The Smiley Smile Message Board

Hello All,

Let me preface this by saying that I'm relatively new to the SSMB, and I have a question about the climate on here prior to the 50th Anniversary Reunion.  I really don't feel like looking at years worth of old threads.

I also don't wish to start yet another Mike v Brian thread. 

But, I'm curious.  What was the overall feeling towards the Mike and Bruce (and sometimes David) version of the Beach Boys that existed from 1998-2011?

Was there outrage prior to the end of the 2012 reunion about Brian not being in the band?  Or was it more accepted then as Brian was busy with touring with Pet Sounds, Smile, That Lucky Old Sun, and Gershwin?  Did C50 create a collective want to see Brian Wilson back in The Beach Boys? 

When Mike and Bruce made their set list more interesting to compete with Brian's touring band, people here, including myself, were very positive. That in turn made Brian dig deeper into the catalog for his shows (once PS, SMiLE, and Gershwin tours were out of the way).

GM,

Around what time period are you referring to?  I know the M&B added some deeper cuts in the mid 2000s, but I was under the impression that they stuck to 35 song hit heavy sets for the most part until 2012.

Yes, there seems to be a sense of competition between the two camps.  Maybe this is why Brian's setlists have been very Beach Boys heavy since the end of 2012. 

Impossible to generalize, but my recollection is that in the 1998-early 2000s timeframe there was pretty strong animosity from some fans towards Mike, having as much to do with simply using the “Beach Boys” name as it did with Brian or Al not being there. Brian didn’t want to be there, Al was confusingly kind of squeezed out in 1998, so it was unclear what he *wanted* versus the reality of what was going on.

The last big swell of a large amount of negative feeling towards Mike came in the mid 2000’s when the “Smile”-related lawsuits came about. They were pretty much laughed out of the courts, and eventually that sort of faded away.

I think by the mid-2000’s, 2006-ish, even a lot of crusty, cynical fans had at least come to terms with Mike using the BB name. Brian still didn’t want a part of it. Al seemed to, sort of. That was about it.

I think the main thing that alleviated the scorn from fans concerning Mike using the BB name was that, apart from Al on and off, nobody else *wanted* to be in the “Beach Boys” touring band or use the BB name. As the decade went on, Mike was touring and there wasn’t any actual alternative. Having *a* Beach Boys, *any* Beach Boys out there versus none is an interesting debate, but at the end of the day Mike wasn’t touring *in place* of any other tangible, feasible lineup.

In 2012, the s**tstorm came about in part because this was no longer the case. Unlike the the late 90s and 2000s, both Brian and Al (and David Marks for that matter) wanted to keep *all five* guys together as “The Beach Boys.”

As Howie Edelson put it some time back, Mike essentially *quit* the band at the end of 2012 and went back to his thing. What fans who think C50 complainers are "anti-Mike" often overlook is that, at least for me, I never wanted to see Mike leave the reunion but have it continue as "The Beach Boys" either. Mike being a part of it is, well, a big part of it! Essentially, implicit in being critical of Mike ending the reunion is that I value what he adds to the band and the whole.

KDS, Mike and Bruce have two kinds of shows, hit-heavy for county fairs and such, and a more varied one with deep cuts for indoor shows. I am not sure when they introduced the deep cuts, because the noughties are all a big blur to me. Seen BW and M&B too many times to really pinpoint anything.

OK, that's kinda what I thought, that the C50 essentially created the want for Brian Wilson to be a part of The Beach Boys.  

Makes sense.  That's one of the reasons I jumped on tickets to see The Beach Boys at the Modell Lyric Opera House in Baltimore in three months. 

Pardon my ignorance, but what does the "C" stand for in C50?

It's OK.

Celebration. 

Thanks, man! Indeed it was.

I would say that Brian Wilson did that.

It's understandable to be confused by the "C50" wording, as I don't think the actual band really used it much. It's just shorthand for fans having to type.

I use it often, but a better term would be simply the "reunion", because that avoids the possibility of the (lame) argument that the reunion *couldn't* continue because the 50th anniversary was over. I've seen that argument before. "What were they going to do? Keep calling it the 50th anniversary? Do a 51st Anniversary tour?"

The answer of course is, firstly, yes, they could do either of those things however silly it might be. Or, they could just tour as "The Beach Boys" and make sure to mention that all five members are there in promotions and promotional materials.

Yes, it was a great year.  Great tour and an appropriate swan song to The Beach Boys recording career.  

I can only speak for myself, but it wasn't so much wanting Brian Wilson to "be in the Beach Boys." It was about having them all together. The "whole is greater than the sum" cliché was actually true on that tour.

Brian has spent most of the last 30 years not wanting to tour with the guys, and/or not being allowed to (the Landy years clouded this issue, as it did many others), so it was certainly extra frustrating when, in 2012, Brian was ecstatic about doing more stuff collectively as the BBs for the first time in ages, and Mike walked away from it. Brian finally wanted to be a Beach Boy, and Mike walked.

Yet another instance in Beach Boys history where better management could've made a difference. 

On the bright side, I don't think NPP would exist (at least not in its current form) had The Beach Boys stayed together. 

I like NPP, but man that record would have been even better as a Beach Boys album.

That's assuming it had the same songs.  Judging by Mike's reaction to Summer's Gone, I'm not so sure he would've wanted to be on songs like This Beautiful Day, Whatever Happened, The Last Song, or Tell Me Why. 

But......we'll never know. 

That brings to mind another pre 2012 question. 

Was there a lot of discussion on here saying that Imagination, GIOHM, or TLOS would've been great Beach Boys albums? 

Or, do you just say that about NPP because TWGMTR was so good, and NPP was seen as a natural follow-up?

Other than the occasional "it would be interesting to hear Al (or whomever) sing that Brian song", I don't recall a huge swell of "why couldn't this be a Beach Boys album?" on those older Brian albums.

With NPP, while I don't think everybody was screaming about it not being a BB album (despite what the Beard/Love interview may seem to indicate), the increased references to what "could have been" a BB album came about for very clear reasons: In 2012, Brian said he wanted to do more work with the BBs. I think there's even a quote suggesting Brian wanted it to be BB projects for the foreseeable future. Also, as with TWGMTR, most of NPP was co-written by Joe Thomas.

We'll never know what a BB album would have looked like, but I don't think it's a stretch that at least a few of the NPP songs could have potentially made it in some form onto whatever the next BB album might have been.

The mood right before the C50 was sadly resigned to M&B touring. Then the c50 and its blowup showed that Mike had really taken everybody for a ride by taking the name.

I kind of understand all the upset around Mike pulling out of doing more shows as the whole Beach Boys but at the same time I never thought they would carry on longer than the planned shows. I was happy for it and it was great but they went out on a high and that's how they should be remembered. 

How many times have the Boys made the wrong decision in their careers and ended up tarnishing their legacy? By stopping when they did perhaps it was for the best.

One thing that came into my mind just now. If Mike and Bruce HAD carried on for another year or longer, what would have happened if it had been Brian or Al who had pulled out due to health reasons/politics/musical direction? There's no guarantee that extending C50 would have resulted in a happy ending and judging by their past it almost certainly wouldn't have! Bands don't stay together if they don't like being around each other. If that's the case why force it on them and ruin what once was a good thing?

