The Smiley Smile Message Board

The mythic "alone in a room" configuration.   I assume that would mean a lack of outsiders who were not official members of the band,  certainly no co-writing input from non-band–members, although it could also actually mean just Mike and Brian in a room, even without any other official Beach Boys members allowed to be present either. Not sure which would be preferred.

When's the last time that happened? I'm thinking we might have to go all the way back to the KTSA sessions?  Was "Going to the Beach"  Brian and Mike's last hurrah (alone in a room)?  That could explain Mike's fondness for that song. I was initially thinking "Male Ego", but I'm guessing that Landy or some other minders might have been around for those sessions.

Perhaps this:


And even more salt rubbed into the wounds of us fans at that time, I was genuinely looking forward to hearing this stuff, seeing something from these sessions on Baywatch or even Baywatch Nights, and instead we got the "Summer Of Love" montage music video. Hell, even worse I don't remember seeing either Pam Anderson, Erika Eleniak, or Alexandra Paul playing much of a role in that video!  :lol  Blasphemy.

Wow.

Ok, let me amend or add an additional avenue to my initial question... whennnnn was the last time Mike got to record with Brian alone in a room on music that actually got released? "Going to the Beach" almost doesn't count, since it took 33 years!

According to Brian's 'autobio', Mike objected to having Landy around when they were writing lyrics to "Male Ego". There's a pic of them in the book - Mike without a hat. I'm sure Bruce was there, too, to adjust the mike stands and clap.

how were Beaches in Mind, IIT, and Spring Vacation written? The larger point is true: if M and B wrote the best songs on NPP (whatever happened, tell me why, and one kind of Love, it would be a triumph.

Goin to the Beach? You mean alone except for the film crew I presume?  ;)

Isn`t that one credited as written by Mike Love alone anyway.

 According to Brian's 'autobio', Mike objected to having Landy around when they were writing lyrics to "Male Ego". There's a pic of them in the book - Mike without a hat. I'm sure Bruce was there, too, to adjust the mike stands and clap.
[/quote]

 :lol

 :lol
[/quote]

 :lol :lol  Then it's confirmed at last. myKe luHv can only write lyrics when he's not wearing a hat.

 :lol :lol  Then it's confirmed at last. myKe luHv can only write lyrics when he's not wearing a hat.
[/quote] :lol :lol

I believe it was in the mid 90's when they last wrote in the same room. As for the TWGMTR co-writes, as I understood it Mike would write his lyrics seperatly-no same room collaboration. I think that is due to Brian's people not wanting/allowing it (managers/collaborators/etc).  Too bad, as Wilson/Love songs are among my favorite in the pop music realm! (Wilson/Thomas/etc just don't do it for me...nor the charts.)

Yeah, that's right all around. . . .thanks

Brian's people seem to see ML as another Landy - to be avoided at all costs!

From what I've read, Brian and Mike were in the room together for the writing of "Beaches In Mind" and "Isn't It Time" (at least initially, before Mike went to a separate room to finish the lyrics to "Isn't It Time"). The problem is, they weren't ALONE in the room, as Joe was there the entire time.

Matt, curious where you got the information that while Mike was in L.A. recording for TWGMTR (I'm just going to dispense of that cutsey talk about "managers" 'cause we know who they are and I hate that kind of ball-less shtick) that Melinda Wilson, Jean Sievers, and Joe Thomas did not want/allow Mike Love to contribute to a "same room" collaboration with Brian Wilson. As I've pointed out elsewhere, he spent more time with Brian in 2012 than he did since, probably 1981 -- tons of time on the road where Melinda, Jean, and Joe were NOWHERE to be found -- only everybody's good buddy Jeff (who always has room for Mike) between him and Brian. What happened to finally realizing the dream of writing alone with Brian?

I fear, there's going to be a lot of rewriting of history -- if not smoothing grey areas into being strictly black and white -- coming around the bend, and so a statement like the managers/producers one kinda just lays there -- and I don't believe that was the case.

What if MIKE didn't REALLY want a "one-on-one" collaboration?
What if MIKE didn't ever want to reunite with the co-founders?
What if MIKE was offered a ton of money for a project and couldn't say no to something he just didn't wanna do?

That's of course, if we're gonna be talking "what if's."

Howie do you know if the tour offers that were discussed around the end of C50 (Wrigley and Madison Square Garden are two we heard) were for dates in 2012 or were they for Wrigley's 2013 season and NYE 2013 etc.?

Funny thing about “Goin’ to the Beach” is that *if* Brian did help Mike write the song, he didn’t get any songwriting credit on it when it was finally released in 2013 on MIC. It was credited solely to Mike.

I don’t think Wilson/Love collaborations have burned up the charts in quite some time either. What’s the last Wilson/Love track that was a hit single? You probably have to go back to the 60’s. Even most of the scattered “minor hits” they had in the 70’s and 80’s were written by others. So if we’re talking about what “does it” for the charts, the evidence is that to the degree *anything* has succeeded in the last few decades, it has done so without Brian and Mike being in a room writing together. “Kokomo”, “Come Go With Me”, “Good Timin’”, “Rock and Roll Music”, all covers or tracks written without a Brian/Mike collaboration. I suppose “It’s OK” is another example, though it wasn’t a huge hit.

Which all isn’t to say I wouldn’t want to hear them write stuff from scratch. I think Brian could write some truly interesting stuff musically with nobody else contributing to the music part of it (and no, this isn’t a dig on Mike in terms of writing music; rather simply a question of hearing Brian’s musical ideas without collaborations on chords or melodies from Bennett or Thomas, etc.). I’m not sure what Mike would come up with lyrically.

My guess, and this is just a guess, conjecture, etc., is that Mike didn’t like the business/power/ego setup for C50, and most of the complaints we’ve heard from him in the last 2-3 years have been after-the-fact pieces of evidence that may not have particularly actually impacted his decision to go back to his own thing. The stuff about not being able to write alone with Brian, not being “consulted” enough on the album, etc., those are things that one could objectively look at and cite as disagreeable elements to participating in the project. But the evidence suggests that at the time, going into the project, he may well have KNOWN that that would be the setup for the album. They got a record deal based on Brian/Joe songs. It was known they were working from a cache of late 90’s Brian/Joe songs. The timeline/time frame for how long they had to finish recording the album was known. Mike later said he thought the band was too big, yet he obviously knew going into it EXACTLY how many people would be in the band. As with many projects of all sorts, what often happens is that everybody sucks it up and does the thing while it’s happening, because they’re contractually obligated to and are making some moolah doing it, and then when they aren’t obligated to it anymore, they will move on to something else and also have the freedom to say in retrospect all of the things they didn’t like about it. Fair enough I suppose, but when everybody else working on the project likes both the money aspect of the project as well as the logistical/power setup of it, then you’re going to be the buzzkill if you move on to something else.

Mike talking about the chart performance of TWGMTR is a perfect example of how the SAME piece of information can be digested and portrayed by the same person in two very different ways. During the 2012 tour, Mike went on about how the album was #1 on Amazon, was #3 on the album charts, etc. After the tour was over, all of a sudden the story is that it didn’t last long on the charts, and he wasn’t allowed enough input on the album. This, from the guy who did “Summer in Paradise” with zero Brian involvement and produced an album that didn’t chart at all in the Top 200. 

On the other hand, Mike has also said he was told things would be one way and then they weren't.

Hey Jude - I'm thinking you need a wiki basic fact check...while I appreciate your zeal for the music, the list is long for the Brian - Mike "successful songsmithing."

Do It Again
Good Vibrations
Let him Run Wild
Little St. Nick ( resurrected EVERY holiday season for 50 years!)
The Man with all the Toys
Meant for You
The Warmth of the Sun
Add some Music
California Girls
Darlin'
I Get Around
I Know there's an Answer
I'm Waiting for the Day
Kiss Me, Baby
Please Let Me Wonder
Wouldn't it Be Nice (still used in many movies!)

That is just a little starter...

Anytime I see "ego" or "contractual obligations" my radar goes right up. It is speculative. And you can dislike any band member, living or dead, and it is clearly your right, but in my estimation, once the "value judgment" card rears it's head, the post loses cred.  

You wanna talk about a contract?  Then, post the contract.  It is ridiculous to speculate if you have no direct knowledge. That stuff is generally closely guarded and rightfully so.

I think you need to read HeyJude's post again, this time a little more closely.

There's no doubt that there's a long list of great Love/B. Wilson songs, but when was the last time that one was a legit hit?  Probably "Do It Again."  

I think you need to re-read my post. They had HUGE success (and quality success) in the 60’s. That’s the point I was trying to make by asking when was the last time they had a hit single.  

I’m sorry, but do you really think I’ve been on this board for ten years (and posting on BB forums and groups for TWENTY years) and yet didn’t know Brian and Mike wrote those songs in your list? Wait, Brian and Mike wrote “Good Vibrations”? Are you sure?

Your list backs up the question (and it was/is an open question) I posed, because everything on your list comes from 1968 or earlier. Your list is PRECISELY the point I was trying to make. They had great success in the 60’s, and haven’t so much since then as a hit-making, two-man songwriting team. To the degree that is an indictment on anybody, it is an indictment on both of them. They have also had some degree of alternative successes since then, and usually WITHOUT the other person involved. “Kokomo”, “That Lucky Old Sun”, the 2004 “Smile”, “No Pier Pressure”, and/or with songs not written by either of both of them (the few cover versions that were hits, etc.), and so on.

As to the ego/contractual obligation/contract stuff, it IS all speculation. At the same time, there’s some pretty hard info floating out there as well I’d say. Read Howie’s post again. If you think what *he’s* writing is BS, then nothing else needs to be said, “radar” notwithstanding.

Mike's Beard - I read it.  And, despite it's disclaimers, using the terms "conjecture" it is still a smack, whether direct or indirect. And clear it isn't informed by seeing the Touring Band, live in the last year. Pisces Brothers has been amazingly received by every single audience I've seen it performed live, and that is probably twenty audiences.  Mike can write. Brian, clearly can write, as easily as he can breathe.  

It is the old "pick a side" game.  And, many are not playing.

Hey Jude - just go see one Touring Band show. Get the cheapest seat. Then, say "anyone" can't write.

