The Smiley Smile Message Board

Hi All,

So Phil Miglioratti, operator of the Pray for Surf blog, and I got to continue our chat with Jim Hirsch, collaborator on Mike's "Good Vibrations" memoir. Because the topic sparked a whole lot of conversation here, we talked more about the notion of Mike not touring with Brian and Al anymore due to the 50th Anniversary tour losing money. But this was a far more wide-reaching conversation about Mike and how he is perceived, his relationships with the other band members, Mike's assessment of Brian's other collaborators and various Beach Boys albums, the book's unresolved ending, revelations about Charles Manson, and more.

You can listen here:

https://archive.org/details/JIMHIRSCH10282016PART2

Mark: Thank you again for posting the interview. On several points, it was good to have you there to interject where necessary.

I listened to the whole thing. Unlike what happened with part 1, would you be willing to have a dialogue with me on this forum about these interviews? The comment section on Phil's blog has not gotten any activity, even on part 1, and there seemed to be demand for some dialogue or "after show" at least here with the number of comments and discussions. Smiley Smile got a shout out, so the invitation to you and Phil is open.

I understand the why's and how's about asking questions, and handling guests. However, the points raised after part one were completely ignored, and the answer given to C50's "lost money" issues did not address the facts and figures versus the claim itself - Back to the part 1 discussions, 15 million dollar domestic gross, 11 weeks on tour, average 1.3 million per week. It's public and industry record - not a word was said. Maureen Love, Steve Love, the 2005 lawsuit especially related to Al Jardine since the topic of Mike and Al's relationship was raised...nothing.

I know Phil is a member here, but if he doesn't read this or reply, I hope what I'm about to say gets passed onto him.

Phil: At one point, you brought up the people around Brian, harming Brian as they were harming Mike, the discussion was around those issues. The names were raised: Murry, Landy, Landy again, and then you said those around him now, or the current situation, I'll have to go back for the exact quote. You did mention Melinda, as in not wanting to name her by name, but that's my issue.

That upset me, and perhaps you can clarify if you didn't mean it to sound as it did.

Phil, are you not seeing that these "people around Brian" and his current situation that you list after Murry and Landy 1&2 are the man's wife and children? If you are going to do what Mike has done in interviews, and draw a continuous line from Landy to 2016, I'll take serious issue with that and ask for more clarifications.

It became especially frustrating when toward the end, the discussion turned to the effect that criticism of Mike can and does have on his family and his children who read it.

Unless you view marriage and raising children as part of that marriage and sacred bond differently than I do, and that's possible, is not having a wife of 21 years and raising children (i.e. a family) applicable to the Wilsons as well?

I could not believe the comments connecting Landy to present-day in any way related to Brian's everyday life when Mike and others said them in the past, and I was more disappointed than incredulous to hear one of the interviewers of this podcast suggest the same thing.

Beyond that, there is more to discuss and I wish not as many points raised and reacted to from part 1 had been left out of part 2.

Hi GF,

Happy to have a dialogue. We gave Jim the chance to elaborate on the claim of the 2012 tour losing money, and he responded with as much as he knows--and he admitted that his knowledge on the subject was limited. We could have pressed, but I don't think he had any more to add, and there was a lot more to talk about. I had Mike's 2005 lawsuit against Brian on my list of questions, but if the question is why it isn't mentioned in the book, I think the answer is obvious: because Mike lost the lawsuit. And I agree with you--I would never draw any kind of comparison between Landy and Melinda.   

Thanks Mark.

When Jim started to say he'd like to clarify something he said in part 1 about C50, I thought it would be on the losing money comments. But instead he started to talk about the whole "Mike fired Brian" deal, which I don't recall even coming up prominently in part 1 or on this forum reacting to part 1, unless I missed it. But the whole issue was trying to set the numbers to agree with the statements, and in all honestly Jim avoided answering it. If he had no proof other than Mike said it lost money, then he could be open to the suggestion that the facts and figures from the US leg of the tour suggest otherwise.

What I have seen over and over again is this notion that Brian would be writing with if not touring with Mike "if only...", and the "if only..." in this case went back to "if only the people around Brian would allow it", which suggests yet another myth and outright fallacy about how "controlled" Brian is...because he's not working with Mike and touring in Mike's current band lineup, is the implication he's not allowed to? That's absurd. yet the implications are always popping up. And I would like to hear what Jim would say if asked about these very issues, although both Jim and Phil seemed willing to draw that line from Landy to 2016, and that's sickening.

Is this what Mike believes, do you think? Is the thought boiling down to "If Melinda were not in the picture, Brian and Mike would be together"?

Marriage and raising a family wins out every time. Especially a 21 year marriage. I don't understand why that cannot be accepted for what it is.

I think the bottom line is that Mike is happy with his current touring arrangement, and Brian is happy working in the studio with Joe Thomas. 

I have to go there Mark, you hinted at it:  ;D

If Mike got what he wanted re: the touring situation returning to his terms and how he wanted it to be after C50 ended, then why is everyone still pining away for another situation like C50? And if he wanted to work with Brian again in terms of recording, would Mike agreeing to do some of the songs as "Beach Boys" songs which ended up on No Pier Pressure instead have been a way to facilitate that?

What some fans want and what Brian and Al want doesn't necessarily jibe with what Mike wants. And Mike has said it before, he wants to write with Brian from scratch; he doesn't want any part of songs Brian has already finished or nearly finished.

That's more of the same sentiment Mike has been speaking for years, he wants to get Brian alone in a room with a piano and write from scratch. But what if that isn't how Brian has been either writing, or wants to write? Mike cites Good Vibrations and California Girls, yet those were not written "from scratch" between the two of them. With CG, Brian had the full backing track and music completed mostly on his own before the final lyrics were added, and same with GV. If those were the high points of their collaboration, they were not done as Mike seems to want to do hypothetically.

And Mike and Brian did write together again as soon as Brian got away from Landy, dozens of songs beyond the ones we already know (or have demos of) according to Don Was. Why did the band put the kibosh on those?

I'm sure Mike feels much more independent now than during Brian's 1960s peak and insists on being more of a driver of any collaboration between them. As for what songs may have been written in the Don Was period, Don blames himself for not seeing through more recording; it's also been pointed out that Carl didn't see a lot of good in what had been recorded, particularly the Andy Paley co-writes "Soul Searchin'" and "You're Still a Mystery," which I think are both very good. 

Thanks to all who listened and commented. And to Mark; he was great.

I did not mean to equate Melinda with Murry or Landy. I believe in marriage (I've officiated at scores of them). I believe she loves Brian and works hard to protect him. She is not seeking to harm her husband and from what I can tell they have a genuine loving relationship. She is, however, very involved with all decisions regarding Brian's career, a role similar to Murry and Landy.  Not everyone involved with the Beach Boys will always agree with the decisions she makes or implements. She is a loving wife who is involved in creative and business decisions, as was Murry and Landy. Trying to clarify ...

