My goodness, it's going on and on. Brian (okay, he seldomly seems like he knows what's going on) and Al (okay, he's crazy) should know, after being in the business for over 50 years that Mike can't just break the contracts he had signed before the reunion tour. As someone else mentioned in another thread, brian, Al and David certainly won't play those shows without being paid.
I'm really happy to see how happy Brian was/is about being a Beach Boy again. But he (they) should definitely get better attorneys or for a change just talk personally with his bandmate/cousin, of course the same goes for Mike.

Great to see what kind of offers they got (Madison Square Garden? Wow) but what should Mike do? Cancel the shows he and Bruce booked before the Beach Boys tour for playing the Hollywood Bowl instead and leaving the people who bought tickets for the smaller Mike&Bruce show standing in the rain without getting a replacement?

I'm really not a fan of Mike but this time Brian and Al did the wrong thing imo. Of course both of them have every right to play in the Beach Boys and Brian imo is still the boss of the band. But you gotta be realistic in this case. If you want to go out again just talk about it in private and see when the next chance is.

Why do the handfull of "already booked" (which may or may not be accurate) Mike/Bruce shows keep getting brought up as the hindrance to more reunion shows? This "it was out of Mike's hand, he already booked shows, what is he supposed to do, cancel them?" reasoning is not applicable here. Even Brian's "statement" seems to suggest they were made aware of these few bookings, and kind of had the same attitude a lot fans did, which was "oh, hmmm, well, that's kind of cheap and cheesy, but whatever."

The issue seems to be the idea of foregoing more reunion shows. Mike's own "statement" doesn't indicate the whole thing fell apart because he booked a few October gigs. It fell apart because Mike doesn't want to do more reunion shows right now, end of story. He has reasons he doesn't want to, and I think a lot of them are ridiculous, but he has reasons. But ultimately, HE is making those decisions. He is deciding not to work with Brian and Al right now, while Brian and Al want to.

I don't understand why people don't understand that Brian and Al (and many fans) are not making a legal argument here. Yes, contracts were signed, etc, etc.. We all understand that. Brian's "statement", whomever wrote it, correctly points out that the tour was awesome and many feel it should continue. Clearly, Mike didn't just accidentally book a few gigs in October, and then everything fell apart. No, Mike decided early on that he didn't want to have the financial burden of the reunion tour for too long.

Mike could have made more reunion shows happen, and his own statement basically outlines that he is CHOOSING to not do more reunion shows. There aren't ANY contractual reasons indicating that more reunion shows can't happen. Even Mike's statement doesn't claim this.

Again, Brian and Al wanted to continue the reunion. Mike CHOSE not to, for now. Nobody has indicated anything other than Mike's CHOOSING to not do more reunion shows as the reason for those shows not taking place.

I'd just like to quickly add that the same issue that came up with the anti-Mike sentiment regarding touring is true in this case as well. Some fans dislike Stamos, at least his place and participation with the BB's, for actual reasons and can do so without ad hominem attacks and whatnot.

Because someone called Stamos a poopie-face or whatever doesn't mean all BB fans are f*****ed up and impossible to please.

This fan community, for better or worse, isn't much different than any fan community, broken up into every possible category. The trolls, the eccentrics, the analytical types, the types whose politics seem to trump anything they actually feel about whatever they're a fan of, the types with clear agendas and favorites, and so on.

In any event, I also feel that the situation is not the same now, so it doesn't matter much. Al and Mike are no longer on the outs the way they were in 1998. It's frustrating now, because back in 1998 it at least functionally made some sense for Al and Mike to not tour together since there was some sort of falling out at that time. That Al was not in Mike's band may have been a self-fulfilling sort of thing (by that, I mean that Al is edged out, then they have a falling out, and then of course it's even less feasible for them to play together), but it made sense in 1998 or 1999 that these guys had to be apart. Same thing with Brian, he seemed to have next to zero interest in playing with Mike and the Beach Boys in general at that time.
But now there is even less reason for them to be apart, because they established that they can play together and do it well, and have a desire to continue. That's why this "this is how it's been for 14 years business" doesn't make any sense.

