The Smiley Smile Message Board

Of all the Beach Boys it seems Bruce is totally loyal to Mike Love and I am curious as to WHY when it seems all the others seem to lean toward the Wilson's over the years. 
I know Bruce left in the early 70's and lost his share in the corporation then came back in the late 70's as a hired hand,  It makes me wonder if it was MIKE who got him back on the road and in the studio with the group and for that he is eternally loyal?   
Maybe they are just really good friends?   
What ya think?

In my opinion, total speculation, and all those goodies... ;)

If I recall, it was Brian who actually called Bruce back in 1978, when Brian was experiencing emotional problems, was briefly institutionalized, and realized that he (Brian) wasn't going to be able to produce what became the L.A. Light Album. Now, maybe Brian, while it might've been his idea, just made the initial phone call to start the process of Bruce returning, and Bruce was ultimately accepted and embraced more by Mike and the other guys than by Brian himself (who didn't have a lot to do with L.A. Light Album).

As to why Bruce might be more loyal to Mike than Brian? This might be gross oversimplification, but it might simply be "the math". For whatever reason, and there may be several, it appears that Bruce wanted - and continues to want - to tour EXTENSIVELY. Maybe he loves the travel, the money, the excitement, the performing, or simply hanging out with friends. That would logically attract or attach Bruce to Mike, who appears to have similar values, as opposed to Brian who is much the opposite.

 

And yet Bruce has always been a great Brian supporter, decri I himself as his number one can (paraphrased) and providing backing vox when Brian performed live to promote his Imagination album.

I too suspect it's economics, a love of touring and playing live and maybe political views that see him and Mike share a stage so doggedly.

In the late 60s and early 70s, Bruce seemed to be heading in a different direction, and I seen to recall reading somewhere that there was talk about removing him from the group and replacing him with Billy Hinsche? From what I remember reading, Mike seemed to be the most vocal about Bruce not jibing well with the group during that period.

When Bruce returned, it was Brian who did the original inviting, but it seemed to be Carl that enjoyed having him back the most.

Now, Bruce is there to help Mike be able to call the group the Beach Boys, and he also has a similar mindset about touring: to tour light with minimal expense, and to be open to any size venue. I don't think they are particularly good friends (definitely could be wrong), but they are great business partners, and they put on a great show without any drama. But in terms of friendship, I have never really seen them interact much off stage.

I think another reason that Mike chose to keep Bruce is because he probably gets paid less than Al would if Mike and Al toured, being a member of BRI.

And to add to this, it could also be the spotlight. Al is a founding member, has leads on some great songs like Rhonda, and his voice is in pristine condition. Having Al makes Mike less of a focal point, especially when there are moments when Mike really sounds his age. Al still sounds twenty  ;D

Just speculation, but that could be another factor.

I think that's a bit of an over simplification of things...

In the late 70s it was Al and Mike (the TMers) on one side and Carl and Dennis (the druggies) on the other. Then towards the end of Dennis's life I'm not sure anyone was 'leaning toward him' and the same goes for Brian over many years. In fact, I think Gary Usher stated in The Wilson Project book that it was Mike who most wanted to work with Brian in the mid-80s and that Carl and Al weren't so interested (for very good reasons probably).

As others have said though, I think Mike and Bruce gel when it comes to the business side of the group. They seem to live a stress free and profitable existence in the touring group and there are no complications. This doesn't appear the case when other BB members are involved as even Brian and Al's tour of a few years ago ended badly.

Honestly, I don't think that's part of it at all. There had been problems between Al and Mike for many years which is why Al was fired in the early 90s in the first place.

Then in 1998 Bruce gave an interview where he stated, 'You will never see Alan and I on the same stage again'. That indicates that there were obviously some serious problems there.

Al was going to be fired in 1998 even if Carl hadn't died.

Bruce never lost his corporate vote: he handed it back.

Why would he hand it back?  Not doubting, just curious as it seems such a business savvy guy wouldn't give up so much power, money or control?

B.R.I.  controls the group name and owns it so theoretically if Brian, Al and Carl's family decided to pull it from Mike an Bruce that would be all there is to it, right? 
Can we not assume that they tour under the name because the others agree to it even when they are grumbling about it?

Pretty much. What's not known is whether Mike tours under an indefinite type of license -- one that would require him to breach the terms before the others in BRI could change the terms. If they all agree, it's easy to change things (as the C50 proved). But if it's Mike versus the other parties, it would very much depend on what they all agreed to back in the late 90s.

sandmountainslim, by your post count I can see that you are a fairly new poster? This issue has been discussed on numerous threads over the last couple of years. Don't misunderstand, it's perfectly OK that you ask; I'm not one of those who is bothered by people bringing up old(er) topics, probably because I'm one of those who continues to post the same opinions over and over anyway. ;D

IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO .... Mike was awarded the license to tour as The Beach Boys via vote because certain people wanted to get paid thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars for doing absolutely nothing.

And, sandmountainslim, I always add this part...The hypocrisy among fans is that Mike is the one singled out or blamed or labelled or criticized for being in it "only for the money" and not caring about the brand/legacy, but the other Beach Boys put "art" first.  ::)

I don't know if the vote/issues/situation has ever been challenged or considered for change by another vote. Probably not. Money always comes first with the Beach Boys. But, it seems that we (the members on this board) eventually find out when things happen within The Beach Boys. "Somebody" will talk, they always do...

Mike and Bruce touring as The Beach Boys is fine and dandy but I feel that Al and David Marks should be allowed to have "Original Beach Boy" or "of The Beach Boys" on their promotional material also.   It isn't saying they ARE the Beach Boys and Know David isn't a member of BRI but it is just a true statement which would help people recognize them.   Brian Wilson in my opinion doesn't even need the tag but it would be ok if he chose to use it.   
Also apologies for asking questions which have been hashed over and over here.  I am new to the board so forgive me if I have made any boring posts.

Al tried to tour under "Beach Boys Family and Friends" and could have continued to do so if he paid BRI for a license to do that. It was Al who refused to pay the license fee, and only later was it decided to only issue one tour license with any type of Beach Boys related name. So, Al had his chance, but didn't want to pay the fee. At least that's how I understood it. If that's wrong, some expert can jump in.

Welcome to the board and don't apologize for asking any questions.

As for the fees, we did the math on it awhile back, and it's not like Mike's touring nets the other principals a staggering amount or anything (certainly not millions a year, let's put it that way). Several of us here were quite shocked at how little Mike likely paid out.

So, I forget:  where did "we" get the definitive amount that Mike pays out, so we could do our figuring? 

20% goes to BRI. Of which Mike gets 5% back and Brian, Al and Carl's estate all get 5% each.

I don't think anyone could specify exactly how much that would be but certainly into 6 figures for each of them every year.

That's 20% of the gross, straight off the top.

As for the actual sums paid, didn't we figure it was in the region of $600,000 a year, minimum ? Not something Carl's estate would willingly give up on a point of artistic integrity.

Correct me where I'm wrong but that 20% is a license fee. Didn't the court papers also say that touring income was also split between the BRI principles with those actually on the road getting a higher cut but those who weren't on the road still getting a cut.  Brian, Al, and Carl's estate may be racking in some serious money without putting foot on a tour bus if true.

That makes sense of why Mike tours so much, then. Makes him the pater familia!
He's providing for all the BBs families, including himself, and they  don't make a cent unless he tours. Jaquie's shirts get  his share of the gross( watered down thru BRI), while his  touring $$ is his bread and butter. 
Bruce probably tours for the spending cash and he has a girl in every town. ( he lives off his inheritance, right?),

What is going on? :lol

What's funny is I previewed it and still muffed it.

LOL!!

Little doubt why Bruce doesn't post here with comments like, he has "a girl in every town."

Would " a secret friend" be better for you?

You need four members for a combo.

Two for a duo and three for a trio and 5 for a quintet.

I think Mike and Bruce stay together because you need at least two "orignial" beachboys to be somewhat legitimate and who else would be the 2nd Beach Boy if not Bruce?  Al? Brian?  David?  Don't think so.  It would have to be Bruce.

I don't really get the stink over the C50 "breakup" to be honest.  The tour ended and Mike/Bruce went back to their band and Brian, Al, David went on their thing.   
Who expected it to be permanent??   It was just a fifty year celebration but the press got Mike's statement and blew it out of proportion and someone got Brian all stirred up like a hornet in a golf bag and BAM!  Big Stink. 
At least that is how I see it.    I ALWAYS expected when the tour ended it would go back to how it was before.   

I think Mike and Bruce's egos just get along pretty well.  Bruce seems like a pretty mellow guy, and whereas most sane people get pretty offended by some of the things Mike says and does, Bruce seems to have the personality that it's easy for him to just let it roll off his back. 

As ridiculous as it sounds, too... Mike (and Bruce) kind of live a 'party' lifestyle even as senior citizens.  They're about as Rock Star as you can get at their age... I think Bruce has always been and always will be a sort of playboy, even if he's not out going crazy he likes touring, a different town every night, meeting new people, women from 20 to 80 fawning all over them every time they do a show, reporters wanting an interview for the local paper, the show getting recorded every once in awhile, a television gig every once in awhile, the rush of the live crowd, different venues, different managers, different paychecks everywhere.  It's all pretty exciting and seems to have kept both Mike and Bruce young for their age. 

I just checked yesterday, and Mike will be turning 73 next month! He sure doesn't seem that old :p

Bruce does seem pretty  cool.

Just on if there is a problem between Al & Bruce, I got a signature from Bruce dedicated as " Al's friend Bruce."!

Not to be overly sarcastic, but DUH, of course it would go back to the way it was WHEN the tour ENDED. Outside of the unrealistic if not entirely crazy idea of retiring the name at some point, of course it would go back to the status quo. Nobody has ever really offered up another possible scenario.

The issue was/is why they had to end it, why they couldn’t at least extend it for a few years or, yeah, maybe even get their s**t together and get over it and keep it together for however many years they had left in them. As Howie Edelson has alluded to, if they had their s**t together organizationally and interpersonally, they could have easily swung back around in 2013 and did some repeat legs around the world, and then in 2014 been settling into a nice cushy Vegas run together for huge bucks, with a new album thrown in there somewhere. And yes, I’d rather the full lineup be playing a residency in Vegas than Mike and Bruce touring on their own and hitting the “smaller markets.”

This “why are people surprised?” BS was already asserted back in 2012 during all the heated C50 discussions. I don’t think anybody who knew even just a decent amount of BB history and trajectory were “surprised” by what happened. But the “you knew this would probably happen” crap ignored how amazing the reunion was, and also ignored how relatively easily they could have kept it going awhile longer, and also either purposely or indirectly attempted to absolve those whose BS dictated that the reunion had to end. It also ignored the difference between the 2013 Mike/Bruce “Beach Boys” and the 2011 or 2006 or 2000 Mike/Bruce “Beach Boys.” In past years, they didn’t have Brian, Al, and Dave all waiting in the wings WANTING to keep the full band together. Apart from a point in the mid-later 2000’s where it seemed like maybe Al kind of wanted to be back in the touring band (he never specifically said, “Sure, I’ll join Mike and Bruce if they ask”), there was never an interest from all three non-Mike/Bruce members to have the band reunited. In 2012, that had changed. Legally that meant nothing, but from the point of view of fans trying to accept or reconcile Mike’s continued use of the “brand name”, it changed the perception of Mike’s touring operation.

The “you can’t celebrate the 50th anniversary in year 51” crap was also bandied about back then, and that’s a complete non-starter as far as I’m concerned. They could have kept touring, with or without a “Beach Boys 50” logo stamped on everything.

I’m sorry, but “Beach Boys Opt to Extend Amazing Reunion Show which Continues to Garner Rave Reviews” is immensely more helpful and exciting to everybody involved than “Mike Love Returning to two-man Beach Boys lineup without Brian, Al, and David; look for this scaled back tour at your local street fair this summer.” That doesn't even get into the admittedly hyperbolic and inaccurate “Mike Love fires Brian Wilson” that ensued, which was even worse for all involved, and which was completely the fault primarily of Mike’s wording and timing (and of course underlying decision), and to a somewhat lesser extent, the ineptitude of the entire group (at least the corporate members) to have their s**t together enough to at least wring some decent PR out of their inability to agree on staying together.

The Mike & Bruce show is in Tahoe this weekend, a couple hours drive away. After the C50, I'll never go see this band again - it'll ruin my memories of the original line-up on stage a couple of years ago.

By the time of the press release the end had already come from too many broken promises and too many conflicting intentions and too many one way compromises.

What were the promises Cam? Or the conflicting intentions? How about the one-way compromises?

Since you are gonna vaguely allude to these things, tell us what they are.

Unless of course you're just full of sh*t.

Or not, depending on who among the band and its associates you’re talking about, and depending on who you’re getting your information from.

In any event, did anyone say the decisions hadn’t been made or that the end hadn’t come by the time of that press release? Of course they had, that’s why the press release happened.

The entire band (again, specifically the corporate members) and their associated entourages handled the whole thing poorly, and those who can’t even bring themselves to assign equal blame to Mike Love in addition to Brian and Al and their “camps” for the group not having their s**t together are those who are going to defend Love regardless. I wish the immensely predictable blind defense would at least come in the form of something more interesting or substantive, rather than vague allusions to “broken promises” and whatnot.

Exactly… Brian, Al and Dave wanted to keep the full band together, and continue an amazing tour and record another potentially very good album. Mike wouldn’t compromise with their *crazy* idea of keeping the full band together, and moved on. I guess I should at least offer some thanks to Brian, Al, and Dave for trying and being willing.

Here we go again. Why do people stay so angry and go on for paragraphs about this subject? It's old news. You aren't going to convince Mike Love and Brian Wilson to reunite, and it doesn't matter which side is morally superior. It's not going to change anything. You aren't going to convince anyone who sides with one or the other that their position is wrong. If you don't like the Mike/Bruce combo, don't go see them. End of story. I still do not for the life of me understand why people who don't like Mike in general want to see him playing with Brian when you can see Brian without Mike. You don't like Mike? Be happy he's gone and you can enjoy Al Jardine and Brian without his stage patter and hearing his songs.

I think a lot of the bitterness comes from the fact that Mike gets to keep the Beach Boys name.  If the 2012 Beach Boys decided to do another tour except Mike decided to leave the group and tour solo with all the other guys continuing as the Beach Boys, people wouldn't be nearly as upset.

Those who bitch about "one way compromises" should answer this. What was Mike's track record that makes him deserving of more "say" in 2012? If Mike had his way completely, the shows would not have been nearly as good as they were and they would not have been as well received. For a brief moment in time, they were back in music's  A list. As great as Mike's band is, if it had been Brian, Al and David joining the Mike and Bruce band, it would have been good, but not GREAT.  It would have been a nice night out at a fine restaurant chain. But including Brian's band made it a 5 star gourmet establishment where every principal shined. Bottom line, if you act like WalMart, people with taste will treat you like WalMart.

Why do people rehash "Smile" not being finished and released in 1967 unendingly? Did it change things? Maybe it did because we got the SSs boxset. Now we had Al and David appearing with Mike last week.
You can bet there will be songs on Brian's new album that will be sorely missing Mike's vocals.
Bottom line, people expressing their opinion on all things BB is what the the board is all about.

Oh Cmon. You really thing that's what this board is all about?

The Beach Boys are not the Eagles or Bon Jovi or Springsteen where they have a demand level that would see then filling 15-20K basketball arenas year after year. I would agree that Mike and Brian perhaps should have found a way to keep the tour going for a few more markets and a few more dates. But I truly don't believe the tour could have gone on forever with a band that huge without losing money at some point, not with the medium sized halls they were playing. I think at some point even Brian would have not wanted to lose money.  

Look back at past arguments I'm sure you'll find them.

Yeah, I'm full of sh*t.

Ahh, I see. You're thinking that Brian wanted to do this tour simply to make Mike lose Money. That's an interesting strategy. what do you suppose he'd have to gain with that?

Yeah, that's it. They had to stick to their agreement and that was their compromise.

