The Smiley Smile Message Board

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4inGP8qMnPE

MIKE MADE A MUSIC VIDEO FOR THE NEW DO IT AGAIN SINGLE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4inGP8qMnPE&feature=youtu.be

I was fine with the 4th of July performance, just because it was fun. Didn't destroy the legacy like some people feared.

BUT THIS????? THIS IS SO CRINGEY WTFFFFF

Ok honestly, there is some charm to it. The Mcgrath guy looks his he's on cocaine, he's so energetic. I wish Bruce was in the video clapping.

a few notes:

a. "Comments are disabled for this video"

b.  Is it kosher for Mike to be using a bunch of Beach Boys footage live footage in his solo music video?

c. The only genuine thing about it is that Stamos and McGrath seem to be legitimately enjoying themselves.

d. Couldn't they find something more interesting than a white background? 

I'm pretty sure comments are disabled for everything on Mike's channel. Probably a smart move.

I'd comment here too, but I have to run. I watched the video showing these three bros having so much man-fun, and now have the undeniable urge to go buy a pair of Dockers khakis and high-five the salesperson, saying "DO IT!" as they swipe my debit card.

The saving grace is there is not one mention of "The Beach Boys" anywhere. And Bruce must have been laying out his white shorts and white Keds sneakers for the show tonight.

Not sure if it counts as a "mention", but I caught a glimpse of Al Jardine in some of the vintage footage.

I watch this 2012 version, then realize that Mike would rather work with Stamos + McGrath, and it just makes me sad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMKqMrMmj7I

Darn you had to ruin it for me.  :lol

I have to agree... Seeing the band playing together again was so cool. This just seems wrong in comparison.

Honestly though, the video is fun. In a semi-ironic way. But the guys look like they're having so much fun, that I can't help but sing along. I HATE the synth sound riight before the last chorus though. Who produced this new single?

- this is the gift that keeps on giving.

- that they genuinely think this song is good enough to promote with a music video is alarming...especially if this is the first of many covers we can expect from Mike's Beach Boys covers album.

- that moment at 1:12 with roboMcGrawMcGrath vocals is the sonic highlight of this song...it's like they threw his lead vocal in a trash compactor and pieced it back together with elmers glue.

- to any Mike apologists here and abroad, Godspeed in your endeavors to downplay stuff like this in the coming years.

*McGrath is his name I guess? Mike, one of these days get a guest star who doesn't elicit the question "who?" when his name is mentioned.

Someone on the inside who would know dished the dirt on this video - There were scenes filmed of Bruce adjusting that microphone that ended up on the cutting room floor. That unused footage may be included when the "Still Tourin'" DVD/Blu-Ray deluxe edition is released.

It's refreshing to know that Mark McGrath is still an annoying as he was 20 years ago when his frosted tips first graced MTV with the song "Fly." 

This. Although I must confess to having a little trouble with McGrath's face. But maybe he'd have trouble with mine.

Yeah his bizarre face is what made both the performance and promo video so incredibly awkward.  :lol

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,25295.0.html

THERE IS A THREAD FOR THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NEVER ANSWER ME WHEN I REPLY ON THE FORUM

 >:(

Jesus, I take a nap and look what happens.... :afro

why do new folk start new topics when things are already being discussed?
check what's being said already! f***!

Rab's new profile sums up this mess! :lol

It's been mentioned on the other thread about old BB footage.

http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/rock/7872886/beach-boys-john-stamos-mark-mcgrath-do-it-again-video

Stamos, meanwhile, made sure that there was a tie to the song's past by including historical footage of Love performing it at various junctures in the Beach Boys' career.

"That was John's idea to intersperse some iconic footage of me doing the leads to 'Do It Again' and give some historical rock n' roll value to it, which gives it a total variety in breadth and span of years," Love notes. "Sometimes it's embarrassing to see myself with a beard as long as ZZ Top's or looking like Duck Dynasty or jumping around with my shirt off and rockin', but, hey, it was the '60s and the '70s and it was rock n' roll and there's a whole lot of history there."

It's on billboard, my worst fears are true....

Okay, I figured it out.  Mike finally found someone that is such an idiot that he makes Mike look cool in comparison.  There is no other explanation for making an official video with McGrath. 

Yes, whoever disabled comments for that video was a wise, wise person. 

Is it just me or does even Stamos seem totally sidelined by the heinous McGrath?  Watch at around 1:28 and you can almost see him thinking "Jesus, I'm not getting ANY screen time with this idiot jumping around". 

On a more serious note, I find it very upsetting that so much of the video is footage from Knebworth...a concert which produced such a kickass Do it Again that Mike should be sued for tarnishing the memory. 

Pretty Funky, thanks for linking that article. It was a good interview, and I especially liked his part about not using The Beach Boys as a pulpit for politics.

I cringe to think that more songs like this will follow, I just hope he doesn't continue to use The Beach Boys touring band as a promotional tool for this new solo endeavor.

Quoting from the article:   "The whole song's about getting together with old friends and sharing good times and talking about the old times," says Love, who co-wrote "Do It Again" with Brian Wilson, his cousin. "That fact that here we are decades later, recreating it with old friends, having a great time -- it doesn't get much more organic and perfect and fantastic than that."

Except, you know, maybe PLAYING IT WITH YOUR ORIGINAL BANDMATES.  That just might be more "organic".

its easier to pretend he is the only Beach Boy.... ::)

Looks like the posts were made 30 seconds apart. Can’t blame someone for not checking other posts while they’re in the middle of making their own.

I swear,... there are times in that video where it looks as if even STAMOS is embarresed by being in this travesty. And yeah, Mike finally succeeded in finding someone even more annoying than he is in the from of McGrath. I'll have nightmares tonight of his botoxed face screaming 'do it' at me!

Time to put on Sunshine Tomorrow again and forget all this ever happened...

Has anyone brought up the fact that the official Beach Boys page on Facebook posted the video three hours ago? What to make of that? I don't really follow the page that closely, but.... did the same thing happen when Brian premiered videos for songs off No Pier Pressure or when Al released his album? Just curious...

It's time for the BB license to be taken away from the Lovester.

You're right. Stamos probably was embarrassed which is probably why he recommended they put in footage of Mike dressed like a clown from the 70s to take the embarrassing spotlight off him.

Part of me wonders if the "Do It!" chant is supposed to cash in on the latest meme crazes of the same phrase.

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/8a_WwlMGwqI/hqdefault.jpg)

The Lovester is commercial! :lol

Annnnnd to those still scoffing at those of us wary of the legacy being screwed with (whether you're bitching about this opinion here or currently doing it on other forums), might I suggest you picture the next possible 10+ of these solo covers being broadcast on Beach Boys social media sites over the next couple years.

Kwan_dk, I do believe Brian's solo recordings have made it on The Beach Boys Facebook page...there was one on that main page right when I visited of Brian's recent cover of Sloop at Capitol. That being said, it was a really tasteful cover, not this mess that has mostly both sides of the fandom aisle scratching their heads wondering why this travesty exists at all.

Note: The two topics and discussions have been merged into this one.

More:
>>>>>
The Beach Boys -- who, as usual, are on a seemingly endless all-seasons tour -- last released new material with That's Why God Made The Radio in conjunction with the group's 50th anniversary in 2012, and there's no plans for more at the moment. In fact, Love says he prefers the idea of re-recording the group's old favorites now. "Recreating a Beach Boys classic like 'Do It Again' is something I really enjoyed doing," he explains, "so I'm hoping there's more of that to come." There's always plenty of archival material as well, and Love gives a thumbs-up to the new 1967 -- Sunshine Tomorrow, which focuses on recordings from around the time of Smiley Smile and Wild Honey with plenty of rare and unreleased material.

"We've been celebrating those anniversaries as we did last year, celebrating [the 50th anniversaries of] Pet Sounds and 'Good Vibrations' and 'Barbara Ann,'" Love says. "Wild Honey was a chance to get together with Brian; He went off on a tangent with Smile and shelved it, but we got back in the studio in his home [with Wild Honey]. It was a chance to get together and practice our songwriting together again. It was a lot of fun."
<<<<<

So, yeah. Mike hoping more of this stuff to come. They were already working on a Getcha Back remake with Stamos with producer Michael Lloyd, so there is that to look forward to.  ::)

Interesting too that in 2005 Mike filed that pesky lawsuit which described Brian as of 1967 in a totally different way...spending his days in a bed or a sandbox, surrounded by parasites, drug addicts, drug dealers, and plagiarizers and too ill to do anything. I wonder what jogged his memory of 1967 in the past 17 years.

Can folks imagine how the Kokomaoists would react if Brian said this?

In fact, Love says he prefers the idea of re-recording the group's old favorites now. "Recreating a Beach Boys classic like 'Do It Again' is something I really enjoyed doing," he explains, "so I'm hoping there's more of that to come."

Jesus Christ, Mike is rewriting and rerecording the catalog in his image. The other BBs are dead to him....

And blurring like hell the line between his solo songs and the BBs.

I can't help but think of Mike's comments in some of his postgame interviews after TWGMTR. Mike didn't think the album was commercial enough, or that the lead single wasn't commercial enough?

So now we can hear firsthand with our own ears what Mike thinks is "commercial". Do It Again remade with autotune, digital drops and studio trickery, John Stamos, Mark McGrath, and a video that could have been a Gap commercial for their mens' jeans line in 1997.

Mike remade "Be True To Your School" as "Be True To Your Bud"  for that commercial tie-in he and Dean did with Budweiser beer...maybe the other surviving members should release their own remake and call it "Be True To Your Legacy".

It is truly phenomenal that the guy who said Mick Jagger is too chickensh*t to go on stage with the Beach Boys is the same guy who is too chickensh*t to allow comments on his YouTube videos.

So basically Mike is now just like those cheap ass K-Tel cover tapes where it has something like THE BEATLES in all caps and "Songs originally recorded by" in teeny-tiny print so small that a mosquito will have to squint to see it. Nice. For those people who say this doesn't harm the band's legacy, you're right...the legacy was ruined years ago by choices like this. What he is ruining is any chance of rebuilding it.

Way to protect that brand!

Well that's uncomfortable to watch....Those 3 really are peas in a pod. The facial expressions and dance moves will give me nightmares.

It looks like they filmed it in a hotel room with a sheet over the window.

My religious family and friends sometimes ask me how I can be sure there is no god. Well, here is proof positive. A just and loving god would never allow this abomination to be unleashed upon his children.

God is dead, we're all alone, and Mike Love gets to run amok defiling Beach Boys classics with Uncle Jesse and Sugar Ray.

https://youtu.be/mf_bsobwLH8

All we need now is Brian to release a few remakes too! As you may recall, apparently it was Brian who was the first to suggest a re-makes album. They could both do new versions of "Our Car Club" which could go head-to head on the "charts.". With heavily auto-tuned  remakes of ""Cassius" Love vs. "Sonny" Wilson" as each of the b-sides.

If he has the balls to show this on screen at their concert next month I will boo him through the entire song. I am front row dead center. This is NOT what I signed up for. I hope he has the brains to leave it out of the show. It is a Beach Boys concert and this is a Mike Love remake.

If you read comments on the various sharings on social media, no one is taking it seriously and no one is thinking less of the Beach Boys for it, so can the crap. They're all bashing Mike Love, and rightfully so. There is literally nothing positive about this...even Stamos looks kind of embarrassed.

Here's my perspective: when I usually talk to new people about The Beach Boys I hear one of two things; one, awesome 60s music. Two, laughter about Full House. The latter has happened to me many times in the last decade. And I wish I was joking.

That's my perspective of the legacy. Thus far we have a solo cover that clearly no one likes that was performed by The Beach Boys on national live television across America on one of America's most celebrated holidays. Of course this one lone performance and music video are almost forgetful on their own, but where does it end? I think that's the point people are trying to make.

I mean, rubbersoul, you yourself are talking about booing a Beach Boys concert if that song is played. Let that sink in...you are willing to boo one of your favorite bands over this one song. Imagine when more autotuned/guest artist covers like this come out and they're possibly performed on live television again...how many people will turn off their televisions, change the channel? Will people in that crowd boo too?

Point being, it could turn into another well remembered Full House era, which is why people are miffed about this. Posters like KDS can complain on other forums about those of us worried about the legacy, but frankly given where Mike has steered this band in the past (and how at least one of those moments has latched onto the legacy), I think any worry is well warranted.

Life lesson: In case you are worried about anyone forgetting your name, just wear it on your baseball hat. Problem solved.

You're very right. I guess I am quick to dismiss if this continues to escalate. We'll have to wait and see.

Is there any legal way for Brian or Alan to stop this?

Also, all joking about Bruce aside, I feel like his lack of involvement is very much a conscious decision of his own. As odd and unpredictable as the guy can be, I think he has the musical and commercial brains to see the writing on the wall with this one. I've also always gotten the impression that him and Mike don't really cross paths once they leave the stage. They hardly speak to one another when they're on stage, except when Mike decides to knock Bruce down a peg for writing "I Write The Songs".

Question: Do you have an available list of personnel available for the track? I can hear Foskett in there.

Reason being, if he recorded the entire track with the entire "The Beach Boys" touring band, isn't it technically a "The Beach Boys" single? And if it isn't, then isn't the touring band technically just "Mike Love of The Beach Boys"...which he sued Alan for...OR does Bruce make the difference here. If he isn't on the track, does that save Mike from this conundrum since he is commonly considered an original member and is still in the touring band?

Don't get me wrong, the live band kicks major ass and I get quite aggravated when ignorant posters put down folks like Totten and Cowsill who do much good for the legacy. However, Mike is really opening himself up to a lot of gray legal areas as he continues to try and push this project into the limelight. Could you imagine if Mike actually lost the name? They already play small venues but trying to book shows as "The Mike Love Band featuring Bruce Johnston" would be an unprecedented challenge for members of this ensemble...

Yeah, I really hope Mike just keeps it a solo venture from here on out and that's the last of this. I mean, like you said, Mike is the one getting the flack for this right now. It's when he uses The Beach Boys to promote it that I get wary about where it all could be headed.

As for Al and Brian...I'm not sure what the stipulations are regarding solo songs being promoted by the touring band, and if Brian and Al would even want to pursue such a thing at this point. Even if there was room for them to complain, I doubt they would even want the legal headache that would ensue following such a complaint.

Maybe it's forgotten that Mike did nearly the exact same thing with releasing "Alone On Christmas Day". It dropped right when the band Phoenix did the tune on that Bill Murray special, and they released the single they did on Murray's show since they were on the Murray show, then Mike releases a version of it. Piggybacking? Decide for yourselves.

Then "The Beach Boys" appeared on US television doing that song, which was really Mike's own release, just like this current DIA and July 4th and all of that.

As Yogi Berra would call it, it's deja vu all over again.

Right?

EXACTLY

This whole DIA iteration in all its aspects is pathetic, disgusting, nauseating, sickening, irritating, asinine, intolerable, reprehensible, putrid, blasphemous, rancid, horrifying, disastrous, disheartening, sacreligious, untenable, outrageous, ignoble, demeaning, disillusioning, unspeakable, stultifying, catastrophic, ill-conceived, hubrisitc, insipid, dispiriting, barf-inducing, and just plain bad. Now let me tell you what I REALLY think....

Sums it up in a nutshell quite nicely

Haha, I was thinking that the guy who said Mick Jagger is too chickenshit to go on stage with the Beach Boys is the same guy who is too chickenshit to go on stage with the Beach Boys. You know, the real Beach Boys like Brian, Alan, David and Blondie.

Oh, and the mere sight of Mark McGrath angers me. I hate his cocky-looking face and his spiked hair that makes him look like he has seen a ghost. Probably the ghost of his career. The sight of him jumping around like an idiot makes me taste bile. Don't get me started on the annoying "Do it, do it" chanting. It must have been difficult to find someone who is that irritating in every facet of their being, but Mike Love found someone. I am sure there were a lot more people who could have done this song with Mike that would have been far less annoying and maybe even pleasant to watch.

John Stamos earned my respect by not being featured too strongly in the video. I am sure he could have been more prominent as he produced it, but he played it smart. It is almost like he is sharing a wink with us, letting us know he is aware of the cacophony surrounding him.

My only contribution to this thread is that Mike Love is a talentless hack and a true piece of sh*t in every sense of the word.

You're welcome.

I want to Join rab2591 party :lol :lol

:lol we just need someone to be Stamos and we can make our own music video here ;D

All I can say is that if I were John Stamos, I wouldn't put the video on my "Director" highlight reel.

