I can't complain, I paid $1 and $2 for the 2 albums. Wonder if the doc is on youtube? The only "one man Beatles" I know is Stevie Riks

I don't think the "One Man Beatles" doc ever made it onto the net. It was screened publically, but for whatever reason never issued on DVD or VOD or anything. I would guess music clearances are the main reason, but there's very little info on the film. It was being screened back in 2010, so it's at least that old and probably a little older. Looks like there's a Facebook page for the film, but not activity in over two years.

Perhaps with the new Rhodes album, there might be renewed interest by some company in funding a home video release of the doc. Or perhaps they'd want to re-cut the doc to include mention of his new album.

That brings to mind another pre 2012 question. 

Was there a lot of discussion on here saying that Imagination, GIOHM, or TLOS would've been great Beach Boys albums? 

Or, do you just say that about NPP because TWGMTR was so good, and NPP was seen as a natural follow-up?

Other than the occasional "it would be interesting to hear Al (or whomever) sing that Brian song", I don't recall a huge swell of "why couldn't this be a Beach Boys album?" on those older Brian albums.

With NPP, while I don't think everybody was screaming about it not being a BB album (despite what the Beard/Love interview may seem to indicate), the increased references to what "could have been" a BB album came about for very clear reasons: In 2012, Brian said he wanted to do more work with the BBs. I think there's even a quote suggesting Brian wanted it to be BB projects for the foreseeable future. Also, as with TWGMTR, most of NPP was co-written by Joe Thomas.

We'll never know what a BB album would have looked like, but I don't think it's a stretch that at least a few of the NPP songs could have potentially made it in some form onto whatever the next BB album might have been.

Mike Love essentially took the blame (though he obviously feels justified) in this interview, acknowledging Brian and Al wanted to continue. Not sure why it's so hard to accept that. Mike's words acknowledge that his decision to go back to the status quo was the mechanism that prevented Brian and Al from continuing the reunion with Mike.

Impossible to generalize, but my recollection is that in the 1998-early 2000s timeframe there was pretty strong animosity from some fans towards Mike, having as much to do with simply using the “Beach Boys” name as it did with Brian or Al not being there. Brian didn’t want to be there, Al was confusingly kind of squeezed out in 1998, so it was unclear what he *wanted* versus the reality of what was going on.

The last big swell of a large amount of negative feeling towards Mike came in the mid 2000’s when the “Smile”-related lawsuits came about. They were pretty much laughed out of the courts, and eventually that sort of faded away.

I think by the mid-2000’s, 2006-ish, even a lot of crusty, cynical fans had at least come to terms with Mike using the BB name. Brian still didn’t want a part of it. Al seemed to, sort of. That was about it.

I think the main thing that alleviated the scorn from fans concerning Mike using the BB name was that, apart from Al on and off, nobody else *wanted* to be in the “Beach Boys” touring band or use the BB name. As the decade went on, Mike was touring and there wasn’t any actual alternative. Having *a* Beach Boys, *any* Beach Boys out there versus none is an interesting debate, but at the end of the day Mike wasn’t touring *in place* of any other tangible, feasible lineup.

In 2012, the s**tstorm came about in part because this was no longer the case. Unlike the the late 90s and 2000s, both Brian and Al (and David Marks for that matter) wanted to keep *all five* guys together as “The Beach Boys.”

As Howie Edelson put it some time back, Mike essentially *quit* the band at the end of 2012 and went back to his thing. What fans who think C50 complainers are "anti-Mike" often overlook is that, at least for me, I never wanted to see Mike leave the reunion but have it continue as "The Beach Boys" either. Mike being a part of it is, well, a big part of it! Essentially, implicit in being critical of Mike ending the reunion is that I value what he adds to the band and the whole.

OK, that's kinda what I thought, that the C50 essentially created the want for Brian Wilson to be a part of The Beach Boys.  

I can only speak for myself, but it wasn't so much wanting Brian Wilson to "be in the Beach Boys." It was about having them all together. The "whole is greater than the sum" cliché was actually true on that tour.

