I'm sick of hearing about autotune in these threads. I'm not surprised others are expressing frustration too, it's not being "indignant" at all to push back at this regular flogging of the autotune subject. Put me at the top of the list, I've had it. When there are specific mentions of autotune not being used and backed up both by engineers who work with it regularly and in some cases some people who know exactly what was or wasn't done, and it's still "up for debate", it gets my blood pressure up. And I don't need that.  

2+2=4, some things like this either are or they aren't. Simple as that. If it's too difficult to accept others' words not to mention professional opinions on these things, then it's like trying to prove 2+2 does not equal 4. Don Quixote had a better chance with those windmills.

And honestly I think (though I may be wrong) a good number of people here are sick and tired of having "autotune" show up in these threads which does take away from the actual song discussion when people are getting excited about hearing something for the first time.

CenturyDeprived, TimbNash, 18thOfMay and a few others I'm missing...100% right on and I agree with what you're saying, I couldn't agree more. Enjoy the song and share the enjoyment with others, that's the best part of all this. Autotune doesn't amount to jack squat in the big picture of all this, and it distracts and diverts from what many probably come to these threads to do. Just my opinion, not "official" or anything of the sort, but a strong opinion at that.

If Brian Wilson had listened to people complaining about his use of modern production technology, we wouldn't have Pet Sounds and Good Vibrations.

Or, one other possibility is that autotune is not equatable to Brian's groundbreaking 60s methods and techniques. Maybe some feel it isn't "just another tool."

In 50 more years, people will still be in awe of Brian's 60s work. They will not feel the same way about autotune. In my opinion of course.

I was not at the mix of course. Down here in Nashville we pride ourselves in pristine non altered recordings. Kacey is a killer musician. If she was at the mixes i highly doubt if she would allow even  Brian to auto tune her voice, especially if she spent hours recording it over and over again more than 5 times.  i don't know about previous albums who what when , nor do i care. we will never know. I think that not saying anything at all is not equal to an accusation such as this thrown at a wonderful singer. The accusation is far more damaging than my response. I can think of many hurtful and libelous things someone could write about another person. If someone were called a thief for example saying the person is not does not carry equal weight. But i will agree with you that my choice of words should have been as follows. I would highly doubt that Kacey would have allowed Brian to not only make her sing the lead vocal perfectly five or more times and then stack all of the vocals together, and then auto tune them in the mix. My God at some point don't you think she, her managers or label would have said stop? And once again I cannot imagine Brian having anything to do with it either. Can we please now get back to what a great song and performance these wonderful musicians have given us? Please!

I don't know how hands-on she is with production and engineering. Even artists that are very hands-on don't always get into the nitty gritty of production and mixing and engineering. On top of that, this is a BW album. I wouldn't assume she would even be consulted on mixing or engineering or mastering decisions. She signs a waiver/agreement to be on the recording, and she sings.

Just as, I would assume Paul McCartney did not need to approve the final mix and mastering of "A Friend Like You."

I don't know if Musgraves is hands-on, but even if she is, that wouldn't preclude autotune being used on her vocals on this track.

To reiterate, many amazing singers and musicians use autotune, both knowingly and (to some degree) unknowingly. And I would venture to guess autotune is used in Nashville too. It's used everywhere, from major studios to home brew stuff recorded on laptops and iPads.

Do we know, by any actual source, how much Thomas has had to do with the production/mix of this album?

So we have identified Thomas as the auto tune guy? Really? TWGMTR was executive produced by Mike Love. Produced by Brian Wilson.  I guess Thomas is the guy that steals the tracks in the middle of the night, gets no production credit and auto tunes the vocals? That makes sense!  All while Mike and Brian are in the studio together writing Little Deuce Coupe Part II !  Seriously, Ive read in several recording mags that as guy named Siedleman is touting that he recorded Brian or The Beach Boys. He goes in to great detail about what microphones he is using etc. Whats his story?

It's true we don't know who, if anyone, is specifically instigating the decision nor actually doing the actually engineering work to add autotune to anything.

But whether it's Thomas or someone else, it doesn't require stealing the tracks in the middle of the night. It's all done right there in the studio. It's not a secret trick they whip out. It's all plugged right into the software. Some artists that are less involved (or interested) in production or engineering probably get autotuned and don't even know it. That doesn't apply to Brian. But it's not as if autotune is some separate outsourced effect producers have to farm out for.

Do we know, by any actual source, how much Thomas has had to do with the production/mix of this album?

Nope. He's been in a studio pic or two. It appears at least some of the songs on the album were co-written with Thomas. It was also mentioned that Joe was not in attendance for at least some sessions.

And all of that may or may not have anything to do with how much autotune is used or other post-production decisions are made.

Interesting trivia about the 7/4/90 gig(s) that perhaps everybody here already knows: They were apparently Foskett's last shows with the band (until 2012/2014 of course).

nice thanks..... now this song HAS autotune..at least on Kacey's voice it does..  