Bringing up Kokomo is a joke. Four people wrote that. But it benefitted every Beach Boy being back on the map. Just sayin' ... ;)

Plus the songwriting credits Mike sued for and won in 1994 are sure sketchy since he offered to settle for far less outside of court. Plus waiting for Brian to be in a period of weakness with recovering from Landy and Gary Usher/Roger Christian being deceased.

filledeplage, you're really citing "Wouldn't It Be Nice" as a Wilson/Love collaboration? That was a song Brian wrote with Tony Asher that Mike got a credit on for one line at the end, if that.

SMiLE Brian - the suit was likely* not against Brian.  It was likely against "Murry" but, since Murry was long deceased, Brian "stood in Murry's shoes" not unlike children who inherit a property that causes harm to someone get called into court as defendants, often because the parents are "unavailable" ( because they are deceased ) or are "witnesses" to an event.  

It is grossly misunderstood.  And it didn't ever seem that Brian didn't cause the non-attribution of songwriting credits, but Murry who clearly had power and control.  "Sea of Tunes" sale ring a bell?   It was not Brian's fault, but Murry's action.  

There is a lot to be said for an "action in court," because evidence is out in the open and in the record.  It is why people tend to disfavor "settlements" and "arbitration" because of the secrecy of the terms.  

Smile4ever - I don't have my original Pet Sounds LP at hand.  Tony may have a later credit.  I was looking for Wilson-Love collaboration.  Wind Chimes has Brian, Dennis, Carl and Mike listed on wiki.  There have been revisions. 

Cam -

I had heard differently from people that were not directly attached to the already booked C50 dates -- they were talking about other venues (not sheds) in other cities. But the bottom line re: MSG and what most lay people don't understand about at least THAT specific venue is that an act just about breaks even playing there, due to high cost of the venue (security, etc. . . which is why so many other NYC-area venues have prospered in the past and present.) So, to answer your question without seeing any paperwork, the logical answer would be that if in fact any MSG offer was in the air, it would've undoubtedly been for the 2013 calendar year, seeing as how the band essentially played to (someone help me whith the numbers) some 40,000 NY tri-state area fans over, I think, five different venues. They made a lot more money on those gigs than if they did two nights at the Garden -- BUT. . . . . . . .  they didn't get prestigious The New York Times review of a Madison Square Garden gig that the tour deserved.

The 2013 North American ideas floated around by the people I know were never made public -- but were all for 2013 -- and I don't believe they were even pitched to the band due to the ugly and amateur ending. I will say this, though; there were a lot of people with far deeper pockets than Joe Thomas watching how C50 played out and according to ALL my contacts as soon as the press release went down it was DEAD. They saw a mess and moved on.

And as one very powerful booking agent said to me -- and this stuck with me when I was pressing him about "Yeah, but what if they got it back together and made it work for the next year, and a new LP, and a DVD, etc, etc, etc. . ."

He said to me, QUOTE: "Look. It's dead. It's over. And it's dead not because Brian was crazy, or because Al was difficult, or Dennis was drunk and f ucked up the show, it was because Mike walked. He walked away from Brian Wilson, and Rolling Stone, and the Royal Albert Hall, and actual asses in the seats -- for WHAT? For parking lots with lawn chairs. He wanted to be the boss. Good. Now he's the boss. No one gets a second chance to take an AARP brand and become an arena act."

I felt like s hit for a week.

 

Well said Howie!  :-\

I wondered about that because Phish had announced they were the NYE act at MSG for NYE '12 before the end of the C50 tour and I thought Wrigley's 2013 season was already over.

At the time of the "mess" Brian and Mike both said they had not discussed the 2013 offers as a group yet and Mike said recently that they never had (I think he said "never"). So I take it the necessary group members/people didn't get together to discuss the 2013 opportunities because they were never offered to discuss because of the "mess".

I agree with your lament that the group needs some sort of manager.

Hey Jude - both men have written good stuff independent of one another.  There seems no plausible reason that anything they would jointly work on would not be "of quality." Art and music are often "hit or miss" works, depending on the times, contexts, promotion (we've seen that) radio promotion and biases of disc jockeys and ownership included.  I wasn't looking to make your argument, but just show a cursory "track-record."  Those who have a proven track-record tend to perform in conformity with that series of accomplishments.

Sometimes hard work does not prove financially fruitful. It is often a gamble.  One can never predict who is going to fail or succeed. There are no guarantees.

And, I'm not questioning Howie's perspective. He mentions some high profile venues.  I was not there, so I take "on good faith" until I hear differently.  It seems to be coming from an "industry perspective" and not the "principals' " perspective.  Each needs to be put into proper context.  Everything doesn't get "lumped together" for me.   ;)

To Mike's credit (or not) at the 2006 rooftop reunion Brian gave him a CD with a song and asked if he would write lyrics for that. Mike declined stating he wanted to start from scratch (Mike tells the story in an 2006/7 interview on Imus in the morning).

I don't know what or if anything was worked out before the reunion. Something seems strange because - as was mentioned already - the contract Brian and Joe got (and afaik this was before anything was planned with the other Beach Boys) from Capitol was for the songs they had already demoed according to Joe Thomas in some article. Brian, Mike and Joe then talked about it at a restaurant (see the Rolling Stone article).
IIRC then "Isn't it time" came about when they were in a studio and Mike started with the bassline, someone else played around with the verses and Brian out of the blue sang the chorus.

Anyway, some thoughts that come to mind: 

Did anyone try to tell Mike that maybe Brian needs a little time before he is ready to write with Mike again in a one-on-one situation without anybody else? I mean since the last time he went through a lot of changes and maybe he's just not ready yet. This of course is just a guess and might not have any truth to it.

Finally, looking at Mike's lyrical contributions to the album (except "Daybreak" which I think is a well written song) I don't think he gave anyone reason to have him write more lyrics. What he did come up with for the three songs he has a credit for is anything but worthwhile. Of course we don't know what he would've contributed had he and Brian worked the way Mike wants to but I think logically you would advertise the potential that writing with you can have instead of writing ...well, writing what we can hear on the album.





Howie, what does AARP mean?

In my opinion, the two take-aways from the available information and recent posts are:

1. They didn't "get together" to discuss things because one person had already decided before the tour was even over that they were DONE. It's easy then to state after the fact that nothing else materialized because "no discussions took place." In all of those interviews, I never once heard Mike say anything suggesting he actually TRIED to arrange any meetings (similar to what was mentioned earlier, asking if Mike ever actually TRIED to set up writing with Brian). There has never been anything suggesting Mike was particularly sad that the reunion didn't continue, or that he laments anything, or that he tried at all or worked against anyone or any other force to try to make it happen.

2. Future dates were a DEAD issue once that press release (and the accompanying media attention) hit. The stuff Howie is talking about as far as big-time promoters and industry people who absolutely were watching the C50 tour, that's stuff that few of us here (including myself) understand. Even those of us who dig into any legal paperwork about anything to do with BRI and corporate votes and meetings and all of that, that still is a totally separate orb from the concert/touring industry as a whole.

Howie's post about what the promoter had to say really cuts to the core of what occurred, in my opinion. I share Howie's frustration, and I too have had probably a very similar sort of reaction in the aftermath of C50. It starts to get like "Okay, well the industry probably thinks (and rightly so) that the Beach Boys are amateurs even after HALF A CENTURY in the business. But hey, they could still lineup another tour of some sort, right? A little short-term dealie at least?"

The answer to that question may well not ever be a firm NO, but it isn't anywhere close a YES, and even considering it ignores what a tragedy the end of that reunion is, for so many reasons. As I can only guess Howie and other fans have done, I've moved on and enjoyed what these guys continue to do on their own.

That they f-ed up a chance to indeed go from an AARP operation to an arena band doesn't change how much amazing music they've made or how much I enjoy it. But I can also move on from the C50 nonsense without having to IGNORE how much of a f***-up it was. That IS part of the story now. No, it won't be a big part of the one-page or one-paragraph bios written about the band many years from now. But it IS a significant part of the full, big picture.

I think one of the big take-always from the C50 aftermath is that, apparent to some people anyway, the appearance is that the bluff has been called on Mike for all of the decades of talk about wanting to write and work with Brian.  Not that he literally has ZERO interest in doing it.

But as with most of what he has said about Brian over the last few decades, it's much easier to TALK about Brian than to work WITH him. And some of that is certainly down to Brian and how his operation works.

But with C50, it was as close to a turn-key operation as one who wants to work and write with Brian could ever hope for. It had an infrastructure in place, and was setup so that it could evolve. Even if Brian has/had mixed feelings about getting in that room to write with Mike, my opinion is that if they had kept touring in 2013 and 2014, Mike probably would have gotten that "alone in a room with Brian" scenario to some degree at some point.

Howie poses an interesting question in a previous post: How much did Mike WANT to do the whole reunion thing? Even Mike naysayers have usually worked from the premise that, at least at the outset, Mike was enthusiastic about the project. What, and this definitely just a question, what if that wasn't the case? What if Mike was much more "meh" about the whole thing, but signed on for some other reason that was enticing, and then did a good job (for *most* of the tour anyway) about keeping up a good façade for the reunion project?

Cam --

I think it's safe to say that that nothing was discussed because it was informally deemed that any discussion would happen after the final dates. As Mike Love told me VERY CLEARLY in June 2012, the band was going to regroup after the tour and see where there were at. He spoke about further sessions. He gave me zero inclination that he was going to back out after Europe -- he even mentioned that further dates would feature Cal Saga. It was a vibe of "let's get through this and see if we CAN do this" mixed with an excited -- "Can you believe we're actually doing this?!"

I find that people cling to this "They never discussed!" "There were never definitive plans!" "It was only supposed to be. . . . . . . ." But it's living with one's head in the sand. Everyone -- from the press, to the venues, to the booking agents, to the BAND -- was amazed at how this went from strength to strength. Apart from some internal hiccups -- both musical and personal -- the was no reason to think that prior to the European dates there would need to be a sit down meeting. Nobody in the music business, barring Bruce Johnston, predicted that this reunion would be aborted.

And that's what it was -- an ABORTION.

And VERY, VERY, VERY SADLY, the touring brand -- and Mike Love's rep for that matter -- will never recover -- not in the States, at least. Definitely not to the working Rock press. He's solidly back in Lou Christie territory (and maybe that's where he's actually comfortable existing.)

Going from Frankie Valli to Mick Jagger and CHOOSING to go back to Frankie Valli (out of spite) is really the only way to sum it up -- and that's the truth no matter who hooks you up with backstage passes, freelance gigs, remembers you when they come to your town -- or anything of that sort.

I wish it was different. Believe me I do. It SHOULD be different. But I'd also rather see people onstage that want to be working with Brian Wilson when I listen to and see him.

