You gotta admit they all look like they're having a blast.

That said, from that clip I don't like what I'm hearing or seeing. I've been saying it for a while, the touring Beach Boys are a cheap, very cheap imitation of what The Beach Boys were. A knock off brand, it's nice to have them around for the general public but it doesn't do any justice to what that band was.

Each to their own...

Personally I would say that they sound better than pretty much anyone could have imagined in 1998 when the decision was first made to grant Mike a licence.

Controversial opinion, but from a purely musical perspective, the touring band often sounds better now than they did in the 90s when Al and Carl were still in the band. But a lot of that is simply due to Cowsill vs. Kowalski.

The backing band or the touring band? Because if it's the latter, that's comical.

Stamos is the one guy who encapsulates how everything went terribly, terribly wrong for the group in the 1980s. And yes, that decade saw a renewed popularity for the boys -- but it was not a popularity worth having.

The Smiley Smile message board: where John Stamos is a bigger villain than Eugene Landy.

I have no doubt whatsoever that John Stamos is a lovely guy. What he did for the guy in the wheelchair, and Ethan, proves that to me. I just wish he wasn't up there, trying too hard to be Dennis.

I'm confused about the Dennis comparisons. Stamos is known as a hot dog, correct? It's the fact that he's front and center with an unplugged guitar that bothers everyone so much? And his BTTYS drum solo, and standing up on the bass drum? Playing the drums poorly?

What about that is a Dennis impression? From every live performance I've seen from Dennis, he's understated -- or at least much more understated than Stamos.

I suppose I kind of understand the Dennis comparison, only because he plays drums and sings Forever. But on shows when he sang "Good Timin'" and played guitar, was he trying too hard to be Carl?

Stamos' personality, stage presence and talent is much different than Dennis' and I think he understands that better than anyone.

I feel like folks are still acting like John Stamos just happened to be backstage. He was already going to be a part of the show. He had been invited to sing and play, and he knew a song that no one was signing.

My favorite version of Mike Love is the hippie/TM/long-bearded one. Not sayin' that anybody would ever want to produce any, but imagine a series of McFarlane Rock Figures of Mike Love? It sure would be funny to swap the clothing on them. I don't see too many guys with ZZ Top beards wearing loud Hawaiian shirts. Hahaha....I need to get out more...

Here's the video:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUkxNVV-QJI

Who starts to sing the lead before the chorus comes in? All they get out is "fill your heart with joy I'd sing forever."

^Agreed. I would like to know via PM, but please don't repost it on the board.

Seconded on both accounts.

A lot of fuss about nothing...

When I read the thread title I was expecting it to be about much more serious issues.

Stamos singing half a song two years ago is of no importance anymore and Nelson can`t have been thinking straight when he made his post.

I know misspellings and crazy punctuation and grammar are par for the course on facebook and the like, those things do tend to undercut the credibility of what's being said.

A much more cogent argument that would have allowed for no accusations to be made would have been preferable. A strong case can be made that Stamos is a "douche", or that jumping on stage is a douche maneuver.

But unless there is proof or at least some more specifics about what happened, the post does come across like it was written as a crackpot conspiracy theory. As someone else mentioned, how would this have occurred? Would he have had to go pull some cables out of the mixing board, or be in cahoots with someone on the crew? Far from impossible, but it would take a lot of maneuvering.

On the other hand, it's kind of a heavy accusation to make if he didn't know anything more than what the fans know, and he's just assuming. As others have mentioned, it does seem pretty darn coincidental that the one song Stamos sings on stage with the band malfunctioned on the specific night Stamos was in attendance.

As someone else also mentioned, the semi-dig at other band members is intriguing.

Congratulations Beach Boys. Now the dysfunction has spread from you to your fans and now to your backing band members.

What does Ed Carter have to say about all of this?  

Well, considering "Forever" is one of two songs where there COULD have been a malfunction, it's no longer that coincidental. It's just a one in two chance.

I find it a little strange that folks are acting like Stamos ran up from the crowd to steal the thunder on "Forever." He already was supposed to be part of the show that night, just not on that song. It might not have been "within his right" to run out on stage to finish the song, but if it's not, it's pretty confusing that a guy can drum on "Be True To Your School" but not sing when no one else has taken the reins.

Mike's the leader

Not on the C50 he wasn't. Very much a shared deal with Brian.

And Stamos never showed up again on that tour, either ...