Sorry, my friend, you are completely wrong.  I work at a recording studio here in Nashville.  Kacey, according to reliable sources, said that Brian worked on her vocal for several hours until she got it perfect, and then had her multitrack her voice at least 5 times to get that sound.  Also, according to her, it was just her and Brian in the studio along with an engineer when she laid the track down.  One might conclude that since Kacey doesn't normally multitrack her vocals and Brian was working with her alone, either the engineer in the room forced him to record it that way, or it was his own idea.  We really should be better informed when we make definitive statements such as yours.

So were you there while the song was being mixed? Definitive "this has autotune!" statements may be overboard, but so is "you're completely wrong!"

I for one am finding it odd that all of a sudden autotuneish-sounding stuff is being explained away by "it's multitracked!" Now, let me back up. I'm not saying I find it odd that listeners are making this assertion. I think, and this is JUST A THEORY, that double tracking (or more) a lead vocal could be used to sort of take the edge off that autotune sound.

Double tracking a lead vocal is obviously a very old method. I'm also willing to stipulate to the fact that double tracking can give an autotune-ish effect to a voice, and I will *also* stipulate to the fact that previous uses of autotune can cause listeners to start assuming or waiting to hear it on the next song/album from an artist, and power of suggestion can go a long way.

But, given how WIDESPREAD the use of autotune-type plug-ins are, and the fact that they HAVE been used by some of the same folks working this new album, as well as the fact that some stuff *does* at least *sound* similar to an autotune effect; these things all tell me it's not far fetched to think that perhaps it has been used here and there to some degree. That doesn't preclude the artists from having done a million takes in the studio, nor does it preclude them from singing it as perfectly as they possibly can. It's not uncommon for a perfectly fine singer and a perfectly fine performance to have autotune gobbed all over their voice.

The mixture of better autotune (again, we're using autotune as a generic term for digital pitch correction plug-ins), a lighter hand on the autotune, then double or tripling he voice, and the mixing it, could take the edge off something like the robo voice heard on parts of TWGMTR.

News flash: We're never going to find out how much, if any autotune has been used. Are there a bunch of examples of artists admitting they use autotune?

So I don't think we should assume anything. But the mere accusation or question of whether autotune has been used should not be meant with an indignant tone.

This new tune sounds fine. It's the most "autotune-ish" sounding thing I've heard off the new album so far. Seriously, at this stage not everyone who suggest autotune might have been used are attacking the album, or the artists. It's like when your favorite band or singer does something you don't like on the track. Like when Al sticks a spoken-word intro on something, or when Mike has to namecheck old BB songs when he writes new lyrics, or when Clapton has to use a bright-sounding Strat on some song that needs a Les Paul and a Marshall stack. It doesn't necessarily make me hate the song. It's just a slight momentary "ah man, I could have done without that".

I'm also open to new "non-autotune" theories. Here's one: Young singers, especially *very* young singers, are now growing up hearing a lot of autotune. Maybe it's not insane to wonder if maybe young singers are using inflections and styles that emulate a bit of that autotune sound, and/or emulate the sound that our brains associate with autotune, and then it all starts sounding the same.

It is funny to read all sorts of contemporary reviews of things that read totally ass backwards from the later "consensus."

Rolling Stone even contradicts itself of course often when they do new reviews of old stuff (or do "all time greatest" lists) and readers compare to the original reviews.

Brian Wilson Debut Gets Expanded Reissued In May

http://www.musictap.net/2015/03/24/brian-wilson-debut-gets-expanded-reissued-in-may/

Might be worth starting a new thread for this, as it's a CD rather than vinyl.

It looks like the CD is just a case of putting the old CD back in print. The article guesses that the album might be remastered (again) as compared to the 2000 remaster. But if it has the same bonus tracks, I would guess it's more likely just the same disc back in print.

The question is, though, will the two or three incorrect mixes be fixed here as compared to the 2000 CD? I never heard if anyone actually got "corrected" discs back in 2000. I recall reading fixes had been made/submitted. So hopefully this CD will have those fixes. I might pick it up if someone can confirm the correct mixes were used for "Melt Away", "Let It Shine", and one other as I recall. The muddy mix of "Let It Shine" on the 2000 CD is, well, muddy.  So I'd prefer to have the original correct mix (although I guess I have an original 1988 CD too).

Yes, it's been discussed here by Carrie marks herself that Dave could not attend the filming because she and he were away on an around the world trip for their anniversary.  As I have said many times, that is a shame because it would have given even more BB power and cachet to the already monumental assemblage of BB heroes playing great songs, new and old, with great artists. That Runaway Dancer is growing on me but mainly the live version. And what a brilliant idea this show would have been for the entire BB band. If I were Mike, I would lament not being part of this, whatever the cause.