The big surprise of the C50 blow up was how just about everyone (myself included) majorly overestimated just how badly Mike wanted to work with Brian again.

From where I see it Michael wanted to work with Brian and not the entourage. That's the way it goes. Brian's a package deal. So is Michael. It's not 1961 again and never will be. I'm just glad we got what we did from the band.

this is all so enlightening and yet so dark and grim. question: where do they do from here?  why not plan a new album and mini-tour together, correcting past errors? (silly question)

I never knew that there was a plan to regroup at the end of the C50 Tour to see what, if anything, could happen afterward. 

I thought this thread had devolved into the dead horse that is the 50th Anniversary Tour, but it's been interesting. 

But I also think that, when you're talking Beach Boys, no doors are ever really closed forever. 

While I highly doubt there will ever be another album or tour, I think that the 2012 lineup will play together again.  Perhaps in some sort of farewell scenario. 

Right now, both camps have their own business to attend to that will keep them busy through the end of 2015. 

Ah, another thread that turns into the end of the C50 tour debate...

One thing I do know is that comparisons with The Rolling Stones are miles away from the truth. The C50 tour was obviously a success but The Rolling Stones can play to as many people in one show as the C50 tour did in a month...

And such a true, yet unfair disparity gap is likely due, in no small part, to the amount of overtouring that M&B do (said with full awareness of the BRI arrangement that has allowed it to happen).

A question about Mike and writing with Brian “in the room” is pretty closely tied to the end of C50. It’s Mike who brings up the writing issue when asked about the reunion.

As for the “Rolling Stones” comparison, I think the point is that C50 took the touring brand *a long way* in a very short amount of time, and bands that are doing the circuit Mike’s band does (especially when they’re doing so on the back-end of their touring career after having played “bigger” venues years ago) do not often get a chance to re-boot a bit and work up to even getting offers for Madison Square Garden.

For a band to tour 125-150 shows per year, EVERY year, where at least *some* of those shows are in smaller markets at smaller venues (county fairs, bowling alleys, whatever), and then re-boot with a fuller lineup and work up to getting offers for arenas and stadiums, that is pretty freaking rare I’d say. Especially when it isn’t a new, up-and-coming band, but rather a band who did the arena/stadium thing thirty-plus years ago.

When I think about it, the amount of clout and “cred” the “Beach Boys” as a brand gained in 2012 is *more* impressive of a late-era rebound than hitting #1 with “Kokomo.” So, maybe one way to look at it that maybe Mike would understand better, is put it like this: For some fans and spectators, throwing away everything that was accomplished for C50 would be like telling Mike to drop “Kokomo” from his setlist and never perform it again.

It`s more due to the fact that The Rolling Stones are much more popular and have been since 1966. How many studio albums have they sold since the 1970s?

That`s not to knock The Beach Boys at all. But I don`t know why people persist in trying to make comparisons with The Beatles or The Stones when their levels of popularity have been colossally different for 49 years!

Perish the thought!   :lol

While I actually like Kokomo quite a bit (no joke), or at least the studio version with Carl, I almost get the feeling that if Mike for some legal reason had to drop either Good Vibrations or Kokomo from his setlist and never perform it again (or had to somehow drop one of those two song from ever existing whatsoever), that he'd drop Good Vibrations. It almost seems like the pride thing of having written a #1 song without Brian's help would have Kokomo win out. Call me crazy. I do wonder what the various Beach Boy members would do if given a genie in a bottle, or were forced to make choices like these.

Here's the thing. It's been noted many times before.

Brian and Mike were working in exceptionally close quarters for all of the C50 tour. There was no BW "entourage there" -- no Melinda, no Jean Sievers, no Joe Thomas -- for the vast majority of the shows.

If writing in the proverbial room is so important to Mike, why did he never -- in the entire tour -- drop by Brian's room either backstage or in the hotel? If co-writing is so important to him, why didn't he show up with some lyrics and ask Brian what he thought?

Let me repeat: The word from folks who were there is that Mike never did that. Never. In dozens of dates, across the U.S. and Europe, Mike never showed up to spend time with his cousin. Brian generally only collaborates with people he feels comfortable with. Mike had a chance to re-establish a relationship, to become comfortable with Brian yet again. But he didn't.

As always, a picture is worth a thousand of these.

(https://scontent-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/t31.0-8/132338_10151181512532241_1155878822_o.jpg)

Well, the sad thing is that Mike was probably avoiding even dealing with the situation, perhaps because he sensed that even if he could "get through" to Brian alone on a personal level, by sort of "sneaking" a one-on-one writing situation in once or twice on tour, that he (Mike) would subsequently have to deal with pushback or another cowriter sneaking into a hypothetical new-from-scratch song.  Obviously, poor communication was happening.

Maybe the writing was on the wall, from how Mike experienced writing collaboration (or lack thereof) during the TWGMTR sessions, in a way that was not suitable for his needs, that he'd not have any luck getting things done his way without conflict, so he just quit even trying at a certain point.

And I get it - that's surely a similar avoidance at writing that probably happened to Brian himself in the late 60s/early 70s, when he started getting pushback from Mike about musical direction. Brian also stopped trying at a certain point. I mean, how many times can a guy take rejection, attitude, pushback, from another collaborator, before not trying to work with them anymore? I think when artists, whether they be Brian or Mike, experience a barrier of sorts from another person/people impeding what they want, they eventually retreat and their output shrivels up.

The ultimate thing, however, that I believe Mike fails to realize, is that there is in all likelihood a legit reason why he was being c*ck-blocked in his desire to write with Brian the way he wanted to write with Brian. I just think that Brian and Melinda both likely had themselves discussed, or at least both know, that if Mike was granted such an opportunity, that Mike would eventually have demands for more control within the writing process. I believe that Brian would be of the opinion that, if Brian and Mike had done a one-on-one collab, that Brian himself would in his heart *want* final cut, so to speak; the ultimate decision on what the song will be like, or not be like, should conflict/disagreement arise.

But of course, as we all know, Brian has issues with letting himself be pushed around sometimes, or giving into pressure even when he doesn't want to. I'm sure Brian knows this, and just plain wants to avoid conflict, and working with someone who feels creatively entitled. Brian ultimately wants to be the boss and call the shots (he sang about it, for crying out loud!) And I think Brian (and surely Melinda) know that Mike has tendencies to not exactly be passive about getting what he (Mike) wants. So in the interest of not wanting to put Brian through the stress of dealing with (even the potential) of having a pushy collaborator who feels a sense of entitlement with regards to the creative process (moreso than any other possible latter-day collaborator that Brian could possibly work with), Brian and Melinda most likely don't want a situation arising like this which could cause stress, and that's probably part of why Mike was getting shut out the way he was. That's why other people are around, to play interference for Brian.

And while it's unfortunate, it's understandable, but I don't think Mike could possibly feel this is true; to protect his sense of ego, he has to feel like there's a massive conspiracy against him for no good reason other than greedy outsiders who want to push him out. He ain't facing the truth!

I think you're on target, CenturyD. Let's remember that Brian thrives on close personal relationships with his collaborators. Hell, forget songs. Mike could have just tried to spend some time with Brian and see what he was like. Hang out. Laugh and remember the good times. There were abundant opportunities to build the kind of relationship that Mike claims to want, or at least take steps toward it, and he didn't do any of them.

But I suspect that Mike, as you say, can't bring himself to admit that he would need to do the work necessary to rebuild that relationship and strengthen it to the point where Brian would feel comfortable working with him on all-new material.

  Howie, just a question away from the main topic of the thread.  Obviously during tours of this size, stuff happens.  You spoke of both musical and personal issues cropping up during C50.  Are you at liberty to speak on any of this these incidents ?

Exactly, Wirestone.

You know, there's that brief clip in the "Do it Again" C50 promo video where Brian and Mike hug each other. It was touching. I rewound and replayed it a bunch of times when I first saw the video. It was emotional to watch. I do wonder if it was staged for cameras. Not saying those guys wouldn't hug each other; they probably would and did at some point.

But I can say from firsthand experience, that when people have fractured relationships, it absolutely takes lots of work, and often times APOLOGIES that feel completely genuine, for people who have past issues with others to feel fully comfortable around the other people again. Significant levels of trust don't often come about super duper quickly, especially with LOTS of water under the bridge. For example, I know a relative who is waiting for an apology from another relative. Feels that it's owed to her, and that it should be the first thing out of the other relative's mouth. Am I saying that Brian was sitting around waiting for an apology for issues "x", "y", and "z"? No, not necessarily. And Mike could also be wanting some huge apology that perhaps he never got (other than a settlement) for the 30-year songwriting screw job. But I just know that people, especially family, often need the other person to make the effort and build trust back, little by little, before the relationship can really be at a healthy place again. Before they'll allow themselves to be in a vulnerable position again.

I believe that Brian felt that he himself wasn't ready for that kind of trust right away with Mike again (especially considering the album was somewhat rushed to completion - it's not like they had years from when they decided to reunite to slowly take things little by little, other than using "Do it Again" as a test-run. It's massively unrealistic for Mike to think that he can just jump back into an 50-year-old type of working relationship when people have changed so much due to time and maturity. Not that Mike is stuck in the past or anything.   ::)

Hence, Joe. I honestly think that's the main reason that JT re-entered Brian's life. (And for that matter, why Don Was has come back to some extent as well.) If it's just Brian and the guys in his band, that's one thing. But the instant you bring in Mike, or the extra folks on NPP, Brian wants insulation. He wants a buffer. And no, that's not easy to understand, and it's not the most sociable thing in the world, but it's the reality of Brian for most of his adult life.

Plus all the aggressive behavior by Mike (lawsuits, bad mouthing BW to the press, and other shenanigans) makes him hard to be in BW's comfort zone. Would you let a guy with such a spotty track record into your creative sanctum?

Blood runs thicker than water. Remember that.

For better or worse, thats what (barely) held the BBs together from 1961- 1998)

Howie,

I took it that people (or maybe just me) thought during the "mess", and since really, that they were talking about offers and dates in what was left of the 2012 season.

I think I know what you mean on the set date deal and maybe you disagree or know better but what I mean is it seems to me from no inside info that BRI had given Mike the license to tour and there was a special contract or agreement of (I guess?) BRI to interrupt that standing agreement with the C50 dates. That initial agreement came to an end of dates and was extended or replaced by a new agreement that ended. I assume it ended after the announced dates ended. Didn't they need to get together to either make a new contract or agreement for the 2013 offers or at least an agreement as to what to do? I say "offers" but do I understand you right that nothing "in writing" or actionable was actually presented to the band as far as you know?

