider the glass half empty. I have absolutely no problem with the idea of Mike and Bruce continuing to tour as the Beach Boys and especially not with Brian doing his own thing, releasing an album which the tracks we have heard in full and the previews suggest is going to be something for which to look forward.

Whether there is anything to hide about the C50 has yet to be proven but the argument that 'everyone does it' is known as  'The Golden Rationalization'. http://www.ethicsscoreboard.com/rb_fallacies.html  "If someone really is making the argument that an action is no longer unethical because so many people do it, then that person is either in dire need of ethical instruction, or an idiot." (The Dissonance Drag in the above link is worth reading here too.)

Personally I am very happy the record is coming out, regardless of the name on the spine. I think most of us feel very positively about the situation, and await the record with great anticipation. Its just a fact that if someone pokes a hornet's nest, hornets are likely to come out.

And this has precisely what to do with the topic under discussion ?

Surely self evident? But in a way you're right. The subject that should be under discussion is Brian's new album and I am sorry I was sidetracked into more about the C50 (but wasn't the first person to mention it - I was responding to continued innuendo with no supporting evidence).

So, to the new album! The tracks I have heard in full are splendid. The previews fill me with anticipation. My glass is damn near full and I shall be happy to raise it and toast Brian's future success.

Ang - If people are given information in confidence, it should be respected, and not pushed to reveal what was told to them.  Discretion is the better part of valour. 

If I've learned nothing as a BB/BW fan, it is that when you least expect it, you will be pleasantly surprised.  C50 was a surprise.  I still love surprises! If I had to guess, there will be others in the future.  In the meantime, I just enjoy the music!  ;)

Indeed - I have no problem with people keeping confidences. I just don't like innuendo without supporting evidence.  The best way of keeping a secret is to say nothing.

I like surprises too and I am certainly enjoying the latest of the music I have heard.

Ang is calling how she sees it as an objective observer. AGD is not at this point and is using the secret sources strawman to hide it.

Thanks SMiLE Brian! (like the name BTW!) One correction - 'how she sees it'. Short for Angela.

Woops, I changed it! 8)

In fairness now SB...and I very much like both Ang and Andrew...known 'em both for a LONG time [abeit only via the internet but still...] AGD  H A S  to hide behind "no comment" or he loses his sources and connections.  The rest of us can just spout off...free as a flock of birds.  Gives US the advantage.  We get to be right AND wrong/accurate or inaccurate and we just, then, skate away on the thin ice of our new day.

Poor AGD has to tread water no matter how thick the ice is.

Hey Ang.  Yes she is a woman. :lol

Oh...and I'm a guy.  [or the bearded lady from the circus. ;)]

Does the bearded lady at the circus comment have something to do with David Beard? 

My take on this is similar to the > if you don't have anything nice  to say, don't say anything at all<  adage. 
Sure , there are people with sources, but don't come here and tease folks with them if you can't be specific as to what you''ve heard.

More ladies in the Smiley Smile House! 

It's all good!  ;)

No bgas...It does NOT.  It's more about my beard. :lol

Yes Filled...agreed. ;)  Nudge nudge/wink wink.

Say No More.

Ah yes, Sacramento (C50 the code name devised by a very clever Derek Taylor, California being one of 50 states and Sacramento its capital). Who was responsible? Surely not me, though admittedly I might have done more with the gumball machine idea.

But who knew? I met my second wife in Sacramento, I think. Or perhaps not. In any case, it’s irrelevant. David Marks might have commented on this. Fact checkers anywhere?

Why did the Sacramento concert come undone? I will argue that the failure to include a vocal track on Denny’s Drums was critical and shouldn’t be ignored. As for Brian being upset with Michael -- who wasn’t after he failed to pick up the cleaning and the boys had to take the stage in orchid polos?

These things happen, though, and probably should be put to bed at this point – perhaps with some warm milk and cookies. Michael claimed at the time that Brian failed to give him the laundry ticket. I think not. Some of you collectors might shed light. At any rate, I take no position on C50 other than “Wow! Great concert!” We can only hope this is addressed in the dueling autobiographies.

The main question I have is: why didn't Mike Love tell the LA Times? He had a great opportunity to clear the air and tell his side to an outlet that (as hard as that is to believe) has greater reach than AGD. So why the changing story?