If Brian's new music was of any importance to Mike Love, he would've placed a priority on being a part of it going forward.  For whatever reason, it obviously wasn't important and he made his decision accordingly.  I agree if the case you are making is that it makes absolutely no sense to many Beach Boys fans why Mike and Bruce wouldn't want to be a part of this but being knee deep in it, they obviously have a perspective we don't.  So while some fans are left bewildered as to why they aren't there, others rejoice in the fact that they chose to abandon ship given what they perceive to be a lack of loyalty to Brian Wilson.

Were they asked to be part of it?

When someone divorces you and then you start dating someone else, you usually don’t go back to that ex that broke it off with you and ask if they want to be part of your new relationship. That’s the case even when a break is amicable. The C50 demise wasn’t particularly clean and amicable.

Brian wanted to work with Mike and Bruce as “The Beach Boys”, and they did not under the circumstances/conditions as they were at the time. At that point, it would make sense that any new solo project Brian works on would not include any offer to Mike and Bruce to participate. Just as I would imagine Mike did not offer Brian to come participate on “Pisces Brothers.” Brian and Mike (and the rest of the world) know that Mike doesn’t want to work with Brian under the conditions that were present during the C50 and the conditions that Brian prefers. Similarly, assuming Mike didn’t offer Brian to come sing on his solo stuff, he probably didn’t because he knows Brian wouldn’t want to.

Really, have you been following the history of this band? How many solo projects in the last twenty years have Mike and Brian invited each other to be a part of? Brian doesn’t have to offer Mike a chance to be on “No Pier Pressure” in order to be able to say Mike didn’t want to be a part of it. By his own word and actions, Mike made it clear he didn’t want to work with Brian under the current conditions. That’s fine, that’s his choice. But it’s his *choice*, and you can’t whine when it’s put in bold print that Mike didn’t want to work with Brian anymore.

To again use the divorce analogy, you don’t have to call your ex up every day after the divorce and check again to see if they *still* don’t want to be with you in order to say they don’t want to be with you.

If Mike wants to be on Brian’s album, or be a part of a BB album however Brian wants or needs to make it, then he should ask. If Mike had asked to be on Brian’s album, Mike would be quite free to make this fact known in an interview.

This is like in the immediate aftermath when people were crying foul about Mike doing his own BB shows again in 2012, and then Mike supporters started saying “Seeee!!!” when Brian started booking dates, as if Brian was equally responsible for breaking the BB reunion up. No. Mike didn’t want to continue, and Brian actually got on with his life and professional career and did something else. By Brian’s own words, he did that “something else” because another BB project was not possible. At that stage, why should he have to continue to make overtures to Mike about anything? It’s not even about sour grapes or vengeance. Rather, when someone indicates they don’t want to work with you anymore (and/or that they would prefer to go back to their own thing), you tend to not waste time asking them to work together. And that’s just talking about the functionality and logistics of the situation. That’s not even getting into the artistic side of things, where it’s quite possible that Brian, in reaction to how C50 ended, may no longer be interested in having Mike around because it would be a big ball of negativity and politics.

Reading Mike’s reaction to being asked about “The Right Time”, does that sound like a guy you would in retrospect wish you had offered to appear on the album?

Should we also suggest now that Mike needs to make sure to ask David Crosby to participate on Mike’s next tour or album?

The article mentions that "America" is going to be one of the opening acts. I don't know how big of a draw they are these days, but I would imagine they still sell tickets well enough to keep touring (weren't they on the bill for a few international C50 shows, such as Japan?), and their inclusion on the bill is surely part of the justification for the larger venues, in addition to the first UK tour of Brian's that has included fellow BB's as guests (other than the couple of shows in July last year with Al).

I think the tracklistings we're working up kind of reinforce that a single-disc "Best of" compilation doesn't seem to be the best idea. A boxed set of rarities and outtakes would be more appropriate at this stage.

Don't get me wrong, I can come up with a single disc (or double disc) "best of" of stuff I like. I'd throw "Let It Shine" on there; I'm probably one of the few that would. But that's best left to making our own compilations. The world at large of non-fans aren't going to be enlightened to the genius of "Good Kind of Love" or "Forever She'll Be My Surfer Girl."

If anything, some sort of "Basement Tapes" type thing with the "Bedroom Tapes" (they can call it that even if it has a bunch of random solo rarities) would probably get better press and word-of-mouth than a "Best of" of mostly songs nobody has heard. With a "Bedroom Tapes" sort of release, it would be implicit from the get-go that it's unfamiliar stuff.

I dig this one. Nice, non-contrived sounding trade-off on the lead vocals. That is, they are all suited to the parts they're singing. It's not just a "take turns" approach.

The mix sounds a bit muddy and cluttered in that Al's voice is a tiny bit more buried than I'd like in certain spots. Much like Brian, Blondie has a nice lower register voice that works well on this one.

Probably the best of the hand full of tracks we've heard in full. The little live snippet of this one in the "trailer" for the PBS show sounds like it, too, might sounds a bit more clear and crisp in terms of lead vocals.