Yes, but he showed up in the first place. Which may have been with the agreement of Brian, or at least due to Brian not objecting.

I do recall reading that Stamos withdrawing from the tour was by his own choice. He said he didn't feel welcome, which may have had something to do with his being aware of what fans in places like this were saying about him. It could have been members of Brian's band giving him the stinkeye. I doubt Brian himself said anything, since he's notoriously non-confrontational.

I think C50 was great without Stamos, and it probably would have been great with him too. I find it a little odd that Brian's band members, who have never been part of The Beach Boys any more than Stamos has, should have say whether or not he performs on stage.

Obviously they had a problem with him in one way or another, since Nelson doesn't like him very much. But he's on a Beach Boys album and he's been touring with them for 24 more years than Nelson or any of Brian's band members.

Stamos did a "cover" of "Forever" and knew the words. If there was shenanigans about Dennis' vocals going out, that's pretty crappy. But if he really did jump in when it malfunctioned, then this is much ado about nothing.

I also don't know how he would have forced the vocals to malfunction, unless he ran down to the soundbooth and pulled a cord.

Can anyone summarize what Cowsill said?

Time to move this to the sandbox. I don't drink and find this all exceedingly tedious. Might seem a PITA to some but at least I stay OT.

I'm with AGD.

The C50 Beach Boys sold out one show at Mohegan Sun and played to near capacity the next night. Bruce Springsteen also just played there two nights in a row (both shows sold out).

Nothing wrong with playing casinos.

So, because Brian is recording with other popular artists, it's fair to assume that his new album will sound like the one he recorded 10 years ago, not the ones he recorded six, four, three and two years ago? Some users on this board are so weird.

The new album might suck, and it might be great, but to try to draw similarities between this and GIOMH just because there are other singers on it is a weird, oddly negative stretch.

Yes. Definitely. I don't know how much sway, if any, they had in the band, but I think it's telling that the Beach Boys went from Holland to 15 Big Ones without them. That's a huge stylistic change. Back Home could have used some Blondie and Ricky, for sure.

Why concentrate on the negative - Brian's "favorite" artists, Ocean's rapping, Brian's ghost writer penning a fluff piece (did we expect Brian to attack himself in his "autobiography"?) - and largely ignore Nate Ruess' involvement? Brian comparing Ruess' singing to Carl's is pretty damn high praise.

Carl talks about recording California Dreamin', so I'm guessing this is 1986.

Here's one more Nate Ruess song that I absolutely love. It's pure pop, but it's catchy as hell:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUWOL9r9bwU

In the rolling stone article in mentions a fall release. That's exciting!

It mentions Zooey, Frank Ocean, Lana Del Rey, Kacey Musgraves, Jeff Beck, Nate Reuss from Fun and Don Was all makes appearances.

The last track apparently titled "Last Song" is said to be his last song which Lana Del Rey sings on.

That's really exciting that Nate Ruess will be on the album. I don't love fun., but his previous band The Format had some incredible songs.

This is one of my favorite songs recorded in the last 10 years:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tx1TFg5Wrtc

This one's pretty fantastic too:

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

He has a very unique voice, and it's pretty obvious that he's been heavily influenced by Brian and the Beach Boys.

I know I'm in the grand minority here, but I really don't mind Stamos playing with The Beach Boys. He's been doing it since, what? 1987? And people are still bitching?

The Beach Boys are a serious band, but they're also a fun band. Obviously hardcore Beach Boys fans would rather concentrate on the "serious" aspect, while Mike has continually chosen the "fun (fun fun)" side.

Concerts are supposed to be entertaining, right? Stamos is an entertainer. Casual Beach Boys fans (the great majority of people who attend Beach Boys shows) want to be entertained. And having Stamos dance around the stage is more entertaining than seeing Randall Kirsch standing completely still in his cowboy hat playing bass and singing falsetto. Stamos is the worst musician on stage, obviously, but Mike's an entertainer too, and he wants his audiences to be entertained.

It probably helps that I was a kid when Full House was on, and I loved watching it. But Stamos has legitimate ties to the Beach Boys, he's been playing with them for over 25 years and he makes the band more entertaining for casual fans. Whatever. It's kind of sad how anti Stamos some Beach Boys fans are.

NRBQ is pretty entertaining too. And Terry Adams acts like a total LOON behind the piano (a personal favorite of mine btw), but here's the difference...they're not playing air guitar. They're not aping for the camera. They're playing their ass off. They BELONG there. @#$% Stamos. Put me in that category of BB fan. That's how I feel.

