The Smiley Smile Message Board

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldD9Vg1izy0

Or if you've got almost 2 hours: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdUeD2ehz64

There's nobody that can say they haven't continued their trend of, in the words of Jack Rieley, "blowing it."


These current Mike & Bruce "Beach Boys" or Brian Wilson with Al Jardine shows simply can't compare. By a long shot.


Discuss, please.

They?    ;)

I know you're being facetious, but yes. THEY blew it. If the 5 real Beach Boys wanted to keep playing together, they would have worked something, ANYTHING out. They all just went back to what they were doing before the magnificent time known as C50 like it never happened.... I guess the lyrics to the great "Spring Vacation" mean nothing to them....  :-\

I really wonder what Brian and Mike would say if asked today about that Jack Rieley quote. It's *SO* exactly 110% on the mark.

Madison Square Garden. Beach Boys. 'Nuff said.  :)

Can you imagine what 1961 era Mike Love would say if we went back in time and told him that in 51 years, he himself (fronting the future Pendletones) would turn down playing a prestigious bragging-rights venue like Madison Square Garden (it wasn't built till 1968, but still), because of an irresistible urge to forever and ever play "smaller markets" sans cousin Brian? It would be beyond unthinkable.  How power and control has corrupted that man. I'll bet if Jack Rieley was told this exact same future prediction around the time of his departure from the BBs circle, he'd completely believe it and find nothing particularly preposterous about it, given the band politics he'd probably witnessed.

Although C50 was nice, I'll always believe the Beach Boys truly ended with Carl's death. As good as the C50 shows were, I still missed Carl's voice.

Watching the entire Japanese show tonight really cheered me up, thank you so much for the reminder, stack. Reminded me of being at the soundcheck and in the 10th center at the ecstatic Red Rocks show. I still can't believe how great they sound together with the perfect combination of the two bands. Oh man, the most joyous/celebratory/life comes full circle concert of my life.

And what a disaster the DVD's and CD of the tour turned out to be. I never watch or listen to 'em. If only they released the HD version of this show.

Jack Rieley was right.

Do you think so?

I would guess that if you had suggested to Mike in the early 60s that he could still be meeting girls and playing county fairs 50 years later that he`d have been thrilled. I think the very fact that The Beach Boys did start out in that manner is one of the reasons why he doesn`t care how prestigious the venue is and he has said he actually prefers playing at the smaller venues.

The C50 tour was obviously great but reunion tours very rarely turn into yearly events due to the simple fact that bands generally split up for very good reasons...

Sometimes they might last for a show or two (Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin) and sometimes for a tour or two (The Police, Genesis) but very rarely as a permanent every year thing...

Sometimes it isn't why they split up that is the issue - it's why they got back together. I'm sure some bands reunite to get in one last time in the limelight as a reunited band whilst at the same time making a pile of money to shore up their forthcoming retirement. Sometimes they make this decision because of pressure from the fans and from their record label.  Once they've achieved that objective they don't need to continue with it any longer.

From what I have read (and for that matter observed), like a lot of things concerning the Beach Boys, the decision to end the C50 doesn't appear to have been a unanimous one.

T'was a glorious time to be alive

The C50 events were astonishing... as - sadly - was the torrent of complete nonsense, twaddle & bilge that followed in the wake thereof from all points of the compass and all camps.

By all means, this is NOT a matter of human corruption. Mike Love, or any of the BBs, or any other person, is entitled to not doing what a bunch of people on this forum would like him to.

Really? I can hear Brian Wilson and the members of Carl Wilson's Estate singing some of those lyrics....about 100 times a year!

Easy money, ain't life funny?
Hey, what's it to ya?
Hallelujah

...........including this board. I'm burnt out on it. Time to move forward, boys and girls!! 

I was just thinking about the C50 tour when I saw Brian and Al in Long Beach the other night.  I definitely miss the C50 tour--it was just a great show to attend.  Satisfying on all levels.  You left the show completely happy.  Wish I could experience that again.



PS, I recall you were right in the middle of all the discussions of the upcoming releases of more official DVDs from the tour.  Shame how plans evaporated, isn't it?  I think part of what makes things even more frustrating is that we never got THE perfect live document to represent the tour.  The Phoenix DVD was a huge miss.  Overdubbed vocals, autotuned and edited down to like 90 minutes.  A special edition 2 disc version of either the Royal Albert Hall or Wembley show would have been the perfect product.  But in typical Beach Boys fashion....they screw that up.

But when "reunions" break back up, it's usually because some of the principals don't want to continue touring and recording as that band (or at all), and/or the differences in personality, etc. dictate that it can't last (some bands can still eloquently end it even when they're doing so because of differences of personalities, etc.), and then the members go to other things.

The BIG difference with the Beach Boys, and the one that rightly or wrongly paints Mike Love as the villain, is that a couple of the members continued under the same name. I'm pretty sure Sting would have gotten plenty of s**t from fans and the media/critics if he had continued on without the other two guys as "The Police", even moreso if the other two guys *wanted* to keep going as a group. I'm sure Fleetwood and McVie would have been scorned if they had moved to continue on as "Fleetwood Mac" in the later 90's and 2000's without Nicks and Buckingham, while both Nicks and Buckingham were ready and willing. Can anyone imagine Mick Fleetwood going "you know, the smaller markets just can't afford Steve Nicks being in the band, so we're going back to the way it was before the reunion, with Bonnie Bramlett's daughter and Dave Mason."

If Mike Love had moved on from C50 and done solo shows or started another band, *very little*, and probably NO bad press would have resulted. Sure, fans still would have been bummed. But the press wouldn't have caught on to the fact that Mike was continuing to tour under the same name.

Had that crapola press release been well-written, and described how all of the members were going to tour under their own name, there wouldn't have been any "firing" headlines.

I only mention this because the end of the Beach Boys "reunion" was NOT typical, even compared to other fogey bands doing short-term reunions. The Beach Boys only look more like idiots because the actual reunion itself went much better than some other bands' reunions have, in terms of critical acclaim.

Howie Edelson is right; they were the laughing stock of the industry when C50 fell apart. They probably aren't anymore, because everybody stopped caring. They're back to being known on the touring rounds as a Motown-style revue, making good money touring small to medium venues with bands like the remnants of "Chicago" and "Creedence Clearwater Revisited."

+1.

No band has mastered pulling defeat from the jaws of victory like the Beach Boys have.

Oh I do think that a young 1961-era Mike Love would be thrilled to hear that he could still be meeting girls and playing county fairs 50 years later - I don't deny that. It's just that IMO, the concept that he would choose that scenario over the prestige of the BBs playing Madison Square Garden (pretty much one of the very, very ultimate venues for any band) and playing with his cousin Brian... that those things would be turned down in and of itself would probably seem to be an unthinkable concept to young Love if a future visitor told him so. And yes, I'm sure he could never forsee the amount of water under the bridge that would flow that could cause such a crazy circumstance to happen either.

I wonder how much the failure to get other "C50" product out there has to do with the relations (or lack thereof) that led to the tour not continuing. In other words, have the other potential DVD/Blu-ray projects fallen apart because no companies are interested, or because the companies are sketchy (which appears to be the case with the operation that used "PledgeMusic" to put together their project), or because certain parties within the group don't want more "50th Anniversary Tour" product out there to highlight the fact that that lineup is not what is out there now.

Besides the failed project done through PledgeMusic (to be fair, it's not "PledgeMusic" that failed, it's the company that used them to solicit donations), there was word that EMI/Universal might pick up the remnants of that project and put something out, but nothing came of that. Also, does anyone remember that there were full-on posters/promotional materials made for an in-theater 3D presentation of their Hollywood Bowl show from 2012? They apparently shot the thing in 3D, and at some point were going to put something out with that.

http://rockfuelmedia.com/event/the-beach-boys-3d-live-at-the-hollywood-bowl/

(http://rockfuelmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/beach_boys_300.jpg)

They also supposedly got the Red Rocks show captured for a potential video release.

Not to mention the other obvious projects like at least putting out the Royal Albert Hall show in audio form (video from any tour dates is much more difficult because they have to pay for sync rights to the publishing companies; this is one of the reasons the "Live in Concert" release only had 21 songs).

I can't imagine Mike would be particularly extra enthusiastic about putting more C50 releases out there right now. Brian probably cares little about it too. It makes sense that maybe more time would have to pass. But we can't have another "Knebworth 1980" where it takes 22 years to put it out. I don't want to wait until 2034 for a "Royal Albert Hall 2012" release.

Sure but this is all a separate (albeit related) topic. The OP was talking about missing the C50 and the truth is that it was never still going to be continuing in 2014.

People have talked about many hypotheticals...

What if they had retired the name in 1998? (They didn`t)

What if Mike was a different person? (He`s not)

What if they had a supreme manager who could equally represent and please all members for years? (They never have and never will)

Of course other groups do not have the same set of circumstances as The Beach Boys and split up in different ways. But the reality is that when the reunion ended Mike was always going to go back to touring using the group name. As they couldn`t even agree to do a few more shows at the end of 2012, there was never any chance that they were going to carry on for another 2 years up to this point...

I hadn`t seen a possible Royal Albert Hall release mentioned before...

But to put out another live album from the same tour featuring mostly the same songs only 1 year later would seem relatively uncommon.

I have thought the same exact thing. What incentive was there (past a certain point) to promote BB reunion-related product?  I think that's why Isn't it Time got very little traction, I have a hunch that the promotion machine was cut off at the knees and called off early.

I'm not sure that anyone knows the exact timeline in C50 of when the sh*t hit the fan internally, when there started to be some real hurt feelings and lack of communication... certainly when M&B didn't attend that famous dinner, though I think it was brewing right around the time of the Grammy Museum performance. I think that timeline would probably coincide with certain other things getting called off (besides more reunion shows). Prior to myself or anyone publicly knowing about the impending C50 implosion, I briefly talked to Joe Thomas about the Isn't it Time single version at the Grammy museum, and I do wonder how much it must've seemed to everyone behind the scenes that the new single (which they spent time re-doing as a single version) was dead in the water because the reunion was about to be also.

In any event, I think that the only reunion-related releases since it imploded have purely been contractual. I'd wonder if more care would've been put into the autotune disasters on the live CD if there wasn't so much bad blood around then. When the band gives less of a damn than they would have in other circumstances, I'll bet the approval process was easier to let sloppy stuff slip through and get released.  

I don't think the band (certainly Mike) needs more releases to remind people of C50. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I wonder if he wishes it had never happened at this point, if he could do it all over again, because he gets asked about it (and finds himself in a defensive position about it) in most interviews since 2012.  At a certain point, that might tip the scale and be more negative than whatever he "got" out of the reunion (which obviously wasn't what he wanted, at least songwriting-wise).

I am fully expecting something like that to happen at this point.  The wave of hype from 2012 has completely evaporated by now.  It's a shame that the band doesn't have Led Zeppelin sized popularity where they released their reunion concert on DVD/BR 5 years later to huge sales.  Had the BB not released the Phoenix show and actually waited to get the right package together, I think it would have done fairly well even 5 years later or whatever.

My impression was that the "other" DVD/BR project was supposed to be a documentary focusing more on the behind the scenes story of the tour with a healthy dose of live performances edited together from Red Rocks and the Hollywood Bowl.  Perhaps PS could give some insight since he was close with the director of the project(s).  It's clear now that all parties involved have lost interest (and maybe the funds) to keep the project going.  No doubt it died soon after the tour ended.

As it is with most BB related material, they seemed to have bit off more than they could chew when they filmed all those shows.  They thought they'd do something with it but were probably full expecting the footage to go straight to their archives where it'd sit for several years.  The Red Rocks show certainly would have been a great release but one of the London shows would certainly have been the ultimate package.  Shame they appeared to have filmed the Royal Albert Hall show with nothing more than a few GoPro cameras around the stage.

Last I heard, the "producers" (David C. Levy and his wife Donna Levy, old classmates from my high school in NY) had other things on their minds...(classic Beach Boys saga continues)

http://www.imdb.com/company/co0394589/

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/feds-real-life-wolf-wall-street-10-years-article-1.1589984

http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/March13/DavidandDonnaLevyVerdictsPR.php

Have no idea of the legal status of the material. Last I heard from Marc Bennett (who is listed as "co-director" with Joe Thomas on the DVD of C-50 that we do have), he was working with John Anderson (excellent director with whom I worked with on the Smile concert DVD) before the shite hit the fan, as it were...

A certain BB archivist has told me he longs to get his hands on the RAH audio; I hope he, the only trustworthy producer fit for the job, will do so. What happened to that "movie" version of the Hollywood Bowl show? Many of you used to tease the professor about being hung up on the 50th. Welcome aboard, boys.

Thanks PS.  Real shame that everyone seems to have moved on from the project but can't say I blame anyone.  The group has since disbanded and there is no real demand for something like that to the mass public now.  I wonder how much work they put into it....is it even edited?  Whatever it is,  I hope they return to it one day.

I'm doing hypnotic Bela Lugosi hand gestures now, someone send me the RAH GoPro footage and I'll stitch it together. Go raw, embrace that aspect of it, forget the bullshit autotuning and rerecording.

I totally agree with you on most, except the Fleetwood Mac part. If by chance Mick wanted to do that, I think he would surely be in his rights to tour without Lindsey or Stevie (or Christine). And the reason for that is, Fleetwood Mac was his band for approximately eight years before Lindsey and Stevie joined. However, if Lindsey and Stevie are available, you bet Mick wants them on stage, same with Christine. And the reason for that is, he knows the fans wanna watch the people they love playing and singing the music they love. Mike Love on the other hand apparently thinks he is all that is necessary for his "Beach Boys" group to be THE BEACH BOYS. And therein lies the difference between Mike Love and many, many, many others in the music industry (besides Axl Rose). And in Axl's defense, at least he's put out a new recording in the last 20 years without all the other guys he claims he doesn't need.

I do think it's a disappointment that Mike won't tour with Brian and Al and Dave permanently, but I must respond to that last sentence. Mike has released songs under his own name in the last 20 years. Cool Head, Warm Heart, Hungry Heart, and Pisces Brothers all come to mind. Not to mention the Catch a Wave promo in 1996, and NASCAR in 1998 with the limited involvement of Bruce and David. That said, I enjoy all the touring bands very much, but would love to have them all together again.

I really don`t think that if Mike had singlehandedly put out some recordings under The Beach Boys name over the past 16 years (if he had the right to) that it would be in his defense.

Nope. Three out of four voting BRI members think it's OK for Mike to tour as The Beach Boys. So, they awarded him a license. Simples.

Also, as we all know here, the use of the trademark is, in Mike's case, for touring only: he couldn't release anything as by "The Beach Boys" even if he wanted to (and my impression is that he doesn't).

With regard to releasing live stuff, Bruce has commented in the past that they have tapes of the unplugged tour in 1993 in the vaults so they have already been sitting there for 21 years. Plus obviously there are other vintage recordings out there.

I`m not holding my breath over any more C50 releases.

Are GoPro cameras just those little ones fixed about the place?  There were two guys with real cameras going about the stage at the RAH.  There should be better footage.

Several good points mentioned there. The one in bold, some of that timeline was described in the LA-based press reports around the time of the Grammy event, and specifically on the backlash from that press release that started the whole shitstorm.