I'd prefer minor and in some cases major mix changes in a number of the tracks, but I know this is how Brian likes to mix stuff.

And, for the millionth time, WTF is up with Al's voice sounding so good? Someone needs to get him on more stuff. Coerce him into cutting another solo album. See if Brian can lend him a few songs he's been noodling around with. Something. Seriously.

I suppose I can’t muster any particular sentiment against a solo compilation. But I don’t think it’s needed. What would it accomplish for fans? I can tell you right now: We’d be buying an entire album for the inevitable one or two “new” tracks they would throw on it. That doesn’t excite me. We all own all of these tracks. I’m sure some of us are missing scattered non-album tracks released on random singles or compilations. But few of those are worth putting on a “best of “ compilation.

I’m sometimes surprised by the level of enthusiasm hardcore fans will give to hits/best-of compilations. Especially in the post-cassette era when you can burn (or rip) your own compilation. What is there to be excited about? Cover art? Liner notes?

Even if we just say, “Well, Brian should be held in high esteem and should have a compilation readily available”, I would say such a compilation would have to be either kind of messy and scattered (to be in all-inclusive), or would have to be less inclusive to have any sort of flow. It would just strike me as weird and messy to mix in a lot of covers (live or studio) with original stuff. The covers could be dropped, but then the pool of albums to pull from is much smaller. Then we’re basically down to mixing tracks from BW’88, Imagination, GIOMH, Lucky Old Sun, and NPP, and maybe Orange Crate Art.

Some sort of boxed set of rarities would be a good place to compile a disc of “rarities” that have been issued, and then a bunch of outtakes. There’s a bunch of even pre-solo era (as in pre-1988) solo stuff that they could get on there. They’ve put late 70’s/early 80’s stuff on the BW ’88 reissue, and there’s the ’75 demo on some of the exclusive versions of NPP. I’m thinking they could secure more “Brother-era” Brian-centric stuff for such a set.

The other thing they could do (and perhaps is what they *would* do if they decided to do a Brian comp) would be to make it an online-only compilation; they’ve done such things on iTunes before. It’s basically a downloadable pre-programmed iTunes playlist of songs to buy.

I’m sure licensing for a solo BW comp could be accomplished. It’s not an unsurmountable task; they aren’t as scattered in terms of ownership as it might initially seem. But that also doesn’t mean it would be the easiest thing, and someone has to justify the cost of putting such a comp together and judging how it might sell. As has been mentioned, Brian doesn’t really have any solo “hits” to work with (other than, arguably, the full “Smile” album), so it would be a compilation sold entirely on name recognition and prestige. I don’t think his entire solo catalog has been warmly embraced by critics. Some pieces have of course. Two of those (“Smile” and “That Lucky Old Sun”) are, not surprisingly, pieces that work better as full album experiences anyway.

In any event, I guess all of the above is more stream of consciousness than strongly advocating for any particular option. Objectively, for Brian’s “cred” in the industry and whatnot, I have mixed feelings about a “best of.” Selfishly as a fan, I’m not terribly interested considering I own all of his stuff (some of it several times over) and I continue to loathe buying entire albums for one or two extra tracks (tracks that only sometimes can be purchased on their own online).

"Wild Honey" looks and sounds great too. It's too bad it's logistically too difficult probably to get all those guys on stage on the full tour.

Pretty awesome to see Brian, Al, Ricky, and Blondie all on stage together. I actually caught Ricky playing with Brian and Al during an encore in January '07 for 40th Anniversary PS tour, and then saw Blondie of course with Brian, Al, and Dave at the same venue in 2013.

Watched the "trailer" and "The Right Time" again as well, and I really like both Ike and Matt both singing with the full band. Wonder if there's anyway to make that happen for the full tour.

Assuming these songs all make the cut on the PBS airing, I have to give them credit for including a bunch of "non-hits."

Any soundcheck footage of the band doing "Lookin' at Tomorrow" with Al?

Does Soundstage usually release a CD or DVD?  This really does sound like it's going to be an awesome show and I'd love to have a recording of it.

Scattered “Soundstage” episodes have been released on DVD and/or Blu-ray. Most haven’t I would guess. I think fewer have been issued on CD.

Also, as I mentioned before, this is not a standard episode of “Soundstage” but rather a “Soundstage Special.” It also appears, if the YouTube clips are any indication, that BriMel owns the rights to the show, or at least co-owns the rights. For all we know, BriMel may have produced the show themselves and are just licensing it to PBS (sort of like what was done with the “Doin’ it Again” special in 2012).

My total guess is that there’s at least a decent chance we’ll see this show released on DVD/Blu. If it does happen, it may not happen for awhile. The best immediate hope for those who can’t get it on TV might be if someone manages to get the show up on YouTube for any length of time.