The reports that they assumed they would discuss the opportunities but they never even got to together to discuss what to do as a band about the possibilities is very sad. Instead the discussion they did do was the I said/He said "mess" which is sadder still. The manager you suggest may have indeed at least diverted the "mess" by arranging an actual dialogue between them about their future opportunities they said they assumed was going to happen.

I could be wrong about it all.

True, but it also clots.

That's why God made Al Jardine. He wanted the innocence. He's the beta-blocker of the group.

How do we know Mike didn't take this picture?

J/K

He probably did!  ;)

I dunno ..... There would likely be "ring glare" in the guy's glasses ;)

Don't you mean dome glare? :)

If they were in a room by themselves how would we know what they did?

Wouldn't Brian have to agree to collaborate, Mike couldn't just unilaterally collaborate each time they were in the bathroom at the same time or passing each other in the hallway.

And by "guy," we mean the band's co-musical director for the tour, Paul Mertens.

Welcome Bruce's shorts!  ;D

Ha!

Well, phone cameras take care of all that stuff these days, so .....

As more of a Beach Boys fan than a "Brianista" or "Kokomoron" I would imagine it's not easy at this point for either Brian or Mike to feel comfortable around each other enough to not just avoid the issue altogether. I think when Mike talks about getting Brian alone in a room, he means under the auspice of there being an album in production and a schedule etc etc .... He also knows or likely feels that people in Brian's camp simply don't like him as so many fans don't (dislike is too mild a word in some fan's case) ... It's sad, but not exactly uncommon.. I have family members who've hardly said more than a couple words to each other in decades. Even at big family gatherings, they'll simply just avoid being in the same room/part of the house at the same time.

Maybe Mike should settle for getting Brian alone in a hallway?

Cam, is there part of my post you genuinely don't understand? If so, ask me a direct question about what you'd like me to clear up, and I'll do so. But I'm not playing these rhetorical games with you.

Nope, just rhetorical questions.

I hope this is a suitable place to bring this up. In perusing YouTubeI came across a Chuck Negron interview

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m8gEzfQ2c-s

At 32:05 the interview gets really like interesting. I don't know if it was ever in the cards , but Negron talks about a reunited TDN opening for the Beach Boys  during the C50.. He then describes why it did not come about from the TDN perspective. According to Negron it was not going to happen because "Danny Hutton is not going to take the chance to be the third wheel again because he is running the show".

Substitute Mike Love for Danny Hutton and  " second wheel" for "third wheel" (although for my money I would rather see Al than Mike)  and you get an idea of how C50 broke down.

While Bruce adjusted the tripod?

How do you think Mike (and Bruce) turned down the invitation to this event? Serious question. Was there a mass email chain or group text which Mike (or an assistant) was copied on, and Mike didn't reply and was simply just a no-show? Or do you think he politely turned down the dinner? Man it had to be an awkward moment if he just snuck out after the final song and didn't say a word to anyone. I've heard of that type of stuff happening in other bands (like James Iha at the end of the final Smashing Pumpkins gig), and it seems like it would be hard to be received as anything but very hurtful by others.

Not that I really expect anyone on this board to know, or to honestly share... I'm sure Mike was far from the first BB to bail on an important dinner celebration over the years, but at the same time I think that most people who attended had to think it was mighty sad, sour grapes type stuff, especially being the cherry on top of the very final show of such a well-received and successful tour, that had been marketed as a healing reunion with any sort of actual meaning.

I'm glad Brian looks happy here, and has the support of his wife. Al for some reason looks about 20 years younger in this pic.

How do we know Mike just split moments after the last song without a word?

How do we know the photo in question represents the entierty of the last C50 show/backstage events/party/etc etc?

How do we know Bruce isn't assisting Mike as he takes the picture? ..... As in "adjusting the Mike"

Looks like Ray is at the right. He might be able to answer those questions for us.

We don't know he split like that. I'm wondering if it possibly happened, and how sadly awkward it must have been one way or another, if there was (or wasn't) a proper good-bye.

Well, the sadly awkward part is pure speculation. Whether or not Mike (and assuming Bruce in tow) just split without saying a word: it's us here assumimg/imagining that it would be sadly awkward ...... It could have been as simple as "Oh, yeah, Mike and Bruce can't make the photo-op/party/whatever" ..... equalling: no big deal.... Or it could have been "Great show, have fun at the party. I got this and that to do" by Mike ..... equalling: no big deal.

I highly doubt Mike was banned from the event or went out of his way NOT to be there either.

But this is just me speculating as well ..... Hopefully someone who was there will chime in.

As I understood it, Mike and Bruce were not invited to this.

But Scott Totten was, and indeed showed up?

I think you misunderstood.

True, it's speculation. I'd find it hard to conceive though, that even if there was any kind of a formal good-bye, that it wouldn't have been awkward considering the circumstances. I know someone who worked the Grammy Museum event just a couple weeks beforehand, who said there were some tense backstage vibes going on between the original 5 guys, and I assume (perhaps wrongly) that the main source of that was the fact that C50 was about to end in an unfortunate manner. I don't think that fact was "no big deal" to at least several of the participants - do you? But maybe, somehow after that last UK show, it wasn't sadly awkward... and maybe the thought that somebody left without saying good-bye is illogical. Maybe you're right.

The dinner was to thank the band and crew for their hard work on the tour. If you're one of the principal Beach Boys and frontman for the group, it seems to me the classy thing would be to set aside your issues with the tour just a little longer in order to give some due to the people who made you sound good in front of all those paying audience members.

But, if you're Mike Love, you jet off to play the K-mart lounge or something. And, if you're Bruce, you just suck it up.

Oh, and Ray was there and already mentioned the "room" and the dinner:



http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,17983.200.html

It was probably not an especially dissimilar situation to Mike and Bruce's no-show to the 2005 monument dedication. I remember being really saddened and surprised that they weren't there, and that an actual attempt at a "legit" excuse of being "busy" with prior commitments of some sort was made for deflective spin purposes. C'mon. The only people who would truly buy that surface excuse without digging further would be the Sea World crowd who doesn't know any better about the facts/history. But I get it though. Brian didn't attend Mike's recent award show either... though I would be surprised if that would still have been the case if Mike had attended this dinner. There's definitely a cause/effect chain of no-show stuff between these guys. Oddly though, in both of Mike's no-show cases, it was events where he himself was in part being celebrated/lauded.

If only Mike could have picked the 1988 Rock HOF induction to be his no-show...

It seems like neither one is big enough to get over the slights of the past.   

Did the people you heard this from also say the incident with Redwood-Brian-Mike-Carl at Wally Heider's studio didn't happen, mention that the new Brian Wilson album was "full of synths" or "loaded with Autotune", and use the term "handlers" more than would be considered normal?

Obsessed much? The laces were in, the laces were in...  ;)

Is it irony or absurdity to use the word obsessed after 4 pages in this thread of all things, first off, and then on top of that in a thread where words are being twisted and parsed and obfuscated and filibustered to avoid having to agree at some point, perhaps, to a basic notion like "this is what happened" free of the absolution and deflection.

I mean, for real, I can appreciate the humor in someone saying Bruce wasn't in that end-of-C50-tour dinner party photo because he was adjusting the camera's tripod, but the level of absurdity some of these "explanations" have reached can leave me wondering if it is a joke or if it's a serious comment.  :-D

And the way things have been going, I have to assume the latter all too often.

I just pitch corrected my Autotune comment, Nicko. It actually makes the original post even more effective and direct since there's nothing as handy to use to divert and distract from the point being made.  :)

It's called needling, and is most of what he does.

Actually you're just trying to reach a resolution to a broad topic that is difficult to tackle without more than a few posts on topic.

Nah, that`s what you`re attempting with this post surely.

Needling would be pointing out how funny the apostrophe you insist on using looks.

I really don't know what to make of comments like these.

After how many people jumping on/inventing any/all reasons to paint Mike in a bad light (fair enough), suddenly all of Beach Boy history has to be defended for Brian? .... Who's dissing or saying bad things about Brian? Nor do I think anyone's being an apologist for Mike or Bruce. Maybe there's been some mere mundane speculation because they happen to be human beings, but so what? .... I'd rather er on the side of that always. I mean, how do you speculate/assume the worst in one direction and poo poo speculation/assumtions in the opposite direction? .... Life is a two way street.

And if people don't like the vocal sound on Brian's album, so what? Who says they have to like the album even? Who says they can't even hate it? ... Beach Boys/Brian stuff has been picked apart, misunderstood, reevaluated, trashed, loved, for over 50 years.... I think Brian can handle some people wondering about the vocal sound (which IS odd in places, I must admit: but which doesn't stop me from adoring the album, either) .... Maybe I'm naive, but wouldn't it be better to go to bat for all the reasons the album is great: songwriting, vibe, feel, musicianship, harmonies, rather than paint people as mad cult members because they have concerns about a rather inert technical detail?

As for Brian and his "handlers" .... With the man's history, there will likely always be that speculation, just as in life in general: there is always speculation. Pick a topic and it's rife with speculation, theory, and argument.

You make a lot of good points. I think the speculation can be summed up with three simple words, `This is fandom`. Other boards seem to understand that everything and anything will be discussed, picked apart, praised and criticized by fans far more than it would be by sane people. It`s all a part of fandom.

I know what you're saying but it's a bit unsettling when a fact, like Mike and Bruce not being present at the end of tour party seems to be massive enough to where discussion/speculation (fandom), is looked down upon and basically ridiculed. Are certain people's views/opinions under such thin skin that the hallmarks of fandom are a threat to be vanquished? I mean, how fun is it to lean back in one's chair and go "Yeah, Mike and Bruce: what assh*&es!"

If they weren't there, then there much be reasons why. Or like Bugliosi says in Helter Skelter: there is no such thing as a crime without a motive. I'd like to know the motive, no matter how it makes anyone involved look. "This guy or that guy sucks and is a bastard" is deadly boring.

No, I beg to differ. Fandom is *not* having an individual with a solid reputation and resume in the business come to this board, tell it as he was told firsthand about various bookings and other details, and have his words picked apart, parsed, and challenged by fans whose closest connection to what actually happened behind the headlines and message boards may have been buying a ticket to a show versus actually having direct professional and personal relationships with those who were involved.