No, but I "think" it.  ;D

Exactly. It's old news but these same people just can't get over it, even yet!  I think this board is their therapy for airing their thoughts out on the subject of the C50 ending. Beats professional counseling, I guess. It's funny, it seems like they're searching for just one more angle of a mystery to completely resolve the issue in their heads. It's over now, it's over now....

Because I just looove to beat a dead horse as much as the next guy, I’ll add my two cents into this discussion.

Without knowing all of the full facts of the dissolution of the end of C50, I nevertheless think it’s safe to presume that: if Mike would have been willing to go along with any and all compromises that Brian/Brian’s people asked of him, and if he could have checked his own ego/“needs”/wants at the door, that the reunion could most likely have continued on, and whatever semblance of respect that still existed for the current-day brand name could have been salvaged in a HUGE way.

Big picture stuff for the band, and for Mike, could have improved in a big, big way. Aren’t long-term benefits worth something?

IMO, the way stuff went down is, at its core, about Mike feeling he is owed a gigantic say/voice in the direction of the band (irregardless of Brian’s return to the BB helm)… and the fact the Mike found it necessary to reclaim the name for his own comparatively watered-down touring purposes, to me, smacks of Mike finally getting to make up for the loss of control he surely felt after being pushed aside for other collaborators in the 60s.  Mike made up his mind that this would never happen again. Somehow, through wrangling, circumstances, Carl’s passing, and the fact that corporate BRI ultimately does heed to the almighty dollar and through inaction allowed it to happen, Mike found a way to have the “control” he had always wanted by having become the unquestioned captain of the ship known as the touring Beach Boys post-1998… and losing control of that was just too much to bear, damn the consequences. I just can’t see how it can be argued that Mike has his priorities for himself and the brand name itself in the right place.


And hey, I can “get” the idea of bandmates wanting some sort of equal say/voice. Mike’s asserted a pretty huge degree of control over the brand name/direction for a looooong while now. But at this point, I think Mike just simply should have finally given in to the compromises that were asked of him. Period.

And the saddest part is: Mike (and his wife/family) are obviously very, very hurt by continuously seeing people viciously attack/badmouth him on facebook, youtube, etc, calling him a complete hack, etc. It really, really hurts them, and rightfully so. It’s tragic, but they really don’t seem (publicly at least) to ever have any self-awareness to realize why the “Mike = villain” thing just keeps cementing itself into history time and time again. (For the record, I don’t intend for this post to be a vicious attack itself, but a reasoned opinion on the matter, regarding a musician much of whose work I respect, but ultimately whose actions I find worthy of criticism). It’s as Mike has blinders on so completely as to be unable to realize that there are things that Mike could have done in 2012 that would have majorly, in a huge way, stopped the haters, and brought more love to the Lovester. In fact, these benefits would IMO brought even MORE MONEY for the long term to his and his families’ pockets (as if they really need more money at this time) because the brand name wouldn't dying a thousand-and-one deaths.

The benefits would have been HUGE, and IMO, the only way that would (and should) have been achieved, would’ve meant letting Brian be the king of the castle in Beach Boy land again, from C50-on. Letting Brian have a largely disproportionately unequal (in Brian’s favor) amount of say in how things go down with the Beach Boys name from here on out.  

And, considering the excruciatingly hard times that Brian has had in his life, is that REALLY such a big sacrifice for Mike to have made at this late stage in the game?  Mike/Bruce are beyond filthy rich… so if kowtowing to Brian meant less dates played throughout the year, then why couldn’t that have just simply been something they could suck up and deal with? If only just to make Brian’s life a little sweeter as an old man who was truly, deeply enjoying being a Beach Boy again? Is it just so impossible for Mike to have been able to find a way, in his heart, to deal with Brian’s sometimes flaky attitude about touring (even when Mike was being dangled carrots like M&B Sea World shows)?

Ultimately, the answers to these questions seem to me to have been proven by the actions that Mike took. Maybe some new information about other C50 implosion factors will come to light and “enlighten” me to feel differently someday. Obviously, old men like these guys don't like to change or compromise. But I really, really thought/wished/hoped/prayed that it would be different this time around.

For however many more years these guys are going to all be on this planet (and I hope it’s MANY)… when Mike finally retires, is he really gonna look back upon the extra post-C50 years of the Mike & Bruce show, and the vast amount of anti-Mike hatred that continues to snowball out of control (which he claims to not care about, but most of us must surely realize that is B.S.), and feel, truly in his heart, that it was worth flushing the public good will and good vibrations surrounding C50 down the toilet?  Many, many people were giving Mike a 2nd chance at the time of C50… and he blew it. But he’s made his bed, and now he has to lie in it.

If you guys think I’m nuts, feel free to tell me so. But these are more or less the facts (admittedly, without all of the insider info available to me) as I sees them.

Mikie, I think it's old news why Smile didn't come out; or what it would have been like. But I grin and bear it cause a lot of people have fun talking about it and I am all for having fun.

Post C50 status is that it seems Mike and Al/David (and probably Brian) seem all cool with things now and that's good enough for me.

Or beating something else.  Who's the pivot man in this circle jerk?   Time to rejuvenate an old thread with new subject matter.

25 minutes later we're all still waiting for you to start

Er, no. I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. My point is that BRIAN didn't want to lose money, which he has done on some of his own tours if tickets didn't sell enough. When he's sold well, it's probably not been immensely profitable. If Brian added Mike Love and Bruce Johnson and a couple of other players to his roster, and had to pay what they commanded, he would probably lose money, even if he called that band the Beach Boys. Likewise, if Mike added Al to his regular tour, it would cost him a large extra salary, let alone adding Dave Marks plus Brian's many-person band.  They would have to draw a lot more people on a regular basis to make it all pencil out. I just don't think they could ever draw that well to be playing the larger halls.

As to why they had the reunion tour to begin with, I think it was something they wanted to do for sentimental reasons.  I don't think it made anyone involved that much wealthier, either the tour or the album. The album made number 3, but nowadays, it doesn't mean it sold that many copies overall. 

The "beating of the dead horse" doesn't bother me. I love to beat the proverbial dead horse. Do it all the time. SMiLE, BWPS, Brian's "problems", Mike is an asshole, etc. Plenty of "beating the dead horse" topics. And, if I don't want to read about it or join in, I have these buttons on my keypad which I utilize. Works every time.

So, Mike Love done 'em wrong. Poor Brian, Al, and David. Mike kept them from continuing to tour to standing room only crowds. Mike kept them from playing these large, prestigious venues. Mike kept them from recording another Beach Boys' album. Mike kept them from being part of that "A" List of rock & roll bands. Mike went back to tarnishing the brand. Mike continues to piss on the legacy. Mike wants to go back to his women on the road. Mike put an end to the wives' city-to-city shopping sprees. Yep, old Mike really stuck it to 'em.

I really don't mind reading about it. I don't believe it, but I don't mind reading about it. I find it entertaining - and ironic. Because every conscious expression of frustration and disappointment of not having The Beach Boys continue is an unconscious expression of non-fulfillment and boredom with Brian and Al's solo careers, or what's left of them. It shows what's really important to not only the fans, but also Brian and Al. Most fans won't admit it, Brian and his wifeandmanagers certainly won't, but after all those "solo" albums and tours, wasn't 2012 a breath of fresh air - and what people really want(ed).

And, even though I don't mind reading the same comments over and over (many of them are mine!), I am frustrated - but not surprised - that the discussion never progresses to the next step, course of action, or lack of action. If Mike Love is responsible for so many bad, ruthless, selfish, and financially unsound (by forfeiting sold out concerts, large venues, and potential future record sales) "things", why is Brian, Al, and Carl's estate doing......nothing? NOTHING! That's a rhetorical question. I already know the answer.

But as you said, you already know the answer:  $$ talks and Smiley Bullshit walks

I don't think Brian getting his way in order for C50 to continue would have meant that Brian was going to be "king of the castle," once again. Because he wouldn't be. More like making Joe Thomas king of the castle. I actually think Brian has more confidence in himself with Joe Thomas out of the picture, and produces work closer to his own spirit, or what's left of it, without Joe Thomas. I don't think Brian would have ever gone into the reunion without Joe, though. It's sort of a Catch 22. As for Brian deserving the reigns of the Beach Boys back as a reward for the hard times he's been through, then perhaps he and his wife should never have voted to give Mike the Beach Boys name rights exclusively, or at least made sure it was only for a certain number of years.

Although it obviously (as proven by events by the people involved) is unrealistic, it would be nice to think that something like this falling into place could come about naturally, without it being a legal requirement of sorts (ie. a set "end date" for the M&B BB brand license) for Mike to allow Brian to be back in the drivers' seat.  

Maybe Mike just has had an inherent distrust of any/all people in Brian's circle (going all the way back to '65-ish, continuing to the Landy era, and to Joe Thomas, etc.) and feels that Brian's decisions are less about what Brian wants, and are more about what people in Brian's circle want. And I could certainly understand/empathize how Mike could feel that way.

But ultimately, despite this, I think that Mike's ego, and his clinging to the brand name for the M&B show as a way to "make up" for the myriad of ways which he feels he's been historically slighted in terms of public recognition, etc, is what drives him to put his needs ahead of the happy ending the band and brand name should've had.  

Another irony in this whole story, is that Mike himself probably felt as though he was being "fired", or at least "demoted", from his position of power in BB-land once the C50 tour got underway. And, in my opinion, his resultant backlash at this feeling and fear of losing control is what led to the dissolution of the reunion in a passive aggressive manner, and of Brian winding up feeling that very same way that Mike felt (though as you mentioned, he wasn't moved enough to do something about it from a contractual standpoint). The eventual result, to me, just reeks of passive aggressive backstabbing and desperation.

Brian kept leaving the touring Beach Boys over and over again from the beginning. Even when his brothers were still around and during times were a good draw, playing baseball stadiums for a few years after the "Endless Summer" collection sold millions. He'd show up for a time, then leave again That alone would make most people think he's not the most reliable person to build a touring band around, over the long run, especially one that plays 100 dates a year.  Even Brian's own band members have left from time to time in search of other gigs, and they seem to enjoy playing with him and playing his music.

...I'm *so* gonna call BS on that.

Because, after all, we can find more than one thing "really important".  Brian's solo career --never mind all some peoples' propaganda about how his wifeandmanagers bullied him into making such gorgeous albums -- remains a creative delight, one which has taken a guy who was repeatedly creatively written off back into the Top 20 time and time again, and which has produced such fascinating never-would-have-imagined-it moments as the Jeff Beck shows.  Despite the board's latest clockwork-predictable burst of sourness about how Brian's new album with Al, David, Blondie, and Jeff Beck must be a shambles in the making because it's not out NOW NOW NOW (seriously, you can set your watch by the time at which fan anticipation turns into anticipointment -- we hit the same sort of pre-backlash with "Radio", Disney, and even Gershwin), I nevertheless remain looking forward to it.

But I also find important the idea that the old gang can still work together.  Because, if they can manage it, they can do great things.

Even then, though:  the idea that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts doesn't cheapen the parts.

So, "bored"?  So much no.  "Non-fulfillment"?  Well, I entirely get the feeling that "Lucky Old Sun" is crying out for the voices of the other boys -- from Mike's first "mow mamayama" to Bruce's closing "Nodded off in the band room, woke up in history".  But that doesn't stop it being a fulfilling album nonetheless.

Cheers,
Jon Blum

I think you are reading way too much into it. Mike agreed to all of the things that happened during C50 and if he had considered it a `demotion` then it obviously wouldn`t have happened.

They all knew that there was a set end date though and that it was only intended to be a temporary thing. Bruce had mentioned it on the BBB board enough times after all. Therefore any extension to that would have been a surprise and going back to the status quo was the expected thing to do.

Now Brian may well have been happy to have played some more shows and to do one more album (although as he`s been recording his current album for over a year and it still seems a long way from finished, there have to be question marks over whether that would have happened). But would he have agreed to do another 75 shows in 2013 and 2014? Very unlikely. The reunion would have been over by now anyway therefore.

And the bottom line for me is that the idea that Mike Love should not have the right to say no to something he never agreed to in the first place is bizarre. I am not saying that it is right that Mike should go out calling himself `The Beach Boys` but only that he has the right to do so. That is what BRI agreed to and that is their responsibility. The idea that Mike Love should have to do whatever Brian and his management want (even though in another thread we have scores of people calling Brian`s management incompetent) and that he would agree to only play live when Brian fancies it is fanciful in the extreme.

When have any of Brian's albums made the Top 20, let alone again and again? I know they haven't in the United States. Some of them have been good, yes, and his fans have enjoyed them, and he's built a  fanbase, but he's not making hit records anymore.  TWGMTR made #3 with the Beach Boys name, but that's it. For one week only. It didn't sell that well in CD form or in downloads, even though the downloads were marked down to $5 for the whole album for a week or so on Amazon. I don't think there's a great public demand for the Beach Boys other than their old recordings, and Brian has his set of fans who will fill 2,000-5,000 seat theaters for his live shows in some markets. The Beach Boys with Mike and Bruce play theaters of that  small to medium size. I'm not sure the reunion tour ever played in theaters much larger than either Brian as a solo or the Mike-only Beach Boys.

Really? Cause I saw it at Cincy's Riverbend. Capacity 20,500 and pretty much full.

My apologies -- "Lucky Old Sun" peaked at #21 in the United States, not #19 like I'd remembered.

There was also "Smile" at #13.  Gershwin managed #26.  All three on Billboard.

Basically, it's a hell of a renaissance for a guy whose previous album less than a year before "Smile" charted at #100...

Cheers,
Jon Blum

I would say the fact that he is one of the two artists mostly responsible for establishing their careers, is the only BB with an uninterrupted [I know he took a few days off] commitment to the touring group, holds the license by consent of his peers, and was promised he would have more "say" and then didn't get it. Honoring an agreement with and by others isn't having more "say".

Despite only having had  1 solo  album released (out of several attempts) and a track record of having penned some of the worst songs in the. And's catalog, the fact that BriMel gave him a spot for one of his solo songs on a BB album was more than generous (and quite frankly more than what any reasonable leader of a pop band would grant him). Or does that not "count"?

I'm not clear on your meaning for BriMel/solo song.

It doesn't count as a reason he deserved more say or against the reasons he did deserve more say.

At some point, an album becomes a Brian Wilson solo album featuring guest artists and isn't a Beach Boy album. So, again, really not sure why people wanted the Beach Boy reunion to continue. When the guy wants to dictate every term of the album, won't allow Al Jardine any songs on the album (at least Mike got one, and it's a solo track at that), won't collaborate with Mike (or Al or Dave) on songs to any meaningful degree, insists on having Joe Thomas put a heavy hand on everything (including drenching the "live" album with Joe Thomas signature autotune), and stays on his own bus and rarely mingles with the rest of the band backstage, then that's not really a reunion. If that's the way Brian preferred it, he really is better off touring and recording as a solo act and never having any other Beach Boys reunions. His fans are happy, he's happy. He draws crowds about the same as the official Beach Boys. People who prefer one style of music or the other have a choice. It's all good.

Hasn't Brian always been the boss of the BBs. ;)

My true hunch is: if Mike had in fact just went with the flow, and didn't feel the need to assert his needs/demands/dissatisfaction (in whatever ways that he did) with how C50 evolved, and let Brian call the shots and have the final word without an undercurrent of resentment, I really think that the reunion/good vibes surrounding the band (and within the band itself) would've lent itself to more natural organic collaborations (musically speaking, between all the bandmates including Mike/Brian) for subsequent followup material. But Mike wasn't willing to take this chance.

It would seem that Al/Dave went with the flow (in terms of agreeing to more of Brian's terms) to a degree that Mike simply would not/could not bring himself to, because Mike thinks he deserves a status that has somehow been "denied" to him by both Brian and the public at large (ie. BB fans who don't attend the M&B shows). That line of thinking, which IMO has colored many years of resultant actions, hasn't done him or the band itself any favors, that's for sure.

Mike didn't/doesn't have to do anything that he doesn't want to do. He has the *right* to do whatever he wants (or can get away with due to circumstance). But just because he could, doesn't mean he should. I'm just saying that ideally, Mike could have found it in himself to have let the situation (ie. Brian's genuine budding enthusiasm to be a BB again) evolve the previously "set" plans for how C50 would continue.