[Jardine told us at last night's opening of the Good Vibrations: 50 Years of The Beach Boys exhibit at L.A.'s Grammy Museum that he'd just spoken to Love a few minutes earlier: "I said I really do feel you need to rethink it, because there's so many opportunities left for us, and I'd really appreciate talking to you about it -- and he was agreeable to that."]

The thing isn’t rocket science. Mike has never said he was dying to do more reunion stuff. Period. Early on, he used vary passive language to indicate that it was possible. “There is talk”, “I’m not opposed” etc. But he was never jumping up and saying “This is awesome! I want to keep it going.” There’s no stories of Mike desperately trying to get Brian and Al back to the table to work on future plans. Rather, he has gone on record with numerous complaints about the reunion (complaints no other band members have lodged), and offered passive “nothing was ever set it stone” language to try to get people to stop saying he’s the reason the reunion ended.

During the tour, he used the “we’ll see what happens” line of defense to get reporters off his jock about future plans. After the tour, he has used a laundry list of reasons (the “small markets” stuff from the LA Times letter, the “set end date” mantra, the aforementioned “nothing was ever set in stone” stuff) to get reporters to stop saying he broke the band up.

On the other hand, we have Brian and Al who both in the immediate aftermath expressed a pretty strong desire to continue. Did Brian and Al chase Mike down and desperately try to talk him into continuing? I was going to say no, but then I remembered this quote from Al from the Grammy Museum thing in September 2012,  a quote which wasn’t mentioned often afterwards (from WCSX Radio’s website):

Jardine told us at last night's opening of the Good Vibrations: 50 Years of The Beach Boys exhibit at L.A.'s Grammy Museum that he'd just spoken to Love a few minutes earlier: "I said I really do feel you need to rethink it, because there's so many opportunities left for us, and I'd really appreciate talking to you about it -- and he was agreeable to that."

Al certainly seemed to want to sit down and have a discussion. Mike told David Beard these discussions never took place. In that story, Mike wasn’t approaching Al to discuss it; Al was approaching Mike. Whatever happened, it appears such a conversation never took place. Whose fault is that? I dunno, but one of those two guys was already booking non-reunion shows, and later rattled off a list of stuff he didn’t like about the reunion. Who seemed to have less or more interest and enthusiasm about having such discussions?

Every little detail of what happened on C50 is not clear (and believe me, there are some 100% conflicting stories out there). But it’s difficult to take away from all of the available evidence that Mike had nothing to do with the demise, or that he was only equally responsible as they all were for simply not “working something out.”  

Unless the documents *forbade* the lineup from *ever* playing together again, then it was open-ended. To say nothing of the comments from numerous band members, including Mike, during the tour suggesting it was certainly *possible* for it to continue.  For that matter, even if the contractual agreements stated they could *never* play together again (which I’m sure was not the case), they could easily draw up *another* agreement voiding the first one. “Theoretically” is not a legal fiction. There is no scenario by which a continuation of the reunion was impossible.  To this day, it is still possible. If they do another reunion project, I would have no problem saying they broke up again at the end of 2012 and then re-formed again in whatever year.

When people break up, do they not say “break up” anymore? “Sorry honey, this isn’t a break-up, we’re just going to go back to the status quo pre-our relationship”, or “Sweetie, I’m under no contractual obligation to continue to be in this relationship, so I’m going to go back to what I was doing before. It’s not a break-up though.”

The reunion was theoretically open-ended, so it amounts to a break-up I think. If it makes you feel better to think of it otherwise, more power to you.

We can't define the band as simply BRI. That's the holding company that controls the trademark and other business affairs. It isn't the band as long as you consider Dave and Bruce BB's.

C50 wasn't even BRI; it was 50 Big Ones Productions. Al wasn't even a part of it.

Some people aren’t super into the tropical, bossa nova sort of thing.

Fair enough, but bossa nova has nothing to do with tropical.  In this case, the lyrics give the song a tropical vibe because the singer is 'on the island'.  Other posters have said, "I'm not into that Jimmy Buffet, Private Life of Bill and Sue type of music, while referring to "On The Island".  Not the same thing at all.  I've never heard anybody say that they don't like "Busy Doin' Nothin'" because they don't like Jimmy Buffet style island music.    

I think that's just getting bogged down by the semantics of what a technical definition of a genre of music is or might be. Tropical and Bossa Nova are of course two separate things. If one likes neither, they may not like "On the Island." I can see how someone who doesn't like "Bill and Sue" might not like "On the Island" or "Busy Doin' Nothin'", regardless of the semantics of whether they fall under the same style or genre. They have enough similarities to elicit a similar response based on some folks' tastes.

All I can say is that C50 is an interesting, and divisive part of the band’s history and biography. If you’re not interested in biographical details, and just listen to the music, that’s cool. There are probably folks that do just that. But if you’re participating in discussions about their biographical details, then I would assume there is some sort of interest there. So yeah, I’m not big on breaking it all back down to “it’s all about the music.” Anyone with their head screwed on even halfway straight knows that. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I continue to listen to C50 stuff, Mike Love solo records, and new and old stuff without any reservations. This board is awesome, but I’d give it up (and/or give up talking about sordid historical details of the band) before I’d give up listening to the actual music.