One thing seems certain: Mike has received a TON more hostile animosity directed squarely at him since C50 imploded. Which makes me believe, with hardly any question about it, that if he could do it over again, he'd have nixed C50 from even happening in the first place. Just think: we could have simply had no Summer's Gone, no To There and Back Again, if Mike could only roll back time :/

It's just sad.

I don't think much of anyone could have assumed the reunion would stay together indefinitely. But I don't think a lot of people were assuming or predicting Brian and Al would want to continue (and vocally so) and that it would be Mike that walked.

As far as it "eventually" ending on a bad note, I'd say two things. It already *did* end on a bad note. That doesn't ruin it for me at all, but it did crash and burn a bit needlessly, certain in a PR sense. Secondly, with decent management, it easily could end smoothly whenever that time would come.

Even *after* the PR disaster in September 2012 they could have salvaged it. Book a farewell series of shows at the end of the year, end united (at least PR wise), and end on a high note.

As far as what would happen in the future, first I would say that any "health issues" wouldn't ever be blamed on a member. If Mike had had to bow out of any more reunion shows due to health reasons (as opposed to getting right back on the road with own band literally one day later), I would never have criticized Mike for that.

As for any other pitfalls of continued reunion activity, the idea that something *might* happen in the future isn't a reason to end a great tour and great lineup.

I don't think the idea, for me anyway, is necessarily that I wanted the reunion to be permanent. I simply think they could have done it longer. Similar to my other point, the idea that it can't last forever (which isn't, theoretically, set in stone anyway) isn't a reason to abort it way too early. And it was aborted way too early.

I'll bet a donut that when it is all told, Mike will have done no more to keep more reunion activity from happening than Brian and Al did and Mike did no less to make it happen than Brian and Al did.  Because BRI. I predict it is exactly as told, they all never got together as BRI to discuss what they would do about any 2013 or later offers.  If there were any offers that would have made it to contract for 2013 and weren't just pie in sky at the time.

You realize by saying that, you're essentially implying that Al in 2012 had as significant "needs" and demands that weren't being met when compared to Mike. You don't hear interviews with Al grumbling over and over again about Waves of Love being rejected, but Mike's publicly repeatedly complains about all sorts of Mike's own C50 songwriting needs going unfulfilled.

Mike threw a hissy fit in no small part because when he realized he was not going to be as necessary to the songwriting process as he wanted, it would not fly. His need for gaining more widespread industry respect (a desire I can understand) was bigger than any kind of need for healing, mending of fences, or the legacy of the band (that ego-based barometer of priorities I cannot understand). Regarding the songwriting matter alone, how can you consider the two men's demands on par with each other, when it comes to assigning blame? Of the two men, Mike continues to far more of a whiner about this subject alone; it's not some "equal" blame type thing at all.

Easy, all of that is a red herring and/or straw man because Al has as much authority in BRI as Brian or Mike.

I don't think anyone is still asking Al about Waves of Love.  They are still asking Mike about C50, however.  Some people forget that these interviews are almost always for concerts happening in a local town and only read by local readers who normally read nothing about the Beach Boys.  What Mike says is new to those readers.

Aside from the BRI corporate structure and Brian's + Carl's estate's understandable desire for a paycheck... Aside from that, when you look at the songwriting demands between just those two guys alone (Al vs Mike), you can't tell me that one wasn't being far more of a diva with demands than the other. The extremely lopsided (Mike-heavy) songwriting diva behavior is not a negligible issue when talking about who was more to blame. Mike specifically called out the songwriting as a catalyst of why the reunion didn't work. Al could take the rejection; Mike couldn't.

Al surely just let the Waves of Love issue simply go. It probably didn't gnaw at Al like Mike's songwriting issues did to Mike. Al picked his battles. Mike may have relented on some C50 battles (like grudgingly playing some deeper cuts that he didn't want to initially), but mostly he just got resentful and blew the tour over IMO extremely warped priorities, that I can't imagine make sense to a whole lot of people without the last name of Love. Sad, sad, sad. I wish it wasn't that way, but let's not be in denial about warped priorities. If we could redirect any one living BB's priorities, to get them to see the light so to speak, I can't imagine many people choosing to redirect a different living BB member's priorities than Mike.

You are welcome to your opinions but I don't see how any of it has anything to do with BRI taking up any offers presented to them at a board meeting (if any were actually offered).

Do you think that if Mike could have just not let resentment about songwriting get the best of him, the way Al obviously was able to put that issue behind him in 2012, that this wouldn't have been a factor in any way, shape or form, with regard to there being a better chance that everyone could have been communicating in a more healthy manner, discussing show offers, getting a board meeting to happen... as opposed to one of them ruminating in resentment and looking for (and finding) an escape hatch?

Again - if Mike had gotten the entire album written and recorded in a room with Brian, do you honestly think the reunion would have just coincidentally imploded exactly the way it did? That perceived injustice to Mike *obviously* wasn't a negligible factor in what went down when C50 ended.

Uhhh ok

It wouldn't matter. On the agenda, discuss or not, vote. Easy Peasy.

So you are saying that a 2012 BB album written by Brian and Mike in a room, just like Mike wanted, would NOT have possibly been some sort of motivating factor for Mike to have more desire to discuss - in a boardroom - potential collective BB plans for the future? Doesn't mean the reunion automatically would continue indefinitely, but it would not have imploded in the manner it did, when it did. No way.

This would especially especially especially be true if Mike specifically got some praise in the press about his new songwriting contributions. And if this led to any kind of legit music mag talking about positively reevaluating Mike as a talent. Do you doubt this? Do you think Mike would have been no more incentivized to at least entertain some corporate discussion about some possible future reunion activity in any shape or form?

I'm saying, imo, it will eventually be revealed that it doesn't matter because there was no vote one way or another by BRI which is on each and every board member.  Your opinion is something else,  that's fine.

Wow, you're so gracious to allow him an opinion. Maybe you can be even nicer and take him seriously and address his points instead of dodging so as not to let blemish Mike Love's mighty name.

Oh thank you.  Gosh, you're going to make me blush.  You are welcome to your opinions as well.

My opinion, prior to the reunion, was that Mike's group was the only representation of The Beach Boys we had, and this was by mutual consent of the rest of the band. I accepted it, attended several of Mike's shows and enjoyed them. But, even then, I was quite aware that I was not really seeing The Beach Boys. This was what was left of The Beach Boys, and it "was what it was." The music was the star of the show, anyway, so I was resigned to this ghost of a great band.

The reunion was a whole different animal. Unexpected, thrilling and including the one and only Brian Wilson! with Al! And David! This tour WAS The Beach Boys… The real deal, as close as you could get without Carl and Dennis. And, to top it off, Mike "immagonnasueyou" Love was actually positive about celebrating their history together, was publicly considerate of Cousin Brian's health, and was generally acting like someone who finally found some level of graciousness. Of course, I knew the tour wasn't supposed to be permanent, but with Brian and Al enjoying it and wanting to continue, large crowds, critical buzz, and high profile offers pouring in,  one would expect that the band would recognize what an opportunity they now had, would reassess their positions and find a way to make it work a bit longer.