What cameras are Stamos aping for? Local photographers? He's aping for the fans. If Carl Wilson didn't have a problem having him around, I don't mind having him around.

I know I'm in the grand minority here, but I really don't mind Stamos playing with The Beach Boys. He's been doing it since, what? 1987? And people are still bitching?

The Beach Boys are a serious band, but they're also a fun band. Obviously hardcore Beach Boys fans would rather concentrate on the "serious" aspect, while Mike has continually chosen the "fun (fun fun)" side.

Concerts are supposed to be entertaining, right? Stamos is an entertainer. Casual Beach Boys fans (the great majority of people who attend Beach Boys shows) want to be entertained. And having Stamos dance around the stage is more entertaining than seeing Randall Kirsch standing completely still in his cowboy hat playing bass and singing falsetto. Stamos is the worst musician on stage, obviously, but Mike's an entertainer too, and he wants his audiences to leave happy.

It probably helps that I was a kid when Full House was on, and I loved watching it. But Stamos has legitimate ties to the Beach Boys, he's been playing with them for over 25 years and he makes the band more entertaining for casual fans. Whatever. It's kind of sad how anti Stamos some Beach Boys fans are.

But Stamos surely still would have been there if Al had. The point was that no special emphasis was ever going to be placed on the special guests, other than Stamos I guess.

Maybe he would. But how do we know they would have placed no emphasis? From photos put up after the show of Stamos? If it had been something of a reunion then that would have been a bigger deal. David being with the band means nothing to most people sadly.

Clearly it’s a case of “we’ll never know.” But here’s what we do know: Stamos likely would have been there. The setlist was constrained to a shorter length. The other special guest, Dave, was not prominently featured and was given one lead vocal. I feel pretty safe in guessing that, had Al appeared, he would have sang “Rhonda” and perhaps one or two others, and would have also been in the background as Dave was. I don’t think a damn thing would have been different about that show if Al had been there, other than Al being on stage, strumming rhythm guitar (way low in the mix if at all), and singing a few leads. Stamos would have detracted as he always does, only it would have been more ironic and offensive (to some fans) given the rarity of the lineup on stage. I say this less to chastise anyone involved with the show, and more out of irony considering how much acrimony was involved in the lead-up to the show. Al was never going to figure prominently into the show, and I’ve been saying for a while now that my main apathy toward Al joining Mike’s band is that Al would probably not be given a particularly prominent role.

Cmon... There's no way Al would have been pushed to the back if he were at that show. He and Bruce would have been flanking Mike.

I would assume he meant Sloop John B based on watching the videos.

[oh wait, I can! $$$$$$$ > Legacy]

I would think globally there are a lot more people who care about who's on stage - if this is our argument, I could go see a Surf City All-Stars show or even Papa Do Run Run since at any given time SOMEONE in those bands has been onstage or associated with the original Beach Boys.  If they sound as good as the original recordings then what's the difference?  Personally I don't think the Mike Love band sounds like the Beach Boys.  It's Mike with nameless people singing backup but that's just me and I respect what others may think.

The last time I saw Al and his band play there was a LOT of Beach Boys pedigree:

Al Jardine
Billy Hinsche
Bobby Figueroa
Ed Carter
Matt Jardine
Richie Cannata
Dean Torrence

For a fan, that seems like a killer lineup because of the association of many of these being genuine Beach Boys band members.  I guess Mike is the attraction in his show, beyond that, any cover band can play Beach Boys songs and sound good.

I simply can't see (oh wait, I can! $$$$$$$ > Legacy) why Mike kills the reputation of the band more and more and more.  

I would have no problem if he toured as Mike Love of the Beach Boys.

How many people turn up to watch Al and his band perform though? The general public sadly don`t really care that those people had a long history of working with The Beach Boys.

The reputation of the band is set in stone due to the music they created in the 60s. The people who go to see the touring group nowadays, who by and large seem happy if ticket sales are anything to go by, get to listen to the hit songs that they expect and their image of The Beach Boys is unchanged.

If, in the future, there is a Beach Boys group with no original members then it will still change nothing.