It's going to be VERY interesting to read what Mike and Brian have to say about the C50 breakup in their upcoming books. Of course, Al Jardine has been known to spill the beans when people least expect it....

Mike has a weapon so good he is not willing to use it? I believe it when I see it.

Remember folks - more people have seen bigfoot than Mike's supposedly nuclear email.

There is no email, its all BS from Mike Love.

Thanks to Hank Briarstem for bringing up the issue of an on-stage use of gumball machines
(which never came to be). This points to the complexities of such a band and their decisionmaking.
And why everybody should just chill out. The one contact I have left from the old days (no names,
but I'll note he is a gardener at Brian's home, specializing in the crape myrtles) informed me that
the lone holdout in the 3-to-1 vote giving Mike charge of the touring band was Al Jardine, who actually
thought he was voting for changing that awful orthography of the band-branding to a Garamond script.
Have to say...he made sense.

Who's Hank Briarstem? 

Not at all. I stated, in response to your implication that Mike has something to hide re: the ending of C50, that everyone has something to hide, only to have you introduce a sizable communist kipper by introducing an axiom that has exactly nothing to do with my point as it somewhat fatuously states that if enough people do something, be it stamp collecting, satanic child abuse or being a Beach Boys fan, that makes it OK. If you're going to try and demonstrate your erudition to all gathered here, you might try to make it at least loosely connected to the original post. BTW, the sly imputation that I'm an idiot is... amusing. I'm many things, most of them regrettable, but I'm neither an idiot nor in need of "ethical instruction".


Excellent question. I have no idea.


Spoken with the ultimate authority of someone whom knows exactly f*** all squared to the power of Π about the subject they're commenting on.  ;D

I know enough that this email doesn't exist or is taken out of context to the point where you can't reveal it. Its a boogyman to absolve your boss of blame for killing the C50 and firing Brian/Al.

I have a hunch that what Mike is holding back from wanting to say, is for him to somehow point the finger at Melinda. I would think that it would have been (and would surely remain) mighty hard for him to say something negative about a BB bandmember's wife in a public interview without coming off in a very poor and unsympathetic (for his "cause") light. I still think whatever excuses we get in the book will just be a way of shifting blame away from himself and ego-based concerns, but I'm as curious as anyone else to hear what gets spun as the supposed "smoking gun" besides all we already publicly know. Maybe after consulting with a consortium of PR people and noted scholars + experts, he can find new and improved ways to blame others.

Exactly, CD. Its an ongoing process of avoiding blame for ending the C50 and keeping the real BBs out of existence.

How does this have nothing to do with your post? You suggested that we all have something to hide as though that makes it alright. I gave the name suggested for this argument - the fact that everyone is hiding something doesn't make hiding something correct - it depends on the reasons and what exactly they are hiding. The quote from the link was just too much of a temptation. I don't really believe you are an idiot but I think that it is at least foolish to try and defend something using the tactics that you know something that we don't.

Unless I'm misunderstanding, Ang was referring to the lack of ethics involved with using innuendo, and then when questioned about it, invoking some right to protect sources.  If there was no innuendo, there wouldn't be a problem, but it constantly arises here -including this thread.  It has grown tiresome, to say the least.

Ah ! Changing our horses in mid-stream, are we ? Suddenly, there might be such an email...  ;D


I can't believe you really are dumb enough to still be buying into the "Mike fired Brian/Alan/David" nonsense over two years since Brian - that's your Brian... Brian Wilson - admitted it wasn't true because he couldn't. No, belay that, actually I can.  :lol

As for "my boss"... last time I looked, I wasn't married and while my memory isn't what it used to be, I think I'd recall something like that happening.

Concerning the email, the full, complete and entire text has been quoted, and on this very forum, last summer.

The novellist Jerome K. Jerome once observed "I like work: it fascinates me.  I can sit and look at it for hours". I feel exactly the same about watching someone digging themselves a deeper and deeper hole.  ;D

I suggested nothing. Rather I stated that we all have something to hide, in response to your implication that Mike was in some way unique in this.... and I certainly never said that makes it alight: that's you putting words - your words - into my mouth. Again.

Everyone has closets. It's just the number and size of the skeletons therein which varies.

Please direct us to this thread and post, Andrew.

"it sure felt like being fired"
those were Brian's words. is he dumb, too?


I can't believe you are really smug and misleading enough to... no, belay that...