Brian has spent most of the last 30 years not wanting to tour with the guys, and/or not being allowed to (the Landy years clouded this issue, as it did many others), so it was certainly extra frustrating when, in 2012, Brian was ecstatic about doing more stuff collectively as the BBs for the first time in ages, and Mike walked away from it. Brian finally wanted to be a Beach Boy, and Mike walked.

Pardon my ignorance, but what does the "C" stand for in C50?

It's OK.

Celebration. 

Thanks, man! Indeed it was.

It's understandable to be confused by the "C50" wording, as I don't think the actual band really used it much. It's just shorthand for fans having to type.

I use it often, but a better term would be simply the "reunion", because that avoids the possibility of the (lame) argument that the reunion *couldn't* continue because the 50th anniversary was over. I've seen that argument before. "What were they going to do? Keep calling it the 50th anniversary? Do a 51st Anniversary tour?"

The answer of course is, firstly, yes, they could do either of those things however silly it might be. Or, they could just tour as "The Beach Boys" and make sure to mention that all five members are there in promotions and promotional materials.

Wouldn't they need a new BB album to tour with? A new tour would have to offer something special, like C50 did.

I would say no, and no.

The TWGMTR album was solid, surprisingly strong all things considered. But I think the tour was the more impressive feat and the highest quality result from the whole project. And certainly, it did, would have, and still would net them far more money.

That a 2013 tour would have had to offer “something special” sounds, to me, like an extension of some of Mike’s arguments. I just fundamentally disagree, as did some actual tour promoters apparently.

“Due to overwhelming success, the Beach Boys’ 2012 reunion tour will undertake an encore tour performance throughout 2013!” That would have sold a ton of tickets. They could have taken it to international territories that they didn’t hit in 2012. Repeat, perhaps shorter, runs through North American and Europe. They only did TWO shows in the UK, they easily could have done more stuff there.

There was also the idea of doing a hugely lucrative Las Vegas residency. We know some possible reasons Mike would have never gone for something like that. But it was another possibility.

Lots of possibilities for how the reunion could have continued one more year, or in perpetuity. Just because Mike (and the other guys when they were in the band) diluted the trademark by touring incessantly every year and, when it comes to Mike, touring with few original or core members, it doesn’t mean a “reunion” lineup has to have some huge milestone to tout every time they do a tour.

And if they wanted to wrap the whole tour up in some sort of “special” context, there’s a million ways to do that. A good manager and PR firm could knock that out easily. There’s a “50th Anniversary” of something to do with the band built into the entire decade of the 2010s. 2013? 50 years of “Surfin’ USA!” 2014? 50 years of “Fun Fun Fun” (didn’t Mike actually use that one?). And so on….

Impossible to generalize, but my recollection is that in the 1998-early 2000s timeframe there was pretty strong animosity from some fans towards Mike, having as much to do with simply using the “Beach Boys” name as it did with Brian or Al not being there. Brian didn’t want to be there, Al was confusingly kind of squeezed out in 1998, so it was unclear what he *wanted* versus the reality of what was going on.

The last big swell of a large amount of negative feeling towards Mike came in the mid 2000’s when the “Smile”-related lawsuits came about. They were pretty much laughed out of the courts, and eventually that sort of faded away.

I think by the mid-2000’s, 2006-ish, even a lot of crusty, cynical fans had at least come to terms with Mike using the BB name. Brian still didn’t want a part of it. Al seemed to, sort of. That was about it.

I think the main thing that alleviated the scorn from fans concerning Mike using the BB name was that, apart from Al on and off, nobody else *wanted* to be in the “Beach Boys” touring band or use the BB name. As the decade went on, Mike was touring and there wasn’t any actual alternative. Having *a* Beach Boys, *any* Beach Boys out there versus none is an interesting debate, but at the end of the day Mike wasn’t touring *in place* of any other tangible, feasible lineup.

In 2012, the s**tstorm came about in part because this was no longer the case. Unlike the the late 90s and 2000s, both Brian and Al (and David Marks for that matter) wanted to keep *all five* guys together as “The Beach Boys.”