Even the "Noven Jaisi" videos were more creative than this one.

Stamos shot all three of them in front of a white backdrop for an hour with a GoPro, then grabbed 30 seconds of stock footage from two or three concerts, and voila, a "music video." Can anyone explain why there's one point where 1980 Mike Love is lip-synching to Mark McGrath's voice?

But again, as with the PBS show, this video tells you where Mike's head is at and what his preference is. It's quite sad and demoralizing for fans to face, but it's true: Mike looks WAY HAPPIER in this footage than he ever did during C50. Way more comfortable. Because there's nobody in his current setting that he has to compromise with. Mark McGrath and John Stamos never bailed on Mike and collaborated with Van Dyke Parks or Tony Asher. McGrath and Stamos never complained to Mike about cheerleaders on stage.

Mike dealing with his own buddies compared to the other BBs reminds me of that thing that a lot of us have experienced when we were kids, when our parents are seemingly nicer to *other* kids than they are to their own kids. Because there's no baggage, and no consequences. Nothing weighing the whole thing down.

Now, the difference *within* the BBs is that Brian and Al (more so than Bruce or Dave, though Dave has a different set of issues he *could* have with the guys if he wanted) also have to deal with the same baggage and politics and everything that Mike does. Yet *they* came out of C50, and still come out today, seemingly far less disgruntled and have never, in recent years, rejected "The Beach Boys" to hang out with their own buddies.

Mike blocking comments on YouTube also tells you a lot of what you need to know. Meanwhile, the "Beach Boys" Facebook page posted Mike's video and the video and song was of course torn to shreds. And at least *some* of the criticisms were on-point and about the music.

One person said they like Mike, like Sugar Ray, and like "Do It Again", and still *hate* this new recording!  :lol

  :lol

I know I'm barking up the wrong tree here but.....

If Mike (and Bruce) are content with that they're doing and Brian (and Al) are content with what they're doing (granted Brian does seem a tad bored with Pet Sounds at this point), then what's the harm?

Mike and Bruce (sometimes with David Marks) get to put on really good concerts, and about once a year Mike releases a download only single that's quickly forgotten.  

Brian and Al (with Blondie Chaplin) get to put on really good concerts, and Brian still gets to release music on his own terms without having token Mike songs or giving his questionable producer credits.  

2012 was great, but it's painfully obvious that it wasn't sustainable.  At this point, I just hope Mike and Brian reconnect as people before its too late.  

http://www.petsoundsforum.com/thread/1675/perspective-on-beach-boys-remakes?page=1 (http://www.petsoundsforum.com/thread/1675/perspective-on-beach-boys-remakes?page=1)

Take note of the "usual suspects" remark in his post. Ever notice that the usual suspects are usually correct?

I am proud to call myself a charter member of the "Usual Suspects". Also proud to be a part of such a "toxic" group who gets their facts straight.   :)

I think OSD is like Kevin Spacy's character from the movie! :hat

It's funny, because in the list that KDS meticulously assembled there is only one song there that had been reprehensibly reimagined with a guest star from the 90s for SOLO release that was performed BY THE BEACH BOYS on live national television on a major holiday broadcast.

The issue isn't recording covers, it's recording a solo cover (mostly unanimously decided BAD cover) and then using The Beach Boys band and name to promote that same solo cover single on live television...then promising to do more covers like this in the future. So pardon that a few of us have concerns that Mike will yet again steer The Beach Boys ship into an era that people will laugh and cringe about 20 years from now.

I mean, did we even watch the video? I did from The Beach Boys official Facebook page. Can't wait for more of these videos to pop up there.

Back to the video...is it registering at all with the Powers That Be either in Mike's own organization, or BRI, or anywhere else how much the negative comments on this from the public are outweighing the positives?

If market research were a factor here, and such a negative overall reaction was recorded for any product or offering being surveyed, it would be canceled and sent back to the drawing board.

I have to think Mike and/or his people just don't give a sh*t.

I also have to laugh in an egotistical way ( :lol  )  when people in the past tried to blame this forum and even the moderation here for the spread of negativity and toxicity that surrounded Mike's various ventures and the reactions to them...I guess Mike's people turned off YouTube public comments in advance to prevent the public from making positive comments? I guess all those Facebook people posting comments to the BB's "official" page slamming this video are doing it because of this forum's bad influence?

Ha.

The Tahoe Bunker blocks out the negative energy..... ;)


But seriously, Mike seems to totally not care about the fanbase when it comes to his actions. Constant rewriting and disrespect to legacy with the latest song as an example will attract criticism from people who are emotionally invested in this group. Unlike others in the "fanbase" who see it as a business or Mike's plaything since he does the "hard work" of touring for 50 plus years.

Ahh, the phrase also reminds me of that old chestnut which pops up often. Page 3, paragraph 2 of the playbook, unless there is a new revision. When something Mike Love releases or does gets lambasted and criticized, immediately ask "did you even HEAR the song?", "did you even WATCH the concert?", "did you even READ the book?".

etc, etc, etc.

Implying of course that the "usual suspects" don't bother actually listening, reading, or watching any of these things which they criticize, because it's all about Mike bashing. Then, the criticisms can be dismissed because they're coming from toxic people and toxic non-fans rather than the real fans.

Then when that fails, just say "All this will be forgotten soon, Mike just wants to give the fans a fun project, it's no big deal, time to move on, nothing to see here, make sure to check Ticketmaster for the upcoming tour dates..."

Check the Facebook official BB page for what the public is saying about this. So much for toxicity and usual suspects.

I did watch the video.  I only listening to the single and watched the Capitol Fourth Event.  And I commented both here and PS that it's pretty bad, but at the end of the day, I think it's harmless. 

I will not defend the quality of DIA 17 because, let's be honest, I can't.  It's awful.  But the argument of Mike doing another cover, because he can't do anything original, or that this solo cover somehow taints the legacy is just something that I don't agree with. 

So you're okay with Mike performing admittedly terrible solo reinterpretations of BB songs using The Beach Boys touring band on live television?

As a one time thing, I don't really care.  If Bruce or Scott starts yelling "DO IT!!!  DO IT!!! DO IT!!!" at the shows, then I'd change my opinion. 

Reminds me of page one, paragraph one from that same rulebook: when defending Mike and you've backed yourself into a corner (and you always will), just post "we're just here for the music! Just listen to the music!".

I think the playbook itself is subtitled "It's All About The Music".  ;D

Page two and three involves "background research" on the opposition by a "historian"..... ;)  

If Mike was out there touring as "Mike Love", then this would pretty much make sense. But his use of the name is a huge asterisk.

All of this is dependent on the context/framework of the conversation.

That is, if we're just talking about what fans have to digest at this moment in time, or what is realistic and plausible in terms of group relationships, then of course the current status quo is kind of by default the best we can have.

If we're talking about the group's legacy, and if we're parsing out the attitudes and motives of various band members and how those attitudes will impact each individual's legacy and the group's legacy, then there most definitely *is* harm in how things have gone in recent years. In this scenario, there *is* a downside to the "hey, 27 different Beach Boys groups out there tourin' just means more awesomeness for us fans!" mentality.

Further muddying the waters is that despite *all* members doing their best to just use the standard "that guy is doing his thing and we're doing our thing" line, there is not quite parity between the two (or more, depending on how attached Al remains to Brian) camps. Mike uses the "Beach Boys" name; nobody else does. So that is an important element of the "public perception" and "legacy" issue. In other words, if Mike went out as "Mike Love", then probably 90% of the gripes about all of his professional actions would go away. He'd be just doing his own thing, end of story. If he really *only* used his own name, then he truly *would* be largely ignored the way people claim he is now despite booking major nationally televised gigs under the "Beach Boys" name and booking 175 gigs per year, etc.

But not only does Mike use the "Beach Boys" name, he left other founding members holding the bag five years ago when they wanted to keep the whole band together. Again, in terms of pragmatism, they can't be forced to work together. But in terms of legacy, and value of the brand and trademark, Mike has sunk his own reputation and to varying degrees drags the Beach Boys name and brand and trademark down with him. Not to the point of professional death. But it's a drag on it nonetheless.

So this brings us back to where the discussion/debate gets hung up on occasion. Simply put, while it is indeed the *same* set of arguments being used to criticize Mike over and over, it's because Mike keeps doing the same thing over and over. So long as he uses the "Beach Boys" name, the "Mike's doing his thing, Brian's doing his thing" reasoning will never wash.

Until Mike makes it so that when he does a sh***y TV appearance, viewers come away saying to their friends "Man, that Mike Love dude sucked" instead of "Man, the Beach Boys suck", he's always going to have this problem with the hardcore fans, and he's always going to be dragging his own rep and the band's brand down. It's in part because Mike clearly doesn't mind sinking his professional reputation (not just musically, but in terms of continuing to be on the wrong side of history by dragging Brian Wilson and Brian's name through the mud) that his actions continue to frustrate and alarm fans and spectators/critics/music historians.

And there's your legacy right there. We're at a point where this sh*t doesn't even phase some fans. I guess after years of Mike's Beach Boys playing rodeos, parking lots, and sweat lodge tents in New England we've come to a point where a nationally televised holiday broadcast of a horribly autotuned 'Do It Again' featuring Mark McGrath lip syncing "do it!" on repeat isn't even anything to be bothered by.

Again I'll say, The Beach Boys 60s legacy will always be cemented as a crowning achievement of music. But sh*t like Full House, SIP, etc ARE remembered and that's part of the legacy too - legacy is what people remember about something - it's the memories handed down to future generations. Of course the music will always be there and it will always be admired. But embarrassing sh*t like this, thanks to the internet, will be apart of that legacy for the whole of the future to view if they so choose.

Hey! Pipe down, Melinda!

shhhhh.... :lol

Another thing that often seems to happen is that those that tend to defend (or downplay) what Mike does don't seem to care much about how history will view the group when we're all dead and gone. It seems to be a lot of "This one song didn't bother *me* personally, so whatever..." sort of reasoning.

But if you care about the "long game" so to speak, and if you care about how legit music critics and historians are viewing the band's legacy even *right now*, then you gotta listen to people like Howie Edelson who pointed out how much Mike *sunk* the band's standing in the industry at the end of C50.

Five years later, in *those* circles (meaning outside of the "20 thumbs up" and "five splintered Beach Boys tours means more music for us all!" circles), the band's brand is irreparably damaged. Even if they *did* try another reunion it would probably be an uphill battle to some degree.

"Sunshine Tomorrow" and new BRI management are huge steps to help fix and heal some of those problems. But you an understand how some fans might be frustrated when days later Mike is out using the Beach Boys name and essentially doing a 2017 version of the Fat Boys single. Arguably, the Fat Boys single was slightly more substantive since the band hadn't released a version of the song "Wipe Out" up to that point.

WHERE IS THE "LOVE" GOIN ON

That's why I'll agree to disagree.  Plenty of other bands have done dodgy things, appearing on sitcoms, putting out crap albums,  touring with fractured lineups, mediocre remakes, and I don't think it affects the legacy.  

Look at how many young people go to Brian Wilson and Beach Boys concerts.   Do you think they care out an appearance on a cheesy sitcom or one subpar album (let's be honest, Smiley Smile and Love You weren't exactly gems either)?  No.  

I have to confess, I'm interested to learn who these "usual suspects" are as referenced by KDS.

Care to list some specific names, KDS? Or is it just a blanket term that would now include the hundreds of negative comments and commenters who have been posting to the band's FB page?

It's a blanket term for the legions of people who jump on Mike Love any time he makes a move deemed "offensive" to The Beach Boys legacy.   Look at the comments on The Beach Boys Facebook page.  Just plain nasty....over a song. 

I need a stamos picture and then the party starts!

KDS, picture a Beach Boys band that didn't do SIP, that didn't do Full House, that didn't perform a concert in the parking lot of the Lucky Strike's Lanes and Lounge in Anchorage Alaska. Picture a beach boys that actually had the maturity to not kick Brian and Al to the curb after the C50.

You realize the uproar that this single would have if The Beach Boys legacy weren't already tainted with all of this embarrassing crap? I'll go back to my Ringo Starr analogy: had he done this same thing with the Beatles name it would be a headline (negatively) in every music magazine out there. That's because their legacy is rooted in mostly tasteful acts that only benefit their legacy. Whereas Mike's Beach Boys have spent the last two decades topping each embarrassing act after the other, to the point where no one bats an eye at stuff like this...that's the effect it has had on the legacy.

Yeah, people are still going to listen to the music and go to the shows, I'm not disputing that. I'm saying clearly that the legacy (the sh*t people remember about this band) has been altered by this crap. The evidence is everywhere when you look at random YouTube videos of the Boys from the 90s, or when you have a casual conversation with someone about this band and they do laugh about the Full House appearance. Again, legacy just means what will be passed down (and what has been passed down) and remembered...that includes the good and the bad.

As for Love You and Smiley, gotta say at least those albums charted, music from both is revered by many. Polarizing? Yes. Artistic merit? Yes. Can't say the same about DIA '17 - didn't chart, it's pretty much unanimously hated, and it has zero artistic/creative merit.

I think the anger on those comments is pent-up from years of Mike doing this stuff and acting like he is the BBs without the input of the other memhers. Blurring the lines between the touring band and releases is required because for good reason BRI took a stand against him releasing music under the BBs name.

I would say, though, that the majority of Facebook commenters are the just the standard Facebook commenters who s**t on everything all the time. Facebook and YouTube are both cesspools of faceless trolls.

The majority of the criticism of Mike *on Facebook* would be down to these two factors;

1. General Facebook trolling and snarkiness and negativity.

2. Mike's bad reputation in the music industry and the general public.

Add to this that Mark McGrath has a reputation as a huge douchebag (see this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvjD0SkoFr0 )  and that the whole Stamos/Full House/Beach Boys connection is a point of derision from many, and there you have it: A super-autotuned, artistically vapid choice of covering of an old BB song by Mike with Stamos and Mark McGrath, with a goofy (putting it kindly) video, and you have a recipe for huge swaths of people criticizing. Both invalid, personal attacks as well as on-point criticism.

But I'd say very, very few of the people commenting on Facebook (or YouTube or Instagram, etc.) are making the nuanced, cogent arguments about the band's "legacy" that are made here on this board.

Mike has in large part cultivated his awful, awful reputation. It doesn't make the truly vile, personal attacks okay. But after all this time, the guy still doesn't really seem to understand the part *he* plays in his own vilification.

Remember, the Mike Love who just made this new single with McGrath is the same guy that *tore part* Brian's '88 album, was sort of passive-aggressively derisive about the NPP album, was openly derisive about the ending suite on TWGMTR, and so on.

Would we not perhaps criticize, say, Al if he all of a sudden launched a solo tour with cheerleaders fronting the stage?

I still don't see how an appearance on Full House can hurt them in any way.  If brought younger fans to the band.  That's how I was introduced to them when I was 8.  Who cares if people chuckle about an appearance on a cheesy sitcom?  

Sure, the Beach Boys might be a tad more respected had they packed it in before Endless Summer?  But, The Who might be as revered as Zeppelin if they retired after Moon died.   Plenty of bands / artists have made questionable decisions late in their careers.  It doesn't change anything.  With the possible exception of The Beatles, name me a band that hasn't some something to questionable to cost them some cool points.  

It's just a song. It's just one statement about Brian. It's just one lawsuit. It's just one nationally televised nightmare. It's just one accusation about Brian being controlled. It's just one time he blew off listening to his cousin's solo single. It's just one time he berated his cousin's solo album. It's just one time he waited to sign off on a major motion picture soundtrack. It's just one time Brian felt like he was fired from his own band. Its just one comment about Brian's drug use. It's just one comment about Brian's mental illness. It's just another lawsuit. It's just....

You see where I'm going? It's not just over a song. It's over a pattern of bullshit that has gone on for decades now. People didn't just wake up one day and decide to dislike Mike Love.

I honestly don't think Al would be criticized nearly as much if he did a solo tour with cheerleaders on stage.  

I'm saying it's all the embarrassing crap, KDS...not just full house. I mean, HeyJude brought up a great point about The Beach Boys being hurt after the C50 ending debacle. My point about the Beatles is that their legacy is on the highest most respected precipice because they've maintained their legacy partially by not being tacky with their image.

Whereas The Beach Boys legacy could be so much greater at the moment if Brian and Al were let back in (and if other embarrassing things were not done). If their legacy could be better then obviously something is dragging it down right now.