Call me crazy, but I think there are a hell of a lot of people on planet Earth, who if in Mike's shoes, would have thought long and hard about it, and said to themselves that ceding some power/control in the name of rebuilding a fractured relationship with their cousin, as well as helping to repair the big picture disharmonious perception of the band, might just be worth doing, when the alternative (what actually went down) is considered. Even if that means (gasp) letting some uncertainty into the picture, and letting "sure things" like the country fair circuit be set aside. But I guess that's asking Mike not to be Mike. He was gonna do what he was gonna do.  

Do you mean in the same way that Al and David have written so many songs with Brian over the past year? Hmmm...

Who says that Mike didn`t think long and hard about it?

I`m not saying that I think that the way the C50 ended was right because it was obviously badly handled. Mike certainly should take his fair share of responsibility for that. But I wonder if Mike feels vindicated by what has happened since. If the reunion were to be successfully continued then it would probably have required Brian to carry on playing a stack of live concerts each year while also making a new album for the group. As Brian has spent over a year recording his current album (while playing relatively few shows), it is hard to see how that could have worked.

Mike does and did kiss Brian's ass and lumped his complaints about not being like he was promised. So instead of Brian keeping his own promises and abiding by his own demands/agreement, Mike should lump bigger and pucker up harder?

Sure, why not?  Mike is the lesser  creative half of the writing partners. If he wants to work with Brian again, certainly he should lump bigger and pucker

Maybe he will at some point. I'm sure that will happen long before Brian will ever be held responsible and accountable.

Wherever that point is, it's somewhere past "Pet Sounds".

The reason I want the reunion to continue, aside from sentimental the-gang's-all-getting-along reasons, is that the Beach Boys' voices are the perfect set of paints for Brian's pictures.  They do good work with Brian calling the shots.  If giving him control gets us "Radio"...  well, that's already the most satisfying Beach Boys album overall in about forty years for me.  I don't begrudge Mike, Al, or the others the chance to contribute songs, but I don't think an album of them singing Brian's material falls particularly short on the Beach-Boy-ness front!

Cheers,
Jon Blum

I think that, had C50 not imploded, and Mike had gone with the flow, that there's a decent chance the music that Brian would be creating under the banner of "Beach Boys" would eventually naturally at some point evolve to having some creative co-writing input from other BB members. IMO it's not relevant to compare this scenario to what BW is working on now, which is presumably intended to be released, and from its inception is being thought of as BW solo material with some Al/Dave/ guest appearances.

It's tough to find a previous case precedent in BB history that would back up my assumption (since times are so different today without Carl's influence, etc, and 2012's lineup was a unique set of circumstances in the band's history)... That said, I still contend that if the lineup that was established became stable for a couple years (with genuine goodwill, lack of resentment feelings by Mike, and legit burying of hatchets), that some natural collaboration would at some point happen. It seems obvious to me. It just had to be achieved with baby steps, not by demands.

Of all BBs, BW would likely still be the primary contributer, but other members would probably get some contributions in. The quantity of those potential contributions is certainly debatable, but I feel confident that Mike would have had some chances that now probably won't ever happen. IMHO, Mike's demands were unreasonable, fueled by ego, and incompatible with the natural order of how things should've wound up with this band.  

Why do we insist on treating Brian and Mike like they're 17 year olds, who will just wind up in the same room writing songs together, rather than 71- and 73-year old men with lives, families and less energy and creative juice than they had 50 years ago?

I think we're extremely lucky to be getting anything out of Brian or The Beach Boys at this point. Brian producing a song with the quality of Pacific Coast Highway at nearly 70 years old is unprecedented.

Yeah, Mike would have gotten 2 or 3 co-writes as he did on Radio probably. But it wouldn`t have been him and Brian in the same room as it was in the olden days because that is never going to happen (Mike was naive if he ever thought it would).

And anyway, Brian has now had over a year to complete an album and it still seems unfinished. So even if the C50 had continued beyond September, it was bound to end soon afterwards anyway. The touring and recording compromises needed on both sides could never have been completed.

It should have ended in a much smoother and more tactful way but people had the reunion they never expected and it was as good as it could realistically have been. No point in wondering why it couldn`t last forever as it was never intended to and never feasibly could have. 

Coulda, woulda, shoulda, eh?  Coulda, woulda, shoulda.  The brief synopsis of the Beach Boys' career.

IMO, a scenario could have happened where the band actually took a break from the road for a time (meaning no version of the BBs touring), and then came back with new product, united together again, booking shows and continuing the healing process. I'd like to think that could have happened. If that possible scenario was achievable, it would've simply meant Mike would've had to accept some change and uncertainty.  

And regarding the speed (or lack thereof) of Brian's 2013-2014 studio output: Let's also keep in mind that, despite a positive public face, Brian may have gotten depressed and truly bummed out over the way his budding enthusiasm for being a BB again was quashed by how things went down, and that could possibly effect his current output, creative process, and pace at which music is written/completed.

I'd think if the good C50 vibes had continued, he'd have found himself in a better personal space, and I can only see that helping the creative process. Particularly these days, I think it's the responsibility of people around Brian (bandmates and family members) to make things easier for him to function/create on his terms, even if that means sacrificing more than they bargained for. Not just for the benefit of musical output, but because maybe he simply deserves it at this point as a human being, and it's simply the right thing to do.  

 :lol  :lol  :lol  :lol  :lol

Congratulations sir. Yes, any delays in Brian recording a new solo album now are entirely down to big, bad Mike Love. I love it.

And you are absolutely right that everybody around Brian should act on his terms at all times and should not consider their own thoughts, feelings or wishes. That`s certainly how I behave towards my cousins anyway...  ;)

Please do not twist my words. I'm saying that any musician getting bummed out and/or possibly depressed is a potential factor to consider in how their creative process/ability to write is effected. I speak from personal experience, so I can tell you firsthand that it's not an absurd concept; please check your LOLs and sarcasm at the door. Whether that's truly a piece of THIS particular puzzle is not something that you and I will ever really, truly know, but I don't think it's absurd to speculate that it could be *a* factor.
 
And I do not think that it's a black and white situation where everybody in the BBs should just Brian's sheep, always adhering to his every whim. It's shades of grey, man. Obviously, where those compromises start and end simply cannot be reconciled between those guys, which sucks, and is deeply unfortunate in a big-picture type of way. But ultimately what bugs me is that, IMHO, I don't think that Brian is always treated by his cousin in a way that prioritizes a true empathy/acknowledgement of Brian's emotional history/sensitivity over Mike's own egotistical whims.  

Wembley Arena London, 14,000 and SRO. Hollywood Bowl was sold out too, as I recall.

Why do people make such easily disprovable (or checkable) statements ?

So, nothing to do with Jeff Beck throwing cold water on the whole thing in public interviews, then ? Additionally, I seriously doubt that Brian has given a millisecond's thought to how C50 ended since the day his response to Mike's letter was published in the LA Times last October.

This is just a "what-if ?" scenario of course, but I would pay top coin to see the reaction of the Brianistas if it was unequivocally revealed that in fact it was Brian* who said "OK, I'll do 23 more shows but that's it".

The whole C50/Smile Sessions/new album thing (for they are all connected) is very likely way more complex that we can possibly imagine.


[* - generic term for Brian's management team]

I'd suspect that the lack of a new album is due to a number of factors (and I never thought the C50 implosion was a sole factor, but I hypothesize that it may simply be a factor - relatively speaking - compared to the alternate scenario of whatever creative burst/roll Brian might have had for a TWGMTR followup BB album if C50 had been realized with genuinely harmonious relationships with all his bandmates).

And absolutely, per the Jeff Beck interview, it's certainly possible that he and Brian, and the circumstances of their collaboration may just not be clicking in the studio as hoped. I'd say for Brian these days (and for a long time now), that every time there's a new element/new wrinkle in terms of personalities/bandmates/egos/producers that he has to contend with, it is another challenge/hurdle in getting acclimated to a situation where he can create, and a product can be finished. Not to mention writers' block, which can be induced by a multitude of factors, and which Brian has certainly been known to contend with off-and-on for years now.

For what it's worth, the reports last year all seemed to indicate that Brian's creative process had been energized by the whole thing, even after the anniversary project ended -- that's when we got all those session photos with Al, then David, then Jeff, then Blondie.  Al in particular said that it seemed like the anniversary gathering had started Brian writing in a way he hadn't written for years.

If anything's gone off the boil, it's only been since last October or so, after the tour with the whole gang, more than a year after the C50 ending debacle.  So, probably not an obvious cause.  But either way, we know sessions of some sort have still been continuing, according to Matt Jardine...

Cheers,
Jon Blum

Brian also could have not set people up to then f*** them over and then make out it was their fault. Just an idea but then Brian would be responsible and accountable for his own actions so let's just blame Obamacare.

But that's the thing, and many posters here seem to (conveniently?) forget - or ignore it. Mike said in an interview, "Brian said, 'No more dates for us. Please'."

There's only two ways to view that quote. Either Mike was lying, which wouldn't be the first time a Beach Boy told a non-truth in an interview; they're notorious for it. Or, Mike was telling the truth. Mike IS one of the more honest interviewees of the group. Actually, he has been criticized on this board for being too honest, but that's usually when it exposes the truth about Brian Wilson.

People continue to hammer away at Mike Love for every conceivable thing that went/could've gone wrong with the reunion. Yet, on the other hand, they wanted it to continue. It doesn't make sense. Hypocrisy? If everything they (the posters) write about Mike Love regarding the C50 reunion is true, why would they ever - EVER! - want Brian Wilson to continue to be exposed to it, or him (Mike). Do they think Mike is gonna change? You would think posters would be saying, "Brian, move on, leave Mike Love behind. Go back to YOUR group. You don't need that sh--. Why do you want to deal with him or that mess..." 

I'd sure *like* to think that Brian stopped being bummed out as soon as that LA Times article was written, and that he completely moved on emotionally from the pains he experienced with the C50 situation (without so much as a hint of effect on him personally or creatively) without looking back, aided by his current-day support system. Brian's decades-long history of bum trips effecting his musical output make me have doubts of this scenario being fully accurate, though.

But maybe that is in fact the case, although I'm skeptical in believing a bunch of smiling BW studio pics to be the final word what the real story is. Not that I claim to know beyond speculation. I'd think that regardless of Brian's actual state of mind, that his people would want to publicly put on the best possible face of resilience that they could.

Either way, it doesn't compute to me that experiencing a bitter C50 public falling out would actually help energize BW for followup work, creatively speaking.  I have no doubt that the reunion itself helped kickstart BW creatively; it's the subsequent aftermath that's in question here. Best case scenario is that despite feeling bummed out/resentful enough to write an LA Times article, that his quashed hopes for a harmonious final chapter to his band simply rolled off him and became a complete, 100% non-issue going forward. I'd venture to guess that the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

 

Well, then, great AGD, why don't you give us a list of all the venue capacities? Because they played quite a few venues that were less than 10,000, and music festivals where a lot of other acts were on the bills cannot be counted, IMO. Do you personally truly think the reunited Beach Boys could have played to 15,000-20,000 sports arenas on yearly tours and sold them out every time? Because I don't.

You also have to add in the fact that bands such as the Eagles charge over $150 ticket prices in order to have their tours make money, more like around $250 tickets for the bottom half of the big sports areans. What was the average price of the Beach Boys reunion tour? I bet less than $100 average ticket price. If they charged enough to make it worth their while to mount an expensive tour of sports arenas with a band of over 12 members, there's no way in hell they would sell out.  There are some people who would pipe up that they paid hundreds of dollars for their reunion VIP ticket packages of the first few rows, but the average fan? Nope. The average pop/rock fans will buy $200 seats to the Eagles for themselves, their spouses, their kids, and grandma, but not the Beach Boys. Maybe $75 seats or $100 seats, but not enough to pay for that big ass reunion band. The Beach Boys are not in the league of the Eagles or Springsteen or Bon Jovi, no matter who is in the band.

Who the hell are we to "hold people accountable for their actions"?  As my mom once put it, we're not their Judge Judy and executioner.

Though I am curious how people manage to make Brian responsible for *Al and Dave* not touring with Mike and Bruce.  For me, a show with the four of them would be a step up from the current status quo in Mike's group.  It would be entirely within Mike's powers, as head of the licensed touring group, to make them the same sort of offers which Brian did last year.  But it's been a year and a half since the end of the anniversary, and aside from wishful thinking after last week's benefit there's been no sign of this...

Cheers,
Jon Blum

Yes, but when Brian was on his downward spirals, he did less in the studio.  Here after C50, for an extended period of time, he did more.

The idea that "Radio" and the reunion tour going on fired up Brian's desire to record more music seems entirely believable to me.  So does the fact that, given that Brian didn't go into a reclusive withdrawal after the final debacle, but instead went into the studio with Al and Dave, indicates that his reaction may have been more along the lines of "well I'm doing what *I* want, even if you don't wanna play".

Cheers,
Jon Blum

All of this conjecture about three albums worth of material is just that, until the contracts are signed. Perhaps there's enough in the can for an all instrumental opus with Jeff Beck, perhaps not. Ditto on Life Suite, and so on. But none of it is going to happen without a clearly detailed plan of attack, ie: major label backing.

I'd love to hear everything right now, but they're obviously sitting on their cards until release of Love and Mercy. In the meanwhile, it's a little of this and a little of that in the studio (along with a well-timed selfie around the microphone to peak some interest).

Legacy artists move like legacy cars. Slow and steady out of the parking lot.

I believe it's certainly possible that this is how Brian sees it. From the outside, it very fortunately seems that he is operating emotionally on a more healthy/resilient level than in years past, relatively speaking.

Ultimately though IMO, if the C50 sh*t hadn't hit the fan, I think that Brian, feeling that he was back as the head Beach Boy (and feeling that the band and the brand name being taken more seriously - with lots of continued public goodwill and all the band members united/moving forward harmoniously) may have put his heart + soul more into a post TWGMTR "Beach Boys" product more than the project he is currently working on. Considering the brand name, perhaps there would simply have been more "weight" behind that project to push him more to get it right. Yes the current project involves other Beach Boys, but as far as I presume, it's not going to be released under the artist banner "Beach Boys".

Post C50, Brian is forging on, working around the compromised circumstances, and good for him. I'm sure most every fan would legitimately want him to do that. But that doesn't mean his heart isn't broken a little bit and that the creative process/product will match the heights of what could've been. I hope very much to be proven wrong, and for the new album to kick major butt.

I thought Capitol was backing Brian's latest project(s), as they would have if it were a Beach Boys' album. 

Another thing I recall reading from a Joe Thomas interview is that Joe is Brian's quality control. He said he's willing to tell Brian if something is a bad idea, and that's why Brian trusts him. For example, he cited Brian's continual attempts to do a version of "Proud Mary" as a bad idea. Hm, maybe I like Joe Thomas more than I thought. In any case, if Joe is still involved, he doesn't seem interested in Brian doing a large quantity of crap.  So, it may take longer, and produce fewer albums, but it might be a more commercial/better product that he would like Brian to release. I'm not sure what the point would be in releasing more than one album concurrently or close together. They would just get lost that way.

I gotta know Cam. Would you have preferred that Mike wrote the lyrics for "From There To Back Again" and "Summer's Gone"?

I also wanna know how you are privy to all the info on who owed who what in order for the reunion to take place. Because you always talk about these "promises" that Brian didn't live up to. But I'm pretty sure you have no sources for this info besides a few Mike Love interviews you've read.

And sometimes, as history has told us, promises by Brian to Mike are broken in the name of positive artistic benefit, such as the promise that songwriting would be back to Brian/Mike for the album following Pet Sounds. Instead, Brian got inspired to work with VDP. If Brian was adamant to strictly always keep his promises to Mike verbatim, songs like Surf's Up wouldn't exist. We aren't talking about mortgage contracts or something. It should be looked at as art, and art evolves. Yes the band is a business too, but it seems that at a certain point, especially with people approaching the home stretch of their able years, there are some things that should be more important (to already very rich people) than maximizing every cent of profit out of excessive touring.

