I have a boot somewhere of "Still I Dream Of It" that has a MUCH cleaner and sonically better (closer generation to the master?) version than what was released on the IJWMFTT CD!  I think Dumb Angel has a version on there that's better than the released. Or maybe it's on the "Still I Dream Of It" Japanese CD - can't remember.Hard to believe they couldn't find a better version for release. One instance where the boot is better!

Yep, the circulating version of that demo session sounds much better than the one track used in the IJWMFTT soundtrack. The demo session sounds like it was professionally recorded, very well possibly in an actual studio (with in-line vocal and piano mics; in other words, it's not like a cassette deck just set on top of a piano at home). The entire demo session deserves to be released. Sure, there is some slight dreck ("Mona", "Love is a Woman"), but the demos of "Still I Dream of It" and "It's Over Now" are great, and hearing the bystanders (Mike at least is audible; some of his comments are very interesting) in awe of stuff like "Airplane", "I'll Bet He's Nice", and "Let's Put Our Hearts Together" is great.

The one track on the IJWMFTT soundtrack sounds so inferior that I actually wouldn't be surprised if they actually purposely made it sound worse to make it sound more like a scratchy "home demo." Pure conjecture of course, but it literally sounds like the higher quality tape if you dubbed it to cassette about five generations down.

No-one noticed that all three versions are available on CD if you get the Japanese CD release [which has 2 of them]?

The Japanese CD release has the "download" version as well as a very slightly alternate mix of that same "download" version (main difference being Al's vocal being removed from the bit after the quick little guitar "solo", making it a longer instrumental passage). The Japanese CD is indeed the only way to get the "Download" version in CD quality.

It seems unclear as to whether the US release of "Live in Concert" will include the second disc. Amazon shows the blu-ray as having only one disc, although their item details can often be incorrect. It's of little concern to those of us who bought it already I suppose.

It's an outrage - what about Mike, Bruce & David ?  How selfish of Brian & Alan to exclude the others.

They playin' this show as "The Beach Boys"? They aren't? Oh.

False equivalency.

Exactly, thank you. I'm not sure why Brian or Al or anybody doing solo gigs or appearing as "themselves" is being compared to Mike and Bruce specifically deciding not to do more shows with the rest of the BB's, while continuing to use the "Beach Boys" name.

We'll have to wait for the final product, but *if* the actual full content is like that trailer, then it is indeed unfortunately very similar to McCartney DVD's and other concert productions that emphasize quick cuts, tilted shots, crane shots, and most annoying of all copious amounts of awkward audience shots.

You don't have to sell us on how much the audience likes the Beach Boys! We bought the DVD, we like them too! 

Just finished watching this. Not bad, could have been worse. I'd actually love to just hear (most of) these participants talk at greater length, even without any musical bits.

The thing pretty much stops at 1977/78, then rushes through post-1978 in the last 10 or so minutes. I would have liked to see them discuss the early 80's period a little more, even aside from songwriting.

Funny how they are able to work a bit of actual original music in, including somehow "Life is for the Living", which is at least one item that they had to have pulled off of boots.

They are refreshingly frank about opinions on the albums, although I think in bashing "MIU" (rightly so, largely), I thought for sure they'd take a moment to point out and discuss "My Diane."

The discussion of "Love You" is appropriately confused in terms of what we're all supposed to think about it.

It seems like this is less a full "music video" for the song, and more a 2 minute PSA featuring some of the song. It's not just Carl's part that's edited out, the whole song is nearly cut in half.

I doubt someone cut Carl's part out of spite or anything, they simply edited the song down to fit the 2 minute PSA, probably emphasizing the chorus for more impact for the PSA.

Surely the sensible thing to do -- given that Capitol is releasing a live album -- is to release a two-disc DVD / blu ray set. One disc would have the documentary, the other would have a full (preferably RAH) concert. That would be the definitive release, and I'd have to think they're seriously considering it.

I mean, think of all of the previous BW DVDs (with the exception of On Tour). They all -- PS Live, BWPS and TLOS live -- have a full-length documentary, then a separate program of the full show.

This would make sense. I just wonder if they really intend on releasing a Blu-ray/DVD titled "Live in Concert", and still plan to follow that up with a more extensive concert release.

The main thing about the RAH that gives me a tiny bit of hope is that I can't think of any other reason they would have run through all 61 songs they had played at some point previously on the tour. I would think the only reason to do that (other than as just a cool tour ending) would be to make sure they had documented on video (and audio of course) every song played on the tour in order to at least have the ability to release it.