I'm still waiting for Howie to explain why Jeff joining Mikes band was a big FU to Melinda form Jeff. I was basically told I wasn't smart enough to figure it out.

Please enlighten me. It should help clear up this other nonsense.

Debbie, he will lose credibility in case he does not.

Brian's words, yes... but cherry picked out of context (and slightly inaccurately to boot):

"Now on to the rumors: As far as I know I can't be fired--that wouldn't be cool. The negativity surrounding all the comments bummed me out. What's confusing is that by Mike not wanting or letting Al, David and me tour with the band, it sort of feels like we're being fired."

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/music/posts/la-et-ms-brian-wilson-al-jardine-respond-to-mike-love-on-beach-boys-flap-20121008-story.html#page=1 (http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/music/posts/la-et-ms-brian-wilson-al-jardine-respond-to-mike-love-on-beach-boys-flap-20121008-story.html#page=1)

Smug, sure. Misleading ?  Someone is, but it ain't me.

For them as patently can't use the search function...

The Endless Summer Quarterly feedback thread, reply #98

I am plowing through the Jones Beach thread at the moment. Ambha's take on the email was discussed there as well.

"No more touring for Wilson," IIRC.

Of course, the real question is what the email that prompted that one said. And no one has leaked it so far.

Maybe it said: "No more touring for Love."

Who knows?

thank you for the exact quote. let's examine it, shall we?

Brian states that Mike does not want and/or is not allowing he, Al, or David to continue touring with the band. yet your posts on the subject have always aimed at dispelling that "myth"


misleading was the most polite word I could think of.

The myth that anyone fired, or could fire, anyone else... which as almost everyone here, being well versed in BRI 101, already knows is not possible. That some here actually do still believe this happened is, well... pitiful, really. As I've said, mental midgets.

Ahhh yes!! When one can't engineer himself out from under the rock he got himself under, proceed to hurl playground inspired insults to those who frustrate your karma. ::) ::) ::) ::)

Whether or not Mike's actions actually, unequivocally, unarguably equated to "firing" his bandmates, it seems that the end result was essentially the same thing, and they felt they'd been fired (despite the BRI voting setup, which is no secret). When Brian Wilson and Al Jardine feel as though they'd been fired, that has to mean something. Nobody dared wanted to rock the boat enough to try and legally challenge Mike's actions, which would surely been a huge drain of financial and emotional resources, and without a doubt the specter of that has to have been a major factor (besides not wanting to cut off the money supply to Carl's estate). Mike's vindictive legal actions since Carl's passing have loudly and clearly stated "f with me and there will be huge trouble". Brian and Al would be crazy to willingly endure that grief at age 72+.

But as far as I can see it, the actions are about as close to "firing" as one could get to the term without specifically doing so. With the current BRI setup, can you tell me a way that Mike could have acted that was closer to firing than what actually transpired? The terminology is splitting hairs, but it's not a particularly dissimilar situation from actual firing, and it really doesn't strike me as particularly outrageous to infer that it's in the same ballpark... and I think you must admit that the term"myth" is too strong a term in the other direction.

I'm relieved there was no legal challenge. What sort of mood would there have been on any continuing tour when one or two band members didn't want to be there? What a positive vibe hat would put across to the fans.

as has been pointed out: although Mike could not technically "fire" anyone, he could --and did-- prevent them from continuing to perform with the band...which Brian said felt like being fired.

I imagine if your own employer requested you to stop coming into work indefinitely, without technically terminating your position, you would be somewhat less apologetic and eagerly rising to their defense.


bottom line is this: while Brian, Al, and Dave weren't exactly "fired" they have indeed been indefinitely excluded from further touring with The Beach Boys. that is, they are being prevented from fulfilling their desired (and rightful) path of employment. even the most pitiful of mental midgets can understand why Brian himself said it felt like being fired.

and anyone who continues to argue that fact is sure to have their own mental acuity questioned.

Where did I suggest that Mike was unique in having something to hide? Far from suggesting that he was unique, I wrote this in my last post: "the fact that everyone is hiding something doesn't make hiding something correct - it depends on the reasons and what exactly they are hiding." I even went so far as to suggest that Mike might be hiding something in order to protect someone else.

I've now read the post about the email. Of course it proves nothing without all the emails that preceded it. Anything can be taken out of context.