Except they didn't. At all. And, by all accounts, it came down to Mike walking away from the table before the offers and options could even be considered. I was disappointed that such promise for a late career renaissance was cut off prematurely.

So, for me, it wasn't about Mike vs Brian. It was about Mike vs. The Beach Boys. And Mike lost.

You should go make a sign about it.

'Cuz I own a SIGN shop! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha (wheeze, wheeze) ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha (hold sides) ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha (repeat)

I'm a little confused. What I know is limited: they were touring with a mess of actual BBs participating; then the tour ended with a little flurry of back and forth press statements: fired, not fired, felt like fired.
Cam, above, is saying that BRI never got together for... what? Did they never get together to discuss continuing that tour? Did they never get together to discuss further work?
Could someone review for me the actual known facts, not leading up to C50 but at the end and after?
If you don't want to bother, that's OK. I'll read up elsewhere but if it's not too difficult, it would be nice.

Hey, Emily. Try trolling through this discussion. Most of the salient points get mentioned at some point or another: http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,20778.0.html

Thanks. I'll do that.

Or you could just skip to chase and read this little gem from Howie:

As I suspected "I don't believe they were even pitched to the band".  Possibly, according to one promoter, "due to the ugly and amateur ending". Presumably because of the press release that was requested and the public being misled about firings. Probably.

In other words, it was the fault of all three members of BRI.

Who is the board of BRI at this point? Is it just Al, Brian and Mike? Does a representative of Carl's estate have a vote? Did anyone outside of the original BBs ever get a seat?

Yes, all three and a rep of Carl's Estate.

Voting members are Brian, Mike, Al and Carl's estate.

And LOL @ Cam with points for consistency.

Thanks for answering my questions, Cyncie and Cam. It doesn't really bother me that they didn't continue touring together, but it's a shame that something so positive ended up leaving bad feelings behind. Kind of like Thanksgiving with my extended family. Yay.

Eta: Kind of just kidding about the fam. If any of you are reading this in the future, love you guys!  :-D

Cam, are you thinking that, had offers been presented and gotten to a vote and had BW and AJ voted (and Carl's estate too I guess to form a majority) to continue touring in 2013, that ML would've agreed to it? Do you think that he would've agreed to it right out anyway, of course if the offer/set up was decent? Obviously I'm asking for speculation and if that's not comfortable, don't answer and no offense would be taken.
To anyone who might have an answer, what happens if someone does not want to tour but there's a vote deciding to tour? Obviously no one can be forced to tour against their will. Would that person be fined or penalized in some way for not touring? That seems weird, so I'm guessing that a vote would be on whether the BBs as an organization would do the tour, then each individual decides whether or not to participate. (?)

I'd guess that they would discuss and come to an agreement, probably to do it again.  It might have been in 2014 instead of 2013, some or all  of them might have gotten more or less of this and that or just gone along again, they all assumed they would discuss it after C50 (I presume Al did, Brian and Mike said they did at the time).  Apparently the "bad press" around the end of C50 kept promoters from even offering anything to discuss, anyway Mike has said no written offers came their way and the band never had a discussion of the offers.

None of us really knows how BRI works, so speculation.  If someone were out voted I presume they would be a good corporate citizen and go along with the majority according to the vote.  There is a long tradition of sitting out tours, so if they sat out instead I suppose the same rules as in the past would apply, in other words (according to court records) they share the profits whether they tour or not but those who tour get a higher percentage. Something like that.

All this "a vote never happened" stuff is laughable. Using any of this as justification to *not* blame Mike is kind of like telling your spouse that *you* want a divorce, and your spouse wants to stay married, and then when asked later on why you didn't want to stay married, just saying "well, we never actually got around to having a discussion to stay married", because you don't want to sound like the dick that called the marriage off.

In other words, cause and effect are being reversed. The reunion didn't fail to continue because "no votes or discussion" happened. No votes or discussion happened because the reunion was already dead, and it was dead because one member had already started booking separate shows and was making no overtures to continue.

Saying the reunion didn't continue because they never had a meeting to do just that is like me saying I don't have ten million dollars in my bank account because nobody has deposited ten million dollars into my account. Technically correct, but COMPLETELY missing the point.

Howie Edelson's posts on this topic have been the definitive word on the subject in my opinion (and his comments actually make logical sense too). As he mentioned in one post, Mike essentially *quit* the Beach Boys in 2012. Mike has owned the literal decision to quit the reunion. Maybe we can somehow get Mike to let Cam know.

Maybe Brian hid a message to Mike in Pacific Coast Highway when he sang

My Life
I'm better off alone
My Life
I'm better on my own

Mike took that to heart and split the band. 

Thanks Cam.
Perhaps this debate comes down to whether a poster is considering the C50 tour as one discrete event and discussion for another as another event vs. considering it all one big event.
It seems that (without arguing about the quality of his reasoning either way) it was Mike's impetus that ended C50. But perhaps they all lacked whatever it took to get together again. Maybe?

Well, the infrastructure was all there and in place to continue, and Brian and Al (and Dave) wanted to do more.

I'd say it's poor management (which they can all be blamed for), and Mike's decision that led specifically to not getting more reunion shows/activities in 2013.

No doubt, C50 was a "fragile" item as Rolling Stone put it, but even with bad (non) management and everything else, it was working. Evidence indicates it may not have survived forever, but it likely wouldn't have imploded in late 2012 had Mike been agreeable to continue with the reunion lineup.

It appears Al, and even Brian surprisingly, came to realize why all of the guys working together was a unique thing worth trying to continue. That Mike seems to put all the peripheral stuff (both his stated reasons and what we might guess are other reasons) above *that*, is part of the reason people are annoyed by him.

The thing didn't fall apart because BRI didn't hold a meeting (keeping in mind BRI didn't even run the tour). It fell apart because Mike chose his deal (lots of touring with a diluted band) over taking advantage of Brian Wilson *wanting* to be a Beach Boy again.

I actually wish Brian had (or still would) just call Mike's bluff and say, "Okay, let's do this 'alone in a room' thing", and then see how agreeable Mike is to dropping his band and reuniting again full-time. On-site reports of Mike making no apparent attempts to write with Brian during the 2012 tour suggest the "writing alone with Brian" thing, while surely one of the items that rankles Mike, would not have saved the reunion.

It was agreed initially that the C50 was a one shot, 50 show tour, then business would resume as usual (The M&B BB Show).  

Sure, Mike had admitted that he was in favor of going back to business as usual.  But, again poor management and communication by the camps.  

I believe that, had Brian Wilson gone to Mike shortly after the final UK show in Sept 2012, and said something to the effect of "Hey that tour was a blast, let's do it again next summer," then something would've happened.  On the flip side, Mike could've approached Brian and said "Hey, that album was fun, but can we sit and write some new tunes together like the old days?"  Instead, everything is dished out through third parties.  

Getting back to my original post, it's been a little over three years since the C50 Tour ended.  Mike, Al, and Brian are still asked in just about every interview whether it could happen again.  Some fans of still hoping for another go around.  