Honestly I'm genuinely not sure how you can possibly believe that the last 14years isn't relevant.  Over that time Mike has developed a very successful business out of the touring band and has played with band members who he seems to get on well with. It's clear that Mike enjoys that lifestyle.

It's nice that Mike complimented Al's singing but he did that in the Goldmine interview way back.  It doesn't mean that suddenly all of their issues have disappeared. The band members agreed to put their differences aside for 1 tour but. I think recent events have shown that those differences haven't disappeared.

The reunion was a business decision( as Mike says partly down to the record company). Bringing Al back into the touring band wouldn't make much business sense for Mike as for 14 years they have sold tickets without him. I think it's fairly obvious why Mike would prefer to have Christian on rhythm guitar. Do we honestly believe that Al could tour with Mike in the 'keep the costs down ' mode and not complain?

Oh believe me, I know adding Al to his band would not make any business sense for Mike whatsoever. That's not disputed. I think what some fail to acknowledge is that in a possible scenario where Al would want to join, and Mike was not interested in sharing profits, that would make Mike, in some fans eyes, as a total d**k.

I would also disagree with the idea that Mike "developed" a successful business out of the touring band in the last 14 years. He certainly maintained it, and exploited it, but it was an already-successful, already-established touring enterprise many, many years ago. That enterprise was developed by not only Mike, but also Carl, Al, and during their tenures Dennis and Bruce as well, and to some extend David and Brian as well.

Mike pays for the right to use the name, because the name is what sells the band. I would imagine even Mike would agree with this. His new statement, while eloquent, has a slight tone as if to say he's still there fronting the band because nobody else will step up to do it. That may have been partially or largely correct at various points in the past, but now all the guys are willing to work together with Mike.

Aunt Audrey, eh?

Who could forget loveable Aunt Audrey and tyrannical-yet-heart-o-gold Uncle Murray. Surely the sixth and seventh Beached Buoys, respectively.

(Audrey Farber?)

I for one would have liked to see more mention in Mike's statement of Bruce Johnson and David Marx.

The reunion agreement was a contract. Shows were booked before agreement. Taking full band on the road after reunion tour means not enough money to pay everybody. Band gets pissed because they didn't get paid. Darian, Mikey and the rest can't feed their families. It is a business as much as it is an artistic venture. People need to get real about that side of it.

While it largely doesn't matter, we don't know for sure that Mike/Bruce shows were booked specifically before the "reunion agreement" was even entered into. Mike may have not any non-reunion gigs booked at that point, giving Brian and Al some slight and largely unrealistic hope that Mike might forego his "contractual right" to not do more reunion stuff, and then at some point after Mike confirmed what was his contractual right was, which was to book shows afterward. Again, that doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things, but we just don't know. It only matters if we believe maybe Brian and Al had some reason at some point to be hopeful Mike wouldn't do what he was technically allowed to do.

Further, we don't know the specific finances on either of these tours. "Not logistically or economically feasible" is open to interpretation. Maybe bringing such a band to small venues would mean reduced profits, but profits nonetheless. We don't know that there is or would be literally not enough money to pay band members. More to the point, Mike's statement doesn't address the possibility of any sort of compromise. It makes it sound like the choices are huge band/venues/cities, or small band/venues/cities.

They could maybe strip down the band a bit, maybe agree to smaller but still substantial profits, and a mixture of venue types.

If the reunion tour had a finite end in the agreement, why would Mike cancel shows that were booked for after the reunion end date?

No one (well, as far as I can tell) has really harped on the existing October shows that had already been booked. I have argued they could have been cancelled perhaps, but regardless of that, what do the handfull of "already booked" shows have to do with Mike continuing to book shows? As I've said, if no more bookings pop up, then maybe these "what about the shows he already booked?" arguments will mean something. Otherwise, the issue isn't the small number of already booked shows, it's Mike's likely (which may be proven as definite) intention to continue booking shows and not doing more reunion shows. Will all of his shows be in "small markets?"