I'm not saying they did.  And I get it with the lawsuits and everything.  

But to keep harping on Full House, SIP, DIA 17, etc etc, all of which pale in comparison that anything Mike did (or supposedly did) in the inner working make no sense to me.

Plus, the ending of C50 is far more than Brian being "fired."  

Remember that wacky quote from Mike about the C50 being "overexposed".....

And the "I don't see any problem with the Full House connection" thing is where, as occurred with filledeplage for instance, there is no more room to really debate. If you truly don't get the downside to that "Full House" association, and what it represents, then there's no convincing you.

I'd also say The Who continuing on post-Moon is not the same at all as the Beach Boys having a *continuing* association with John Stamos and "Full House" over numerous years.

Simply put, the Beach Boys turned into a *novelty* at a certain point when they could have continued to be artistically valid. Not only would this have helped their "reputation", but it would have altered the trajectory of their careers and resulted in more *good* music for fans.

When the Beach Boys were doing sitcoms with John Stamos and touring incessantly without releasing much of any new music, guys like McCartney were putting *new* albums out, getting *Grammy nomination* for his new music, and so on. The Beach Boys could have strived for that.

If you think the cheesy decisions the BBs made don't "change anything", then you're ignoring the difference between, to borrow Howie Edelson's analogy, Lou Christie or Frankie Valli versus Mick Jagger. The two former examples are marginalized novelties, while the latter can still fill stadiums.

As Howie Edelson also mentioned, as was told to him by an industry guy, C50 allowed the Beach Boys to change an AARP brand into an arena act. Mike then *actively chose* to reject that to go back to smaller fairs and venues and gigging with John Stamos and doing duets with the guy from Sugar Ray.

Full House and John Stamos = Frankie Valli/Lou Christie/Sugar Ray

C50 Reunion and Brian-helmed new album = Mick Jagger/arena shows/industry respect

I will agree with you that the return of Al and Brian would bring more legitimacy to The Beach Boys as a current touring band, and they'd definitely be able to play bigger venues.  

The Beatles also retired after less than a decade.  The Beatles didn't stick around to put out a disco song, rerecord a song for a soda commercial, carry on after the deaths of key members, appear on a cheesy (but still beloved by many) sitcom, put out albums of questionable quality, etc etc.  So, you really can't compare.

Well, it would be one thing rather than a litany of things over decades as is the case with Mike.

But in the moment, as it occurred, I think Al would totally be called on it if he did a very specific thing that he had previously very publically criticized (and was then infamously chastised within his organization for complaining about).

Setting the bar low for the BBs just because Mike has done those things is not the answer. That's why sunshine tomorrow was so great, it was a glimpse of a properly run BBs organization.

He's be called out on it, but not to the same extent.  

Heck, Nelson Bragg's girlfriend ran around the stage on a tiny dress during the encore at some dates of Brian's NPP Tour, and I don't recall much of a hub-ub about that.  Yet, Mike brings some girls on stage during Barbara Ann and he gets crapped on.  

KDS, that's exactly my point. Of course the Beatles are a different story altogether because they didn't go a Beach Boys route. I'm saying that their legacy is a shining star because Ringo didn't decide to tour as the Beatles, make a dreadful Beatles album by himself, appear on a sitcom, "fire" McCartney after a reunion, continuously rant about McCartney or Lennon's drug use. Etc.

I'm saying that Mike has made some godawful decisions that have indeed tarnished the image of the band...those godawful decisions are remembered when you think of The Beach Boys (their legacy). So in closing, yeah, I think fans have a right to be peeved about Mike continuing this behavior with no shame.

Again, agree to disagree

I don't think Full House or DIA 17 are any more questionable than continuing to wear striped shirts on stage after Pet Sounds / GV were released, bowing out of Monterey, and willingly becoming a nostalgia act after Endless Summer.   

HeyJude gave the reasoning for this in the quote you're replying to yet you seem surprised by this? Al doesn't have a history of doing utterly ridiculous things time after time after time, neither does Nelson. That is the difference.

Right, but when Mike does something like release a dumb single, everything gets in a huff, and recounts all Mike's "sins" from the past going back 50+ years to the supposed "Don't f**k with the formula" quote.   And, in some cases, even go back and accuse Mike of being a heck, despite his contributions to the band during their hey day. 

Not any more questionable yet we still remember the striped shirts (those same shirts Denny got ridiculed for onstage in the mid-60s) nearly 50 years later. This is just yet another striped shirt moment - like you say, not any more questionable...but it is almost as ridiculous. Currently Brian and Al could be apart of this band, performing and making music. There's your legacy - it could be so much better, but instead we're reduced to hearing The Beach Boys perform Do It Again with Mark McGrath on live television. Sucks that their "legacy" is so great that it doesn't even phase some fans.

It kills my soul, hey hey hey
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5AhcMhze1Q

Perhaps because using The BEACH BOYS to promote the Mike Love single on live television is just another example of the countless moronic things that have been done to The Beach Boys name in the past few decades.

Even if The Beach Boys stayed together and did a follow up to TWGMTR, people would still b*tch about Mike's songs.  So, instead of an album of 11 Brian songs and 5 Mike songs, in 2015, Brian Wilson put an album of 16 Brian songs.  

To me, it makes more sense for the two sides to be separate at this point.  Both sides are content.  Brian gets to create when he wants to.   Mike gets to do his thing.   I see nothing wrong with the current arrangement.  

Maybe one day, they'll all get back together and do it again, again for a big farewell tour.  But, until that day (if it even comes) you can two top notch bands out there doing legendary music.  Sounds like a good legacy to me.  

Well, first of all, nobody as far as I know claimed Full House or the DIA single are the most heinous decisions in the group's history, nor was anybody claiming those decisions were worse than other, older decisions in the group's history.

Again, a lot of this is context. If you're making conversation with someone in 2017 and mention you like the Beach Boys, you're about a BILLION times more likely to get a joking, derisive comment about Stamos or Full House than you are a comment about "oh, isn't that the band that backed out of Monterey in '67?"

Further, the striped shirts and backing out of Monterey and post-Endless Summer drop-off in creating new material are all HEAVILY CITED important events in every biography of the band. Nobody is ignoring those events and their respective negative impacts on the band.

The point is that *after* they became a "nostalgia act" in the 80s, they then *went on* to have that Stamos/Full House association, *further cementing* the novelty aspect of the band over artistic integrity.

It's a cumulative thing. If any single event that we cite as things that injured the band's legacy had occurred, that single event typically wouldn't be as a big of a deal. If the BBs had been cutting albums throughout the 80s to at least mixed if not positive critical response, and then one time did a quick appearance on "Full House" to plug a single, it wouldn't be a huge deal. The problem is that they were already artistically stagnant, and then went on to have a years-long association with the sitcom (which itself was and is critically derided), and continues over 30 years later to have an association with Stamos.

Nobody hears about Stamos's upcoming appearance at a Mike gig and says "Wow, I really love his musicianship. He's really going to add to the sound." No, he's another *novelty.* "Oooh, Uncle Jesse is going to be at that show!" The people who dig Stamos being at Mike gigs like it because they're seeing Stamos, not because he adds anything musically. Again, that's a novelty thing, not a music thing.

https://youtu.be/ZfLDHJtuyas?t=1m38s

If your idea of a good legacy is that "litigious" and "splintered" and "reunion ended poorly" and "one guy pays a license fee to use the name" are all there in a career-spanning summary/bio, then I'm not sure what can change your mind.

Every band that has been splintered is remembered in part for that divisive nature. Journey? Part of the story will always be Steve Perry being continually replaced by tribute band singers. Styx? Supertramp? Chicago? Part of the bio will always be that they jettisoned the guy that wrote and sang many if not most of their hits. If any of those bands had (or in the future do) get it all back together and *end it* on that note, then all of that tumultuous stuff will at least have that unity to end the story.

Not so with the Beach Boys. The story right now ends not with "Two band out there instead of one! More music for everybody!" It ends with Mike quitting the band, tossing Brian and Al aside, and then slagging Brian in interview after interview. It ends with Mike being Lou Christie and Brian being the real deal. It's bad for entire band's legacy, but even worse for Mike. If he toured under his name, he'd only be (mostly) damaging his own legacy. But as he continues to actively ruin his own rep, he pulls the brand down a little bit too.

In 50 years when looking at the bio, nobody is going to care that Scott Totten sounded good singing "Ballad of Ole Betsy" at "Beach Boys" concerts. They're going to know Mike quit the band then took the name back and the band most likely ended their careers splintered and devalued.

Many of the comments in videos like that probably help to explain why Mike keeps Stamos in the picture. Clearly a ton of people like Stamos *more* than they like Mike.

I thought we were talking about the legacy (that is what your post on PS forum revolved around). Of course people would still bitch about Mike even if he walked on water. My response to the heart of his discussion is that the legacy has been altered by some of Mike's actions over time compared to what the legacy could be, there's no denying that. Their 60s output is cemented as being some of the greatest music and that legacy will never change (both Mike and Brian are revered for their work in this era, and they always will be). Doesn't dispute that The Beach Boys legacy as a whole also carries Full House, SIP, and now this, and who knows what is coming down the pike. So yeah, what's harmless in a little chuckle about Full House? What's harmless about the countless blogs that have reviewed SIP on the web? What's harmless about the negative press after the C50 debacle? It's just a continuous cycle that some fans get irritated about because it all adds up and piles on and all of a sudden some fans don't even bat an eye when a horrendously mixed autotune nightmare solo reimagined cover becomes the center of a nationally televised broadcast.

It's a shame these legitimate gripes are enough to spark a whole thread on the PS forum for people to vent their pent up angst about the matter. Seems very logical to me that fans would be peeved about this move by Mike.

Its a cougar trap! ;D

Then, why does it keep coming up in conversation?  And I'm not talking the Stamos association so much as the 1988 episode with Mike, Brian, Carl, Al, and Bruce.   Is it because the "too cool for school" crowd has deemed the show a travesty of pop culture cheesiness?  Is it because Home Improvement was past it's peak when The Beach Boys appeared on that show?  

Hey Jude, great set of posts above. Agreed fully.

Once again, it's a stupid single.  If you look at the posts on Pet Sounds Forum, I don't think anyone is defending the single.  At best, they're laughing at the absurdity of it.  Yet, here, the Brian Wilson Forum, and social media, it's turned into the usual predictable Mike Love Hate-Fest.  "It's killing the legacy!!"  "Take the license away from him!!"  Blah blah blah.  It's bunk. 

Annnnnnnd once again, yes, it's one stupid single....just another stupid thing OF SO MANY COUNLTESS SNAFUS. That is and has been my point, it's even written so clearly in the post you're replying to. All these things add up to the point that the standard for The Beach Boys is so low that some fans are totally okay with that live televised performance on the Fourth. That's my problem with the legacy right now. And that is as simply as I can put it.

Fifty years from now, most of what  people are going to talk about in regards to The Beach Boys is that they put out one of the greatest albums of all time, and released a string of some of the greatest singles of all time.   In many ways, that's all people think about now outside of the BB fan world.  

Fair enough.  That's your viewpoint.  I respectfully disagree. 

Totally agreed.


And actually I wanna get at another point. I know there are people on this board who despise Mike Love and would like him to be erased from BB history. However, my thing is, I'm pissed at dude for ending the reunion of my favorite band. I like having Mike Love within the group led by Brian Wilson. He's a key member. Even as far as recent material, I loved hearing his voice on "From There To Back Again" and "Summer's Gone." I even liked hearing him and Brian together on stuff like "Spring Vacation" and "Beaches In Mind." sh*t, I even enjoyed "Daybreak Over The Ocean," especially the vocal part with Brian, Al, Mike and Bruce during the beginning of the song. Simply put, I like hearing THE BEACH BOYS when they are TOGETHER. Now, is there any use crying over spilt milk? Nope. And I'm happy that Brian's group now includes Al and Blondie. Three of my favorite Beach Boys together, may not have happened if the C50 split up. But I'd still like if the group came back together and did some new material. And who can blame me? I'm a fan.

I thought TWGMTR was a great album, easily their best since Holland.   But, I think there were more factors than just Mike Love to the ending of the reunion.   But, that's a whole other topic. 

One of the problems especially with the debate over how Full House and Stamos have impacted the band and its legacy (or standing or reputation or whatever we want to call it) is that it can quickly turn into a tired "culture wars" sort of debate. I've seen some others (filledeplage, etc.) either imply or state outright that it's some sort of elitism to suggest "Full House" is a cheesy association that is beneath the Beach Boys and their legacy.

Again, one single appearance on a sitcom is not really what we're talking about. I *would* argue that back in 1988, a popular network sitcom got *far more viewers* than a network sitcom gets in 2017, which is why a weirdly large number of people *do* tend to remember the specific Beach Boys/Full House association. And the association is not one that does the band any favors. Sure, there are some people who got turned onto "Kokomo" via "Full House" and then went on to be hardcore BB fans. But most of *those* fans immediately or soon after or eventually realized how much of a blight (to borrow a term Wirestone mentioned on this subject long ago) Stamos and that ilk actually was on the band and brand and legacy and all of that.

For some low-tier, flash-in-the-pan "celebrities", they have to hang on to the one thing that they're popular for, even if it's a case where they're a musician or singer or songwriter but they're most famous for some PR scandal or getting caught with a hooker or OD'ing or going to jail or something more innocuous but still embarrassing.

But the Beach Boys individually *and* collectively are far above that. They're top-tier in popular music history. They shouldn't have a strong association in the general public's mind with a so-bad-its-good 80s sitcom.

Mike does *himself* a disservice by *choosing* to associate himself with Stamos (or Trump, or remakes, or denigrating Brian in interviews, etc.), because he should be seeking out his deserved accolades for great lyrics in the 60s and his good vocal work, etc. It's Mike's fault that people remember him more for being apprehensive (at best) about "Smile" than they do for his excellent vocal work *on Smile*! Mike undid a TON of that bad PR by doing C50. He could have sang "Cabinessence" on stage with the full reunited band and undone a TON of that "Smile" PR crap. He just can't do it though. He has to ask Van Dyke Parks in 1992, 25 years after the fact, the *same* questions about the Smile lyrics. He learned *nothing* in that quarter of a century.

And that's how the industry felt about the Beach Boys in 2012. 50 years in the business and the perception was that they were still amateurs that had learned nothing about how to make real money and create real marketing and musical synergy.

I happen to agree with the idea (held by filledeplage) of cultural elitists, looking down their noses at such things as Full House (I think youth could benefit from a show like that being on the air today.  My five year old niece loves the reruns).  It's the same reason I had a disagreement with a poster on here last year who said they couldn't enjoy a Mike and Bruce show as much as a Brian Wilson show because Mike and Bruce daring to put palm trees on stage. 

I understand the perception in 2012 about the amateurish mature of The Beach Boys, post reunion.  But, I really don't think that Mike is solely to blame for the reunion ending. 

Tell us why the reunion ended then in your opinion KDS.

Of course, there were other factors, but ultimately Mike Love decided not to continue the reunion. Mike Love's the politician who lets a tax break expire and claims he didn't raise taxes.

Also KDS, what do you think the chances of Mike ending C50 would have been if he didn't have THE NAME OF THE FUCKING BAND to fall back on if he quit? I have this weird feeling that if the only way to tour as The Beach Boys meant touring with Brian and Al, he might have  thought quite a bit more about it.

Exactly, broke up the band and yet still had the name. This sh*t is reserved for the drifters, not the BBs.

I don't think you have to be a cultural elitist to characterize "Full House" as silly and unsubstantial. And I'm someone who totally *will* sit and watch it on TV, along with Urkel and all of that stuff. Similarly, I'll eat a Big Mac and enjoy it (sometimes, if made well!), but I'll acknowledge it's total rot-gut food that is not good for me.

I personally think "Full House" sets a *horrible* example for kids, as it implies problems can be fixed in 21 minutes with a hug from Bob Saget. But we're getting off the subject of course.

"Full House" is inane. Consumers of inane stuff will even acknowledge this. The original sitcom was probably done with a lack of cynicism, which I do appreciate (not something that can be said for the cynical, opportunistic motives behind the  Netflix "reboot" of the show).

Just like I don't think fans of Daniel Day Lewis would want him to appear in a Hawaiin shirt singing "Kokomo" with his arm around Mike Love, I don't think Beach Boys fans that take the band seriously particularly appreciate a continue association with a goofy TV show.

