[Is this just a one-off get-together for this tour? Or are the Beach Boys back together?We're just approaching it a day at a time, one tour at a time. We're going to do some European stuff, it looks like. Right now, it's just offers. Other than three dates in Japan in August, that's confirmed. Everything else is subject to offers and negotiations.Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/exclusive-mike-love-talks-beach-boys-50th-anniversary-tour-20111219#ixzz39YvFvnSk]

At the risk of this either being roundly ignored or inciting a bunch of repetitive argument, I'd like to remind us all of this snippet from an interview concerning the then-upcoming reunion tour, with Mike Love, published by Rolling Stone on December 19, 2011:

Is this just a one-off get-together for this tour? Or are the Beach Boys back together?

We're just approaching it a day at a time, one tour at a time. We're going to do some European stuff, it looks like. Right now, it's just offers. Other than three dates in Japan in August, that's confirmed. Everything else is subject to offers and negotiations.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/exclusive-mike-love-talks-beach-boys-50th-anniversary-tour-20111219#ixzz39YvFvnSk

Does that sound like someone who knows, unequivocally, that after the reunion tour they will not do anything else together? He literally says they're taking it "a day at a time." He's either bulls**tting, or he truly is undecided at that stage as to whether the band might continue together into the future.

I actually hadn't gone back and read those pre-tour interviews for quite some time. How interesting and sad. What the f*** happened? 

Any comments about `Brian` always seem to be more about his people than the man himself. And I guess there have been numerous others over the past several years who have had issues working with them and have moved in and out of favour.

Brian uses the people around him to control who he interacts with. It is his choice.

He has a complicated life, but he's no vegetable, and when he wants stuff he generally makes it known.

And as for "his people" -- once again, who are they? You have Melinda, who is his wife and who might be expected to take an interest (and is far from the only rock star spouse to manage her husband's career). And then you have ... hmm ...

Well, there's Jean Seivers, who is his publicist.

David Leaf isn't there.

Joe Thomas is there, but I doubt he wants to stick around for years and years. He's also not working in the studio with Brian these days, either.

So, Nicko, who are the people? Are we talking about Melinda? And if that's the case, let's just say that Brian's wife rubs some people the wrong way. It would probably be more accurate, and sound less conspiratorial.

Also worth chewing on is that even observers like Howie Edelson have mentioned that Melinda is not the only wife who was involved in the whole C50 project. His commentary as well as the commentary of others seems to indicate Brian may have had room to say similar things about the people "around" another person in the band.

It's perhaps worth noting that I don't believe Brian has ever commented negatively in interviews about people "around" anyone else in the band (as in wives, handlers, etc.)

Keep in mind that going back to the band's first attempts to shop for a new label after the Capitol agreement was up, Brian's participation was a key factor to the point where the contracts going back to those early Warner/Reprise negotiations stipulated that he would have to be involved to a certain degree in the recording process, or else there was no deal. And even into the later 70's, the band had to tempt potential "buyers" with things like the Smile tapes and Brian's involvement in the process in order to wrangle better offers from bigger labels.

That's all recorded history, but important to note because when Brian was definitely not involved in an album project, and publicly so, the results were Summer In Paradise which did nothing to capitalize on the MTV/single/soundtrack success of Kokomo, in fact it could be argued the album took whatever momentum and value it had given the Beach Boys brand name and squandered it.

Forward to That's Why God Made The Radio - The deal was struck, Brian was actively on board, the album goes top 5 on the charts.

It's pretty simple logic from a sales/value perspective, when Brian is involved in a Beach Boys project along with original members, it has many times the value to labels and sales potential than when he is not. And I think it would be a hard sell if not an impossible one in 2014 and beyond (and going back to the 90's) to shop a Beach Boys album without Brian Wilson's name on it somewhere. In fact there is probably no desire to even consider shopping such a project as long as the band members are still active because the interest wouldn't be there.

Agree, and let us not forget to note the Beach Boys got a deal of some sort for Summer In Nashville (Stars/Stripes), due to the Brian/full band involvement.

Good point, and I remember when Little Deuce Coupe seemed to be the lead single the Beach Boys - all surviving members including Brian but minus David - appeared on Letterman's show doing backing vocals for the singer who did lead. And I thought...well, the performance was solid and everything, but wasn't that sort of a waste to have the freakin' Beach Boys singing backup for an up-and-coming country singer instead of having them as a band play instead? That was some of what applied to a lot of that album project, it just didn't hit the mark.