A very well stated article by Mike. It explains everything that we have discussed here over the past few weeks. It would be nice if Brian & Al put out a release backing the story. Mike really should not have had to take the heat for this mess. It is amazing that one comment by Brian, picked up by the press, blew this whole thing out of proportion.

Brian's not to blame for the 'sacking' myth.

Brian started the I don't understand why stuff in the CNN article. That touched off everything else. Wasn't blaming Brian, but the press ran with that quote and it got out of control after that.

I don't think anybody in the band can be blamed for the media's laziness and penchant for exaggeration. That's on the media. I think most of them were lazy, and maybe a few knew Brian wasn't truly "fired", but were using extreme hyperbole to characterize a series of events which is nearly comical in how badly it was handled. A press release before the end of the reunion tour telling people you are going to continue touring without 3/5 of the band is not in any universe going to result in any positive reaction.

In any event, if we were to pinpoint where the debacle began from a PR/media standpoint, certainly it was Mike's press release that touched the whole thing off, and then it took off from there.

So Brian did vote originally without pressure or leverage to give Mike an exclusive license? But it took pressure/leverage to make Brian vote the same way again after Al had threatened to sue BRI and tried to renegoiate the terms and operate without a license? I must not be following.

As I said, my assumption is that Brian may well have voted in Mike's favor even without any leverage being used. But the leverage, in this reported/alleged scenario, may have precluded any chance swaying the vote a different way.

In any event, I also feel that the situation is not the same now, so it doesn't matter much. Al and Mike are no longer on the outs the way they were in 1998. It's frustrating now, because back in 1998 it at least functionally made some sense for Al and Mike to not tour together since there was some sort of falling out at that time. That Al was not in Mike's band may have been a self-fulfilling sort of thing (by that, I mean that Al is edged out, then they have a falling out, and then of course it's even less feasible for them to play together), but it made sense in 1998 or 1999 that these guys had to be apart. Same thing with Brian, he seemed to have next to zero interest in playing with Mike and the Beach Boys in general at that time.

But now there is even less reason for them to be apart, because they established that they can play together and do it well, and have a desire to continue. That's why this "this is how it's been for 14 years business" doesn't make any sense.

Well, what is Mike supposed to say if he or the other members have no idea yet whether they are going to again next year. We have to be realistic here. Let him and the band address one issue at a time.

It does indeed sound like things are up in the air. But we may not be looking at a 50/50 situation here in terms of whether the reunion will continue. I think perhaps part of the disconnect among the band members may have stemmed from Brian and/or Al feeling it was kind of 50/50 at least during the tour, or "let's wait and see", while Mike's statement doesn't read like a "maybe/maybe not", it basically reads as though things are going back to the way they were, period. The only way in which his statement was not totally unequivocal in terms of his permanently going back to his own band is if you feel that not specifically stating "the reunion lineup will never come together again" constitutes any sort of 50/50, "we're just not sure" situation. I don't read it that way, and it sounds like Al and Brian didn't read it that way.

You mean something nefarious like blackmail or death threat or Brian's wife didn't want Al to have the license.

If it were true that there was that level of secret leverage why did Brian go along with taking back Mike's exclusive license to try to give Al a license of his own?

I'm talking about the later, presumably ultimate vote that ended with Mike having the exclusive license he has today. At some point, he was granted that, and presumably/supposedly/allegedly, Al did not vote in favor of it.

And no, I'm not saying nor have I ever said there were neferious death threats or anything along those lines.

True, no one said they couldn't. Just not for these shows here in 2012 that were already booked pre-reunion.

