He (Mike) could have still probably done the half-ass "Beach Boys" thing with Bruce and tour state fairs and then also have the real group play bigger, more concentrated tours...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Since some of his bandmates found themselves able to do that (the ones who *weren't* family, no less), IMO there seems no good reason to me why ALL of them weren't able to, other than relatively petty things getting in the way.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,
Jon Blum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers,
Jon Blum

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

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

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

Joe Thomas has said he collects several hours of Brian's composing and arranging ideas and then helps assemble them into songs. That might be why it takes so long. It's not as if Brian and Joe are simply sitting at a keyboard and writing a song. It's more piecemeal than that and Joe has to organize it all.

Where was Joe in 1967?  Brian could have done with him back then!  .  He had to wait for Darian to come along in 2004.

A 1967 Joe wouldn't have helped the situation. The mystical power of the mullet wasn't in full bloom yet.

[help]

Please do not twist my words. I'm saying that any musician getting bummed out and/or possibly depressed is a potential factor to consider in how their creative process/ability to write is effected. I speak from personal experience, so I can tell you firsthand that it's not an absurd concept; please check your LOLs and sarcasm at the door. Whether that's truly a piece of THIS particular puzzle is not something that you and I will ever really, truly know, but I don't think it's absurd to speculate that it could be *a* factor.

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

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

Cheers,
Jon Blum

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

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

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

 

[Smile Sessions]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

         

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mike writes a song which doesn't have nor nostalgic fun in the sun lyrics neither references to old BB hits.

WHAT MORE DO YOU PEOPLE WANT FROM HIM?? 

I like the vocal melody. It's one of Mike's better vocal melodies in awhile. The music is pretty ok.

But rhyming "Hare Krishna" with "Gonna miss ya" is NOT cool. It's cringeworthy. And hold back the repeated washes of sitar. Not that I don't like sitar in general, but the manner in which it's used on this tune is just. so. cheesy.

[Another irony in this whole story, is that Mike himself probably felt as though he was being "fired", or at least "demoted", from his position of power in BB-land once the C50 tour got underway.]

As for Brian deserving the reigns of the Beach Boys back as a reward for the hard times he's been through, then perhaps he and his wife should never have voted to give Mike the Beach Boys name rights exclusively, or at least made sure it was only for a certain number of years.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As for Brian deserving the reigns of the Beach Boys back as a reward for the hard times he's been through, then perhaps he and his wife should never have voted to give Mike the Beach Boys name rights exclusively, or at least made sure it was only for a certain number of years.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And what, pray, was stranger than a 52-year-old woman pretending to be Dennis Wilson's 27-year old daughter by stealing the pics of someone 10 years younger and totally unrelated... oh, and also faking many other FB profiles of her "friends", including her mother who conveniently died last week ? That's batshit crazy territory.

Amazing how much that girl (whose pics she apparently hijacked to use) did look like she could be Dennis' kid though.

But man, what a messed up, sick thing to do.

It certainly becomes a head-scratcher when BW is the one living BB (Blondie/Ricky excepted) who doesn't show at Mike's big night.

I applaud Al and Dave for showing up.

My take on it is this: Considering what we know of the circumstances of the end of C50 (which admittedly we don't know all know the full details of), at the very least it can be deduced with a reasonable degree of certainty that the way things went down (with Mike taking control of the BBs name for touring purposes) must've left certain BB members feeling really hurt.

IMHO...

My guess is that Dave was bummed, but not "hurt" in a deep way.

I imagine Al was really truly bummed and had/has some BIG issues with Mike's actions and the way Mike communicated (or didn't). I'm sure there are some big C50-implosion-related hurt feelings/resentment that Al still has against Mike (I'd be shocked if not)... so, it is big of Al to put those issues aside and show up for this event.  Good for Al for being a bigger man and attending a very important event for his bandmate, even if he has some major, major issues with the guy. I'd almost say that Al was taking a cue from what Carl would've done in his shoes under the circumstances.  

Finally, I imagine that Brian felt most hurt by the way things went down at the end of C50. He is/has always been the most emotionally sensitive member of the band, and of all living members besides Mike, Brian surely has always felt the band ultimately was/is his baby at its core... which had to have made him feel all the more butt-hurt by the reunion falling to pieces in the way it did. While we don't all know the full reasons (except some insiders), I imagine Brian would place most of the blame (and the mind-bogglingly ridiculous public way it went down) with Mike.

Therefore, is it really that surprising that Brian would decide not to show up, since Brian surely has (and justifiably so, despite whoever of the usual suspects on this board are gonna refute this) the biggest chip on his shoulder against Mike these days of all living BBs? It sucks that he didn't show up, because it comes off publicly as looking petty, especially since Dave and Al put whatever issues they had aside. But ultimately, I think Brian was/remains hurt, for reasons that I presume are very, very real to him.  