Paraphrasing a few things, I think the infamous/oft-told "Nutty Jerry's" situation with having to cancel a Beach Boys show due to confusion over which Beach Boys would be playing there (that in itself speaks volumes...or could) was one of the tipping points. Reading into the press coverage, there was concern within the mechanics of the C50 tour about confusion with the name, a meeting was requested to clarify things and have an official statement on the issues (that according to one of Brian's follow-up replies in the newspaper), and before that could happen Mike's PR team issued their own statement which caused the firestorm, and apparently was released before the other band members had known about it. Then one of Mike's replies on the situations offended the Eagles and their management, who fired off an angry public letter to Mike in reply, and the whole thing which perhaps could have been handled better turned into a debacle.

All of that is pretty well outlined if you search for the press, especially from the LA news outlet who was covering it closely, from around the time of the Grammy event. The writer even mentioned thinking what it would be like to be a fly on the wall backstage at those UK shows, which the band was heading off to do after this public relations debacle played out at the time of the Grammy museum event.

Side note: The timing sucked. IMO. Maybe one issue some fans have to this day is that you don't put out statements which in any way could affect the reputation of or even the positivity surrounding a tour while the tour is still in progress. Not to mention how it affected things internally, which we don't know except for what was revealed regarding the never-held meetings, surprise press releases and the like. Simple PR...you had Brian on the record saying how much he was enjoying it and how he was having fun being a Beach Boy, including writing songs, you had Al being his usual enthusiastic self about playing on stage with this group, David seemed to be having fun with it, there were some notions that more offers for them to play were coming in, then you get a press release and public comments from Mike saying it's over and The Beach Boys will be returning to the pre-50th lineup.

Timing is everything, and that timing sucked. Hindsight is 20/20, though.

The dinner photo was at the end of the UK run, at a dinner thrown by Brian and Melinda Wilson for the musicians and crew. Weren't they originally on Facebook with a description?

As far as when things started to go sour during the tour's run, I don't think anyone has ever publicly pinpointed a specific time or has talked about it at all publicly, but the statements from Mike and his PR team around the time of the Grammy thing was when I think it went public. Couldn't have been a good scene behind the scenes.

And I've said before, that dinner photo might say more about the whole thing than anything which has been written or said about it.

I have to mention Fleetwood Mac since they were brought up, and since they just played a show in Philly Wednesday night, the first shows all of them have been playing for years. Great reviews, strong sales, etc.

Just putting it into perspective, how many people would buy into a Fleetwood Mac show or even a single release if it were just Mick Fleetwood? Are the fans going to see Mick Fleetwood regardless of the others? Yeah, he was a founder, but still...perspective.

What I heard from this show was that Lindsey's solo spots and guitar work was a highlight, as was Tusk. And fans seeing Christine back with them, and Stevie's normal fans coming out...so are they coming out to see Mick's band?

I'm just purely speculating here...but doesn't this "reunion" tour sound a lot like the template from C50? Pull all available members together, give the fans a bang-up helluva good show, and the positive reviews and good sales start rolling in. New album in the works? Need to ask Lindsey on that one. Some might forget there were several different lineups and albums and whatnot in the past decades when Mick did in fact decide to go on his own and call it Fleetwood Mac, and I don't think anyone can name a song or remember a successful tour from those years that didn't have Lindsey and Stevie.

It didn't gel, no matter how good those bands were or Mick is, fans probably expect what was playing in Philly last night when they're at a Fleetwood Mac show.

Is he the lead singer and frontman?

On the topic of Fleetwood Mac and a new album: http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2014/10/15/fleetwood-macs-lindsey-buckingham-on-the-groups-new-album-plans/ (http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2014/10/15/fleetwood-macs-lindsey-buckingham-on-the-groups-new-album-plans/)

Tell me some of this doesn't feel like a deja vu vibe with C50:  :)

Extending their tour into 2015 won’t deter Fleetwood Mac from recording what might become their first album in almost three decades of new songs composed by Lindsey Buckingham, Christine McVie and Stevie Nicks.

During a telephone conversation last week, Buckingham said McVie had presented him with demos of her new compositions. “Piano and voice,” he said. He brought them back to his studio in Los Angeles. With McVie’s approval, he added, “I took massive liberties with them.”

Nicks was “otherwise engaged. A running commentary these days,” he said, perhaps referring to preparations for her exhibition of her self-portrait photography now ongoing at the Morrison Hotel galleries in Los Angeles and New York as well as the release last week of “24 Karat Gold: Songs from the Vault,” her album of new versions of old, mostly unfamiliar compositions. “Christine and I were able to concentrate on each other,” Buckingham said. “We were exploring some new turf. That became enlightening to me.”

With Christine McVie back in the band for the first time in 16 years, Fleetwood Mac will be on the road through next March. “We never envisioned finishing the album in the short term,” he said. “We set it aside. Stevie will come in and participate. I have material I had been working on. There’s no danger that it will slip between the tracks. It’s too profound to.”

Buckingham hinted the band might tour behind new material. The current “On With The Show” concert tour features only songs from Fleetwood Mac’s hit-making era from 1975 through 1987’s “Tango in the Night,” the last album to feature Buckingham, McVie and Nicks with drummer Mick Fleetwood and bassist John McVie.

“Once we finish it,” Buckingham said, “we can think about going out and trying something new.”

As for the vibe now among the quintet with Christine McVie back on board, he said, “It’s a very interesting thing when someone who helped to define the interaction leaves for that amount of time. You don’t know how it’s going to play out. But this something that feels really good. It feels really circular.”

The Live In Japan video....

Notice anything odd about the album cover collage at the start?  They not only totally ignored "Summer In Paradise" (and "Stars and Stripes", to be fair) - but they also left out "Friends"?!  That's an odd choice.

Yes, Fleetwood Mac is even weirder case in some ways than the BB’s, because they essentially were an entirely different band in the pre-Nicks/Buckingham era, simply with two members carried over through the different iterations. I suppose if Fleetwood and McVie went out without Nicks and Buckingham and did the early era Peter Green type stuff only, that would probably be less frowned upon or scoffed at. But as far as I know, they never do pre-Nicks/Buckingham stuff when Nicks and Buckingham are in the lineup. (I’m not sure if they’ve ever done the stuff from the mid-era like “Bare Trees” when Christine McVie had joined but Nicks and Buckingham hadn’t yet).

So the comparison has more to do with audience (and critics’) expectations. If Fleetwood and McVie went out without all surrogate singers and did “Rumors”-era material, that would be frowned upon, despite the fact that Fleetwood and McVie control the name. (Ironically, while I’m not sure, I *believe* they actually *own* the name outright, they don’t simply license it from some corporate entity).

Let’s also keep it in perspective: Mike hasn’t released anything approaching a full album of new material. 90’s re-records with Adrian Baker aren’t the same as Axl Rose putting out a “new” album. Al Jardine has at this stage released more “new” material since 1998 than Mike has.

Mike has made it both directly (via interviews) and implicitly pretty clear he doesn’t care much about recording new material, either as the “Beach Boys” or as a solo artist. Even in the case where he’s clearly bent out of shape about the “TWGMTR” album, I don’t think his frustration over that album comes from him starting out of the gate desperately wanting to make a new album of new material. His attitude seemed to be more a case of, *if* a new Beach Boys album is going to come out, he should write more of the lyrics.

Not to digress too much, but I sometime wonder if his actual main beef with the “TWGMTR” album is that Joe Thomas probably made more off of songwriting royalties on the album than Mike did.

I think Mick Fleetwood and McVie were raised as the examples only because they are the guys in the band’s case who have the rights to the name. We can easily switch the example over to, say, Lindsey Buckingham. If he toured under the Fleetwood Mac name, without one or no other “core” members, and had surrogate singers on the front line singing the leads of Nicks and McVie, etc., he’d probably field a lot of criticism.

Another item on the litany of ways the BB’s kind of fudged themselves is that they cultivated an image as a performing artist, and let Mike grasp control of the group, to a point where he isn’t questioned much about the legitimacy of his group, other than by hardcore fans. He has certainly devalued the trademark and the group’s image by continuing to tour. The group’s reputation and “cred” among critics and the general public has diminished because of his touring. But he clearly doesn’t care (nor do most of the other BB’s), and he has molded the situation over the years to a point where having no Wilsons on stage, and having only one original member and only two of five living core members on stage, even while the other three are ready and willing to play together, is not resulting in a ruinous amount of bad press or disgruntled ticket buyers.

But my feeling is that one either has to poop or get off the pot. If the argument is he’s legally entitled to use the name because he has a license, and he has the approval of the majority of the trademark owners, then I think you have to stick to that argument. *And*, you have to accept that making that argument will justifiably lead some to see that argument as devoid of any goodwill and motivated by nothing more than legalese and sharkish economics. The whole secondary argument that we can measure the degree to which one is entitled to the name in a “moral” sense or whatever based on how being the “front man” or “lead singer” doesn’t mix at all with the “he’s legally entitled” argument.

It is apples and oranges.  What distinguishes this stuff, in my view, is that people have embraced the independent creative time spent apart with Fleetwood Mac, notwithstanding any proprietary drama as to whom is permitted to tour with the name brand.  And have castigated the time spent apart with the BB's.  Stevie Nicks has an amazing movie on Netflix entitled "In Your Dreams" where we get a bird's eye view as to her creative process.  She does work on her album, tours veterans' hospitals, meeting those who had her music in their headphones in the Middle East. 

It was amazing to see her impact on a new generation of fallen or disabled soldiers and her commitment to their care.  Her back story and revulsion concerning what didn't happened, as opposed to what should have happened, with Hurricane Katrina, shows an extraordinary activist side.  That is time well spent away from Fleetwood Mac.  And, she included Mick Fleetwood and Lindsey Buckingham on her first solo album in 10 years.  She also had Waddy Wachtel, David Stewart, as well as her "sister" solo tour vocalists.  Her "Soldier's Angel" supports the Yellow Ribbon Fund for the U.S. Military.

My position is that the creative time apart always makes for a better "reunion."  For Fleetwood Mac and The Beach Boys.  ;)

Haven't seen this tour, but saw the tour previously without Christine McVie.  They did 'Oh Well'.  Yeah, Buckingham was sorta the star of the show.

Ironically, the person least castigated for spending time away from the group is Brian, who has had a better time (critically, chart position-wise, etc.) as a solo artist in the last 15 years than the BB's have had since the 70's (apart from perhaps 2012, ironically). Yet, the guy who could most easily go back to continuing to establish himself as a SOLO artist, Brian, wanted to continue with the Beach Boys. As far as I'm concerned, Brian is a better judge than any of us about whether it's timely to undertake or continue a reunion. To say nothing of the obvious, which is that "time apart makes for a better reunion" is a total BS justification in my opinion for the 2012 reunion not continuing (and a total BS justification for anything to do with the state of the Beach Boys in the present day). Sounds like something Mike Love would say. Oh yeah, Mike *did* essentially make the same justification at the end of C50, with the total BS (and I believe utterly insincere) stuff about "giving it a rest" and "building up demand."

A 2013 continuation of the reunion tour would have been one thing: AWESOME. If they do ever do another tour together, it won't be better for having not toured in 2013.

I dunno, even some of the folks who are more apt to defend Mike will at least admit that the end of the reunion, whomever is at fault, was nothing but a negative. I'm all for making the best of a situation (the "BAD" tour, etc.), but that's different than trying to paint the sad, embarrassing aftermath of the reunion tour as anything other than sad and pathetic.

The Beach Boys are nearing their mid-70s. There's no more time left to spend "time apart" to make for a "better reunion."

The great thing about C50 was it was unexpected and "with a set end date".  Yes it would be great to have all those guys touring together all the time but it wouldn't have lasted long IMHO.  Brian didn't want to tour with hem when Carl was still alive so I'm glad I got to see The Beach Boys with Brian, having also seen them without.  I never ever thought they would but they did, for a limited time only.  Maybe they will get back together for the 50th of "Pet Sounds"?

In the meantime though I do think Brian and Al should be able to play with the group if they so choose (with the agreement of the majority of BRI votes).  However, this would lead to endless speculation about who would or wouldn't show up.

Mike dances all around the real reason(s) that the reunion imploded, and everything else is a GIANT straw-grab. It's obvious. If Mike was writing songs with Brian in a room the way he wanted to, and got his way on the road, there's no way the Madison Square Garden show (if still offered under these hypothetical circumstances) would have been turned down by Mike, nor would the reunion ended with Mike saying that demand needs to be build up. It would have probably continued, and if someone was going to end it, it would likely not be Mike leading the charge.

Mike wanted control, both in the then-present (2012) he wanted there to be zero chance he'd not 100% have control down the line, and he wanted to somehow be taken seriously as a creative force songwriting-wise by ensuring his name was typically mentioned in the same breath as BW's, and thought of as just as vital to the songwriting process as BW's.  When those demands weren't met, he imploded the reunion and stated all sorts of "reasons" to avoid discussing the actual primary reasons. I think people are simply frustrated by his obfuscation. No, I don't have a portal inside his head "Being John Malkovich" style... but it's not rocket science to deduce how he simply found lame excuses for the real reasons. As much as I think the logic is worthy of a disapproving head shake, I'll at least give Mike credit for publicly bitching about his gripe of not being able to write with Brian in the exact manner he wanted to. I'm sure that was a legit major reason, and at least Mike fessed up to it. Now for Mike to fess up to his massive control/ego issues publicly is quite another thing entirely...

*Cough cough* Regurgitating. *Cough cough* The same. *Cough cough* Post C50. *Cough cough* Diatribe. *Cough cough* Over and over again. *Cough*.

Well, yeah, so are you with all the let's move on stuff. This is a board that obsesses over what might have been stretching back to the 60s. I'd probably just avoid threads titled "Damn, I miss it being C50" if you want to avoid the inevitable C50 aftermath chatter... Telling people not to talk about things they clearly want to talk about isn't going to get you very far unless you're a moderator.

Good luck with your campaign, tho!

I'm not "telling" anyone anything, Pertwats. Maybe just mildy suggesting in a roundabout way that the subject has been brought up over and over and milked to death for all its worth, that's all. I'm allowed, aren't I? You know, free speech and all that?

And speaking of "not getting very far". I don't think anyone in the Beach Boys camp is listening anymore, especially Mike Love.

Well, Mikie, I'm hardly infringing on your "free speech" by pointing out that it's unreasonable to expect people not to discuss the ludicrous end of the last Beach Boys tour on a Beach Boys forum, particularly on a thread lamenting... the end of the last Beach Boys tour. It's what fans do! It was only two years ago, we're still trying to perfect Smiley Smile...

I don't think they expect Mike Love to be following the discussion and going "yeah, good point."
 
Derailing discussions just because you think they are boring and repetitive make me wonder why don't you just read another thread instead? I'll leave you to your brave stand on free speech, have a nice day and thanks for cleverly inserting twat into my handle. It's adorable and really says a lot about where you're coming from here. My real name is Andre, you're welcome to misspell it as asshole if it makes you feel good about yourself.

To bring it back to CenturyDeprived's point:


For all the sneering I did about his "room," yeah - it IS a legit major reason. All of the "What was Paul McCartney, chopped liver?" talk...

I wonder how many years it'll be before we get the RAH show...

With all due respect, this thread isn't about "what might have been". Oh, the thread could've started out that way, as could've each individual post. But, this thread, and almost every other one on this board, serves another purpose - to criticize Mike Love. The people on this board enjoy venting about their dislike of Mike Love. If they didn't enjoy it, they wouldn't continue to post about it. And I'm not saying people can't write about whatever the hell they please. They can. But let's make it clear. You can feel the hatred in the posts. It's like a morphine drip. This board needs a thread to constantly run in order to take shots at every aspect of Mike Love's being. And, before I'm accused of being pro-Mike Love....I don't particularly care for him one way or another.