I think this is part of where Mike's new statement is maybe technically correct, but misses what is probably really going on. He mentions that Brian and Al should not have been surprised about non-reunion shows. I think what Brian and Al were maybe surprised by was not announcement of some October dates, but a perceived more definitive statement that indicated only non-reunion shows for the foreseeable future. Also, I think Brian and Al's statements were meant more to build public momentum towards helping Mike realize he should do more reunion stuff.

Time will tell us for sure, but I don't think all of this is down to Mike having a few October gigs. He has made it pretty clear that his own version of the band is now what we'll get unless or until we hear otherwise. That's different than just having to do a few pre-arranged October gigs.

Things were different in 1998, its time for the reunited group to stay and this divided group crap to end. Who honestly only wants to see the M&B band tour smaller venues, its time for the BBs name to have full meaning again. A late career rebirth is rare and the full BBs were doing it.

This is one of my main feelings in all of this. Things have changed. This continued assertion that "we've been doing this for 14 years this way" means it should go back to that ignores the fact that the reunion was may more successful than anybody, including apparently some or all of the band, thought it would.

As I've said before, in a strange way I have to give Mike kudos for doing the reunion knowing (or he should have known anyway) that his own "version" of the band would be viewed with different eyes by fans and the masses and media if or when the reunion ended and he went back to his band.

We don't know Mike personally, but it seems he often has to quantify success with numbers, either sales, or chart placement, or placement on some sort of poll, or revenue, or something along those lines, as opposed to just his own gut feeling or purely reviews. This is why he always has to remind us about how the BB's are big on oldies radio, or beat the Beatles in the NME poll, and why he never will just actively, unprompted tell you that "Let Us Go On This Way" or something is an awesome song. I personally believe this is a big part of why the reunion is not continuing. For all the amazing press and reviews it got, it probably made him less money, and it appears that part of the way his brain is wired tells him that that is not as successful. This is the more kind interpretation, as opposed to it being pure, rolling-around-in-piles-of-money-and-gold-jewelry greed.

You mean like Brian wanted Mike to have the license and didn't want Al to have the license?

If an "exclusive" license is what was ultimately voted on, then that would by its definition preclude Al from any such license. As I've heard it, and apologies for being cryptic, Brian voting for Mike to have that license had nothing to do with Al. Brian may well have voted for Mike to have an exclusive license even if there had been no other factor than choosing who he liked more, I dunno. But Brian had an extra incentive to vote the way he did due to additional leverage that was allegedly weighing against him. None of that matters anymore, of course.

Let's see what happens when these contractually obligated previously committed shows are over. Some of you might be very pleasantly surprised by what may happen after...

This is what I've been thinking for several days now...I'd love an announcement of a tour and album sometime in the spring of 2013.  It'd be like the happy, joyous feeling of last winter's reunion announcements all over again

I hope you both are right. I fear otherwise, only because we've seen supposedly an April 2013 booking which certainly doesn't look like a "reunion" booking. Obviously, they could still start a reunion tour in May or June, etc.

I think we keep forgetting that the Reunion was the exception and not the rule. "The Beach Boys" have gone back to what they have been for the last 15 years. The Reunion was the separate agreement, not Mike's licensing of the name.

It has been that way for 14 years, but I don't think the state of the band for the previous 14 years matters in light of this year's developments.

Of course it matters, they signed a separate agreement to do the reunion tour. A one off agreement for 50 shows that had to be amended to add 25 more. Notice "Argeement", "Amendments", in other words, contracts.

Mike having toured that way for the past 14 years doesn't preclude them from doing 10, 50, 100, or 1,000 more reunion shows, as evidenced by the reunion tour agreement they signed. So, to me, stating that it's going back to the way it was for 14 years doesn't mean anything in terms of whether more reunion shows could or should happen.

If Mike gets the majority of BRI to vote for him to have an exclusive license...

And exactly how, pray, did he 'get' Brian (and by 'Brian' of course, we mean Melinda) & Carl's estate to side with him ? Hearts & flowers ? A hissy fit ? Threats ? The vote for the so-called 'Love license' was free and based on the merits of the terms thereof. Either party could have voted against or abstained. Fact is, they didn't.