As Howie Edelson put it some time back, Mike essentially *quit* the band at the end of 2012 and went back to his thing. What fans who think C50 complainers are "anti-Mike" often overlook is that, at least for me, I never wanted to see Mike leave the reunion but have it continue as "The Beach Boys" either. Mike being a part of it is, well, a big part of it! Essentially, implicit in being critical of Mike ending the reunion is that I value what he adds to the band and the whole.

Very Good News.  He's been working on this, what?  About five years, only releasing a few tracks on I-tunes (I won't go there).  I hope I don't have to join some club to get it.  This should be made available everywhere.

He still sounds really in good voice.

The handful of songs put out on iTunes a few years back are apparently from a different project/producer than this new stuff. The producer of the new stuff has posted a few times over at the Hoffman board; mentioning that he feels the new stuff is different and better.

This new song sounds okay. A good album track. Simple but catchy chord changes and whatnot. I've heard some people say his voice sounds totally different. I actually think it's very recognizable as Emitt Rhodes; it's just deeper. Considering 42 years have past since most people last heard much from him, his voice sounds surprisingly strong.

I think his first 1970 albums is brilliant, almost track-to-track. The second and third are more esoteric and somewhat different, with a handful of good tracks on each.

I only have the first two, but I think they are both excellent self produced/played albums. Catchy melodies that really stay with you; some nice guitar work on there, too.

If you like "Mirror", I would think you'll like "Farewell to Paradise."

I think it was Rhino that put out a 2-CD set of all four of his albums (including the pre-self titled "American Dream" album) a few years back. I think the CD set might be out of print, but it's still available via download.

After I heard the self-titled album and found how good it was, I sought out his other stuff, including the Merry-Go-Round stuff. Nothing quite matched the self-titled album, but I found good stuff sprinkled throughout.

There was a documentary made about him a few years ago titled "One Man Beatles", but I don't think it has ever been seen outside of film festival screenings and whatnot.

Hey Jude,  Do you have a link to the SHF thread?  There was some live stuff awhile back that was on youtube, but his singing is much better on this new track.  I don't think his voice sounds totally different.  It's a bit deeper, reminding me a bit like Jackson Browne in places.  I can't wait to get my hands on this.

As far as his earlier music.  I have been a fan since the 60's.  I actually have both the original and re-issue of the Merry-Go-Round vinyl.  The four albums on vinyl, including promo copies of the last two.  Almost every Cd comp, including the Everything he did one.  Even the Japanese releases could be bettered.  Emitt wants the opportunity to have a go at re-mastering them himself.  Wish they would let him.

I've never heard anything by him I didn't like.  He was, and now is again, a major talent.  btw, I don't consider the 1970 his first.  Emitt might, but many of the tracks are not just Merry-Go outtakes.

Here's the thread from the Hoffman forum. There are a few posts in it from producer Chris Price.

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/new-emitt-rhodes-rainbow-ends-coming.478850/

There's something to the idea of doing alternate versions of some of those songs in a less bombastic, 80s synth-heavy sound. The two '88 tracks on the IJWMFTT soundtrack are an example of that. I quite like the IJWMFTT tracks and their sound; just wish different backing vocals could be grafted on somehow.

Remakes might be interesting. Trying to make them sound like "Pet Sounds"-era productions would be weird, though. I'm actually not a big fan of when Brian tries to ape that '65/'66 sound. Sounds too contrived to me (sometimes). The plinky baritone guitars and excessive clinky percussion, sparse drums, etc. Not always a fan of when Brian does that now. Worked perfectly back in that actual 60s timeframe.

First, it is nice to see a Mike interview where he doesn't mention drugs, lyrics that he wrote, etc.

As far as the demise of C50 - My guess is that Mike prefers being a big fish in a small pond. While it suck's for the fans, he has earned the right to make that call.

I am just thankful that Al has found a place with Brian. Through all of the crap that has occurred since Carl's death, the worst thing has been the treatment of Al. He deserved better.