If you don't particularly care for him one way or the other, why bother getting so worked up about it to the tune of thousands and thousands of words? You sound awfully defensive. What's bugging you, then? I mean, a morphine drip? Huh?!!

I know what's bugging me. NOT GETTING THE RAH SHOW. Cmon, Alan, I know you're reading this... tell us what the deal is there and what complicated business arrangement owns the recordings and if they will come out within a decade!

I'll settle for the Hollywood Bowl show. I seem to remember Irvine as being better, probably because I had better seats...

Damn, I miss it being C50!

Ontor, you need to make the official C50 DVD! ;D

Nah, it's still discussion of the band. It's more on-topic than a post criticizing those who continue to discuss C50.

I would indeed say that if you're tired of C50 discussion, it's probably advisable to not click on a thread titled "Damn, I miss it being C50." Built right into that thread title is the likelihood that it will focus predominantly on lamenting the demise of the tour.

I've actually found the comparison and contrasts to other band lineups and reunions rather interesting.

Yeah, I found the talk about Fleetwood Mac more interesting than Fleetwood Mac!

If the thread was about chicken pot pie, or Bruce's "Going Public" album, or something like that, and it came around to attacking Mike Love, then this would make sense.

But the thread title suggests dissatisfaction with the end of C50. If you don't like that topic, then it's easy to skip it. But any discussion of the end of C50, beyond "it occurred", can't *not* include discussion of Mike's role. If Mike had wanted to continue and Al said he didn't, then this discussion would come around to how it was a bummer Al put the brakes on it.

Sure, these threads usually have a trajectory. But it's fed from both "sides", few of whom on either side are staunchly pro or anti-Mike. What I see actually are largely people who like the ENTIRE band being bummed the tour ended, and pointing out it was Mike who, in the immediate term, dictated that that happened. On the other side, I don't see so much "pro Mike" folks, but more people who are trying to use semantics to attack those who lament the end of C50.

Frankly, I think some of the people who dismissed and ridiculed the folks who lamented the end of C50 (e.g. implying anyone who though it could continue are unrealistic idiots) got off repeating variations of "set end date" far more than any fans who lamented end of C50 got off on criticizing Mike. Simply put, criticism of Mike in the aftermath of C50 is 100% justified. Ad hominem attacks aren't, but I haven't seen much of that on this board. On-point criticism is justified. It is repetitive, and unconstructive, and pissing in the wind? Yeah, usually. But so what? It's not any less on-point than a discussion of your favorite Beach Boys hair style, or another thread about "is Brian really in control?", or a thread about "we should all just be happy we have THREE different touring bands! Yay!" It's all on-topic. It's all good.

Well, Jude, you would say that in defense of your constant ramblings on the matter. Because for two long years you have contributed to each and every thread concerning the end of the C50 with ifs, ands, butts, woulda, coulda, shouldas. Some people just can't shake the reality of the C50's demise. Some people have just got to talk and re-talk it out incessantly in order to reconcile it in their minds. It's a form of therapy, like talking to a psychiatrist, I guess. Like Jeff Lynne once said, "It's over, it's over, it's all over, and what can I do?"

In a parallel dimension C50 continued.  The Beach Boys played a critically acclaimed show at Madison Square Garden.  Then in 2013 after a break for Christmas and New Year Brian Wilson went in to the studio to record "No Pier Pressure", his new solo album.  Al Jardine played a few gigs with The Beach Boys and didn't see eye-to-eye with Mike so left the band by mutual consent and said, "I'll see you for Pet Sounds 50". ;D

Or Mike Love spends 2015 complaining that "Pisces Brothers" was his only contribution to "No Pier Pressure" by The Beach Boys, expresses very little enthusiasm indeed for "Last Song" and jokes it should have been called "Car Song," and then winds down with a bitter whine about the guest stars reducing the number of leads he get despite his obvious delight in pointing and pantomiming a few feet from Lana Del Rey singing "The Monkey's Uncle" on Jimmy Fallon's Parallel Dimension Show.

In this parallel dimension, Bruce calls Obama an asshole again. Al Jardine says "doggone it!" to a journalist. Some things never change.

Not moving on. But, see, that would entail MOVING ON from making Mike Love the sole villain, which is clearly the most fun, to asking what the other voting factions of BRI are doing about it, which isn't any fun at all. That would be making some people put their money where their mouth is - literally.

It's much easier to say or think "it would get tied up in the courts for too long" which isn't necessarily true, and "it would be too cumbersome and emotional for the parties involved" which isn't necessarily true, or "it would result in outrageous legal fees to fight it" which is probably true, but....isn't it worth it? No contract is that iron clad that it can't be challenged. I find it hard to believe the parties' attorneys would've agreed to such a licensing agreement that the circumstances of today (2014) couldn't/wouldn't result in a challenge. Things have changed (which have been mentioned ad nauseum on this board) that were unforeseen 15 years ago. BRI making tons and tons more money from a C50 tour than Mike & Bruce's lineup is one significant one. Not that I necessarily believe that, I don't, but if it is true, the licensing could be challenged.

Mikie's not telling anybody what or what not to do or y or talk about.  He's only pointing out how some of this gets grandly tiresome after a year or two.  Or three.  Or four. But then again I've been fielding that complaint about me at home for decades, so we learn to live with it, I guess.

How about: peace.

(http://www.godlikeproductions.com/sm/custom/y/n/ab20517e67.jpg)

Hilarious. Nice to end the day with a good belly laugh. One thing: you say "On-point criticism is justified." I'd modify that to "On-point criticism is justified if backed by plausible evidence as opposed to personal opinion". "Simply put, criticism of Mike in the aftermath of C50 is 100% justified" is your own opinion. From what he said in a recent interview, dude called Marks would seem to disagree with you.

Sheriff - other than the obvious fact that Brian and Carl's estate like receiving M&B  income, which of course is a major factor - do you honestly not think that Mike's past lawsuits (especially the legal action against Al, which many people have said seemed particularly vindictive) would put some measurable fear into anyone from legally challenging him? And by fear, I mean the implied idea that it would get dragged on for years and years, wasting many millions. I think that fear is in the air, and that all parties are aware of it.  At Brian's age, and considering how much emotional crapola he's dealt with over the years, who needs that type of emotional stress/uncertainty lingering around them for who knows how many years? There would be too many question marks. Mike knows this, and it's obviously to his advantage to have been lawsuit-happy, as this has created an implied barrier around him, don't you think? I think that's probably the most significant factor in why the status quo has continued (besides the obvious fact that all BRI members get the free income).

Plus, I think the other thing is that, despite the hurt feelings that Brian had/has over C50, trying to organize steps to actually strip the name from his cousin would be something that he knows would deeply wound Mike, as close to a knife to the heart/ego as you can get, and I'm not sure that Brian wants to do something so vindictive himself.  He doesn't strike me as wanting to do an action that would wound somebody so much, especially when we're talking about old men who don't have a ton of years left. I also think that Brian feels that Mike, for his major contributions to the brand, probably deserves to use the name - to an extent. I think ultimately, Brian's team and Carl's estate just want peace , and rocking the boat too much could cause things to get uglier than they ever have in the past. I do applaud the Wilson brothers' children/ex-wives, etc for attending M&B shows, because despite the media ugliness that set in post C50, I imagine in part they do it to help try and keep peace between the other parties of the older generation (the BBs themselves) who come from such dysfunction.

Exactly.  Go Giants!

I think it's 5 o'clock somewhere… Copper Dragon anyone?

No! Royals! Banned~!!!!

:lol

Another example of somebody thinking that the world is black and white...

Attacks? Yeah right. Semantics? Hmmm...

I haven`t seen anyone saying that people saying it could have continued are `unrealistic idiots`. I would be interested to see that quote though.

The facts are the facts however. The Beach Boys have a long history of pulling together for a short period of time before going their separate ways again. It happened in the mid-90s, it happened in 1985, it happened with the LA album etc.  Not to mention that Brian and Al are content to play 9 concerts in 6 months while Mike and Bruce play 9 concerts in 6 days!

As for Fleetwood Mac, there is no comparison. If we are going to be comparing them with the Beach Boys then how about also comparing all of the groups who do continue with only 1 or 2 original members. Those groups are far, far more prevalent out there after all...

I'm responding simply because of your post's implication that I've said something off-base, and I'm not sure that I did. I don't think there are many people (including Mike by his own admission) that he *at some point* wanted to return to being fully in control of the BB live act. Am I off base in saying that?  I'm not saying that Mike didn't make compromises. He did! But my point is not about that.

It's my assumption (of course I surely could be wrong, as could you) of doubting that he ever truly desired anything less than an eventual return to that... and certainly, once he realized (probably pretty early on) that his vision was going to be compromised from its ideal and that there was no way his needs could be met, that regaining control idea probably solidified. I know he made compromises, but I think that each C50 compromise he made helped to further his desire to find the foolproof M&B escape hatch which he eventually utilized.

Who's winning?

I don't think Al is "content" with this situation. It's simply a situation he's found himself in, largely due to having been pushed out for some unknown personality differences/musical disputes with Mike. I think he'd like to play quite a few more shows (and I'm not talking about tiny gigs which are mostly all he could get under just his name).  And part of the reason Brian tours so much less is because he spends far more time writing/recording compared to Mike. When there's a completed product he has pride in which he feels like promoting, he wants to play more shows, like circa September 2012. All that said, Mike apparently just can't stop his touring pace... he's set in his ways, and he's showed the world where his priorities lie.  It's his prerogative, but it's a bummer to the majority of people except himself.

Things were obviously always going to revert to the Mike and Bruce touring at some point. Even if they`d carried on touring until the end of 2012 that would have been the case and it wouldn`t have been threatened though ...

Obviously Mike didn`t continue with things because he wasn`t entirely happy.

Does that mean that he made demands that he should have a writing credit on every single song on a follow up CD? Not that I`ve ever read.

Did Mike want control in 2012? Well, as I said, he obviously wasn`t entirely happy with things and so I`m sure would have liked to change some aspects of the reunion. Does that mean he wanted complete control? Impossible to say without knowing the debates and discussions that went on between the camps isn`t it.

And `M&B escape hatch`? Really?  :lol

Everyone knew that Mike and Bruce were going to be playing shows together again in October. They did a 50th anniversary reunion (any anniversary by definition has a finite run) and it was arranged based on the touring, new CD and Smile Sessions. It was always going to be a long shot that they could arrange that for a second time...

All the more reason why things wouldn`t have worked out in 2013 I guess....

Is it a bummer for most people? On this board perhaps but the M&B shows sell tickets and, generally speaking, people enjoy those shows.

Not the way many of us interpreted interviews and events at the time. Not the conclusion drawn when BW said he didn't want to make records with anyone other than the BBs.

Every single promotional video for the C50 tour had Al saying "We're getting together ONE FINAL TIME". Obviously he changed his mind, as did Brian. I never considered the C50 tour going beyond the 50th year myself. I always saw it as a victory lap to celebrate 50 years in the business (although it was actually 51). It was a great thing. They played a lot of shows....but....in my opinion....without Carl and Dennis I don't consider that or any lineup to be the true Beach Boys, so if they continued with C51, C52, C53, etc or if they continue as they do now in separate iterations, it's all just dessert after the meal. Enjoy it. Bon Appetit.

So, basically the C50 was just a bigger and better cover band than the cover band we have now? I guess I sort of understand the sentiment that the band died with Carl. But, in that case, the name should have been retired. It wasn't. So, what we now have is a less good cover band touring under the band name when we could have had the bigger/better version.  I'd rather have the bigger/better one. Some don't care. Regardless, we're still going to all get on here and complain.

Here's a question for you Nicko. And no need to skirt it or anything. Which would you have preferred in 2013 (and maybe today), the real Beach Boys with Brian and Al, or Mike Love's Beach Boy group? Serious.

Also, I have to say that I don't understand the whole "well Mike Love's Beach Boy group goes out there and makes people happy, so shut up" thing. Couldn't him and Brucie tour under their own names and make those same people happy all the same? It could be the same show, just no Beach Boys logo behind them. No, it's obvious these people go there to have fun, but at the same time I think they do presume that they are seeing THE BEACH BOYS and not some 35 year old dudes who were barely five when "Kokomo" was a hit. And let's also be honest, if you threw Dean Torrence or Al Jardine a baseball cap and had them sing the leads in front of Mike's group instead of Mike, I bet hardly anybody that's made to be "so happy" at these "Beach Boy" concerts would give a flying f***.

And also, what's funny about the "escape hatch"? He did use it. Regardless of what Mike Love's little daughter tells people or whatever about "no more dates for the Wilsons" (which obviously was referring to the spring/summer tour, not the entire C50 venture), Brian and Al wanted to do more Beach Boys stuff. Mike didn't. He also had the name to fall back on. If he didn't have said name to fall back on, you can bet he probably woulda wanted to keep it together. So yeah, it was an "escape hatch" as he got to go back to being "the Beach Boys" without having to deal with other actual Beach Boys or having to worry about things like recording new songs or introducing different songs into the setlist. He went solo. Except he got to keep the name. And I got the feeling that many here somehow prefer this to any other way it coulda went down. Personally I think Mike should do whatever the hell pleases himself. However, I do think it was sleazy to move forward in 2012 with his little "Beach Boy" group when the reason for the bands existence was being left out of the band. However, Brian and company set themselves up for that in 1999 or whenever when they basically gave Mike the right to "be" the Beach Boys.

I haven't yet met a fan who doesn't think Mike at some stage deserved *some* criticism in relation to C50. There is plenty of evidence, including Mike's own words.

David Marks chooses not to criticize Mike. That's fine. But he hasn't contradicted that Mike *chose* to go back to his own thing. Dave just clearly isn't as bothered by Mike's decision as Al and some fans are.

"It was the plan all along" doesn't address the criticism for the decision Mike made. Marks didn't address Brian and Al wanting to continue. He simply addressed the now red herring of "Mike fired Brian." That *is* total BS. But "we're all doing our own thing, back to the way it was" is dismissive of the quality of the reunion and of the fans who enjoyed it.

Some criticism, yes. No argument here, never has been.

Tied ball game with 1.03 left to go in the final quarter. Overtime looking a good bet.

Ok. An honest answer...

I think it would have been great if the 5 man Beach Boys could have continued into 2013 and further forward than that. It would have been great if they could have agreed a way to record another album in 2013 (if the quality was similar to TWGMTR) and to do another 73 tour dates.

But I also recognize that the C50 thing did not happen on a whim. It was obviously planned well in advance so that it made business sense in terms of both the touring and the releasing of new material and The Smile Sessions. Mike himself has been quoted as being impressed, or amazed even, that Joe Thomas could pull all of that together.

For somebody to have arranged all of that for a second year would have been no mean feat. For that to have continued into this year just doesn`t seem vaguely possible to me. Especially as, and I know I`ve said it before, reunions do not tend to continue year in, year out. Even for bands who have had much less turbulent histories than The Beach Boys.

Now does Mike deserve some criticism for how C50 ended? Of course he does. The press release issued was very poorly worded and conceived and obviously led to a lot of negative headlines. Does he deserve some criticism for the tour ending at all? Very probably yes. It should have been possible to come to some sort of arrangement to keep the tour going until the end of 2012, for example, when it could have had a natural ending.