Personally, I'm fine with things the way they are.  

All I want is a decent concert DVD from C50.  

I think one of the problems is that it wasn't crystal clear to all involved that it would definitely go back to "the way it was" after the scheduled C50 date. Nothing was set in stone, but clearly, however wishful or delusional, some were hoping they could continue, and in a relatively immediate fashion. Mike was asked *in the middle* of the tour about what would happen in 2013, and while non-committal, he never uttered one word about it going back to "the way things were before."

While all of them could do well to communicate better I would guess, I'm not convinced those two scenarios (Brian asking Mike to tour the next summer, or Mike asking Brian to write together) would have happened. I don't think the reunion lived or died by those specific things happening or not happening. I think Mike preferred his own thing, no drama or stress. I'm not convinced he was as concerned with "writing alone" with Brian as it seems sometimes, and I'm also not convinced Brian particularly wants to write a lot of songs alone with Mike. Separately, I'm not sure if those songs would be any good. (I'd certainly enjoy seeing them try though).

Mike was booking non-reunion shows before the reunion tour was over.

I'm also not convinced "talking" to each other would have saved anything. Al said during the Grammy Museum thing in September 2012 that he specifically said to Mike (presumably that very day) that Mike should reconsider ending the reunion. Al isn't Brian obviously, but clearly Mike wasn't convinced by Al even though Al specifically made an appeal to Mike.

You're probably right, the imaginary scenarios I presented may not have prolonged the reunion, but it could've at least started a dialog. 

And for all those reasons you mention, I think things are best for everybody the way they are.  Mike wants to control everything.  Brian probably doesn't want to write alone with Mike. 

And I highly doubt Brian would be on board with the extensive touring schedule the current Beach Boys are on. 

On a selfish note, if no Beach Boys reunion means that I'm able to easily get a second row ticket to see Brian and Al (in just nine hours!!!!!!), I'm alright with it. 

Yes, I agree with you guys. Mike wants the control. He can tour with a much smaller band and entourage, meaning less stress and drama. I think that compromise should be considered, as it is best for the fans and for their legacy. Also, I have no doubt that Mike clears more money in the current configuration than he ever did in C50.

Awesome. Have a great time! The closest they are coming to me is 414 miles. Can't do it.  :'(
Man, B&A concert, book stores, record stores...you've got it all going on!

Thanks.

I almost didn't buy tickets because I just saw him five months ago.  But I thought, when will I ever get to see a true legend in the flesh in a small venue (Montgomery College only holds a little over 500 people), and to be that close? 

Plus, my father's going this time.  (Last time was a 100 mile drive on a Monday night).  He's only seen Brian in person one time, around 1981 at a Beach Boys concert.  But, according to my father, Brian was only really there physically.   So, I think he's in for a treat. 

But, you're dealing with Brian Wilson here. Certainly the fans on this board are familiar with his history, and Mike Love especially is, too. Actually, Mike Love was directly affected by Brian's decisions - or non-decisions - for 54 years. On Monday Brian wants to continue to tour, but what about when he wakes up on Tuesday? Sometimes you/me/mw/they have to take what Brian Wilson says at a particular time and place, process it, and then try to make sense out of it. Apparently Mike put a lot of merit in the email Brian sent to him saying "No more touring".

I agree you Sheriff.  And had he gone to Mike and said these things instead going to third parties saying "I feel like I was fired," we might not still be talking about the end of C50 today. 

And that's another reason why I think the two camps are better off separately. 

Can you point me to more information about that email? I've never heard of it.

Mike acknowledged in the most recent interview I've seen from several days ago that Brian and Al wanted to continue the reunion, and nothing even remotely along the lines of Brian being flaky was among his stated reasons for Mike not being interested in continuing the reunion. Mike was booking shows before the reunion was over. It wasn't Brian being flaky that had anything to do with it ending. I'm not saying Brian passing Mike in a hallway and saying "we should tour next year!" should lead to Mike immediately clearing his calendar. But Mike could have easily explored doing more shows, and could have called for a meeting to discuss booking further dates, etc. He was done with it before it was over, and Brian and Al's big mistake was apparently thinking even at that late hour that it. He has never once said he *pursued* anything regarding continuing the reunion. He walked, and had since mentioned a bunch of potential reasons, some more understandable or dubious than others, some more believable than others as to how much they *actually* impacted his decision, in my opinion.

The "email" was only mentioned by Mike's daughter in a rant on Facebook. It's dubious if it exists at all.

That’s opening up a can of worms!  :lol

When the tour folded, Mike wrote a long letter to the LA Times (and consequently Brian wrote a response), in which he attempted to explain the end of the reunion. He didn’t mention anything about an email from Brian in this detailed piece of writing.

At some point later on, he offhandedly mentioned in an interview that Brian had said “no more shows please” or something close to that. I think he has since reiterated this, only once or twice, among the MANY times he has been asked about the topic. At some point, this was characterized as an e-mail that Brian and/or his camp had sent, offering simply that he didn’t plan to do any more shows beyond what was scheduled.

I believe, also, that during a kerfuffle on Facebook (or somewhere on the internet) last year in the aftermath of Al’s non-appearance at a Mike/Bruce gig at Jones Beach, when Mike’s daughter was defending Mike, she also mentioned the e-mail (in response to criticism pointed at Mike about the reunion ending, which strangely isn’t specifically what that Jones Beach debacle was about).

A hand full of Mike defenders ran with the information, even though Mike himself has indicated he (Mike) chose to end the reunion, and acknowledges that at the end of it, Brian and Al *did* want to continue. I question whether Mike himself puts much stock in the e-mail, because he *never* even mentions it in his lengthy 2012 letter to the LA Times, which would have been the ideal place to mention something that was, in the eyes of his defenders, such a huge smoking gun.

The e-mail may indicate Brian at some previous point didn’t foresee being able to do more shows. It may also indicate a lack of detailed communication between the camps. But again, NOBODY has refuted the fact that, by the end of the tour, Brian, Al, and David wanted to continue and Mike didn’t. Thus, the e-mail is largely irrelevant (other than possibly detailing the nature of the level of communication between the guys).

And, I agree with you. Once Brian's handlers started to get involved, things took a turn for the worse. Doe anybody actually think Brian himself sat down and typed the email to Mike? Does anybody actually think that Brian himself made the decision to make that statement to the press? Does anybody actually think Brian himself wrote a single word of that statement to the press?

You are right, KDS. Brian talking to Mike directly about "issues" would've been the best way to handle things. And, hey, maybe they did. However, maybe it wasn't even necessary. Mike and others had the opportunity to observe Brian's behavior a few times a week. After 75 shows, Brian had trouble walking to and from the stage. Brian needed assistance getting in and out of his piano chair. There were reports of friction with the setlists. There were reports of friction with the wives. Sometimes common sense has to be applied. Would've it been better for Brian to extend the tour yet again, what, to 100 shows, or have Brian return home to his children, deli, and dogs? Do you ever wonder what Brian REALLY wanted after 75 shows?