To insinuate there were intentional "set someone up with a premeditated intent to f*ck them over" goings on seems way extreme to me. To whatever degree promises by Brian to Mike "were broken" in C50 and in the other example I've mentioned, I doubt there was intent from the start to deceive. I think it was more of a genuine initial itention that wound up evolving due to circumstance, with overall beneficial artistic intent being a significant factor driving the change and "broken promise". Sometimes broken promises and evolving can actually be a good thing (artistically + legacy-speaking) in the big picture, since a purely stand-your-ground-damn-the-consequences ideology can often be very shortsighted.

This was my understanding as well, KK but I would be (pleasantly) surprised if Capitol was on board for three subsequent albums. More than likely, it's album to album. Kind of ratchets up the need for the first one outta the box to be solid.

Joe's idea of "quality control" seems to be radically different from mine, if the mixing and processing of the last live album is anything to go by. Still not made it to the end of disc one. Unlistenable.

Here we go;

Absolutely correct Andrew. I love The Beach Boys and can find something good in almost everything they've done. But that live album is ATROCIOUS. I think the worst is either Mike's vocal on "Don't Back Down" or the random applause in the middle of "Heroes And Villains".

Agree on 'Don't Back Down'. If there ever was a "F*** you Mike!" revenge gesture from Joe with regards to Mikes post C50 comments, that album and THAT track was it.

Good one Joe. Thanks for nothing from this listener!

I would have preferred real Mike lyrics because it sounds like imitation Mike lyrics anyway.

I have exactly the same info you do I'm sure, we just see it differently.

I haven't "insinuated" anymore then you have I don't think. Brian insisted no more dates, then publically claimed he was an injured party by no more dates, that's the way I see it.

Broken promises are broken promises however one rationalizes them.

  I bought the LIVE 50 album last week. Same reaction; I can't make it through disc one.

They don't sound like Mike lyrics to me. Maybe Mike's lyrics on Today! but definitely not anything recent, since, ya know, there's no mention of "fun, fun, fun", "good vibrations", or wanting to  "come out rockin' with Rhonda and Barbara Ann, singing of surf and sand."

Right. They sound like an imitator of Mike's glory days lyrics and the music sounds like an imitator of Brian's glory days music.

So it would be fair to say that you don't care for "From There To Back Again" and "Summer's Gone", since you think it's just "imitation"?

No, they are fine but would be better with both authentic imitations of music and lyrics.

They are both the best they can be now but not the best of their glory days. I'm not knocking it from them, it's the way it is imo and lucky to have. I'd rather have what they come up with together and I think they both would rise to the occasion and then we would have world peace.

But what are they an imitation of? If anything, I suppose one could say "Summer's Gone" takes after "Caroline No" which was not written by Mike Love. So how does it make it "inauthentic" if it's taking after a song that Mike had nothing to do with.

And anyways, by your standards, isn't most of Pet Sounds and SMiLE inauthentic Beach Boys material? Shoot, I guess even stuff like "Little Deuce Coupe" and "Lonely Sea" wouldn't qualify as authentic material. And while we're at it, I'd say That's Why God Made The Radio was a much more authentic Beach Boys album than the largely Terry Melcher written Summer In Paradise, but I never heard you voice complaints about that one.

It seems like you just feel that Mike isn't getting a fair shake from the fanbase and therefore are making up reasons to diss TWGMTR, kinda like Mike himself has.

You're free to imagine whatever you wish about me. It's not my favorite album, I'm glad it exist anyway.

I was assuming you would actually respond to my post rather than that deflection.

Do you feel that Beach Boys material that isn't cowritten by Mike Love is inauthentic? Because that's the way you made it seem, just because Brian didn't ask him to write the lyrics to some of the best material he's written in years.

Yes, but Brian didn't write that material by himself. Joe made substantial contributions to the music, including on the life suite. It's hard to know how substantial, but it was admitted to. So, Joe was channeling Brian for some musical parts, and channeling Mike for some lyrics.

Can you point to a single actual Mike Love song ever with lyrics as thoroughly downbeat as "Summer's Gone"?

Mike Love moodiness is "Please Let Me Wonder" or "Kiss Me Baby".  "Summer's Gone" is not coming from anywhere near that place, and it seems hard to justify a case that it was aiming for Mike Love moodiness and missing...

Regards,
Jon Blum

Jon, don't bother, Cam's just trying to convince himself that the album would've been better if it had more lyrics like "Hare Krishna, gonna miss ya"!

I don't know why there even has to be a question of whether or not some (and maybe lots, depending on ones' personal taste) of Brian's best BB work has happened with lyricists other than Mike. That statement should be able to be considered a matter of historical fact, without it being thought of as any kind of put down to Mike (it isn't).

Even if a given fan loves loves LOVES Mike - and thinks that he and Brian are capable of making magic together - why is it a problem/issue if some (or maybe, a lot of) great art under the BB name is made with a non-Mike lyricist?  Even for uber Mike defenders who think that Mike has been "wronged" and historically "shortchanged creatively" or something.  

Unquestionably, Brian sometimes just *wants* to work with other people, and there shouldn't be anything wrong with that... the problem IMO, of course, is that Mike thinks he is "owed" something. Based on some of Mike's statements, it's fair to surmise that he roughly thinks he's Paul McCartney to Brian's John Lennon - but let's face it, that's not really reality. And Brian probably realizes this is how Mike's felt for decades, but doesn't have the heart to outright tell Mike that this isn't reality either.

And you know the way Brian had to be told by Andy Paley (and others) to stop recycling previously-used riffs? The way Brian had to be watched and told to stop rewriting Shortening Bread 249 times? Well, maybe Mike also needs to be told to stop ever referencing old song lyrics/titles again.  I mean, he seriously needs an intervention - not kidding. It's clearly a problem on the scale of Brian's Shortening Bread obsession, only far more publicly embarrassing, IMO.

I get the idea that some fans in their hearts "want" Brian/Mike to write great art together - to write legitimately good music. And these fans are emotionally attached to that idea, and cannot comprehend that this may be an impossibility at this point. Well, consider that maybe, just maybe, Brian in his heart at this point in his life doesn't really truly desire to ever again work with Mike in a songwriting capacity, and would prefer Mike to just be utilized as a BB vocalist, like the majority of the Pet Sounds era.

I don't know if that's the case... but *if* it were proven that this were Brian's true desire... what would Mike do/say in response? Well, Mike would probably walk away and feel very hurt. What would the uber Mike fans say? That Mike should assert himself and never sing on a BB song again?  I would say after weighing the options, and realizing that the age clock is a tickin', Mike should just go with the flow, check his ego at the door, and go sing his heart out. Mike's done it before in the past (with great final results still coming out of the studio)... and there shouldn't be any reason he can't do the same now (if that's what's being asked of him) - other than the hypothetical, remote possibility that this is all actually about ego. Which is why this is so infuriating.

I'll never understand why people feel the need to ignore the things they don't like about their favorite superstars. 

Brian is like GOD to music, I agree with that... I also love the guy, he's great, I wish he were my next door neighbor.

To act like he's this harmed, hurt, beaten down good guy who Mike Love stole the Beach Boys name from is a little rich, though.

Just a couple facts that I'm sure Andrew will chime in and dispute, in his smarmy way

1. Brian knowingly, purposefully, intently f***ed Mike out of millions of dollars in song writing credits
2. Brian voted to let Mike use the Beach Boys name
3. Brian makes money every time Mike hobbles out onto stage at the Mohecan Sun Casino in South Dakota or wherever the f*** he is tonight
4. Brian cound not, and would not, support even half the tour dates that Mike does
5. Brian has made a lot of money off the beach boys doing a lot of nothing for a lot of years
6. For as hard as Mike is to work with, when you work with Brian you first must work with the dozen sycophants that coddle him
7. Brian makes more money, and wants more money, deservedly so, than Mike does

I love the guy to death but Mike's not the only hard one to work with here, folks.


My point?  The Brianista revisionist history thing gets a little old.  The guy is stlil just as great at everything if you'll admit he has shortcomings, and don't automatically assume that every business deal he has that goes sour has nothing to do with his sweet, innocent, never harmed a butterfly self. 

We don't all have to share the same opinions. 

All of the above things you state are true, and I've certainly never denied any of them or claimed Brian to be an angel.  It's surely very tough working/writing with Brian in a current-day situation - unusually so. No doubt about it. Perhaps Beck's recent interview reflects that. But it *can* be done, great results *can* still happen, as witnessed by a good number of amazing tracks over the last decade. It just means the people working with him (in this case, his old bandmates) have to be *exceptionally* patient and go-with-the-flow, and put their priorities in the backseat often times for a guy who has had unusually tough times in life... Since some of his bandmates found themselves able to do that (the ones who *weren't* family, no less), IMO there seems no good reason to me why ALL of them weren't able to, other than relatively petty things getting in the way.

I unfortunately think that undercurrents of 50-year old grudges that perhaps never fully 100% emotionally resolved, were still very much at play during C50, and are probably still alive and kicking today. Perhaps Mike's blatantly unfair songwriting omissions were a factor in why he wouldn't bend enough (surely a LOT) to avoid a C50 implosion. Maybe Mike winning the songwriting lawsuit, and Brian (perhaps) saying "sorry" didn't truly, truly cut it for Mike in the back of his mind. And, Brian probably still has a mountain of resentment over lost artistic opportunities that I'm sure he still blames his cousin for, even if he put those feelings aside for a time. If Brian feels that way to *some* degree in his heart, IMO he probably expects overwhelming bend-over-backwards treatment by his bandmates partly to help make up for what he perceives as past injustices.  

Whatever Brian was asking for (continued changes to the touring schedule, songwriting "promises" evolving due to circumstances) - whatever the breaking point(s) was that somehow made Mike say "f*ck it" and call the waamulance - just HOW huge a sacrifice by Mike could it have been? It's not like Mike was being asked to sacrifice his first-born child or anything.  ::) I presume it would have just involved lessening Mike's position of power/control over certain things, probable adjusting to less touring, and probable less short term monetary profit...BUT, with many, many almost guaranteed HUGE legacy-related bonuses, not the least of which would have included a more energized/happy/TRULY appreciative cousin.

I'm trying to find a way to see Mike's eventual actions as anything other than shortsighted and very lame (to put it nicely)... and while I honestly appreciate hearing dissenting opinions by some people who defend him (as this is a "well rounded" BB board), I'm nonetheless unable to find a way to empathize with Mike for the path that he took.

1. If by "knowingly, purposefully, intently" (that's intentionally, btw) you mean "by omission, by doing nothing about it despite repeatedly promising to confront Murry about it"... then yes. He did. He admits that.

2. Strictly speaking, Brian's representative did that, but the premise holds true.

3. Yup, as do Alan, Carl's estate and Mike himself.

4. Arguable point here. He's done 70-odd solo shows a year in the past. Year in, year out... probably not.

5. True.

6. You're assuming Mike's hard to work with in the first instance: that aside, the past and current evidence suggests that only one person has been prepared to work extensively with Brian more than once - Joe Thomas - and as he came waving a checkbook each time, that kinda disqualifies him. The problem working with Brian isn't just Brian, it's his management team. We all know at least one of the horror stories...

7. Again true.

Sufficiently oleaginous ?

As always, I can only speak for myself, but for me the demise of C50 isn’t about how Brian was injured or hurt by Mike. Brian did and does live comfortably, and continues to make music. He got over the C50 debacle pretty quickly, if he was ever that upset by it in the first place.

The reason I, and believe most fans, are bummed by the demise of C50 is that the fans lost out, and also that the band put out such a good product for C50 that it’s just objectively a shame that a group that puts together something so great would just piss it away.

The other points don’t really matter much in relation to this. Brian screwed Mike out of songwriting credits and royalties, yes. A true reading of the events suggests, to some, that the amount of songwriting credit pursued in the lawsuit was slight or far overreaching, and Mike himself has said in relatively recent interviews specifically that HE (Mike) doesn’t blame Brian for it because Brian was too timid, f-ed up, etc.

It’s of no consequence really, but I would debate whether, based on the evidence at hand, Brian “wants more money than Mike”, although that could mean a few different things. A stronger desire to make money as compared to Mike’s desire? Or that he wants to amass more money than Mike amasses? Either way, Brian’s massive overhead costs involved in coddling him strongly suggest, in some areas, he cares far less about money than Mike, at least in terms of operating costs. Mike by his own admission likes running operations with low overhead costs to maximize profits. Mike is the one who specifically said in an interview that he hears a cash register ringing when he performs Beach Boys songs. There’s no doubt all these guys enjoy their wealth and in most senses seek it out. That’s not a unique concept.

I'm sorry, but you just described freaking "Pet Sounds" and "Smile" pretty much, two of the crowning acheivements of Brian's and the BB's career.

Those two project, as well as TWGMTR, were more than a Brian solo album because it combined everybody's best talents: Brian's writing, Brian's vocal arranging, and the GROUP vocals. The vocal intro to "Pacific Coast Highway" is reason enough to warrant keeping the entire reunited group together. I don't care if Brian wrote that, or Joe Thomas, or Mike Love's secretary. They still sound amazing singing together, which is pretty effing amazing considering Carl's not in the blend anymore.

It's not a shame if Brian doesn't live up to his own agreements but it is a shame if Brian lives up to his own agreements?
 

I`ll be honest and say that I think some of your comments are rather naive.

The C50 thing happened because it made sound business sense. They knew that they could use the anniversary to sell tickets and albums. Now I can completely understand fans wishing that they`d played some more shows that were on offer and not ended when they did and that Mike was in the wrong over that. But your idea that Mike should have agreed to essentially ceasing touring as The Beach Boys for however long Brian needed to make a new album is from the moon.  :) Of course that wasn`t going to happen and if you were in Mike`s position then you wouldn`t have agreed to that either.

When you talk about some of his bandmates being able to put their priorities to one side, I guess you are talking about Al and David. The obvious reason for that is simply that they don`t have other priorities.  :lol Harsh perhaps but playing the occasional solo gig or show with the Endless Summer band is a completely different thing to Mike playing 100+ shows a year. What did Al and David have to lose?

When you mention `HUGE legacy-related bonuses`, do you mean if the C50 group had stayed together permanently? Obviously there was never any chance of that happening and if they had only recorded one more album it would have had a negligible effect on the legacy.

I think you make far too much of the effects of Brian being `energized and happy` too. For many years Brian seems to have constant support in his solo career from both his family and his bandmates. He has obviously been productive in terms of making an album every couple of years or so but nearly every album has been made up of covers or reworkings of his old songs (That Lucky Old Sun being the only exception in his solo career). The idea that Mike giving Brian his support would suddenly make him more creative/inspired isn`t really backed up by the facts. If anything, the support that Brian received from his wife and band seemed to coincide with his writer`s block.

Finally though I think what you and Cam choose to overlook (from opposite ends of the spectrum) is that the C50 tour was planned well in advance and went as much to plan as could be expected. Maybe Mike thought he would be more involved in songwriting (naive if he did imo) and Brian obviously agreed to add more shows as things progressed. They all knew it was intended to end by a certain point though as everybody knew about the October shows that Mike and Bruce had booked. Now the idea that Mike could have cancelled those shows and played a few more shows with the C50 is credible. The idea that with no planning whatsoever that he would consent to giving up the lifestyle that he has led for the past 50 years even though is not within the bounds of credibility at all. You or I certainly wouldn`t do it that`s for sure.  :)

The thing is – we really don’t know if that “extreme” scenario would be what was requested from Mike by Brian’s team. Maybe that was what was being asked of him… but, maybe Brian’s team was asking for something different, like asking for M&B to tour in the meantime (just not using the BB name), or for some other scenario midway between.

But even if Mike would have been asked for the utmost, extreme, "unconscionable" thing (to give touring under the BB name thing a rest for a little while, and then ALL return to the road united with more built-up anticipation), I don’t see why this couldn’t have happened, and why it would have been such an unreasonable (hypothetical) request. Yes, we know Mike is very, very used to touring non-stop, and that it seems to be an addiction of sorts to him, and IMO a destructive addiction. Especially since 1998, when he could be in the driver’s seat, doing what he pleases when he wants to. But all sorts of bands give touring a rest, record an album, and then return to the road. The BBs have historically done it themselves too, as evidenced by many months-long gaps in touring that have been documented in the BBs In Concert book. It shouldn’t be a crazy concept, but it’s a concept that Mike would have had to cede control/certainty over.  