That's a clarification which did not come through during the interview with Jim Hirsch, and not one which Mike's comments in the book or interviews seem to make either. Ultimately it's not a one-way street, and the point could have been raised or at least a question asked to open further discussion about both Mike's and Brian's marriages as related to business and decisions made. How involved in the family business is Mike's wife Jackie? A fair question since the topic always and almost exclusively focuses on Brian and his wife Melinda.

It does upset me to see a 21 year marriage involving children being called out regularly with the implied priority being Mike and Brian writing songs together, and the priority going straight toward "if only..." as in why that isn't happening.

I'd suggest beyond that, maybe if the public comments in the book, interviews, etc made by Mike were not going after Brian's wife as they have, maybe the relationship between cousins would be different. But how many spouses would want to work with someone who has been openly criticizing their husband or wife for years? At some point it's bigger than "The Beach Boys" and it's real life. If someone trash talked my wife or girlfriend publicly, I wouldn't want anything to do with them.

Did either Mike or Jim Hirsch in recent interviews say that they were happy to see Brian happily married and raising a family? It always comes back to Mike and Brian not writing songs or sharing the stage together for live concerts. How about the simple goodwill of saying "I'm happy to see Brian is happy and raising a family with the woman he loves." ? That might go a very long way toward ending the estrangement.

Agreed.

For me personally, if someone was saying the kind of things about my wife that Mike has about Melinda, I would beat the holy hell out of them. If Mike truly wants to be "alone in a room" with Brian, he sure as hell is going about it the wrong way.

Billy, I keep coming back to that point and it amazes me that Mike has seemingly not considered the personal, basic, real-life consequences of publicly going after a man's wife in the press and in his book. And when Jim Hirsch and this part 2 of the interview seemed to be going down a similar path, I couldn't help but think "maybe this is why they're not working together", and I had to question (and will continue to do so) if they can't see the importance or even the most basic notion of a marriage. If you attack my spouse, you're attacking me. And consequences will be swift and severe. Maybe they don't see it that way, but that's the brass tacks of it. Or any marriage for that matter.

That is the one of the aspects which is either hard to understand or hard to rectify, how it seemed to be Carl who was the one not in favor of the new material. There was obviously more to the whole thing, but you had Brian just getting free of Landy who told Don Was he wanted to get back to working with the Beach Boys, Mike was back writing songs with Brian again, and it just fell apart.

I'd also suggest there were more missed opportunities and blown chances including the events surrounding Baywatch, and others, but Brian and Mike were back together writing songs as Mike has been wanting for years, yet it folded when it really did happen.

What I'd also like to see a discussion of is why there has been such a lack of original material coming from Mike himself, whether alone or in collaboration with anyone else, over the past 20+ years. Any talk of a new project from Mike always seems to revert back to remakes and re-recordings of Beach Boys material, or unused Beach Boys songs from decades ago. If there is a sense of independence, would Mike's fans be out of line in asking where are any new songs from Mike versus remakes?

There's long been the promise of a solo album, and Hirsch says one is forthcoming, but most of Mike's time is no doubt taken up by his crazy touring schedule.

In the latter half of part 2, I don't remember who said it, but the comment was made that Mike needs his cousin Brian to write songs, or something to that effect. That makes it sound like Mike's songwriting, or even the act of writing something new, hinges on working with Brian, with all the associated conditions Mike has listed through the years (alone in room with Brian and piano, etc.). Yet the fact he is playing so many shows might suggest it's a time/scheduling factor too, as in he's touring so much he doesn't have time to write new songs? It's not as much a contradiction, but it brings another element into why he's not writing new songs in general, with or without Brian in a room. I still think for Mike's fans, the lack of new songs and the next solo album he's been teasing for over 30 years must raise questions like why does he always go back to remakes and where is a new album after decades of teasers?

I'll make a wild guess and say that without a very strong collaborator, it is not possible or anywhere in reach of him writing a decent song. Looking at his songwriting history, there's little that would cue up the senses of even his most loyal fans let alone most of the record buying public which is something that would definitely mess with his fragile ego issues if it didn't sell well and most of us know it wouldn't. Perhaps he's trying to garner some sort of interest that he thinks may steamroll over the years ( like Smile certainly did) but that's not going to happen if the material is comparable with duds like Pisces Brothers, Daybreak, Sumahama, and Everyone's In Love With You among other vein attempts.

I think Mike's need to rewrite history by insinuating that he was more central to the creation of the songs has been his top priority ever since "Kokomo." Curiously, his book doesn't provide us with anything specific about the creative process that would seriously support such a claim. This is difficult to do because the "claims to art" that the BBs have continue to center around Pet Sounds and SMiLE, two works where Mike's creative involvement is well-known to be minimal.

Basically Brian abdicated the Beach Boys to Mike somewhere in the mid-90s, and that coincides with Brian's marriage and his on-again/off-again creative association with Joe Thomas. It would have been interesting to frame a question to Hirsch around this idea and see if he would have taken the bait to talk about that, but the great likelihood is that he would stick to the Mike faction's line about "Brian's people" estranging him from Mike.

It goes back to what I noted elsewhere: this situation would be vastly different if Carl had not died so young, and particularly if he were still with us. The dynamics would be completely different. Mike has had his way totally with image making and income creation for the BBs since Carl's passing, and the inconvenient truth is that he's doing it mostly due to the creative genius of a cousin who has long preferred to work with other collaborators. One of the notable things about Brians book, BTW, is how much praise he has for Jack Reiley. It would have been interesting to hear Hirsch talk about (or try to talk about) Jack's role in the band--a point in time when Mike actually started writing songs on his own.

The points I raised in another topic regarding the mid-90's period could be applicable here too. When Brian was doing the documentary with Don Was, that was the time when he was finally free from Landy. The first thing he told Don Was he wanted to do was get back with the Beach Boys, and Don was there to act as the facilitator. According to Was, Mike possibly would have been in the documentary in some way, but the issues surrounding the lawsuit prevented that from happening. Still, Was had facilitated Brian getting back together with the band - free of Landy - and Brian and Mike were actively working on writing new songs for the band. The problem was, the ideas were vetoed.

Then, it got into the issues of Brian producing and actively working together with them again in general. According to Carlin's book, this did not go well either, and Brian's return was not what some would have wanted or imagined. That's when they tried to get Brian together with Sean O'Hagan, and that too didn't work.

Even beyond that - and I've said a lot about this before too, so apologies for repeating and rehashing - there were moments like the Baywatch appearance(s). Brian was back in the fold, there was legitimate buzz around this and I remember it well because I followed the news closely, yet what did the Baywatch "reunion" produce? Brian was there, and he basically contributed nothing. There were still photos of the band in front of a woodie wagon carrying a longboard, Brian was in a video on the beach wearing a black suit and Chucks with the reaction I think most of us would have had - "what the hell am I doing here?". And a "concert" was promoted to be filmed for Baywatch, that would have featured Brian for the first time with the band (or that's how it was hyped) in ages, yet when the concert actually happened, Brian shined on them. And I don't blame him a bit.