There is fandom, and then there is reaching a level of arguing for the sake of arguing, and further trying to nitpick, bend, shape, spin, and parse every which way to avoid having to agree that something may have indeed happened exactly as reported despite that something going against your own wishes or "speculation". And then there is trying to rewrite history, which is a whole other ball of wax, or can o' worms, whatever the term is that applies.

Fandom is also not apologizing for those who continue to promote lies and distortions which have been proven untrue by those who actually know, by trying to chalk it up to 'speculation' rather than the blatant lie that it is. The "handlers" stuff is not speculation, it's total bullshit if I can be blunt about it. And it will be called that whenever someone tries to promote that line of crap on this board or elsewhere. Simple action and reaction scenario.

But hey, I can "speculate" that I'll buy a Lotto ticket and win 75 million tomorrow night, then later I can speculate when I don't win that the person who did win was a setup, and the whole thing was rigged from the inside to justify my "speculation" that I'd win being completely wrong and to also make me feel better about losing the 40 bucks I spent buying Lotto tickets. Either way, it's a fool's errand. Speculation is not reality especially when reality is staring you in the face.

I can also speculate that Elvis is alive and he goes to the Olive Garden in Tallahassee every Thursday for their $6.99 all-you-can-eat soup, salad, and breadsticks. I guess that's as valid as saying Elvis died in 1977.

Huh?

So, one person speaks for many? ......  including those directly accused of this or that?

When it suits a point of view? .... Oh, ok.

Until we have word from either Mike or Bruce on the subject, and their input is weighed against others, I'd imagine speculation is entirely warranted.

That's good to hear, I'm a fan of Elvis so I'll make sure to book a flight to Tallahassee to catch him eating minestrone and breadsticks this Thursday at the Olive Garden. Based on speculation that has nothing to do with reality, of course.

Elvis and breadsticks??

You have to hang out in places where multitudes of cheeseburgers are served in a pile on a plate if you want to catch a glimpse of the Hillbilly Cat.

Apologies. I thought this was a discussion board.

I'll go back to lurking.

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

Thank you, but I think this quote from Mr. Michael E. Love is more appropriate:

"Next time there's a riot, man, you best stay out of sight"


BTW: the "Elvis is alive" thing that's being used to make me look stupid is based on Elvis himself, silly as it is, telling his cousin Billy Smith and other intimates that he was considering faking his death, and even going as far as consulting with some crackpot who apparently specialized in such things, like "procuring a body"...... Point is: speculation and theories are rarely ever based on absolutely nothing at all.

I must be looking at a different thread I think because the vast majority of this one is entirely mundane and inoffensive.

Fandom indeed...

He did that already.  Best review of NPP by anyone, anywhere (in my oh, so humble opinion, of course). 

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,20292.0.html

Wrong.

I think "Bruce's shorts" is pinder under a new profile. ;)

This has exactly Jack and sh*t to do with the discussion topic....... and Jack just left town.

If I'm not mistaken, Mike and Bruce had a show booked in the US just days after the last Beach Boys show. So they were probably going back to meet up with the band etc.

Good to know that they had their priorities straight. Yeah, because meeting with Brian Wilson, Al Jardine, and David Marks for dinner would not be considered meeting up with the band anymore, the moment the last UK show ended.

It's like the old turn-into-a-pumpkin-at-midnight trick, only it was the old turn-into-ex-Beach-Boys-at-midnight trick. Maybe there could have been one of those New York New Year's Eve midnight tickers that counted down microseconds to the exact moment the set end date came to be.

I wonder; were they still considered part of the band while the final song of the night had reverb trailing off? Was it once any one of the band members started walking off the stage? Or did they have to be completely outside of the venue past security for them to no longer be considered part of the band? Parameters like these matter to avoid any confusion. I'm sure nobody would have wanted Brian, Al, or David to inadvertently think they were Beach Boys any longer than the exact moment the set end date blossomed into fruition.   ::)

Well Totten was at the dinner

Didn't realize that!

It's my impressions that the bands -- current and former BB and BW -- get along pretty well. For that matter, I think Dave gets along pretty well with everyone too.

The dynamic here is between Brian and Mike, and to a certain degree between Al and the other two. Al grated on some folks' nerves in the past, but it looks like he and Brian have ultimately come to value one another. Mike and Brian are the oil and water of this whole enterprise, the totally different substances that turn into tasty salad dressing when you shake the bottle really hard.

It's been done. The hallway thing I mean.

So I don't know what was going on but I also think Mike means this. Mike seems to have had the impression that was the plan that he and Brian discussed pre-C50/TWGMTR.

Eat your veggies and whole grains too!

Wasn't the whole VDP in place of Mike as the main collaborator on SMiLE (where Brian reneged on Brian's prior make-good "promise" to Mike) enough of a hint that maybe promises like that shouldn't be expected to be kept, or taken as an absolute?

As someone else mentioned, Totten is at that end-of-the-tour dinner. You can also see Tim Bonhomme right up front, from Mike’s band. He was the tour manager (not sure if I’m getting that terminology exactly right) on C50.

I forget the precise date that dinner pic was taken, and I do recall that Mike was back doing a gig with Stamos and the licensed version of the “Beach Boys”  within a couple days of the Wembley C50 gig. But if Totten and Bonhomme are at that dinner, I don’t think it was specifically an imminent Mike licensed-BB gig that was the reason Mike and Bruce weren’t there. I recall that that first post-C50 Mike gig had his regular (at the time) touring lineup including Totten and Bonhomme.

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,14425.0.html (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,14425.0.html)

  Wasn't Cowsill the drummer in C50 ??   I don't recognize him in the pic.

I'd hazard a guess that maybe Mike and Brian's wives are part of the reason for the estrangement, and Mike's unwillingness to be the second banana. 

Mike "Brian, do we really have to do 'I Just Wasn't Made For These Times'?"

Brian "Mike, if I have to sing background vocals on 'Kokomo,' then yes we do."

Mike (whispers) "After the last UK show, I'm so outta here." 

Shaking the bottle really hard and tossing the salad.

I guess we've found another thing for Bruce to do.

Hi Pinder... ;)

To who? Melinda? Because Mike was definitely the front man for the C50 shows I saw. Perhaps he resented the fact that Brian got more applause.

So, Bruce likes tossed salad?

Mike was the frontman for the C50 show, but was definitely over-shadowed by Al and Brian on the TWGMTR.  I think his diminished presence on the record is because his voice sounds old, and his lyrics were weak, but he probably has a very different view of things.   

we have to escape from these sad threads about how the BB broke up. . . . .this is like "No Exit," an existential horror. . . . .so sad, and I am not better than others; i can't let it go either. . . ..

they should have worked something out. . . .that's the dull platitude I am reduced to

 Mike and his damn room. Let him go into a room with Bruce. I'm sure we'll get some great new hits. :lol

Especially since they all wanted to discuss it.

oh gosh; the elephant rears it's ugly head again

Can't there be a button for us all to push that simply posts the famous Jack Reilly statement?

I don't know why the "mythic" room should be considered to be anything but Brian's room. He wrote a song about it! It's Brian's choice who gets to enter the room.

I think Mike basically means Brian's office in Hollywood where they wrote Warmth Of The Sun ......... An office, which we can all assume, is long gone .....

Sad. This whole thing.

It is sad. I just listened to "Isn't it Time" (single version), and  had a realization that it is probably the last song those guys will have entered the studio for together.  Does anyone know when/where the single version overdubs were recorded?  

And dammit, it's great to hear Mike and Brian on that track together. And all the guys of course. Mike could've had what he wanted, or at least a situation that would have evolved into something that he would have been a decent compromise, I'm sure.  It would've taken some time, maybe a few albums, but could never be achieved with pushy demands or ultimatums. Damn ego. Ugh.  If he doesn't think he has ego issues, I would honestly like to know if there is another human in another rock band that Mike Love thinks has a big ego, and if he could name an example of someone else's ego messing up another band. Are rock stars with big egos even capable of recognizing it as a problem afflicting other bands?

What is more confusing is exactly how and why myKe luHv created this ego situation for himself in the first place. There is absolutely nothing he's done that would make him believe he's anyone special. He was in a group. Big deal, so what and who cares? So were quite a few other people and sure, there were egos involved but myKe luHv? I don't get it in the least but I am extremely happy that Brian's done (for now) with this head case. Here's hoping they never hook up again in any way shape or form.

I share many of your issues with Mike's behavior, but I'll say that I can understand (if not still think it's lame) that someone could get a big head from seeing the tourism industry in California and the California myth itself affected in part by his contributions and themes that he and Brian (not to mention Denny) helped create. He did make a difference and I won't take that away from him, nor should anyone, even if his behavior can be unconscionable at times.

But does he think he has ego issues? Was this even discussed at the group therapy sessions? Did he privately scoff and eye roll when Denny said they were all Brian's messengers? I almost feel like Denny specifically said that comment to deflate Mike; maybe I'm wrong.

He couldn't wrap his arms around anyone telling him he has a big ego. One needs some sense of humility going on, so no, he most likely has never come to terms with anything indicative of fault. He can't and will not come to terms with the fact that he's not and never will be as respected as Brian Wilson. He'll go to his grave scratching his dome about that. He doesn't get it-he can only think of himself in his warped mind that HE is the Beach Boys. It's pathetic and quite honestly, he needs to be severely humbled by some person, place or thing.

But that's the thing I always wonder. Do people with way big egos think that others have big egos, just not themselves? Or is the concept of anyone having too big or too destructive an ego something that doesn't exist on the planet whatsoever? I don't get it and never will.

But look, guys: it had to end sometime ......

But look at what we were gifted in 2015! Much more than what was even originally planned ....

I honestly thought some travesty would happen not even five shows in, but just look what we got!

What else would we have ended up with other than what we have: the licensed/Mike & Bruce "Beach Boys" touring and Brian doing his solo thing with Al and whoever else?

As things stand means everyone involved is healthy and working. This is good. Would we rather someone had died in the middle of the C50 tour or that it was Brian who decided when it was over? ..... Even if others in the band wanted it to continue? ... As it ended might be a sour note, but it's a reality that was going to come one way or another.

With Carl gone things will be messy, and that's just how it is :/

Funny thing is, if it had been BRIAN who had called time on the whole thing (even if everyone else wanted to continue) the same people who tear Mike a new one for bowing out would be defending Brian's decision to the hilt.