As for the reunion, apart from the fact that all of the members have played a role in the entire history of the band that led to the circumstances and setting for the reunion and as well as the demise of the reunion, I'd say in the most functional, direct sense, Mike was largely to blame. Even his own book doesn't refute that others wanted to see it stay together. If you can read the article with Al Jardine from the Grammy event in 2012 seemingly nearly *begging* Mike to just *talk* about continuing the reunion and still think anybody else in the band outside of Mike had any significant part in the reunion's demise, I don't know what to say.

If Mike's book had offered any information that indicated he wanted to continue the reunion and someone else stopped it, I'd perhaps rethink this. But no, his book has a litany of things *he* didn't like about the reunion. By his own word, *he* didn't want to do it anymore.

Which is BRI's fault, unfortunately. I really think it's time for BRI to start monitoring Mike more closely. They are the licensors, they have the power.

And I clearly stated it was a matter of taste, you call it snobbery, call it what you want. Both shows are geared towards different people...both put on great shows and each have their own flavor. Some people like the palm tree surf board cheerleader schtick that Mike Love puts on, that doesn't appeal to me. Sorry this puts you off.

Absolutely B.E. It is for sure BRI's fault. And by BRI I mean Brian Wilson, Al Jardine, Mike Love and Carl Wilson's estate. So yep, it is, at the very least, 25 percent Brian Wilson's fault. He was safely well into his new life with Melinda when the agreement started for the license with Mike, and he (and Melinda I presume) chose to give Mike the license. There was no gun to their head forcing this set up. They did it.

Doesn't put me off per se.  I just don't understand why palm trees, surfs boards, and such on stage with the band that sang All Summer Long, Catch a Wave, and Fun Fun Fun is that big a deal. 

But, that's part of the somewhat odd double life of The Beach Boys isn't it?  One part fun in the sun, one part serious pop music, and another part that falls somewhere in between.

I'm still not 100% convinced it was all Mike.  I think there's a lot more to the story.  Like HJ said, I thought Mike's book was going to offer a bit more of an explanation on the issue.  But, I don't think its as cut and cry as "Mike ended it." 

Here's an idea.  Maybe management could've stepped in and kept the thing going.  But, let's be honest, great management and The Beach Boys don't go hand in hand. 

Heck if the four guys in Motley Crue were able to ride the gravy train from 2005-2015, there's no reason why The Beach Boys couldn't have. 

I was a Full House fan, and I barely made it through one episode of the reboot.  Some things should be left in the past. 

Like the song Do It Again.

Boom

Full circle. 

You can agree to disagree all you want, but you're not being realistic.

Take a look at the legacy of The Smashing Pumpkins. Of Guns N Roses. Two of the biggest, most influential bands of their prime decades (the '90s and '80s), but in both cases, major narcissistic, egomaniacal frontmen (with much talent, particularly in the case of Corgan, that can't be denied) have dragged the band's reputations down, down, down (after having booted all the original members, Mike-style), to the point where people don't just remember the fantastic music they made; the incredibly influential art that both bands created is clouded by all sorts of embarassing crap where the brand name has been whored out to the extreme, to the point where you cannot just mention the name of the band to a stranger or music fan without a decent chance that the first thing that person is gonna think about is what an assh*le frontman the band has, and how their music output has turned to utter garbage for a very long time.

This is a very sad, unfortunate side effect of whoring out a brand name for a very long time, in a manner completely inconsistent with the good music they once created (also completely inconsistent with the lesser, medicore, but still listenable music they once created). I'm talking about lard, pure lard that gets sh*t out under a once-prestigious brand name, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over  again.

It makes a difference, man. Even if you don't think it does, many people notice after awhile. That's the fault of the perpetrator in the band, and while Mike is not the sole BB to release crap, he is far and away the most egregious one who ties in the BRAND NAME with such massive amounts of lard. It sucks. Saying it doesn't suck to you personally doesn't mean that it doesn't suck as a whole for the brand. I hate that I can't just talk about how great the band's music is without a disclaimer.

And look now that Axl has reunited with Slash and Duff McKagan, things are going pretty well for the GNR brand, aren't they? Look what playing nice does!

I'm not being realistic?  Nobody remembers the music of Guns N Roses?  Are you serious?  They're one of the few hard rock bands that can play stadiums in the US.  Appetite for Destruction is still regarded as one of the best rock albums in history.  

To his credit, Axl has done a lot to repair his rep in recent years.  

And nothing is stopping you, or anyone else, from simply discussing the music of The Beach Boys without a disclaimer.  

Once again, I ask you to name something that Mike Love could release, could do, that could get you onboard with legitimately thinking that he's harming the legacy and that he should stop. Something you'd honestly get riled up about. If not this, then what? A serious question.

Well if Mike had his way, we wouldn't even have Summer's Gone in its current form; in fact, probably most of the best material from that album such as the Life Suite might have been nixed if Mike had his way.

That said, I love Mike being part of that album, but he needed to be used as a voice, as Brian saw fit to use him.

He said "people don't just remember..." not that people don't remember. He's saying that when I talk to friends about Guns and Roses the music is always shadowed by talk about what Axl is looking like these days or what antics he's up to....the music is some of the best, but yet it's overshadowed by Axl being an ass. The same goes for The Beach Boys, I can have talks about how great the music is, but sometimes Full House gets brought up and I have to embarrassingly explain that it was a dark time for the band...and Full House is just one embarrassing example of many that has been done to this band in the last couple decades (Baywatch anyone?). The fear is that the band could be re-entering an era where sh*t like this goes unchecked again.

People remember the music of Guns N Roses but they ALSO remember the absurd decades-long antics of Axl embarrassing himself and the brand. And yes, the moment he got his sh*t together and started working with his old bandmates again, the more people remember the good stuff.

Corgan is probably more like Mike, personality-wise (other than Corgan, unlike Mike, being a massively talented producer/arranger/musician/songwriter without anyone's help). But like Mike, he's a MASSIVE narcissist who regularly talks sh*t about his original bandmates in a very repugnant way. And his talent seemingly went out the window, and he has damaged his band's legacy irreparably for SO, SO many reasons over YEARS.

Mike ain't getting back together with The BBs again. It ain't gonna happen. So at this point, his latter-day antics like DIA '17 are pure garbage that is not going to be rectified with a reunion tour, the way that one could argue Axl did recently. That ship has sailed.

The difference is the BBs have 30 plus years of bad Mike Love run craziness and it looks like a covers album of his OWN band will be the nail in the coffin.

So, DIA 17 is the breaking point, and that's why a reunion can never happen?  Alright. 

The music business, and that's just what it is, a business, is a funny thing.  If bands like Motley Crue, Poison, and Guns N Roses can still go out and tour, then it's not out of the realm of possibility that another BB reunion can happen. 

Is it likely?  Probably not, but in all honesty, I wouldn't be shocked. 

Thanks for putting words in my mouth. Did I say that DIA 17 is the reason why a reunion can't happen? No. No, I didn't.

It's a cumulative thing, as has been stated before... one key reason is just the amount of crap that Mike keeps talking about Brian in interviews, but most importantly, the hurdle that any possible reunion from this point on would have to tackle would be the fact that a reunion in 2012 ALREADY HAPPENED, and ended disastrously.

And Mike won't own up to the fact that he simply wants his way, and that's it, period. How on earth would that hurdle be overcome at this point? Mike feels that things are OWED to him, that promises of cowriting are going to be broken. And he's right - they probably would be broken, because they should be broken, because Mike has NO INHERENT "RIGHT" TO WRITE SONGS WITH BRIAN.  And he doesn't get that, and now the cat's more than out of the bag. There's no way to put the toothpaste back in the tube. Mike showed his true colors, what he wanted out of a reunion. He wants more control than anyone feels comfortable giving him. It sadly ain't EVER happenin' again. I feel mighty sure of that.

Seriously, you'd want to take the touring license away for this? 

OK, here are things Mike would have to do for me to go along with the "harming the legacy" belief

1.  Start doing rap or EDM versions of BB classics at BB shows.
2.  Release a single called "Brian Wilson Sucks"
3.  Digitally remove the images of past Beach Boys from the pictures and videos on screen

I have to ask, do you think Mike Love deserves to tour under the name "The Beach Boys" (not to mention promote solo work under that name) despite the fact that he froze Brian and Al out of the band after C50? Ergo, does it seem fair to you that he could basically "quit the band" in 2012 so he could go back and then for all intents and purposes be the band on his own? That to me is just inherently shitty behavior.

In all honesty, I believe the name The Beach Boys should have been retired when Carl passed away.  Or even amended to something like "Mike Love's Beach Boys" (as is pretty common with many British Invasion bands).  And, frankly, I'd feel the same way if Al Jardine or Brian Wilson were the sole members. 

But, legally, he has the right to tour as The Beach Boys.  And I think it's fair that he can't release new material as "The Beach Boys."  The live arena and the studio are two different things.  There was a touring version of Thin Lizzy well after Lynott died, but they decided to change the name when they went back into the studio. 

So, if I could pay to see The Yardbirds with only Chris Dreja and Jim McCarty, I'm fine with seeing The Beach Boys with Mike and Bruce. 

In the US, the brand was damaged many many years ago for reasons that are too numerous to list. The issue is, at this point, Mike's poor decision making is just piling on to it. I mean, WE get it. We know how enormously talented each and every member of the band is and was. We know that they are one of the greatest (IMHO THE greatest) bands in history. The general public, sadly, doesn't get that. They think of the BB as a band who ceased to be relevant 50 years ago, or just some group that made fun-in-the-sun songs before the Beatles came in. Worse, there's a segment of the population that looks at them as pure cheese, a novelty act, that is along the lines of Sha Na Na. Things like this just add to it.  People shouldn't have to be ashamed to admit they are Beach Boys fans, but thanks to the past,  dunno, 30 years, many are.

Thanks Michael. Thanks Stamos. f*** you very much from the bottom of my heart

Billy! :woot :woot :woot :woot  :woot

To use that analogy, this is like Dreja remaking  Heart Full of Soul with a new band and Treat Williams in the background going "Heart full heart full"

edit

Not trying to argue, just to put out my own viewpoint.

That's all well and good, but if Dreja did that, as Dreja, and did it with Treat Williams at a one time event with The Yardbirds, I don't see the harm. 

Mike JUST did that in the DIA '17 video! He took video images from 1980 of THE ACTUAL BEACH BOYS performing, and digitally cut around the actual other Beach Boys, leaving only himself. And then cut to images of the adoring fans who were there in 1980 to see the whole band.

Whether or not he did that because he HAD to in order to keep things legally kosher, or whether that was his actual desire, bottom line is that a video that you have just described has been pushed hard by Mike to the screens of many people around the world. He clearly paid a PR person to get Billboard to write an article about DIA '17. He wants content out there in the world, seen by as many people as possible that has digitally removed images of past Beach Boys.

And before we get into the discussion of Brian doing the same in the Pet Sounds tour program, or whatever it was that excluded Mike, let's just keep in mind that Brian is touring as Brian, and not using the BBs brand name these days, whereas Mike deliberately whores out the brand name to promote his "solo" product.

He didn't digitally remove them, but used a digital zoom for a disable music video. 

When, The Beach Boys tour, and there are no images of Al, Brian, Carl, or Dennis in the tour book are on the video board they use, then I'd consider that doing serious harm. 

And, I might add, this same single whose video excludes (thank god) most of The Beach Boys, was promoted by The Beach Boys on national television.

I think we could both agree that even if Mike stooped to doing that, there would still be many rabid defenders who would STILL defend that, even if you wouldn't be one of them.

Mike is the BBs! ::)

My hobby is editing video, Mike hire me for including photos of Carl, Al, Dennis and Brian on the board, please!!!

One time, yeah. Thing is, Mike's been making these type of decisions for many, many years. This isn't a one-off.

Which is the point we have been trying to get across for 10 pages and counting...

And it isn't even close enough to Friday for a "happy Friday  :beer"

Oh, come on.

The artistic merits of remakes can be debated -- and have been often in Brian's solo career. I synpathize with the IJWMFTT unplugged-style project, but am less convinced by the Imagination retakes, for instance.

But remakes aren't the real issue here -- and both Paul and Ringo have recorded their share of updated Beatles tunes, so not even the greatest are above it.

It's the same situation with guest artists. You can debate their necessity, and there are some I've liked more than others.

The real question is simply taste and respect for a legacy. This remake and video suggests Mike has precious little of either. That's the issue, and that continues to be the issue.

It's not whether Brian does or doesn't do something that could be described as remotely similar. It's whether Mike's output makes him and us look like damn fools.

Here's another point...Mike is pretty much doing the same thing he accused Brian of with that lawsuit in 2005. Maybe the favor should be returned since Mike has been "shamelessly misappropriat[ing] Brian's songs, likeness and the Beach Boys trademark".

*drops mic*

BW is too classy for that! :hat

You're right.

(https://pages.wustl.edu/files/pages/caddel/articles/480465746-benstillerdoit.jpg)

This Classic East/ Classic West thing that is happening right now with major bands is an example of the BB having a reputation as a novelty band.  They should be mentioned with those bands easily but they won't sadly.

They do fit the bill...it seems like the only two parameters are to NOT have a hit single in the past twenty-five years and NOT have all your original members...

Youve made your point.  Ive made mine.  I still dont think its a big deal. 

In the words of Kermit and Fozzie, moving right along

But they wouldn't even be considered is my point. Just like they can't get on classic rock stations.

At least in the US, they don't get played on classic rock because the general perception of The Beach Boys is of the early to mid 60s as a surf / car band.  For the most part, classic rock radio ignores the early 60s.   In the States, you're best bet at catching The Beach Boys on the radio on in December. 

The only 2 songs I ever hear on the radio is God Only Knows and Little Saint Nick. And not all that often, mainly around the holidays like you pointed out.

In Baltimore, we have a station that goes 100% Christmas music just before Thanksgiving.  They'll play Little Saint Nick and Frosty the Snowman quite a bit.  I'd been told our local classic rock station plays Sloop John B on occasion.  I used to hear Sail on Sailor occasionally, but it's been aged.  And I've heard Kokomo on the variety time stations. 

A couple years ago, while down in Ocean City MD, I actually heard Do It Again on their classic rock station. 

A few thoughts on the word “legacy” after reading continuous talk of this elsewhere.

And before anyone reads this and feels like I’m beating a dead horse, it’s just clarification of my own thoughts (mostly for my own benefit and for anyone else interested)...if anyone is tired of debate on this I totally understand: you don’t have to respond with muppet’s quotes or anything...as I said, this is mostly me thinking out loud to make sure I’m thinking about this correctly.

I’d just like to clarify the definition of “legacy” as I think there are some glaring misconceptions about the word. “Legacy” does not just mean that the music will always be there and will always hold up. Legacy is also all the baggage that is carried along with the music. Legacy includes thoughts, feelings, and memories about the entity in question...when you think about The Beach Boys do you have positive thoughts? Positive feelings? Good memories?

With The Beach Boys yeah, mostly all of the above. Do the last three decades of embarrassing antics hurt the 60s/70s music catalogue? Of course not, that music is solidified in time as some of the greatest ever made. Do the last three decades of embarrassing antics hurt the image of the band? Yes.

You see this when a music journalist writes about this band - they usually mention the fractious history of the band in their interviews. You can see this even on the official Beach Boys Facebook page in the comments of the DIA song post that mostly everyone hates. The public reads these articles and comments and their perception of band is altered.

As KDS mentioned yesterday, the Beatles quit after a decade - they didn’t record disco, they didn’t go on sitcom shows, they didn’t have a nasty reunion breakup. They didn’t have these things so their legacy is one of the brightest stars in the sky. But therein proves my point: the actions made by The Beach Boys over the past few decades have altered how bright their star is in the sky...the disco track, the sitcom appearances, etc have all added up the tackiness that is now part of the image of this band....ie part of their legacy.

When we think of The Beatles, we also think of Yoko Ono breaking up the band. That thought will be forever cemented with their legacy. See what I’m getting at? It’s not just the great music but the events that stand out. They could be good events or bad events, but each go hand in hand with the legacy.

The music is safe, and maybe that’s all some fans care about. Others of us care about the group that Brian, Mike, Carl, Dennis, Al, David, Bruce, Blondie, Ricky, belonged to at one point or another. This band is a device that created culture, created introspection, gave people dreams. The music of course is what we listen to and love, but the culture of this band goes right along with the music. And when the image of that band is tarnished time and time again, people remember that when they think of the music (like the Axl Rose example someone made above).