Ultimately, I'm sure Brian has some regret about not going, especially knowing that Al/Dave went, as well as all the kids. But Brian stays away from situations that are really super emotionally awkward for him, such as the 2014 entity unfortunately known as the Fractured Beach Boys.

Basically, I think Brian and Mike are currently at a stalemate, where Brian would probably have come to the event if Mike had reached out and made some apologies to him about C50, etc. Beyond Mike's LA Times article. I really doubt Mike has reached out to Brian and acknowledged damage/pain that Brian probably felt was caused by Mike. And again, to the uber-Mike defenders, whether you guys want to agree that Mike has anything whatsoever in the world to apologize for, that doesn't really matter if Brian (as I presume he does) wants an apology from Mike.

The whole thing is just really f-in sad. It all comes down to the fact that regardless of the musical magic that they were able to create at their peak, the personalities known as Brian Douglas Wilson and Michael Edward Love were really not meant to be together as bandmates in a band (as people, not necessarily musically speaking). They just can't healthily communicate, ultimately want very different things, and those two guys cannot seem to avoid hurting each other, over and over and over again. As a huge fan of this band, it is painful to say that, but ultimately IMHO there ain't no way around it.

Your assumption that the end of C50 was due entirely to Mike's actions is... interesting.

AGD - I wish I had all the info, but as you've said before, hopefully the full story will emerge to the public in due course of time. While it's admittedly futile for me to speculate without all the facts, I still presume that Brian feeling (and remaining to some degree) hurt/resentful by Mike's actions regarding the implosion of C50 (even if other factors/people/BB spouses were ultimately factors as well) was, in all likelihood, a major  factor in why Brian was a no-show at Mike's big night.

And while it sucks and is unfortunate that he didn't go (and is indicative of the dysfunctional relationship these guys have always had and always will have), I can understand and empathize with Brian, and based on the limited, non-insider info that I have, I do not think he's a jerk for not showing. But I do think it's sad, and I do think Brian will (or already has) some regret or mixed feelings about it.
 
That being said, IMO I think that to some degree his no-show is ultimately also a power-play of some sort.  I mean, it's making some sort of a statement one way or another. I'm sure that thought and discussion went into the decision of whether BW would show or not.

It certainly becomes a head-scratcher when BW is the one living BB (Blondie/Ricky excepted) who doesn't show at Mike's big night.

I applaud Al and Dave for showing up.

My take on it is this: Considering what we know of the circumstances of the end of C50 (which admittedly we don't know all know the full details of), at the very least it can be deduced with a reasonable degree of certainty that the way things went down (with Mike taking control of the BBs name for touring purposes) must've left certain BB members feeling really hurt.

IMHO...

My guess is that Dave was bummed, but not "hurt" in a deep way.

I imagine Al was really truly bummed and had/has some BIG issues with Mike's actions and the way Mike communicated (or didn't). I'm sure there are some big C50-implosion-related hurt feelings/resentment that Al still has against Mike (I'd be shocked if not)... so, it is big of Al to put those issues aside and show up for this event.  Good for Al for being a bigger man and attending a very important event for his bandmate, even if he has some major, major issues with the guy. I'd almost say that Al was taking a cue from what Carl would've done in his shoes under the circumstances.  

Finally, I imagine that Brian felt most hurt by the way things went down at the end of C50. He is/has always been the most emotionally sensitive member of the band, and of all living members besides Mike, Brian surely has always felt the band ultimately was/is his baby at its core... which had to have made him feel all the more butt-hurt by the reunion falling to pieces in the way it did. While we don't all know the full reasons (except some insiders), I imagine Brian would place most of the blame (and the mind-bogglingly ridiculous public way it went down) with Mike.

Therefore, is it really that surprising that Brian would decide not to show up, since Brian surely has (and justifiably so, despite whoever of the usual suspects on this board are gonna refute this) the biggest chip on his shoulder against Mike these days of all living BBs? It sucks that he didn't show up, because it comes off publicly as looking petty, especially since Dave and Al put whatever issues they had aside. But ultimately, I think Brian was/remains hurt, for reasons that I presume are very, very real to him.  

Ultimately, I'm sure Brian has some regret about not going, especially knowing that Al/Dave went, as well as all the kids. But Brian stays away from situations that are really super emotionally awkward for him, such as the 2014 entity unfortunately known as the Fractured Beach Boys.