So around this same time period, those 3 years or so prior to Carl's passing, Brian was free of Landy, he wanted to reconnect with the band, and he did. Yet he was given a seat on the bench more or less. His songs including those he worked up with Mike were rejected, his "reunion" on Baywatch saw him standing on the beach doing nothing as John Stamos played electronic drums as the waves rolled in behind him, and Brian looked like an extra in his own band, for the reunion that a lot of fans and Brian himself had been waiting for.

It turned into a debacle. And even worse, the songs featured on Baywatch weren't even songs Brian had been involved with making. "Summer Of Love", several years old at the time, was the "video" on Baywatch.

My thoughts are the same as they were 20 years ago - If Brian Wilson is reuniting with the band, why didn't they give him more of a role instead of plugging stale songs from Summer In Paradise when the band had an audience of millions worldwide with Baywatch? It was a debacle.

Then Brian gets contacted by Mike about the country album Mike was developing with Joe Thomas. Brian says he'd do it if they got Willie Nelson. Willie got involved, Brian got involved, but after Willie's session, which Brian was involved with, his level of involvement dropped off. Not that he didn't produce, but not as directly as he did with Willie Nelson. Then he made some appearances and PR junkets for Stars & Stripes, but essentially they were running through remakes of old hits.

If I were in Brian's shoes (black Chucks of course, lol...) I'd be a little miffed. He came back hot and ready to write songs and work with the band, he wrote a few solid songs with Mike, he produced a terrific cover by Willie Nelson, he wanted to do more. But for whatever reasons we want to list, his involvement and return put him on the bench more or or less instead of being in the starting lineup where many fans were expecting him to be.

When Carl passed away, around that same time as he started working with Joe who was getting things done in that moment, as he started to play those one-off shows and have those tribute shows where artists were telling him how much they appreciated his music, I have to think he figured if my bandmates don't want me back in full, I'll do it myself, including touring with live shows with musicians who can play my music and who want to play my music without conditions. And that's exactly what he did, and he's still doing it. Instead of standing on a beach with soundtrack music he had nothing to do with, he would be out there on his own with music he actually did write, and giving shows for fans who wanted to see and hear him.

In a history full of blown opportunities and allowing the red-hot irons of expectation and opportunity to go cold, this 1994-97 period ranks near the top of the BB's list.

(Sean) MacCreavey or O'Hagan? 😉

Thanks! Sean O'Hagan. It's now fixed.

Is it possible that those mid-90s BB sessions were scrapped in part because Mike didn't get to write with Brian in a room? Was that a concern back then too? Being that some pre-existing Paley material was brought to the table, maybe that just soured Mike on it from the beginning, regardless of how good the material was (in my mind, I could easily imagine that the quality level of how good any pre-existing material was would be a secondary concern to Mike if he was so fixated on writing songs from scratch). I know that Carl famously was not cool with the material, and that could be due to any number of reasons too.

I know that the Paley material from that era is well known.  Is much specifically known about the "solid" Brian/Mike material that was vetoed?

I've often wondered what Carl's issue was with the material, and why he apparently vetoed a PS Live tour (per the Carlin book)...

Although Brian was around during the Baywatch period, I suspect he was not up to writing and producing at a high level.

Carl had seemingly lost confidence in himself and the boys to sing the challenging material. Al had to really push him into the 93 tour and even doing SOS in concert.  It's too bad, Brian backed by Carl, Al, and Matt would have nailed a mid 90s PS tour had they put their best into it.

I really wish someone could get access to folks close to Carl to find out what Carl's deal was, especially in the 90s. No personal or family stuff, no health stuff. But just concerning his attitude towards the band. It definitely seems like Carl, even before becoming ill, abdicated some leadership in the band, and also seemed skittish about doing anything other than the hits in concert.

I think Carl was resigned to audiences not wanting the deep cuts. I think he had some justification in this, as it was ironically just after he died that Brian went out on tour and capitalized on the sort of "indie/hipster" cred the band was gaining thanks mostly to Brian and "Smile" and all of that, but that ended up extending to other areas of the band's deep catalog.

Had Carl been around in the 2000s, I think he would have maybe finally felt comfortable doing deep cuts and getting a bit more esoteric on stage and in the studio.

It's hard to say. His musical taste was, *very arguably*, skewing more conservative as he got older. The "Beckley-Lamm-Wilson" stuff is certainly in many ways the antithesis of something like "You're Still a Mystery" both musically and production-wise.

I also think there was still some interpersonal and political things going on within the band and between Carl and Brian that made even those late-era sessions perhaps not so easy.

But in terms of the Paley stuff, we really only have 2-3 songs to go off of. Maybe Carl just didn't like aspects of those songs and nothing more. Remember too that we've never even heard the version of "Soul Searchin'" that he added his vocals to. I love "You're Still a Mystery", but that probably wasn't going to be a hit single. I think maybe the sticking point is that they shouldn't have been eyeing a hit single at that stage and really embraced what old fogey artists like Dylan and McCartney and all of them were becoming, which is "albums" artists exclusively.

I think part of it was, and this is talked about in one of the books (perhaps Carlin), that Carl didn't think Brian could do it. And I can't 100% disagree with Carl's sentiment if we're putting ourselves back into 1996 or 1997. Brian hadn't done much touring or live performances. If Carl had been around, he would have seen a few 1998 performances from Brian that weren't too hot either.

I also don't think the BB touring band of the circa 1996-97 timeframe could have pulled off PS that well (let's be honest, as great as the 1993 Paramount show is and the GV boxed set was in general, some of those songs sound a little bit limp with the 90s tinkly keyboards, not to mention Kowalski's drumming). That's not to say they couldn't have augmented the touring band to do a PS tour, or just used a different band. But it's probably another factor as well that may have weighed on Carl in considering a PS tour.

I think doing PS live, or doing deep cuts in general, just needed the proper time and context. I think Carl just missed that sweet spot by a few years.

My criticism of Carl nixing a PS tour circa 1996/97 would be other things, such as the fact that Carl and Al could have taken up a bunch of Brian's leads. They could have had Brian sit in more with the touring band to "road test" Brian a little more, and so on. So while I think *some* of Carl's potential misgivings about a PS tour with Brian in the late 90s were justified, I also think they *could have* done it and it *could* have been good.

So much of the discussions in general revolve around the notion of "what if..." and "if only..." sentiments, a lot of them centered around Mike and Brian working together again specifically Mike wanting that to happen free of "those around Brian", and what I can't help but notice as that elephant in the room is that it did happen, and it turned into a debacle.