And, stepping back, I looked at C50 as a "window" of time, finite in design, and not a "door" to a permanent state of affairs.  And they would all go back to "status quo ante" after the window of performances.  I saw no slamming doors.  It was clear and unambiguous. 

I think the evidence suggests, whether warranted or justified, it was not clear and unambigous to a lot of people, both inside and outside of the band. Howie Edelson mentioned he asked around about what would happen after the tour, and the response seemed to be very much ambiguity.

That's always how I looked at "C50." I remember thinking before it started that it would be interesting to see what would happen after the scheduled tour dates, both in terms of what was "likely" to happen, versus "possible", versus what I or any fan would want to happen.

What is kind of strange about this is how left-field it seems. Actually, if Brian's people hadn't posted that rehearsal picture to facebook, we wouldn't have even found out until like a day after the damn thing actually happened.

To me it makes Brian and Al's post-C50 responses seem even more BS-ey. Maybe its just me.

I think it might be.

Once someone takes the ball and goes home so to speak, whatever anyone else does in reaction to that is just that, a reaction.

[everybody]

Jude is passionate about the band (as I am) but there comes a time when you gotta throw in the towel and say, "They're gonna do what they wanna do and we can't do anything about it".

Oh every single one of us is passionate about the band and I completely understand how this subject can get people revved up.  This place is meant for us to discuss these things for as long as we want but how many more different threads do people want to drag the conversation back to all this again?  People are regurgitating the same stuff as if trying to "win" an argument or "convert" people to help people finally "get it" and see things their way.  In my book, everybody is right regarding this subject.  But at the end of the day: we can't do a damn thing about the situation.

Like you said, at one point you have to throw in the towel and accept that at the end of these "discussions" there is nothing but a dead end.  A big, tall dead end. 

I will grant that the whole discussion has and continues to be beaten to death. But it's on-topic, and that's what discussion boards are supposed to be. I can only speak for myself, but I'm not frustrated or irate or anything of that nature, I'm enjoying the (sometimes) evolving discussion. But if everybody's done, then the discussion will die out. No problems as far as I'm concerned. 

I find numerous posts discussing solely how *other* posts are clogging up the board to be kind of ironic. Then the "this discussion is going nowhere" posts start taking up space and adding to the monotony. 

There's nothing wrong with what Brian is doing in resuming his solo career. He's been doing that for years and Mike has been doing his thing for years, with Brian's full permission via Brian's vote in BRI.  It's going to be okay.  

 The objection is to Mike putting the brakes on more reunion gigs.

It has NEVER been a reunion! Everybody else has called it that. It has been billed from day one as a 'Celebration'.

No reunion, no putting the breaks on it. The Celebration had a start date and an end date which all, including Mike, took the breaks off, and extended.

Its simple really and has been explained so many times over countless pages on a dozen threads even a tool like me can understand it!

Well, first of all I usually use the term "reunion" to easily reference the pre-October lineup. Gee, why can't we just call the band that toured this summer "The Beach Boys" when discussing all of this? Oh yeah, that's because Mike uses the name for an alternate lineup......

More to the point, this is actually the first I've heard of this new tact in this debate of simply redefining what a "reunion" is, thus creating the illusion that all of a sudden, no reunion ever took place! That is a creative way of doing it.

The band has said in interviews they were "reuniting. " I suppose the actual tour program didn't state "Beach Boys Reunion", but to simply redefine this as clearly a "celebration" rather than a "reunion" is ridiculous. Under that reasoning, anybody on any stage could be "celebrating" the Beach Boys.

I don't want to assume anything about what anyone out there knows about Stamos as a musician, but this isn't just a case of Stamos being a good musician, and fans being annoyed because he was the dude on Full House, or because he brown-noses Mike, or because he has an annoying stage presence. All those things are true, but he really seems to be a mediocre (at best) musician from the examples I've seen and heard. He plays guitar and drums as a hobby, not a profession. He does BB gigs for some extra attention and a taste of being a rockstar. Whether you watch him doodle on Full House or at BB gigs over the years, he just isn't a particuarly good musician, not up to par to any musician I can think of that has played in any BB touring lineup.

I wish I could dig up an interview David Marks did around 1999 or 2000 or so where he was asked about Stamos, and I recall that David was trying to be polite and diplomatic. I think he referenced something to the effect that Stamos may have the ability to be a good musician, but he just doesn't practice or hone his craft the way an actual professional musican does, most likely because his profession is apparently acting.

You Boys will have to get over it because who or what is the Beach Boys ain't our call.

Nobody ever said it was "our" call. 

Pointing out the irony or whatever one wants to point out of Mike using the name is not the same as "not getting over it."