Looking through the threads by AGD, I cannot find an exact email. Instead, all I found was references to a facebook rant by Ahmba Love. This poorly worded rant was about her dad getting a "no more wilsons" email. Such a source is not a valid source for bashing BW for ending the C50 and calling out people who don't like ML's actions.

I don't think I've ever seen a single person here contend that Mike Love is legally Brian Wilson's employer and severed his employment in September, 2012. Essentially, the partnership formed to do C50 simply dissolved at the end of it.

The issue is whether what occurred amounted to the same thing. As Wirestone has said in a previous post, many feel that while not legally/technically the same thing, the idea of letting a contract expire and not continuing on with a willing and able Brian Wilson, and then going back to one's exclusive license to use the same name, is not *terribly* different from firing Brian.

To reiterate, I don't think anybody apart from an occasional lazy "journalist", has contended Mike fired Brian. To continually cite "Mike didn't fire Brian" makes no sense to me. It's answering a question that nobody asked. Even Mike has used this as a response in some interviews, citing "there were erroneous reports that I fired Brian", rather than actually discussing why he didn't choose, while under no legal obligation to do so, to continue the reunion.

The "no more shows for Brian" e-mail is also irrelevant. As Wirestone mentioned, we don't know what precipitated that e-mail. But even if it was a completely out of the blue message from Brian, we know that at some point after that, before the tour was over, Brian changed his mind. Folks including David Marks have said that the plan was *always* for Mike to go back to his own tour. It also seems quite possible if not likely that Mike was already booking his own shows while the reunion tour was still happening. Those facts, coupled with the fact that Mike has never, apart from one quick mention in an interview, even mentioned the "no more shows" e-mail. This includes not mentioning the e-mail in that long letter to the LA Times. Why hasn't he mentioned that e-mail more often? I would guess because it's irrelevant. He has other reasons for not continuing. But I don't think anybody believes that Mike would have continued the reunion were it not solely for a mid-tour e-mail from Brian.

My guess is that Mike saw C50 as the anomaly to his usual routine. Given the likelihood that post-reunion shows were booked before or during the C50 tour, it probably was wishful thinking, maybe some naivety, for Brian and Al to think the amazing reviews and additional offers would convince Mike to continue the reunion (either in place of, or after, whatever shows he had already booked). Mike didn't break any contracts, he didn't go back on any word. He simply made a decision to not do something. That's fine. But he has to own that decision. Frankly, Mike is owning that decision somewhat more than a few of his defenders are. At least Mike has stuck to some more concrete (if disagreeable to some fans) factors that he didn't like, such as the size of the touring band, not being able to play small towns and small venues, not being able to write with Brian. I think there's probably much more to the story than that, and it's not surprising that power and money aren't addressed in any of these interviews on either side. I don't agree with the circular logic/wording that has even been used by David Marks, that Mike had these other shows that he *had* to do, as if some other entity was deciding where and when Mike should play and forcing him to play the gigs, or that they couldn't replace those already-booked shows with C50 shows. Mike decides to make the bookings. But in any event, Mike has owned it a bit more than some of the defenders.

I've heard a few other theories as to alternate/additional reasons for the demise of C50, and they all sort of make sense while simultaneously not making any sense given the evidence. There are surely more unknowns in this situation than most of us are aware of. But of the knowns, Mike's own words have not placed the blame on any other band member so much as simply passively saying the situation essentially settled back into what it used to be in 2011.

The only band member who would have had the balls to state that the actions amounted to a desperate power grab would have been Dennis. He wouldn't have shied away to have told it like it was/is.  Brian and Al don't strike me as vindictive enough to put it like that publicly, but I would be very surprised if they *didn't* feel that way. For Mike to have publicly have had to endure the endless (and what will likely continue to be in perpetuity) media/fan backlash which came along with his actions, Mike must have really, really, really, so, so, so badly wanted to retain that power. Like really, achingly bad. No cost was too great, was it? IMO, after liquor/drugs, this addiction to power/control is sadly the 2nd most toxic affliction in the band's history. I know these are hard words to swallow, but it's the truth.

Brian didn't tour with the band for decades. Al and David left the band. The touring band has been less than the whole band for most of their career because of one member or another (usually Brian) for some reason or another. It's just the way it is.