So I plug in this "what if?" scenario: What if the new material being worked up by Brian, Don Was, Paley, and Mike actually did develop into something concrete for the Beach Boys? Would it have been worse than what we got instead? "Summer Of Love" and Stamos playing electronic drums on the beach on Baywatch? A farce.

In terms of Brian's production chops circa 1994-95, was he the Brian from 1965 in terms of studio work? There may have been a need for slow steps at first, a re-introduction perhaps just like a baseball player who hasn't played for several years staging a comeback getting their timing back and getting back into shape to play, etc. But ultimately I'm left as many fans were I'm sure with the feeling that the band squandered something big and went for something that backfired instead.

And I'd suggest the "event" of Brian returning to cutting records with the band would have superseded a lot of other issues anyway. How about not only Brian returning, but Brian and Mike writing songs together again - And consider Brian's involvement was key to the Stars & Stripes project, which led to Willie Nelson agreeing to the project, which led to the credibility within the country music world that brought other artists like Lorrie Morgan into the project. Brian was on board, his condition was getting Willie on board, and after Willie signed up the rest of the artists who agreed followed him and the project happened.

So whether Brian's production chops were 100% or not, the credibility and recognition of him being involved was still viable.

And as I already posted, instead of doing more with him, Brian was put on the bench as a reserve player for the BB's. And a few short years later, separate from the band and Mike's ideas on touring the band after Carl's passing, he had a new album, TV specials and appearances, and a solo tour under his belt. He hasn't stopped since.

I think, especially by the 90s and into today, the group needs some person outside of the group that's kind of "running" the thing and clapping their hands and saying "okay, here's what we're gonna do." Not so much in terms of arrangements or musical production, where Brian can still have a stronger hand.

But the Joe Thomas *type* is exactly the type they need. A guy with cash and organizational skills, and (at least up to 2012) a good, easy going relationship with all of the guys.

It doesn't have to actually *be* Joe Thomas, but it can't just be a random person either. Don Was served a similar function in the 90s and *couldn't* get much of anything group-wise actually done.

Specific to Phil and Mark and the discussions with Jim Hirsch:

This is a post from another topic here about a board member's experience at a book signing in the last few days that featured Mike and his wife Jackie. The parts I'm putting in bold are along the lines of some of my reactions posted here in this thread about Part 2 of the interview.



My point was and is if Mike's issue is working with Brian again, this kind of thing does absolutely nothing toward facilitating such a working relationship between the two cousins.

The old adage, you cannot have it both ways applies here.

It seems as if, post-C50, while Mike will still lament not getting to write with Brian, he has given up actually trying to (not that he ever tried hard to going back into the previous decades). Four solid years of insulting your bandmate's wife, comparing her to arguably the biggest villain in the band's history and one of the biggest villains in the history of modern popular music (who could one argue is worse? Maybe Stan Polley with Badfinger?). Mike isn't dumb, he knows he's not moving the band closer to reconciling.

I think he doesn't like Melinda (duh of course), never wanted to continue the reunion, and the way C50 played out gave him the chance to wash his hands of the whole thing *and* try to claim it's all someone else's fault.

Yet in Part 2 of the interview with Jim Hirsch, that's not the message being conveyed. In fact it was quite the opposite, with the suggestions being made how much Mike wants to reconcile with Brian and get back to writing songs, how great it would be to have the two cousins share a stage again, how it could and should happen "if only..." it was the two men with no one else.

And it comes back to not being able to have it both ways. Or suggest one thing while actions and words suggest something else entirely.

I think Mike did the same "if only we could be writing together" thing going back many years prior to C50, and I think the fact that he walked away from it and also, according to people on the scene during the tour, made no attempts to write with Brian with no Melinda around nor any other potential interlopers, suggests to me that he has always found *talking* about being with Brian easier than actually doing it.

Mike wouldn't come across as well in interviews today (or in past years) if he expressed a "Eh, f**k it, I guess it would be nice to write with Brian, but it ain't gonna happen and I don't care anymore" sort of attitude. The way it is, he gets (or attempts to portray) the best of both worlds. He doesn't have to *actually* deal with Brian or Melinda or anyone else being in charge of anything. He gets to still be in charge of his own thing, while claiming he'd love to work with Brian.

His weird mixed/ambivalent feelings and statements about Al (and lack of discussing Al in many cases) indicates his main goal is not to reunited all of the band members, and certainly not to keep them reunited.

That's where it comes off as appropriate for two old adages: You can't have it both ways, and actions can speak louder than words. But in this case, the words of Part 2 combined with Mike's words as recent as the last few days show something of a disconnect. A disconnect from the reality of the situation, perhaps?

Agreed..and the organizational aspect IMHO is key.

What would such a person even organize at this point in 2016 beyond archival projects? Brian is playing a tour which has sold out over the past year, and just did a triumphant show at Royal Albert Hall playing Pet Sounds to standing ovations from a packed house. 2015 saw a new album, a tour, a movie, and each was well-received. 2016 has the Pet Sounds tour, which is still selling out and receiving standing ovations from those packed houses, and his book was just released also to wide acclaim. The future Pet Sounds dates are already booked into 2017. He has the best touring band of musicians I've personally ever heard play who can simply knock this material out of the park on a nightly basis and do it with the utmost groove, feel, and respect, and he also has Beach Boys Al and Blondie delivering the goods every night they perform. It's Brian doing it as Brian and it's hitting on all cylinders.

Maybe I'm missing where the benefit would be for him to join Mike's band or have Mike and Bruce on an album with him doing BB's remakes, or whatever else would be organized. I'd say that ship has already sailed and Brian is now cruising in his own luxury yacht at this point, enjoying the hell out of it with good people on board. Sail Away indeed.

           V E R Y   W E L L  S A I D .

In Badfinger fan circles, people often talk about Joey Molland's wife Kathie as the biggest villain in the band's history. Even her death a few years ago hasn't silenced the trash talkers.

I'd say the notion of having a "Joe Thomas" type was first raised in reference to times when the band is "together" in some sense and ready and willing to work together and simply need an organizer.

But there would certainly be huge benefits to having a *group* manager now, in the vein of a Neil Aspinall type. The idea isn't that a group manager now would be trying to shoehorn members into each other's projects (although ideally a good manager *could* get everyone back to the table for another reunion along the lines of C50). It would be about a manager working for the *brand* as much as anything else. Certainly archival projects would be one big area. But they could have a manager that could teach these guys to be nice about each other's projects. Cross promote each other's solo albums and other projects. At least teach them how to work well with each other when they're not even really working with each other. This would ideally have a large PR aspect to it, and would entail reigning Mike's negative BS in. Yes, I realize some would suggest that simply can't be done. But I think the right manager could do it, and the other board members could assert a very small amount of control over it. No big lawsuits or "we're gonna vote to strip the license tomorrow" sort of stuff. Just very moderate "play nice or the board will work towards making everyone play nice."