I’d argue that if they’d stayed together, recorded more album(s), made less live appearances with an emphasis of quality over quantity, and publicly established a legitimate, long-term mending of fences, that the brand name would be held in a considerably higher regard - there’d probably be an award-winning documentary made about it, and hearing the band name might begin to have a lot less people cringe (due to immediate associations with things like Stamos and Full House) when they think of the BBs. We can't know just how much goodwill they were *sooo* close to having that just slipped away.




It’s very fortunate that Brian does have a support system these days, but I think it’s fair to say that resolving long-term emotional hurdles have historically shown to have a positive aspect on Brian personally and creatively. I’d say that whatever bad blood still exists between these guys is still one of those hurdles. I don’t think that Mike giving Brian his support would cause Brian to magically turn into his 1966 creative self, but I think there would absolutely be some positive benefits.




Without insider info, you and I can only speculate about the specifics of sacrifices that would have been (or were in fact) asked of Mike… but all I can say is that IMO, on the whole, it’s usually been in Mike’s nature to resist change and prioritize “sure things” over taking chances, and I think hindsight has shown that to be unfortunate, and at times detrimental. I don’t think Mike was/would have been asked to “give up his lifestyle”, but more to amend/evolve certain aspects of it. In that alternate universe, he’d still be filthy rich and get to play BB songs a bunch, I’m sure.  Where there's a will, there's a way, and I'm certain some workable solution could have been planned out. But it's obvious to me that Mike's ego and lust for control came first.

The are quite a lot of threads at the moment discussing the end of the C50 so I thought after 2 years I might as well comment on it!

I think all Brian wanted was to play some more dates in a few more places before the tour ended later in 2012.  Mike could also have given Brian the chance to show up anytime after that and sit in ( like in the 90s) which Brian probably wouldn't have done anyway.

The legacy has not been affected in any way IMHO.  Most members of the public outside the US probably don't even know there is a Beach Boys Touring Bands doing the rounds, and when they come here they probably wouldn't know who was it in or not.

I like all the guys and value all of their contributions, but the bottom line is without a Brian Wilson Mike and the other guys would not still be able to make as much of a living as they do from the music business.  So I don't know why anyone would grudge Brian earning money from Mike and Bruce touring.  The guys, without Brian, might have been in other bands and touring 60s festivals sharing he bill with other artists from the time like the Yardbirds or the Zombies.  But they had a genius at the helm who wrote and produced music that ensures the band are still held in high esteem.  He churned out enough tunes to ensure they can play enough well know songs of their own without having to share the bill with others (which would mean less dollars for the touring group).

As far as who wrote what on TWGMTR, if Joe could come up with the intro to Pacific Coast Highway and the music to it then he is wasted in his current role.  He should be out there spreading his genius and writing hit after hit because he has some talent!  I have no doubt Brian needs help (and some stuff through the years sounds like Scott B and others helping Brian sound like Brian, and sounding like an imitation) but equally I have no doubt he can still produce music only he can make, albeit less often (who else in their 70s can still do it as often?)

Lastly, I think the guys probably don't dislike each other as much as some fans seem to think, which is why they could get back in a studio quicker than some think.

Funny that Cam never admitted that Pet Sounds and SMiLE are "authentic" Beach Boys music, since you know, Mike didn't write it. It seems he only responds to things when he thinks he has the "correct" answer. When he doesn't he simply says "hey man, that's your opinion".

It doesn't have anything to do with TWGMTR. Yes it authentic. Mike doesn't have to write every song. Brian doesn't have to write every song. TWGMTR sounds to me like imitations of glory days BBs music. Thomas and Bon Jovi and Mike all sound like they are imitating Mike back in the day. Brian and Thomas sound like they are imitating Brian from back in the day. I'd prefer Mike and Brian imitating Mike and Brian. You can think whatever you want.

It's super flattering how much you care about my opinions. [tear] You want a hug?

And again, I don't know where you get the idea that Bon Jovi was even trying to imitate Mike.  As opposed to, y'know, imitate Brian circa "Til I Die".  Which Mike similarly thought was a major downer.

Regards,
Jon Blum

Mike was imitated himself for 30 years with such success as GTTB and SIP.

OK, you don't get it.

Explain to us how he doesn't get it.

And yes, I care about your opinion, just like I care about every other major posters opinion on this board. I hope to learn something.

However, it seems like you are kinda intellectually inconsistent with this stuff. As SMiLE Brian pointed out, we've never heard you say "Goin' to the Beach" was a pathetic imitation of the 1962 Beach Boys, but that's obviously what it was.

And also, have you spoken to Brian, Joe and Bon Jovi? They told you they were going for an imitation of the groups glory days? If they indeed did, then I apologize. Otherwise, maybe Brian, with "Summer's Gone" was just trying to achieve a poignant moment in what he thought could be the last "Beach Boys" song. Which rather than "imitating" was perhaps just consolidating their strengths. Which included using Mike Love's aged voice on parts of it.

I'm fine with him not getting it. I'm fine with you not agreeing.

I've said it the best I can. Sorry. Maybe you could argue with each other's opinions and tastes.

But there is still a disconnect between what you are trying to say and how the rest of us are interpreting it.

I'm just glad someone finally fucking said oleaginous around here.

OK. I guess that's the way we will leave it.

Oh, and you've spoken to Mike about "Goin' to the Beach" and "Summer in Paradise" being pathetic imitations of the 1962 Beach Boys?

No, I don't make statements of fact about things I don't know. I offer opinions. Cam on the other hand always talks about "promises Brian has made" and this and that, and it's like unless you actually have anything to back up this information, perhaps it would be better to offer this stuff as opinion rather than pretending you actually know ANYTHING about the subject at hand. For instance there are posters like Nicko, who although I pretty much don't agree with at all, at least makes it obvious he is not chatting on the phone with Mike getting the scoop. Cam on the other hand spreads what he THINKS might be the truth as fact, when really it's just his opinion.

Jeez. He states his opinion. You want to take it that he's saying it's a fact, keep on with it. We're all stating our opinions  (Except AGD, who has the facts) 
You guys hammer at each other all day long, day after day, on whose opinion is more righter. Guess that's what keeps your interest level up? If that's the case, it works for me.
As always, my opinion....

Fucking boring, really. Nothin' or nobody else to argue with, I guess. No wives or girlfriends to yell at, no dog to kick. It's like going by a car wreck. You don't really want to look so you quickly scan over it as you drive by but you can't help but rubberneck anyway to see if there's anything interesting. Or not. Move it along, move it along. Nothing here to see.  Next thread!!  

Good gawwwwwwwd, people!  ::)

Ok. I have cut down your post just to make it easier to reply to.

I think you overestimate a lot of things about the reunion tour and about how realistic the possibilities were that, even if it had carried on for a few more months, Brian would have wanted it to be done every year. The fact that Mike and Bruce have been able to go back to touring in their current line up with such ease shows just how little many members of the general public care about who is on stage with The Beach Boys. I don`t think anyone cares about `mending of fences` outside of the hardcore fanbase and the legacy of the group is already set in stone. Brian and Mike getting on stage together in their mid-70s would change nothing about that.

I could not agree more, Captain. (Isn't "oleaginous" what happens when you leave margarine out in the sun too long??)  :hat

All I was trying to articulate, is that I don't buy Brian being the victim in this thing, whether it's he himself stating it, or his fans... i'm also a fan of course.  

An niteresting thing that someone above mentioned, was that Brian probably only wanted to do a couple weeks worth of extra dates or whatever... which sounds likely....

which ultimately means that really the whole to-do is just over a months worth of missed opportunities.  So Mike couldn't be bothered to give a couple weeks of extra work, and Brian got so upset over a couple of weeks worth of work... Most normal people could have worked something out.  

That it's apparently driven a wedge between the BB's so they are once again not working together (so far) on future projects just shows how trepidacious and strained their relationship is at this late date.  Sad.  

See, I don't think it's quite that. Somewhat close though.

I think, as Brian said in the LA Times thing, and also like you've surmised, he wanted to do a few more shows that we on the table, such as another appearance at the Hollywood Bowl and also a New Years show, or whatever there was on the table.

Now also, remember that Brian was saying that he wanted to do another album with The Beach Boys. And also remember that Jon Stebbins reported that there was an offer on the table for a new album, and because of Mike opting out they had to leave it sitting there.

So I think it was more that Mike decided to finish The Beach Boys as an ongoing concern artistically, instead just reverting to the touring jukebox with Bruce. And he had (and still has) the right to do that. However, that is why I think most of us are bummed. He could have still probably done the half-ass "Beach Boys" thing with Bruce and tour state fairs and then also have the real group play bigger, more concentrated tours, and also release albums. I have to imagine a deal like that must have been floated at some point.

I wish he would have done it too... but I doubt Mike would do something (or not do something) without reasons.  Apparently he didn't enjoy the whole ordeal as much as Brian did.  "Really Brian... it's not you, it's Me"

Mikie, that sounded like a good time, Beachboys and Tahoe, you should have GONE!   Spent a couple of days in Tahoe last summer and went over to the Mountain Winery to see Mike and Bruce and Scotty and John  on the way back to Monterey.   Sometimes you gotta just go with the premise that "its all good"....... :)

Aside from the money, then what was the point of the reunion?

I think that would've been a PR, marketing, and maybe even legal nightmare. Who's sitting in tonight? Will Brian be there? Is Al & David joining Mike & Bruce? This show was advertised with a group picture including Brian does that mean he will be appearing? Who's "The Beach Boys" - Mike & Bruce or the group with Brian, Al, and David? You know what I mean...

Andy Botwin - Yes, I echo that question too...

And I reiterate your question to Nicko - what was the point of the reunion besides money?  Your post almost makes it seem like that was the sole reason that the bandmembers had in mind, and I contend that's not the case.

It seems to me that, besides the obvious desire to make touring money from ticket sales of a reunion tour, it was thought/hoped for by the bandmembers (and their spouses) that if the reunion went well, this could be a major step at hatchet-burying, not to mention reaping long-term benefits (which would have been financial + image-related to repair the public persona of a fractured band that was a shadow of its former self). I'd really like to think that Mike Love wasn't ONLY thinking of making bucks the whole time. I'll give him more credit than that. There were surely lots of reasons why the reunion happened, and lots of hopes which differed from person to person. Nobody at the onset could have really known the outcome, but I think they were all taking things one step at a time, as evidenced by the "safe" cover of Do it Again, then the music video (sans David), then with David, etc. etc.

And the assertion that "The fact that Mike and Bruce have been able to go back to touring in their current line up with such ease shows just how little many members of the general public care about who is on stage with The Beach Boys" doesn't really gel with me. M&B have been able to find an audience, and more power to them. But IMO, the audience of the M&B show doesn't constitute the "general public" as much as a small, relatively much less discerning contingent of fans + some *super* hardcore fans who will take what they can get and are just happy to see any BBs playing. No insult intended to any M&B fans/attendees - hell, I've been a M&B attendee before (and I’m not trying to start a discussion about the musical merits of M&B show).

Whether or not we can agree how many of the “general public” care, or would have been aware of the band *legitimately* having mended fences/gotten along, presenting an ongoing public image of releasing seriously good, critically-praised music, and playing fewer - but better and high profile –shows, I contend that if that had continued from 2012-forward, the amount of benefits/cred/change in public perception (the non M&B attendee perception) that could have been gained could have been staggering, if handled well by good PR people.

Here's an idea: Mike & Bruce could simply be billed as "Mike Love and Bruce Johnston" and not as "The BBs", and just deal with having smaller audiences, then return to the fold and tour as "The BBs" when all the members were present.  Or better idea - they could simply take some time off from touring altogether... and decide that the brand name will only be used in a united way from here on out. Granted, the short term cash cow would be affected. I have no idea if Brian's people would have presented either idea as an option (since their bottom line would be affected too, as would Carl's estate + Al). Again, it's taking a chance that there'd have been some big picture financial or legacy/image-related rewards to reap based upon using the brand name in a more well-thought-out, calculated way with quality over quantity.  

But supposing either idea was suggested (or would have been suggested) by Brian's people to Mike, I still do not think it's an unreasonable request to ask of Mike. Maybe a difficult request worthy of soul searching that would've been tough to accept, but IMO something that many reasonable people in his shoes would nonetheless eventually be able to wrap their heads around.

Problem number one: I have never seen it stated anywhere that any of the band members had ever contemplated that this might become a permanent thing (and that includes Brian). If Brian had ever said that he wanted to completely give up his solo career to become a permanent Beach Boy again then I apologize.

Problem number two: The whole reason that Mike has paid Brian and Al a stack of money since 1998 for doing nothing is because he did not want to tour as Mike Love and Bruce Johnston (or America`s Band or any other alternative). It IS completely unrealistic to think that he would start to do that again.

Obviously there are lots of unknowns about the Brian's team's intent - we can only presume what Brian's team would have proposed to Mike. I think it was a step-by-step process that would have involved taking things one step at a time, and things may have been asked to be put on hold during the figuring-out process. My point is, while we don't (and likely will never) know what parameters might have been asked of Mike (if it even got to the presenting-him-options stage), what's the *worst* or most "outrageous" proposal that either was (or could possibly have been) offered to Mike by Brian's team? Again, he wasn't being asked to give up his firstborn son or anything.  :)

Yeah, my memory is whenever the principals spoke about it, it was as a one time thing and maybe a last time thing tied to the 50th.

I know Mike didn't want to tour billed as "M&B" (with that being the only touring that he'd do)... but if he could be billed as "M&B" for his paired-down shows, and then get to be part of "The BBs" again for the unified, bigger shows/tours, I fail to see why that's an absurd hypothetical request worthy of a drama queen reaction - unless it's an ego thing.

It's absurd on two levels. First, how many tickets would the "Mike Love & Bruce Johnston Of The Beach Boys Band" sell? And how long, after they are playing to half-filled venues, would they not be able to continue? I'd give them a year. Mike would never agree to that proposal.

And second, Brian, Carl Wilson's Estate, and maybe even Al would never agree to that set-up, jeopardizing big $$$$$$$$$$ for doing absolutely nothing. I know I keep bringing that up, but, for some reason you (and others) either don't agree or DON'T WANT to accept it. You can continue to think that Mike Love is the only Beach "in it for the money" or PRIMARILY "in it for the money", but I am of the opinion that OTHER Beach Boys were also following the money and some are continuing to do so. I'm not seeing or hearing a lot of "art" coming out of 'em...

I agree that Brian/Al/Carl's estate all want money too. Absolutely. Therefore I don't know what the terms of the actual proposal would have been. I do think it's safe to say that, relative to Mike, the other BB members care about money less and legacy/art more. Again - I'm *not* saying that Brian never does things just for money and doesn't like getting checks for the M&B show - he DOES.

Brian got really miffed/pissed about *something* in terms of a difference of opinion (and how this was handled) regarding how C50 would have hypothetically continued. That's why I'm only speculating at what the proposals could have been. But as far as I can see it, there couldn't have been too many different options for Brian's team to have proposed to Mike (if it even got to the hypothetical discussion/proposal stage). I wonder if it even did get to that discussion stage. But there had to have been some series of actions/concessions that Mike could have done that would have made Brian not pissed at Mike and not take out an LA Times article. We can only guess at what those actions would have been.
 

.

Brian doesn't need the touring money, he's been good for life since 1965 with royalties and such. He wants it though, and he's in his right.
Al - I don't know.
Carl's estate definetly needs the touring money.

CenturyDeprived, you are and have been ASSUMING that Brian Wilson WOULD PREFER touring as/with The Beach Boys for about 20-25 dates per year (yes, those are my numbers but I think they're close to yours also?), as opposed to NOT touring as/with The Beach Boys at all and having Mike & Bruce carry on as they have been for the last 15 years.