Oh, Bruce's Shorts, I appreciate the spunky energy you apply to the situation, but it's no consolation. . . . . .the BB are broken up, and nothing short of a triumphant artistic reunion, healing wounds and facing the final future together in harmony and beauty means anything to me. This does not mean i don't cherish NPP--love it--but it means that only a total reunion completes the mythic longing that nags me ceaselessly.

Perhaps, but we should admit it would have stung a lot less, since Brian wouldn't have immediately gone out with just David Marks to tour the Seaworlds and Nutty Jerry's of the universe as "The Beach Boys" .....

But if we're upset mainly for the fact that it ended at all: well, no matter how it ended, we'd still be where we are now.

This has been said before.

But it makes no sense, because Brian doesn't -- and never has -- toured as the Beach Boys.

It's not a small distinction. It's the entire point of the thing.

I don't think anyone would begrudge Mike if he wanted to tour and perform BB music under his own name, as Brian has. But after the C50 shows, Mike's willingness to return to the M&B format -- and bill it as the Beach Boys -- was appalling.

Wirestone - maybe I don't understand what you wrote, but each singular band performs Beach Boys' music.  It just can't be billed as "BB's," except for the Touring Band.  People would be very disappointed if Brian or Al didn't play BB music.  They expect exactly that, alongside whatever "themed" music is performed.

It appears you don't understand what Wirestone wrote. His point was crystal clear. It IS about the *use* of the name. THAT is the issue. THAT issue, the issue to *choose* to use that name, has NOTHING to do with Brian or Al or anybody else. The point is that there is a *different standard*, in the opinion of many fans, that Mike has to be held to specifically because he uses the "Beach Boys" name.

I don't think anybody actually could possibly not understand or misinterpret what Wirestone wrote. The issue of using the BB name has been discussed now for literally DECADES online.

It is specifically because Mike immediately resumed use of the *exact same band name* as that used by C50 (and don't even start on the "it was billed different as an anniversary tour" stuff, it's the *exact same name*) that opened him up to most of the criticism. That issue, and that issue alone, is the reason why the BB reunion splitting up is not like almost every other band story about splitting up and everybody "doing their own thing." When bands do that, they usually go solo, or do other bands. Mike did not do this.

It is *this* issue that Wirestone was speaking to. The allegations that people wouldn't be criticizing Brian if Brian had chosen to end the reunion are largely irrelevant, because he would always go back to touring and recording under his own name. I personally would still be bummed and criticize Brian if he was the sole reason a reunion didn't continue. But it certainly would be far less of a kick in the nuts to fans to break up the reunion but at least have the artistic integrity to tour under one's own name as a result.

Mike ditched everybody else and went back to touring the name with his solo group.  Mike is too much of a coward to ever tour under his own name and must use the BBs brand name for his group. What is hard to understand about that?

I'm not Wirestone, but here it is filledleplage. The thing is, if Brian was the one who broke up the reunion, he couldn't go back to his solo career and call it "The Beach Boys", so it's different.

On the other hand, you have Mike Love who didn't want to work with the true BEACH BOYS anymore, but decided he wanted to go back out on the road with only one other Beach Boy (and a replacement member at that) and ignored the call of the other members to stay together.

So simply put so you can understand it, Mike basically quit THE BEACH BOYS and in turn, got to keep touring as The Beach Boys, basically losing nothing. Whereas if Brian had pulled the plug on the reunion, he wouldn't have been able to go out there with Al, Darian and Probyn and whoever and call himself "The Beach Boys." So right there is the difference.

And just to finish, I have no fuckin' clue what your post even meant, as regarding the music that each Beach Boys-related band plays? Wirestone wasn't even talking about that. So what on earth did that reply have to do with his post?

I wonder what people think was going to happen since they did not bother to make a decision about post C50?

Were they all going to just show up at the remainder of the 2012 shows that had been booked? Would the venue/promoters just been expected to pay C50 rates and add onto their stage if necessary? Would they just have done the shows for the previously agreed rate and take a loss. Were the contracts to be cancelled?

Whatever would be done, wouldn't it have taken a meeting to discuss what would be done post C50, which is what they knew they needed to do but didn't do which left post C50 to not happen because that decision didn't happen.
  

No - Hey Jude - as I understand it is "status quo ante." Going back to the previous positions, post "event." 

Very simple. No blame game. No value judgments.   ;)

It would have still brought C50 to an end lieu of a post C50 agreement.

And the inability on the part of a few fans and, apparently Mike, to see that a) C50 changed things and b) going back to the “status quo” does not exempt one from looking like a d**k, is what continues to perplex many.

I think it was Howie Edelson who used the analogy of adopting a kid and then taking him back to the orphanage after a year. Telling the kid “hey, suck it up, status quo ante” doesn’t really address the underlying objectionable action.

It is perhaps inadvertently telling that the term “status quo ante” is also known as “status quo ante bellum”, which refers to “"the state existing before the war". Did Mike view C50 as some sort of “war” that needed to be ended?

Keep going Pinder, someday you will convince somebody.....

It is BRI that sets the "terms and conditions" to be licensed to tour.  There are "conditions precedent" that must be fulfilled to tour, whether that is money, certain tour operators, or merchandise agents, or not recording as BB's, or anything else.

And, I'm (or you're) not "privy" to, if you are not a member of BRI, or the attorney or other agent/s who know and abide by the terms or conditions.  Or those who "monitor" what happens on tour to be sure that the "rules of the road" are followed.

While people may not like this, it is what it is.  Until such time as BRI chooses to "reform" this, and the touring members abide by the "terms and conditions" the ball is in their court.  Not mine, and not yours, unless you are a member of BRI.

And people on this board may opine as they choose, but unless they are members/agents/attys., they only speculate about what they don't like or do like.  

What is interesting SMiLEBrian, is also that any album or single project Mike has done in the last twenty or so years he never has the guts to bill it as "Mike Love." It's always "Mike Love of The Beach Boys" on his Catch a Wave promo album, or "Mike Love, Bruce Johnston & David Marks of the Beach Boys" on the NASCAR album, or "Mike Love and Bruce Johnston of The Beach Boys" on Summertime Cruisin'. Not to mention the singles for "Hungry Heart" or (gulp) "Santa's Goin' to Kokomo." He never has the balls to go out there without the Beach Boys name. Surprisingly, his new book is subtitled "My Life as a Beach Boy." Big surprise there. It's a crutch to him. I wouldn't doubt his new album credits him as "Mike Love of The Beach Boys."

He just doesn't have the guts to stand up for his own work on his own. Seems maybe it's a self-esteem issue. The same reason he always has to cover his bald head with a hat. Or why he always has to reference all the great songs he wrote.

Again, completely missing the point of Wirestone’s post. If you want to continue to repeat the painfully obvious, self-evident fact that there was no post-tour agreement to do another tour (essentially, saying 0 = 0), maybe it’s better to start a new thread and see how many people care or can offer any disagreement.

Exactly, Mike has major confidence issues behind his egotistical act he pulls on people. Its like he clings to the BBs brand BW created since he cannot create anything else due to his lack of true creativity for decades.

It's a fair point and I can see why people who view Brian Wilson as 'The Beach Boys' would consider what Mike is doing as sacrilege but to be fair, Brian had spent the past 20 odd years establishing himself as a brand outside of the BBs. Mike on the other hand has been the one constant in the group since it's start ( and yes it's easy for his detractors to list unflattering reasons as to why this is). As the voice on the bulk of the hits which the average punter pays to hear and his willingness to gig at the drop of a hat, Mike was always the obvious choice to keep the name once they guys all split up again. That Brian and Al don't outvote him to use the name themselves shows at the very least that they can live with Mike touring as 'The Beach Boys'.

I believe I'm giving my opinion that Wirestone's point is a distinction without a difference. Imo it is irrelevant to Mikes Beard's point.

Setting aside the fact that none of that really has anything to do with what’s being discussed here in these recent posts, let’s be clear: Mike is under no obligation to tour for the rest of his life as “The Beach Boys.” He CHOOSES it. He SOUGHT OUT a license to use the name to tour. BRI wasn’t begging Mike to take on the name. They didn’t have to twist his arm. He WANTED it. He still wants it, and in all fairness, he makes it pretty obvious in interviews that he wants it and relishes it.

This silly shifting of blame to BRI (which weirdly kind of implies that Mike using the name *is* objectionable, but that it’s not *his* fault) ignores that Mike chooses to tour under the name. He could stop, and just tour under his own name (and yes, I realize at any given point that such a decision was made, previous contractual obligations would need to be fulfilled first). He could use a different band name.

Blaming BRI also ignores that according to court documents, the vote to grant Mike a license was NOT unanimous. It doesn’t state who was the minority in the 3-to-1 vote, but let’s be blunt: It was probably Al.

Additionally, I and many others who aren’t always fans of Mike’s actions have said many times that Brian (and presumably Carl’s estate) are partly to blame for allowing BRI and its licensing setup to end up where it is.

But all of this would be completely irrelevant and not even at play were it not for Mike’s *decision* to elect to pursue using the name.

Fans don't tell the band what to do.  Fans don't vote on BRI. And Howie has an industry position, so I can respect that.  But it goes into context.

Status quo ante has nothing to do with any "analogy" set forth by what someone thinks about what "someone else should do" and unless you've been a member of a small (in voting number) corp. or an attorney, who understands the domain of "business associations" such as partnerships, limited liability corporations or big corporations, etc., or some such other registered entity, only a small number of people make decisions and might "take advice" from others but make decisions on their own.  

They (BRI) get the final say.  Just sayin'.  ;)

Nobody is suggesting that Mike doesn't have the legal clearing to do what he's doing. So all of this corporate-speak/legalese stuff is completely superfluous to what is being discussed here.

Fans don't dictate what BRI does. At the same time, invoking "status quo ante" doesn't prevent fans from thinking certain moves are d**k moves. More to the point, it's part of what drives those feelings. I contend that for all the "everybody is entitled to their opinion" talk, some folks can't process that some fans think that's a d**k move and justification. It immediately turns into "it doesn't matter...status quo...it is what it is....I'm sticking my fingers in my ears now.....BRI voted.... Lalalala...."

Aaaaaaaand once again, you just post a bunch of stuff everybody on this thread already knows. You manage to say so little with so many words.

Anyways, do you feel that it's fair that Mike got to end The Beach Boys as a creative entity to be able to go play Sea World as "The Beach Boys" with his son and Randell Kirsch? I don't care about the legalities or what have you.