It is funny, though, that, as I've mentioned before, Mike has taken some BB fans on an interesting rollercoaster. Some fans intensely disagreed with him using the name after 1998, but then by 2011 many had accepted it or tolerated it or learned to block it out, etc. Then Mike amazingly got himself in the good graces of a lot crusty, curmugeonly, cynical BB fans doing this tour..... and now it's all undone. It really is fascinating, and I don't even mean that in a sarcastic or hyperbolic way.

There's nothing wrong with what Brian is doing in resuming his solo career. He's been doing that for years and Mike has been doing his thing for years, with Brian's full permission via Brian's vote in BRI.  It's going to be okay. 

Nobody as far as I can tell has ever claimed Brian didn't give permission to Mike to use the BB name. The objection is to Mike putting the brakes on more reunion gigs.

Everything will indeed be okay, we as fans will all obviously survive whatever ends up happening with this debacle. But if no more reunion gigs happen, it won't negate the fact that that is a bummer.

Whew, it's a good thing Mike didn't comply with Brian's wish and call him to join The Beach Boys on stage tonight....

Um, yeah, I guess Brian should stay home forever just to prove that Mike broke up the reunion.  

Also, I don't think Brian's idea of keeping the reunion going was ever simply jumping on stage with Mike's band. That's one of the reasons the reunion shows were so amazing, it was the entire band blowing us away night after night.

It's completely false logic to use a solo Brian gig to, what, prove Brian has made the whole thing up and never wanted the reunion to continue?

Sheriff, I don't think Brian's solo career is the reason why he resisted a reunion for so long - perhaps it had something to do with the fact that the last time he tried getting together with them, in 1995, they shot down the music he wanted to do with them.  And obviously that was far from the first time.  Why subject himself to that again by asking them to do Imagination/GIOMH/whatever?

You're right, it IS all about Brian Wilson - he's the only member with the creative juice left to use on the Beach Boys, so before doing the reunion he needed assurance that the Boys would let him take creative control and not question his creative direction like they had done so many times before.

Chris (or anybody), correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't it ONLY Carl who was not happy with the material in 1995, and Carl's subsequent "walking out" killed the project? I never heard/read that any of the other guys objected.

As far as your second paragraph, I agree with you agreeing with me. However, if Brian could demand and get creative control in 2012, I see no reason why he couldn't get the same assurances in the entire 1998-2011 period. Mike left the door open a long time ago, not just for this 2012 reunion.

I would first of all argue whether Mike was as enthusiastic about a *full* reunion in the last decade or more as Brian is now. Mike often spoke of "working with Brian" or having Brian sit in with "his" band, but as I mentioned in another post, Mike barely mentioned Al's name between 1998 and 2006 or so.

But the literal functionality of a reunion is also what is frustrating some fans. Mike vaguely wanting to "work with Brian" a decade ago and Brian waffling or not wanting to is not the same thing as the reunion band in 2012 being rehearsed, ready to go, 74 shows under its belt, rave reviews, entire inftrastructure planned out, and then Mike putting the brakes on it. That's very different from Brian saying in 1999 "Meh, I think I'll do solo stuff right now" in the face of the prospect of maybe only joining Mike's touring band featuring Bruce, Adrian Baker, Chris Farmer, Phil Bardowell, etc.

Wow, it really turned that quickly into a "Seeeeeeeee???  Brian's doing it too!"

No, Brian doing solo gigs isn't the same thing at all. First of all, it sounds like Brian wanted to do more reunion gigs and may not have even been able to do this gig if the reunion had kept going. Brian wanted more reunion gigs, Mike did not. So no, this isn' t the same at all.

Oh yeah, and there's the little extra bit of info concerning that fact that Brian isn't calling his band "The Beach Boys."

Mike is doing his gigs as "The Beach Boys", and is doing so at the exclusion of more reunion gigs. Brian is doing a solo gig, and we don't even know when he agreed to the gig.

So if Brian or Al or David, who all wanted to do more reunion gigs, now go do some solo or alternate gigs instead of staying home and being the "old man yelling at a cloud", that isn't anything like what Mike has done. Sorry, not even close. If Brian had secretly planned to also ditch the reunion and do solo gigs only, I'm sure one of Mike's "clarification" statments would have informed us of this fact.

So through all of this I haven't seen anybody ask this question--what the freak is wrong with Bruce Johnston?  Why does he continue to hitch his wagon to Mike Love, especially now? I mean, I guess we have figured out why Love does it.  But why Johnston?  He is independently the wealthiest of them all.  Does he not see the forest for the trees?  What is really in this for him to continue to choose Love over Brian and Jardine? 