These embarrassing antics don’t effect our enjoyment of the past music, they effect our perception on the vessel that gave us that music. And to some of us, that part of the legacy is almost as important as the music itself.

Rab, I somewhat agree with what you're saying.  Though, I don't agree that as many will dwell on it. 

But, I would amended this to include the last five decades of antics.   

You can write a book about the career missteps of the band. 

-Releasing Smiley Smile instead of finishing Smile
-Continuing to wear the striped shirts while touring on PS and GV
-Skipping Monterey Pop
-Leaving great songs on the cutting room floor in lieu of not so great ones throughout the 1970s
-Lack of overall quality control on studio albums post Holland
-The failed Brian's Back campaign

This is just off the top of my head.  And there are many fingers to point in many different directions. 

Definitely. But the fact is that the guy currently at the helm seems to be continuing these missteps. You’re right, on it’s own the DIA ‘17 single being performed by The Beach Boys is harmless, but as a reoccurring misstep in a pattern of stumbles it just reinforces the perception of this band having lost direction, being fractious, being completely tacky post 1960s.

But KDS - It's pretty obvious this new single and video release from Mike whether it's being written off as inconsequential or not has generated a pretty massive if not incredible amount of negative feedback across multiple online outlets, and not just on the so-called "toxic" places of fandom like this forum. At some point the most basic tools and methods of market research would gauge the reactions and conclude something went seriously wrong to generate such a negative public response.

I guess my question is, in your own opinion as a fan what is it about this single and video release that caused such a bad response from the public? I know there are always attempts to write it off as "Mike Bashing" and blame it on the usual suspects and toxicity, but holy cow...If this release was designed to bring good vibes and generate positivity for Mike and/or his tour promotion, it laid an egg.

The difference between missteps of the past (especially the 60s/70s/80s) and now is that now, in 2017, and for the last five years if not longer, there has been a *clear* path towards resuscitating and rehabilitating the "brand."

Essentially, the formula to do it was C50. As Howie Edelson said, the Beach Boys were getting *huge* press, and *good* press, and were doing so with no presence on classic rock radio. Mike indeed went from Frankie Valli to Mick Jagger overnight. They *did* take what Mike had steered into an AARP brand and turned it into an arena rock band.

When they biffed things in the 70s and 80s, they were often at a low ebb and there wasn't a clear path that they *should* have taken instead (other than to just keep making albums and try to stay relevant).

But in 2012 or 2017, there's a clear path to accolades and good reviews and building a good rep with critics that matter. To build on the indie/nerd fan cred and all of that. And it's C50, and "Smile". It's *not* John Stamos and Full House and Mark McGrath. You can call it "snobbery" or "elitism" all you want, but that's the deal. And it's better for *everyone*, including the band and the brand and the legacy and hardcore fans and casual fans, for the band to dispense with the "Stamos/Full House" path which garners snickers and laughs and eye rolls among plenty of fans, and go for the reunion band getting rave reviews in Rolling Stone and getting a good review in the New York Times for a gig at Madison Square Garden.

Yeah, it *does* mean that you won't get to drive five minutes to see Mike's band at your local fair or get to see Ike, Totten, and Foskett sing half the leads during the show (though you'd probably still get at least Totten for another reunion tour). Yeah, it does mean the "oooh, Uncle Jessie is on this tour?" fans might be alienated when the band skips the bit where Stamos croons on stage or Mike shows old clips on the video screen, and instead you hear Brian sing "I Just Wasn't Made for These Times."

I cut the band of decades and decades ago a little bit more slick for bad decisions because there wasn't (and still isn't always in retrospect) one clear path concerning what they *should* have done to be more successful or stay more relevant, etc.

But in 2017, it's crystal clear. And Mike rejects that. He gave up rehabilitating his own image (in addition to reinvigorating a tired brand stretched thin and devalued by Mike's incessant touring and lack of interest in creating anything new), he gave up prestigious gigs at places like Madison Square Garden, so that he could go back to his own band and play bowling alleys in Anchorage. He derided Brian's original songs in 2012 because it was more "downer music", not to mention that Brian didn't want to write alone from scratch, then ditched Brian and Al and went to releasing remakes and old outtakes (let us not forget that his two previous "new" songs prior to DIA were a decade-old solo track "Pisces Brothers", and a re-recording of a nearly 40-year-old outtake in "Alone on Christmas Day"). Mike gave up building *everybody* in the band up individually and collectively, and instead went back to trashing Melinda and Brian and bringing up decades-old drug use. Mike not only doesn't seem to "get it", he's actually regressed in many ways. Remember back in 1992 when he was all hot and bothered about the songwriting lawsuit? Then he *won* the lawsuit, and then for some random reason about 20 years later started whining and complaining about the songwriting thing *again.* It seems sometimes he not only can't help himself when it comes to being negative, he maybe somehow relishes it. The only thing he can be positive about are vapid and ill-conceived items like his new single.

Frankly, I think this single is yet another example of poor management in the BB universe.  

Mike is a businessman, but I don't think he's a particularly good businessman, and seems to know little to nothing about PR.  

Who's in charge here?  Surely, this idea was brought to somebody's attention.  A third remake of the same song in five years, featuring a low level 2-3 hit wonder from the late 1990s.  Why?  What's the benefit?  Who's the target audience?  None of it makes sense, which is why I think it'll fade fast.  

I think the most obvious reason for the bad response is that, it's not good.  Maybe on some ironic, "it's so bad it's good" level, maybe.  But it's not good.  Also, it's repetitive.  A third version of the same song in five years.  Those complaints are valid.  

The third reason is anti Mike bias.  Some people are so anti Mike at this point that they refuse to acknowledge his contributions to the BB's glory years and write off the current touring band as a tribute act.  Does Mike deserve some criticism?  Of course he does.  But, some have taken valid complaints about Mike and formed opinions about the guy and his role in the band that display the same kind of revisionist history that he's often accused of.  

Do I 100% agree with Mike and Bruce (and sometimes David) touring as The Beach Boys?  Not really, and I've stated that before.  But, there's that bad management again.  It was allowed to happen.  And after almost 20 years of touring, I don't see how a rumored Inauguration performance (which didn't even happen) or a crap remake (which did happen and will be quickly forgotten) is cause to rise up and strip the b(r)and name away.  

So, the license was agreed to in 1998.  

Fast forward to 2012, and the ending of C50.  The other big incident that keeps coming up, that I'm not at all convinced we know the truth about.  Again, there's that bad management again.  Surely, somebody could've gotten Brian, Al, and Mike into a room and hashed it out.  That would've been an ideal time to amend the 1998 agreement.  If BRI (Al, Brian, and Carl's family) was going to do anything about it, that was the time (Isn't It Time, indeed).  But, the beat goes on.   We're now in our fifth summer since C50.  If a legit big tour coupled with a really good well received album that sold well wasn't enough to get BRI to say "Hey, something needs to be done about the band name!!!" then a throwaway download only remake isn't either.  

That's my rambling take on the situation.  A little long winded, but due to some commitments, I can really talk too much on here today about it.  

It has been a hallmark since at least 1998 to dismiss whatever Mike does as “not a big deal.” It’s the easiest way to dismiss a criticism. “I don’t care” isn’t the same as “not a big deal.” I think some fans either don’t care that much about the band’s legacy or how history will remember them collectively and individually, and/or find it easy to say none of the bad moves Mike makes will impact the legacy at all, because we’ll all be dead and gone and they’ll never have to prove their point.

Take for instance Mike using the BB name. There are fans who see no problem with it. He’s “keeping the music alive.” And that’s not a totally invalid argument. Of course, he does it at the exclusion of other members. But even setting that aside, there is very strong evidence of the downside to Mike using the name. He has devalued the trademark and the brand. By touring with fewer original members and touring *non-stop*, he has to play smaller venues. A major industry guy told Pollstar back in 2012 that Mike’s band’s reputation in the industry was one of a second-tier act. Now, Mike (or I should say the *Trademark*) still does well enough and sells tickets. But the reunion took it to a whole new level, and continuing it would have built up the brand and trademark value even more.

The Beach Boys should be playing arenas alone, and doing larger sheds and whatnot. Instead, Mike’s band has to do what other stretched-thin bands like Journey and Styx have to do, and they play smaller venues or have to do double or triple-bills in some cases to sell more tickets.

I think it’s frankly selfish of fans to say “Hey, if I get to see a more local show at a more intimate venue, I like that more!” There’s a bigger picture here. Of course I’d rather see the Beach Boys in a club or small theater than an arena. But I know what’s good for the brand. They should have been playing Madison Square Garden and Wrigley Field in 2013. The “vital smaller markets” thing is total crap. Sorry people, you’ll have to haul your carcass into “the city” to see them. I’ve had to do it for Brian gigs. I could make a much shorter drive and see Mike’s band at the local Winery. But instead, I’m much happier even though it’s a pain to schlepp all the way into downtown San Francisco to see Brian. Same thing on C50. I schlepped into Berkeley.

I think Jude just wrote the proper Eulogy to the C50 and the BBs! Great posts!  8) 8)

What info do you still need about C50? Both Brian and Mike addressed it in their books, and between those sources and various interviews, there's really very little disagreement about how the reunion functionally ended. Mike walked. Even Mike says so. Mike stated why he didn't like the reunion. I'm guessing the others might refute some of his claims, and acknowledge others, and they and other observers and fans would maybe suggest Mike should have sucked it up for the sake of the band and fans.

The conclusion in my opinion is that he hates Melinda more than he loves keeping the band reunited or being with Brian or singing with Brian and Al. If anybody else in the organization had had similar complaints, or if Al had walked at some point and stopped working with Brian, or if anybody could throw some sort of bone to agree with Mike's take on the drawbacks of C50, then I'd put more stock in it.

Mike and Melinda don't mix. Okay, fair enough. But it sounds like everybody *but Mike* was willing to suck it up for the team.

That's why Mike will continue to be remembered, rightly so in my opinion, as the villain of the demise of the C50. Even his own book doesn't really get him off the hook.

His book made him look worse in my opinion, showing how emotionally immature he was about about the whole saga.

Quick reply to KDS - It's a staggering wake-up call, or you'd think it would be at some level within all the management, that this single and video have gotten such a negative response. I don't know how much of that any management or advisors within the BB's organization would have skin in the game since this is Mike's project. Where the band's people have a say involves the Beach Boys brand, but what about the decision from Mike's angle to even go forward with something like this? I don't think anyone as of this afternoon would argue it was a success, especially if generating some positive interest was the goal. That may be the crux of the mystery - Why was this release done in the first place and what about the negativity it seemed to have generated?

Frankly, I thought there was going to be more in the books about the ending of the reunion.  

Mike v Melinda is, I believe, an interesting an somewhat unexplored topic.  Mike has made some cryptic comments, but I always feel like there's a story he's not telling.  Did Melinda want Brian Wilson to keep touring as Brian Wilson?  That's a question that I think is rarely asked.  Is it true?  I don't know.  

Like I said, he knows little to nothing about PR. 

Melinda is probably one of the few people to actually call Mike out on his own BS. Let's face it: how many people in The BBs' circle have ever stood up to Mike? I mean really firmly stood up to him, in a manner that made it so that he could not simply just "get his way"? Even Brian when writing PS + Smile was pressured into saying "okay Mike, next album you can be the main cowriter". Nobody likes being told what to do, or being told that they are acting in an egotistical, inappropriate way, let alone a 70+ year old man; I get that. So Mike hates her, most likely. But I don't think there's really much more to it than that.

I'd like to add a few thoughts about divisiveness versus positivity. We discuss all the time things like this DIA release that seem to alienate the more invested fans and generate negative public responses.

Just consider which two events of, say, the past 15 years or so have been those which have brought both fans and general public together in celebration of this band and the music.

Without blinking an eye or thinking too hard, I'd cite both C50 and Brian's Smile tour, even more specifically the premiere run of live performances at RFH.

Fans were united in feeling good about all of that. The TWGMTR "reunion" album sold enough to go top 5 on the album charts. Brian's Smile premiere just made the Rolling Stone list of top 50 concerts of all time. Fans loved what was happening during C50, I remember personally and specifically hanging close to my computer the night of the RFH premiere Smile show to hear details coming in from fans who were there reporting back.

It felt like a community, a community sharing positive experiences.

Now consider that Mike has talked down about both of those events. He cited the Smile live shows in his 2005 lawsuit as grounds that Brian was harming the brand and the low quality of the performances was a factor. Mike talked down both C50 and the album, and we learn in the book that he almost left the tour over personal squabbles. It didn't suit his expectations, or needs, or whatever the case. The album lacked a single, it wasn't commercial enough...yet it still went top 5 and got the band back in the public eye with an air of good vibes and a welcome return to making new albums.

The contradictions in all that, of Mike's feelings and criticisms versus the positive response of the public and the hardcore fans, should be blatantly obvious. Maybe that's the issue underlying all of this.

Yet we have been told numerous times what a keen commercial sense Mike has and applies to his business dealings and decisions, aside from running his ventures "lean and mean". Maybe it's not such a keen sense of the commercial after all.

Mike does not want to see Brian succeed musically and critically in a big way without him. I mean, seriously. It must eat away at Mike to see Brian getting accolades for solo work, or for the vast majority of Smile/Pet Sounds material that didn't involve Mike in a cowriting capacity. Because it just feeds his insecurity. And hence, he overreacts and overcompensates in extremely toxic ways. It is very, very, very sad.

Mike's never given any kind of proper (not underhanded) compliment towards Brian's solo work, as far as I know. Ever.

The brilliant SMiLE, in Mike's recent Billboard interview for DIA '17, is disparagingly referred to as merely some sort of "tangent"...and even Pet Sounds has now become the victim of Mike's revisionist wet dreams where he has stated recently that he should have been a cowriter to make it more commercial, because of course it was clearly missing something.

And none of the sycophants around him apparently care enough to try and get Mike to gain any kind of emotionally healthy perspective on this. Just like 45's sycophants, nobody wants to be cut out of what they're betting on getting. The sad truth.

As in, you think Melinda wanted Brian to tour as "Brian Wilson" instead of with the Beach Boys in 2012/2013? I think the opposite is actually true, and clearly so.

I don't think there's anything particularly murky about Brian and Melinda's attitude towards Brian doing solo stuff. In the late 90s, Brian clearly had NO interest in doing anything with "The Beach Boys" once Carl was gone. So he just left Mike to his own devices. Al was kinda left out in the cold, but Brian was on to his own thing.

I think they wanted to build Brian's solo career based on both not wanting to work with Mike's "Beach Boys", and to continue to build up and capitalize on the indie cred he was getting due to the uptick in interest in PS and Smile and all of that. I think by 2012 both Brian and Melinda were open to going back to the BBs. At first, just to try it out. By the end of it, Brian was happy being a Beach Boy for the first time in eons. Mike is the one who put the kibosh on that.

There was and is really no way to unring the bell that is Mike's grasp on the BB name. The BRI members who voted to give Mike the license in 1999 (meaning Carl's estate and presumably Brian, but not Al who most likely voted against it) are responsible for creating that problem. But in 2012 or 2017, what people keep missing is that it's no longer as simple as "BRI could vote to take the license away today." As has been explained numerous times, even if all three other BRI member convened today to strip Mike of the name, it could easily get tied up in litigation for the rest of their lives. Not wanting to kick that hornet's nest is probably a big part of why Brian and Al are stuck letting Mike use the name. They could challenge it, but they'd just pay out hundreds of thousands if not millions to lawyers to make it happen, and they'd all probably be dead by the time it was resolved.

I guess if Brian and Al really want to pay lawyers a few million to hopefully allow for Carnie Wilson and Matt Jardine to get the license in 2027, then they could do that. That *might* work.

It's a theory that I can't agree or disagree with due to lack of facts.  I just think it's possible. 

That's pretty specious reasoning in my opinion. I could say that Mike wanted to marry Melinda during the 2012 tour, and we don't really have any facts that prove or disprove that either.

I think there's zero evidence Melinda wanted Brian to leave the BBs in 2012. The fact that Brian participated in a 73-date tour with the band, produced and wrote their album, had plans to write and produce another, and wanted to book gigs at Wrigley Field and Madison Square Garden would all tend to undercut this weird claim.

The only thing this claim could possibly do is absolve Mike of the blame for ending C50, which seems pretty convenient. Even *Mike* doesn't refute that Brian wanted to continue the reunion and he (Mike) didn't.