And this is where the fan vs. the uninformed fan argument comes into play.  Speaking for myself, I've had probably 30 chances to see "The Beach Boys" since Carl died and I haven't gone once because I know the difference.  I have ZERO interest in seeing Mike and Bruce play in their group because TO ME, they are not "The Beach Boys."  No history with those band members at all.  I know the difference.  Now, when I last saw Al, it wasn't "The Beach Boys" either but it sure looked and sounded better.  I knew those voices and musicians and it felt good to see those guys, some of which had played with the Wilsons and Al since the late 60's.

I agree that the uninformed don't care, they see Mike and think it's 100% legit.   

It seems backwards that you will watch Al Jardine and guys who played with The Beach Boys but not a band that features two members of The Beach Boys.

And this is where age plays a role - as I grew up and went to Beach Boys concerts, the band always had Ed, Billy, Bobby and even Mike Meros.  They to me were as integral to the band as Brian, Carl, Dennis, Al, Mike and Bruce were, not to mention they were in the band for (some of them 20+) years.

I like Mike and Bruce and no one can diminish the contributions both have given to the band prior to Carl passing away but since then, it's become a joke to me.  Fans from the 70's like me remember the band MUCH differently than many of the fans from the 90's to the present.  Seeing Al's band was like seeing the Beach Boys to me.  Mike and Bruce, Mike and Dean, Mike and the Milkshakes, it doesn't matter.  I have seen clips and heard Mike's band but nothing about it seems authentic.

I would choose Al's show over a Mike and Bruce anytime but hey, I've seen the real "Beach Boys" in concert so what does it matter to me anymore?

As a longtime diehard fan, I hate what Mike has done to the name and the reputation of the band.

Younger fans maybe don't understand but for those of us who "got around" we value what the band used to be and it's hard to see Mike......doing what he's doing.

Again, it's a shame for people who cared about the group. 

I felt the same way about Mike's group for a long time. I didn't see The Beach Boys live from 1994 to 2007 -- only Brian. Then I saw Mike's version of the band for free in 2007, and they sounded great. So I've seen them a few more times through the years now, and I'm going again in August. I've warmed up to Mike through the years and I have a lot of fun watching Totten and Cowsill. And I'm really looking forward to seeing Jeff with the band again.

[oh wait, I can! $$$$$$$ > Legacy]

I would think globally there are a lot more people who care about who's on stage - if this is our argument, I could go see a Surf City All-Stars show or even Papa Do Run Run since at any given time SOMEONE in those bands has been onstage or associated with the original Beach Boys.  If they sound as good as the original recordings then what's the difference?  Personally I don't think the Mike Love band sounds like the Beach Boys.  It's Mike with nameless people singing backup but that's just me and I respect what others may think.

The last time I saw Al and his band play there was a LOT of Beach Boys pedigree:

Al Jardine
Billy Hinsche
Bobby Figueroa
Ed Carter
Matt Jardine
Richie Cannata
Dean Torrence

For a fan, that seems like a killer lineup because of the association of many of these being genuine Beach Boys band members.  I guess Mike is the attraction in his show, beyond that, any cover band can play Beach Boys songs and sound good.

I simply can't see (oh wait, I can! $$$$$$$ > Legacy) why Mike kills the reputation of the band more and more and more.  

I would have no problem if he toured as Mike Love of the Beach Boys.

How many people turn up to watch Al and his band perform though? The general public sadly don`t really care that those people had a long history of working with The Beach Boys.

The reputation of the band is set in stone due to the music they created in the 60s. The people who go to see the touring group nowadays, who by and large seem happy if ticket sales are anything to go by, get to listen to the hit songs that they expect and their image of The Beach Boys is unchanged.

If, in the future, there is a Beach Boys group with no original members then it will still change nothing.

And this is where the fan vs. the uninformed fan argument comes into play.  Speaking for myself, I've had probably 30 chances to see "The Beach Boys" since Carl died and I haven't gone once because I know the difference.  I have ZERO interest in seeing Mike and Bruce play in their group because TO ME, they are not "The Beach Boys."  No history with those band members at all.  I know the difference.  Now, when I last saw Al, it wasn't "The Beach Boys" either but it sure looked and sounded better.  I knew those voices and musicians and it felt good to see those guys, some of which had played with the Wilsons and Al since the late 60's.

I agree that the uninformed don't care, they see Mike and think it's 100% legit.   

It seems backwards that you will watch Al Jardine and guys who played with The Beach Boys but not a band that features two members of The Beach Boys.

