When Mike went on CBS and made the comments directed at Melinda, it went out to however many million viewers were watching, listening, or reading that linked transcript from the CBS program. He cannot assume everyone watching had his book in hand, or even knew he had a book on the market until that segment was aired. Therefore, that's the context - what he said on CBS.

And I'll say again, if Mike is going after Brian's wife on a television appearance adding to all of the comments since 2012 placed in his various interviews promoting his concerts within dozens of newspapers and various outlets, not to mention whatever went on via legal actions, is it surprising that Mike isn't getting invitations from Brian to write songs? If Mike goes after Brian's wife, family, etc in public, and it's been ongoing for years, why or how would Mike be disappointed if they don't have a personal relationship? We're still talking about real people with real emotions and feelings.

GF - there is so much in that book, I found to be very informative.  Maybe a thread should be set up to address that.  And keep comments confined to "If you read this..." please comment.  

It is intense to read, I found, after going throat 400+ pages.  The interviews are beyond the book.  Those relationships are like them walking off-stage after a show.  They go back to their own lives.  That is for the parties to figure out.  It can't be "vicariously" worked out on a message board. I think it is inappropriate. That is my opinion.  Blood is still thicker than water.  

If you read the book, I think your heart will be touched as Carl explains to Brian how they were kept away from him and were not rejecting him. I think you will gain another insight into the history of the band.    

I started a thread on the book, and made specific and sometimes extensive comments based on the actual pages of the book, giving my opinions and impressions of those specific sections in the book, with more to follow. As a result, I've apparently been publicly accused of charging the author with plagiarism, which I never did, and in other cases been accused by you personally among others of claiming posters here like you and Cam had a hand in writing it - a charge which is as laughable as it is false since everything I wrote is still on this board...and available to review in the thread about the book.

My most recent comments on the book are specific to what Mike said to CBS, and the notion of why Brian would be expected to invite Mike to write songs or do much of anything else after seeing his wife be the subject of Mike's comments, on top of Mike saying he was being "controlled" and drugged as recent as the past month in a public interview, and a laundry list of comments made toward his family and assorted issues peppered throughout interviews supposed to be promoting Mike's concerts.

My comments on the book have also been along the lines of what I wish Mike had included in the book, among them the lightning-rod issues like Mike giving seed money to fund the PMRC in the 80's, the 2005 lawsuit which Mike lost and lost big, and the lack of more inter-personal inner workings that were at play within the band during the Smile era.

I've also commented on the lack of context given that June 2012 email that we're told scuppered the extension and further booking of C50 shows, specifically what other emails if any correspondence came prior to the oft-cited email quoted in the book, and what was the context in which that email appeared. My comments on that are based on wondering how a lone email within what was a multi-million dollar corporate structure running C50 and affecting dozens of participants on the tour could be cited as if it came out of the blue with no precedent. I'm one who is curious to learn more about what led to it, and what else may have come prior to it within the chain of operations on that tour as of June 2012.

That's context.

GF - The book is over 400 pages.  It is Mike's account and not a reflection of what others think should be in the book.  The section on the lawsuit which was initiated by Landy with his devious plot to have Brian's kids disinherited, was originated by Landy.  

There are two email exchanges and one is from early June and one from late June.  I thought there was only one.  

IIRC  - three and a half weeks seemed too long to "call back" the first email of "no more shows for us" - which looked pretty final to me.  So, what I learned in the  book, is that there were TWO emails.  

On June 1st (it related to shows in Israel) which was turned down (the "no more shows for Wilson") and a June 25th email to "disregard the previous message." That is found on pp. 401-402.  

The info I am relying on is what is in front of me and not legal advice or counsel.***

[“Yeah. She once told me that ‘Brian’s not your partner. I’m your f****ng partner.’ That’s what she said,”]

Hey Jude - I am dealing strictly with the contents of the book. 

Okay, filledeplage.  Since you have read the entire book, I have a question for you.

In the CBS news interview, Mike says this:

“Yeah. She once told me that ‘Brian’s not your partner. I’m your f****ng partner.’ That’s what she said,” Love said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/beach-boys-mike-love-opens-up-drama-with-cousin-brian-wilson/

Another poster who I assume has also read the book (I could be wrong, that's why I'm asking you) says that Melinda didn't speak these words to Mike.  Rather, Melinda was speaking to Mike's wife and the exchange was more along these lines:

Melinda "storms" to Jacquelyne, says Ambha can't sing a Brian lead
Mike's wife replies, "Mike already discussed the matter with his partner, Brian.”
And Melinda answers, “Mike’s not his fucking partner. I’m his fucking partner.”

Two very different accounts of what I assume to be the same event. 
One version says Melinda told Mike that Brian wasn't Mike's partner, and that she (Melinda) was Mike's partner.
The other version says that Melinda told Mike's wife that Mike's not Brian's partner, and that she (Melinda) was Brian's partner.
Which of these two versions is in Mike's book?

Cheers

CBS is not in the book. 

The scenario ended well that evening.  Ambha did the lead; Brian congratulated her. 

There is a section you are omitting, which deals with Mike threatening to quit C50 on the spot.  Things were smoothed over (Mike did not pack up and quit the tour) and not perpetuated, as in this particular thread.  Some are dealing with the small, heated exchange (without Brian or Mike being there) and not with the result.  Or the outcome.

Things cooled down.  The show went on and the tour went on. 

And, cheers to you, Happy Friday!