You know what's funny about the "ending" of the 2012 tour? Supposedly, so many things were wrong, so many people were unhappy, so many opportunities were missed. Yet, and correct me if I'm wrong, not a single person did a single thing to change it.

Sheriff, name the handlers.....

Brian still has trouble getting to and from his piano.  I've read he's had to be lead to the piano a few times during the NPP Tour.  Quite frankly, I'm very surprised he's added as many Fall dates as he did.  

I didn't really intend this post to be another rehashing of the end of the 2012 Tour, but to gauge some of the pre 2012 feelings regarding Mike and Bruce and reunions.  

So, I'll say one last thing about 2012.  Since it's not likely to happen again, I think it should be remembered for what it was, not for how it ended.  We got a (IMO) very good Beach Boys album out of it.  We got to see Brian Wilson, Mike Love, Al Jardine, Bruce Johnston, and David Marks on stage together doing long and varied sets.  It was very special.  Apparently, not special enough to warrant the release of a full concert on DVD, but.......

Sheriff, reference the set-list friction.  I SAW it firsthand prior to the C50 Cleveland Ohio show in middle of June 2012.  My wife bought us M&G/Sound check tickets for the show. Fantastic experience. After 7 or 8 songs Brian yelled over to Mike, lets do Marcella.  Mike responded "we" don't know Marcella.  Brian says, "Mike, my guys know Marcella". So...then everyone stops for a moment and the principals make their way, along with Totten, over to Brian's piano.  A lively discussion went on for a minute or so, not yelling, but it seemed opinionated to me with Mike saying a lot during that short time.  It wasn't a yelling match by any means and even being in the first row, I couldn't make out what was being said. But observed alot of tension. 

Also during the sound-check, Mike was on the phone ALOT when he wasn't part of a song being practiced. I thought this was strange at the time and have thought about it alot since, as I've read all the threads since the breakdown of C50.  No way of ever knowing but one just wonders if by June 2012, the breakup at the end was already in the cards.

One final event from the sound-check. Totten kept Al over at the end to practice the end to Help me Rhonda.  Somehow the previous night at the Cincinnati show, Al screwed up his ending and Scott wanted him to practice. A disagreement between the two occurred on how it should be played at the end. Finally Scott says to Al.  "Al, this is how we play it NOW" and he walked away.  Al stayed, practiced it a few times....took off his guitar....looked down at everyone and just shook his head and walked off.  Again in retrospect, it was just very sad to see in person knowing what we all know now.

I did get to shake Al's hand at the M&G.  Mike was very personable to my wife as we had the picture taken.  He also wanted to know at what show I had bought my Beach Boys hat.  Kind of strange in retrospect, but I think he knew could tell it was from an M&B tour. 

It was a great evening but looking back, did I see stuff that, now having 3+ years of reading these threads, that was the beginning of the end.

Barsome,

I know it's been shared on here before, and I can't recall what publication/website its from, but I remember an interview with Brian and Mike from 2012 where Brian casually said they should do Marcella.  And Mike kinda brushed it off, saying something to the effect of "we don't know that one."  

So, it's interesting that you bring up Marcella as one of the main points on tension when it comes to the setlist.  It's also interesting that Marcella was one of the songs that made the cut for the live DVD that was released.

I wonder if any arms had to be twisted to add IJWMFTT or Pet Sounds to the setlist.  

That's a great story though, thanks for sharing.  Stories like this are why I really think a great book could be written about The Beach Boys of 2012.

  ::)  Ya...Sheriff...I too call upon you to name the handlers and give clear examples of this "handling"...OR...shut the 'eff' up. ::)

You insinuate that *we're* all stupid every time you post this kind of DRIVEL.

Exactly, he won't answer back as usual after posting that drivel.

Is anything incorrect here?

-other than the evidence of a rumored email, the statements about the end of the tour indicate that BW was willing to continue but ML was not.
-there was tension, probably in both directions, during the tour.
-when the tour ended there were press releases that basically aired their dirty laundry in public.
-since then, there's no indication that any of them have made an effort to work together again.

Without regard to anyone's motives or judgments about how right or wrong or good or bad some choices and actions and words were, would you say that the above is true?

To your four points:

1. True

2. Difficult to say. Depends on who you ask and which stories you hear. They certainly put a pretty good face on it and everybody (both the 5 BBs and the backing band) put on a stunning show. Undoubtedly some awkwardness, and most likely tension. But it may have been the sort of "one side stewing and not saying anything directly to anybody else." Bad management was a major culprit here.

3. The only actual "press release" issued regarding the end of the tour came from Mike's camp, clearly but rather poorly-timed and coldly letting people know that post-September 28th, any "Beach Boys" shows would not include Brian, Al, and David. As many have said, this statement was needed if Mike was going to continue on his own (which is probably why Brian's camp asked Mike to make such a statement). But it was not a "BRI" nor a "50 Big Ones Productions" statement, nor anything actually signed off by all members. It wasn't a unified, graceful "The End" from the band. It was a "don't ask for your money back if you go to a Beach Boys show and Brian isn't there" statement. The two statements from Mike and then Brian came in the form of "letters" sent to the LA Times. Mike seems to have been motivated by technically/legally-incorrect reports that he had "fired" anyone from the band. Both letters were de facto press releases of course, but technically "Letters to the Editor" or something along those lines. They weren't issued as press releases and distributed to all media outlets. Media outlets obviously picked it up from LA Times anyway.

4. In terms of all five members working together, true. I don't think anyone has proposed another full reunion album, tour, or even show. Mike apparently put invites out to all four of the others for his Ella Award in early 2014, and apparently a concert promoter for Mike's tour asked Al and David to play a Jones Beach show with Mike's band in the summer of 2014. But they understandably aren't pursuing another reunion given the current climate. I'm not sure what the impetus would be for such a project at this stage. A new, GOOD manager might propose something. But frankly, since Mike (unlike Brian and Al) doesn't seem to place the inherent quality of all of them being together above some sort of other incentive to be reunited, I'm not sure why he would agree to another reunion, unless BRI votes to revoke his license or something drastic like that.

Great post, thank you!

Regarding the hat.  Mike asked me the same thing in 2001!  Maybe he thinks someone is selling his secret stash to fans!  ;D

Thanks. That was really helpful.

The idea that Mike walked away from C50 is fan-tasy as I see it. There were no offerings for continuing C50 in 2012 to walk away from.  He, just like Brian, were expecting to take up the offers for 2013 or later after C50 ended, which is both of them understanding C50 had an end which was before any of the offers were for. Again, not walking away by either of them.  Mike asked for the 2013 offers, in writing no less, so they could be considered.  Again, not walking away.

If promoters were deceived by some misleading and bad press into dropping their offers that is not Mike walking away anymore than it is Brian or Al walking away.

What I don't understand is if BRI wanted to continue, why not seek offers and unanimity or majority rule?

Yeah guys, Ted Cruz is right. Mike didn't wanna take any time off from the reunion. He was totally cool to jump back into it in 2013.

Except that he was the guy talking up the fact that supposed "promoters" were telling him that the group should, "give it a rest for a year."

Apparently "giving it a rest" means touring under the same name ALL THE TIME and then not returning to the thing you were "resting."