But does it follow that he was 100% to blame as some on here seem to believe? I think that is impossible to answer. None of us know exactly what Mike was told about what would happen with regard to the writing and recording of TWGMTR and none of us know precisely what went down between Mike (or his wife) and Melinda at the end of the tour. But would Mike have needed 100% control of things in order to continue as some on here seem to believe?

All I know is that the situation was complicated (Jason Fine`s article aptly described it as `fragile`) and it isn`t black and white. Even in Brian`s solo career, and this is not a criticism as I have commented elsewhere about what a good job I think Brian`s management have done over the years, you can see how often collaborators come and go. The Jeff Beck and Jeff Foskett issues give an indication into how tricky these things can be. I don`t think that necessarily means that everytime things don`t go as we wish that there are good and bad guys though.

So what do I mean by all of this blathering? Well of course the C50 band was better than Mike and Bruce`s current touring. But I also think it`s unfortunate that people now have to make entirely inaccurate comments about the current touring band. `35 year old dudes` they are not (though I`m sure they`d be flattered by that) and we also had another poster recently claiming that non-Beach Boys sing an hour or more of their songs every night which is obviously completely untrue. Whether people like them or not, they deserve to commented on with some accuracy.

CenturyDeprived, I recently shared a table at a wedding reception with an attorney. When "Kokomo" was played, it leaked out that he was a casual Beach Boys' fan, and he actually attended one of the C50 shows. I couldn't resist discussing C50 with him. Now, we were just talking and (cough) drinking, and I'm just writing about some of the things we discussed. This is just for conversation on a rock and roll message board...please don't hold me to the letter in regard to the legal system or the legal terms I use.

This attorney thinks that they should use $$$$$$$$$$$$$ as the reason for making any changes to the licensing agreement. There are now changing and unforeseen circumstances from the original agreement of 15 years ago - Brian Wilson wanting to tour as a Beach Boy, and five "core" members being able to coexist and perform onstage - which would directly result in SIGNIFICANTLY MORE MONEY FOR BRI than the Mike & Bruce lineup. The accountants would have the financial records from the C50 tour to prove this. That's the evidence; that's their case in a nutshell.

This attorney thinks that the best way to approach it would not necessarily "to strip" Mike of the license (actually thank him for his years of outstanding service/performance), but to make two amendments to the agreement. The first change would be for BRI to have the final say on any band members. They would not be critical of the existing band members - Totten, Cowsill, Foskett et al could/would stay - but Brian, Al, and David could be voted in as members of the touring band for the purpose of reaching the stated goal which is maximizing profit for BRI.

The second change would be for BRI, by voting, to have approval/denial of all bookings. This would, in effect, allow Brian and Al to participate but not have to endure a 100+ tour. Again, they would have to tour ENOUGH TO MAKE MORE MONEY (which is the basis for the changes) than a Mike & Bruce tour. The accountants would have the facts and figures as to how many shows that would be.

By approaching the changes for the purposes of increasing profit for BRI, most if not all of the testimony would be handled by the attorneys and accountants. None of the actual band members would have anything to do with the case. The depositions - if they are needed at all - from Mike, Brian, Al, and Carl's Estate could be taken, written, and presented by the attorneys. Brian wouldn't even have to utter a syllable; everything would be written for him. This is not a case of "he said - he said" like the songwriting credits suit. It's not BRI against Mike; BRI isn't "against" anyone. They are just trying to maximize profits for the corporation. 

How long would it take? The attorneys would use the ages of the participants (approaching their mid 70's), the potential for changes in the mental and physical health of the participants (especially Brian), time is of the essence (a possible Pet Sounds, "Good Vibrations", or SMiLE anniversary tour), and just the volatility of the rock & roll business (striking when the iron is hot). And, maybe, hey, it's The Beach Boys! They have raised money and contributed to numerous charitable organizations over the decades. They have built up good will.

My attorney acquaintance did mention, however, to be careful what you ask for. The C50 reunion tour, with the stated beginning AND END, did have its merits. It avoided most confusion with the fans, promoters, and other interested parties. You basically knew who you were getting....and eventually not. By potentially having Brian and/or Al coming and going from tour to tour, you run the risk of confusing a lot of people and bringing on a lot of bad and embarrassing publicity. It would almost have to be an all or nothing proposition. Either they are all in - Mike, Brian, Al, David, and Bruce - or nothing. And. if you have nothing, you have no $$$$$$$$$$$$$. And, that would be Mike's defense if you will. With Mike & Bruce, you ALWAYS had something.

The stumbling block still in place in all of that, the sticking point actually in the whole situation itself, is still the use of the name "The Beach Boys" to describe anything less than C50, which is the most band members you'll be able to pull on stage at this point. And I've said on the board numerous times that the use of the name in billings and promotions for any live show is the issue.

Something else I've said often is why not amend it so "The Beach Boys" as a standalone name would only be applied if the C50 lineup is contracted to play the gig. Anything else, no matter which original band member would be on tour, could be tagged as the original member's name plus "of the Beach Boys", "original member(s)", "founding members", whatever the case, and it is a level playing field for any original member since they earned the right to bill themselves as a Beach Boy...but not co-opt the name "The Beach Boys". Isn't it "StubHub" that even bills the Beach Boys now in a similar way? They clarify which band members' lineup the show will feature. Simple solution, zero confusion, no mix-ups over using the wrong promo photos of the bands to promote the show, etc.

Someone said that was too simple of a possible solution for this band. Maybe it is. But if you reserve the branded name for the full lineup and have *that* be the overriding condition for billing a show with the branded name, no asterisks or band members listed, there would be no confusion for anyone. Level playing field. *And* BRI could still in some way have some quality control power over the individual members' bands as well, so you don't get a substandard group from anyone using the "of the Beach Boys" moniker to book shows. You also wouldn't get a guy who played conga and tambourine for one tour in the 80's booking some half-assed group with the Beach Boys name.

And I'll suggest again, it's the use of the name as an exclusive thing that has been the issue in all of this. C50 was not thought possible, perhaps, when the agreements were made. After 2012, the parameters changed where you actually had a group called The Beach Boys and another group called The Beach Boys booking shows within the same year. One of them had 5 band members from the 60's, the other had two, yet "The Beach Boys" was describing both in the same year.

Not critical, not finger-pointing, just commenting: The name itself is perhaps the biggest factor in all of this, and the agreement perhaps didn't change sufficiently with the times and the situation at hand, retroactive to 2012.

And I don't think amending the naming conditions would negatively affect anyone involved, but rather even it out. Whereas the situation in place can or even has be used as an exclusionary measure to effectively prevent an original band member from advertising the fact that he was an original member of the Beach Boys to book shows, which I think some fans might have issues with.

I can`t agree there at all...

The fact is that over the past year or so Brian, Al and Dave have all had shows advertised as being, `....of The Beach Boys`. Now this may have helped their ticket sales to some extent but it certainly doesn`t seem to have had a massive effect in terms of the numbers of gigs they have been offered or the size of venues that they`ve played.

Now `Mike Love and Bruce Johnston of The Beach Boys` would do much worse business than they do currently. Much worse. Crappier venues and with much smaller crowds.

Even if all members were forced to give BRI 20% for every gig it would still mean far less money for Carl`s estate so they would have no reason to agree with it.

So while I can understand that all of them being equal would seem fair, that is not how BRI has operated in the past. It is a business and the current set-up makes much more business sense for both Mike and Carl`s estate than any `fair` solution would.

 I'd take exception with your supposition for the highlighted section, unless you're privy to their private thoughts
We don't know how many shows/venues they've been offered, only the shows they've performed. Perhaps they HAVE been offered other opportunities that didn't fit their schedule, or they just didn't want to perform.

Of course Brian could have played more shows. I didn`t think that needed to be said.

Al and Dave though. If they`d been offered a significant number of shows at decent venues then it is hard to imagine them turning them all down...

The highlighted part - That's a very pessimistic assumption to make, isn't it? The market ultimately decides what kind of business any tour will do, so if the presentation is strong and the show is strong, people will come to see those shows. If the product being offered is strong, there will be a demand for it in the market. If ticket sales are slumping in a particular city for an upcoming show, start pounding the pavement, hit all the market-specific radio stations and local TV shows...get some of the old-fashioned elbow-grease, hard work ethic in motion and promote the sh*t out of the upcoming show in that area. Go to whatever mall or public place is in that town for an hour during the lunch break and start shaking hands and taking selfies! Hit social media hard.  Don't assume the name itself will carry the load, right? (I know, I'm exaggerating there on purpose...)

However it brings up an issue which isn't really being addressed but is also important to consider. The promoters in each area will invest in shows where they can turn a good profit and get a decent return on their investment. In basic terms, they'll book any given act in a 2,000 seat venue if they can be somewhat confident they'll get around 75% of those seats sold. So they would not book an act that on average plays mid-level venues into a larger arena because they would take a bath on their investment, and the place could be more than half empty with all those tickets unsold.

In 2012 "The Beach Boys" on the C50 tour were booking large arenas, close to the upper-tier of live booking venues in terms of the bigger venues for an act to play in any given town. I think the return or the sales were something at least above 80% on average which put that tour among the most successful of that year.

So the bookings reflected that. There is a difference between not wanting to book larger venues and preferring to play for smaller or mid-size crowds versus simply not getting the offers to play larger venues to larger crowds. When the C50 tour was being planned, the promoters invested in the fact that this group "The Beach Boys" with 5 original members could in fact sell tickets and fill the larger venues and arenas in any given city or region. Other incarnations of the band previously or other tours from band members could not offer that level of return.

Up to C50, in the past decade or so, have similar offers been made for The Beach Boys or any individual members to play those arena type venues, where the expectation to sell upwards of 20,000 or 30,000 tickets was in place?

Something that didn't happen before C50 in terms of booking larger venues (i.e. making more money through sales and offers) and isn't happening now doesn't seem to suggest that "worse business" would be done if a name agreement were amended in some way, especially if the decisions to play the smaller and mid-level venues were made consciously over the offers to play more of the arena-type venues, or in light of the fact that those arena venues are not calling The Beach Boys or individual members to play those venues in 2014 short of having another full C50 lineup. It would probably be exactly the same situation as it is now, in terms of those people who want to see this music performed live would still buy tickets to see it performed live by an original member or members of the band. Any confusion that exists was in place already.

Sorry but you are way off in this instance. Way off.

It is the brand that is all important when selling tickets. `The Beach Boys` is a great brand and it is soooo much stronger than `Mike Love and Bruce Johnston of The Beach Boys`. Mike and Bruce had a much weaker band when Mike Kowalski and Adrian Baker were part of things but they still didn`t have a problem selling tickets.

As for your comments about 20,000 or 30,000 seater venues, of course Mike and Bruce aren`t going to be offered these venues. The C50 tour had two great publicity angles. The hype around the 50th anniversary and the hype around Brian being back in the band and the 5 man reunion. It appealed to hardcore fans and casual fans alike. Mike and Bruce`s shows appeal to the casual fans who see `The Beach Boys` name on a poster and know they are in for a fun night out.

Going back to 1998, it would have been absolutely fair for all 3 members of BRI to have been allowed to call themselves `...of The Beach Boys`. None of the members seemed to advocate this though as they knew it wouldn`t make business sense. Mike and Al knew just how valuable The Beach Boys name was which is precisely why they fought so hard for it.

In my opinion, if you start relying on the C50 Beach Boys - Mike, Brian, Al, Bruce, and David - and supplement it with the additional/occasional shows from Mike Love & Bruce Johnston Of The Beach Boys or Al Jardine Of The Beach Boys or whatever, you are treading on some dangerous water.  

Like I mentioned in my above post, it has to be an all (C50 Beach Boys' lineup for every show) or nothing (leaving things the way they are). Mike and band, or Al and band, or David and band  - with Of The Beach Boys tacked on, and "Of" being the key word - cannot sustain. I don't know how much longer Brian can even sell tickets. You are really getting into Peter Noone Of Herman's Hermits territory then. It won't take long before the public realizes they aren't getting the real deal, but a tribute show, an oldies show, with maybe one original member. I mean, we're talking very, very small venues, meaning significantly less money.

BRI and The Beach Boys and Mike Love fooled the people for a long time. And I gotta give them them credit for it. They managed to "sell" this incarnation (Mike & Bruce and gang) as THE BEACH BOYS for the last fifteen years. The public bought it...literally. It worked and it continues to work. If BRI starts messing with it, and has too many factions of The Beach Boys (with the related acts) out there, it ain't gonna be pretty. If you think the publicity at the end of the C50 tour was bad, and if you think it's bad having two Beach Boys-related shows going on the same night like they did recently, wait until you have three or four or five different acts out there singing "Barbara Ann" at the same time! :o

EDIT: Sorry, Nicko1234, for repeating some points. I was typing as you were posting...

I don`t agree about Brian. He has built a good solo career and shouldn`t have a problem touring next year as the movie can only help his stock.

But yeah, otherwise `...of The Beach Boys` means crappy venues. There is no way that many of the places that Mike and Bruce play at now, some of them on a yearly basis, would just say, `Oh you can`t call yourself The Beach Boys anymore? No problem, we`ll still pay you the same amount of money and expect the same size audience to attend`.

To Kansas City, as it turns out.  I was just looking yesterday at some BB concert photos I took at Candlestick in 1983, and the team the Giants beat that day was: The Cardinals. Giants baseball, Beach Boys, all good.

The Giants, San Francisco baseball version.

There are similar cases with some very familiar rock bands and artists, I don't like to compare but I'm curious to know the reactions and opinions among their fans just the same. How about Roger Waters - The guy staged his own "The Wall" events, played the Floyd music at his shows while still doing his own solo material, and the fans came to see him. At the same time, there was Gilmour and the other Floyd bandmates touring and releasing music as Pink Floyd, along with Gilmour doing his own solo projects, and the fans came to see him (and them) too. Now in 2014 there was just a bunch of hype around a "new" Pink Floyd release, and it's basically warmed-over vault material that's not really new in any sense of the word, and Waters and Gilmour are still polar opposites in terms of getting back together as Pink Floyd. How are fans taking that situation, or how did they take "The Wall" being staged as a Roger Waters presentation when everyone knows it as a Pink Floyd production?

How about The Doors? I'm asking because I really have no clue what's been happening since Ray passed away. I know Robbie has made some appearances as "of the Doors" or "original Doors guitarist", and I know for years there were disputes and legal challenges around Densmore using The Doors name for his projects, but where does it stand in 2014 now that Ray is gone?

What kind of floored me, or at least zapped me into reality (as well as the fact that we're all getting older) was reading that Fleetwood Mac piece in the WSJ this week that said Stevie Nicks was 66. I don't know why that surprised me, but it did. I still see her on MTV singing "Edge Of Seventeen" and the Tom Petty duet, and it doesn't feel like 30 years ago, you know?  :)

The point there is the situations with these acts in general have to change as time marches on, so to suggest things about The Beach Boys as if it were 15 years ago or even thinking the same situation that existed in 2005 will exist in the next year or two as audiences change and we all get older along with the music seems a bit unrealistic. If having to separate, say, Roger Waters hypothetically staging The Wall in 2015 from the original album and film that younger fans even today discover and like, in order to basically define that separation and say "this is from the guy that wrote a majority of it, not Pink Floyd" and likewise with Gilmour choosing to release studio outtakes as Pink Floyd and people calling it a new Pink Floyd album as of 2014, maybe things will need to change with the times.