Yeah, I meant that the best course of action would be doing 30 dates a year with Brian rather than 100 without him. But allowing Brian to play with The Beach Boys whenever he pleases wouldn't work at all.

Bad business practice, cutting your potential income by 70%: everyone loses.

Brian allows him to do this by letting him keep The Beach Boys name.

Like Brian has the final say ? Nope, he has a 25% say. Just so happened Mike & Carl's estate sided with him.

Bad business practice for men in their 70s with enough money to last two or three lifetimes. Most bands in their 70s don't tour at all.

Never said Brian has final say. Brian allows him to keep The Beach Boys name by being one of four votes. Figured everyone on this board knew that and that I didn't have to spell it out every time it's said. I'll never make such a brash decision again.

Dood you missing AGC point #2 -

 2 - the voting in BRI remains the same: four votes, and given that Carl's estate will vote for what brings in an income, the best Brian & Alan can dout is tie 2-2, which isn't enough to change anything.

see Brian still isnt allowing nothing, him and Al could just make a tie and Carls heirs go for the Love Gold 100 dates a yr.

And the larger point is that Brian continues to vote for Mike keeping the name, regardless of whether it will change anything or not. We all agree that he's fine with the status quo.

Do we really know Brian is "fine" with the status quo? That it doesn't still bug him somewhat? Just because somebody goes along with something, and even gets some financial benefits on the side, doesn't mean they're actually happy with it or think that it is "right".

Because Mike has made it abundantly obvious that he will sue and be relentless to get his way… Maybe Brian/Melinda simply don't want to be put through gut-wrenching legal battles that would undoubtedly ensue. I think Mike has created a "don't f*ck with me" vibe with his legal actions (especially the lawsuit during the BWPS era)... And it is crystal clear that Mike will never, ever give up his ability to tour as the band name without a huge fight. It's everything to him. I think that even if Brian and Carl's estate tried to do so (with Al in tow), Mike would be scrambling his lawyers to find out how he could stop that from happening, and he would drag it out legally for as long as he could. Does anyone really doubt that would be the case?

Not to mention, if Brian really wanted to try to start a process to attempt to take the license away from Mike (not that he could do it on his own anyway), Brian would also inadvertently be screwing over his late brother's family from getting a regular paycheck. That would be collateral damage.

Bottom line – I would really doubt that Brian is happy about the current situation, especially after how the reunion ended so bitterly. I just think that it's not worth it to him to go about trying to change it. Why does a 72-year-old man who's gone through emotional hardships in his life need to put himself through any more emotionally tough stuff? Better to just not rock the boat.

Of course, I'm sure Brian and Melinda are fine with cashing the checks too. But lets not fool ourselves into just 100% assuming that Brian is actually actively "happy" about the situation as a whole. He simply let the baby have his bottle. The simple fact is that the alternative is way too emotionally and financially costly. I'll bet that the thought has crossed his mind, and I'd be shocked if he's never had even a brief conversation about it, just discussing hypotheticals at some point post 1998.

I don't know, Brian and Melinda seem to be pretty content with using the Brian Wilson brand over The Beach Boys brand. There's a reason Brian keeps releasing solo albums over Beach Boys albums, and I don't think it's entirely because of Mike's relentlessness to get his way.

Yeah, I meant that the best course of action would be doing 30 dates a year with Brian rather than 100 without him. But allowing Brian to play with The Beach Boys whenever he pleases wouldn't work at all.

Bad business practice, cutting your potential income by 70%: everyone loses.

Brian allows him to do this by letting him keep The Beach Boys name.

Like Brian has the final say ? Nope, he has a 25% say. Just so happened Mike & Carl's estate sided with him.

Bad business practice for men in their 70s with enough money to last two or three lifetimes. Most bands in their 70s don't tour at all.

Never said Brian has final say. Brian allows him to keep The Beach Boys name by being one of four votes. Figured everyone on this board knew that and that I didn't have to spell it out every time it's said. I'll never make such a brash decision again.

Dood you missing AGC point #2 -

 2 - the voting in BRI remains the same: four votes, and given that Carl's estate will vote for what brings in an income, the best Brian & Alan can dout is tie 2-2, which isn't enough to change anything.

see Brian still isnt allowing nothing, him and Al could just make a tie and Carls heirs go for the Love Gold 100 dates a yr.

And the larger point is that Brian continues to vote for Mike keeping the name, regardless of whether it will change anything or not. We all agree that he's fine with the status quo.