Further, why would Brian and Melinda continue to work with David Marks and Al Jardine on tour in 2013 if she wanted to separate Brian from the band and go back to being "solo."

Not to mention, Brian doing solo stuff and being in the BBs wouldn't have been mutually exclusive anyway.

So I'm calling bulls**t on this "theory." Meanwhile, what if Mike secretly was upset about TWGMTR because he *actually* wanted to write with Joe Thomas, not Brian? What if it was David Marks that secretly was behind the autotune? What if Mike was the one who actually didn't want Ambha to sing "Sail on Sailor" and was secretly hoping Melinda would successfully get that dropped from that setlist? I can make up all sorts of fun stuff.

I never said it was my theory. 

But you're forwarding it, only to keep it at arm's length by saying you can't confirm or disprove.

I can also forward a theory that Ed Carter broke up the reunion, and I can say it's not *my* theory, and I can say I don't know whether it's true or not.

Whether it was intended or not, it's kind of a classic tactic to advance a theory/accusation, etc. by throwing it out there but saying it's someone else's "theory" and that it can't be proved or disproved.

What's more perplexing in this case is that the *existence* of the C50 reunion disproves the theory outright. By all accounts including insiders, the reunion *happened* in large part due to Melinda and Jackie Love. I'm not sure where a theory fits in that posits Melinda didn't want Brian to do the reunion.

What's even more intriguing is that there is *much stronger* circumstantial evidence in my opinion that it was *Mike* that never particularly wanted to do the reunion but maybe only did it for a big fat advance, and even then couldn't stomach it longer than the one album and tour.

I don't agree with you a lot KDS, but that right there really did say it. If Brian and/or Al wanted to press the issue 2012 probably woulda been the best time, especially as Mike's back really was to wall as far as public opinion at the end of that tour with the way he handled it. As the years have went on, part of me suspects Brian doesn't really mind anymore, and though Al isn't happy about The Beach Boys status, he's happy to be touring with Brian, Blondie and his son.

In fact, if I were Brian and Al, before even agreeing to return for C50, Id have said, if after these summer shows, we go back to business as usual, the name needs to be changed to "Mike Love's Beach Boys."

It is amazing to me to see it laid out as concrete examples where both the public and the press/media/critics/etc can heap praise on the same events or releases that Mike publicly criticizes. And beyond that, he falls back on the same dodge tactic he's been using for almost 30 years - "I haven't seen it", "I haven't heard it", "I haven't read it", etc. It's worse than giving an honest opinion even if it's negative, at least to me, especially when I doubt many believe Mike has not taken 3 minutes to listen to a single by his former bandmates so he could at least be aware of what's happening within the business organization.

It is probably most revealing to see how all the praise and the sales numbers and the good vibes coming from fans and the media is for the very same things Mike speaks of critically. The 2005 lawsuit was the nadir, easily, and it all came back in recent months with Rolling Stone listing the Smile premiere on their top 50 of all time list after Mike tried to cite how bad it was in a court document.

Unreal.

Mike has really pushed the BBs fans' willingness to forgive to the limit.....

I am calling complete bullshit to this nonsense theory. Brian was clear : " I am a Beach Boy now". He started working on a followup to TWGMTR and as far as he was concerned he would remain a Beach Boy. Look who is on the stage with Brian FFS. It's as bogus as " Melinda attached autotune devices to the mics".    Bullocks

(Microphone drop!)

Firstly, Ray thank you for debunking yet another ridiculous theory on this forum.

Secondly, had to post this from another thread:


I’m picturing Bruce sifting through the minibar selection while across the room Stamos and Mark McGrath are jumping around singing karaoke to the studio track of DIA ‘17. The music is being played so loud the front desk is getting complaints.

The buttons on Mikey's shirt are tapping out. Hopefully the Best Western this was filmed at provided continental breakfast.

Ugh. Such a bummer just reading this. Incredible that Mike Love broke up the band to play Shitville, NC rather than continue to tour with Brian and Al and make new music with them.

No way Mike would have agreed to that. Had Brian and Al insisted on that, there would have been no C50.

He is a large, stinking turd, end of story.

Past the limit IMO.

Glad to see Ray return with a great post! 8)

+1

Brian really has been put through so, so much unnecessary turmoil and heartache due to being blood related to a couple of narcissistic egomaniacs. The way that it can f*** with a person to have people show them actual love... then sh*t on them... then show them love again... then sh*t on them again... repeat, repeat, repeat... is unquantifiable.

Those who coddle, nurture, and enable narcissists' behavior should be ashamed of themselves.

Nah, Bruce would have left the room, pissed off with Stamos for adjusting the mike... (that's *MY* job)

I'm inside this afternoon catching up on some things, online and otherwise, waiting for some serious thunderstorms to hit my area. I've had WXPN on the radio all afternoon. Earlier they played the original Do It Again. The Many Moods Of Ben Vaughn weekly show just started at 5, Ben's "Summer Special" episode. The first record he spun was...the original Do It Again.

It hit me - not that I needed a reminder - what a fucking amazing radio song that is. How good the original production is. How that Desper drum sound that kicks it off remains one of the coolest studio sounds I've ever heard. How Dennis pulling back the temp and groove in that bridge *ever so slightly* makes for such a great transition...

And I'm thinking what could possibly be the purpose of remaking it and releasing it in July 2017...of shooting a video with a hotel bedsheet as the backdrop and three bros mugging for the camera...and why bother at all when it's been remade where and when it made sense to do it?

Just rambling thoughts after hearing such a great classic BB's record twice on the radio in a few hours.

Hell yeah GF, my brother played the new version to annoy me and I turned on the original instead. I was excited and practically overjoyed to hear the BBs!

Isn't it amazing to hear that original record and reconnect with it, then compare it to what Mike just released? I mean...for f***'s sake, what was Mike hoping to accomplish and whose idea was all of this? The gap between the record from '68 and this 2017 remake is a million light years apart...it's mind-boggling.

Wondering if it would have been better or worse to have released the same exact song as a "Do It Again" cover by Mark McGrath featuring Mike Love and a cameo by John Stamos.  >:D

This just in..the DIA remake and vid are terrible.

I have a somewhat unrelated question. A project like Sunshine Tomorrow: Do the guys (read Mike) have any input into these releases? I assume at some shareholder level, they are approved, but if Mike wanted to roll up his sleeves, review tapes, make suggestions etc., Is this something that would happen. Or are they left to Boyd, Linett, et al.

Apologies if this has been covered elsewhere. It is just that this thread has discussed the build up/tear down of legacy. I know Mike speaks often about his creative input into Endless Summer. If he was active in development of these archival projects and could grab credit for doing so publicly, would he be less likely to be doing...well Doing It Again!!

I am a Mike fan, I appreciate his contributions, past and present to the Beach Boys. This 'Do it Again' drop, seems way off base though.

That's a good point. I think it's possible they could have had a bigger hit if they just flipped the marketing like that a bit, with Mike's name taking a back seat.

That, and if they also added a backing band of few more cameos in the vein of Uncle Jesse - Uncle Joey, The Woodchuck, Comet The Dog, Kimmie Gibler, and the other Tanner family (The Tanners from ALF), ALF himself... and don't forget Mrs. Ochmonek.

(http://i68.tinypic.com/t83n28.jpg)

That's really the only thing the song's missing. It could be released as Do It Again and Again and Again and Again.

BRI has to sign off on the release of any previously unreleased material. So yes to that question.

As to band member participation, it's my understanding that they're always open to as much input and participation as members want to offer. I think it has varied from project to project, but certainly for "Sunshine Tomorrow" it sounds like Howie Edelson was able to interview most or all of the guys.

I sense that Mike or Al, for instance, are probably more likely to be involved in selecting or saying yay or nay to song selections than they are getting elbow-deep in actually editing or mixing. Although, Al did do new recording on archival tracks back in 1998 for "Loop de Loop" and "Santa's Got an Airplane" and I believe he was involved in mixing at least one '77 X-Mas album track for "Ultimate Christmas" ("Bells of Christmas") where the final original mix was missing. Similarly, Mike had some guitar added to "Goin' to the Beach" for MIC.

But I would imagine the only projects they *aren't* possibly consulted on when it comes to Capitol/UMe releases would be the budget-line hits compilations that continue to appear.

CD!!!!!! :lol

 :lol :lol :lol

Lmao

I'd buy the ALF single.

I'm legit surprised that Mike didn't try to get a Help Me, Rhonda studio remake going with The BBs + ALF in the late '80s, considering how often the song and Rhonda (ALF's Melmacian girlfriend) were referenced on the show. I guess they had a non-competing Tanners clause in the Full House contract (seeing as The Tanners were also the family name on ALF)?

I'd bet bucks that if ALF had picked a BBs song with a Mike lead to continually reference, that Mike would have found a way to propose an ALF duet. Totally serious.

Side note: HeyJude, why the ALF profile pic? It always cracks me up and I'm continually glad to see ALF's face when I see your posts.

They actually issued Alf singles and an album in Germany!

(http://www.trend-chaser.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2016/08/ALF-Also-Released-Singles.jpg)

Of the three,  Sugar Ray has aged the worst.

Is Mike sucking his gut in "bigly" (as a notorious dipshit would say) or is he wearing some kind of girdle? Seriously.

(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/20157302_1430260240386146_5153448510949735905_o.jpg?oh=3bc934d736bf60b3ec51f72b7da2ea4d&oe=59F2E4B6)

I have laughed at this for a solid 30 minutes. Good old Mrs Ochmonek

Side note: Mrs. Ochmonek (Liz Sheriden) used to do the mattress mambo with James Dean; true story, look it up! Which all ties back to The BBs via A Young Man is Gone.

 
It's actually not a bad-looking shirt that Mike is wearing, just probably overly ambitious in terms of being a size or two too small.  Almost surprised he doesn't go the hipster skinny jeans route now.

I wonder how that white hotel room sheet used as a backdrop in the music video would look under a blacklight...

Amazing!  :lol Ha!

What the everlasting f***?! :lol

I liked it. The guys were having fun, it was an energetic performance and hey, the song is pretty darn good. 8/10. More fun than the 2012 BB's remake.

they make that 'TLM' look bad  :-\

I'd say Mike is one big "Wheeeeeen" from losing a minimum of 3 buttons on that shirt

Didn’t see this until the other day, but ESQ did an interview with Stamos. Much to my chagrin they play ‘Do It Again’ 2017 at the start of the episode, and then Stamos answers some questions about it. Also ‘Kokomo’ is played as well, that is as far as I got into the interview before turning it off.

Stamos talks about how Jackie wanted a video done for the song and Stamos directed the the whole thing. Even talks about getting as many lights as they could find for the hotel shoot, and yes, confirmed that is a bedsheet used as a backdrop.

https://m.mixcloud.com/Good_Vibes50/good-vibrations-episode-16-john-stamos-discusses-do-it-again-kokomo-and-forever/ (https://m.mixcloud.com/Good_Vibes50/good-vibrations-episode-16-john-stamos-discusses-do-it-again-kokomo-and-forever/)

Donald Trump dose not say "Bigly" He is actually saying "Big league" if you actually pay attention and listen to what he is saying!

Really, he dose?  

I'm gonna drink a Dos Equis and take a dose of acid while I ponder that thought...

Just think of how many people from this day forward are gonna sleep on and stain that hotel bedsheet, and have no idea of its greatness.

LA Blacklight Album
White Sheet Christmas

If only Bgas was still here to collect it..... ;)

I'm pretty sure he has said both actually. And regardless, I'm so tired of all the winning he's been doing. So much winning.

SAD

Yes, SMiLE Brian, SAD! Maybe The_Beach wants Donald to grab them by their....wherever.

Since he's famous they just let him do it.

Get them out of here! >:D

:lol

I’ll have to listen to the whole podcast tomorrow or something. But I wonder if there are any other Easter eggs about 5hus video that Stamos talks about

I've only read up to here so far, so I don't know if this topic was addressed later in the thread. I assume not, based on the tenor of this forum lately.

I would like to say that this post is complete trash. I am an absolute Brian Wilson fanboy. But the tone on this forum has swung so far to one side that it seems like a parody.

Given that Brian has had several Beach Boys covers on his solo albums, I don't think anyone in their right mind can take umbrage with Mike's statement above.

Since I've already made an ass of myself, let me add that I feel this attitude is rooted in the reaction to No Pier Pressure, which has somehow become the Fountainhead of the over-exaltation of my main man.

Alright, dig this orange22...

I kinda agree with you on the basic tenor of this forum. There is some overkill going on referring poorly to Mike. And a lot of it comes from one certain poster on this board. And I'm not speaking of CenturyDeprived, HeyJude, Wirestone or most others.

However, I do not agree that this really has to do with No Pier Pressure. I just think it has to do with some people seeing a "conspiracy" in anything that doesn't portray Brian perfectly. Now on the other hand, I think there were human pieces of excrement on this board who were intent on slamming Brian just for kicks (and yes that means No Pier Pressure as well) like Mike's Beard (who gets off on mocking women for their looks and a few other disgusting things), the heinous Sheriff John Stone (who seems to get off on insulting Brian and his physical and mental well being, not to mention thinking Brian is incapable of well, anything) and the despicable racist Jason (The Real Beach Boy).

Now about the covers, once again, nobody said Brian hasn't re-done some Beach Boys tunes. I personally have no problem with him or Mike doing that. Shoot, Paul McCartney did released new versions of Beatles tunes on his album Give My Regards to Broad Street along with an additional re-recording of "The Long and Winding Road" on his single for "Figure of Eight" so it's not like this stuff is unheard of. Dylan released a rerecording of "A Hard Rain's a-Gonna Fall" a few years ago (2008 I think?) and shoot, he even re-recorded "Chimes of Freedom" with Joan Osbourne (!?!) around 1998. So yeah.

The difference I would say is that while Brian and Paul and Dylan have done this stuff, it's not all that they do. Out of Mike Love's last 5 album projects that garnered release of some kind, we have:

• Stars & Stripes Volume 1
• Mike Love, Bruce Johnston and David Marks of the Beach Boys Salute NASCAR
• Summertime Cruisin'
• That's Why God Made The Radio
• "Forthcoming" new re-recordings album

Ergo, if we include Mike's supposed new album project (which I doubt will see release, since he's so fearful of failure he won't put an album out) that would be four out his last five projects that were based on old material. So while Bob, Brian and Paul put out new stuff (sure, at a much slower clip than the old days), Mike either does nothing at all recording wise, or when he does show up he puts out re-recorded old stuff.

Even on the grand Looking Back With Love I believe he only wrote 2 of the turds on there. Everything Mikey puts out on his own makes me think the copyright lawsuit against Brian was a complete pile of crap.

I think NPP was a bit of a tipping point here.  I did see a lot of posts in 2015 where people who expressed disappointment with Brian's album were accused of attacking Brian personally, which is silly to me. 

I concur. I quite enjoyed the "drunken" song-by-song review that was posted on here, even if it pulled no punches; it was hilarious and quite honestly made some (though not all) points that I agreed with, and I don't think it should be been censored.

Imagine you work on a painting for two years of your life. You take the time to pick out the perfect colors, you choose your brushes carefully, you spend a while shopping around for different textured canvases. You base your painting off new ideas and ideas from decades ago (basically, you’re fully utilizing the vast ocean of your creativity). After two years of hard work, trying to make every brush stroke perfect, you finally release it to the world.  

Then some of your supposed “fans” say your work is a “steaming pile of dogshit”, or that “it’s a stupid fucking painting”, I can go back and find more examples of these childish critiques of Brian’s album/songs if you want. There are plenty. Just saying that yeah, it’s disrespectful personally to an artist of Brian’s caliber comparing their work to canine feces or using the album as a satirical playground to get some laughs.

For an album 2 years in the making, you wouldn’t say “it’s a stupid fucking pop song” or “this album is dogshit” to Brian’s face...because it’s disrespectful and you know it would hurt the guys feelings. This was my point when we painstakingly debated about this last time.

Don't forget Pinder comparing BW fans to suicide bombers and joethomasisgod calling for Joe Thomas to kill himself... ::)

The ironic thing about that drunken review is that the guy who spearheaded it got so flustered by the critiques that it became a tipping point for his running off to help start another forum. Proving that critiques of someone’s work can indeed effect you personally enough to do drastic things.

While I enjoyed the NPP album (bar two songs), I thought the "drunken" review was pretty funny too.  I didn't really understand what the big deal was. 