Whether he has earned the right to use the BB name or not is a pretty subjective thing. But he certainly has a right to do or not do whatever he wants. He certainly shouldn't have to do a reunion if he doesn't want to (and who would want an unwilling participant?). So it becomes more a semantics argument; Mike won't just specifically say he wants to be a big fish in a small pond. Some of his comments have alluded to this (e.g. "we're doing things the way we do them, Brian's doing things his way...", and his comments back in 2012 about playing small markets).

It's all the other BS that just makes it less palatable. He says it was "always the plan" to go back to his tour. If that's the case, then what does the "promoters say give it a rest" argument have to do with anything? That's not even getting into the reports that they *were* offered more big gigs, and that promoters and people with more money than Joe Thomas were watching the C50 tour and seeing how it went with the idea of even bigger and better offers for more tours/projects. Nothing set it stone obviously, but I don't buy that huge swaths of "industry people" were telling Mike the reunion should break up to "build up demand." And again, any promoter who is telling Mike the truth would tell him that "giving it a rest" doesn't entail immediately continuing to tour under the same name and continuing to dilute the trademark's power.

Mike's "give it a rest" story sounds to me like one industry guy at a cocktail party off-handedly mentioned that big bands shouldn't "overexpose" themselves, and should try to build up demand by not constantly touring.

As I've often said, I think Mike made a decision to go back to his own thing, and then, as many people will do, has cultivated a list of technically-possible reasons he ended it. It's like a speech class where you're given a position, and then you have to come up with a list of argument points. Does anybody really think Mike ended the reunion because some promoter told him they should take a year or two off to build up demand? And if that were the case, then why hasn't he entertained going back to it, now that we're coming up on the FOURTH year of touring after the reunion ended.

It's pretty clear that if Brian were to call Mike and say hey Mike let's sit and write some songs together and do some great shows, I won't let anyone, any producer or anyone else get in the way of the Beach Boys being together , then Mike would say sure Brian that sounds great I'll come right over.  Then we would have some new beach boy reunion shows and more beach boy albums. It's pretty clear that the outside influences, those who are invested in furthering an adversarial relationship between Brian and Mike, are holding the strings.

Not nearly that simple. Even if all of that were true, it implies Brian should have to just submit to whatever Mike wants, which isn't really a "compromise."

But I don't think the whole "writing alone in a room" thing is particularly legit as far as the demise of the reunion. I'm sure it's a legit gripe Mike has about the 2012 reunion. But it's just another in a list of gripes, some more valid than others I'm sure (just as other members have gripes no doubt). But as others have pointed out, including folks who were inside the C50 tour at one point or another, there was nobody "holding the strings" keeping Brian from Mike during the tour. As has been pointed out several times, Mike had more time with Brian on the 2012 tour than he had since probably the 1981 tour, and there's no evidence he ever made any overtures to Brian to try to write something. And if Mike's beef is that he didn't get to write from scratch specifically on the TWGMTR album, that would ignore that it appears everybody knew what the album was going to be from the outset; that Brian and Joe got a deal based on Brian/Joe co-writes.

Sounds to me like "didn't get to write alone with Brian" is code for "Joe Thomas was hogging it."

At some point I'd be curious to see an interviewer point out to Mike, if he brings up the songwriting issue, that he had songwriting credits on 1/3 of the 2012 album (his solo track, adding lyrics to "Spring Vacation", and two ostensibly "from scratch" songs with "Isn't It Time" and "Beaches in Mind"). That he apparently wrote two songs "from scratch" with Brian but claims he didn't would suggest his problem was not having the "alone" part, which gets us back to Joe Thomas.

The more I read and analyze, the more I hear, I think some of the fundamental narratives of the C50 project will ultimately read somewhat differently. The narrative that even I more or less initially subscribed to, that Mike was all-in, 100% happy about the reunion at the start and then soured on the whole thing at some later point, I think that may not be quite the case. As has been posed a few times in the more recent past, what if Mike didn't really want to do a reunion in the first place? What if he was kind of "meh" about a big tour and album, and was simply offered a nice chunk of change to do it, and did a relatively good job for about 9/10 of the tour of playing along and being positive? Questions worth pondering.