Unlike "SIP", I think the blame for the "Stars and Stripes" debacle can more easily be spread around to many or most of the members. Not surprisingly, they've rarely if ever been asked about that project after it occurred.

[But Mike is, sadly for fans of the band who want some sort of indication that the guys might do something together again, using even stronger, more pointed language concerning Brian. As I’ve often said with Brian, even if all these points are accurate, they’ve always been accurate. If you work with the guy and say everything’s a-okay, but then when things aren’t going the way you want, point out how f-ed up you think his situation is, it kind of undercuts credibility.]

That interview did indeed at least elicit more of a substantive response concerning C50 than any of these other interviews we’ve been talking about. He still avoids addressing why he didn’t want to do more reunion shows and falls back on stating the obvious; that they did all the shows they agreed to do. But his verbiage concerning C50 is becoming almost comically more and more “bleh.” Now the best we get is that it was “interesting.” We don’t even get the “it was a fun and we had a good time” sort of response anymore.

It reminds me of one time I took a distant relative out to dinner. Afterward, their reaction started as “the food was great.” Then, once they got cues from others that they thought the food wasn’t that great, a few hours later the reaction had shifted to “it was okay.” By the end of the night, it had turned to “it wasn’t that great.” Weeks later, when the topic came up, it was “oh my god, that was the worst meal I’ve ever had, and here are the ten reasons it was so horrendous.”

But Mike is, sadly for fans of the band who want some sort of indication that the guys might do something together again, using even stronger, more pointed language concerning Brian. As I’ve often said with Brian, even if all these points are accurate, they’ve always been accurate. If you work with the guy and say everything’s a-okay, but then when things aren’t going the way you want, point out how f-ed up you think his situation is, it kind of undercuts credibility.

As for the “second album”, I view that as the same situation as “another tour.” There would never be another tour or album until they all agreed to do another one. I don’t think Fine or Brian have said Mike agreed to do another album and then backed out. I think what they’ve indicated is that Brian had more material ready to do another BB album, wanted to do another BB album, and Mike didn’t under those circumstances.

Same thing with the “fired” thing. Mike is now using the ignorant press comments as a straw man. Nobody is still asking or saying Mike fired Brian. Even Brian said he hadn’t been fired. The question concerns why Mike didn’t want to do more shows. The answer we have thus far is still nothing more than “we didn’t do more shows because we didn’t do more shows.”

Any comments about `Brian` always seem to be more about his people than the man himself. And I guess there have been numerous others over the past several years who have had issues working with them and have moved in and out of favour.

Very true, he does that make distinction when discussing a lot of these things. But there's a point at which when you blame all the people "around" someone, and then state that that someone is "controlled and still medicated", and imply a correlation between the "street drugs" he used to take and the prescribed drugs he *currently* takes, that's a pretty strong litany of negative reflections of that person. Does Mike even know what specific medications Brian is taking? And why is he framing this "medicated" state in a negative light, but then still saying he would work with Brian if it was one-on-one?

And could someone send a memo to Mike and let him know that not much of anybody I know, even staunch John Lennon fans, are going around saying "John Lennon was the real powerhouse of the Beatles." Nobody is saying Paul McCartney or Harrison are "chopped liver" (another line Mike has used in previous interviews, by the way), nor is the Wilson/Love relationship creatively substantially similar to the Lennon/McCartney relationship.

Also, once again, when asked about what people don't know about *Mike*, he quickly mentions how the Wilson brothers did drugs. Why is he that fixated on this, especially now?

I also find it amusing that they all put aside "individual pursuits" to do the reunion tour. In this scenario, his "individual pursuit" is touring as "The Beach Boys."  

Bruce & Ego: true story...

Back in the days when people still emailed each other, one day I got one from George, aka Junkstar, Ego operator which said, in essence, "there's a guy just emailed me wanting to register, claims to be Bruce: I was about to tell him to go f*** himself but thought I'd best check with you first - the email is iwritethesongs@aol.com*" So I replied that he could do that if he really wanted to but as it really was Bruce, maybe not the best idea.

About 20 minutes later, another email from Junk: "My blood just ran cold".

Bruce posted for a few months, and when some folk were a little rough with him, gave as good as he got. Stopped posting because the interest faded, or so I recall.

[* no, of course that's not the actual email... sheesh...]

As Mikie recently refreshed my memory concerning, I believe the Male Ego board was the place where the comically epic incident occurred where somebody, innocently as I recall, referred to Bruce as “BJ.” I remember Bruce being very indignant about it, to the point where I briefly thought he was joking. But I don’t think he was. I also recall thinking at the time that he was just making it exponentially worse by making such a big deal about it. 