I would, however, suggest that the basis of these issues might not be able to reduce itself to that "x factor" of fans who decide on a whim to buy tickets to any given show. If ticket sales with established catalog artists came down to that group of potential buyers, the only sure bet would be small venues in general. I think Doors fans in any area will buy tickets to see Robbie or John perform live no matter who has the name "The Doors" at this point, and that will be the driving force over a casual fan who likes hearing Light My Fire or Roadhouse Blues on classic rock radio. Are the Beach Boys situations and scenarios any different?

Take a look at how many tickets Al Jardine sells. Then a look at how many `The Beach Boys` sell. I think you will find your answer.

Nicko1234 keeps beating me to the punch! ;D

guitarfool2002, I think the major difference between those individuals you mentioned - Waters, Gilmour, Nicks, Krieger, Manzarek, etc. - and The Beach Boys' members is not only name recognition, and I mean no offense, but mostly talent.

All of those artists can CARRY a show by themselves, whether it's through their singing, or their musicianship, or both. Being a Doors' fan, I'll address Robby Krieger. I WOULD pay good money to see him play guitar to old Doors' songs. A lot of them. A whole show of them, including some solo stuff. Robby's a legend. Same with Waters and/or Gilmour. And Stevie Nicks. I probably wouldn't pay to hear Al Jardine play rhythm guitar and sing some Beach Boys' songs, including "Help Me, Rhonda". The appeal just isn't there. With The Beach Boys, it goes back to that cliche' about the sum being greater than the parts. I know we love 'em, but it would be a tough road out there for Al, Bruce, David, AND Mike - by themselves. As much as the music is the star of the show, I still think they need "the name" to be a successful draw. I think Mike & Bruce are proving that.

I fear you`ve beaten me to the punch this time.  :)

I completely agree about name recognition (and talent to some degree). Dave Gilmour, for example, has had a solo number one album I think I`m right in saying. Mike and Al are not in the same stratosphere...

And how is that different from looking at the bookings and offers from promoters with C50 versus "The Beach Boys" minus Brian, Al, and David or any combination of the current touring band? If the whole notion of carrying the torch and building the legacy of "The Beach Boys" is and has been the stated goal, bringing the music to the people, then why aren't there offers from those same promoters to book the kinds of shows as there were with the full lineup? And minus the name itself, why couldn't you assume the strength and quality of the shows being presented would be strong enough on merit and word of mouth to sell tickets, why assume that basically adding a band member's name to the brand would lead to smaller gigs and less interest?

It all comes back to the name, if you have "The Beach Boys" selling out arenas in 2012, then getting offers to play similar high profile gigs on the strength of Brian and Mike and Al being on stage together (and not taking them), versus "The Beach Boys" in 2014 suggesting it is a choice to play smaller or mid-size venues when that is the only option on the table, how would things change if there already was a definite shift in public perception and interest from both ticket buyers and promoters on the simple fact that Brian and Al were not going to be involved? And a perception made very clear after 2012 that there were in fact two separate and different versions of "The Beach Boys" that fans were paying to see perform?

I also tend to think that the market power of those buying tickets on a whim at a cost of at least 200 dollars for two people including travel/parking and concessions plus ticket price is being overstated. If you're only marginally interested in the Beach Boys music and are looking for something to do on a Saturday night, you're not going to suddenly decide to drop 200 bucks on tickets to see a band based on a name used to bill the show. I'd argue most fans willing to invest that much know more than to decide to see the Beach Boys because they saw or heard an ad promoting the show and the name itself sold them on the idea of spending that much money, whether Mike's name is there or not.

Or does it make more sense to assume that someone willing to spend that hypothetical $200 for them and a companion to see Mike and Bruce perform would see Mike and Bruce perform because they're fans beyond casual status and know something of the history of the band whether it's "The Beach Boys" or some variant that lists Mike and Bruce's names?

Sorry but again you are way off. Genuinely.

As I said before, the C50 tour had multi-faceted appeal. It had The Beach Boys name to sell tickets. It also had the the 50th anniversary element to sell tickets which is always popular. Plus it had the reunion element of Brian being there with the other guys. It appealed to all of the possible concertgoers.

Mike and Bruce`s current touring obviously doesn`t have the same appeal. The people who go, and Bruce has said this himself, know they are in for a good night out. That`s it. Does it sometimes cost $200 for a couple to watch them? Maybe. But many of their shows are played at venues where the ticket prices are much lower. There is no way that the average people going to a county fair show are researching exactly who is going to be onstage...

There is no question whatsoever that `The Beach Boys` urinates all over `Mike Love and Bruce Johnston of The Beach Boys` every time as a brand name. This would be in terms of promoters, venues and audience members. Having Scott Totten and John Cowsill wouldn`t make up for losing the name at all.

I was at that '83 Giants/Beach Boys show at Candlestick. Hard to believe they just closed that venue.

Yeah, Norm, the Giants knocked out the Pirates who were tough, the Nationals who were also real tough, then the Cards who were even tougher!!  And we're in the WS!!!!  Can ya believe it? Thank God for Wildcards in post season, eh? 2010, 2012, and now 2014. Bruce Bochy is in the Hall for sure.

Sheriff, I appreciate your reply, but I don't think my main points got addressed, namely that Mike has created a legal barrier around himself - even if it ultimately would amount to smoke and mirrors, I don't think it can just be ignored or stated to be a non-issue. I don't think people want to f*ck with him because he'd probably go to the ends of the earth to drag it out.

And the part in your post above which I've bolded is an important thing to realize too: I don't think Brian and Al want to be "allowed" to participate in The Beach Boys. They want to be part of the band and to feel welcomed. I can't imagine what it must be like to have been a member of a touring band (either for straight decades, Al-style, or off-and-on for decades, Brian-style), and to feel in a position where they have to legally "force" Mike Love to allow them to be a part of it. Who wants lawyers involved? That would have to be an incredibly icky feeling/situation to be in for them, and who'd want any part of such as scenario? That's why I don't see something actually working like what your lawyer friend suggested.

I think a much more pertinent factor is simply that Brian, Al AND Carl`s estate would presumably all have to vote against Mike and it is hard to see that happening.

Of course Mike would have his lawyers involved but for these guys lawyers are a part of their everyday life...

Don't know if its ever been mentioned but could there have been legal issues related to 2012 if the C50 band had continued? I'm thinking it was hyped by promotion that included band members saying 'one final time' or words to that effect. Could parties feel screwed and taken action if this had not been the case?

We just saw this year's tour promotions with the words "50 Years" attached to the billing, in the form of "Celebrating 50 Years Of Fun Fun Fun", so obviously there is something beyond the power of that brand name itself to be capitalized on when advertising a Beach Boys show with "50th" in the title no matter how threadbare the connection to an actual anniversary to be marked.

And I need to ask about the mention of not having the same appeal: In the aftermath of the Sept. 2012 C50 press releases, when it started to go public around the Grammy event, there were suggestions given that the stripped-down touring band which was announced would be continuing rather than taking on more full band shows was what the fans came to expect from a Beach Boys show, and is what the Beach Boys tours would be returning to, as they were before C50. If the appeal is not the same as you suggested, then either that answer given in 2012 makes no sense or the choice may have involved offering a smaller number of fans what they expected from a Beach Boys show but having that be less appealing to the market overall than taking more offers as C50.

So from your post, the current touring which was being returned to after Fall 2012 would be less appealing according to what you said, but that was also what the fans came to expect from a Beach Boys live tour? I see a contradiction there.

The "ONE FINAL TIME" phrase that Al said is something that I've wondered about. I'm guessing that this line was possibly scripted and that he was told to specifically say these words. I mean, maybe he just said the words as an off-hand remark that *happened* to make it into the final cut of those videos, but that seems a bit doubtful, especially since they kept reusing that same sentence over and over again in multiple promo clips. I wonder if Al has been asked about this since the reunion imploded.

I'd assume that Al being coached to utter those words would have had multiple intentions: to make the C50 reunion seem more special from a marketing standpoint (the implication being "catch them together now, it'll never happen again"), and also to make sure that Mike's sure-thing boat was never going to be at risk of evaporating, by unequivocally having another band member stating such, in so many words. Sort of like Mike creating a trail of breadcrumbs as legal evidence that he could return to the status quo, just in case it would ever be threatened after the C50 undertaking with then-unknown results.

Of course that would lend credence that at the time the TSS/C50 promo videos were filmed, the whole start date/end date idea was in fact the original intention at that point in time.  Or at least that it was Mike's intention that other bandmembers went along with, grudgingly or not; if Al didn't want such an end-date scenario to be the case, I don't think he'd have had much choice at that point to make demands otherwise.

I'm guessing that Al said those words on camera slightly grudgingly. While I may be reading too much into it, I'll be honest in saying that he doesn't exactly look thrilled saying them! I mean, I wonder if the BBs releasing TSS as a huge box set was a somewhat grudging concession/agreement by Mike Love in order for other things to fall into place. I seem to recall people stating things implying that there were many "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" kinds of tradeoffs behind the scenes to get this fragile reunion in place.

EDIT: I screwed up and didn't quote CenturyDeprived's post. Anyway, this is in response to his post/questions:

I touched on those issues a little. Yeah, Mike knows that he has things to his liking, and he might be thinking, "Why would they (BRI) want to ruin a good thing?" Mike might even be daring them, because he knows that money trumps everything in the Beach Boys, including friends playing together, playing big venues, massive publicity, legacies, brand-preserving - everything! Mike probably thinks that the other guys "aren't up to it" to do what is necessary to make more money than he has been generating.

Directly to your point...If BRI, as I suggested, used increased profit for the corporation as the basis for changing the terms of the license, then the individual members are basically out of the suit. I don't think I'm rationalizing, but, again, I'm far from an expert on amending contracts. This would basically be a battle of attorneys and more importantly, accountants. Testimony from Mike or Brian or any other member isn't necessary. Brian and Al wouldn't even have to make any statements other than to say that they are ready, willing, and able to tour in The Beach Boys. This wouldn't be Brian taking the stand and stating his case and then being cross-examined by one of Mike's attorneys. Frankly, the individual members would have to to ask their attorneys what's going on just to keep up to date...if they're interested. I'm not sure what they would have to fear from Mike unless Mike would question Brian's mental and physical ability to endure the rigors of touring in The Beach Boys. And, again, Brian's performance on the C50 tour would be the evidence, right?

I still believe that it would come down to dollars and cents, not legacies or brands, or fun, fun, fun. That's too hard to prove. However, if the corporation is genuinely missing out on opportunities to play these big venues and sell these expensive packages and regain their seat among rock's elite, well, go for it. I wrote in my above post that there are ways to ask for an expedited trial. I don't think it is a given that it would drag on for several months or years, due to unique circumstances. That's what high-priced attorneys are paid for.

I don't know how to address the "allowed to" issue without repeating myself and getting hammered for it. BRI made their bed a long time ago, now they gotta sleep in it. If it's THAT important to some of the members to change it, hey, go for it. I personally think that there is some wiggle room in the licensing agreement. I mean, no contract is that iron clad that it can't be amended, especially over time, over 15+ years. No attorneys worth their salt would ever agree to such a thing. I don't think they will challenge it, for reasons that have been mentioned ad nauseum and will continue to be mentioned I'm sure.

Simply put, I don't think Brian wants to go anywhere near a courtroom again for the rest of his life. He avoids stuff like this like the plague if he can. (Not saying that anyone, including other BB members like the courtroom much either!) But I think the very idea of it is good enough reason (not to mention the many other reasons we've previously discussed) to want to avoid any kind of legal maneuvering.

I'm serious, and I'm not trying to put you on the spot. Well, yes I am. ;D What reason would require Brian to go to court and take the stand? Could he not state through a deposition that he wants to tour in The Beach Boys? Couldn't "attendance records" be presented that he he attended and performed admirably at 70+ shows in 2012? Couldn't his doctors present physical and mental evaluations showing that he "is fit" to do the required work? And, couldn't that deposition then be accepted as evidence and we move on to the real substance of the trial - the dollars and cents. Really, I'm not seeing how and why Brian would be stressed over something like this. He's not really challenging anyone, he's fighting for something he believes in. No, his attorneys and accountants are doing the fighting.

Is it really so hard to believe that nobody wants to get into a protracted, expensive, painful legal battle with Mike Love at this stage of the game? You hear Alan sighing in interviews "he has brilliant lawyers."

I don't think anybody WANTS to. It's a matter of doing what is necessary, through attorneys. And, again, I don't know how DIRECTLY involved any of the band members would be.

Well it would be directly involving their wallets for YEARS. Of course they would be directly involved, it'd be a daily source of stress. I think they understand what it's like to be in endless, expensive legal fights with Mike Love a bit more than we do. You can't blame them for not wanting to stir that hornet's nest in their 70s.

Yes, an anniversary is always popular as I mentioned. Next year it will doubtless be California Girls. It isn`t as powerful as the 50th anniversary of the group though... And of course it doesn`t have the reunion element.

Sorry but the meaning of the rest of your post is unclear... Any official press release is going to be BS. Mike and Bruce have gone back to playing the same size venues they did between 1999 and 2011. They are obviously, generally speaking, not the same size as the C50 venues and ticket prices are not as high.

Jeez...  ::)

+1. You can also bet that if it were to get dragged into courts, that the very unpleasant thought of Brian having to go to court would be exploited by Mike's lawyers; I don't have much doubt that his lawyers would at least *try* to find a way to make that happen (maybe they'd fail) just to make continuing the fight as unpleasant as possible. That what lawyers do. They try to make things as unpleasant as they can for the other side, trying to bully the opposition into getting their clients' way. Not all laywers are always like that, but you can be sure that this would get ugly. I'm just saying that regardless of what the legal specifics would entail, it's absolutely THE hornet's nest of all hornet's nets in the entire world of the BBs.  Whatever touring income BRI gets from M&B aside, it's just not worth the fight - not at this stage for these guys.

Nicko - if you honestly think that the various possibilities of what could eventually happen weren't meticulously ported over by Mike and his lawyers, I'd imagine that you are mistaken. If you disagree with that, I'm all ears to hear why.

 I'm not saying that my hypothesis is absolutely correct, but I also don't think it's too far-fetched either. There was lots of scheming going on, I'm sure. And by scheming, that doesn't necessarily mean I'm trying to say it was ill-intentions by Mike, but Mike is obviously extremely protective of not letting go of what he feels he has rightly earned (the right to tour as "The BBs"), and I don't doubt that it's *possible* that if he/his lawyers could have thought that by Al saying a few choice words at a certain point in time, it would help make a case for there being a precedent that could make things go in his favor in case they ever needed that.

Mike likes his escape hatches, and this *could* possibly have been an attempt at another one.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think this is out of the question. Let's face it: it could ONLY have been beneficial to Mike for Al to say those words, right? I would think it less desirable for Al, having many times over the years hinted at a desire to regularly be back to playing with the BBs (or similar capacity) to have *happily* said such words, while Mike (who clearly is mighty happy being in control of the M&B show) would have every reason to be happy to see such words being publicly spoken by Al. Please correct me if I'm off-base on this.

If you believe that Mike from the onset has always desired an end date (as I believe you do), and if you believe that Mike has some savvy lawyers (as you probably do, and as Al does), then I don't think it's an implausible scenario worthy of an eye roll emoji.  :) I also suspect that the TSS/C50 promo clips (especially the TSS ones) were highly vetted for content beforehand. I think it's a no-brainer to assume these were highly crafted to avoid certain politics/topics, and probably had lawyers/PR people's opinions peripherally involved. I feel certain that some things were not allowed to be discussed (for political gain), and therefore it's really not a stretch to think that some things were specifically said as well (for potential down-the-road political gain too).