Bruce kinda had nowhere to go, BB-wise anyway, after it all splintered in 1998. He either had to retire or stay on with Mike. If the various stories about David Marks being integrated into the band in 1997 are any indication, there was also a legal and/or PR motivation to have any other "actual" BB's in the band once Carl and Al were gone from the band. Hence, we eventually got the "Bruce has been touring with the Beach Boys longer than Carl Wilson or Al Jardine" comments from some fans.

I also fail to see how Mike and Bruce going out under the same name is okay if the idea here is to go out on a high note. That can't happen when a 2/5 Beach Boys lineup resumes touring under the same name 48 hours after your ideal "high note" of the end of the tour.

I think because they go out under the radar it is a very different thing. Same name but different expectations.

This is definitely where it does indeed quickly devolve into the same debates fans had circa 1998/99. How much is using the BB name about the principle of it, how much is about the spirit of the music/group, and how much is about the functionality of it? Fans clearly differ on these and other similar points.

Going out with a different reunion lineup and calling it "The Beach Boys" clearly caused Mike a few hiccups in going back to using the name. That tells me the problem isn't just "perception" from fans or observers, but also a flaw in the logic that tells him using the same name isn't inherently just kind of odd.

But if we're trying to get this rosey end of the BB's story, stopping the reunion but continuing the Mike/Bruce show doesn't make sense to me. If some BB scholar writes a detailed book on the group 25 years from now, a rosey end for their story is not that they went out on a high note with the reunion band, but then Mike continued to use the name for x additional number of years with his "different" lineup that had "different" expectations. The hardcore fans know the deal with the various lineups, but most don't, and that usually is to Mike's benefit. Unfortunately, in light of the high successful reunion, that lack of knowledge is working against him just a bit a present. I doubt he's very concerned, though.

The whole idea of these guys all being on the exact same page is pretty new, so it's that aspect of it that makes Mike the apparent bigger bad guy in this scenario.

Sorry but if Mike doesn`t want to tour with the other guys then that in itself doesn`t make him a bad guy at all. Disappointing maybe but he has a right to not do things that he doesn`t want to do. For example, all of the Monty Python guys at one point agreed to a reunion but Michael Palin was the one who refused. That didn`t and doesn`t make him a bad guy.

Now because Mike wants to continue going out as `The Beach Boys` that does complicate the issue. But for you to suggest that the last 14 years is irrelevant is lunacy. It`s evident that all of the band members knew the score from the start. They would go out for one final time to celebrate the 50th anniversary (Al`s comment cannot seriously be interpreted in any other way) and then things would revert to normal. Everybody, and certainly the members of BRI, knew about the M&B gigs from the beginning. Now if Mike had thought that the reunion would put an end to his other touring forever then I don`t think there is any way he would have agreed to it and certainly not in the way that it was done. Compromise was made by both Brian`s and Mike`s people for this tour but 90% of it was by Mike`s. That was doubtless because it was seen as a one time only thing.

I think the biggest issue with the reunited BBs was always going to be personal stuff between the band members or their management. We now know that there are still issues there and we were lucky that they got through the tour without it becoming detrimental. If it were to end now then it wouldn`t be the worst thing.

I guess we can just really parse things here. I mentioned the "apparent bad guy", because I know some people don't mind that he's stopping more reunion activities. If one is bummed about that, Mike is the "bad guy" in the most generic sense of the term, meaning he's the cause of what some people are unhappy about.

I also disagree about the band "knowing the score" from the outset. It seems pretty obvious that they didn't, at least not all of them. Why that is and how ridiculous that may be is a seperate discussion. But the fact that they added shows does indicate that the default plan for after the booked reunion shows was able to be changed.

The few semi-"insider" comments we've heard from Howie Edelson and Jon Stebbins suggest that they did not all "know the score." Can I go so far as to say that Brian and/or Al were being too optimistic about more reunion stuff, and Mike kind of stayed silent or vague about his plans even though he knew they would want to continue and he didn't? We don't have enough even circumstantial evidence to assert that theory I suppose, but clearly they were not all on the same page. For that, they are probably all to blame.

I think you guys are just plain giving Andrew too much credit. He is only arguing in defense of the Love/Johnston scheme because he's buddies with Bruce. There really isn't any rationale beyond that. Just like during a divorce, usually the husbands' friends agree with the husband, and the wives friends agree with the wife. That's why Andrew is so behind ending this thing. It's obvious.

Aside from insulting all those who agree with me off their own bat - which is all of them - if you truly believe what you've written then you're an even bigger fool than I've always assumed you are.  