Jeesh, yeah. There are so many examples of stupidity from around that time. People wonder why this place has a different tone? Gee, how about the current Wild Honey debate and some guy throughout the years trying to convince fans that Carl produced most of the record? How about the guy who PMd people false information about Brian, his career, and family? How about the guy who admitted to saying horrible things about Brian, his wife, and his mental illness because he loved Brian more than his own family? How about the Mike apologists who would end up creating pages of useless debate trying to defend the guy? The list goes on and on and on...the details of some of that sh*t are sickening and I’m not exaggerating. It really sucks, I learned a lot about the fandom in the last couple years and it really turned me off of this band for a long while. The politics, the lies, the bullshit from certain quarters. So yeah, NPP aside, if there’s a tone here it’s because some people did some really shitty things to try and smear Brian and his wife. Nuff said.

I agree that there is an element [read: one, maybe two posters] on this board who perceived people not liking the album as some kind of conspiracy to tear down Brian and his accomplishments.  However, I also personally thought that people like Nicko1234, Pinder Goes to Kokomo, Sheriff John Stone, Jason, etc. all seemed to be explicit in the mocking of the album, and kind of egging on the pro-Brian segment. It was basically useless on both ends.

Nicko1234 was really grimy. ::)

Let’s call it two (which includes me). And yeah, the list you provided were people who clearly wanted to rip the album for the sake of pissing Brian fans off. Which is why I still feel there was an agenda to troll and irritate people during a time when Brian was releasing an album he worked fairly hard on. The guy who wrote Pet Sounds writes an album in 2017, again I don’t feel it’s in anyone’s best interest for said album to be used a childish satirical playground for some cheap laughs. Again, there were many good reviews that held negative thoughts about the album, but they weren’t dipshit cheapshots at the hard work that Brian put into the album.

And KDS, to aleviate your confusion, I posted my answer as to “what the big deal was” on the previous page.

I didn't get involved in this discussion last time and, I must say, I have not been able to get through NPP once since it's been released so I am not going to comment on the strengths of the album either way. But I'm not certain on your point. Doesn't most art take some work to make? And if that's the case, does it follow that people shouldn't ever have a negative response to any artistic work?

As I said in my last post there are negative critiques that weren’t childish attempts at humor. I mean, I read a lot of negative reviews that I could see merit in and agreed with many points. But there were many reviews that were just plain disrespectful. I totally get if people don’t like the album, I can see why ‘Runaway Dancer’ is mostly frowned upon, but to call it a “stupid fucking pop song” is disrespectful to the man who has spent his whole life trying to genuinely bring great music to the world. That’s my opinion on it.

Good god. The horror.

Ya know, I think the story went that around the time of Brian’s Christmas album, Brian’s camp uploaded a little demo or something for the fans on his website, and some poster absolutely ripped it apart. Brian read the post and apparently felt like sh*t...however he took it, after that not another demo was released on the website for the fans.

So yeah, “good god the horror”. I get that this sh*t doesn’t matter to some fans here, but others realize that Brian is a guy who has genuinely never said a bad word about really anyone, is a pretty sensitive guy, and he just wants to record the best music he can in his final years left on this planet. So yeah, when people childishly sh*t all over some of the last music he’ll ever record for a cheap laugh it annoys some of us.

Addressing this first. It was not censored. I don't know where you got that from unless that was the narrative being sold elsewhere.

Next to Jim and KDS. If it's all about the music as that catch phrase has been used repeatedly, this thread is about the music and the video that Mike just released. Why you chose to dredge up topics from 2015 and in Jim's case, take bullshit cheap shots at people without having the balls to use the names or contact them off the board to air any beefs without disrupting others' discussions, is something you'll have to explain further. But it's a cheap tactic that doesn't work anymore, and won't work. If you don't like negative responses to the music Mike released, or his video, then I'd suggest not reading it.

And KDS - You need to brush up on your history. Check the posts made prior to the NPP album even being released, then once it was released, the posts that were soon shot to sh*t by people actually involved in the making of the album explaining how and why things were done. You know, things like Brian being ignorant or unaware of who he was working with, Brian mailing it in in terms of producing and recording the music, Brian not being involved in the songwriting, Brian not doing this or that, Brian's "handlers" making decisions for him since he was unaware or unable himself, all of that bullshit...and it was often done with the cheap shots taken by posters who had either just signed up, or had a post history of less than 3 total posts since Fall 2012 or whenever those alias and dormant accounts were set up. It was all duly noted, I suggest you duly note some of that with your own eyes before making blanket statements about what did or didn't happen.

And since we're on the topic outside what the actual topic here is, maybe you could explain why you have posted here like everything was smooth and clean, then went over to your other forum and talked sh*t about this board and members here knowing they couldn't reply directly. It's easy to see you're into defending Mike on any number of issues where fans have called him out, but this running to friendly pastures and taking shots at this place has also been duly noted through the past year. If you take issue with the way this place is as an open forum, why bother reading and posting here?

And Jim: A conspiracy suggests something didn't happen. You know better. Consider taking your personal beefs off the discussions about the music and related topics.

That is pretty much what happened with the online track whatever year all that went down. Brian released that Christmas song as an online exclusive, some must have thought it was funny to sh*t on it, Brian read the posts, and after that the faucet got shut off. No more exclusives along those lines. So whoever that was who did all that, you got your kicks and can now live with the knowledge that you ruined a good thing for a lot of fans and made Brian himself feel bad about a song that was released as a thank you to the fans. Good for you, now f*** off, whoever you are. And I meant that then, and still mean it now.

Now the shoe is on the other foot in some cases, and there is an outcry against the "bashing" and negativity? Please...check the history and the facts.

Hell, these same fans think I am Melinda Wilson due to idolization of some fanboy "historian".... >:(

I didnt specifically take shots at any specific board, but made a general observation on the comments on Mikes single on various boards.  

And you're right.  I do enjoy posting on here due to my fascination with The Beach Boys.  And, I know I shouldnt get worked up about the Mike bashing.  But sometimes when valid criticism devolves into hatefests, I cant help myself.  Open forum, right?

I was actually commenting on the video referred to in the title of the thread. But thanks for trying to suck me back into the ongoing drama.

You clearly forgot about your posting habits over the past year and few months. Multiple times you have trash talked this place on another forum where you knew some of the people you were trash talking couldn't or wouldn't respond, and I did not say nor did I mean solely in the past week about Mike's single. I said "past year". Maybe you need to refresh your memory on those posts too, after rereading the sh*t that got posted prior to and just after NPP was released. Hatefests? You didn't have a problem with those, nor did you seem to mind the Beavis and Butthead get drunk and talk NPP thread or whatever that was called. Don't throw stones when you live in a glass house, they say. Good advice.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.  :)

Are you still lying about this place on the other forum?

What?

Did I stutter?

Why are you so angry?

I have no time for liars. So are you still lying about this place on other forums?

Feel free to go over there and check my post history.

No prob, Emily. Pardon for the confusion.

Dig this guitarfool,

For me it simply comes down to this for me...I think there are some super shitty people who have either formerly posted on this board and/or currently post on the other board. And I am not trying to minimize it...I think people like Sheriff John Stone, Pinder, Nicko, Jason, Mike's Beard, and especially Cam Mott and filledeplage are absolutely heinous individuals based solely on their online activities. Maybe they are decent people off the web, but online they just ain't right. And yes most of them are pushing an agenda, one which seems to be tearing down Brian and his accomplishments, and then hoisting up Mike and all of his questionable choices.

But right here is where you lose me and where I start rolling my eyes. At this point I just find it incredibly hard to believe that, as you have stated, Mike Love is purposely pushing his lackeys online to post opinions that happen to coincide with Mike's disgustingly baseless 2005 lawsuit. I don't think that there is a coordinated effort against Brian, Al, Dennis, Carl or Blondie except by maybe two people: Cam Mott and filledeplage. Okay and maybe enot explicitly anti-Brian , but anti-Al and definitely anti-Melinda, you have AGD. But once again, do I think these people are having chat sessions to exalt the Club Kokomo agenda? I just don't.

And that's why he constant blathering about how "the narrative about Smiley Smile, Wild Honey and Friends will now be reversed, proving the liars wrong," I kinda scratch my head cuz first off, if anybody actually listened to those albums it is obvious that the Brian Wilson touch is all over them, and secondly because, besides a dipshit like Cam, who is really pushing this sh*t? Even most of the people I listed above (and don't particularly care for) don't even say this sh*t. So it seems very much to me like a straw man argument. Plus for people joining the board they must wonder what all these cryptic references to secret societies mean.

Now doubtlessly you will take this post as an affront to you and you'll use it as proof that I'm part of an anti-Brian cabal, whereas the fact is, I absolutely love the guy and his music. Shoot I even love No Pier Pressure. In fact it's one of my top two BW solo albums, only behind his solo debut.

Lastly I'm sure you don't care either way Rab, but I love reading your posts and greatly appreciate your insights.

(https://thumbnailer.mixcloud.com/unsafe/300x300/extaudio/2/6/7/5/32d3-75a8-41af-bce6-108902954503)


So now back to this, related to the topic people were discussing before it got distracted by the airing of grievances from 2015 and other personal axes being ground...

I have to wonder just who is the target audience for this kind of thing? And why do it and target hardcore fans, except to promote Mike's latest single and video? I'm being 100% honest, that graphic, when I first saw it, reminded me of one of the Photoshop spoofs done by members like Bossaroo or Ontor...

Maybe one of the issues a lot of the hardcore fans have is Mike and his own legacy, as in why is a guy with Mike's credentials and resume as part of a band that is in the upper echelon of pop music reduced to shooting videos in front of hotel bed linens and working with Mark McGrath instead of putting out product more fitting of his accomplishments?

What is that cover?? :lol

I dig that you're a fan. What I don't dig at all is that you cannot seem to grasp or accept that there was a lot of really nasty personal sh*t done and said to board members here in the name of both agendas and personal grudges, and when it got exposed, called out, and dealt with, there was a flurry of lies and other false claims made by those who may have been affected because they got their asses burned in the backfire from all of it. If you don't know all the details, which you don't unless one of less than 5 people who do know told you and I sure as hell did not, don't accuse me or anyone publicly of being a conspiracy nut, of making strawman arguments, or whatever other things you've said because you simply do not know and haven't seen a lot of what really did happen. If you can't accept that it happened, or can't believe it, then that's something you'll need to work out before posting these comments again. The super shittiness went beyond what you may have seen, to depths you may not be aware of. So I'd suggest before making these public comments and grinding whatever axes you may have, consider there is more to all of this and it's nasty, personal sh*t. The fact people were told "impeccable sources" had outed "SmileBrian" as first Carol Kaye and then Melinda Wilson is just the icing on the cake.

And I also know how it feels to realize when a hustler or liar has duped you. I hate to say it, but a lot of people have been duped and hustled and are still being duped. But that's been removed from this place, and maybe if you stopped bringing it up as you seem to do every so often to reopen all of those issues that haven't been on the table for a long time, it would be better all around. And it you read something negative about Mike or anything in general that you disagree with, offer a counter argument and debate it! Refute it! Just don't try to quash people from voicing opinions because you don't like them or in the case of the people you don't name in your posts here, because you have issues with those people. It is an open forum, despite attempts to change that. Feel free to dispute and debate anything you don't agree with.

That is what I saw when I clicked on the link posted by rab.

Guitarfool, are you really going to call me a liar and then move along like nothing happened? 

this place is crazy! I love it!  ::)

Did you post things about your "ban" back in 2015 that were not true - things which were clarified and explained to you multiple times both publicly and privately - on other forums? Did you take shots at people here, including me, posting on other forums about things that happened here related to that ban and extending to other issues? Are you still lying about what happened here on other forums and talking trash about this place and the people you have issues with? If you can honestly say no, you never did and are not doing any of that, then it's smooth as a fresh jar of Skippy and all moves forward.

You're the one making the accusation, shouldn't you be finding that out for yourself?  To save you some time, I'll go ahead and tell you the answer is no, with the exception of taking a shot at you.  But you already knew I admitted last September or October on this very forum that I shouldn't have done that.  So yeah, not cool to call me a liar when you have nothing to back it up with.

If I didn't have anything to back it up I wouldn't have said a word. Unless it was another Cincinnati Kid still posting sh*t about being banned from this forum elsewhere, months after all of that was clarified and explained, and in the company of people making similar false claims about this place and things that happened here.

Why are you bringing something up that was settled 10 months ago?

I'm flattered that my forum habits concern you so much. 

Me thinks your history is a little rusty.  I don't recall any negative posts about NPP devolving into people calling Brian Wilson a talentless hack. 

And how is the Beavis and Butthead mocking of NPP any different that the satirical review of SIP that goes around? 

Okay, fair enough gf.

However, once again you're expecting me to just accept that sh*t went down that is so f***ed up that I can't even imagine, and that if I knew I'd totally get it, and therefore I shouldn't say anything. Maybe that's true. But how am I supposed to know? I'm just supposed to take your word for it? The one time I was showed "proof" what I ended up seeing was undoubtably some f***ed up stuff from Mike and his legal team, but nothing whatsoever that tied people into a tied together conspiracy to do anything.

And lastly, maybe we could move all the relevant posts on this to the sandbox where we can continue on, because this is an issue worth fleshing out. I definitely prefer this place of over the alt-right, sexist, disgusting PS Forum. But I also want to hopefully be part of a forum where every member of The Beach Boys get a fair shake, and that includes Mike and Bruce (and believe me, I think Bruce especially is probably not a cool guy at all). Because as KDS said...


It's a valid point. Now do I get more laughs out of the Summer In Paradise review? Yes. However, that's likely because I love No Pier Pressure while I think all Summer In Paradise is worthy of is laughs. However, if one is allowable, both are allowable. Just my opinion. I much prefer Brian Wilson over Mike Love, but I think as far getting outraged when Brian is attacked but allowing the same on Mike to pass with just a laugh is a problem. Just my opinion.

It wasn't from any other forum or anyplace else (just here); I just seem to remember here that the thread, which I viewed as funny in a ball-busting Dean Martin's Roast kind of way, but not in a deeply cruel and truly mean-spirited kind of way, got a ton of pushback to the point where I felt the thread's original posters were trying to be muzzled/censored, if not in an actual forceable way, then at least in an implied way trying to encourage them to shut up and cease posting. I just felt that was perhaps an overreaction.

I get that we (not just you and I, but "we" all in the general fan/poster sense) can disagree on stuff, and I also absolutely get the idea that Brian is sensitive and shouldn't have his hard work simply sh*t on, lest it get back to him personally. Without re-reading the actual thread, I just recall that I didn't find it to be *quite* to the level of mean-spiritedness that would have warranted the reaction of pushback that I remember it actually getting. Maybe it treaded close to that line. On the other hand, I have absolutely witnessed previous members of this board posting about Brian in a truly awful and despicable manner, which I would certainly say would warrant such a type of reaction. So it's not like I don't agree with the concept of being fuming mad at people who one could view as acting reprehensibly in their posts, but respectfully speaking, I just didn't quite agree with the reaction as I remember it being at the time for that particular "drunken" thread. Just IMHO.

It's tough. I think we live in an era where obviously what people say on forums can have a personal impact on an artist, potentially. Yet is the solution for people to censor themselves and never actually speak their true feelings/opinions, even if those opinions are hard for others to swallow? I think people have a right to be honest and speak their mind, and yes that of course - to a point - includes a right to push back to what a given person thinks is nonsense that someone else posts. I think we can all agree it's a fine line. I have no problems talking about how much I deeply don't like the Autotune that Joe Thomas is a fan of. That's not a knock on Brian; it's just about the person he chose to work with for some recent projects, while other Thomas-less albums such as Gershwin have no such problems, thus proving who was likely chiefly responsible for what choices I don't like.

I don't think reprehensible/narcassistic behavior over decades by certain band members should be coddled, accepted, and not discussed; I think it should be pushed back upon and called out consistently. And I also think that bad and inadvertently sometimes comical production choices (all opinion, of course) can be discussed in perhaps a humorous manner.  We have to have humor in life, after all. Where humor becomes mean-spiritedness is a manner of opinion though. Let's face it: a tune like Smart Girls is funny in a so-bad-it's-something way. The Beach Boys have lots of inadvertently (?) funny songs, with lyrics about enemas (!!) and such (side note: did The BBs miss an opportunity to have HELP Is On The Way with its "enema" lyric as the theme song for the poo emoji in the new Emoji Movie?)

Judd is a satirist, not sure about bubs at times...