This is a big board full of lots of informed folks. There’s no need to stop discussing something because it’s potentially divisive. Everything is potentially divisive. “I like 15 out of the 16 tracks on Brian’s album” can turn into a divisive argument. “Sgt. Pepper is better than Smile” can turn into divisiveness.

Not only is C50 a huge, current, important part of the band’s biography (certainly more than whether this member of that slept with someone, or their sister, or whatever), it was something the *directly* impacted the band’s composition, output (or lack thereof), touring configuration, and so on. When a member just makes a d**khead comment in an interview, that doesn’t usually matter in the grand scheme of things. But when the band reunites, and then there is a big blow-up over whether they should have or could have stayed together, that’s a HUGE part of the story that HUGELY impacts the future of the band, not to mention an important thing to document for their history/biography.

So if one wants to listen to the music and not know about all of the interpersonal turmoil and politics that certainly do bleed over into the fan community, then there’s nothing stopping them. If you’re interested in anything to do with their biography, then tune into more C50 discussions. Or don’t. Ignore it if you’re not into it. Is it circular? Yes, often. So what? My personal opinion is that a few one-line acknowledgments/stipulations from a key member or two and/or the same from a small section of fans would clear A LOT of the C50 fan discussion up very quickly, but that’s just my opinion. There are a myriad of other circular arguments and discussions in fandom, including here. Stamos, blight or national treasure? Playing in metropolitan areas versus playing in the sticks. Brian, still controlled or in control? Would Mike have made Pet Sounds or Smile better or worse? Did Al quit, or was he fired, or neither? “Just enjoy the music” is not a fair or ample answer to any such questions, however circular or asked-and-answered or divisive they might be.

I’ve heard “stop discussing C50” from folks who will write pages about Hal Blaine’s jockstrap size during the first four-hour block of time during the third “Good Vibrations” tracking session. We have intense Beach Boys beard discussions here (I’ve even done some intense research in the area, narrowing down the time of Al’s beard shaving between June 17 and July 4, 1983). So a discussion about the band effing essentially BROKE UP again a few years ago is kind of a big freaking deal. I’m surprised by anyone that would not think such a thing would be hugely divisive among the band and fans.

The “Soundstage” special looks f***in’ awesome, about ten times better than I expected, and we’ve only seen two full songs and a four minute trailer. To objective point out why some might not be superfans of Zooey Deschanel’s bit is not a terribly “negative” outlook. I don’t even dislike her performance. It seemed fine. I don’t want to start a s**tstorm by actually voicing a potentially negative opinion about a song or two on this album, but “On the Island” as a song doesn’t sound terribly interesting to me. Zooey Deschanel’s voice isn’t less interesting than the song itself, and therein may lie why some folks might come away with a sort of “meh” attitude about that one little clip. Some people aren’t super into the tropical, bossa nova sort of thing.

I’ve heard some of her other stuff, and none of it sounded bad. Her cover of “Christmas Day” was charming. I think there was some other “She & Him” stuff I heard that sounded better than anything BB-related she’s done. I have a recollection of hearing some stuff from one of those albums and it sounded a little more groovy and interesting, a bit of a hippy late 60’s vibe.

Brian and Mike make the distinction between promoter talk and group talk and make the claims that the group talk didn't happen, you're not arguing with me.

Nope, they have not made these distinctions clear whatsoever. The fact that Brian and Mike's LA Times letters in 2012 were so at odds, and that Mike's "interview" with David Beard completely contradicted what he said to Howie Edelson is evidence of that. I haven't seen anyone but you parse selective words into a "Brian and Mike agree!" argument. Even some staunch Mike Love defenders would agree the Beard and Edelson interviews are completely at odds.

Mike gave his reasons why the reunion line up didn't continue for the pre-booked 2012 shows. There were his practical/financial reasons but one of the reasons was he, Brian, and Al had agreed they wouldn't be in those shows.

Nope, not buying that failed string of logic again. Brian and Al didn’t agree to not be in shows post-C50 anymore than they have continually agreed year after year to not play in my backyard once per month. An agreement that lays out X, Y, and Z is not an agreement to NOT do something else after.

It would be fair to say nobody was under any contractual obligation to continue the C50 lineup. But it’s total crap to say Brian and Al “agreed” to not be a part of any further shows after the contract ran out. That’s like signing someone up to a one-year employment contract and then, instead of saying “you’re fired” or “we no longer need your services”, saying instead “you agreed to not be a part of this company after one year.” You can’t agree to something that hasn’t and may not happen. An agreement with an end date is an acknowledgment that anything could happen after that agreement. But Al could also catch a cold and race in the Indy 500 after the scheduled end of C50. It doesn’t mean he “agreed” to it.