BTW, I'm in complete agreement with the view that The Beach Boys (2012) are something better than Mike's, Brian's or Alan's bands. I just can't see a hypothetical BB (2013) sustaining, or even approaching, such heights.

I think some are feeling that, A) It's not out of the question that they could sustain such heights, and more importantly, B) Why does it have to reach or surprass 2012 to still be really good?

I also fail to see how Mike and Bruce going out under the same name is okay if the idea here is to go out on a high note. That can't happen when a 2/5 Beach Boys lineup resumes touring under the same name 48 hours after your ideal "high note" of the end of the tour.

I don't understand why people keep overlooking the fact that Brian voted for Mike to get the naming rights in the first place.  He also gave public statements in support of Mike against Al when the lawsuits were going.  If Brian hadn't have done that, none of this would be happening now.  I don't blame Mike for wanting to keep touring with his own outfit, since Brian gave him permission to years ago.  If Brian had any thought of wanting to reunite, he either shouldn't have voted for Mike or at least he should have put an expiration date on that license so they could revisit the issue every few years.

I think this is really stretching it. How would Brian, in 1998 or 1999, know that in 2011 he would finally feel like reuniting?

That being said, yes, Brian definitely has to live with his decision to vote for Mike to have the license. I think Brian's reasoning for allowing Mike to have the license are pretty passive; he never wanted to use the name, so it was probably an easy decision for him to make.

Now, assuming Mike didn't somehow wrestle a unrevokable license, we will indeed find out if they want to examine Mike's license again and make any alternate decisions. I highly doubt it, again because especially once the reunion is clearly not salvageable, they will all go back to being relatively passive about it; resigned to it.

Isn't there footage of Al in one of the Do It Again little vids saying "We've reunited for this one last time"?

Damn these guys are confusing.

Very true, it is confusing. That statement from Al is somewhat ambiguous. I am truly not trying to stretch the comments too much, but I think the idea was that this was the final time they would put it back together, but the length of the reunion was up in the air.

As for if the situation was reversed, I can't speak to anybody else's opinion (or the weird "blue board" straw man that keeps getting brought up), but I would be JUST as bummed if Brian was saying no to more reunion shows in the face of everybody else wanting to do it.

To quote Mr. Zimmerman, "I don't believe you."

Brian's been preventing Beach Boys' reunions for several years now, and all I've ever read was, "You go, guy...." There have been pages and pages and pages of threads explaining why Brian SHOULDN'T get back together with The Beach Boys or any band that includes Mike Love.

But, now people are saying that things have changed, that things are different now. Really? Things are different now? I have read a lot of posts lately that are saying differently, that things in The Beach Boys are still the SAME, same as always, that things WILL NEVER CHANGE. So, what is it? A diiferent Beach Boys or the same old Beach Boys?

Maybe somebody knows more about the real Brian Wilson than we do, but doesn't want to come out and say it. Might be construed as cruel. However, I do think things are different for Melinda now. She's always looking for ways to sustain Brian's "career"; she came out and said as much when she married him. Andy Paley, The Wondermints, Joe Thomas, Pet Sounds, SMiLE, Christmas music, Sweet Insanity, George Gershwin, Walt Disney, and Joe Thomas again. But, now, guess who came along? Who'd of thunk it? Boy, did that get Melinda's attention. And the light bulb goes on again!

Dunno how any of us would know wheter we should believe each other about much of anything here. Again, the scenario with Brian wouldn't have been the same (he would continue solo, not calling his band the BB's), but I most certainly would be bummed about anybody putting the breaks on this reunion. If all of them, or the majority of them, would have all come away saying they were done with it, it still would have been a bummer, but perhaps a bit easier to not get as bummed about.

I for one have never cheered Brian's shunning the other BB's or the idea of reuniting. The thing is, since Brian has been touring at least, these guys were never all on the same page. I used to recall, for instance, that say in something like 2003, Mike would give an interview and still get all romantic about the idea of working with Brian again, at least Mike's idea of what working with Brian again would be. But Mike would barely or never even mention Al. I recall interviews where he would be asked about a reunion, and he would specifically say that he wanted to work with Brian. I don't think Mike was ready for a full-blown reunion ten years ago either. Al was all disgruntled back then too, I don't think he would have gone for it.

The whole idea of these guys all being on the exact same page is pretty new, so it's that aspect of it that makes Mike the apparent bigger bad guy in this scenario. Brian being sour on the BB's in 1999 or something wasn't the one thing keeping an otherwise ready-to-go reunited BB's from going back out on the road. What Mike is doing now is much closer to that.

As far what has "changed", that is simple. We now KNOW that a reunited BB's can be awesome. We didn't have confirmation of that until April 2012. That's what changed.