Hey Jude - that is not in the book.  I read over 400 pages of the book.   What is in that book (which I think BB fans should read) has a huge amount of info about the history of the band. I am not taking this bait.  The book deals with a lot and I won't be dragged into other interviews that have been done.  This book and when Brian's book comes out, I'll read that too.  

If you want to ignore other interviews, ignore what other posters are saying, that's your prerogative. I think it's silly and just an arbitrary rule you think you can set for this discussion (but of course you can't actually set such a rule). But then please don't quote and respond to someone's comments about OTHER interviews by citing the book as the only valid source for discussion in this thread.

Again, it sounds like this isn't the thread for you. People *ARE* going to bring up other interviews, other conflicting stories, other books, ALL of that sort of stuff, including what ISN'T in the book. It's absolutely silly to confine the discussion at hand to ONLY what is in the book.

PLEASE don't bog this thread down with circular comments pointing back to "THE BOOK" and nothing but "THE BOOK." People are allowed, and should, cite other things outside of the book in discussing the book. If you disagree with that, if you disagree with the very simple, fundamental idea that people will bring in things other than just the book in discussing the book, then I would ask (and all I can do is ask) that you move to another thread.

Maybe you can start a separate "Let's Discuss the Book, and Nothing But the Book" thread where the idea is to never mention anything outside of the book.

Hey Jude - you have a beachboysopinions website.  Why would you not read a book by a Beach Boy?  Why would anyone opine about a book they had not read? Or take a slice from a news report (2nd generation) and comment without having it right in front of you?  

Without reading it, it is an "uninformed opinion."  

It is cheap.  Or, free in a library.  

What are you talking about? When did I say I would not read any book? How do you even know how far I've read into Mike's book? I mentioned above that I don't have it in front of me. I meant that in the literal sense. I'm at a computer and can't put the book in front of me at this precise moment. I didn't say I haven't or won't read it. Nice try, the "they haven't even read the book" argument is I'm sure going to be the first line of defense for Mike defenders.

I'm not questioning talking about the book. We obviously can and should; it's the main crux of these discussions.

What I'm talking about is your ridiculous assertion that OTHER sources, and how the book and those other sources reflect on each other, should NOT be brought up in this discussion.

Further, the problem in this thread is that you specifically respond to someone citing OTHER sources by saying "it's not in the book." And?

My grandfather's colonoscopy isn't in the book either, but I'm pretty sure it happened. Just because Mike chose to not discuss something in his book doesn't mean we can't bring it up. Again, what *isn't* in the book will be one of the points of discussions about the book. That he left out the high-profile 2005 lawsuit is a *huge* deal.

Hey Jude - If you have read the book, why don't you comment on it?   Those are MY impressions from what I read.  Some are refusing to read it because they have a bias against anything "Mike" related.  And refuse to see that much of this band's history is irrefutably a result of people who interfered with the band and the band members.  The old "divide and conquer" method.  

You "could" give a copy of both books to your parents and grand parents and then ask their opinions on it. They read about The Beach Boys in "real time."  Did you?  

When Mike went on CBS and made the comments directed at Melinda, it went out to however many million viewers were watching, listening, or reading that linked transcript from the CBS program. He cannot assume everyone watching had his book in hand, or even knew he had a book on the market until that segment was aired. Therefore, that's the context - what he said on CBS.

And I'll say again, if Mike is going after Brian's wife on a television appearance adding to all of the comments since 2012 placed in his various interviews promoting his concerts within dozens of newspapers and various outlets, not to mention whatever went on via legal actions, is it surprising that Mike isn't getting invitations from Brian to write songs? If Mike goes after Brian's wife, family, etc in public, and it's been ongoing for years, why or how would Mike be disappointed if they don't have a personal relationship? We're still talking about real people with real emotions and feelings.

GF - there is so much in that book, I found to be very informative.  Maybe a thread should be set up to address that.  And keep comments confined to "If you read this..." please comment.  

It is intense to read, I found, after going throat 400+ pages.  The interviews are beyond the book.  Those relationships are like them walking off-stage after a show.  They go back to their own lives.  That is for the parties to figure out.  It can't be "vicariously" worked out on a message board. I think it is inappropriate. That is my opinion.  Blood is still thicker than water.  

If you read the book, I think your heart will be touched as Carl explains to Brian how they were kept away from him and were not rejecting him. I think you will gain another insight into the history of the band.    

sorry double post  - mea culpa 

Hey Jude - that is not in the book.  I read over 400 pages of the book.   What is in that book (which I think BB fans should read) has a huge amount of info about the history of the band. I am not taking this bait.  The book deals with a lot and I won't be dragged into other interviews that have been done.  This book and when Brian's book comes out, I'll read that too.  

If you want to ignore other interviews, ignore what other posters are saying, that's your prerogative. I think it's silly and just an arbitrary rule you think you can set for this discussion (but of course you can't actually set such a rule). But then please don't quote and respond to someone's comments about OTHER interviews by citing the book as the only valid source for discussion in this thread.

Again, it sounds like this isn't the thread for you. People *ARE* going to bring up other interviews, other conflicting stories, other books, ALL of that sort of stuff, including what ISN'T in the book. It's absolutely silly to confine the discussion at hand to ONLY what is in the book.

PLEASE don't bog this thread down with circular comments pointing back to "THE BOOK" and nothing but "THE BOOK." People are allowed, and should, cite other things outside of the book in discussing the book. If you disagree with that, if you disagree with the very simple, fundamental idea that people will bring in things other than just the book in discussing the book, then I would ask (and all I can do is ask) that you move to another thread.

Maybe you can start a separate "Let's Discuss the Book, and Nothing But the Book" thread where the idea is to never mention anything outside of the book.