I've read a good deal on Badfinger (Dan Matovina's book primarily), watched the documentaries, so I'm definitely familiar with Joey and his wife's role in the saga.

Both have definitely been villainized. Not completely without some justification, though obviously the extremes are almost always unwarranted. And yeah, since her death, you'd think people would let that part of it go.

The Badfinger story is interesting (and beyond depressing), and part of what I wish people like Mike Love would learn is some humility. If you read the laundry list of things Mike Love is disgruntled and disenfranchised about, and then read the Badfinger story, Mike's attitude seems almost laughable. Those Badfinger guys are guys that truly got screwed. Yes, they were insanely naïve and made a lot of bad decisions, but they had low points that make most any Beach Boys story pale in comparison.

The band also has a crazy songwriting/royalty setup that's unfair almost in the *opposite* way to what Mike complains about with the Beach Boys, where all four Badfinger members plus the manager collect songwriting royalties on stuff even if they had no  hand in writing it.

Good lord, imagine how bent out of shape Mike would be if to this day the royalties (and ASCAP award-type honors) for "Good Vibrations" or "California Girls" were split between Brian, Mike, Al, a still-living Murry Wilson, and the estates of Carl and Dennis.

Short detour: Check any number of albums and song credits up to the present, including and especially bands, and you'll see the extremes on all sides that make Mike's issues at least comparable and able to be contrasted with others.

Two that stick out: Red Hot Chili Peppers. Check the credits, most if not all songs when John Frusciante came back into the fold (Californication onward until he left again) list all band members as co-writers. That seemed to be the way they wanted to work, as an equal partnership and team. Yet it is known that especially on albums like By The Way, Frusciante not only wrote a bulk of the music, but he also arranged and produced a lot of what is on that album, and others too. Yet he isn't given producer's credit, and apart from Kiedis' lyrics, on some tracks John gave the other members their parts to play, like Brian did or John Fogerty or even Stills back in the day. And it nearly split the band...yet the results spoke for themselves with the success of the albums. So that's one aspect.

I could be wrong but I think a bulk of the original Guns N Roses songs from "Appetite..." are credited to all band members, even though a lot of the music and lyrics were written by Izzy and Axl, in fact they'd even go away for writing sessions and come back with the songs.

Then look at The Strokes. The debut album, Is This It, was a hyped-up smash hit, spun at least three radio and video singles and put them on the map. The only official songwriter listed on the credits is lead singer Julian Casablancas. Yet listening to solo albums from Albert Hammond Jr (The guitarist with the white Strat and big hair, for those not as familiar with the band), you can plainly hear what Hammond brought to the band and the songs. It's all there from the chords to the rhythms, yet we're reading the credits and are supposed to believe the lead singer Casablancas wrote 100% of the music and lyrics?

Maybe they had some agreement or did it to dodge taxes, whatever the case...but if people don't hear Albert Hammond Jr in the songwriting, they're deaf.

Just examples from other bands with major albums that sold in the millions and how credits were given out.

The attitude of the band members, and the level of success they have attained, also of course plays a role. When everybody's already rich beyond imagination from the whole thing, it's easier to be liberal about credits. Also, when a band hasn't "hit" it big at all, they can also sometimes tend to be very democratic and "we're all in this together" about songwriting credits.

With a band like Badfinger, the problem is that they never really reaped the financial rewards they probably should have, and never attained mega-superstardom. So they were also sniping at each other (well, not so much Pete Ham apparently; but most of the others) and would get (understandably) kind of grubby about going after any money they could. It continues to this day. Original member Ron Griffiths and his replacement Joey Molland as recently as a few years ago were trading internet nastygrams with each other about old royalties. Again, I laugh at Mike's self-proclaimed disenfranchisement compared to something like Griffiths, where he discovered that his royalties on the first few albums he plays on were incorrectly being sent to Molland (who had replaced him).

With the Beach Boys, you have rather disparate personalities and not one single main writer, nor one songwriting team. The odd thing about the songwriting case with Mike is that his level of indignation has in several different cases been *so delayed.* Filing the lawsuit in the 90s was obviously delayed quite a bit (he attempt to explain this in his book), and some 20 years after *winning* the lawsuit, he has in recent years become more angry about it. It's odd because his name is on the songs, he's collecting the royalties, he has control of the BB name touring, and is insanely rich off the entire thing.

Hey guys, a general question back to Joe Thomas.  What was his exact "duties or job" during the Nashville/Star and Stripes Album ?

I think the back cover read "Produced by Brian Wilson & Joe Thomas" and "Executive Producer: Mike Love."

I would imagine he served a similar role compared to "Imagination", perhaps an even more prominent role since Brian wasn't exactly the ring leader of that entire project on every song.

Are/Were there any indications that Mike left this project with hard feeling towards Joe Thomas.....The license to Mike was issued only a couple years later that gave him control of the touring band enabling him to be in control of brand ???   A lot happened in those two years.....Carl's decline and death....lawsuit by BRI/Mike against AL  etc etc....

Joe and Mike connected I believe before Joe and Brian met. Guitarfool posted some good background in this post:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,24284.msg590741.html#msg590741

A guy connected Joe and Mike, they talked the S&S idea over, and then after that Brian got involved.

I would imagine once the band fractured in 1997/98, Mike didn't give Thomas much thought one way or the other. Joe began working with Brian solo, so I guess maybe Mike could have seen Joe as clearly in the "Brian camp."

But Joe was gone by the summer of 1999 and didn't resurface in the Brian/BB universe for another decade.

It seems like Mike and Joe had a potentially complicated relationship for C50 in 2012. On the one hand, Joe was a huge part of making the tour happen and securing the cash for Brian and Mike and the entire operation. I would guess Mike liked that, and even during the tour praised Joe for putting the whole thing together. Less endearing potentially for Mike was that Joe was the near-exclusive co-writer on the TWGMTR album. I would guess Mike didn't like someone else having a more prominent position working with Brian, perhaps didn't like some other guy raking in more songwriting royalties than him, and maybe on top of all of that Mike didn't like some of the material Joe was bringing to the table (e.g. Mike's infamous reaction to the album's ending suite as described in the C50 Rolling Stone article.)

There is perhaps some other more business-oriented stuff buried in the C50 story. It sounds like, for instance, one of the companies contracted to do video projects for C50 were found to be shady by some folks. In the fallout of the canceled crowd-funded C50 video project, there was some sleuthing and some links posted here from some people who were in on that BB project and said the people running it (not the BBs or Joe but the company contracted to the project) had some shady stuff going on.

Here's one link featuring some of the background/info:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,16156.msg391431.html#msg391431

For one, making sure the mullet quota was never gonna hit the zero mark? Landy and his mullet were now absent, and Carl's semi-mullet had been phased out by the early '90s.

http://petsoundsforum.com/thread/898/2012-north-american-tour-money

I hate to link to the other place, but it seems Mr. Mott is agreeing with Mike's claims that C50 was losing money.