Either way, to risk wrath, I don't see anything wrong with not continuing a tour that you don't want to continue. I don't really feel that it's owed to the fans.
I think, in terms of being reasonable people, the squawking to the press and public was the biggest misstep.
I understand that disappointed fans will be upset, but sometimes one is disappointed without someone really doing something wrong.
I also understand that BB fans have a lot of grievances and that one likes to air one's grievances (see the squawking to the press).

I agree with you 100% on that.

However, do you think someone should be able to end The Beach Boys as a true, artistically valid ongoing concern to tour with the group's name on their own? Is that "fair"?

Because basically what Doctor Love did was say, "I don't wanna be the in The Beach Boys anymore. So I'm quitting and taking the name with me."

He quit The Beach Boys so he could leave and have "The Beach Boys" be what he wanted it to be, and not the other guys.

My own personal opinion, which sadly no one at BRI heeds, there is no touring group since 1997 that ought to use the name "The Beach Boys".

Brian Wilson has established himself more strongly as a solo artist and ML/BJ are really touring as The Beach Boys Remnants rather than as independent artists, so I can see where using the BB name would matter more to them than it would to BW. I think it's possible that BW prefers to not use the BB name and as long as the others do, he gets income from that as well, right? Though I'd think by now none of them really need to worry about income.
I also think it's more than possible that BW's more content with his own separate show, in the end. I think there's probably some stress in the big shebang.

I don't know... there are a lot of BB related things I get worked up about, but this isn't one of them. Just me, I guess.

Mike chose not to continue touring with Brian, Al and David. Which begs a question:

Would it be possible for Brian and Al to end the touring license to Mike? Would they need Carl's estate to go along with the decision to avoid a stalemate?

I don't understand all of the " hate " toward Mike regarding that tour. It was supposed to be for 50 concerts. He agreed to play a couple of dozen more. That seems very kind in my opinion. After that he wanted it to end , so he could do his own thing . Nothing wrong with that. Of course he was booking Mike & Bruce concerts during the Reunion Tour . Promoters demand  concerts be booked well in advance , so they can book other shows and advertise the events properly. I don't think Mike did anything wrong. He just wanted it to end , and that was his perrogative.

Of course it's possible, but it ain't gonna happen. Brian Wilson isn't going to give up the existing agreement - getting paid for doing absolutely nothing. He's in this licensing agreement for the $$$$$$$$$. Show me the money.

I have a question for you, Marty. If part of the licensing agreement did NOT include Brian getting a cut from every show Mike Love performs, do you think Brian would've voted "yes", and do you think Mike would still have the touring license? Sorry, that was two questions...

Well, I don't see it as any more kind for him to continue any more than it was mean for him not to continue.

That agreement is nothing compared to the money these guys are worth. Plus Mike is probably scamming them out of what an agreement should truly be worth. Actually respond to this instead of posting and hiding afterwards.

Yeah, how ridiculous when they try to boil it down to "but Al and Brian really want that HUGE FAT CHECK for sitting on their ASSES DOING NOTHING." Yeah except letting Mike profit on a lifetime of their work and brand name, minimizing their importance whilst still mixing in maudlin video montages and "tributes,"  in exchange for what, a few crumbs? That sh*t wouldn't cover BW's pet food bills for the year.

It's more inertia, legal muscle, endless agony and bitterness such a move would cause. In their 50s? It'd happen. Early 70s? No way. Life's too short. Mike won and has excellent lawyers, he got a sweetheart deal that lets him live out his sunset years avoiding his family and playing casinos. He beat two dead cousins, his beloved "Cousin Brian," and Al Jardine. Yay Mike! The leader! Mr Positivity! Callin' the shots, picking the venues, ruling the setlist, pointing at people. No messy huge band to cut into his profit. No whiny Jardines wanting to throw in a folk song, no having to accomodate the composer of most of the music having his own needs. Not even having to put up with his son looking bored. Doin' it for the people. For the fans. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts! Er, wait not that bit.

 I don't think there will be a shakeup until the principals are dead and the estates are fighting over licensing the Jeff Foskett Boys.

I guess the reason I asked the question is that Brian and Al would seem to have the ability to force Mike to come back to the negotiating table if they raised the possibility of pulling the touring license. I doubt the license granted is without end.

Only four voting members of BRI. Two would not be able to pull the license. Indications are that at some point in the oughts it was granted in perpetuity. As long as Mike abides by the terms, it's his.

Unadulterated piffle, SJS, and you know it.

Brian Wilson is a single voting member in BRI. Mike has an ironclad agreement to use the name, voted on in the oughts, which means that short of every voting member of BRI deciding to suspend the licensing terms, it's his. Even if Brian and Al wanted to persuade Carl's estate to vote with them, Mike would sue them in a heartbeat if they even thought about taking the way the license.

As for the supposed money BW makes from Mike's touring, we've worked it out on the board -- and had it confirmed by sources close to BW. He brings in roughly $100,000 a year from Mike's shows. A drop in the bucket for a man of his means, and money I'm sure that he and Melinda would gladly forfeit if Mike gave up the name.

EDIT: The number I actually posted earlier this year was about a quarter-million dollars per BRI participant, not $100,000. I misremembered, and this is my bad.

If Mike was going to threaten a prolonged, viscious lawsuit, perhaps yes, Brian might have wanted to avoid a lawsuit, and Mike still might have gotten his way. Aside from the legit songwriting lawsuit, Mike's other suits against Brian seem to be loaded with bitterness and smack of bullying to me. I could see a suit which threatens THE single most important thing to Mike besides oxygen becoming the most bitter suit of all. Everyone knows this and nobody wants endless legal fees at this point.

Sorry BUT that is probably the most miss-informed load of utter bollocks I have ever read on ANY forum

Fair enough, but the word you're looking for is misinformed. Stop being so misinformed about being misinformed!

You found someone on the internet with a different opinion than yours, congrats. What exactly are you disagreeing with? That I think they probably won't revisit the licensing agreement until the principals are dead? That BW doesn't make much off of Mike Love's touring? Mike won. I don't know what the problem is. He gets to call the shots and got a helluva good deal out of the other guys.

It comes with a certain amount of scorn from folks online, any look at the comments section of any article about the Beach Boys post-C50 would tell you that! All in all, still not a bad deal. WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEN.

Why would Mike have brought up the denied "room" issue in the media repeatedly, if not in part for Mike wanting Brian, Melinda (who I'm sure he blames), and the world to know that this was part of why the whole C50, in the manner it went down, was a dealbreaker for him? That grievance was clearly A part, not necessarily THE part, but not a negligible part of why the whole thing didn't continue. If it was completely, absolutely unrelated to why the reunion ended, it wouldn't have been brought up by Mike, unprompted, in that context.

Wouldn't you agree that the guys (not just Mike) have some communication issues with each other?  How does a scenario where Mike *gets what he wants*: the room scenario, specific critical accolades (about how vital Mike specifically is incredibly great and underrated)...how do these hypothetical things make Mike *less* enthusiastic about at least making more of an effort to talk about band stuff with Brian? How does that scenario not at minimum help facilitate an extra conversation or two that *could* have at least led to a better ending than what we got?