I don't agree with that assumption. You have one interview to hang your hat on, and you don't know if Brian was behind that interview, or if it was motivated by his wifeandmanagers. There was no follow-up interview and Brian, to the best of my knowledge hasn't even uttered the term "Beach Boys" since the end of the reunion.

Yes, Mike only mentioned the "Brian said please no more dates" quote in one interview, but he has repeated the "reunion had an agreed upon beginning and ending" in a few subsequent interviews. Maybe he's full of crap, but he has been consistent.

There could be some things going on behind the scenes as we are sitting here posting, I don't know...But, if Brian really wants to be a Beach Boy or have that C50 band continue, he doesn't appear to very proactive in accomplishing that goal. Is he doing anything in the way of negotiating future terms for the group? If that Rolling Thunder Revue he staged last year was his way of making a point, I'm not sure he made any inroads....

I think Brian and Mike are both treading carefully in this situation, a lawsuit could derail a BBs reunion for years or even for good.

I've discussed some *possible* scenarios that *might* have been proposed by Brian's people (like M&B giving it a rest, etc.) for the simple point of the fact that IMO, even the scenarios that would have made Mike sacrifice the most (relatively speaking) still don't seem unreasonable to me. I can't say I have any real concrete assumptions on what Brian's team would have wanted, and how many BB dates (either with him or some without him) that would have totaled out to.  I hypothesize that once Brian really started enjoying himself and "wanted to be a BB again", that Brian and his people would have then WANTED the band to continue united, using a baby-steps approach, fielding offers one step at a time and seeing where things took them.

I mean, I guess this is my question: If Mike had made up his mind to go along with what Brian wanted (without resentment), and Brian's team was calling the shots, where would the band be now? What's the worst that would have happened? An already super rich Mike loses some money? Cry me a river. Had they gone down that road, what's the "unconscionable" thing that could possibly have occurred (that Mike was soooo afraid of happening) that he imploded the reunion for?  Find a way to convince me that this is about anything other than control, fear, and ego. I'd (honestly) love to believe that Mike's actions truly were sourced out of anything but those things.

Regarding why Brian isn't making some huge effort in 2014 to get a BB reunion with Mike going again: Brian is probably still hurt (even if he's gotten "over" it to a large extent), and would probably think that the ball would be in Mike's court.
 

Not control, not fear, not ego. Money. I'm sorry but that's my honest opinion. Money trumps everything. It always did and it always will. If Mike and Bruce DON'T do their usual 70+ dates per year, BRI will make less money. And making less money than possible is not an option. Try to convince me that Mike or Brian ('s team) or Carl's Estate would prefer those 20-something "quality" real-deal Beach Boys' concerts - for the sake of art, prestige, internal fulfillment, or the fans - over the Mike & Bruce money-makin' gravy train. That's a tough sell....

I don't think Brian is too bothered.  I don't think he is sitting around 'hurt'.  He's spent most of his career not touring with the Beach Boys. Why would he be so concerned now?  If Brian really truly wanted it then I'm sure it would happen IMHO.

As I said earlier the Beach Boys are probably ok with each other.

Sheriff - I don't necessarily agree with your conclusion, but I don't find it completely implausible; perhaps the true answer is partway between what we both think are the true reasons here.

The one thing that doesn't add up to me about what you said, is that if you are implying that Brian's team - at the time of C50 when Brian was feeling happy about being a BB again - would prefer the Mike & Bruce money-makin' gravy train to keep going at all costs... then Brian feeling hurt and writing the LA Times article makes no sense. While Brian + Carl's estate surely love getting a regular check, I don't think Brian wanted M&B to go back to the status quo at the expense of the reunion; while we'll probably never know what Brian's "plan" would have been, IMO it doesn't make sense that he'd get as hurt as he did for just the lost opportunity of "a few more" C50 dates. 

Sorry but your comments here seem to indicate that you are only capable of viewing things from one person`s perspective...

Mike has been the head of The Beach Boys for more than 30 years and your suggestions that he should go along with anything that Brian`s management suggested indicate a complete lack of understanding of human nature.

Also, you ignore one pretty simple thing. Mike enjoys touring with Bruce in their group and obviously didn`t mind going back to that. They play to good sized crowds (if they were to tour under their own names they would be as unsuccessful as Al sadly), get on well with the band members (including his son who you imply he should have no problem with permanently firing) and Mike gets to meet as many girls as he wants. Maybe he enjoys touring in a stress free environment with a bunch of guys he gets on well with. As the agreement was only ever to do one tour, why shouldn`t a person go back to what they were doing before?

Your response to this will doubtless be, `because I wanted it to go on forever and ever` though...  ;)

Thanks for finding it necessary to personally insult me in this thread by saying that I have a complete lack of understanding of human nature.  :-\ No need to get personal, man. This is not true. I can "understand" Mike wanting what he wants, and not "wanting" to give up what he feels he has somehow rightly earned.  I can also understand that ego/fear of change/not wanting to lose control are also elements of human nature to some people - surely you must admit that's true for *some* people, regardless of whether or not you agree (or apparently not, in your case) that these were the prime factors of what happened behind the scenes in this case. And lest you think I arrived at my opinions in a bubble... my overall view in this matter is admittedly influenced by the fact that I apparently see things about who owes who a preponderance of favors/concessions, etc. (at this point in the game, with the saga of this band - and its members' relationships/histories taken into consideration) differently than you. IMHO of course.

Not meaning to be personal at all but this is what I mean by human nature.

Mike has been in charge of The Beach Boys for decades (for better or worse). Now your idea that anybody who is in charge of a company would just say to a former partner, `you were the genius behind things 50 years ago so I will cede complete control to you and will do no work for the company without your say so. This will lose me millions of dollars but I will take a part time job on the side and will happily wait for you to tell me if and when we will work together in the future` is completely unrealistic. Completely. Human beings do not behave like that.

I don't understand an attitude that seems to think the Boys should put up with almost anything from Brian. Some seem to put Brian even above the law. Over stating but barely.

I believe that example analogy to be quite extreme compared to whatever circumstances Mike presumably had to deal with. If Mike had ceded "complete control", we wouldn't likely have songs like Daybreak on TWGMR, for starters. Not saying he didn't make compromises, but there were most certainly compromises made in *his* favor.

And another example of why it shouldn't have been out of the realms of reality for 2012 Brian to regain control: there existed a working framework for this band where Brian was in charge and essentially had the final artistic say on matters (not to say his opinion couldn't be influenced at the time, but he was the big kahuna), during the 1960s. It's not like this power structure should be a completely foreign concept to anyone in the band. Now, admittedly a 70 year old Brian being "in charge" with the latter day wife/managers is a different concept to Mike and Co. But "power" and control has shifted back and forth between various factions of the band many times over the years, and it shouldn't be an unthinkable concept.

But in the end, to me, this is about Mike not knowing when stepping down a few levels from a "power" position may just be the right thing to do for the situation. And I'm thinking of it in a sense too of Brian simply deserving what he wants at this time a little more than Mike, who's been able to have things on his terms for 16 years. Mike doesn't have to see it that way, and due to the massive chip he still obviously has on his shoulder about lots of stuff, he probably never will - but IMO he *should*.

And finally: Brian found it in himself to step down from whatever level of "control" he had, and allowed himself to no longer be in the creative "driver's seat" following the 15BO/Love You era. Of course, Brian had lots of issues at the time including drug problems, but the point being that here's an example of a BB ceding control because he just decided that fighting for control simply *wasn't worth it* at the time. And guess what: he lived to tell about it. He's ok. The world didn't end. Mike could possibly have found it in his heart to do a similar (albeit with different circumstances) thing. Ceding control wouldn't have been the end of the world for him, either. I'm just saying that it's not as impossible as you make it out to be.
 

This is not how human beings behave.  :)

I agree with CD 100 percent in this thread, Mike wants to  control  the BBs without the vision or skill needed to. Brian wanted  to make the  BBs a recording group again, Mike wants an endless summer nostalgia act.

Dude - if we are gonna talk about human nature and say that certain actions are beyond what humans would do, I'd argue that Mike has done a vast number of things over the years that are far far beyond my comprehension - and while the Wilsons have also, to IMO a generally lesser (and different, apples to oranges degree), Mike's are far less comprehensible to me on the whole.

So let's just say that this is not how Mike Love behaves (as proven by his actions)... but not a blanket statement that this is not how humans (or even other BBs) behave.  In fact, adding to my prior analogy, I'd also argue that to his credit, Mike himself has done it (power concession) to Brian before, specifically during the "Love You" era. It shouldn't be totally unthinkable, despite the different circumstances now. Mike wasn't as "powerful" in the band then (just before "Love You") as he is now, since Carl/Dennis were still in the picture... so I see it as a matter of the more power you give him, the more reluctant (and positively damned he'll be) to genuinely give it back.

I'd bet you top dollar there are many humans (and I'm talking about normal people, even people who've lived crazy rock star lives) who could decide to be the bigger person and show they've evolved where they've placed their priorities.   In person, I witnessed Mike firsthand getting emotional at the Grammy Museum (when he was there w/California Saga), and seeing that emotion (you could have heard a pin drop) honestly started to positively change my opinion of the man, and I really really really hoped he'd started turning over a new leaf, but based on what happened a few months later, I suppose I gave him too much credit.

Mike's been able to have things on his terms for 16 years? How about 40 years?

It's not just about how Mike feels. It's about how Brian DIDN'T FEEL for a very long period of time, for about 45 years. It's back to that human nature thing again.

Mike has been the Beach Boys' biggest fan for 53 years. He just keeps working and working and working. And he loved it. He persevered through the hard times and he never gave up on the band. And there were times when various group members didn't want to be part of it, in varying degrees, especially Brian.

Let's be honest, since 1968, since Friends, Brian was a very part-time Beach Boy for many of the ensuing years. He didn't want to tour, there were years when he contributed maybe one or two - or zero - songs to Beach Boys' albums. And, for the last twenty-eight years Brian has been mainly a solo artist. However, for many of the previous 46 years, the thought of Brian coming back and leading the Beach Boys, or just contributing to the Beach Boys on any level, has been an enticing proposition, one which I'm sure Mike Love welcomed. I know he welcomed it because he repeated it in almost all of his interviews. But things have changed.

IMO IMO IMO IMO I don't think Mike views Brian Wilson entirely the way he used to. When Brian performs in concert, he is the worst singer and musician on the stage. Mike probably thinks, "Hey, Brian hasn't had a Top Ten record since "Good Vibrations" which was 48 years ago. His solo albums come and go with barely a ripple. And I contributed to Kokomo which went to No. 1. He could use ME. We'd complement each other. " Even though Mike would love to write with Brian like it's 1965, I think Mike is also aware, more than we give him credit for, at knowing who the Brian Wilson is today, which is not who he was in 1965, if that makes sense.

But most of all, I think Mike feels - and I completely understand why - that he (Mike) worked hard, plugged away, stayed the course, was faithful and dedicated, through all the drugs and illness and death, and always WANTED TO BE A BEACH BOY. On the other hand, Mike might feel - and I completely understand why - that Brian didn't want to tour (work?), didn't believe in the future of the group, dedicated the majority of his efforts to his solo career, AND DIDN'T WANT TO BE A BEACH BOY. I imagine Mike thought this because of Brian's continued attempts at having a solo career and because of negative and hurtful comments made in interviews.

Now - NOW - it's 2012 and Brian Wilson decides that he wants to be a Beach Boy. For the record I don't think he did (I think he wanted a break from an unhappy and overwhelming solo career) but just say that he did. So how do expect Mike to feel? How would you feel? Can you be honest? Can you admit how you might feel? It goes back to that human nature thing. I'm not gonna hammer Mike because I would probably share many of the same feelings. Hey Brian, where have you been for the last 28 years? And what was it you were saying that you never wanted to work with The Beach Boys and Mike Love again, that the group died with Carl, that you never think about them, and that your group is better than The Beach Boys were. Yeah, it might be a little of that old cliche "What goes around comes around..."

I really don't know if Mike viewed Brian's rejoining the Beach Boys in 2012 in a resentful way, even in a small way. I wouldn't be surprised if he did. Does that make him a bad person? No, I don't think so. He's human. It's human nature...

Why? Why??

Come on, sweetdudejim. We're just making conversation, good conversation, on a rock and roll message board. We're just discussing one possible reason (out of many?) why Mike Love doesn't relent to Brian's wishes (and I questioned if Brian really had any). Some people can understand and agree with Mike. Other posters, as usual, think that Mike is wrong for feeling the way he feels.

"Why" you ask? Why should or would human nature play a part? Is that what you're asking? Because we're dealing with human beings, people, people with feelings. Mike has his feelings and Brian has his. We're just trying to figure out how those feelings contributed to the decisions that directly affected the C50 reunion. Obviously we haven't been able to agree on that yet! ;D

I think some fans care way more about another reunion than Brian himself.

If another reunion never happens I doubt Brian would care for a second, sadly I think the same can be said for Mike.

Jim's Michael Jackson joke obviously went over your head.

Thanks Andy. You did get the joke!

Hope things are well with Nancy by the way.

 :-[

For Brian it would be like doing abother Gerschwin project. One was enough, why bother? Now for Mike it would be like doing another prostate exam.  :-D

Then you`d lose your money.  :)

Honestly, the things you are talking about are far removed from reality. Now if your point was that Mike should have continued with the C50 tour and played the shows that were on offer for the rest of that year (when he and Brian were jointly in charge of The Beach Boys) then I think there are a lot of people who would agree with you.

But your comments about Mike and Bruce going out and playing dates without the Beach Boys name really are absurd as another poster has said. Absurd to think that Brian or Melinda would make such a suggestion and absurd to think that Mike and Bruce would consider it. You can`t ask the boss of a company to start cleaning the toilets and expect them to consider it.

And you are actually suggesting a level of control over the group that Brian has never had in the past. Even in the 60s, while he was absolutely in charge in the studio, he was not responsible for dictating the touring schedule to the extent that he would instruct band members to take several months off and force them to do solo tours under their own names.

With Mike we are not talking about Al, Bruce or David here (none of whom had any real power in the C50 make-up). We are talking about one of the bosses and the boss just doesn`t drop down to being a rank and file employee again.

I appreciate your post, Sheriff, and I think that a lot of those factors/thoughts are certainly at play here to varying degrees. And I can sympathize with Mike for (presumably) feeling some of these ways.

The elephant in the room, as far as I see it, is that for 47 years, Mike has (seemingly) absolved himself of *any* responsibility whatsoever for his role in the SMiLE saga. We have certainly been down that road of debate before on this board maaaaaaaany times before, and I'd rather not get sidetracked by talking about OUR opinions of whether or not Mike had any role in the demise of SMiLE - for the simple reason that OUR opinions on that have no bearing on what Brian (probably) feels, which is what I'm discussing here. (And I bring this up because I think it pertains to the ongoing problems these guys STILL have, especially including the C50 blowup).

I assume that Brian (probably since 1967 and continuing to this day, even if he's found a way to put elements of those feelings behind him) feels that Mike had *some* role in derailing some artistic and personal aspects of his life. Even if you are an ardent Mike Love defender and think it is 110% untrue that Mike should be in any way shape or form be held accountable for SMiLE... I'd think you could at least concede that it's highly probably that *Brian* has truly, deeply, in his heart, felt that way to some degree in his life. Probably for decades.

Brian's feelings are real to Brian. If he felt that someone deeply hurt his feelings, "wronged him" in some way (even a small way), and that emotional fallout of this event indirectly led to many other bad things in his life, I'd imagine that he would have wanted some acknowledgement from Mike, and he probably wanted it most decades ago.

IMO IMO, Brian probably feels that Mike should still apologize to him and take a portion of responsibility, or at least state that some of his actions might have been regrettable in hindsight - even if it's just for having unintentionally hurt his feelings.  That said... you and I have no idea what conversations have gone on about said topics between Mike/Brian behind closed doors. Maybe Mike has apologized to Brian at some point about this stuff. But honestly, I highly doubt it, since I'd think there'd be a glimmer of acknowledgement on the public front.