Yes, which is why I've always said Brian and Carl's estate deserve the blame, *if* one feels blame is to be had, for siding with Mike over Al on that issue.

Seperately, it is worth pointing out that there was leverage allegedly being asserted when those votes took place. They could have voted anyway they wanted, but I've heard that Brian's vote for Mike back then to have the exclusive license had to do with more than simply wanting profits from Mike's tours or liking Mike's license proposal more than Al's.

The whole statement is indeed much more elegant than the press release, that I appreciate. But it indeed doesn't really change much of the basic assertions that have been put forth in at least the discussions/debates I've been reading in the past weeks. Some interesting points about Mike's piece:

Mike doesn't refute and in fact confirms that Brian and Al wanted to do more live shows, and Mike did not. I know a few people were still doubting this, despite Jon Stebbins mentioning it.

This part of Mike's statement is interesting:

It is not feasible, both logistically and economically, for the 50th anniversary tour to play these markets. It’s vitally important for the smaller markets to experience our live shows, as this is how we’ve maintained a loyal fan base for 50 years. You can’t sustain a fan base on a great catalog alone. You must take your music directly to the people.

I would agree that these venues would not sustain the large 50th tour. But the rest of this is nonsense in my opinion. The Beach Boys CAN stand on their catalog alone, certainly at this point. I would agree that having a touring BB's does keep the name alive and whatnot, but that doesn't mean 100+ shows every year. If the BB's play Dallas and don't play Waco, if they play New Orleans but don't play Biloxi, their fan base will be just fine.

Many other bands, of less stature, sales, fame, etc. than the Beach Boys, sustain nice fan bases with MUCH less touring, sometimes with several years between touring.

Mike is framing the "small market" gigs as some sort of altrustic venture for fans. I don't believe it. It's a nice fringe benefit, but he plays the gigs because he makes money. I applaud Mike's new statement as it is much more eloquent. But I wish he would have also been honest and also stated that profit is a much motive in this as well. He admitted this in past interviews, including the one from the 90's where he literally said he hears the ringing of a cash register when he plays the old hits.

The fact that he mentioned that it was not economically feasible, means that there is less income to be made. 

True, I suppose. But he tries very hard to totally soften this by suggesting the smaller gigs are about bringing music to fans as opposed to making money. If the next sentence had been "These smaller markets are vital, because I can make more money", then that would make sense and be 100% truthful.

I think we keep forgetting that the Reunion was the exception and not the rule. "The Beach Boys" have gone back to what they have been for the last 15 years. The Reunion was the separate agreement, not Mike's licensing of the name.

It has been that way for 14 years, but I don't think the state of the band for the previous 14 years matters in light of this year's developments.

OSD, remember: Mike can no more let Al go from the Beach Boys then Al can let Mike or Brian go from the Beach Boys.

If Mike gets the majority of BRI to vote for him to have an exclusive license, and Al disagrees because he wants to be in the touring Beach Boys, then that is Mike (and the other voters) keeping Al from being in "The Beach Boys." It may not be "letting go" or "firing", but certainly in the past Mike was happy with the license situation in which he was in the band and Al was not in the band, and Al did not like this particular license situation.

Agreed, it should have come out earlier but probably with the demands of being on the road there wasn't time at that time.
And, as to how it presents the individual here, perhaps sometimes with age comes insight and better perspective.

Why should Mike have to explain it at all, he told the truth. I think what you guys meant to say is why have Brian and Al NOT explained this, why did they allow and even encourage the untruth to stand?

Because they want the reunion lineup to persist. Even in this lovely piece, Mike doesn't quite commit to that.

Exactly. I think Mike is to some degree hiding behind this defence that implies he is touring to bring his tour to small markets, and Brian, Al, and David just want to play big cities. First of all, I think some compromise can be had on this issue. More importantly, I disagree with the premise that numerous small markets have to played every year to keep the fan base going. That's ridiculous.