Very Good News.  He's been working on this, what?  About five years, only releasing a few tracks on I-tunes (I won't go there).  I hope I don't have to join some club to get it.  This should be made available everywhere.

He still sounds really in good voice.

The handful of songs put out on iTunes a few years back are apparently from a different project/producer than this new stuff. The producer of the new stuff has posted a few times over at the Hoffman board; mentioning that he feels the new stuff is different and better.

This new song sounds okay. A good album track. Simple but catchy chord changes and whatnot. I've heard some people say his voice sounds totally different. I actually think it's very recognizable as Emitt Rhodes; it's just deeper. Considering 42 years have past since most people last heard much from him, his voice sounds surprisingly strong.

I think his first 1970 albums is brilliant, almost track-to-track. The second and third are more esoteric and somewhat different, with a handful of good tracks on each.

Jeff wasn't "poached". He told Brian he was leaving as soon as the Beck tour wrapped. As for what went down with lke, l have no idea.

Yes, that was definitely mentioned by Brian at the time. I purposely used “poached” in a rather loose sense.

It’s worth mentioning that there are several, sometimes competing, timelines and variant stories of that whole situation floating out there. Some variations suggest departing Brian’s band and joining Mike’s are not wholly, 100% unrelated events. In some versions of the timeline, “poach” would not be a completely inappropriate term.

At least he credits Brian with having a great band.  

Mike seems to have gone back and forth on that one. He didn't say much of anything about Brian's band until 2012, when he praised them highly (using words like "amazing" as I recall).

Then after the tour, he basically indicated he felt the band was too big with too many musicians and vocalists "competing for parts", which wasn't really an indictment of any individual member of the band of course.

Now, after he's poached two members of Brian's band (however organically or not that process went down), Brian's got a "great" band (no mention of Al, not that that *necessarily* means anything).

I think this Mike interview pretty accurately sums up where these guys are all at, at this juncture. Estranged, a bit embittered and standoffish, but cordial, with no lawsuits flying and a few nice comments about each other that don't cost anybody anything.

In other words, I'm guessing they learned from the late 90s and early-mid 2000s that they may not all want to work together, but might try to avoid spending ungodly amounts of money on lawsuits again presently.

I give the interviewer some credit for *trying* to ask again about the 2012 tour, but Mike kinda just spins the roulette wheel of the same explanations. PR advisor note to Mike: You're probably not going to dissuade anyone about being the "bad guy" in the scenario when you use the word "contracted" in your explanation of why the band didn't stay together. I'd also advise against using the "promoters told us not to tour too much" excuse, which just sounds lame.

Also worth nothing, Mike admits that "they wanted to go on with the tour" in reference to Brian and Al wanting to continue the reunion, so can we at least dispense with the lame contentions that Brian was the one that didn't want to keep the tour going? Mike admits Brian wanted to keep going.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/entertainment/a/30130029/the-beach-boys-return-to-perth-minus-brian-wilson/

I know this is perhaps not quite what the original question posed, but I'm more interested in the band (or BRI really) having good management. Managing BRI now would be a very different task from managing the BBs in the 70s or 80s.

What they need now is someone that can either smooth stuff out and convince the members to worth together or, if that can't work, get everyone on the same page for the *brand* even if they won't work together. Meaning, a huge archival program that not only satisfies fans, but gives the band more cred and builds up more hype. A manager that can get Mike Love and Brian Wilson to promote each others' projects on Facebook (not that that specifically is needed; it would be more an indicator of working towards a common goal even if they don't want to work together). A manager that, if Mike is going to continue to use the BB name, keeps the relationships lubricated enough that Brian and Al don't get "warnings" to not use their own trademarked name too prominently.

I do think, had they had a better manager in past years, they wouldn't perhaps be in the position they are now; so splintered and sometimes adversarial. You wouldn't have this weird situation where the corporation is letting Mike use the name, but some of the band members kind of begrudgingly let it happen.