What a surprise.  :lol

I'm not sure how definitive Pollstar's numbers are, but more importantly, we have no clue as to what the overhead was on the tour.

Also, wouldn't non-US shows potentially be open to higher taxation?

Bottom line, the person doing the analysis on that board has proven for nearly 20 years on the internet to *not* be objective enough to trust anything that ends with the conclusion that "Mike was right."

I highly doubt Mike was just making stuff up for his book. Clearly the overhead costs were bugging him, hence the enterprise wasn't making as much money as he would have liked. This was clear *during* the tour in a few interviews, and certainly after the tour and well before his book, he talked about what he felt was the bloat of the tour operation  ("bloat" is my word, not his).

However, "Hollywood accounting" can make anything look like it's losing money. I'm pretty sure several folks got huge cash guarantees on that tour, and it seems as though most every individual entity (promoters) or people (band members) made what they were supposed to. Mike clearly has a pattern in interviews and his book for reciting reasons for the tour ending that sidestep the idea that he quit the reunion and didn't want to play with willing bandmates. So if a certain "outlook" on the tour finances paints a negative picture, I'm not surprised he'd use that reasoning.

Further, as I've mentioned before, "50 Big Ones" was a new company, and it turned a profit five months into its run. I don't think Brian and Joe Thomas (and Al) would have been pushing for more dates, and promoters offering gigs at Madison Square Garden and other places, if the tour was known to anyone to be a huge money loser.

Also keep in mind that, to my recollection, Mike mentioned in interviews that he thought the C50 tour was playing *too large* of venues, and wanted to play smaller markets and smaller venues. So as the tour was ending, the offers coming in were for *larger* concerts which would have presumably (with the possible exception of MSG in NY, which Howie Edelson has mentioned usually breaks even at best due to costs unique to that venue) made even *more* money, including doing outdoor stadiums like Wrigley Field.

Further, if the tour had continued, they could have concentrated *a lot* on foreign markets, which even by Mike's own analysis was pulling in a profit. The band did around 50 North American dates and only around 23 dates covering Europe, Asia, Australia/New Zealand, etc. They only did *two* shows in the UK. They could have easily done another 50-100 gigs outside of the US in 2013 and made a sh*t-ton of money.

The other thing, is that EVEN if the tour was actually losing money, and/or Mike was making less money than he would in the M&B configuration... does anyone honestly think that if Mike got to write with Brian in a room, and they cowrote a song that garnered Mike a whole bunch of acclaim, that Mike would have still killed the tour and said "tour's not making money, back to M&B"? Hell no. Anything can be made into an "excuse" if someone wants to find one.

The writing with BW in a room  and tour costs are  the red herring for the lack of total control.

You raise an interesting "what if."

What if *everything else* about C50 had been exactly the same, with the one change being that Mike and Brian wrote one or several songs "from scratch", put them on the album, and one of their songs became a "Kokomo"-level hit (or something somewhat close to that)?

I'm guessing Mike would have still walked. I don't think he 100% fabricates the idea that he'd like to write alone with Brian. I think his ego craves that for several reasons (which can be expanded upon in another post I suppose). But it appears to me in my opinion that he dislikes Melinda more than he loves working with Brian, or being on stage with Brian or Al, or anything else to do with a potential reunion.

I think the reunion only could have continued if a lot of unreasonable (and maybe some reasonable) demands had been met. It sounds like Melinda would have to either divorce Brian or stay *completely away* from Brian and Mike at all times in order for Mike to feel comfortable in that "room" with Brian. Which is ridiculous of course, and indeed the other wives are involved to varying degrees, if nothing else in terms of being there in person sometimes. It sounds like the touring band would need to be cut by several members, in order to facilitate Mike actually playing *smaller* venues and markets that he wanted to.

Further, it sounds like Mike didn't think C50 was enough of a "Brian is king of the studio, Mike is king of the road" fair compromise. He still complained about lack of input on the album, and despite being the front man and gate keeper of the setlist, didn't like the live side of things either.

In the scenario where I actually see Mike wanting to continue, it would require Brian to give up far more control than I think is either objectively fair, not to mention that would yield a lesser result critically and artistically.

But really, I don't see how it could have been molded to fit what Mike wants. Even if they dumped the C50 band and used Mike's lean, scaled-back band, there would have been Brian to share profits with off the top, and additional salaries paid out to Al and Dave on a permanent basis.

I think even under the most cheapo scenario, Mike would have had to drop the idea of playing so many small markets and venues. The band would have *had* to play *some* larger venues. Then the problem becomes, once you need to justify a "bigger ticket" item at a larger venue, a cheapskate Mike/Meleco production might not cut it. The show would need to be a little bigger. Longer shows, probably at least a few more musicians, a more elaborate stage show, and so on.

I'm digressing, but I think the reunion could have continued in perpetuity and been financially successful with some compromises and refinement, which "50 Big Ones Productions" would have been able to do had it continued.

Lol, yeah, Mike would be pulling his hair out over that!  :lol

I think it would have been a fine idea to keep Al & Dave on board, even in Mike's trimmed-down outfit, and include Brian for select larger shows. Or at least keep an open invite to the guys for any show they want to play. I remember seeing that early 2011 Reagan tribute show that Al appeared on and thinking his presence really changed the vibe ... he gave an air of authenticity. I think having Al and/or Dave would be helpful for the "brand" and probably sell more tickets and medium to small venues. I think there are plenty of fans (such as myself) who would attend a show if Al were there, but would not otherwise.

I think the question of how it would be if Al rejoined Mike's band (and Dave rejoining for that matter) is difficult to answer. I'm inclined to say it wouldn't yield much. I don't think Al or Dave would sing many leads, and the ones Al would sing would be the standards.

In Brian's band, Al gets his standard couple of leads, plus a few Mike leads, and sometimes also adds in other bits. I think he also just fits Brian's band better at this stage.

From Mike's point of view, I don't think having Al and/or Dave back full time would sell a *ton* more tickets. I don't think Mike would ever be inclined to add them back fulltime anyway. Clearly he likes having Dave do little runs of shows with him. He may well have done the same with Al had the Jones Beach 2014 debacle not occurred.

I think, had the reunion taken an organized, *temporary* pause while Mike did some additional dates prior to reconvening in say six months or a year or something, and had Mike maintained a respectful posture towards Brian and Al and the reunited band, I probably would have entertained seeing the Mike and Bruce band, especially with Al added in (and Dave too certainly). But I have little interest in seeing Al join Mike's band permanently to simply take over a few leads like "Rhonda" and "Come Go With Me", etc.

Separately, the idea of having Brian at "select" shows I don't think would make any sense. He doesn't have a stamina issue. He has done more solo shows in 2016 than he did C50 shows in 2012, *and* Brian is pulling a lot more weight at his shows this year than he did during C50. If Brian was unable or unwilling to do all shows, then "select" shows might make sense. But not having Brian there at all shows because Mike thinks the cost is too high is not something I think makes any sense.