So that post-C50 group discussion was something that Brian and Mike  both wagged their chin about being important but both say it didn't happen.  They should have gotten together for that group discussion that would have set in stone post-C50 things instead talking past each other and pointing fingers at each other in the press about all of the promoter talk.

Apparently the interested promoters themselves were the ones talking up the year delay to the group: “You’ve got to be careful not to get overexposed,” Love said. “There are promoters who are interested, but they’ve said, ‘Give it a rest for a year.’ “   Mike Love LA Times Sept. 27 2012

It's total BS to imply Brian and Mike both wanted to continue the reunion but the "group discussion" never happened; as if they just didn't logistically make arrangements for a little group sit-down; as if a "group discussion" would have led to more reunion shows. The evidence indicates Mike had his own shows booked before the reunion was over. You continue to ignore Mike's own words about the things he didn't like about C50. Everybody else had nothing but good things to say. It was Mike, and only Mike, saying the band was too big, too many voices completing for parts, that the songwriting setup was not optimal, downplaying the magnitude of a #3 album chart placement, and so on. One more time, all together now, Mike didn't want to continue with the reunion lineup the way things were set up. Nobody else seemed to have a problem with it.

As for promoters, we also have indications promoters were interested in immediately booking more shows. We also have anecdotal evidence that the BB's collectively became a laughing stock of the industry for ending the reunion before most of the big money was even made.

I’d like to find out what promoter suggested to Mike objectively that the reunion should immediately stop and “build up demand”, but that Mike should continue to tour under the exact same name during that “break.” Does anyone really think Mike was ready to do another reunion leg, but stopped when he was advised to “give it a rest” for a year? And if that was the case, I guess I missed the 2014 reunion tour; it must not have come to my area.

Nah, I’ve run into this a million times with people on any range of subjects. It’s a common pattern with some folks’ logic. They reach a decision, but don’t want to own the decision and/or explain the real reasons for the decision, so they search for a bunch of other plausible (and not so plausible) reasons. It’s like breaking up with someone because you simply don’t want to be with them anymore, but continually saying “no, no, it was just a timing thing, we just never discussed and fleshed out our feelings, and I’ve had some friends tell me that maybe we should just take a break for awhile”, instead of just owning it and saying “I don’t want to be with you anymore. I don’t like this, so even though you want to stay together, I’m leaving.”  

["There's talk of another album, yeah. Y'know, the record company's completely stoked about how well this whole project has gone. There's the Grammys coming up next year and there's talk of us going back and doing a return to the Grammys and there's talk of doin' a new album together. So, we'll just have to see what happens in the future. There's nothin' definitely in stone, but there's a lot of ideas bein' floated around -- and there's been some very successful concerts. Y'know, 17-and-a-half thousand people at the Hollywood Bowl sold out and there's interest from promoters, obviously, 'cause that's how they make money."and. . . "After this year completing the 50th anniversary reunion, we'll entertain doing some more studio work and see what we'll come up with and then we'll look at what to do in the future."]

I wasn't referring to the press release. It was on topic imo and Mike did both: explained why he did the venues he did with the non-C50 band and why the 2012 post C50 venues were not appropriate for the C50 band and that the promoters in 2012 were promoting for venues in 2013. As far as talk v. discussion, maybe you missed where Brian said the same thing as Mike.

Did you miss Howie Edelson’s interview transcript where Mike mentioned talk of another album and more touring? I’m sure you didn’t, which means we’re back to the ridiculous “talk vs. discussion” semantics to try to explain that awful diatribe Mike wrote to David Beard. Don’t need to go there again.

As to the talk of post-C50 shows that had already been booked, as has been mentioned in the past, those shows could have easily been bought off or rescheduled or converted to C50 shows if they had been inclined to continue C50 (or, gasp, Mike could have just done those few shows on his own and then went back to more reunion shows). As I’ve said a million times, the reunion didn’t ground to a halt because of a few shows Mike had, *oops* booked and couldn’t get out of. It appears he booked more shows before the reunion tour was over because, in my opinion, he didn’t want to do more reunion shows and wanted to do more of his own shows. The simple explanation makes the most sense. Why he nor you can just say that plainly and simply, I do not know.

It’s like someone asking their spouse, “So what you’re saying is you want to end the marriage?” and the other answering “The thing is, I’ve already planned some dates for after our divorce, and these dates aren’t really conducive to incorporating my ex, so what can I do?” instead of just saying “Yes, I want to end this marriage.”

"There was never any discussions within the group either during, at the end or after the scheduled and agreed upon ending of the reunion tour."