Had they had better management, the manager wouldn't necessarily be able to change the members' personalities, but they could have shown the members why doing things a certain way would ultimately benefit everyone. Sweeten deals enough to where the benefit outweighs the ego.

I would say *if* they're inclined to do an intermission, they spot at which they did it makes sense. It looks like they did around 29 songs and took the intermission after 15.

I do think they could stand to make the shows a little longer, even if it meant just adding a few more Al songs.

I know Brian is slowing down these days, but back in, say, 2004, they usually did around 20-23 songs *before* the intermission, after which they'd come back and do the entire Smile album. I'm not saying they have to go back to that, but adding a few more songs, even some instrumentals and Al leads that don't tax Brian further, would be nice. Even when they have Blondie at the show, they only give Blondie two lead vocals plus the opening lines to "Sail Away."

Setlist from last night's show in Appleton. This was a last minute thing for me, thanks to a friend who got an extra ticket.

Our Prayer
Heroes and Villains
California Girls
This Whole World (Darian)
Dance, Dance, Dance
I Get Around
Shut Down (Al)
Little Deuce Coupe (Al)
Girl Don't Tell Me
Then I Kissed Her (Al)
California Saga (Al)
In My Room
Surfer Girl
Don't Worry Baby (Matt)
One Kind of Love
Marcella
(intermission)
Darlin (Darian)
She Knows Me Too Well (Matt)
Surf's Up (Brian with Matt)
The Right Time (Al)
Wouldn't It Be Nice (Matt)
Sloop John B (Al)
God Only Knows
Good Vibrations
(Encore)
All Summer Long
Help Me Rhonda (Al)
Barbara Ann
Surfin USA
Fun Fun Fun
Love and Mercy

Thanks for taking down the setlist. Nothing out of the ordinary, though "Girl Don't Tell Me" has only been performed a few times this year back during the summer, and other than the one May show in NJ, they haven't don't "Marcella" this year.

I guess they have to fill a few holes in the setlist for Blondie's temporary absence. I was kind of surprised they didn't keep "Marcella" in the setlist this year with Blondie, as he played on the song (what with the CATP connection and whatnot) at the PBS taping late last year.

It was a somewhat rare truly insightful piece of intel a little while back where Brian gave the interview saying he doesn't like to perform "Busy Doin' Nothin'" (my sense was not that he doesn't like the song, but rather that he finds it kind of tiring or tedious to rattle off all the lyrics), and sure enough, the two-song "Friends" section hasn't been heard from since the one September show in SF.

Well I'd hope that some of the bad errors that "crept into"  The Beatles set would not pass Alan and Mark by.
Always crap to have to moan when something like this has been put together but the "pitch corrected" Please Please Me has caused some talking, the wrong edit outro of 8 Days A week that's also out of time and the hair ! There are some other really bad clunkers which make you smack you're head against the wall and wonder wtf they're doing. Alongside some super spiffing stuff !
So I guess I'm saying as long as it's carefully put together then I don't mind. Can't say I have much interest in anything post-Holland though.
 

Not to get off topic, but seeing as everything on the Beatles set consists of remixes, I wouldn't say there's any egregious errors in that department on the set. Giles Martin has explained most of the anomalies that fans are hearing. The whole thing audio-wise is so altered (and I like it), I would expect some weird anomalies. "Free As a Bird" uses a different take of George's lead vocal, "Real Love" has different guitar licks mixed in, etc. Interestingly, those are the two tracks Giles Martin didn't mix; those were mixed by Jeff Lynne and his engineer.

Much weirder on the Beatles set is the schizophrenic video mastering, with some videotape sources being mastered at 24 or 30fps and kinda looking like film, while some film sources have been mastered as 60fps, and/or have been sped-up to match the pitch of the song and occasionally look a bit like a "Keystone Cops" film. It's all over the place.

Still a lovely set, though.