I know people myself who simply, no matter what, cannot fess up to having deeply hurt someone else. Dealing with people like that is next to impossible. I do not know how to be this way. If someone close to me, especially family or bandmate, told me that I had hurt their feelings deeply about something (or it became obvious that they felt that way even without saying it), I'd most certainly want to address the matter directly with them as soon as possible, and somehow resolve as best I could - giving the other person an honest, real acknowledgement that my actions may have done harm (even if it was hard for me to fully understand the harm - sometimes people just want an honest apology to say that if there was anything they did that was hurtful, they deeply regret having hurt the person). And I would do this, even if I felt that the person may be blowing things out of proportion, because I feel it's important to genuinely acknowledge someone's feelings and pain.

I think that the ultimate unresolved issue between Brian + Mike is Mike's probable decades-long unwillingness to address some of the stuff I've mentioned above. Or if it was ever addressed kinda sorta, it was probably not ever to a degree of Brian's satisfaction. I don't want to get into a another pointless discussion about "Mike has NOTHING to apologize to Brian for", because IMO it's a matter of the ability (or lack thereof) to *acknowledge someone's feelings* more than anything, and it IS possible to do that EVEN IF someone (Mike) has found a way to internally absolve himself 110%.

Anyway, despite the SMiLE Sessions box making some inroads in helping to mend those fences, I think that part of Brian feeling "entitled" to go in and out of the BBs as he pleases is that he feels like his bandmates (especially Mike) should be extra accommodating to him to make up for what he perceives as past injustices, especially the way he probably feels he wasn't given full the support (to the degree he needed it - many group vocal sessions notwithstanding) he deserved back in '67.   

Again treating Mike as a human being... Let's say that it passes through his mind that he should apologize to Brian for Smile. An unconfortable feeling. How does it go away? Easy. Rationalizing that Brian has a lot to apologize for as well, and hell will freeze over before it happens, so he also shouldn't bother.

That's how old folks do after knowing each other for 60 or 70 years.



PS: I'm not in any way implying that Brian or Mike should apologize.

My comments about Mike and Bruce going out and playing dates without the Beach Boys name were just a hypothetical scenario. I think it makes more sense for them to have just chilled the f*ck out on playing shows whatsoever for a time. Many, many, many bands do it. Just because he wasn't "used" to it, doesn't mean he couldn't find it in himself to take that route.

Mike's addiction to the road is rarely discussed as one of the legitimately destructive addictions that has plagued BB bandmates... and while it's not on the level of Brian's/Dennis' addictions, IMO it IS absolutely a genuine addiction (especially these days) that causes him to have blinders on, much in the way that substance addicts do.

In your opinion, what non C50-implosion scenarios were being proposed by Brian's team to Mike & Bruce (or would have been)? We can only guess whether or not any proposals were actually made, or whether it never even got to that point. But I'm curious to know what you think that Brian's team would ACTUALLY have proposed to Mike which caused him to short circuit.

Well let's say that it passes Mike's mind in 1967 when he sees SMiLE crumble, or in 1968 when he starts to witness a downward trajectory of his cousin.

At that point, what would Mike's rationale be for not apologizing - what does Brian have to apologize for at that point?  The legitimate crediting issue is still festering, yes. It's a BIG deal, clearly. Maybe the biggest root cause of crap between those guys ever, even if Murry's a big culprit too. And, Mike is resentful that he's been pushed aside as a lyricist (but now is enjoying, despite a lowered BB popularity, being one of primary BB lyricists once again). Maybe some other squabbles that I can't think of at the moment.

Still, most especially when he started seeing someone beginning to destroy themselves out of depression/regret/etc (largely sourced from this project), I don't quite see how whatever baggage Mike had with Brian at *that* point in their lives would really rationalize a non-apology (assuming he even for a moment considered giving one).

These guys may have been done with the past, but the past wasn't done with them.

I don't know about it being an "addiction" but I once asked Mike after the last show of a fairly long tour involving significant air travel what he intended to do before the next tour. I had envisioned a week at home with his feet up and not budging an inch. He was booked on an Asian cruise. At least the hotel room wouldn't change every day or two. Perhaps you have a point.

That`s what many musicians from the 60s do because that`s what they were brought up doing. Do you think that Bob Dylan or Peter Noone or Wayne Fontana or whoever are addicts too?  :) Take a look at all of the Solid Silver 60s tours that go on and you will see that these guys just love going out there are performing.


Short circuit???  :lol

I think that Mike was probably asked whether he would be willing to play more dates from October onwards and responded with a negative by explaining that he already had dates booked with Bruce as everybody was aware and that they were going to continue with the plan that they had always had. Now I can understand people being disappointed that he wouldn`t change his plans but it hardly represents a `short circuit`.  

Drug use.

It's not the huge amount of dates in and of itself that makes me call it an addiction; it's the ideology that THAT unchanged scenario must keep going at all costs no matter what regardless if we can record another great album no matter if the public will crucify me for it very very deeply causing my wife and children deep distress enough so to get legitimately emotional on facebook messageboards for it.... etc, etc etc.

So do you think that Brian's people had no overall rough draft whatsoever for how a continued C50 could happen, and that it never even got to the preliminary discussion stage because Mike simply said he's going back to M&B and that's that? (Mind you, I don't dispute this could be what happened).

Yep. The culprit. The way Mike Love sees the world. Completely 100% black and white. Drug use and nothing but. Or drug use plus the bad hangers-on plus Murry's damage. And that's it. Open and shut case.  

If drug use hadn't been a factor, and SMiLE still similarly collapsed, I feel comfortable in assuming a non-apology would have still been the way it was. There'd always have been a way to rationalize a non-apology.

Sure. He's human after all. Apologizing sucks.  :)

No, I don`t think they did because it was never planned.

 

If (and it remains an if) that's what happened, it just seems even more underhanded/passive aggressive to me for Mike to not have at least been willing to discuss a possible future and see if *some* agreeable terms could possibly be negotiated, once it became obvious that Brian for sure wanted to continue. Regardless of his super important prior "commitments".

I'd at least give him a smidgen of credit if he'd sat down and listened/brainstormed with Brian's team about options but then decided that no option other than the M&B Sea World 4Ever Tour would suffice (and maybe some discussions did take place, though doubtful).  I think it was seeding ego-fueled resentment by Mike during C50/recording TWGMTR that caused him to make his mind up, and then quietly take actions behind the scenes booking future shows at some point early/midway during the C50 tour, to ensure he'd get things his way in the end.  IMO it's the brass knuckles style of negotiating. I hope M&B are able to negotiate a great fee for playing a show at the Set End Date-ona 500. ::)

For Mike to not anticipate huge fallout and a further frayed relationship with his cousin is incomprehensible to me. He let a wound begin to heal a good deal and then ripped the scab off again. IMO only a crazy person does such things. I'll just have to facepalm at the entire thing, and while I respect you having a right to your opinion, I'll forever remain baffled by those who can find a way to defend the man's actions on this matter.

I'm not -- I'm still curious.  I'd like to know why you think "Summer's Gone" is trying to pastiche Mike's lyrics.  What Mike songs do you think it's trying to be like?

Cheers,
Jon Blum

I think you're underestimating the number of possible ways things could have worked out regardless.  A Beach Boys in which you had four of the five members on tour while Brian stays home prepping the next album, and only plays a few selected dates...  it's not like that never worked before!

Cheers,
Jon Blum

+1

Errr, that doesn`t make much sense now does it. They booked more shows because...they wanted to play more shows as they always do. And the intention from everybody was that the C50 tour was a one time only thing. Al said it. Bruce said it. Everybody knew it.


I think there`s been a crossing of wires.  :lol

I can completely understand why people were angry and disappointed at Mike saying no to more shows in the end as I`ve said. The things I quibbled with were the more fantastical comments that you made about how Mike should feel compelled to do anything that Brian wishes and that you think Mike and Bruce should have been willing to go out and play to piddling crowds without The Beach Boys name while Brian and Joe Thomas noodled in the studio.  :)

No, the criticism Mike received at the time (espcecially when you consider the poorly worded statement) was to be expected. As mentioned before though, the C50 would all have been over by now anyway...

So they would have played some shows with Brian`s band and Brian there and other shows with a completely different backing band? Yeah, that would have been workable.  :)

The one time only thing was the initial intent, yes. Nobody knew how this C50 thing was gonna turn out in the end. The return to the M&B show plans could still have be changed/amended, and the same reasons I've stated above IMO are the main reasons why that change wasn't even considered and was quietly quashed by Mike. 2012 Mike seems about as open to change as he was in 1966.

Touring with Brian`s backing band and agreeing to add an extra 23 shows wasn`t a change from the norm then?

A brief period of change followed by a return to a safely empowered Mike norm is not what I meant by change.  I meant being open the potential of a long-term amending of things. Shades of the Pet Sounds lyric-writing broken handshake agreement. History repeated itself. Anything resembling a situation where Mike loses control (other than in the short term) freaks him the f*ck out, and he. will. not. ever. let. that. happen... come hell or high water.  I think he's showed his macho and made that pretty clear by now.

 :lol  :lol  :lol

What long term-amending? There was no long term amending. You have a vivid imagination I will give you that.

boyfranz

I was making an analogy regarding Mike's fear of losing control...We have 1966 Brian possibly deciding (or good chance it was in Brian's head as a potential idea) that Mike may no longer be the primary BB lyricist going forward (surely a deep fear of Mike's when Van Dyke came into the picture after Tony Asher)...  if SMiLE had been completed, it's highly possible that Mike would indeed have no longer have been Brian's primary lyricist to future songs. As it happened in actuality with SMiLE's demise, Mike briefly reclaimed his throne (-ish), so to speak. IMO via Mike's resistance to PS + SMiLE (vocal sessions notwithstanding), he did what he could to ensure that a permanent lyricist "demotion" wouldn't be the case then... much like he did what he could to ensure that he wouldn't be "demoted" post C50 as well by not even being willing to consider offers of amending his safe bet of M&B.

The idea of `demotion` is entirely in your mind.

Losing power/ceding control/demotion... I'm using these terms interchangeably. He did what he could do to ensure he wouldn't lose control of the band in anything other than a very temporary capacity. 

My, you do talk some nonsense. Mike agreed to lay aside his touring for a finite timespan, then agreed to further extend that timespan on the understanding that this was it (one which, apparently, Brian also stipulated). Given this assurance, Mike booked more dates fro his band and then Brian changes his mind. Now, were those names reversed the fans would be saying "tough sh*t Mike, Brian said "no more" and that's it, can't have it both ways bub". The big thing here is not what happened, but who said and did what.

And once more, my view, not that you asked: let it lie. The whole C50 package was astonishing, way better than we had any right to expect*, and it's never, ever going to be that good again, so don't push it. This kind of lightening never strikes twice. Could anyone here conceive, in January 2012, a better, more fitting coda to The Beach Boys recording career than the final three song sweep on TWGMTR ? The first time I heard it, I sh*t myself, fell over backwards, died and went straight to heaven. That good, and it still is. It moves me, on so many levels, even now. For possibly the only time in their post-Smile career, they were presented with the opportunity to do it right and (for the most part) didn't screw up.


[*except the live album, which will royally suck from now until the end of time and doubtless some way beyond]

Surely they'd engage the band on a tour-by-tour basis?  If Brian wanted to do a mini-tour with them, they'd be bound to have a somewhat different lineup.  But not that different from what a Mike-Bruce-Al-David band would already be...  for a start, with Al and Dave on guitar, they probably wouldn't need Christian Love around.

I'm thinking if they were going to do an arrangement where they parachuted Brian in for specific shows, they'd probably have gone for a reduced version of the C50 lineup -- Scott and John are already there, Brian would no doubt bring Jeff with him for his dates, and if he wanted to drop in a keyboard or bass player of his choice for those dates they might be able to swing it.  I doubt they'd have gone for the full Von Mertens Orchestra, but Brian would still be surrounded by people who were now familiar to him...

Cheers,
Jon Blum

I think the big thing is not what happened, but what's happening now and into the future. It's not Mike's fault that Brian agreed to a fixed number of additional dates and nothing further and it isn't Mike's fault that Brian then changed his mind (that's only my understanding from what I've ready here - no idea if it's true). Equally, it isn't Brian's fault that Mike booked new dates for his touring band and couldn't or wouldn't then agree to do a further tour with the full line-up. Why does any of that matter now? They've both arguably handled the aftermath of it all very badly, but absolutely none of this would be difficult to fix. Mike could very easily have explained that he'd made other commitments lasting until (say) the end of 2013, but would be able to do a tour in 2014. Brian could have accepted that or chosen not to - either way they'd both have had the option of doing a further Beach Boys tour together. That's still true now. At one stage at least, Brian claimed that he was disappointed not to be able to continue the tour. Mike said it was Brian's choice to end it, but if they both wanted to book a tour they could do that now, next year, 2015 or whenever they want to.

Problem solved? Probably not, because all of the arguments about who ended the reunion are a distraction from what I suspect are more fundamental disagreements. I don't know exactly what they are, but Mike and Brian have the choice to work together or not and are choosing not to. Different perspectives on why they stopped working together in 2012 are largely irrelevant to that. Maybe it's the cost of a bigger band, more principles, bigger set-up. Maybe it's the set list, maybe it's family disagreements, maybe Mike's too jealous of Brian's hair - I haven't got a clue. But a full Beach Boys tour or even an occasional show is still an option for all concerned if they wanted to do it. Whether it'd be a good thing or not, I'm unsure of (although as someone who unavoidably missed seeing a C50 show and has never seen the Beach Boys live, I'd love to have the opportunity to in the future).

And Eugene Landy.  ;D

This may have been offered before but maybe the disagreement was between Brian and his people but the agreement was between Brian's people and Mike's people? We only hear Brian and Mike's complaints but the actual decisions/agreements were made by their "people".

Why would Mike want to return to a situation where he has to permanently walk over eggshells around Brian? He clearly doesn't. Now you could argue that he'd be still pumping gas if not for his genius cousin yadda yadda but in the end it's a decision that he took already in his 70s. Maybe he'd rather do things his way. It's easy for us to think that working with Brian is an honor, but we haven't been doing it for decades and we only think about that some minutes a day, after being done with work, friends, relationships, everything.

Last time Mike made an album with Brian, it went to #3. Last time he made an album without Brian, he couldn't even find anyone who wanted to release it. That should say enough.

I agree that it must be very difficult to work with Brian. But it's not that hard to see why Mike would still be temped to try again anyway.

They also have the situation where its pretty hard for Rock stars to stay together for 52 years.  I'll bet Mick and Keith hate each other.  There's about 10 times more money involved though, so they suck it up.   

No amount of money can get Paul & Ringo together, they just make appearances for free, for 10 minutes, about once a decade so nobody thinks they're assholes.

John Lennon and George Harrison being dead might have a little bit of bearing on why Paul and Ringo don't tour together.

In 1979 were they touring?  They can't stand each other, NO AMOUNT OF MONEY will get them to work with each other, outside of a 1 off track every 10 years. 

ROCK STARS can't keep it together forever, we're fortunate we got what we got out of the Brian/Mike pairing. 

That's funny because Lennon mentioned in a sworn deposition back in 1980 that the Beatles were set to reunite for the finale to THE LONG AND WINDING ROAD.  Mark David Chapman pumping lead into John's back obviously changed those plans.

Don't get your panties in a twist, it still doesn't explain why Ringo and Paul are rarely in the same room.


Here, I have an explanation, though.

ROCK STARS DONT GET ALONG FOR FOREVER

Ringo & Paul don't work together, no matter how much money you throw at them. 

They do every 10 years or so, very briefly (for a couple hours at most) so that people don't think they're assholes.

Mike & Brian work together much more than that. 

Notice that even though you tried to get my off-topic post even more off-topic by talking about dead people, I have safely steered it back in it's original off-track direction. 

They get together more than once every ten years. They played twice in the last few months. Prior to that, they did a David Lynch show in Carnegie Hall and Paul was a surprise guest at the All Starrs tour stop on Ringo's 70th birthday. You are correct, they won't be touring together, but not because "they hate each other."

Carry on.

It's easy to see things from both sides but when looking at the situation from a realistic standpoint, I have to side with Mike.