"So Al, in 29 years we should totally remake Do It Again. What do you think?"

"No. Let's just smile for this picture, John"

(http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/beach-boy-bingo-airdate-november-18-1988-john-stamos-with-al-jardine-picture-id109449950)

"John, I'm teaching you 'Kokomo.' Stop playing 'Do It Again'"

(http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/beach-boy-bingo-airdate-november-18-1988-john-stamos-with-carl-wilson-picture-id109416101)

"Oh my God, he's *still* playing 'Do It Again.' I quit."

(http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/beach-boy-bingo-airdate-november-18-1988-john-stamos-with-carl-wilson-picture-id109415869)

"If you play 'Do It Again' one more f***king time, I swear to God...."

(http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/beach-boy-bingo-airdate-november-18-1988-john-stamos-with-carl-wilson-picture-id109416403)

 :lol

Is that an algebra equation on Al's pants? In all seriousness, what is the purpose of those letters?

Meanwhile BW is writing surf's up's second movement! :hat

I'd like to think that somewhere, there's a copy of Brian's Full House episode script with some Surf's Up melodies written in the margins.

Surprised Mike doesn't get Full House's Comet The Dog to do some barking at the end of DIA '17, along with train sounds.

 :lol Heyjude and CD have made my day!

This is why I left the board for the better part of a year.

Sigh.

But I'm going to soldier on for one point.

Making fun of Mike's work and saying he's a talentless hack is quantifiably different than the criticism that Brian or NPP received.

The criticism was and is different.

How?

Mike is treated, even by those who despise him, as a free agent. A man capable of making his own musical and professional decisions, whether we agree with them (now and then) or mock them (frequently of late). You attack Mike Love, you're attacking him. And sometimes, he attacks you back. It's clean, simple, professional.

But Brian is treated by many of his critics, on and off this board, as a puppet. A person incapable of making musical, personal or creative decisions. An album is an opportunity to lambaste the network of support that Brian has built over the past two decades. It is dehumanizing. It treats mental illness as crippling. It treats effective psychotropic medication as disqualifying.

And enough people on this board, by the time No Pier Pressure was released, had heard enough from people who directly know Brian -- Ray and Debbie and the band members who tour with the man -- to know that such criticism is false.

The line has still been parroted. Not just by folks online and the more ignorant critics, but by Mike himself.

Brian is, of course, dependent on a social structure around him and medication. Sometimes he agrees to do things that are misguided. Sometimes he's eager to avoid conflict and acts against his arguable best interests. No one disagrees about that. But he's still the author of his life. He's still deciding, even if it's deciding to let other people chart the day-to-day details. Plenty of other rock stars -- plenty of other ordinary people -- do the same.

So, yeah. That's the point. That's the crux of it all. Criticize Brian if you must. Criticize his taste if you feel like it. But don't treat him like a vegetable, because it's offensive to a fellow human being.

Photo dated March 1, 1997. Little known fact: During this private show, Mike signed on to the fateful decision to re-record "Do It Again" 20 years later. Dean seems a little too amused:

(http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/american-musicians-dean-torrence-from-the-group-jan-and-dean-and-mike-picture-id682323886)

I actually totally agree with you Wirestone. And once again, it seems like I say this to quite a few posters, but you are definitely up there as one of my absolute favorites. You always have something important to add to discussion.

And about why there is a different standard for Mike and Brian, you hit the nail on the head. And that is why I think people like AGD and Sheriff John Stone are so disgusting.

However, besides the few major assholes like Nicko, Pinder, Mike's Beard, etc who were shitting on No Pier Pressure in a disgusting way, I think some people just simply didn't like it. And that should be allowed.

A very good explanation for why "criticism" or "making fun" of one versus the other *is* different, and always will be for better or worse. Well put.

Let it also be known that there was plenty of regular, perfectly fine criticism of NPP as well. I was among those who criticized some of the songs. I found and still find it to be a mixed bag of an album. There are ways (e.g. regular old-fashioned musical criticism) to criticize NPP. But either implied or direct diatribes about Brian being "medicated and controlled" being the main crux of what is ostensibly supposed to be  "review" of NPP is of course a very different thing. And that's not even to say bringing in the question of what is or isn't truly made by Brian's hand or deeply involves Brian is an off-limits topic. But it has to go beyond "medicated and controlled."

They probably subliminally spell out ‘Cottonfields’ - Al probably doing all he could to try and save the band at that point ;D

His pants look like they’re made of those cheap moving blankets you rent from UHaul for a move.

Just so people know, Stamos and the band and the cast actually *rehearsed* the "live concert" segment of the show:

(http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/beach-boy-bingo-airdate-november-18-1988-candace-cameron-jodie-and-picture-id109416102)

Ironically, this was the part of the show where Stamos slips Mike his demo tape, after Mike previously mentioned how he was glad nobody asked him to listen to their amateur music.

The irony is that if Stamos wanted to really record an album, Mike would be all over that in a heartbeat...

I remember the Carlin book saying their 1980s clothes were a mix between "getriatic wear and letterman wear"! :lol

I actually find it a fascinating topic, especially in an album like NPP where it seems as though Brian had a considerable lyrical hand in some songs -- "Whatever Happened," for instance. It's a lovely tune, with a few nice melodic turns, but "Whatever happened to my favorite places / Nothing's where it used to be" just sounds like something Brian was griping about one day. The music could mostly be Joe.

And yes, by all means, nothing anyone does should be above criticism. I personally find some PS songs to be a bit of a slog. Different strokes!

I'm also a big fan of NPP (outside of two tracks), and I thought the review was pretty funny.  I'm also a fan of about half of SIP, and I found that review funny too. 

John's on the receiving end of the infamous Carl Wilson STINK EYE....  :lol

Bingo! Thank you for articulating this. This attitude also extends to every single interviewer asking Brian mawkish questions about his mental illness and recovery... it's no wonder he gives one-word answers. Can you imagine?

Trump: "So if things don't work out for Carl, I've got my lawyers to draw up this licensing agreement you might be interested in. Don't show it to Al though."

Thoughts like that give me hope for the world.

Yeah, pretty much bang on. To my mind the issue is that with Brian's reputation as a genius incapable of doing wrong, it's all too easy when handed something of his you don't like to give into instinct and say "this doesn't fit in with the Brian I've fabricated in my head, so even if other people like it he can't have had anything to do with the music." With all this bullshit over the past two years I don't even remember if that's what I used to believe about NPP, but I certainly don't now, and these days I do think it takes quite a bit of cheek to suggest otherwise. Brian had the final say on the album, and I didn't like it. Which is just fine.

This is and has always been a totally inconsequential discussion that clearly isn't going to end any time soon, and has increasingly less to do with Brian Wilson than the fact that most people involved on either board have gigantic egos and resent anybody signed up on the other.

As for "Do It Again '17", the track and the video: both bloody awful.

:lol

“Yeah, as you can see here I’ve been married three times now, bet you can’t hold a candle to that Mike!”

“Well....”

Rab! :lol

Just to address two specifics in separate posts that were brought up in multiple replies.

Nowhere on this board, never by anyone who was a moderator or admin since I became one and that obviously includes me, was a post censored or deleted by a moderator because it was deemed to be too critical of something. Not a single poster was banned for posting criticism or for not liking something, be it NPP or whatever the case may be.

This has been explained and clarified multiple times by the mods and by the admin, and it quite simply never happened that an "official" censorship or anything similar was ordered because a poster didn't like something and expressed an opinion.

What the board does offer is the chance to debate, rebuke, and argue points made in these discussions. It's been that way and will remain that way. If someone disagrees with an opinion, negative or otherwise, they can post a reply and debate it out. That's what keeps open forums like this both open and active.

Just to repeat again, wherever or however the notion of censoring negative posts got started or spread around to where it's been mentioned several times in the last few pages, it was not the case on this forum and all the moderators and admins have clearly stated that multiple times in the past.

Hopefully that clears up what seems to be a misunderstanding that some members have about censorship on this forum.

Fair enough; speaking for myself, I encourage debate and am personally happy to continue a conversation with any poster with whom I disagree, even if we often can't come to a consensus. I apologize for earlier using the term censorship, which was probably an overstatement on my part, yet I stand by my last post in saying that it *felt* a bit like an encouragement of the poster in question to stop posting, even if that wasn't actually requested. But again, even if witnessing that might have bugged me under how I felt the circumstances were (not even my thread, just as an observer reading that thread), you - and any poster on here - certainly have every right to state your opinion and call out something as being crappy if you feel that way.

Replying specifically to this:
>>>>
However, once again you're expecting me to just accept that sh*t went down that is so f***ed up that I can't even imagine, and that if I knew I'd totally get it, and therefore I shouldn't say anything. Maybe that's true. But how am I supposed to know? I'm just supposed to take your word for it? The one time I was showed "proof" what I ended up seeing was undoubtably some f***ed up stuff from Mike and his legal team, but nothing whatsoever that tied people into a tied together conspiracy to do anything. <<<<

I am not trying to issue a cop-out or half-assed reply by saying this Jim, but in this case the answer is yes. You do have to take my word for it. Along with Billy's word, and Charles' word, and the word of others who may have been directly involved.

I'll say this much and ask that you consider this hypothetically. What if some of this had your name involved or mentioned, or that of your immediate family, or your children? What if some of what happened involved you getting what *you felt* were bullying or even threatening messages, and you reported them as such to the admins but wanted it to remain anonymous? What if people around you who had no skin in any of this game whatsoever were dragged through the mud in some way through any of these issues? What if issues of your personal life or that of your family was reported like gossip to other members, and beyond that, what if public claims were made about your personal life that were false?

And again, that is only a part of it. But consider if it were you or your family's names and issues being dragged into this, and someone posting on a message board was asking for more "proof" that it actually happened.

So yeah, to sum it up and to hopefully put this thing to rest, I guess you have to take my word for it along with the word of the other admins. Some of what was involved was not the kind of thing to be made public. Also keep in mind each of us has clarified and explained a lot of these things in public posts and threads which are still available to read here. If you missed them or just don't remember them, they are still there.

The Beach Boys world is a lot smaller than some folks on here realize. It's not difficult to make connections, and it's not difficult to learn "things." At a certain point, what was said and done on this board began to interact with the band in very peculiar ways. I mean, Brian visited. Brian's good friend has posted at length. Mike used photoshops from this board in Beach Boys concerts.

It all got very ... personal. And I think both Brian's and Mike's folks realized that this board houses some of the most passionate and knowledgeable fans of any band anywhere. But that meant that, for whatever reason, the last explosion of a year or two ago here was particularly nasty. Because these weren't abstract figures we were talking about anymore. They were like family members. Not that close, mind you. Like an aunt or uncle you don't see that often. But still, family.

There's a bunch of history here, some of it quite gnarled and disputed. I know there are certain posts of mine, from many years ago, that were removed at one point. (Which is a real shame, because I thought they were hilarious and misunderstood.) Folks have left and come back and left again. I give the current mods credit for trying to build this place back with as much transparency as possible.

There is NO censorship on the board.  Period. End of story.

Well stated

So here's some sh*t to stir: I received an email from Wolf Trap yesterday promoting Mike & Bruce's upcoming concert, obviously a "The Beach Boys" concert, and just below the information for the show there was a video. One horrible, horrible little video...they're using this bile to advertise "The Beach Boys" concerts. That cannot be acceptable.

"And yes, by all means, nothing anyone does should be above criticism. I personally find some PS songs to be a bit of a slog. Different strokes!"

Sacrilege!! Ban worthy.

And it isn't.  Could it be that 'things' are coming to a head?  Could be.

I wonder if thats the venue. Two years ago, I emailed Wolf Trap because they used a video for Thats Why God Made the Radio with Brian and Al (David was actually at the 2015 show) to promote their 8/23/15 concert.   I got no reply.   

Here we go again with the wackiness of Mike using the BBs touring brand to promote his solo projects...

Venue or not, someone has a really skewed perception of what will draw people to a concert.

Fillaplage in a crowd of "one" ;)

Could very well be. I haven't been to Wolf Trap in three years since their lack of organization cost me the opening number of Ringo's all-starr concert in 2014.

Ahem.

SMiLE Brian, the saying “a crowd of one” is a humorous play on the concept of a “crowd” typically comprising many people, which of course, a single “person” cannot be!  ;) The meaning of the saying is that the person is, in fact, not a crowd in the traditional sense of the word!

Mike Love was a founding member of the Beach Boys, and Brian Wilson’s cousin. Many here do not like his remake of the Beach Boys’ 1968 single “Do It Again,” which was also rerecorded and rereleased during the “C50” reunion. It served then to show “We’re Together Again”!  :) His recent rerecording with John Stamos and Mark McGrath was a fun and lighthearted version meant in this same spirit. As with the popular show “Full House,” this single brings back warm memories of “Fun, Fun, Fun.”

You may dislike the recording and video. We can disagree without being disagreeable.  ;) But there is no reason to sink to the level of personal insults and venom (a la the Clintons, the DNC email scandal, Donna Brazile, and the Soros-funded conspiracy). That Mike Love used a white bedsheet as a backdrop while performing the video with his friends, musicians and fans such as John Stamos and Mark McGrath, is not relevant here. What is relevant is that people are opening their eyes and seeing what has been “going on behind the curtain”…

Perhaps McGrath is not as “marketable” as he once was. This does not diminish his talent and he is a fan of the Beach Boys, as are we all, as proven by his previous remake of “Getcha Back.” Stamos may not be popular among the “so-called elites” or “Brianistas” who frequent this message board, and perhaps these people find him “out-of-synch” with what is “going on” in popular music. He may not be “cool.” But I think he is “listening to his own drummer”!  ;)

This is not personal. “Do It Again” reached number 20 on the Billboard Music “charts”. This is not opinion. This is a fact which anyone can “research” on his own.

https://n.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_It_Again_(The_Beach_Boys_song

You need to remember that in 1968, many artists including Bob Dylan and the Beatles were shedding their “psychedelic” tropes and going “back to basics.” The Beach Boys were no different. We waited eagerly to hear the new releases coming out of our car speakers for some “Hot Fun in the Summertime”!  :)

If a promotional company advertises a concert, that entity may operate outside the artist’s control, or without their consent. “Consent” is often a legal term, with very specific meaning of which the liberal universities are making a mockery with “affirmative consent” policies. Americans are sick and tired of this nonsense and their voices were heard in 2016, etc. This is little more than a front for thought and speech control.

The Beach Boys have performed at “Independence Day” concerts in Washington DC for many years. This is not political or personal. Their message is one of positivity (with Mike Love providing the “love”  :lol :lol ;) ), not negativity such as you show in this post. Brian Wilson brought melancholy to the sound. You can hear the band say as much in many “documentaries.” The new version of “Do It Again” simply promotes “Good Vibrations.” We need them!  ;)

Captain, that is probably my favorite post all year :lol “thank you” for making my day. Cheers :beer

Cap, can I "overnight" you a beer through the "postal" system?  :lol

 :lol

(http://i67.tinypic.com/ejtr4j.jpg)

(http://i63.tinypic.com/xldxqs.jpg)

(http://i67.tinypic.com/ejtr4j.jpg)

(http://i63.tinypic.com/xldxqs.jpg)

(http://i67.tinypic.com/ejtr4j.jpg)

(http://i63.tinypic.com/xldxqs.jpg)

(http://i67.tinypic.com/ejtr4j.jpg)

(http://i63.tinypic.com/xldxqs.jpg)

Ugh...I could've gone the rest of my life without having to see Palin's face (or hear her voice, or read her views, ect) and it still would've been too soon.


I actually like Mark McGrath, and he seems like a cool guy. I would've had no issue with him being on this remake. My issue (besides the fact it's a remake 5 years after it was remade by the band, and seems to have lifted parts of that version too...hmmm...) is the godawful production , and the fact it could be ANYBODY singing it thanks to the hideous processing to the point where nobody sounds human. When my daughter said it sounded like Siri singing, I don't think she was entirely joking. I mean, I was thinking Alexa, but hey...

Stamos? Yeah, I could go on a whole other tangent on that one, but I'd rather record some music first.

Capt. Man overboard....Here is me and there is you.  I know way too much about the Love master to  enjoy your thread.  Have some honey with the Bear.  And, smile at your letter carrier.

You left out one thing.

"It's all good.  ;) "

It took me about 90 minutes to leave the parking lot after seeing The Beach Boys in 2015.  For a relatively small venue, thats ridiculous.  It would take a lot to convince me to go back.