Hey Andrew, without breaking into the standard talking points or tying yourself into a pretzel trying to find some intellectual consistency on the topic, I'd like to ask a few things.

-In your opinion, do you believe that if it was up to Brian Wilson and Alan Jardine in September 2012, would the reunion of The Beach Boys have continued?

-Do you believe that the one line from an email, saying something like "no more shows for the Wilsons" meant that Brian was totally done with any further activity with The Beach Boys as an ongoing concern? Or perhaps, do you think it just meant that the tour was over after the UK, and that the door was open to later live work either later in the year or in 2013?

-Do you think, regardless of any legal situations, that it is smart for Mike Love and supporting member Bruce Johnston to tour as The Beach Boys after 2012?

Very likely, given that it was their expressed wish at the time.


Maybe it's not just one line. Maybe that's the whole email. Who knows ? Whatever, I'd say it means what it says: no more shows. Does it say "I'm done with The Beach Boys", or "no shows, no albums, no nothing, bye" ? Nope. It's very specific.


The members of BRI seem happy enough with it. Personally, if it keeps the music alive and the musical integrity isn't compromised (and it isn't - I saw the band in 1991, with Carl, and they were embarrassingly poor), I have no problem. I'd rather have the best possible iteration of the band touring, that is the 2012 line-up, but for various reasons, that's looking highly unlikely to happen again. So, cherish what happened. Is it "smart", or preferable, for a substantial slice of the posters here ?  Of course not. Is it "smart" in the eyes of the punters ?  They don't care, they're not as invested, or as obsessed about it, as we are (how could they be - they're normal !): they go for a couple of hours of great music.

Simply the best, most concise and unarguable summary I've seen. Brilliant. As Debbie said, we simply don't know. It's like trying to do a 1000 jigsaw with 839 of the pieces missing, and about as fulfilling.

But still, we try.  :)

OK, so if we take this to it's logical conclusion, wouldn't that mean that the fact that the reunion ended fall on the shoulders of Mike Love then? If the two other main players wanted to continue and one didn't, why is it being argued whether or not it was Mike Love who tanked it? If, as you admit, Brian and Al wanted to keep going, how could they be also cited for being as culpable as Mike?


Well, if it was specific as to "no more shows" why has it been used by you and others to show that, "HEY BRIAN ACTUALLY ENDED THE REUNION! HE DIDN'T WANNA DO MORE SHOWS! THAT MEANS HE WAS DONE WITH THE BEACH BOYS!" while this was obviously not the case as you admitted above. Therefore, I don't understand what the email has to do with anything. It is neither here nor there when one considers whether The Beach Boys should have continued as a true functional group instead of reverting to basically just being a brand name which benefits on potential customers lack of knowledge about the current lineup of the group.

Also while you seem to be in a somewhat honest mood again Andrew, do you think that if Mike Love didn't have The Beach Boys name in his back pocket in 2012, he would've continued on with Brian and Al?

I have a pretty great feeling that he woulda been a-ok with continuing on if the only other option was touring as something like the "Endless Summer Maharishi Beach Band featuring Bob Sled & the Toboggans."

My assumptions: they all signed up to the pre-nup's 50 show clause. They all signed-up for the 23 show extension. So in a way any prolonging ofthe tour was (legally) doomed from the start.

When the extension expired, maybe Mike pointed out that he had had shows booked since before C50 hit the road and suggested that the behemoth be toned down to something more lithe, tours KE and affordable. Brian maybe stated his preference for the bigger band, Mike refused. So Brian emails to say "no Wilson involvement in that scenario" and BANG - the end is writ.

My take:  If Mike called time on it, so what?  It's not the end of the world.  Clearly, he had issues with how it was going down.  If things aren't to his liking, what should he have done, just sucked it up and carried on?

The questions I would ask are how were those concerns dealt with by Brian and his team?  If they were to do another reunion album, how would it work?  Same as before, with Mike feeling like he's being kept at arm's length?  Kinda awkward, no?  I recall reading here that Al wanted to get one of his songs on the album and was just kinda brushed off by Brian.  Doesn't sound like an ideal working scenario.  How long would you put up with it for?

I bet if it is addressed at all by Brian and Mike that they both have legitimate reasons for their points of view which just did not happen to line up this time.

Me too. Which makes Mike like every other human being on the face of the planet - he doesn't do something he's not that keen on doing if he doesn't have to.