Before you ask if I am pro Brian or pro Mike... I'm pro Carl.  :angel:

I do feel like you can look at Mike and Bruce's touring schedule as an addiction. One that many musicians have. Considering the addictions that other band members have had, I'll take this one with open arms. At least Mike's addiction is helping financially support Carl's family and the other members of BRI.

Do I think Mike enjoys having total control over the touring Beach Boys? Absolutely. He is the boss, he chooses the set list, he is the center of attention singing the hit songs he helped write and there is zero drama within his touring band (I assume). Again, it's a luxury that he is willing to pay for, on an annual basis to BRI. Most importantly, whether you like this situation or not, this is all approved by Brian, Al and Carl's estate.

I definitely would prefer to see all 5 surviving members of The Beach Boys touring under the name but with present day Brian, it just isn't realistic. I would bet money Mike would be open to having Brian tour with him if there wasn't that attachment of Brian's entourage and everything that comes with it. With Brian comes Melinda, Joe Thomas, a 10 piece band, his own bus, etc... Not only is all of that a HUGE added expense, it's also a lot of drama from people outside the band (being Brian's people) trying to have their say in how things should happen.

1. I don't know about Al and David, but I highly doubt Brian would tour and perform the number of shows that would be needed to bring in the money he is making now from Mike & Bruce. There would be a much bigger cost to tour with Brian, Al, David, Brian's entourage and band. You have to put all of them in hotel rooms, feed them and travel costs. In order for that to make money, you need to perform more shows to a larger audience. They had that with the 50th celebration but year after year, the demand would lessen and the venues wouldn't be as packed as they once were.

2. I would love a set list full of deep catalog songs but regardless of who's in the band, it's going to be a set of mostly hits. Brian's band is very good and needed when performing albums in full like Pet Sounds or SMiLE. Would Brian and Mike need a backing band of 15 people on stage to perform I Get Around and Little Deuce Coupe? Last time I checked, you don't need 6 guitarists and 3 keyboard players to play 409. Having a band that large would be spending money for an unneeded reason. I honestly think they would have to even drop a few people from the C50 backing band if they continued to tour. That means firing loyal band mates from Mike and Brian's bands. I'm sure neither of them would enjoy that.

3. All of that is IF Brian wanted to be a permanent member of The Beach Boys. I'm sure he did at one point of the 50th celebration. From everything I've read about Brian, he is very spur of the moment. He could be all about continuing with The Beach Boys one day and not care about it the next. If Brian did want to just play those few extra shows that they were offered, I do think Mike should have taken the high road and postpone a few Mike & Bruce shows to do them. But if Brian was wanting to continue touring for an undetermined amount of time, I can understand Mike being a bit weary. What would happen if Mike said, "Hell yeah! Let's keep it going!" They start booking more shows, getting more offers, and then a month into it Brian decides it's too much and he wants out. Then what? You have to cancel the rest of the tour? Do Al and David stay? Do you continue with the shows but offer refunds to ticket buyers that expected to see Brian?

4. I do hope to one day see the five of them perform together again. For that to happen, they are going to have to sit down and agree upon a more realistic approach. Something like every year they play a 4th of July show and a New Year's Eve show together. Maybe they play a 2 or 3 show run at the Hollywood Bowl every year at summer's end and 2 or 3 run of shows at RAH every December. Something along those lines.

I can't believe the "Mike destroyed SMiLE" made it into this thread... well, yes I can. Why wouldn't it? I've personally never bought into this. Mike sabotaged SMiLE into never being completed so that Smiley Smile could be released in it's place. Really? Mike's contribution to Smiley Smile was She's Going Bald. Think about that. Seriously. The man who gauges whether a song is good by it's chart performance contributed She's Going Bald on the album. That in itself says to me that Mike was willing to experiment in the studio and try going "outside the formula".

Mike has stated that he liked a lot of the music but didn't like some of the lyrics. Considering Mike had been the main lyricist in the band up until Pet Sounds, that's understandable. They are very different lyrics and even though I personally like them, a lot of the lyrics are on the pretentious side. They are also a complete 180 to what they were writing a year or two prior. Mike may not of liked it but he did record his vocals singing the lyrics he didn't like. He did a damn fine job too. Dennis liked SMiLE and Carl believed in it enough to finish and release the songs Surf's Up, Our Prayer and Cabinessence on later albums. I don't recall reading that Mike threw a fit about any of those inclusions. Plus didn't Bruce mention the idea of recording Do You Like Worms for the LA Light album? That's all on top of using Heroes and Villains, Wonderful, Vegetables and Wind Chimes on Smiley Smile.

Brian was also at the absolute peak of his game with Good Vibrations. Brian was in complete control in the studio and what he said, goes. It was that simple. Brian may have been hurt by Mike not being 100% behind everything that was going on. If that in fact was what caused SMiLE to collapse, then it's still Brian's fault for letting one person's opinion have that big of an affect on him. If Brian was ever in a position to tell Mike, "this is the direction we're going and this is our album whether you like it or not", that was the time. Brian was in control. Brian was also hanging around a bad crowd and he tried to make a complete album in the cut and paste form (like he did with Good Vibrations) while taking drugs. It didn't work. Late in the game, Brian realized it wasn't going to happen and scrapped the project. It sucks but it happened. That's what I believe anyway. I will admit that Brian giving up on it isn't as cool of a story as Mike trying to sabotage it while Brian was going insane from drugs, etc.

That's all I have for now.

I'm not trying to prove that Mike's right, just trying to explore how he feels.

I don't think they hate each other. I bet they had some fun touring together. But I think Mike doesn't want permanet exposition to Brian's circus of managers and friends. He has his own with chreerleaders and friends.

Lee makes a lot of sense to me. I'd love to know the behind the scenes but I bet a donut it is going to be something sort of dull and practical and non-dramatic.

We can debate till the cows come home (and we have) whether or not Mike was "justified" in imploding C50, or we can nitpick the specifics on his perception of a "set end date", etc. etc. etc.

Bottom line to me is that, once Brian wanted things to continue, if Mike really truly wanted to make it work, it could have happened somehow. Despite difficulties, they could have been overcome. If Mike had the motivation and incentive to make it happen, it would've happened. Clearly, factors like he group harmony/legacy/the idea that Brian may be owed the right to have things his way, were not going to sway him to feel that way. Maybe it's human nature, maybe it's just about his priorities being in a place that doesn't jive with me.

I''ll just say that hypothetically, if a super rich billionaire, say Bill Gates, happened to be a super huge BB fan, and he personally privately told Mike that he'd pay Mike some giant sum of money for him to not implode C50 and to keep things going, I think Mike would have sucked it up, stayed and let the reunion continue.

Or, if Paul and Ringo told Mike that if the reunion continued, that they'd reform as "The Beatles" and tour with The BBs (and even open for The BBs), and that at every show, Paul would publicly thank Mike for being the inspiration for Back in the USSR... then I also think Mike would have sucked it up, stayed and let the reunion continue.

My point being, if his motivation was right, he could have found it in his heart to have broken the "set end date" and found *some* way to make things work.  The "small" and "insignificant" actual incentives weren't enough, but I think these hypothetical incentives would have been.

Sure. Let's hope also that Jeff Beck has the right motivation so that he and Brian can finish those damn studio tracks.

That is the bottom line.  And he didn't want to make it work, for whatever reason(s).  I don't know the reason.  Cam doesn't know the reason.  You don't know the reason.  In fact, none of us here on this message board knows the reason (well, except maybe for AGD, and he has his reason for not sayin').  End of story. 

 

Bingo. You got it. We agree. The motivation and incentives in this instance - continuing to tour with the great Brian Wilson and having already written songs given to him to supply lyrics after the fact - are NOT motivating factors for Mike Love. They might've been at one time. But that time has come and gone. The Brian Wilson who once had a spell over Mike and the group and had the POWER to control the group, IN MIKE'S VIEW, is no longer there. Not to mention that Mike himself has changed...

You are absolutely right.

I was talking purely in a musical sense.

Not gonna happen, is my strong impression.

 There was an undeniable tension between George and Paul during segments of the '95 Anthology film, but Ringo and Paul seem to get along reasonably well.

Because Brian just handed them an acclaimed album which put them back on the charts for the first time since the days of Kokomo, and a tour which made them a metric buttload of money to boot?

Totally aside from sentimental hey-let's-all-stay-together-we're-family reasons, there's a strong practical reason to let Brian do things his way:  it's worked.

Cheers,
Jon Blum

This is true, and John and George were "kinda" on the outs when Lennon was murdered.
Ringo and Paul get along fine and Ron....all you have to do is cruise YouTube for a while and you'll see that Paul and Ringo are together a lot. Whether it's showing up to promote Beatles Rock Band, or attend Love shows in Vegas, Larry King interview, the above mentioned shows, etc. Paul also pops up on Ringo's studio albums pretty regularly. The only reason these recent appearances made a lot of noise was because it was the 50th anniversary in America and the average music fan doesn't follow their solo careers. Hardcore Beatles fans were saying "Yeah, what else is new?" during all this 50th anniversary hoopla while the rest of the nation swooned.
It seems like no Beatle has ever had any real problems with Ringo (and George slept with Ringo's ex-wife and he and Ringo STILL got along!).

Mike (and Bruce) make that same buttload from what WAS on the charts, and with a lot less stress than any further C50 tour can provide.

I find it incredible that 18 months after the fact there are some here that still can't move on. Many bands would be happy to make a career stretch to 20 years and a handful of albums. The Beach Boys have given over 50 years, many, many albums and sacrificed two founding members. While enjoying many of the benefits,some members personal lives and health have suffered due, in part I'm sure, to the nature of the industry.

They owe me nothing yet  I still have the opportunity should I want to, to see individual members solo or in pairings continue to play the music live and that has been the case for the last 15 years, not to mention their new solo albums.

I wonder sometimes if there are those here who will only be happy if a band member drops dead onstage providing them with the music and experience they feel they are entitled to.

They have given enough, haven't they.

More than enough.

I congratulate those here that have stayed in one job with the same people for there whole career. If you are over 70 I give my first born! There must be a few as they have criticized members of the C50 line-up and in some cases their families, for months.

I have been in my same career I still love for almost 30 years with multiple workmates who I regard as friends. However if I still feel 'needed' when I am 70 they can go take a flying f*ck, to put it mildly. My own well being comes first and the wants of a few does not even come in to it frankly.

Doubt it. Jeff Beck is finishing up his own album and doing a world tour starting in April and ending in July. Brian's album isn't on his priority list.

What if they are your cousin, who made your life possible?

That`s not how human beings work though is it...

Who made your life possible? For most people it is their parents who give not only their time but hundreds of thousands of dollars (on average) in bringing them up. Now does that mean that decades later people will (or should) only do things to please their parents even if it goes against their own wishes?

Brian gave just as much to the other group members but it didn`t stop Carl from putting an end to the Don Was sessions, Al from suing Brian etc. They are all only human after all...

A huge amount of money brought in no doubt. And huge expenses. Turnover is vanity, profit is sanity as they say. Didn`t Mike say that he made more money with his M&B touring than he did with C50? I don`t know whether that`s true but as they couldn`t have continued touring with that regularity, there seems little doubt that he will have made more in 2013 and 2014 than he would have done if the C50 had stayed together.

Think you'll find that Brian had a little help doing the album, and I very much doubt that the entire C50 package (which, let us not forget also included The Smile Sessions) was his idea, and his alone.

Me being picky point: the band have been on the charts regularly in the 25-odd years since "Kokomo". Last time was 2012.

We're on a message board talking about a band whose last hit was 27 years ago, and you're astonished that people here haven't moved on after eighteen months?  It doesn't exactly go with the territory.


No need for the melodrama.  I think Brian and the boys have the potential for another good album in them, at least as good as "Radio", and more great shows.  Brian's already working on doing both with Al and Dave.  I'd like Mike and Bruce to be part of them.  Do I feel entitled to them?  No.  But I'd like it.

Cheers,
Jon Blum

Yeah, what if they are your cousin Mike, who made your life possible?

You keep thinking about another good album and more great shows then. Means they left you, and myself for that matter, wanting more. The perfect time to exit IMO.

I like to believe that sometimes Brian says to himself "I really have to thank Mike for those great early lyrics he wrote and the way he delivered them." and Mike does likewise about those great tunes his cousin came up with.

If either party feels he is still 'owed' after 50 years and a wonderful lifestyle, then they perhaps need to move on too.

I had to go back and read this twice, because Lee, you just read and wrote down exactly what was in my mind.  Also, my middle name is Lee.  Coincidence?  I think not.  Very well said, I agree with your points and see it the same way. 

Alright, i'll back down.  I'm being tongue in cheek about it, but my point was that there are very few rockbands that the members get along for 50 years. 

Think about it.  Do you work at the same place for 50 years?  With the same people?  One of them is mentally ill.  The other is kind of an asshole.  They fight like family.  One sues the other one at the drop of a hat, the other one has 20 people that come by for lunch every day and talk about how great he is and how sh*t the asshole is. 

I'm just saying, I can completely understand how Mike and Brian probably love each other very much, and love the memories, and exchange pleasantries, but don't really have a desire to be around each other 24/7. That's not to say anything's wrong with either of them, it's just hard to work together for 50 years and eveyrthing be perfect like everybody wants it to be. 

Right now it's not perfect... that's understandable to me... we don't need villians to explain why, and it's not necessarily anybody's fault.

Exactly.  The Beach Boys are VERY Human, lots of warts on these guys. 

Even if somebody wants to say that Brian made Mike (he kind of did), that STILL only goes so far.  Mike doesn't owe Brian 1 thing, and I honestly don't believe Brian expects anything from Mike.  Brian's not the kind to hold "I made you!" over somebody's head, that's ridiculous. 

It's just two people with different opinions, to us fans it's a disaster because there's no Beach Boys without Brian and Mike... but to them I doubt they thought much about it.  Another business decision. 

IMO very much not.  By that standard, releasing "Smile" in 2004 would have been the perfect time to exit -- and then we wouldn't have got TLOS, or Gershwin, or Radio, all of which have been lovely works despite not being an absolute artistic peak.

I'm very much in the "while there's life there's hope" camp.  I don't care about whether an artist's last work is "a perfect time to exit" -- I care about whether it's good work, even if it's not their pinnacle.  And I prefer them having done more good work to less!

Cheers,
Jon Blum

But you are using Brian's solo works as examples. If he is interested in a project he puts more effort into it. Counter that with say, the Beach Boys and the dynamics involved, I'm sure he has a different mind set. The TWGMTR album was a success mainly for his songs. He probably had to put some Mike songs on there contractually and according to the RS story he took off out of the studio rather than having to deal with Al's song.

I think you can make a case for a song being better, simply because the Beach Boys themselves are singing it, as opposed to Brian & his band.  Everyone in his band has a beautiful, great voice (or they wouldn't be there) but I like the natural, angels from heaven sound of the official Beach Boys (That means you too, Bruce)

I wonder how many of the great songs from the golden years it's Brian singing most if not all of the parts, and not the group.

Whaaaaaaaa?  That would be Zero, brother.  Everyone of them could sing. 

Actually I'm pretty sure he's only Beach Boy on "I Just Wasn't Made For These Times", "Don't Talk", "Caroline No", and I'm pretty sure some SMiLE stuff and other stuff too, brother.

The best Beach Boys vocal sound is all the Beach Boys, or as many as can be currently rounded up. Not that Brian can't do a fantastic job singing those multi-part harmonies, as you can hear on his '88 solo album. But there is something special about the other guy's very distinctive sounds, from Mike's bass to Al's Jardine sheen and Bruce's boyish tenor. I'm not that big a fan of most of TWGMTR, but I do think the other guy's vocals make it better than just an average Brian solo album (which it could have been if it weren't a BB reunion project).

Two of the seven vocal tracks on "IJWMFTT" are the whole band: the other five are Brian (or "Bryan" as the Columbia track card would have it).

I'm pretty sure that "Surfer Moon" is the earliest example of a Wall of Brians.

I believe Brian's bands vocals just don't work with his BB's music.

It's not a popular opinion but I did not like the vocals on BWPS at all, especially Jeff's.