Hey Jude - you have a beachboysopinions website.  Why would you not read a book by a Beach Boy?  Why would anyone opine about a book they had not read? Or take a slice from a news report (2nd generation) and comment without having it (the book) right in front of you?  

Without reading it, it is an "uninformed opinion."  

It is cheap.  Or, free in a library.  


  

[he's been making comments about the Wilson family and drug abuse and all of that in interview after interview, repeating the comments about Brian being "controlled" and kept drugged as recent as in the past month]

GF - IIRC - the whole drugs thing was the lawsuit that Landy propelled into court to attempt to "set aside" the transfer of Sea of Tunes to A + M and examine the charges of fraud.

Nope, Mike has in recent months and years referred pejoratively to Brian being medicated *present-day*, NOTHING to do with Landy. Mike's words in interviews of recent years have been interpreted by many to be an attempt to compare Brian's current medicated state and general state to what occurred to him in the Landy years. Yes, some if not many believe Mike has tried to imply Melinda (and others around Brian?) is/are analogous to Landy. And that is not only despicable, but demonstrably false.

Hey Jude - I am dealing strictly with the contents of the book.  

Clearly. But in doing so, you're *ignoring* what GF said and what you were appearing to try to respond to. GF said this:

he's been making comments about the Wilson family and drug abuse and all of that in interview after interview, repeating the comments about Brian being "controlled" and kept drugged as recent as in the past month

So once again you either didn't fully read what GF said, or chose to ignore it and make your own point. You quoted those comments of GF in your response, where GF talked about recent Mike interviews, and you instead talked ONLY about what is in the book.

I think one of the point that may come up in a discussion of MIke's book is what he DIDN'T mention or include. I would humbly suggest that if your response to every instance where someone raises what ISN'T in the book is going to be to cite some reflexive property of "what's in the book is in the book", then maybe you should skip the discussion.

Hey Jude - that is not in the book.  I read over 400 pages of the book.   What is in that book (which I think BB fans should read) has a huge amount of info about the history of the band. I am not taking this bait.  The book deals with a lot and I won't be dragged into other interviews that have been done.  This book is a lot to digest, and when Brian's book comes out, I'll read that too.  

GF - IIRC - the whole drugs thing was the lawsuit that Landy propelled into court to attempt to "set aside" the transfer of Sea of Tunes to A + M and examine the charges of fraud.

Nope, Mike has in recent months and years referred pejoratively to Brian being medicated *present-day*, NOTHING to do with Landy. Mike's words in interviews of recent years have been interpreted by many to be an attempt to compare Brian's current medicated state and general state to what occurred to him in the Landy years. Yes, some if not many believe Mike has tried to imply Melinda (and others around Brian?) is/are analogous to Landy. And that is not only despicable, but demonstrably false.

Hey Jude - I am dealing strictly with the contents of the book. 

If looking for context is important, then I'd ask why Mike doesn't mention his failed 2005 lawsuit in the book. After reading that transcript, it's amazing Brian and Al even shared a stage with Mike considering the language used against both of them, especially Al who didn't even have skin in the game. But they did, and C50 happened for the fans' benefit. Now Mike goes on national television and goes after Brian's wife? Again, if Mike's phone isn't ringing with an invitation from Brian to write songs, is it hard to see why that might be?

GF - -  the context is what is in the book. 

There is a story about "Sloop" and Al, where he probably should have been given credit. (Likely Murry again) I did not understand that Al had done some arranging (charts) and it was not just a matter of "Let's do Sloop John B" but Murry seemed to want it all. 

Mike has been filing legal actions against Brian for 25 years, he's been making comments about the Wilson family and drug abuse and all of that in interview after interview, repeating the comments about Brian being "controlled" and kept drugged as recent as in the past month, and now he's going after Brian's wife.

And he wonders why Brian doesn't write songs with him much less talk to him?

GF - IIRC - the whole drugs thing was the lawsuit that Landy propelled into court to attempt to "set aside" the transfer of Sea of Tunes to A + M and examine the charges of fraud.

"The walls were closing in, (because he was investigated for  professional misconduct at the time - including having had sex with a female patient) as Landy's principal --maybe only--source of income was now Brian, not as a patient, but as a business partner.  It was all the more reason for Landy to lead the charge against  Irving Music...That suit, filed in 1989, sought  $50 million in lost publishing royalties and $50 million in punitive damages, while the whole catalog itself, was thought to be worth much more. Landy was to receive 15 percent of all the proceeds." p. 342.  

Yeah, I have now heard two different accounts on this in different places: one account is where Melinda says she's Mike's partner. Another account is where Melinda says that Mike is not Brian's partner but she is. For those who have seen the book, what does Mike say and is it different from what he says in this interview?

CSM - glad you asked if someone has "seen the book." It is beyond me that anyone would jump into this discussion without it in hand.  

Got it on a Kindle download on an iPad and here is my impression...I read it on an iPad (the big one) over the course of 2 days.  I could not put it down.

First, there are first-hand accounts, and I will spotlight the one on Carl's last season touring while he was terminal.  I had seen Carl about 8 weeks before his final show, where most of the audience was in tears because it would be the last time we would ever see him. This is not to be missed.

Second, it was made clear how much of Murry's crap was foisted on Brian where he left him, since he died in his 50's, with Brian holding-the-bag with the copyright issue.  It appeared that there were times where Brian conceded that the credits were not given and was blocked by a lawyer or a guardian.  That is clearly spelled out.  