You think the exact identical, unchanged scenario, complete with the LA times back-and-forth letters/rebuttals between Mike and Brian, would have happened under these circumstances? Yes or no, and why? I am specifically trying to understand how you could possibly agree with that, unless you avoid answering the question.

Ok, spot on for my poor English - Sorry
I have no problems at all in people having a different opinion to mine, that concept provokes (albeit) intellectual debate.
However I get really pissed off about individuals conjecture when none of us are party to actual facts. 

Reading that really rubs me the wrong way. It's ok for Brian's band (who made up most of the entire C50 band) to learn songs like Still Cruisin', Kokomo and Ballad of Ole' Betsy but Marcella shouldn't be played because Mike's two band members don't know it? Tough sh*t. Learn it. There were five surviving members of The Beach Boys on that tour and each and every one of them deserved to have a say in what songs should be performed. To have a reunion celebrating 50 years of music only to perform a greatest hits show (mostly consisting of a songs from 3 or 4 years) wouldn't have made sense and would have been a HUGE wasted opportunity.

No offense but who is Scott to tell Al how the end of Help Me Rhonda will be performed? He may have been the musical director but Al is a Beach Boy. He should show more respect for a Beach Boy. If the Beach Boy who sings the lead of that song wants to end it a certain way, then end it Al's way. Change your way of doing things for one tour. Then when the touring version of Mike's band goes back on the road, go back to how you end it. I just think that's absurd and it's a shame that fans who paid to sit in on that soundcheck had to witness crap like that. I would have been livid.

Well, its the same reason they were all pissy about the cantina version of Heroes & Villains and so loathe to include Our Prayer or Summer's Gone... So what, tough sh*t learn it indeed! Honor the guy's accomplishment and those other guys for playing it and learn some more parts!

But in retrospect aren't we glad they threw in Our Prayer and Summer's Gone a few times... sure made sense in that context and I hope one day we see/hear the London recordings undoctored and don't let Joe Thomas OR Mike Love's autotuner near 'em.  

1. Someday we'll learn what the issues were between the BBs guys and their wives. I'm sure minimal issues led to major squabble.

2. The setlist deal is (seemingly) a non-issue, as they seemed to accomodate just about everything Brian and/or Mike wanted. Perhaps it was part of the agreement that Mike was in charge of setlists.

3. Al doesn't seem to hold grudges about Brian nixing Waves of Love.

4. Mike does have an issue about how he wanted certain things to be, or how he was told things would be, and how they ended up being.

5. By the end of the way, Brian found out he wanted to keep touring with Mike. Alas it was too late.

6. I'd kill to see a new reunion. To see a new BB album come out. To hear a brand-new Brian Wilson rocker with a Mike Love lead. Seems far from possible, but then a reunion looked utopian by early 2011.

7. If none of this happens, I'm glad for all we've got. And for what a great year 2012 was.

This interview gives me little hope of a reunion:  http://www.examiner.com/article/beach-boy-alan-jardine-on-help-me-rhonda-and-working-with-brian-wilson

ESC: The 50th anniversary tour of 2012 was such a big success. I'm sure a lot of fans were disappointed when it ended after only some 70 shows. Do you see any chance of the band reuniting again in the near future?

AJ: I doubt it. Mike pretty much put the screws on the reunion. So I'd says it's not going to happen until East meets West (laughs). You know, I should never say "never," but it doesn't seem likely. On the other hand, I'm still singing pretty good, and Brian's doing remarkably well, considering all he's been through. I mean, it's all truly a miracle.


By the way, this quote was pretty Mike Love-esque:

ESC: It's been fairly well documented that Carl and Dennis were very heavily into drugs. Do you think meditation helped you avoid falling into the same destructive lifestyle?

AJ: Well, Dennis was just a shipwreck waiting to happen. I was never into that lifestyle in the first place. Learning meditation gave Mike and I something to do besides, you know, ... smoking dope ... which we never did, anyway. The Beatles, for some reason, kept on smokin' and dopin', even though they were meditating. John dropped out (of the meditating) right away, and probably Ringo too, but I know Paul and George kept meditating. Carl, by the way, did meditate, but couldn't beat the cancer.

Diggin' Al's interview a TON...the honesty and clarity leaves other 'spokepeople' in the dissipating wake of reality. :hat

Exactly.  It's really not complicated...The guy was there, working with both Mike and Brian over the years, and that's pretty much all the living originals, isn't it?  The rest of us didn't live it from that point of view.  Most of us weren't tossed the ball from quarterback Brian on top of singing with him.  Those who were in the various BB "realms" can speak to certain things - Ed Roach with Dennis comes to mind, among others.  But other than that, we mostly go on what experience we've had (if any) and our opinions, which are worth, well...

Love Alan's straightforwardness. Not loving the interviewer's research quite so much.

Yeah, on both counts.

AGD - Given your research efforts, I suspect pretty much any author will fall short.  They're cranking articles out to meet a deadline (I know the feeling) and in the world of the internet, that's like, yesterday.  But the interview is great.  

I like being old.  I say exactly what I think after lots of experience without worrying too much about my employer, since I'm an independent contractor.  Al probably doesn't have to worry about what he says at all, given his very fine chops.  Good for Al!  If people don't like it, they'll let him know, and he can care...or not.

Oh, and Emily, you seem to be very cool and smart - love your comments.

Interesting about Lady Lynda and Brian.  Guess that explains why he's launched into it randomly during sound checks on at least a couple of occasions

yeah, he can't even get al's birthday right..

Lee, didn't mean to ruin your weekend.  With both touring groups so ensconced with their "own" ways on presenting the BB music, I do recognized the difficulty joining a mixture of the groups for C50.  You're so right that BW had five members from his band and ML had his two, yet Totten was the musical director for the tour.  No one knows how entitled and enabled ML made him during the negotiations just to get the tour off the ground.  I'm a big AJ fan but one can read a post a day about Al being forgetful and missing lines and cues during songs.  Who knows what really came down and in MANY ways, I'm sorry I saw it with my own eyes.  Just a ton of large ego, past excess baggage, and a lot of hurt feelings from over 50 years, for this large an endeavor to have been successful given the past dis-functionality of the within group.  We all wanted different, but Al really says it all in this interview saying Mike put the squash on the tour and its not happening again until east meets west.  Just all so sad because the fans want it, oh so bad !!!

Five ? Darian, Jeff, Nelson, Probyn, Scotty, Paul and until he left due to ill health, Nicky (replaced by Mikey).

I'd like to point out that my post in this thread suggesting that Brian gets $100,000 a year from Mike's touring, was misremembered -- and thus totally wrong.

Earlier this year, I actually estimated that each member of BRI receives about $250,000 a year from the M&B show. (Basically, if Mike makes $70,000 from each show -- we know that promoters pay about $100,000 -- and does 100 shows in a year, he clears $7 million. At a 15 percent royalty to BRI, split four ways, you have a quarter million.) Give or take the number of shows, the actual percentage paid (which could be higher), the amounts promoters fork over and other factors, that amount could shift.