My question, bolded so there is no misunderstanding is, is it honorable that Mike decided to end The Beach Boys as a creative entity to tour with the same name on his own?

Hey Jude - you discuss court documents.  You haven't posted them.  It is doubtful that you have BRI meeting minutes.  
And the corporation voting must have been set up by "majority" and not "unanimous" at the outset.  

So, even if there is a dissenting vote, it doesn't matter.  Those are the rules of the corporation.  If the corporation is set up to call for unanimous voting, that is a different story.  It is not unlike a "unanimous" jury decision as opposed to a "5/6" or some other predetermined decision.  

You don't like the outcome of that vote.  Only that very small group can change the terms.  No outside "campaign" changes that.

We aren't discussing "fair" - but what is "objective" by looking at, pre and post C50 goings on.  BRI decides what works for its' business model. Not me, and not you.

FYI - I like the work of both Christian and Randell very much.  (That is opinion.)

As for court documents, that stuff can be googled or searched on this forum. Even Cam will acknowledge that the documents said it was a 3-to-1 vote. My only point was that those who lump Al in as being to blame for the current licensing set-up might want to keep in mind that, in all likelihood, he at least *tried* to keep it from happening.

As to the rest, as someone else said, you’re saying stuff NOBODY disagrees with. Does anybody here think the minority vote in a 3-to-1 corporate vote should get their way?

All of that stuff sidesteps the *obviously* wholly SUBJECTIVE, moral, ethical issues being discussed here, in addition to issues involving brand recognition, trademark value (and devaluing), and so on. We’re talking about how people FEEL about Mike ending the reunion and continuing to use the name. If you don’t want to participate in such subjective discussions, that’s fine. But the continued rhetoric regarding legal technicalities that nobody disagrees with and aren’t germane to the subjective discussion at hand should be ignored.

And you managed to not answer the bolded question. You related to Cam Mott by chance? I'll try again. Leaving fair or whatever out of it.

In your opinion, is it honorable that Mike decided to end The Beach Boys as a creative entity to tour with the same name on his own?

While you hold your breath for an answer can I ask "Did Mike taking a walk when he did really drive a steak through the heart of The BBs as a creative entity?" If an offer for a follow up to TWGMTR was floated could Brian have said to Mike "Me and Al with Dave and Blondie are going to make another Beach Boys record. We'd like you and Bruce to be a part of it but make no mistake it's going to happen with or without you". Unless there's a small print somewhere stating that the name 'the Beach Boys' cannot be used for recording purposes without the participation of Mike Love, there would be nothing he could do to stop it from happening. Could it be that Brian just doesn't consider it 'The Beach Boys' without Mike?

There’s the root of the disconnect. This discussion is NOT about anything objective. Mike uses the name, and has the legal right to. There’s no objective discussion beyond that. It’s about how fans feel, how they perceive Mike’s use of the name. You continue to use as arguments things that everybody has stipulated to.  BRI decides what works for its business model? Who DOESN’T think that?

People are saying “I think Mike is open to fan criticism for using the name, especially after the reunion tour”, and your response is “BRI decides what works for its business model.” Not only does that ignore the discussion, it comes across as cold and legalistic and sharkish. That’s all fine, but then it’s only going to make it worse in the eyes of many if you seem utterly incredulous as to why people feel that way about such a cold, non-response.  

I would tend to think, based on my gut feeling and the available evidence, that Brian would NOT do anything as the “Beach Boys” without Mike, at least so long as Mike is alive.

Recording as the BB’s (or, more specifically, using the BB name on a new album) would require BRI approval. It would literally be down to Carl’s estate as best as I can tell. In the theoretical scenario you describe, we can presume Brian and Al would vote yes and Mike would vote no. Carl’s estate could abstain or vote with Brian and Al to allow it to happen (3-1 or 2-1), or vote with Mike and make it a tie, which I can only guess would mean it wouldn’t happen.

It’s to Brian’s credit that he appears to have made no moves post-2012 to try to wrestle any use of the BB name. How much of that has to do with a lack of desire to do so and how much has to do with the knowledge that such moves would result in YEARS of courtroom action, we of course don’t know.  

Great point jude, its like the fallback for the emotional ending of the C50 is just reciting the cold legal facts of the BRI touring arrangements.


Like that makes a difference...... ::)

Fans wanted SMiLE released in 1967.  (Including me!)  We know how that went.  The power and control of BRI were "vested" in a small number of people.

And I deal with facts, and reality.  I don't get caught up in speculation.  It is pointless.  

Passion should not cloud objectivity and reason; it is a slippery slope.  I merely live and let live, enjoy the work, and expect a pleasant surprise.  

It, so far has worked for me.  SMiLE and C50! And, I call that "jackpot."  :lol

That's honestly is a great question. I think it would be interesting if Brian did that, and it would be interesting to know if it could possibly be done (even though I doubt it ever would). I'd also say that yeah, Brian probably wouldn't consider it The Beach Boys without Mike.

News flash! "Cold legal facts" are what govern countries, businesses, order of civilizations, and get changed or modified as "reasonable" people decide, even whether the lovely new princess in England, has "succession" rights! Laws were changed to allow for that change.  Now Charlotte Elizabeth Diana has succession rights!

Until a small group changes the "rules of the road" the "status quo" remains...

I think a third reason could be if Brian went out with the name 'Beach Boys' on the banner, he would be facing crowds wanting Hits!Hits!Hits! Performing to Mike's target demographic, would they be receptive to his new material and backlog of solo work or would they be too busy shouting for Surfin' Safari and Little Honda?

whatever you're goin on about, please stop.

I'm the reincarnation of no one, and this is not a sequel to Brian's favorite movie: Seconds.

I also went to bat for Brian in my last post, so try and be agreeable when you can.

The BBs aren't some cold government machine, they are a band where their founder was driven out due to his power hungry and egotistical cousin. All because he is a sad and insecure man with the emotional maturity of a 18 year old.

My opinion is of no consequence. One agreement apparently self-terminated or perhaps, "expired."

The "default" arrangement was apparently triggered by that "event."

And, what is the purpose of the very hostile and inappropriate "related to Cam Mott?" remark...(I am not acquainted with Mr. Mott.) and that would be nun-ya (as in your business) - you don't like his position? That is his right.  

You may not like it but, I deal in fact, not a "perception of fairness." I'm not in BRI.

I wonder what the reasoning was that Mike wanted to even do C50. Wasn't he the guy who was the biggest cheerleader for it? Who from a few years before it happened, started dropping hints about some big 50th Celebration? And I don't think he was just thinking the M&B 50th year Celebration either, because really, what special thing is there with that? I think he really wanted the real deal, but only on his terms.

I think Mike wanted to try and end some sort of "war" in his mind, but mostly, I think Mike wanted to reclaim his "throne" so to speak, of being a wanted, needed, essential, can't-do-it-without-him type of true artistic writing partner to Brian. He wanted everyone to view him that way. I can understand the desire. I would be very surprised if he didn't spend a lot of time - decades even -stewing, either privately in his mind, or in chatting with his wife, about feeling under-appreciated by the public. You can see it bursting out of him when he talks about being Mr. Positivity on the Endless Harmony DVD. He's got a pent up complex about it. Feeling that history has misjudged him, and he has absolutely no idea why that would be the case (other than blaming Brian and/or Brian's people), so it's obviously some big conspiracy against Mike.

I too do think that Mike sadly gets misjudged, and that his contributions often unfortunately go underappreciated, and it sucks... but there are many reasons for that, not the least of which is his deep sense of entitlement to either being treated/thought of in a certain way, by both his bandmates and the public.  No idea at all why the industry doesn't show respect for him. Could it be because people do not like to see artists being that way, in a pent up manner that slips out very often? Show me another artist who behaves like that and I'll show you another crowd of haters who want to diminish that other artists' contributions for the very same or similar reasons. Is there a single example of an artist who has ever successfully gotten more respect/more of what they truly desire, by behaving like that?  

I think Phil Spector probably felt/feels the same way (not comparing Mike to Phil, either in talent or in insanity; both have very different types/levels of both talent and insanity). It's all very sad, very very infuriating, and I cannot fathom that there couldn't have been a better way for Mike to have acted which would have gotten him closer, little by little, to the place in history which he covets. Is there someone, not a yes-man, who could ever help him see the light? I guess when Mike's the type who, when in a band group therapy session, hires a psychologist on his payroll (total J.R. Ewing move), he's not willing to face the music about his own actions.

I thought his favourite movie was Norbit?  :o :o

Governments are make up of "people" who are elected and who represent "other people."

BRI is an "entity" set up as a business for a "business purpose."

And here we go with the "ego" comments.  And "sad" and "insecure" remarks.  Brian impresses me as a hard-working man who absolutely "knows his vision" for music.  

Check out a valid source. Dennis - in the Fornatale interview. That is someone who knew his bro, worked with his bro, and could make a fair and informed opinion of his bro.  

Brian knows his vision for sure, he was ready with two albums for the C50 band to record in the studio. Until Mike killed the reunion so he could be in charge of his touring band cover band at seaworld, bowling alleys, and other bad venues. Just so Mike could be the boss and be the center of attention again like before the C50. All these actions reek of a sad and insecure ego beyond belief from a guy who would be a used car salesmen without BW.

If I can just comment on the "Mike being the biggest cheerleader" for anything -- Mike told me several times he envisioned the 50th being two shows -- not a tour: TWO shows for PBS culled from TWO concerts using the original band -- one at the Hollywood Bowl and the other at Wembley Arena with special guests. THAT'S what Mike wanted. But the cash from the reunion mixed with the press that would get the word "BEACH BOYS" into the average consumer's consciousness was far too good to pass up. So he didn't.

In July 2006 Mike Love and  Bruce Johnston outlined their plans to me for a televised reunion with co-founders Brian Wilson, David Marks and Al Jardine, saying, quote: "(Mike Love) "What I think is the right way to go about things, is to do a PBS special at the Hollywood Bowl with some guests and maybe one at Wembley Stadium (in London) with a couple of guests like Paul McCartney -- if he likes Pet Sounds so much and if he likes "God Only Knows" so well -- then have him sing it with us at Wembley stadium, along with Elton John singing something, so on and so forth. Maybe Eric Clapton will come out and do it for charity, do it for a really good cause and then the same thing at the Hollywood Bowl and that would be really cool." (Bruce Johnston) "That would be the great reunion."