Just for the fun of seeing what their posts would look like, for one day only, perhaps Halloween, I think it would be cool to require bgas and guitarfool2002 to flip word counts.  On that one day, all posts from bgas would be required to be a minimum of 2500 words in length, and all posts from guitarfool2002 would be required to not exceed 50 words in length.

We don't know that there isn't just a basis provision, an "out" if you will, in the licensing agreement that falls along the lines of "for the betterment of the corporation". If the members of BRI feel that more profit could be generated by changing the terms of the agreement BY A MAJORITY VOTE, then a meeting could be called, a vote be taken, and let the chips fall where they may. Maybe, Brian and Carl's Estate ultimately - ultimately - want things to be left the way they are, despite what the fans want.

Now, of course, a member - in this case, Mike - could challenge the provision or the findings or the vote. But, wouldn't it just be Mike filing his complaint, and a judge basically making a ruling. Is it possible that it's black and white, that BRI could simply conduct a vote to make a change? What legal leg would Mike have to stand on, if the agreement allows for a re-vote down the line? The math is the math. BRI could generate more profit another way. Why would a case like that drag on and on?

Because once you start throwing money at lawyers, things drag on and on.

Just remember one critical thing about the people we are talking about: Brian, on the whole, seems to care far less about profit than Mike. Yes, Brian has "sold out" and has done things for profit many times too. Of course. But... relatively speaking... I think if he were posed with potential profits of 2012/2013 (when Brian really wanted to be a BB in the C50 incarnation), and if the numbers said that M&B could make a few more bucks (or maybe even a lot more bucks) in a stripped-down/zillion shows type of setup, I think the fun making music with all of the Boys desire would win out in Brian's mind.  To Brian, I don't think his desire to continue with the BBs in a C50 capacity had anything whatsoever to do with more profit/less profit compared to M&B.

I think at that point, he was willing to not give two sh*ts about profit, because he was digging being a BB again so much, and the more these guys give *less* of a crap about profit (and more of a crap about music and what it means to be a band), usually the better the result.  While I agree that both control and money were factors, ultimately, I think Mike's actions were dictated more from a desire to not cede control, compared to the potential of making less money.

Yes, but you see, and I mentioned this way back as my attorney acquaintance suggested, you USE the profit argument as a way to get what you really want - the fun of touring as a Beach Boy, playing the large venues, the increased publicity from the major publications, the preservation of the legacy, giving the fans what they deserve, and, in Al's case having a job. If you try to achieve all of THOSE things by a simple vote, surely Mike can and will fight it, and it will go on and on. But, if you play the increased profit for the corporation card - even if that's not really important to you - you have a much better chance at winning. It's more black and white, it's finite, and, according to many fans on this board, it's achievable! And, with that, have a good evening (I can hear the applause...)

what is the sound of one hand clapping?

Yes, that was a Great show - wish they would have let us on the field.  Maybe if I had brought a cheerleader outfit...  I think that was the first time they had the cheerleaders out front.  Soon they would be on the stage.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't they doing all those $5 shows (including one with CSN) because the Giants couldn't fill the seats?  I couldn't believe they kept doing it, a really great deal.  I was at all of them.  1983 being the Best.  Carl was rockin' out, and seemed happy to be there.  I thought Brian and Dennis both did very well - the last time with all the brothers together for me.

Not a put down, I'm for the Giants to win, just sayin'.

Would you have looked good in a cheerleader outfit then?  now? 

I have not read all of this thread but 2012 was an anniversary of the group and this year's is an anniversary of a song and so not comparable or contradictory imo.

I like what Sheriff is saying.

Yeah, feelflows, you were living around Santa Cruz at the time, weren't you? I think there was a Napa Fairgrounds show that year then they went down to L.A. or Ontario and that's the last you saw of Dennis in concert. There were a few Beach Boys/Baseball shows around that time (one of them Seattle I believe) and that was a good marketing ploy by both the baseball club management and The Beach Boys to draw more people to the ballpark. Still have my blue Beach Boys hat from the Candlestick show.

That's funny!  ;D  Although the one or two-liners from Guitarfool would have to be smart-ass remarks (affectionately called zingers)!

I think the truth is a little simpler...

The C50 tour was arranged as a separate entity from Mike`s license. Mike knew when it was arranged that he would absolutely have the right to tour as The Beach Boys again at a specific point in time and this is exactly how it proved. Bruce was saying from very early on in the tour that they had to be finished by a certain date after all... If Mike hadn`t known this then he obviously wouldn`t have been interested in the C50 tour at all as it would have made no business sense.

Now Al`s comment has no impact legally whatsoever. Did it mean, as someone earlier asked, that the C50 tour couldn`t have been extended? No and it was. Did it mean that the tour couldn`t have been extended further? In no way, shape or form.

Could Al`s comment have had any legal impact in October 2012 if BRI had taken a majority vote that Mike should lose his license? Not a chance in Hell. Al`s comment has literally no connection with whether Mike should hold a license or not. None. They are not even vaguely related.

Mike didn`t need to, `create a trail of legal breadcrumbs` at all as the situation is cut and dried. Until BRI vote to get rid of his license Mike can tour as `The Beach Boys`. And it really wouldn`t make any financial sense for Carl`s estate to vote against him as they are getting money for nothing...

(Al`s comment certainly works more as a `see us now while you can` tempter though which is obviously what that promo was all about)

As for Pink Floyd, when Gilmour, Mason and Wright won the legal battle against Waters to use the name Pink Floyd there was (and continues to be) some animosity toward a Gilmour-led Floyd. The Pink Floyd tour easily outsold Roger Waters' tour and the bickering between the two camps continued until they reunited in 2008. Waters and Gilmour actually get along these days. Waters wanted to reform the band a few years ago but Gilmour said no. There's not much negative fan reaction this time around because nearly all the fans understand this new record is a collection of music written by the late Rick Wright around 1994 and finished off by Gilmour and Mason as a tribute to him. Waters wasn't invited to participate because he wasn't on the original 1994 material. There won't be a tour, no further projects and Pink Floyd don't actually exist anymore.  

I've never heard of any confusion among fans regarding seeing the Gilmour-led Pink Floyd in concert in 1987 and 1994 and seeing Roger Waters performing "Dark Side Of The Moon" and "The Wall" in concert. Pink Floyd are a bigger act than The Beach Boys and the individual members have way more name recognition than the Beach Boys do.  

The Doors situation was a different story and I think you've got it the wrong way around. Densmore sued Manzarek and Krieger over touring with the name "The Doors of The 21st Century". He claimed fans would be confused and think they were seeing The Doors (sounds like Mike's argument about "The Beach Boys Family and Friends", doesn't it?). Densmore won that court battle even though I think it was petty myself. Considering Jim Morrison casts such a long shadow and is (presumably lol) dead, I doubt fans were turning up to gigs expecting to see him. Manzarek and Krieger had to call themselves "Riders On The Storm" instead. It wound up not affecting ticket sales at all. Densmore never toured as The Doors and hasn't actively played live with anybody in years.

I think the obsession on this board over the touring entity called "The Beach Boys" is a bit overblown. It seems to hinge on this idea that there are poor misguided souls out there who are going to feel cheated if they go to a Mike & Bruce show and Brian's not there. It would seem that the audience who pack in for a Mike & Bruce show either don't care or know they're at least getting two (possibly three) members from the 60's. That's more than most heritage acts can boast. Mike & Bruce's audience have been weaned on all those PBS-specials where the old-timers go out there and relive the good times...only it's usually one old-timer and a bunch of replacements or maybe not even one original member at all! I doubt there are people in the audience who are up in arms about who's in the band. They came fort a good time and they got it.

Maybe that's true, and maybe Al's comment would have been 100% worthless in proving anything legally if things had come to that. I'm no lawyer, but I'd think that the comment certainly wouldn't have *hurt* Mike's case in the event that his lawyers would have ever attempted to use it. Remember, Mike's suit against Brian around the BWPS time was rejected by the courts; I don't put straw-grabs past him or his legal team.  

... but not as a stand-alone event.


Indeed. And that date was changed, at least once.

"pat pat". Try it. ;D

I may not have worded it the right way but I knew pretty well what the lawsuit(s) were about. I think you may have stated it a bit incorrectly or incompletely above, though. So here are a few period reports from that time. Notice both articles mentioned Densmore was still performing on his own (not as or with The Doors obviously) but at one point had been battling tinnitus, with Ray suggesting that was why he opted out of Ray and Robby's shows, but later Densmore said he wasn't asked to join the group. Hmm.

And another lawsuit (another of a handful back and forth) was over licensing Break On Through for a Cadillac ad.

February 05, 2003 12:00 AM EST

John Densmore, former drummer and co-founder of the Doors, has filed a multiple-count lawsuit against surviving original band members Ray Manzarek and Robert Krieger, among others, Billboard Bulletin reports.

The suit -- filed yesterday (Feb. 4) in Los Angeles Superior Court by Densmore and on behalf of the estates of the late vocalist Jim Morrison and his wife, Pam Courson -- revolves around a new incarnation of the Doors that has performed in recent months. The suit, which seeks unspecified damages, claims that written and oral agreements mandate that the Doors name and logo can be used only by the original band members.

Keyboardist Manzarek and guitarist Krieger have been playing dates as the Doors with Ian Astbury (formerly of the Cult) on vocals and Stewart Copeland (ex-Police) on drums. The group, which performed recently on "The Tonight Show," played the L.A. House of Blues on Jan. 31 and is scheduled to play Universal Amphitheatre on Friday.

Manzarek told Billboard.com in September that Densmore had opted out of the tour because he was suffering from tinnitus (a ringing in the ears). However, the drummer said in an interview yesterday with the Hollywood Reporter that he has fully recovered and will be performing live Saturday for a public school district benefit.

"I'm troubled by one guy singing the whole night," Densmore said. "There are Doors cover bands in every city; we shouldn't join that, should we? No disrespect to Ian Astbury or Stewart Copeland; they are wonderful musicians. But my point is they are not the Doors."

Manzarek countered in an interview with Reuters that Densmore's suit was "frivolous," and that he and Krieger were billing themselves as "the Doors, 21st Century." In fact, Densmore said he found out that Astbury and Copeland were going to tour as the Doors from an article in Billboard. "I thought, 'Oh, OK, I'm fired in the paper,'" Densmore said. "I called Robby and said, 'Robby, you've got to change the name, please.'"

Even though his ears are back in shape to perform, Densmore said he would not want to play with the group. "Who can fill Jim's leather pants?" he said. "The Doors is John, Jim, Ray, and Robby. It's not Ray, Robby, Stewart, and Ian." Densmore said he's not after money, nor will he try to stop Friday's show. He just wants the band to change the name. "They can call themselves Formerly Members of the Doors or the Hinges or the Windows," he said.

-- Erik Gruenwedel, L.A.




Doors’ Densmore Sues Former Bandmates Over Use Of Group’s Name
Spokesperson for defendants says they had no previous knowledge of Densmore's allegations.
by Corey Moss 2/4/2003

John Densmore filed a lawsuit against fellow Doors founders Robby Krieger and Ray Manzarek Tuesday (February 4) claiming they are infringing on the band’s trademark by using the name for their new supergroup.

The suit, which names Krieger, Manzarek and their bandmates Ian Astbury of the Cult and Stewart Copeland of the Police, also charges breach of contract and unfair competition.

“It’s misleading to the fans,” Densmore said in a statement. “My partners are free to play under any other name and any other logo, as the members of many bands from the same era are doing. I am seeking only to end the confusion caused by the deceptive ad campaign they are using on this tour in order to preserve the legacy of the Doors, and to set the record straight.”

A spokesperson for Krieger and Manzarek said the musicians had no knowledge of Densmore’s allegations until Tuesday, and had no comment on the lawsuit.

Densmore’s suit, which seeks an injunction and damages, notes that advertisements for Krieger and Manzarek’s band have used the original Doors logo, and that Jay Leno introduced the group on “The Tonight Show” as the Doors. It also describes numerous telephone calls the drummer received from family and friends assuming he had reunited with his former guitarist and keyboardist.

According to Densmore, under legal agreement, all business decisions pertaining to the Doors, such as reissues and reunion events, must be made unanimously with the living members of the band and the estate of late frontman Jim Morrison, who died in 1971.

“There has been a drummer playing with that band who is not [Densmore] [that] has minimized and diminished the reputation and stature of [Densmore] by causing people to believe that he was not, and is not, an integral and respected part of the Doors band, or [that he is] one member who easily can be replaced by another,” the lawsuit also notes.

Krieger and Manzarek invited Densmore to join a reunited version of the band with Astbury last fall, but he declined due to a brief illness.

Densmore, who is performing at a fundraiser in Santa Monica on Saturday, will, according to his spokesperson, release the debut album from his new group, Tribal Jazz, this summer.

It would take me exactly two words to reply to this.

It was more than clear. If the statement was made that returning to the smaller venues was somehow what the fans had come to expect from a BB's show, and you said the current touring is less appealing, then you must be suggesting the Beach Boys fans were expecting less appealing shows.

I do agree about the B.S element, though. Maybe not the same as you, but on the notion that some of the PR and statements were (and are) pure BS, I'll agree with that.

What i did forget to mention was the notion of having a fun night out at a concert. Well, that's pretty much a no-brainer, isn't it? I don't know how that notion is something unique to the Beach Boys. Unless I wanted to leave the venue an emotional wreck, shattered and in tears, I wouldn't pay money to see such a show that isn't a good time. I don't know who, except maybe those people who paid to see Rod McKuen back in the day, would go to a show not expecting to have some fun or escapism and release of some kind at a live show.

Check the ticket prices for the shows happening in the next week or so on the east coast, around NJ and PA and including the Borgata in Atlantic City. Keep in mind what the price range was for C50 (inflation hasn't gone that crazy in 2 years), and what the price ranges are for the upcoming weeks of shows. In some cases the starting prices for lower-range seats was less for C50 than it is now in 2014. In fact they're nearly the same, give or take.

So the idea of playing smaller venues with lower ticket prices isn't quite the case, since the current prices can be greater in some cases than they were for C50. So let's bust that myth.  :)

Another story highlighting Mike's attitude to touring and how he has no plans to stop.

http://www.heraldmailmedia.com/life/feeling-the-love-the-beach-boys-set-to-perform-in/article_1391d370-0ca5-5b2e-b632-8956311837db.html

I still don't think money is Mike's main driver. Its the love of the show and the buzz around it. If the end goal is amount $X per year he would sooner get it doing 140 shows per year rather than 40. The other Beach Boys either don't get it or can't cut it.

Obviously many people aren't. Why don't you stop trying to dictate what topics others should discuss, just don't participate in the relevant threads if the subject doesn't interest you. It's annoying.

Err, no. What we were discussing was `appeal` in relation to ticket sales and putting bums on seats.

Now the C50 tour had massive appeal as it combined the `The Beach Boys` name, the reunion element and the anniversary element.

It appealed to the casual fans who want to see the hits, the hardcore fans of course, Brian`s fans who wouldn`t go near a Mike and Bruce show, serious music fans and just people who wanted to see an `event` and were interested due to the promotion and the hype. Massively broad appeal which the Mike and Bruce shows obviously don`t match.