And as I've theorized before, I have a hunch that Brian wouldn't remotely need that revenue stream if Murry hadn't sold the catalog. I think we have Murry's actions to indirectly thank for Brian's vote, and I doubt M&B would have the license otherwise.

Al or anybody in the band would surely sometimes need a musical director (that's why these guys hire them!) to organize everything. But reading about Al being potentially talked to that way during a C50 rehearsal (and I realize, the actual tone of what was said is impossible to convey), it reminds of an anecdote David Marks told in his book with Jon Stebbins. The band leader tells Dave to "play it like the record!", and Dave tells him "I AM the record!"  :lol

If I was a musical director and Al was missing cues or biffing lyrics, I'd try to work it out (although what can you do other than to say "stop doing that!"?). But if he wants to end the song a different way than any or all prior touring bands have ended it, and the arrangement works structurally, I'd defer to the guy. Especially if it's his "signature" song that he's been doing for 47 years.

I think, though, that this is another example potentially for why the C50 tour was so amazing. Totten had never worked with Brian or Al (other than having Al at the one 2011 gig for a few songs), yet the whole musical direction came off quite well, at least from the audience viewpoint. Seriously, there may not be a band more bogged down by politics than the Beach Boys. That Totten got through it with the full band, having never experienced any of this turmoil and politics in person (say what you will about Foskett, but he was certainly there in person for some interesting band politics in the 80s, eventually getting involved in some side politics himself), I'd have to guess Totten just did his homework and perhaps was briefed on personalities and whatnot. I can't imagine easily "telling" Brian how to do his own songs when you've never worked with him before. I guess Foskett was the buffer there, I dunno. I any event, on C50 there were no "knees to the groin" when gathered around mics like Steven Gaines suggested happened in the late 70s in his book.  :lol

(Seriously, I'm still waiting for someone to substantiate the story of a Beach Boy literally kneeing another Beach Boy in the groin during a concert. I dunno, Brian got pretty excitable on the bass for some of those '77 shows!)

A live show shouldn't be OVERLY concerned with sounding exactly like the record. Band members taking a few liberties with the tunes in concert is nothing new. I don't know why it was suddenly an issue in 2012 on Scott Totten's part, but then again, I wasn't there.

This isn’t so much to speak to any specific person or incident, but with C50 there were some interesting factors at play. While Mike’s band has certainly added more rarities to the setlist in more recent years, they still do some arrangements a bit more in the mode of the “old touring band” days. A good example would be Mike’s band’s version of “Heroes and Villains”, which I know they only sporadically play. Before and after C50, Mike’s band does the 70s/80s (and occasionally 90s) touring band arrangement of the song, which leaves out the “my children were raised” bit, and has the rather different and more up-tempo, bombastic chorus arrangement. It also has the variation the BB’s started doing in the late 70s with the ascending bass guitar coming in after the a capella section.

Brian’s band of course was the first band to do an arrangement pretty close to the original studio version (sometimes adding the cantina section and the “you’re under arrest” bit as well, though only the latter was added for C50). (In early 1999, Al’s “Family & Friends” took a stab at a more elaborate version of H&V, and was perhaps the only time the “three score at five” verse was done live in concert).

In any event, you have Mike’s band and Brian’s band doing different arrangements of these songs. You throw Al into the mix who hasn’t regularly played in either band in a decade and a half, has been doing his own versions that tend to be like the old touring band versions but with his own small arrangement changes, and things could easily get confusing and charged with politics and egos.

To everyone’s credit, it appears the band largely simply stuck to Brian’s band’s arrangements since it was mostly his band and that would presumably be easiest, with small changes (and then using Mike’s arrangements mostly for stuff they never do, like “It’s OK”, “Still Cruisin’”, etc.). I’ve always been curious if anything other than convenience was the reason behind D’Amico taking over drums on a couple of Brian-centric songs like “Marcella” and “Pet Sounds.” Was that a moment of “just let us do it” on Brian’s part? Or did Cowsill just take the opportunity for a little break?

I've explained to you before why I don't answer many of your questions.

I don't know that any of that had anything to do with it.  Mike has said he was open to it and waiting for offers. This recent interview seems to suggest that some promoters suggested the band wait and the band took their advice. In the end, it seems no offers were put on their table as far as anyone knows. One or some other promoters (or maybe the same ones) blamed bad press for not tendering any offers apparently. What you are talking about doesn't seem to be in play, so I guess my answer is no.

Good. Since you're willing to concede that an alternate timeline - where 2012 Mike gets to write with Brian in a room for TWGMTR, leading to much critical praise specifically for Mike's essential contributions - would lead to not the identical C50 endgame implosion that happened in late 2012... well, you'd of course be correct. I'm sure even Mike would admit that it would be pretty inconceivable for that bitter fallout in that exact same manner, with the back-and-forth LA Times responses, to have identically occurred like that.

Of course it's possible that other factors could also have screwed up the reunion even in that alternate scenario, I'll certainly concede that - but no way it would have gotten that ugly that soon, the identical way it happened. Mike would have been riding high on being happy that he *finally* was getting the critical praise and admiration of HIS contributions that he makes no secret of deeply wanting.

Bottom line? Al didn't make any sort of repeated public stink about being shut out of the songwriting angle during the same album's formation, or use Waves of Love's rejection to repeatedly publicly try to prove any sort of point, or garner sympathy. Conversely, Mike made a huge stink repeatedly in the media specifically about the same thing, despite getting several hundred percent MORE songwriting credits on the final album when compared to Al.

I am well aware that Mike has contributed to the writing of many hit songs in the past, far moreso than Al. I needn't be reminded of that. But Mike, compared to Al, had FAR greater demands than Al for the reunion. Mike clearly felt far more entitled to a songwriting agenda happening on his own terms, compared to Al feeling any sort of similar entitlement. Mike's public moaning about songwriting vs Al's lack of public moaning clearly represents the two men's different views. Maybe you think that Mike's entitlement is okay and justified due to his past hits. Regardless, this alone shows Mike's greater needs/demands for the reunion compared to go-with-the-flow Al. It makes no sense to claim that a relatively-speaking much more demanding person not getting their way is equally "responsible" for the ugly ending compared to a much more easygoing member.

The group's legacy - as opposed to any one member's legacy  - was something that Al was able to prioritize. Mike wasn't. C50 was Mike's last-ditch attempt to gain widespread recognition for Mike's role in the BBs (IMO that was the primary reason for the reunion happening whatsoever); when that failed to play out how he wanted to, Mike was obviously deincentivized to continue.

You keep grasping at straws trying to distract from the points I am making - not addressing them whatsoever - by saying the band didn't meet up in a boardroom to discuss future plans... we don't know if subterfuge may have happened behind the scenes that may have caused that meeting to not happen. Mike clearly had huge demands that weren't met, larger than Al's demands. There's no way Mike's resulting bitterness was a 100% negligible factor in why the meeting and discssions didn't properly happen; it defies logic. Thus, there's no way "equal" blame makes any sense, unless everything I stated above is simply avoided.

The points you keep trying to make are the deflections and distractions imo which is what I meant by "I don't know that any of that had anything to do with it" and then I gave my reason why.