Third, it seems that Murry's inter-family jealousy blinded him and he put that on his kids, too.  Probably ate him alive - dying in his mid-50's.  

Fourth, you will see exactly how devious Landy was, in terms of the crap he pulled with the band, in terms of keeping Brian from his brothers, his kids, etc.  If you think you don't like Landy now...another log fell on the campfire.  Fraud and unethical is an understatement. I am sorry he did not die in prison, as Manson's therapist.  That era was enlarged.  To those who followed that and still do, it is not unimportant.

The on-the-road part was important to me...decade-by-decade, to see them be able to stay-in-the-game, against all odds, and how Carl's and Dennis' roles became more important, with Dennis' writing (POB) and Carl doing musical direction and his own work.  It is a lot of the road perspective as well, with Chicago on the road, a very cool era.      

And the "dust up" during C50 is in the book.  The "exchange" from this article cited, was pulled from the book.  And, after the "event" there was a happy ending,  "Ambha sang 'Sail on Sailor' and got a standing ovation.  Brian speaking into the mic, congratulated her, and Ambha walked over and gave him a big hug." p. 401.

It is very reasonably priced at under $15 on amazon as a download.    

Thank you, 'plage (edit: & jo'). I appreciate your compliment. English ruling is very difficult indeed. But on 3rd read I understood what you posted. Thanks, that helps.

You are most welcome.   

When people write "my friend and I", "my wife and I", "[name] and I". What is this, showing respect? Can't they say "me & my friend", "me & [somebody else]" etc.? F.ex., let's say you attended BBs show with your friends & next thing you do is share it quickly in your blog/message board/facebook etc. Since this is *your* story, *you* post it, then I think it'd be logical if you started with yourself - "Today me & my friends were at a BBs show...".

Range Rover - I have to first compliment you on your written English.  It is very good.  English, is a very tough language with a million rules and exceptions to the rules.

These are subject pronouns:  (for singular) I, you, he/she/it (for plural) We, you, they.

Subject pronouns are used with the main verb or predicate - so it would be My wife and I (because it could be substituted for "We")

And we have object pronouns that are used with objects of the prepositions (such as above, below, in, among, etc.)

They are: Me, you, him/her/it (for singular) and, (us, you, them) - and they are used in phrases that don't have a subject and a predicate. 

It is the was it is in "use" and not the way it may "sound" - We only use subject pronouns when in the use of a subject-predicate and object pronouns for objects or prepositions or direct and indirect objets. 

So, to use your example, it is, "Today my friends and I were at at a BB show." The I refers to the subject of the sentence - agreeing in "number" with the verb "were." You could substitute this..."We were at a BB show."  And it refers to the "way it is used" and not "how it sounds."   Hope that helps.  English is a really difficult language.  You do very well with it.   


 

So we're getting away from the email and C50 for a bit, let's touch on a related note.

With the licensing and all relevant mentions about creating confusion in the marketplace and how the branded name can be used to promote shows...

Where does the Nutty Jerry's booking debacle fit into that, considering that the naming and use of "Beach Boys" to book live shows had been assigned to "50 Big Ones" for use on the C50 tour.

As I'm sure many know, Mike defenders used the EXACT same excuse that Al did back in 1999 when promoters erroneously billed his band as "The Beach Boys."

For some *strange* reason, while BRI sued Al in 1999 and cited this very thing happening as a supporting fact, BRI *did not* sue Mike in 2012 for this false billing.

I saw several of the same people who scoffed at the idea of Al's incorrect billings in 1999 being the fault of lazy and greedy promoters who defended Mike with the exact same reasoning in 2012.

I don't think Mike wanted anything billed incorrectly in 2012. But BRI certainly didn't attack Mike for this *simple mistake* the same way they pursued Al in 1999.

This sounds like an issue that Al could easily still be bitter about years later, yet how often does Al bring any of this stuff up? When Mike complains about issues that he ended up successfully suing over, does he stop and think and try to empathize with what is surely a LITANY of issues the other guys in the band *could* be bitter about but largely ignore (in interviews anyway)?

Hey Jude - BRI sued Al - not Mike. That includes Brian, Mike and Carl's estate.  The quotes are directly from the court decision.  How that is contorted into Mike-Apologist (when there would be 3 members out of 4 members involved.) It related to terms of the license which are often speculated about and the bottom line is that Al did not "pay the piper" to dance to the music.  It has nothing to do with Nutty Jerry's promotion.  Mike has paid the dough to the corporation for the right to earn a living, and distribute income (the reason that a corporation exists is to make $$$) to the other shareholders/directors.  

Emily posted the link - and I responded with both court text and a viewpoint, and last time I checked viewpoint-based posting is what this board is all about. It was hardly a viewpoint.  The court just took the facts and documents in front of them.  They looked forward from 1993 as to how the money would be distributed and how the trademark would be protected. The court considered all of that.

The suit is entitled - "BROTHER RECORDS, INC., a California Corporation, Plaintiff-counter-defendent-Appellee, v. Alan Jardine, an individual, Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellant."

And,  I do not see Michael Edward Love mentioned in the title of the case. Do you see his name?  I cannot.  Unless it is in invisible ink.

The fellow shareholder/directors of BRI sued Al at that time.  The terms of the license at that time were revealed by the court.  
  