In August 2009 Al Jardine rejected that plan outright, telling me, quote: "Of course, you don't have Carl Wilson there which would be a big minus as far as I'm concerned. There's ways to do it -- but again, that's like doing a one-off, isn't it? I wouldn't be interested in doing just a one show deal like that. If you want to create an organization that goes out and works and produces a show that's of high value, of high quality -- then you rehearse your ass off, make it the best you can, and you tour as a unit. You tour for a year. Like the Rolling Stones, they don't do one show for PBS, one show for... You do a tour. You either do it or don't do it. If it was going to be something like that it should be a worldwide tour, otherwise, no. I wouldn't be interested."

Mike Love didn't "fire" The Beach Boys as much as he QUIT them.

He QUIT.

The venue really means nothing to me. I've learned that some venues (such as the Indian casinos) provide a structure for community survival, and a means out of poverty, and sustainability, and I respect the fact that they support these venues.  But for reading the casino literature, I would not know the relationship between the entertainers and the support for Native nation communities.

Dennis' perspective is the one to believe.  Dennis was candid.

So this obviously lends itself to the question... what possible logic would Mike Love have for doing JUST a one-off or two-off set of concerts like what he envisioned?

I can only think that he was scared from the onset that if he let it get beyond those two hypothetical shows, that it could eventually lead to a series of events which could strip him from his ability to tour as "The BBs". That, and maybe he was so afraid of the politics (and of losing control), that he didn't want to risk committing to anything further, or to even proposing anything further as a desire.

Can anyone else think of ANY OTHER logical reason why Mike would have only wanted such a minimal 2-show reunion? Bearing in mind that simply saying "that's just what he wanted" is a non-answer, equivalent to the nutritional value of eating paper.

I'm still waiting for Cam to answer my question regarding if people with mental illness should possibly be talked to in different manner than people without mental illness, which I posed to him in another thread. He answered a completely different question than the one I asked. Sort of like asking someone what their favorite brand of automobile is, and they say Burger King.

You may ask all you like.  Don't hold your breath.   :lol

Demanding an answer is an inappropriate turn-off. 

No one "owes" an answer to anyone. 

Well said Howie and CD! Mike wants to control the BBs name at all costs, reunion with actual band members and good venues be damned. For Mike Love wants to be the frontman without an actual band to front.

Then at least people should have the cojones to say "I outright refuse to answer that question" instead of pretending that it has actually been answered with a Burger King-type response to a favorite automobile-type question.

Yeah, I don't get what Indian Casinos have to do with my questions about Mike Love using the BBs name for his solo group....

It could be that Mike has settled into such a nice groove with his small Bruce and sidemen operation where he's his own boss that he really wondered if going back into the 'belly of the beast' would be wise. The C50 took a year out of his life which at 70+ is no small amount of time. Howie would you say that Mike had reservations about a big reunion tour?

Your post disparaged the venues.  Casinos are always lumped into that equation.  Fact. 

For CD!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMNry4PE93Y

People should have the discretion to respond or not.  And not demand a response.  If there is no response forthcoming, that creates an inference that they are disinclined to respond.

That is their prerogative. 

Sure, it's their prerogative. But could it be said that Mike Love's "chickensh*t" adjective directed at Mick Jagger at the Rock HOF could be equated to this case? Or totally out of line for me to equate? (But conversely, totally ok for Mike to have said in '88?)

 :lol :lol

A digression from the topic...

Anyone not wishing to answer a certain question, I am posting this for your convenience for future use.

(http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/61961140.jpg)

 :lol

 :beer

 :thewilsons

My uninformed opinion is maybe he was worried that a tour with the surviving members "done right" would take the shine off of the Mike and Bruce shows which are his bread and butter.

Nearly everything you post is "a digression from the topic." The rest of us could be talking about how John Stamos' recording of "Forever" would horrendous, and you'd butt in saying "yeah, but the kids in my class love him and he introduced the BB to them." Which means  dick to any of us, and adds zip-a-dee-doo-dah to our discussions.

So.....give us a break.

Strangely, you seem to be siding against Mike...

(http://i57.tinypic.com/crn13.jpg)

I want you to get up and jam.

Although I guess it does lend credence to the thought that the set end date thing was Mike's desire from the very 2006 rooftop origins of the idea of C50. Two shows... then the set end date has arrived!

Honestly though, why would someone want to refuse to answer a question in the middle of a back-and-forth messageboard discussion? It's not an answer to say "they just don't want to answer". Again - that has the nutritional value of eating paper. You know there's a reason. Because they have determined that there's no way they can answer the question without saying something that reflects poorly on a person they are trying to defend. They know there's some logic in the question they are being posed, but they feel the bigger-picture motive of strict defense of the topic at hand is to be prioritized, so no backing down, just avoiding the question. Right? At least let's agree on that. We can agree that it's someone's "right" to do that, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking there's another reason for why. That's more or less what's happening here, and you know it. Same thing that happens in politics.

Am I off base in saying this?

Stamos is not unimportant to the late 80's/90's resurgence.  Brian is on several shows.  As well as other series that Stamos invited them on.  And, Baywatch...and that would be equally bad?  Stamos wasn't on that, that I recall.  It got them back into the terrain again.

And ya, it got young kids involved...I stand by that. And a new generation got to know Dennis' work via Stamos, so that would be objectionable, why?

"The rest of us" - is this forum a private fraternity, or a "tolerant open forum?" "Any of us?" So you speak for everyone? That is doubtful.  

The Beach Boys entity includes both Brian and Mike, a fact you may not like.  It is easy for me, (and even others perhaps) speaking for myself, because I can easily support all the members.

So Mike and Brian went along with Al's idea.

Oh man, you (or somebody) should remove the other boys from the photo and just have Mike and his scary, icy-cold scowl. It is so weird how such negativity emanates from the self-proclaimed Mr. Positivity.

I included the other boys specifically because of the look on Carl's face! :)

No. Brian and Mike went along with Joe Thomas’ idea, more or less. Al wasn’t part of the production company running the whole thing. That was Mike, Brian, and Joe Thomas. It appears Al was *less involved* in the operational setup of C50 than he was in the pre-1998 touring “Beach Boys.”

To be honest, your recent posts suggest you support the business ethics and rights of BRI as a corporation more than you do any of the corporation’s or the group’s constituent members.

What do you mean by BRI ethics?

In fact, I have no opinion one way or another (because I am not privy to their business, nor should I be) but do know that they appear to be the last word. And, respect an established entity.  And, I respect the late-ish 1960's historical context, being established post Pet Sounds, so the band, could "self-determine" their future.  

And, I guess it seemed a "rite of passage" at the time, and they would have to find their own way, succeed or fail, largely on their merits, and take their lumps along the road.  So, I guess I was proud of their new theme, branding (Cyrus Daliin)  and concept, as they emerged.  Not proud of "some" but proud of "all." That was a huge step into the unknown.

But, I attempt to look at facts and not at "factions and positions." It is counterproductive, after all this time.

Still went along with Al's idea.

Yes, just like every person on the planet that eats pizza is “going along with my idea” that pizza is awesome.

Congratulations to every fan across the globe who had the “idea” for the band to reunite and do a tour. Mike and Brian were using YOUR idea!

 :woot :woot

Sorry "every fan", it was Al's idea.

I don't know why some people won't answer a question put to them and it's not for me to second guess why. I can understand the frustration that must be felt from repeatedly having a question ignored. Personally I don't back down from anything that is asked to me.

I answered your question,  your follow up question was irrelevant to the convo in my opinion. That was my answer.

Nobody did anything to stop the reunion or quit the reunion. The reunion ended and Brian, Mike and Al did nothing to keep it going.

Disclaimer: As I said several places earlier in the thread in case anyone missed it, all my opinion from published or public material, I have no inside knowledge and may be wrong.

Source for that, Mr. Cruz? Or are you just stating opinions as fact again?

The Gospel according to Mr. Cruz

(http://i.imgur.com/egtsvRt.jpg)

 :lol

Sorry, but you answered everything BUT my question.
 
My original question was just a general question, not about OMR, or even about anyone in the band:


Your response (bringing OMR into the convo, which had zero to do with what the question asked - the Burger King response to the favorite automobile question):



However, to that, sir, I do agree with you; if Brian thought Mike was too cocky then Mike should apologize. I'm sincerely glad we can agree on this. Still, my original question (which has zero to do with OMR) remains unanswered, because you answered solely about OMR, which was not the question.

To which, my reply was:

 

To which you said:


What's the "it" you are talking about? You keep talking about OMR, which was NOT my question.  Then you say:


Again – I largely agree with that sentiment, but it’s not my question; you are implying I mentioned an apology (which I did not).
So, WITHOUT mentioning items that are not part my question (OMR, apologies), can you answer my original question? I changed the color to yellow so it’s very clear. It’s a general question. I understand it’s a complex subject too. If you don’t have an answer for it, that’s ok, but just say so; let’s do away with pretending that any of your answers (regarding OMR or apologies) have anything to do with what I asked.

I didn't "bring OMR into it", you commented on Wirestone's comment about my comment on OMR and I answered in that context.

I know you previously answered in that context. So if I now remove OMR from the equation, and ask you to respond to my question independently of any OMR discussion, is that something you would be able to do?

Regardless of mental illness, everyone should do their best to treat everyone as they need to be treated. Cousins who grew up together and worked together would know what each other needed, where as fans who never knew either one and were speculating from second-hand info shouldn't judge.

Fair enough. I would really like to think that everyone involved at the time had enough purely instinctual knowledge to do the right thing. I'm not so sure that was always the case, especially considering their dysfunctional backgrounds- and I think it's quite idealistic to blanketly assume such (if you really indeed do), but hell, what do I know. By that same train of logic, you should also say there's no way that anyone should judge Murry's actions.  He watched his kids grow up and do what they needed too, right?  I honestly am not in any way comparing the two mens' actions, and I think Mike is many miles above Murry in terms of a human being; I'm only saying that it's odd how some people can only find other people's actions questionable when there is perceptable physical evidence of abuse, thus enabling questionable emotional treatment to happen.

Reading through this thread and I'm reminded of something Melinda said in the Brian Wilson A&E Biography. She said that if Brian had been diagnosed with cancer they would have sent him up to UCLA Medical real quick, but mental illness?..."Oh, we don't talk about that".
This is true, actually. The pre-1970's wasn't exactly an era of enlightenment when it came to handling or even recognizing psychological or emotional problems. Locking someone away for life or lobotomizing them or both was an attractive option (just ask the Kennedys).