In September 2012, Brian wanted to be a fulltime Beach Boy again, and Mike walked. That's the story. 

I think it is run like many businesses today. Take an airline. Cut the service to the bone and providing the flights are full and the fare is covering the costs plus a percentage as profit, why change? The pre tour blurb in each city makes no secret that Mike is the sole original. Even when Bruce had a few months off with his heart scare it was business as usual. Like an airline the only time to react is if seats are going unsold. That is not happening.

Forget the "brand", is there a benefit to Al (and his son Matt) if he joined Mike's touring band? Never mind the fact he's been killing it with Brian for the past few years, the tour will be going into 2017, and the recent tour keeps going and selling out the venues.

I don't see a benefit at all in changing what is successful, in this case for Brian and Al at this point in time. And Mike got what he wanted back in 2012 - Brian does what he does, he has Al and Blondie with him. Mike is doing what he said he wanted to do, touring constantly with his band and Bruce. I don't understand why there are always these calls to change things when the ship was boarding in 2012 and choices were made whether to jump on board or not.

Well put.

Regarding costs: Look at the ticket sales and return numbers for C50 domestic shows in 2012, all 11 weeks of them. They grossed 1.3 million on average each week C50 toured the US, multiplied by 11 weeks. If that kind of result lost money, then someone needs to show that the tour was designed to fail and lose money before it even started, considering it did better than expected. And the logic and numbers which are there do not support such a statement.

More proof needed beyond Mike and Jim Hirsch saying it lost money domestically.

Agreed....things are perfect the way they are right now.

My scenario above is based on the concept of the original Beach Boys continuing in some re-united form ... or rather, having continued their 2012 reunion instead of splintering again.

In this scenario, some sort of compromise is reached in which Mike still continues with his "Beach Boys" license but keeps an open invite to the original remaining members to join, whenever they want to and are available to. Brian may or may not want to participate in all shows, so they could theoretically include Brian in the group for special larger shows. And of course, I'd prefer to see some arrangement worked out in which Brian's and Mike's band members are both included (like C50).

The scenario (which may or may not be logistically or 'politically' feasible) is not an ideal fantasy, but rather something that might have played out had all of the original members been able to come to a compromise.

I don't know if there is a benefit to Al and/or Matt in that scenario. I'm just saying it would nice/appropriate of Mike to extend some kind of open invite for all original members to participate in they want to. And yes, he may have to pay them more than the other sidemen, but he could potentially sell more seats/book larger venues/charge more for tickets, since it would be the "real" Beach Boys instead of something resembling a tribute act.

As far as the "brand" goes, I care about "The Beach Boys" as an entity and would like to see the group more appropriately represented as a live act if they are going to tour.

In my opinion, The Beach Boys as a whole when performing together are a more impressive and magical act that Brian/Al/Blondie or Mike/Bruce. Clearly, there are political divisions at play in this setup as it doesn't really make sense that each group doesn't want anything to do with one another. I don't see the current situation as ideal as a fan ... the members may prefer it this way, but I suspect it has more to do with not being able to come to business/personal compromises within each camp as opposed to some ideal situation that benefits everyone.

My favorite of the "solo" groups was actually Al's Family and Friends Group circa early 2000s. I saw them around 2002 and the band were fantastic ... I felt like I was seeing the '70s live band because all the original backing dudes were there (Ed Carter, Bobby Figueroa, etc).

What we are talking about here is not much different than the way it was in the 80's/90's. Brian showed up occasionally, you never knew when it would be, although in retrospect Landy seems to mainly want him there for the big shows like DC July 4th. Dennis missed a lot of shows before his death; Carl was absent while he did his solo tours; even Al and Mike missed a few shows for various reasons. I always found it odd that they could get away with this. Can you imagine going to a Kinks show in the 80's and Ray Davies not being there? Or Dave missing a few shows cause he was off in the mountains meditating?

There is a pretty scathing LA Times article/review from this late 80's period, post-Kokomo when the band was on tour, and the setup was to bring Brian out to do a "mini-set" at the piano, then go back into the shadows to allow the band to take the stage. And it didn't work, plus the LA Times article made other suggestions as well because the whole thing felt wrong. Whether it was due to Landy, or if the band just didn't want Brian to do this, or whatever the case, it didn't work.

Putting that debacle from the past aside, I remember well the phrase "causing confusion in the marketplace" being bandied about especially by Mike regarding Al's bookings, Brian's activities, etc...yet imagine what confusion it would cause if there were a randomness to who would actually be on stage under the banner "The Beach Boys". There are already more than a few venues and newspapers who cannot seem to get the right promo photos to use to bill Mike's BB shows, and sometimes the C50 photos still pop up 4 years later despite the fact Brian hasn't shared a stage with Mike since 2012.

My bottom line is again why change what has been successful for Brian and Al as of November 2016 extending into 2017? There is no reason at all, and back in 2012 the choices were made that led to what is happening today. Mike got what he wanted out of the deal...all the talk about wanting more or wanting something different after the fact is puzzling to say the least.

The idea in the present day of Brian only making guest appearances with a "Beach Boys" touring band is just not feasible or likely for many reasons. But certainly "confusion" for ticket buyers would be one of those issues.

I suppose they could *not* sell the tour as any different from the way it is now, and if Brian showed up, it would just be a random "bonus." But what a silly way to sell Brian's participation, and what a lack of respect it would show on top of that.

Ideally from a fan perspective, what should have happened as C50 wound down and Mike was making it clear he was balking, would be for BRI to revisit the license, get a new *group* manager, get Mike back to the negotiating table, and set up something where "The Beach Boys" would from that point on be the "reunion five", and leave room for Mike to book a few months of his own solo shows, which would have to be billed differently.

I think that the sentiment that there's no need for Brian to be back with the reunited BBs is true in terms of being realistic and the logistics of it. It just doesn't work.

But I do think those five, ideally with a great backing band, are something different together than *any* of the various partial combos. C50 *was* better than Brian/Al in 2016. I don't really push for another reunion anymore because it's not just realistic, and Brian and Al are putting on the *best* BB-related show going right now.

But as a fan, ideally what I'd like to see is another C50 tour with the same lineup, only with Foskett dropped and Matt Jardine put in place. That band could do some Vegas residencies, do six or so months of touring per year, and then Mike could take his lean sideband out for numerous months per year. I would maybe even be okay in that scenario with BRI letting him call it "Mike Love's Beach Boys" or something.