Nice reflection by Mike.  

But I still think, if he is sincere about how great Al Jardine is, he would try to facilitate a way to  include Al  in the Bruce/Mike lineup.    That has been the real sticking point for me, and I think a lot of other fans, for the past 14 years.
Brian and David have rarely  been with the touring act since the 60's.  

Yes, the Al issue has not been addressed for some time. While Al seemed to be clear about not saying flattering things about Mike's band in the first several years after Carl's death, it hasn't seemed to be a very subtle pining from Al in more recent years to be in the BB's. I think he highly prefers to have the full reunion lineup, but nobody including Al or Mike has addressed having Al in the current band.

I appreciate that Mike clears up the idea that the big reunion tour is too expensive to do smaller markets. But he still seems to couch it in an all-or-nothing ideal that it's either the huge 50th reunion operation in large venues and cities, or his Mike/Bruce lineup. What about having Al and/or David in the band? What about taking a year or two off from longer tours with smaller venues and play big venues that promoters are offering?

Be fascinating to see how this is received in the Land of Bloo.

Seriously, I don't read that board, ever. I stopped reading it in probably 2000 or so. Why does it matter what they say? Why has that board become this new sort of straw man representing anti-Mike sentiment? The people on this board that take issue with Mike seem to do so largely with well thought-out logic (as do most of those who support Mike's positions more), not with the weird disposition of the people on some other board.

The whole statement is indeed much more elegant than the press release, that I appreciate. But it indeed doesn't really change much of the basic assertions that have been put forth in at least the discussions/debates I've been reading in the past weeks. Some interesting points about Mike's piece:

Mike doesn't refute and in fact confirms that Brian and Al wanted to do more live shows, and Mike did not. I know a few people were still doubting this, despite Jon Stebbins mentioning it.

This part of Mike's statement is interesting:

It is not feasible, both logistically and economically, for the 50th anniversary tour to play these markets. It’s vitally important for the smaller markets to experience our live shows, as this is how we’ve maintained a loyal fan base for 50 years. You can’t sustain a fan base on a great catalog alone. You must take your music directly to the people.

I would agree that these venues would not sustain the large 50th tour. But the rest of this is nonsense in my opinion. The Beach Boys CAN stand on their catalog alone, certainly at this point. I would agree that having a touring BB's does keep the name alive and whatnot, but that doesn't mean 100+ shows every year. If the BB's play Dallas and don't play Waco, if they play New Orleans but don't play Biloxi, their fan base will be just fine.

Many other bands, of less stature, sales, fame, etc. than the Beach Boys, sustain nice fan bases with MUCH less touring, sometimes with several years between touring.

Mike is framing the "small market" gigs as some sort of altruistic venture for fans. I don't believe it. It's a nice fringe benefit, but he plays the gigs because he makes money. I applaud Mike's new statement as it is much more eloquent. But I wish he would have also been honest and also stated that profit is a motive in this as well. He admitted this in past interviews, including the one from the 90's where he literally said he hears the ringing of a cash register when he plays the old hits.

Mike Love's speech that night is the best thing to ever happen to the R&R Hall of Fame.

It was a thing of beauty

Mike's speech was awesome. He didn't do it for the same reasons as I would like, but the end result is still highly entertaining. He seemed to be doing it more in an egotistical, whiney, slightly out-of-it way, as opposed to a really hardline fashion meant to just tell the R&R HOF that they suck. He was telling some of the artists they suck more than saying the R&R HOF sucks.

My number one hope/wish is for as complete of a concert as possible, just purely the most total songs, uninterrupted, even if they have to throw in some inane fan interviews or crowd shots too. Beyond that, I would hope we get as many of the more "interesting" songs as possible.

My fear is that even if we get a good amount of songs, say 40 or so, they are obviously more likely to include "Surfin' Safari" than "Pet Sounds" or "All This Is That."

I also hope the actual shots and editing of whatever concert footage is present is restrained enough. No quick shots and rapid editing.