BRI vs Jardine 2003
BRI's directors met on July 14, 1998, to discuss how the trademark should be used.   The representative of Carl Wilson's estate suggested that BRI issue non-exclusive licenses to each shareholder on the same terms and conditions as the license that was being negotiated with Love, thus giving each member an equal right to tour.   Three of the four board members, including Jardine, voted to grant each Beach Boy a non-exclusive license.   On October 1, 1998, BRI executed a non-exclusive license agreement with Love (the “Love license”).   The Love license contained clauses designed to protect the value of the trademark, requiring the licensee to preserve The Beach Boys style and to choose from a list of approved booking agencies and managers.

So any idea when this was changed from non exclusive to exclusive?

I don't think Love's is necessarily exclusive. It reads to me like they voted to issue licenses to all 4; they issued a license to ML; then refused to issue a license to AJ. Then he toured anyway, then everyone sued everyone.
I think that, with the Smile lawsuit combined with this one, it's become clear that any attempt to use the name will be embroiled in ugly lawsuits.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1213400.html
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1152003.html

Emily - thank you for the links.  In the facts section (background) and even well before Carl passed, in 1993, "the directors of BRI agreed to devote a certain percentage of the touring income to the corporation for use of the trademark and dedicated a larger percentage of the income to those members who actually toured."

After Carl died (about 6 months post) on July 14, 1998, and after Mike had worked on licensing terms, and "to discuss how the trademark would be used."  BRI decided that they would issue licenses to each shareholder on the same terms and conditions as Mike had. Mike and Al did not want to tour together.  The suggestion of non-exclusive came from Carl's representative was that each member who wanted to tour follow the same conditions that Mike had.  

Mike's license (October 1, 1998) from BRI had conditions, like prerequisites, or conditions precedent to the award of the license.

They were: 20% on the first $1 million of gross receipts,  

and 17.5% royalty thereafter.  

Also "preserve The Beach Boys style and choose from a list of approved agencies and managers."

At some point later, (October 25, 1998)  Al made some sort of counteroffer of sorts to perform as "Beach Boys Family and Friends" and sent a letter to BRI saying that the license was not necessary. Three days later, BRI sent Al a letter saying that his "unlicensed use of the trademark would be an infringement."

Then Al proposed different terms for a licensee and only 5% (instead of Mike's 20% on the first mil and 17.5% over that number.)  Then BRI came back and said 17.5 % across-the-board.  Al wanted a booking agent and manager, different from the BRI list.

The next month, November 24, 1998, BRI met to discuss the proposal.  Prior to the meeting Al's lawyer sent the BRI board with Al's terms which were rejected by BRI.  But he continued to perform and in locations and dates close to where Mike's band was touring.  

The court found that "With two bands touring as The Beach Boys or as a similar-sounding combination, show organizers themselves were confused about exactly they were getting when they booked Jardine's band.   A number of show organizers booked Jardine's band thinking they would get The Beach Boys along with special added guests but subsequently cancelled the booking when they discovered that Jardine's band was not what they thought it was. Numerous people who attended one of Jardine's shows said they had been confused about who was performing."      

The court finding in favor of BRI is not surprising to me. All Al had to do was use the list of promoters/managers and pay the percentage to get the license.  It has nothing to do with the quality of Al's band (clearly terrific musicians) but just contract terms to adhere to.   As I look at it, only the 12.5% fee, (difference between BRI's figure of 17.5% and Al's proposal of 5%, and the promoter/managers terms were what caused the conflict about the non-exclusive license and resulted in the suit.  

Thank you again Emily for the links, as it is easier to see the BRI license facts officially spelled-out, in the court's decision/s.  

It does not leave room for speculation as to what happened, who was involved and why.    

If Mike actually publicly stated "Brian and Al? Who the hell needs 'em", you'd probably actually defend it.

CD - those are my sentiments.  Am I not entitled to them?  Is this not an open forum? It is how I look at the situation.  


You're entitled to think anything you want to think, just as I should theoretically be entitled, in an open forum, to an actual response from you to my question.
 
Do you have a question?

I was responding to Ang.  
 

My question to you (phrased as more of a statement, but if it's inaccurate, I'd love for you to say so) is highlighted above in yellow.

CD - that is moot and I would not put words in anyone else's mouth.  

And is framed with the word, "if."  If wishes were horses...
 

And, I am not looking to be confrontational - just discuss the music - if you don't mind.  

Funny, because I have a feeling you'd have a pretty good idea of what your reaction would be if, say, a kid started repeatedly shouting inappropriate profanity in the middle of a classroom. It would be pretty easy to just go ahead and state right now, that IF that were to happen in front of you, that you would think that's an inappropriate thing for that kid to do/say, right? That wouldn't be some untouchable hypothetical, but for some reason my question must be ignored.

It's not putting words in somebody's mouth to hypothesize on IF they were to say something, what would you think. It's only putting words in their mouth to claim they actually said those words (and I don't believe Mike ever publicly said those words, so I WON'T claim and AM NOT claiming he did).  

And if you don't like the word IF, please throw out your copies of Sunflower + SIP, because Forever starts off with it. Ain't nothing wrong with hypotheticals, unless they are about Mike Love.

If every fan can't unequivocally say that IF Mike were to publicly utter those words, that this would be inappropriate, then we have a clear cut case of people not seeing things clearly, and being absurdist fanboys/fangirls.

For the record, I would not like to hear any member of this band say my hypothetical quote about any other member of this band. There, I can say it! It's possible! You can too!

CD - you might be surprised.  I can tell you that I have dealt with many volatile and violent classroom situations.  If a kid is melting down, the teacher does not need "to add to the volume."  The teacher is the adult-in-the-room and needs to diffuse the situation. Responding in-kind?  No way. I am baffled by the analogy.

And, I won't be throwing out Sunflower/Forever (or SIP) for that matter.