Just my own opinion, I think the C50 worked because it was billed as the 50th Anniversary of something tangible. Since C50, there have been tours and activities billed by Mike's Beach Boys tours as the 50th of Fun Fun Fun, the 50th of All Summer Long, the 50th of Summer Days, now the 50th of Good Vibrations. It begs the question what will 2017's "50th" commemorate? Mike in his book didn't seem to dig Smiley Smile all that much, I can't see the validity of Mike doing a Smile commemoration in light of everything...Heroes? Wild Honey? Who knows. Again it gets into the muddy waters of Mike doing this under his name, Brian and/or Al doing it under their own names (which they are), or promoting things as "Beach Boys" events. Looking at the past four years, the Beach Boys touring behind various 50th commemorations after C50 seems like a stretch after there was so much hubbub over ending C50 as a fixed thing in time rather than extending it.

But I guess the point is that the celebration that brought all of the band members together under the Beach Boys billing was C50. I remember parts of Mike's interviews from the fall of 2012 where the statement was clearly made about running the risk of watering down the event that was C50 by extending it any further, which can translate into we had a Beach Boys 50th celebration, now we go back to the way it was and the way Mike wanted to move forward with his own plans. Again the circle going around to where Mike got what he wanted, yet there are still calls to "extend" C50 in some form as of late 2016? It doesn't make sense. And Mike's tours have used Beach Boys 50th commemorations every year since 2012.

It's all moot now I suppose. I've never found a marketing angle (meaning an actual "name" for the tour and an anniversary or even to hand it on) as a particularly strong reason to either do or not do a tour.

Obviously, they couldn't have called it "50th Anniversary Tour" forever. I think they could have retained the title for an additional series of legs in 2013, much in the same way that Brian is doing more PS shows in 2017.

They could have just kept the C50 name, they could have called it "The 50th Anniversary Encore Tour", or whatever.

And really, the same could be done for subsequent tours; various anniversary names or some other angle (like McCartney does naming his tour seemingly meaningless names like "One to One Tour", etc.). Promoters were ready and willing; I haven't heard any tour promoters suggest C50 was "watering" anything down. If anything, I recall a tour industry guy telling Pollstar in 2012 that Mike's tour had been diluting the BB name for years in the minds of promoters, and it was the full reunited lineup (and let's be honest, mainly Brian being in the Beach Boys) that got top dog tour people and promoters interested in higher profile gigs and venues.

Certainly, if the full reunion went for years and years, alternate marketing angles would be needed. But certainly other bands have reconstituted/reunited and lasted for longer than one year.

The 50th Anniversary was certainly a marketing angle to "hook" some of the band members into doing it in the first place. After that, I think the idea in part was that they could have come to the realization that artistically, critically, and commercially *keeping* the reunion together going forward could have been a great move.

Howie Edelson mentioned in the past that the reunion could have easily booked a Vegas residency. Minimal effort, maximum dollars. That particular scenario would obvious stink for people who can't travel to Las Vegas.

I think a reunion happening today is totally unfeasible, not particularly enticing given some of the prevalent attitude, and is mostly a moot issue. But from an objective standpoint of a fan, or industry analyst, or good manager or PR person, it's not as if having more reunion tours or keeping the reunion together makes no sense. From *those* points of view that don't factor logistics and personalities into it, nothing makes *more* sense.

I could possibly see it being billed as a 55th anniversary of the group's 1st album, and for 2018, either a 50th anniversary of Do It Again, or a 30th anniversary of Kokomo. Not even kidding.

Tour names and invented/manufactured "themes" or "angles" to promote tours would *not* have been difficult. They have people and agencies that do that stuff. They didn't need to keep "anniversary" or "reunion" in every actual tour title. They could just put in the main marketing materials.

2013 - "50th Anniversary - The Encore Tour"
2014 - "The All Summer Long Reunion Celebration"
2015 - "Summer and Days and Summer Nights with the Full, Original Beach Boys including Brian Wilson"
2016 - "The Beach Boys Pet Sounds 50th Anniversary Reunion Tour" - See The Beach Boys with Brian Wilson perform "Pet Sounds' for the first time ever!

And so on.

Again, I'm not pining for this anymore. But it could have easily happened in terms of marketing and promoters and all of that.

"OVER 50 Years of Fun Fun Fun, Good Vibrations and Surfin' USA!!!"

Additionally, with good momentum and good management, they could have even done things that didn't just sound like a "greatest hits" live show.

A good manager, in say 2017, could have pitched a "Smile" tour to Mike. Think about it. Nine or ten months of regular touring, and then a cred-earning "Smile" tour somewhere during the year for a month or two. Much like C50 got a lot of fans off Mike's back, Mike doing a "Smile" tour in 2017 with the Beach Boys (think something like the GV box tour in 1993, but obviously more focused) would have undone a *ton* of all the "Smile" bulls**t attached to Mike that *clearly* does bother him.

The "Smile" narrative could have ended with "Mike came to peace with it and even sang the whole album live on stage with the band."

Again, all moot what-ifs at this point, but an interesting scenario to ponder.

How great that could have been. As it actually stood, I seem to recall reading how performing Our Prayer during C50 was like pulling teeth to get to happen.

Yeah, I'm not sure how real or how apocryphal stories of Mike being hesitant about any song selections are. I've heard he wasn't big on doing "Our Prayer."

The couple examples I've heard of them doing it on C50 sounded a little wobbly. It probably could have used more rehearsal time perhaps. Of course, such a case could be used to either support dropping it, or support continuing to do it more to perfect it.

There are also stories of Mike not wanting to do "Surf's Up" on C50. I know Scott Totten posted here specifically mentioning that Mike never refused to do it, and Totten simply suggested running through it during a soundcheck in Europe. But I've also heard other stories suggesting at *other* times Mike didn't want to do it. So who knows? I doubt Totten or most any of the band members were always there behind the scenes to see what principal members refused or didn't refuse to do.

I've also heard theories that Mike nixed the "cantina" part of H&V, resulting in the weird C50 version that was basically the "Smiley Smile" version (which was already weird to Mike, as he was still doing and still to this day does the 70s/80s arrangement of the song on the rare instances he does it with his band) with the "under arrest" bit added.

All of these stories of Mike nixing or refusing stuff are just theories/stories/opinions as far as I know. I don't think there are any published official stories on any of this.

But my crazy hypothetical where the BBs had stayed reunited and did a "Smile" tour would be a case where Mike would be sold on the concept ahead of time, so by the time everyone agreed to do it, it would obviously be implicit precisely which songs would be included in that set.

I've always wondered how much politics and potential subversion was involved in doing "Summer's Gone" to close the last two shows on the tour. Did Brian already know continuing was a lost cause, and demand doing the song regardless of whether Mike wanted to? Mike didn't seem too hot on the song in the Rolling Stone piece on the reunion. I wonder if Brian said "we're doing it", and Mike could either be on stage or not. I'm probably assuming too much vitriol, I don't know. I can't imagine Mike was enthusiastic about *not* closing the show with something like "Fun Fun Fun", but perhaps he grudgingly (or ambivalently) went along with it.