I dunno, it’s at least *interesting* that it appears Steve and Pamplin (assuming Steve’s reports of Pamplin’s words are correct) aren’t particularly denying several key stories that paint them in a rather poor light. Like the “Heroes and Villains” book by Gaines (which was also heavy on Steve Love/Rocky Pamplin sagas), it might be a sticky, icky book to read through with hyperbole galore, but might have some core stories and facts that aren’t found anywhere else.

Even if you’re inclined to not immediately be defensive of Carl being punched, even if Carl was just some random guy, Pamplin *still* comes across like a douche in the story. Maybe he was a big tough guy, but punching and knocking out some guy who’s drunk and strung out on heavy drugs isn’t the most challenging thing in the world.

Pamplin being taken seriously also wasn’t done any favors by the photo spread in the Gaines book. I still find it comical that a Beach Boys biography could contain the “safe” half of a Playgirl centerfold.

When Brian all of a sudden had sparking new, uniform teeth however many years back, I assumed like others he simply got dentures (I always figured that's what George Harrison did, for instance, when he similarly all of a sudden had perfect teeth, to the point he even talked slightly differently). But perhaps Brian got implants or just a lot of polishing and crowns and whatnot.

Yes, to clarify, I believe the 18-track version was only "exclusive" to Target stores in the US. It was offered in other territories (Canada, UK and/or other parts of Europe) at other retailers, and I don't believe it was exclusive to any one retailer in any other territories.

If you're a recording completest, the main deal would be to get the '75 "In the Back of My Mind" demo, as the version of "Love and Mercy" is simply the decade-old "Walking Down the Path of Life/Love and Mercy" single with the first half edited out.

The more overarching question is, why are we paying so much attention to some guy (whether authorized or endorsed by Mike or not) who is simply chopping up other YouTube videos and common footage from home video releases?

That being said, any "fan" that casually mixes C50 footage with Mike & Bruce band footage in order to celebrate essentially Mike's continued touring under the BB name, may deservedly be met with some skepticism and annoyance from some fans. It's a rather divisive issue, still. Mike is choosing to link himself (however directly or indirectly) with this guy, so Mike's not doing himself any favors.

But yeah, way too much attention is being paid to this, whether this is just some fan Mike randomly came across, or if he's actually working closely as a de facto employee of Mike.

The comparison to the Beatles package is difficult to make. I don't think there are a ton of known promotional films made by the Beach Boys, especially in the 60s. There are TV appearances, and concert films. But how many times did they or the record label prepare a "music video", either mimed or otherwise set to the studio recording?

Is there anything prior to the "Pet Sounds" film and "Sloop John B"? I think any such BB set would quickly devolve into a clip job of TV shows and concerts. A compilation of TV appearances would be great, but is unlikely to happen given the cost involved in licensing from numerous rights holders. Meanwhile, I'd rather have as separate compilation of full concerts rather than clips. That doesn't leave much. If they managed to include stuff from the later 70s and 80s and 90s, they could at least get a full-length deal done in terms of "promotional films/videos."

But how many 60's promotional films exist, separate from TV performances (mimed or live) or concert footage?

Sloop John B
Pet Sounds
Good Vibrations
Friends
I Can Hear Music

I'm sure I'm forgetting a few others. But there aren't a ton of clips. They could go the route a few clips on the Beatles set and edit together new clips, like the "Little Honda" film made of the Carl/Dennis home movies.

I think some TV stuff, especially stuff like the mimed "Cotton Fields" and that other version of "I Can Hear Music" and things like that, could be worked in since they function essentially as mimed promo films.

The other problem with working in any music videos from 1985 or later is that, aside from "California Dreamin'" and maybe "Somewhere Near Japan", just about all the videos they made are frankly pretty bad and sometimes embarrassing.

My idea would be:

- Multi-part, feature documentary on the group. Numerous hours long. Then, work extant promo films into that documentary, with more clips included as bonus features.

- Separately, a multi-disc DVD live concert compilation

Really, a long-form documentary and a release of live concerts are the two main video-related items left that are really feasible as far as the BBs are concerned. Aside from that, it's archival audio that's the untapped goldmine.