But, I am grateful and fell only appreciation for the great gift of this music.  Going all negative on something over which I have no control is pointless.  It is up to the principals.  We cannot vicariously absorb and resolve problems that are not ours. 

Like the Serenity Prayer... Change what you can...and be wise enough to know when you can't.   

If Mike actually publicly stated "Brian and Al? Who the hell needs 'em", you'd probably actually defend it.

CD - those are my sentiments.  Am I not entitled to them?  Is this not an open forum? It is how I look at the situation.  


You're entitled to think anything you want to think, just as I should theoretically be entitled, in an open forum, to an actual response from you to my question.
 
Do you have a question?

I was responding to Ang.  
 

My question to you (phrased as more of a statement, but if it's inaccurate, I'd love for you to say so) is highlighted above in yellow.

CD - that is moot and I would not put words in anyone else's mouth. 

And is framed with the word, "if."  If wishes were horses...
 

And, I am not looking to be confrontational - just discuss the music - if you don't mind. 

I never wanted a reunion so I'm not bothered that it ended. What bothers me is the way it ended and the apparent lack of truth about the situation afterwards. It showed that the idea of a reunited Beach Boys was illusory which disappointed many and gave credence to the stories of  bad feeling between certain band members.  The Beach Boys had toured successfully and got their record to a respectable position in the charts but once again, problems between members had meant it was unsustainable. Of course it had only ever been intended as a finite thing, though of course no-one could have anticipated in advance whether it would work or not. Had it ended with a polite joint announcement that would have been fine. But yet another clumsy mess and letters to the LA Times from Mike and Brian. It should have ended triumphantly. THAT'S what protecting the legacy means.

Ang - the C50 tour for me, was both a surprise and not a surprise - only in the long continuum of their careers.  I think a real "reunion" would have meant going back to the drawing board at Brother, and figure out how to go forward with a work model for themselves while at least 3 members have had their own working bands.  

If that was a possiblity it should have maybe happened apart from the tour, maybe in the middle someplace.   There were separate bands working in different business models of operation.  Al's band had people who were working in different bands. That is a lot to consider when people have livelihoods and families to consider.  I think that would have been really selfish to leave those musicians in limbo.  This would have taken some planning. But, C50 was magnificent.          

First, I remember that Brian's solo career was an orchestration of Landy, who, as we know carved out an unethical relationship with Brian's music.  Second, what I keep separate is the calamity of Carl's death and the dilemma of how and whether to go forward to keep the music alive.  Going back to that 1998 place (and maybe before)  Landy was undermining Brian's involvement with the band.  And, after he was wrested free, Brian wanted to do the solo thing.  Had Carl been alive, and he had recovered from that calamity, I think Brian would have been back in the band had he wanted.  

But, when things splintered, with Carl's death it might have been better for Brian to do the solo thing and work on his own business model which he did build out beautifully.  It takes courage to rebuild.  

But, I think no one can be accused of not doing his best professionally.  I think that fans are looking at what a "legacy" is in a fan's eyes and not from what the track record is.  I think it is the fan wish-list.  

Last night I read the preview of Brian's book from some link - didn't know it was up for a couple of months.  It felt as though Brian was casually sitting in the same room unfolding (as though he was writing a song) his story...am looking forward to reading it when it is fully released.  

And, I would like to see them sit around King Arthur's table and figure this out. For themselves; one way or the other. Not just because the fans want it.  

The separation (and their respective struggles) have made them all grow in enormous ways, whether it was forming and performing as different bands, or recording with new artists, or whatever.  I'm not worried about a legacy.  All people have to do is walk in a store, turn on the TV, radio, or anyplace you would hear their music and that is their legacy.  There is real triumph in their survivorship and whatever business model they want to use, and keeping the music going.    

If Mike actually publicly stated "Brian and Al? Who the hell needs 'em", you'd probably actually defend it.

CD - those are my sentiments.  Am I not entitled to them?  Is this not an open forum? It is how I look at the situation.   

You're entitled to think anything you want to think, just as I should theoretically be entitled, in an open forum, to an actual response from you to my question.

Do you have a question?

I was responding to Ang.   

I never wanted a reunion so I'm not bothered that it ended. What bothers me is the way it ended and the apparent lack of truth about the situation afterwards. It showed that the idea of a reunited Beach Boys was illusory which disappointed many and gave credence to the stories of  bad feeling between certain band members.  The Beach Boys had toured successfully and got their record to a respectable position in the charts but once again, problems between members had meant it was unsustainable. Of course it had only ever been intended as a finite thing, though of course no-one could have anticipated in advance whether it would work or not. Had it ended with a polite joint announcement that would have been fine. But yet another clumsy mess and letters to the LA Times from Mike and Brian. It should have ended triumphantly. THAT'S what protecting the legacy means.

Ang - the C50 tour for me, was both a surprise and not a surprise - only in the long continuum of their careers.  I think a real "reunion" would have meant going back to the drawing board at Brother, and figure out how to go forward with a work model for themselves while at least 3 members have had their own working bands.  

If that was a possiblity it should have maybe happened apart from the tour, maybe in the middle someplace.   There were separate bands working in different business models of operation.  Al's band had people who were working in different bands. That is a lot to consider when people have livelihoods and families to consider.  I think that would have been really selfish to leave those musicians in limbo.  This would have taken some planning. But, C50 was magnificent.          