Nope. There is a massive difference between, for example, the entertainment a concertgoer gets from watching Brian performing Pet Sounds or Smile live and somebody watching Mike and Bruce playing a meat and potatoes show. They appeal to very different demographics (not that there isn`t some crossover of course as many of us on the board prove).



As I said, the ticket prices for the county fair shows can be very cheap. That`s the reason they are able to get such big crowds in comparison with their other touring. The theatre shows will undoubtedly be more expensive (and will attract a different audience) and it seems like $50 seems to be the average cheapest price which maybe similar to some of the C50 shows. There is no question though that generally speaking Mike and Bruce`s shows are much cheaper than C50.

The bottom line for me is none of the shows that I have seen Mike and Bruce perform at would have been arranged by promoters if they didn`t have `The Beach Boys` name. That`s a certainty. It was obviously the holy grail back in 1998 and for good reason due to both what it reveals and what it conceals. It reveals that people are going to hear the hits and it conceals that many of the original members are not going to be present. Having a band called `Mike Love and Bruce Johnston of The Beach Boys` would actually draw attention to what many people consider to be the very weakest aspect of their group...

C50 was an "event" which appears to have been set up, as an entity, separate and apart from whatever performances fall inside or outside of BRI.  The key is simple; "status quo ante."  And after two years post that magnificence, it is over.  And was over at the last show. I agree with Andrew that it was astonishing.  But, for that window in time, and it came to an end.  

The reality is that, as an a old person once said, "You can't count someone else's money." You can only count your own.  It isn't my business how much they make.  I don't care. Good luck to them.  They have all worked hard.  Debating ticket prices is foolish as many concerts just don't have the goal of making money.  Not unlike politics.  Some are for "exposure" and carving out a new "constituency" or funding a charity. Some are connected to casino foot traffic.  There is s huge value in playing in community theaters. It is about supporting sustainability.  Some of these old places have fabulous acoustics that don't exist in some of the C50 venues.  These are venues where they can do Their Hearts Were Full of Spring.

Even with celebrating the 50th anniversary of Surfer Girl, or Fun, Fun, Fun or whatever doesn't appear deceptive, but just that it is something to celebrate and isn't reunion related, but just appreciation of the song.  

Will they arrange some other reunion? I don't know.  They don't owe me anything.  It was fabulous but, whether or not it happens again, we'll have to wait and see.  Stranger things have happened.  C50 was a pleasant surprise.  It costs a lot of dough to spread that ticket price around with the staff required to run an operation like C50, with all the logistics working smoothly.  These guys once operated like every other garage band; out of a station wagon.  And that is with the same great music.  

Status quo ante.  They returned to the performing arrangement prior, to C50.  It has been aggressively debated ad nauseum.  

Nicko, as you can see I do enjoy a good debate or discussion, but you're trying to spin some things too far. The issue of ticket prices in this case is pretty cut and dry: Look, I have no qualms, no criticisms, basically it doesn't matter at all to me what folks are charging or paying for tickets, I'm being 100% honest. No skin in that game for me. I'm simply addressing what you had said earlier about those prices.

But when you raised the issue of ticket prices being generally "much cheaper" in 2014 for shows versus C50, and going back to C50 there were seats available from 40-50 dollars and up...and in 2014 there are seats available from 40-50 dollars and up, it's the same price range. And the mid-level tickets which is what most fans can call and purchase are around 80-90 dollars, and were around 80-90 dollars for C50 as well. Check the listings this week. So your statement about "much cheaper" is simply not true on the most basic level, which is, again, someone can buy a ticket for one of the shows this week starting at around 50-70 based on the venue and they were able to do the same thing for a lot of the C50 shows, and if they want more deluxe packages they can pay more for those too. Let's not argue mathematics, after all!  :)

Same with semantics and the definitions of the word "appeal" and how it is used: I know what "appeal" means, especially aesthetically versus commercially, or in terms of "market appeal" and the like. Again it gets back to trying to discuss or even figure out some of the statements made in fall 2012, and how some seemed to contradict or conflict with the reality of the situation as it played out since that time.

Regarding "meat and potatoes" shows, look up some of the setlists of recent years and tell me that adding deep cuts, album cuts, "Pisces Brothers" and "Goin To The Beach" (which the 'meat and potatoes' or impulse ticket buyer has much less knowledge of those songs than the more engaged fan) and any number of songs not on the usual greatest hits list does not back up what you're saying. It's a bonus of all the shows, from Brian to Mike and all in between that they do go deep into the playlist and pull out songs for the more engaged fans. But just look at the last few years' worth of setlists and even some comments promoting various shows where the fact that playing some deeper or more obscure songs from the catalog was promoted. So I'm just saying it's not quite how you're trying to present it when there are deep cuts and even non-Beach Boys solo-member songs in those sets.

Summary: Check the ticket prices, check the setlists, and the numbers are all there. For what it's worth here.

I don't dictate anything at all.  But thanks for letting me know that you're annoyed.  My work is done here.  See you on the other threads.  ;D

Mike is control freak, and he loves working. That's the vibe I get. I think he doesn't want to tour with Brian because he doesn't want a power struggle. Brian has the influence to demand certain songs, shows, and etc., and Mike seemingly doesn't like that. You get the impression he believes the show should be done a certain way, and that he thinks Brian just "doesn't get it". Mike also has an ego and probably resents sharing the spotlight. You can just imagine him cringing whenever Brian sang "Summer's Gone" with it's 'downer' lyrics.

Bands break-up every day for the same reason. Definitely not unique to the Beach Boys that's for sure.

Thanks. I forgot about Tribal Jazz. That case dragged on and got weirder and weirder, with Ray's attorney accusing Densmore of consorting with terrorists (not kidding. It's in Densmore's book about the lawsuit). My point was that there are parallels to the BRI -vs- Al lawsuit even though the way The Doors handle (or were supposed to handle) things was different. Despite what John claims I don't think Ray and Robby going out as "The Doors of the 21st Century" was misleading, just as I don't believe that Al going out as "The Beach Boys Family and Friends" was misleading or a conflict of interest. It's not The Doors it's "The Doors Yada Yada Yada" which should tell you right off the bat that something's different. On a legal level, yes, BRI and Densmore's arguments make sense, but realistically you'd have to be pretty stupid to not know that "The Beach Boys Family & Friends" is something different from "The Beach Boys".

..but that's so long ago now that it doesn't matter. 

Sorry but there really is no spin going on. Mike and Bruce play loads of shows at county fairs where the ticket prices are very cheap. When I type in county fair shows on google one of the first to come up for this year states, `Tickets go on sale Saturday, June 7th and range in price from $27 to $37`. These are the type of shows that Mike and Bruce play for much of the summer and it is why then can sell 5-10,000 tickets. Of course they play more expensive shows (and have even played black tie shows that are more expensive than C50) but if you were to compare the average price paid by someone to watch Mike and Bruce in 2014 compared with the prices paid to watch C50 then it would be much cheaper. That is an indisputable fact surely.

I`ve never argued that Mike and Bruce don`t play deep cuts. Quite the opposite. It`s just that they aren`t the main draw for the majority of the concertgoers and at the most heavily attended concerts (those county fair shows again) most of them aren`t played.

It was a bizarre scene, all around! Read into at least one of the articles I clipped above and it seems like there were a few key moments that may have triggered something deeper in John to lead to all of the legal action regarding the name. One of which was the group appearing on the Tonight Show and Leno introducing them as "The Doors", along with the banner with the band's trademarked logo basically flying behind them at various times, and also John getting calls from people he knew - who therefore would know a little sumpin' about sumpin' regarding his band - who assumed John was going to be playing those shows with "The Doors" after they heard about the tour Ray and Robby were staging.

I think that above anything, I mean the notion, where John, Ray, Robby, and Jim's estate long ago made a pact about how "The Doors" legacy would be handled, and John hearing/seeing Jay Leno introduce "The Doors" on television without his involvement could have been a tipping point. I can see where that would anger someone in light of the agreement and pact they had made, and which John saw all but being broken on television that night. If I read into some of John's comments, he was both touched and I believe felt validated when Jim's father, then in his mid-to-late 80's, sided with him on these specific issues, not to mention the former Mrs. Morrison. They could easily have suggested "Jim would have wanted Ray and Robby to play as The Doors" but he sided with John. Very multi-layered story, right there.

And there was also the difference in how the story unfolded according to who was asked, where John at least one published time said he was not asked to participate at all, and I believe Ray said John's tinnitus kept him from joining. I don't know whose side Doors fans may fall on that, but it was either John was asked or was not. Then Stewart Copeland filed his own breach of contract lawsuit because his contract to drum with Ray and Robby wasn't honored, yet Copeland had broken his arm or something around the time of the tour. What a mess!

The last I heard was John and Robby had tried to mend fences after Ray's death regarding a tribute show, but beyond that I honestly have not kept up in 2014 with what is happening regarding them or "The Doors" as an entity without Ray. I would however not hesitate to see Robby or John in person, even if it were them giving a clinic or telling Doors stories at a public event. No matter what they call themselves!  :)

And I cannot really find anything to connect the Beach Boys to this, except maybe in theory regarding naming and legacy, and if you take something for legal precedent or something similar. Each case is individual, each group of individuals is their own thing with their own quirks and hang-ups, so comparing them beyond the surface events is a pretty hard sell.

Nicko, I'm offering this as a suggestion, take a look at Andrew's "Bellagio" site, where the gigs are listed, and scroll through the gigs Mike and Bruce played in 2013 and 2014. You continue to reference these 'county fair' shows as perhaps indicative of the type of shows the BB's play and therefore that might back up what you said about lower ticket prices.

Scroll through all the gigs from 2013-14, and note that there are roughly 10 or 12 that are "county fair" or even state fair shows. I'm chalking this up to perhaps a trans-continental divide or a cultural thing of some kind if you are not from the US, but a lot of those venues on the gig/tour itinerary were/are either casinos, amphitheaters, auditoriums, or other venues beyond what I think you might be assuming they are or were. They're not carry-your-own-lawnchair to the stage kind of shows at all, nor are they anything less than what a standard American theater or auditorium or casino venue show would be for any acts playing them.

Again, check Andrew's Bellagio gigs list, for those bookings post-C50, and you'll find 10-12 shows which i think fit the bill of what you've been suggesting as county fair type shows and venues.

And further beyond that, check the ticket prices, even for the shows remaining in 2014, including some on this part of the east coast in the next week. They're not fairs, they're not lower-profile venues, but they're also not urban venues or arenas of the type C50 played. See it for yourself. Consider one specific venue, "The American Music Theater" in Lancaster, PA. This is a 1,600 seater, some hear the name Lancaster and think it's "Amish Country" in pastoral, rural PA, but then check the prices they've charged for Beach Boys shows there in the recent past. It's far from county fair pricing, and the venue is far from a county fair type stage atmosphere. And the term "fairgrounds" does not place a gig at having been played at an actual fair, or suggests something less than a professional venue with a full stage and seating setup in place.

And note those ticket prices.

I said before, I don't mind having discussions or debates, but if you're calling these things "indisputable facts" and they are not, especially regarding ticket pricing and "county fairs" and the like, it's just off-base to push these things so definitely or definitively that just aren't true. And all anyone needs to do is check the current ticket price ranges for the next month's shows on any ticket-seller's website, and check the Bellagio site for a rundown of the gigs since 2012 to see exactly what percentage were or were not the county fair type of shows you've said Mike and Bruce play loads of and book for much of the summer. It just isn't the case, otherwise there would be more than the generous dozen "fair" events I counted over two years of steady touring. 

John said he made amends with Ray shortly before he died, or at least called and talked to him. The tension between John and Ray had been thick for some time. Densmore could barely contain his annoyance at Ray on the group commentary tracks they did for The Doors DVD collection. It makes for uncomfortable listening.

As of 2014, still no tribute show but "Feast Of Friends" is coming out on DVD soon (with a ton of extras).

 

I'm all about those "extras"!  ;D   What a tangled mess, though, and to John's credit I think he did lay out in his book that notion of the band from its earliest days having an "all for one, one for all" mentality in their existence and dealings, and yet all of it unraveled basically in public view and in the court battles.

I hope John and Robby can work out the logistics for the Ray Manzarek tribute concert. Ray deserves a night, and it would be a charitable event for cancer...

John and Robby performed this show earlier in 2014: http://youtu.be/lgo1bQuMVoQ

The fairgrounds problem: if you care to check my site, you'll find The Beach Boys were playing county fairs back in the early sixties. It's not a purely post-Carl phenomenon.

I don't recall anyone bitching when they played baseball double-headers back in the 80s, and it's exactly the same principle.

Three things I think we can all agree about concerning C50:

1 - it happened...

2 - it was orders of magnitude better than anyone dared hope...

3 - it's over and will never happen again, and all the opinions, hot air and flat out drivel spouted here won't change that. You can argue that Custer made a huge error leaving the Gatling guns behind and ignored the advice of his guides, and likely he did, but the fact is, he still died at Little Big Horn.

I do apologize for wrongly using the words `county fair` when I should have used a more generic term like outdoor shows. I agree with you that few gigs are listed as fairs on AGD site.

Of course I agree that looking at ticket prices for current shows in theatres is relevant. But looking at only those theatre shows is obviously not going to give a fair and accurate view of things. A quick look at some of the gigs M&B have played this year (not fair dates) shows tickets at different venues going for $5, $20, $29, $33, $35, $37 etc. Several of the U.K. dates were similarly cheap I seem to recall (along with some more expensive concerts).

So if you have a mixture of plenty of dates that are as expensive as C50 and plenty that are much cheaper then it goes without saying that the average overall price that people are paying is going to be significantly lower. Especially as the cheaper dates are often the better attended ones (wasn`t there an estimated 20,000 people at one of these shows?) where the crowds are several times larger than in the theatres.

None of the UK racecourse attendances were estimated: they were an exact ticket count.

Newmarket - 13,449
Newbury - 15,059
Epsom Downs - 6,234
York - 16,992

The vibe I get is Brian called most of the shots, except on the 2nd continuation. Which he called the shots on by saying no more, but he apparently regretted it. Would that make Brian a control freak?

But I generally agree with your vibe.

Having internet access at work and nothing to do at work today I had a look at the ticket prices for as many M&B shows this summer as I could. From looking at about 40 shows between mid-July and the end of September there were probably 6 or 7 where the prices were similar to those of C50. Upmarket venues such as Wente Vineyards and Frederik Meijer Gardens & Sculpture Park for example.

For the vast majority of other shows the ticket prices are in no way comparable though. Obviously there are the county fairs and the racecourses that are cheap but there are also free shows, multiple nights in an amphitheater for $23, lawn tickets at an amphitheater for $10, festival shows for $5, casino shows that start at $25 etc. Plus the regular theater shows, while not being cheap, are generally reasonably priced.

I don`t mention this to be a know-all git (although I`m sure that`s the way it may appear) but simply because it fits in with the topic that was being discussed earlier in the thread. It is pretty clear that the vast majority of people who go to watch M&B do so at shows where the ticket prices are comparatively very cheap. They certainly do play classier venues at times but you have to play a hell of a lot of shows at 1,500 seater theaters to perform to the same number of people you do in a few racecourse, fair or festival dates. The people who attend these cheaper shows are the ones who want to hear the hits and want to see a group called `The Beach Boys`. I doubt iit goes any deeper than that with them...