Basically, I think Brian and Mike are currently at a stalemate, where Brian would probably have come to the event if Mike had reached out and made some apologies to him about C50, etc. Beyond Mike's LA Times article. I really doubt Mike has reached out to Brian and acknowledged damage/pain that Brian probably felt was caused by Mike. And again, to the uber-Mike defenders, whether you guys want to agree that Mike has anything whatsoever in the world to apologize for, that doesn't really matter if Brian (as I presume he does) wants an apology from Mike.

The whole thing is just really f-in sad. It all comes down to the fact that regardless of the musical magic that they were able to create at their peak, the personalities known as Brian Douglas Wilson and Michael Edward Love were really not meant to be together as bandmates in a band (as people, not necessarily musically speaking). They just can't healthily communicate, ultimately want very different things, and those two guys cannot seem to avoid hurting each other, over and over and over again. As a huge fan of this band, it is painful to say that, but ultimately IMHO there ain't no way around it.

I don't have cable..so I thought Id catch it at the gym, it's usually on around 11 am when I'm there...and I'm here and the Ellen show is on. Nothing against her, but wtf?

Found this:
http://queenlatifah.com/music/performances/beach-boys-perform-live/

So the song "Pisces Brothers" is now sorta kinda officially-released. But this is very confusing as a fan, and for the BBs brand name: the above linked Queen Latifah site has a video of "The BBs" playing live, but right below the live video, this "Pisces Brothers" track (while we all know is actually a ML solo track in reality), is being released as a ML solo tune, and not a "BB" tune due to the terms of the license, right? Ay carumba, what a hot mess of confusion.

That said, I think it's a good tune.

Don't see how this is a hot mess of confusion...the article clearly states that it's a song written by Mike Love and the soundcloud box clearly shows that it's a solo Mike Love song....and there is no mention of the Beach Boys in the paragraph that talks about this song.

It's just a bizarre situation which is what it is - which is a brand name which is being marketed incredibly inconsistently. And while the soundcloud box states "Mike Love" (as it must, due to the terms of the contract - I'll bet Mike wishes he could release "Pisces Brothers" as a "BB" track if he could), another Queen Latifah video right on that same page has Mike talking about the creation of that very same ML "solo" song with text "Mike Love Beach Boys" as the burned-in text at 0:01 during the interview.

I think anyone who doesn't think this is a hot mess of confusion for average BB fans (non-nerds like us) is fooling themselves. It's just unfortunately a rather ridiculous and confusing situation.

I don't have cable..so I thought Id catch it at the gym, it's usually on around 11 am when I'm there...and I'm here and the Ellen show is on. Nothing against her, but wtf?

Found this:
http://queenlatifah.com/music/performances/beach-boys-perform-live/

So the song "Pisces Brothers" is now sorta kinda officially-released. But this is very confusing as a fan, and for the BBs brand name: the above linked Queen Latifah site has a video of "The BBs" playing live, but right below the live video, this "Pisces Brothers" track is being released as a ML solo tune, and not a "BB" tune due to the terms of the license, right?

Ay carumba, what a hot mess of brand name confusion for any fan visiting that site, who doesn't have the nerdy knowledge that we have on this board.

That said, I think it's a good tune.

Of course we've all read the famous Murry letter in which he basically said Audree raised their sons like they were girls.  The old coot seemed to think that his wife ruined Brian, Dennis and Carl by going too easy on them and not allowing him (Murry) to discipline them as harshly as he'd like.

Amazing the effect that the Great Depression had on men from that era. I knew many a friend's fathers who thought like that, as well as my own.

I wonder if Murry, at any point in his life, ever realized that he'd made some big mistakes as a parent. It did seem he was very quick to blame others.

For all their faults, demons and questionable behavior over the years, one thing has to be said for the Wilson brothers – from my point of view, they seem/seemed to be exceptionally kind, genuine, empathetic, and generous people at their core. Stories I’ve read in books/online and heard firsthand from my friends (closer to the Wilson brothers than I) seem to corroborate my feeling that all 3 of them seem/seemed to have unusually big hearts, and could be more selfless than most other people I’ve ever known. Especially Carl, but I'd apply this to all 3 brothers.

As a simplified view, I imagine the Wilson brothers got their hardworking/motivated streak from their dad, but the deep kindness and “genuinely good person stuff” from their mom.

As Murry messed them up so deeply (despite his warped “good” intentions), I would have to think that Audree Wilson was THE reason for the Wilson brothers’ kindness streak. I have to assume she was a truly, truly special, kind and empathetic person who deeply implanted traits that make people “good people” in her sons. I’m not saying that she (or anyone in the BB universe) is/was a saint, but I would think that she’d had to have been an exceptionally special person herself.

What do we know about Audree as a person/parent as it relates to my question?
I’ve read very little about her.