"As for more offers…I was presented with very nebulous offers, in other words, offers without documentation (i.e none). I asked for the offers to be presented in writing from the offering party, but never received a formal offer. It sounded odd to me that Wrigley Field wanted a show in October. Madison Square Garden for New Year's Eve was a stretch considering Phish was already booked." 
Mike Love Examiner  February 25, 2015



"There's only one 50th anniversary, obviously, but... there's talk of us going and doing a return to the Grammys next year, and there's talk about doing another album together,

 "There's nothing in stone, but there's a lot of ideas being floated around. So after this year, after completing the 50th anniversary reunion, we'll entertain doing some more studio work and see what we can come up with and can do in the future." 
Mike Love June 27 2012 Billboard



" So, we'll just have to see what happens in the future. There's nothin' definitely in stone, but there's a lot of ideas bein' floated around -- and there's been some very successful concerts. Y'know, 17-and-a-half thousand people at the Hollywood Bowl sold out and there's interest from promoters, obviously, 'cause that's how they make money."

"After this year completing the 50th anniversary reunion, we'll entertain doing some more studio work and see what we'll come up with and then we'll look at what to do in the future."
Mike Love to Howie Edelson during C50 tour



"I'm disappointed that Mike would now say that the release was done at the request of my representative. The first I heard about it was at the Grammy Museum event. We hadn't even discussed as a band what we were going to do with all the offers that were coming in for more 50th shows.
Al and I just assumed based on everyone's enthusiasm we would at least want to take those offers into consideration since we all knew about them. I mean, who wouldn't want to play the Hollywood Bowl again, Madison Square Garden and Wrigley Field? And what better way to celebrate New Year's Eve than with the 50th band? "
Brian Wilson LA Times Oct 9 2012

I read it. They all agree promoters, Capitol, Grammys were talking but there was never discussion within the group about the promoters, Capitol, Grammys talk of offers. Brian and Mike make a distinction but it is getting ignored for some reason imo.

Also according to Mike the reunion shows promoters were talking were  in 2013 after giving the reunion a year off at the promoters' suggestion.  Either Brian was talking NYE at MSG in 2013 on October 9 2012 or he was unaware that Phish had already announced on October 2 2012 it was playing NYE at MSG.

So I guess we will just disagree for now.

Here's the full quote Howie Edelson offered from his interview from the middle of the tour in 2012:

"There's talk of another album, yeah. Y'know, the record company's completely stoked about how well this whole project has gone. There's the Grammys coming up next year and there's talk of us going back and doing a return to the Grammys and there's talk of doin' a new album together. So, we'll just have to see what happens in the future. There's nothin' definitely in stone, but there's a lot of ideas bein' floated around -- and there's been some very successful concerts. Y'know, 17-and-a-half thousand people at the Hollywood Bowl sold out and there's interest from promoters, obviously, 'cause that's how they make money."

and. . .

"After this year completing the 50th anniversary reunion, we'll entertain doing some more studio work and see what we'll come up with and then we'll look at what to do in the future."

You continue to imply that the reunion ended because "discussion" never took place, and/or nothing was set in stone. This ignores any reasonable definition of "discussion" in my opinion, and ignores the zillion other indications that Mike simply didn't like the reunion setup and wanted to go back to his own thing.

Even Mike listed off in some interviews (which you did not reproduce above) a bunch of stuff he didn't like about the reunion. Why is it hard to grasp or admit that he just would rather do his own thing? Actions indicate he'd rather play the rodeo with his lineup than do more reunion shows the way C50 was set up.

The "build up demand" stuff is BS in my opinion. We don't know who made this suggestion to him, and the fact that it's 2015 and there hasn't been more reunion activity suggests the idea of building up demand for a year or two was meaningless and in my opinion a way to get interviewers  to stop bugging him back in 2012 by implying the break was short term.

It’s also worth mentioning that it’s possible to do classy, well-thought out “small” gigs. Like Brian did at the Roxy. Or playing a run of shows at BB Kings. If one’s inclination is to be close to an audience and have a small, intimate atmosphere, that can be done with class. It can be a hip, cool thing.

Like it was December 28th, 29th & 30th 2000 when Mike & Bruce played BB Kings in NYC ?

Sure. I didn't say they never did such gigs. Playing that many shows per year, every year, I would assume and expect they've played every type of venue imaginable, from Royal Albert Hall to stadiums to bowling alleys. I'm sure a hunk of he bookings Mike does are at fine venues; he books some of the same venues Brian does and C50 did. The question/discussion seems to revolve around the incessant touring and how that either drives or is driven by booking small markets and unconventional venues.

One of the big criticisms of Deschanel’s music is that her voice is very average, and it’s the whole package (the look, the inflection, the “whimsy”) that attracts people to it. This clip reinforces that. It’s a kind of bland, but totally on-key, performance. She has a pleasant voice. But it’s the whimsical, retro nature of the whole thing that probably attracts people to it.

This clip probably makes things worse because she does give the visual impression to me that she’s kind of bored. She probably isn’t, but it kind of seems that way. It also appears they are either lip-syncing to the finished take or that they used different recording footage compared to what’s actually on the recording.