First, I remember that Brian's solo career was an orchestration of Landy, who, as we know carved out an unethical relationship with Brian's music.  Second, what I keep separate is the calamity of Carl's death and the dilemma of how and whether to go forward to keep the music alive.  Going back to that 1998 place (and maybe before)  Landy was undermining Brian's involvement with the band.  And, after he was wrested free, Brian wanted to do the solo thing.  Had Carl been alive, and he had recovered from that calamity, I think Brian would have been back in the band had he wanted.  

But, when things splintered, with Carl's death it might have been better for Brian to do the solo thing and work on his own business model which he did build out beautifully.  It takes courage to rebuild.  

But, I think no one can be accused of not doing his best professionally.  I think that fans are looking at what a "legacy" is in a fan's eyes and not from what the track record is.  I think it is the fan wish-list.  

Last night I read the preview of Brian's book from some link - didn't know it was up for a couple of months.  It felt as though Brian was casually sitting in the same room unfolding (as though he was writing a song) his story...am looking forward to reading it when it is fully released.  

And, I would like to see them sit around King Arthur's table and figure this out. For themselves; one way or the other. Not just because the fans want it.  

The separation (and their respective struggles) have made them all grow in enormous ways, whether it was forming and performing as different bands, or recording with new artists, or whatever.  I'm not worried about a legacy.  All people have to do is walk in a store, turn on the TV, radio, or anyplace you would hear their music and that is their legacy.  There is real triumph in their survivorship and whatever business model they want to use, and keeping the music going.    

If Mike actually publicly stated "Brian and Al? Who the hell needs 'em", you'd probably actually defend it.

CD - those are my sentiments.  Am I not entitled to them?  Is this not an open forum? It is how I look at the situation.   

I never wanted a reunion so I'm not bothered that it ended. What bothers me is the way it ended and the apparent lack of truth about the situation afterwards. It showed that the idea of a reunited Beach Boys was illusory which disappointed many and gave credence to the stories of  bad feeling between certain band members.  The Beach Boys had toured successfully and got their record to a respectable position in the charts but once again, problems between members had meant it was unsustainable. Of course it had only ever been intended as a finite thing, though of course no-one could have anticipated in advance whether it would work or not. Had it ended with a polite joint announcement that would have been fine. But yet another clumsy mess and letters to the LA Times from Mike and Brian. It should have ended triumphantly. THAT'S what protecting the legacy means.

Ang - the C50 tour for me, was both a surprise and not a surprise - only in the long continuum of their careers.  I think a real "reunion" would have meant going back to the drawing board at Brother, and figure out how to go forward with a work model for themselves while at least 3 members have had their own working bands.  

If that was a possiblity it should have maybe happened apart from the tour, maybe in the middle someplace.   There were separate bands working in different business models of operation.  Al's band had people who were working in different bands. That is a lot to consider when people have livelihoods and families to consider.  I think that would have been really selfish to leave those musicians in limbo.  This would have taken some planning. But, C50 was magnificent.          

First, I remember that Brian's solo career was an orchestration of Landy, who, as we know carved out an unethical relationship with Brian's music.  Second, what I keep separate is the calamity of Carl's death and the dilemma of how and whether to go forward to keep the music alive.  Going back to that 1998 place (and maybe before)  Landy was undermining Brian's involvement with the band.  And, after he was wrested free, Brian wanted to do the solo thing.  Had Carl been alive, and he had recovered from that calamity, I think Brian would have been back in the band had he wanted.  

But, when things splintered, with Carl's death it might have been better for Brian to do the solo thing and work on his own business model which he did build out beautifully.  It takes courage to rebuild.  

But, I think no one can be accused of not doing his best professionally.  I think that fans are looking at what a "legacy" is in a fan's eyes and not from what the track record is.  I think it is the fan wish-list.  

Last night I read the preview of Brian's book from some link - didn't know it was up for a couple of months.  It felt as though Brian was casually sitting in the same room unfolding (as though he was writing a song) his story...am looking forward to reading it when it is fully released.  

And, I would like to see them sit around King Arthur's table and figure this out. For themselves; one way or the other. Not just because the fans want it.  

The separation (and their respective struggles) have made them all grow in enormous ways, whether it was forming and performing as different bands, or recording with new artists, or whatever.  I'm not worried about a legacy.  All people have to do is walk in a store, turn on the TV, radio, or anyplace you would hear their music and that is their legacy.  There is real triumph in their survivorship and whatever business model they want to use, and keeping the music going.    

Atlanta set list, Fox Theatre, Sept. 9, 2016:

California Girls
I Get Around
Shut Down
Little Deuce Coupe
Little Honda
Surfer Girl
Don't Worry Baby
Wake the World / Add Some Music
California Saga
Sail Away
Wild Honey
Sail On Sailor

Pet Sounds album (no break, they went straight into it)
(with Row Row Your Boat tossed in after IKTAA)

Encore:
Band intros
Good Vibrations
Help Me Rhonda
Barbara Ann
Surfin' USA
Fun, Fun, Fun
Love & Mercy

Thanks, Emdeeh! Great set list and delighted to see Sail Away. 

My favorite on NPP.   

I am not connected to Cam Mott. Never even an email between us and you can check that because you have access to that information.   

Is there a rule against posting in both places?  Pseudo-intellectual? I don't consider myself an intellectual but do have a doctorate.  And considerable post-grad work.

So, someone called me a name?  Seriously.  Ever hear of sticks-and-stones? Who cares?   

*I* didn't compare you to Cam Mott (although...) or call you a 'pseudo-intellectual', but the 'Mega-Mod' over there sure used to, and was constantly in trouble here due to bullying. So for us to be negatively compared to a forum  modded by a bully because of us supposedly bullying, well, do you see the disconnect there?