Actually, I thought back in the 80’s it was a relatively tacky move. It was a continuation of lacking interest to be functioning artists producing new material, and was another move towards becoming the “traveling jukebox.” As with everything else; Kokomo, Stamos, Full House, and so on, the baseball gigs surely got the band seen and heard. But going back and seeing the footage of them coming out on to the baseball field in old timey cars and awash in corporate sponsor logos, and then playing their show to a partially emptied out baseball stadium, always struck me as something worth (pointlessly) “bitching” about as a fan.

I never got the impression that Brian was calling the shots on the touring side of things. We have Al saying just as the tour started that he had to “ask” Mike to add songs to the setlist. Joe Thomas mentioned in an interview, if I’m recalling correctly, that it roughly amounted to a case of Brian being “in charge” on the studio side of things, and Mike being “in charge” on the touring side of things.

The Rolling Stone article paints a picture of Brian and Mike discussing adding “Marcella” to the setlist for instance. Whether that was Brian “asking” or “telling” is debatable I suppose. Mike was ceding some level of control on C50, no question. But when you are coming from a situation where you call ALL the shots about everything, then anything else that involves even a bit of deciding anything by committee is going to be a case of ceding some amount of control.

I think that Rolling Stone article probably tells more of the “story” of that tour (and the whole reunion) than anything the band or fans have said in the aftermath of the tour. Mike was ill at ease not being in control. I’ll even cut him some slack and suggest that my guess is he doesn’t have like megalomania; I don’t think he wants to control *others.* He just doesn’t want others or the decisions of others impacting him in any way that he can’t control.

We’re obviously at the mercy of how the article paints the situation, but that “Marcella” discussion I think seemed to be telling: It had probably literally been 15 or more years since someone “told” Mike they would be adding something to the setlist. I’m sure over the years various folks have *suggested* various tunes. But Brian basically floats adding “Marcella”, and then kind of basically says “my guys know that song, so we’ll just be adding it.” I don’t think that means Brian was “running” the band. I think they all seemed to let Mike have that as his domain; but basically with the right (as a Beach Boy for fudge’s sake) to invoke their Beach Boys powers and pick a song for their own freaking band.

What pissed me off about the Marcella discussion was Mike countering with "what are we gonna drop?" Um, I don't know, Mike how about the oldies covers like California Dreaming or Rock and Roll Music or Come Go With Me that people don't associate with the Beach Boys?

And the "my guys know it" was in response to Scott Totten's "we don't know how to play it".

The idea that they had to then "drop" a song is also odd, because the length of the shows varied over the course of the tour. I think they started at around 43 songs, and then it started hitting more like 46 or so songs, and by the end of the tour they were hitting closer to 50 songs per show I believe. There was also of course the two epic UK setlists, all 61 songs at RAH and 55 or so at Wembley. I realize length of the songs would factor in to some degree, so perhaps the overall duration of the shows didn't always fluctuate as much if they went from 43 to 45 songs and swapped out two shorter songs for instance.

In any event, not only would they not necessarily have to "drop" a song to add "Marcella"; they also were rotating songs in and out by that stage anyway (stuff like "This Whole World", "You're So Good To Me", etc. were only sporadically being performed).

Brian is in control in the studio, the touring band is mostly his band while most of Mike's band sit out, the only example has Brian seemingly getting his way (or Mike seemingly conceding to Brian maybe) but it doesn't seem like Brian was mostly in control?

It's really just absolutely baffling that adding awesome songs like Marcella, especially in the C50 context, was such a big deal to cause resistance from Mike. I'm glad he finally "caved" because it was super rad seeing it performed live by the BBs.  In the bizarro world of this band, adding great cuts like Marcella (and the unfortunately never-even-touched-during-C50 Surf's Up) becomes such a tough sell to a stubborn bandmember. Although I'm not necessarily suggesting that Surf's Up wasn't played due to Mike, I have no idea if playing it was ever even considered...  and while I know that Brian finds it tough to perform anymore, I do wonder if he'd have encountered Marcella-like resistance if he'd wanted to play it.

I echo HeyJude's assumption in that maybe it's more Mike's fear of others making decisions impacting him in any way that he can’t control; this may be more of a reason for attempting to resist playing Marcella, as opposed to any actual opposition to Marcella himself. Here's a question: if another "deep" cut, on the relative level of obscurity as Marcella (or perhaps even more obscure) was suggested to be played during C50 by Brian/Al, and it was a track that Mike sung lead on originally, and was easily learn-able by the backing band, would Mike have put up a similar blockade of resistance? I suppose if he really didn't like the song, maybe he would have. But something tells me he'd have done it relatively more happily because it would've been more attention on Mike.

I wonder what it would've taken for the band to have performed All I Wanna Do.  That song REALLY needed (and still needs) a champion from inside the BBs world, whether a bandmember or an inner-circle type. Call me an optimist, but I'm sorta convinced that if (Mike especially) became aware of how the song has a pretty hardcore following, he'd at least mention the song from time to time, and maybe consider playing it live, maybe even with M&B. The possibility of him playing it live at some future point could perhaps be his only ticket left these days to gaining a few kernels of potential hipster cred, should he be in any way concerned with such.

It may be that Marcella was genuinely a big issue on tour (perhaps some of the insiders could elaborate) but it doesn`t seem like a huge thing in the article. `What are we going to drop? Maybe we can rotate some songs`. Not the most dramatic or newsworthy debate really. And then both Marcella and Add Some Music were added anyway along with other songs...

Add Some Music was in the setlist early on in C50 around the piano, after intermission. 

Hardly an afterthought...

I agree. To me it sounds cooperative and practical all around, the exact opposite of a power struggle.

One story of Brian suggesting “Marcella”, and the C50 band being comprised mostly of Brian’s touring band does not mean Brian was “running” the C50 tour or “in control.” Mike got over half of his band into the C50 band too (four out of seven, five out of seven if you want to count Bonhomme being on the road crew). The proportionately larger number of Brian’s band has as much to do with Mike having a smaller, leaner band to pull from in the first place.

As far as setlist, over half of the setlist writes itself anyway. Further, the C50 tour did a number of songs that Brian had never (and probably would never) perform, like “It’s OK”, “Kokomo”, “Betsy”, “Getcha Back”, “Rock and Roll Music”, “Still Cruisin’.” Does anybody think anyone other than Mike (or maybe Bruce or Totten) suggested (or simply told the band) they would be adding those songs? I’m not saying those were bad song choices. If you go back to the discussions during C50, I actually defended the inclusion of “Still Cruisin’” if for no other reason than to better represent the 80’s. They also did more surf/car songs than even Brian’s “greatest hits” shows typically perform.

The beauty of C50 was seeing it all mesh together (even if behind the scenes it wasn’t all warm and fuzzy). Seeing Mike fronting Brian’s band was amazing. Seeing Brian sing Carl’s parts on “All This Is That” or “California Dreamin’” was cool. Did we ever thing we’d see Mike sing Al’s “California Saga” again? Whether Mike loathed its inclusion or not (I doubt he did; it’s just one he would have picked), it was very cool to see him on stage singing on “Marcella.”

Brian didn’t run that tour. Mike didn’t either. I think he was, by all accounts, the sort of “gatekeeper” of the setlist and things like that. But in any event, C50 was amazing in part because no single person was autocratically running it. I would have preferred more input from others (does anyone think Al got much of any of his picks for the setlist other than “California Saga”?) if anything. That Mike may have been disenfranchised with even that level of compromise is unsettling, though not surprising.

This was the other song Brian was quoted as suggesting in Jason Fine`s article...

Hmmm...

I think the exchange regarding “Marcella” was interesting not because it portrayed some huge issue or concern, but rather because Mike’s reaction was one of puzzlement or, arguably, very mild resistance. It was simply a reminder that these guys hadn’t worked together in ages and in all those intervening years, had developed disparate ways of looking at things and doing things. It doesn’t mean Mike is resistant to “rarities” in the setlist. I think he just has everything to do with the BB’s already set in his mind a certain way. He knows what he thinks are the “classics”, and he’ll add off-kilter, non-hit stuff based on his own criteria. He’ll maybe do “Betsy” because Scott Totten likes it (and maybe Mike likes the song because it’s an older one). He’ll do “Goin’ to the Beach” because it was brought to this attention on the boxed set, and it’s a simple song about the beach or whatever. He’ll do “All This is That” because of the TM connection and whatnot.

But if someone else suggests a song that hasn’t probably often sprung to Mike’s mind in literally decades, his brain will process that differently because its suggestion is based on someone else’s motivations or ideas. Again, all back to not being used to the live show being a collaborative process in any way where he isn’t final arbiter. Again, I’m sure Totten and others have suggested tracks on tour with Mike’s band. Mike then says yay or nay.

It probably is a bit like a manager mentality, where the manager will more easily approve something if it is his or her idea.

Al’s recent interview likening it to a divorced couple being put back together is perhaps apt to some degree. You have to all of a sudden account for what the other person likes or dislikes, and you have to compromise. The other person has also developed some new or different attitudes during the years you’ve been divorced, making it more awkward. C50 Brian wasn’t like the 80’s/90’s Brian who just sat in occasionally, played some keyboards, and sang the opening lines to “Sloop John B” and bridge to “Surfer Girl.”

C50 was a compromise all around. As the scheduled dates neared the end, I think those both willing and unwilling to continue spoke to who was willing to continue to compromise and who doesn’t enjoy compromising.

Mike
Bruce
john Cowsill
Scott Totten
And BonHomme as tour manager. That makes five. And Christian was part of the opening act on a few dates making six.

I thought Mike's reaction to "Summer's Gone" in Rolling Stone said a lot about his viewpoint of the band.

"It's brilliant, beautiful, but I didn't write it, so it doesn't have that silver cloud on the cumulus nimbus," he says. "It's more cumulus than I probably would do."

Mike probably thinks he's earned the right to the run the Beach Boys at this point. Sure, Brian wrote the hits in the '60s, but from Mike's perspective, Brian slacked off as a Beach Boy for decades while Mike busted his butt to keep the band at a high level, even scoring a #1 without Brian. He's earned the right to call the shots. I believe Mike would be more than happy to accept Brian into the band, if you will, but only if Brian takes a backseat. Let Mike write the lyrics to any new songs, collaborate on the songwriting process. Let Mike pick the set lists, the venues, and modes of travel.

Of course, if you're Brian, you've got this guy making tons of money off of melodies you mostly wrote telling you how your legacy and career should be presented. So it's easy to see why there'd be friction.

I hope Dove Nested Tower doesn't read that.  He'll cry.

I think the RS story mentioned has been taken a bit out of context in this thread. The new songs or Marcella suggestion was made supposedly by 'his family'. If that means his wife, kid's, managers or band and himself, is not made clear.


Wilson is on his third Miller Lite by the time he brings up what's really on his mind: the set list for tomorrow's concert. "Oh, Michael," he says, faux-casually, shifting uncomfortably to face Love.

"Yes, sir?"

"I have feedback from my family," Wilson continues. "They want new songs."

Love grins, in a way that could be confused with a smirk. "Like what, cuz?"

"I was thinking ‘Marcella,' " Wilson blurts, referring to a great but obscure 1972 track he wrote about his favorite masseuse.

"Whaaaaat?" Love yells.

Wilson, never one to embrace conflict, bravely perseveres: " ‘Marcella' 's pretty cool, Mike." He sings the song's first lines, "Hey, hey, Marcella!"

Love: "What are we gonna cut?"

Wilson: "Well . . ."

Love: "Maybe we can alternate songs."

Wilson: "Yah, OK, all right, whatever."



Reading the first page of the story it came up at a light hearted meal. Just to refresh, the first discussion between Brian and Mike is this...


'Hey, Wilson," says Mike Love, placing his hand gently on Brian Wilson's forearm. "Hey, Love," says Wilson, brightly, as his cousin slides into the booth next to him. "You were great last night," Love says. "Animated. Ani-fuckin'-mated." Wilson beams. "Gracias, amigo. Our harmonies – we sound good together."

Hardly negative and sounds like they were having a good night out.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/the-beach-boys-last-wave-20120621

I think another point to note. Sure, Mike's group has upped its game with its rarities but its unlikely their groups ever went to the others shows to judge the reaction some of these songs got or how they were performed. WE did. Marcella has been a well received staple of Brian's for years but Mike may not have had a clue.

Keep in mind that Mike was the one who suggested swapping out songs. I think we're making too much out of this.

Hell, even for all of the supposed resistance Mike had to Al wanting to add "Our Prayer", they still did it a few times.

This brings up an interesting question... have Brian, Al, or Dave ever attended an M&B show as just a backstage or audience attendee (without joining in to perform live onstage), and have Mike or Bruce ever attended a Brian show as just a backstage or audience attendee (without joining in to perform live onstage)?

I very much doubt it. Jon's book made mention I think of Dave meeting up with the group before it was M&B but I could be wrong.

Ah, Tim Bonhomme managed the whole tour. That I was not aware of...  ;)

Mike obviously had 2 guys from his backing band. But the structure of the band was made up like Brian`s which is rather more important as Mike has intimated in interviews (and no, I`m not saying I would have preferred a smaller band).

Tim was the road manager, not the tour manager!

This.

I would actually guess Mike's issues weren't with the fact it was *Brian's* band, but rather, simply put, the overhead cost of that many musicians. That's what, in my opinion, made the later comments about too many voices/musicians competing for parts rather disingenuous. At least his written statement about the overhead cost being too high to play smaller venues was at least closer to sounding plausible (if utterly asinine, again in my opinion). I was disappointed when Mike's surprisingly upbeat and praising comments about Brian's band at the beginning of the tour changed into faint praise mixed with criticism over the cost and/or size of the band.

But I was simply refuting the idea that Brian was "in charge" of or "running" the tour. That's the only reason Mike getting over half of his band into the C50 band was even brought up. Mike also got one of his guys as co-musical director (and, moment to moment, Totten seemed to be leading the band more than Mertens was).

It also struck me, at the beginning of the tour anyway, that perhaps Mike wasn't "letting" Brian bring most of his band simply as a political concession, but perhaps was also signing off on the larger band so that the tour could play a more diverse set. There's no question that Brian's band could knock out a more diverse selection of material. I don't think Mike's band could whip out "Pet Sounds" with one day or a few day's notice.

I don't think anyone is trying to suggest Mike didn't allow for a pretty diverse set list. The 61-song selection they worked from is proof of that.

Rather, the "Marcella" story only speaks to a possible interpersonal mechanism by which songs were added to the set list. Mike didn't seem to greet "Marcella" with open arms (no pun intended!). Much like many cases over the years, it was met with a slightly possibly begrudging willingness or acceptance. It reminds me of Mike's comments in Carlin's book about working on the Paley material in the 90's. He mentioned that he/they were willing, but he wasn't sure how eager.

Again I'm not sure that is the context of the RS story. Mike yells when Marcella is suggested. So what? It may have more to do with the fact Brian is suggesting a song rather than the song itself. I'm reading the situation more a casual meal with a few drinks and some kidding around.

I think things broke down for more powerful reasons than a song or two being suggested for the setlist.

I don't think anyone is suggesting the tour broke down because of a set list controversy. The "Marcella" story (or anything of that nature) isn't a cause of anything, but only perhaps a potential symptom of some of what could have been the downfall of the reunion. It sounds like a slightly awkward back and forth with Mike. Polite, perhaps even good-natured, but tinged with a bit of awkwardness. It's likely very low on the list, but I would imagine this would be among the many types of conversations concerning a tour that Mike would rather *not* have.

FWIW. Mike looking a bit unsure on what I think was the first time Marcella was on the set. :lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5g34uojCvqk