Or, to put it another way...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdKI1wj-JpI

Billy - there was enough written for people to come away with the impression that a few people were singled out (including me)  as "contributors" and the joke is that there was a  single copy on eBay that I was high bidder for and went out to a show and lost the chance to get a copy.  I can tell you as a collector of anything BB I could get my hands on, since 1965, both good-and-bad, I have a lot to draw upon for my opinions.     

And, as I said earlier sticks-and-stones - I could not care less. That says more about the speaker than the one spoken about.       

The perception from the outside world is bullying. And intolerance for different points of view.  Let's not forget that I was accused of writing Mike's book - and there was a gang-up.  Guilty until proven innocent?    

And, so what if I did help Mike? Is that bannable? I would expect that some (not me) who are real experts (from working with the band members) would be asked to contribute. Is that a sin? I am just a fan for 50 years.  After that amount of time, you do amass a good deal of information if you are paying attention.  

That is a total lack of respect, right there, considering what you know. It is also a lie.

If you are accusing *me* of saying you wrote Mike's book, for about the fourth time only this time publicly:

SHOW ME WHERE this charge was made. Show everyone this "proof".

Otherwise, you're lying. You were not accused of writing Mike's book, on this board, by me - Harsh words, but I won't tolerate having misinformation spread like this, on this board where the actual posts are still up and available.

 

GF - I don't think it is disrespect and I am not lying.  In reply #105 - 106, etc., in this thread.  It related to plagiarism from "posters on this board" and I was lumped into this group.  And in reply #139 - there was something about "a similar ring" - and frankly there was nothing that I saw that was unique and not common knowledge if you lived through those eras when the band was up-and-down.   Within that post I am quoted from 2014 and cannot imagine why.  I still have not seen the book. But will tell you I am eager to read it.  

  

So FdP comes in, creates a straw man for HeyJude, then criticizes him for not “sticking to the point” of her straw man. Then, when he responds to her straw man, says his completely relevant point is not what “we’re…talking about” because apparently what “we’re talking about” is a single interview in the early 70’s. Then when Hey Jude says “wtf?” at this bizarrity, she starts accusing him of “stalking” (when the interaction began with HER responding to HIM), and bullying and “you’re not a mod” and that (hilariously after she accused him of side-tracking by not responding directly to her side-tracking with her straw man and favorite interview that is the only evidence of anything anyone is allowed to consider) that it’s not for him to “decide what added info is side-tracking”.  And then, again after insisting that he stay on the topic of her straw man, says “that’s censorship.”

It’s a derailment and I think THIS is a big part of what’s been wrong with this board.

Emily - I took the time to find the youtube - and hope you have taken the time to view it before you opine.  It is the viewpoint of 4 principals of the Beach Boys. (Were they lying?)  

The perception of bullying and intolerance is pretty much common knowledge.  Unfortunately, this forum has been considered until fairly recently to be the go-to board.  

You can be insulting and call it derailment or anything else you choose.  That straw-man attack is inappropriate and against board rules, whether by the spirit or the letter.  

That youtube is evidence that is un-spinnable as to the relationship between the band and the record company. Those are the Beach Boys and not and editorial opinion.  First person narratives - both as principals and corporate members.  

Look at those posters whose longevity is longer than mine, (and yours) and ask yourself why they are leaving.  They articulated why.  They feel there is intolerance for a divergence of opinion.  Is that appropriate?  I don't think so.  

Getting a handle on why people are leaving this board might be a good place to start.  

It is a series and a pattern of insult,

then disparage, collectively (as a "clique" for lack of a better term)

and predictable who hops in to pile up on the poster.  Rinse, and repeat.  At least a half-dozen have left in a week.  Think there is nothing wrong?  

Is it surprising that the go-to board has caused another forum to arise?  I think not.  

Yes, there is a pattern of attack towards people who are considered "apologists" or who support all the band.  Maybe it is generational that I have a position that  this group of "incorporated musicians" are still The Beach Boys - and just not all working in the same venues.

And, I am not alone in the opinion.  A new board was formed to respond to the inability to be able to post without being jumped on and attacked. Why did that need to take place?  Intolerance - one word.

You are not a mod to tell a fellow poster (according to the rules of this forum to build people up and not tear them down) what they should post.  

Nobody is bullying anybody, although it does seem like an argument is being made for the sake of creating an argument for its own sake by you for whatever reason.

So if you prefer that other board, go there and stay there. Be aware that things may not always be as warm and fuzzy as they seem, as a certain ex-friend of mine there used to refer to you as a (and I quote) PITA pseudo-intellectual, just like Cam Mott. Unquote.

Billy - I am calling it as I see it.  In the last year, I think things have gotten worse.  And I do agree that things are not as warm-and-fuzzy as they were.  I am not connected to Cam Mott. Never even an email between us and you can check that because you have access to that information.  

Is there a rule against posting in both places?  Pseudo-intellectual? I don't consider myself an intellectual but do have a doctorate.  And considerable post-grad work.

So, someone called me a name?  Seriously.  Ever hear of sticks-and-stones? Who cares?  

The perception from the outside world is bullying. And intolerance for different points of view.  Let's not forget that I was accused of writing Mike's book - and there was a gang-up.  Guilty until proven innocent?    

And, so what if I did help Mike? Is that bannable? I would expect that some (not me) who are real experts (from working with the band members) would be asked to contribute. Is that a sin? I am just a fan for 50 years.  After that amount of time, you do amass a good deal of information if you are paying attention.