Indeed, the great Black Hole in Beach Boys history.  I've never seen anybody really answer these questions.  Those who  have covered  this period time (be it Carlin, Stebbins, et al) seem to gloss over it in mere paragraphs with a resulting frustration to this reader. Whether that is because the author thinks this period is ultimately not interesting or they simply do not have the information I don't know...

I’ve always felt it was both. Some of the authors don’t seem to feel it was that interesting or noteworthy. I got the sense Carlin for instance didn’t really seem to be terribly overly interested in an attempt to oust a member of the band in 1990. That struck me as kind of a big deal. He did mention it in the book, but didn’t seem overly concerned.

I think Stebbins has more of an interest, especially concerning the 97/98 timeframe, as it involved Dave. But even in the Marks book, there is frustratingly little information. I sense particularly with the Stebbins/Marks book, it may have been more due to lack of detailed information being available, and/or still legal issues that couldn’t be delved into in too much detail.

I had one “insider” privately explain pretty explicitly way back in the late 90’s what the business breakdown of the tour operation was, and how changes in that setup were one of the key ingredients in the group splintering in the 1998 timeframe. But this breakdown has still never been published in detail. It’s not super complicated. It basically takes a few sentences, a short paragraph to explain. The Stebbins/Marks book comes closest, but it doesn’t get into the specific breakdown. My guess would be that is due either to lack of specific sources available to cite, and/or legal implications of getting into that much detail. That nobody has published this in explicit detail is perhaps what gives some “fans” pause to get into it as well. I dunno.

To me, the 70’s isn’t the era to look at as far as “oldies” overtaking the setlist. I would peg 1981 as the turning point. With no new album to promote, they not only had no “new” songs to put into the setlist, but had bumped almost all of the “recent” stuff as well. All of the KTSA stuff was gone. “Good Timin’” was gone (briefly revived in 1982 when Carl returned). The only stuff even from the 70’s was stuff like “Sail on Sailor” with Bobby singing, “Lady Lynda”, and not much else. In 82/83 when Carl returned, they briefly spiced up the setlist again. But past that, the only times they spiced up the setlist were brief forays into doing new album stuff (I think for a brief moment they were doing as many as 5-6 cuts from the ’85 album, but I think stuff like “Crack at Your Love” didn’t survive long), and then the late ’93 tour.

1981 was pretty much the first time they started regularly working stuff like “Surfin’ Safari”, “Surfin’” and “The Little Old Lady from Pasadena” into the setlist. This was the first time they had so quickly dropped the “recent album” stuff.

In 1980, they were at least still doing a couple tracks from “LA.” In 1979, they were still doing a few tracks from “MIU”, “Love You”, and “15BO.”

But by 1981, everything from KTSA was dropped. In 1985/86, they quickly dropped all the ’85 album stuff except “Getcha Back”, and even that song didn’t survive more than a year or two. Same thing with “Still Cruisin”, apart from perhaps the awful “Wipe Out” bit they continued to do.

How many here were on the two Usenet newsgroups back in the day? We’re talking mid-late 90’s. I think those were pretty dead by 2000 or so. I think AGD was there (he can correct me if I’m wrong), and Brad Elliott posted there a lot (back in the pleasant days when he was just an actual insider working on BB projects, before all that s**t hit the fan), Mark Linett posted there. That was where, if I’m recalling correctly, the epic “Family & Friends” legal debates took place that I had with Cam.

There was also the PSML (Pet Sounds Mailing List). I think that’s still going. I think one of my old e-mail addresses is still subscribed to it.

I think I remember the Cabinessence board (which I believe had a few iterations), the Smile Shop, I think I posted here and on the Shut Down board for awhile. AGD’s mentioning an “American Band” board also rings a bell from the early days. I also do recall the “Imagination” website and board.

Been to all of those. American Band was good for awhile. Imagination was VERY informative. There was one other called CalSaga run by a lady named Barb. Good board but not many posted on it. Affinity towards Al Jardine. I read the PSML but never subscribed. Brad was there, then he wasn't. Then there was Green Mansions.........ah, that English humor....and that lady who made her own version of Smile in Mono - one of the first. She had a board.......

Jude, did you ever post on the Ego board?

I definitely remember reading Bruce's posts. I probably posted there. Maybe the internet wayback machine will be able to tell me.

I tend to just filter out the BS flame stuff, so if I was on the Male Ego board, I was probably tuned out most off topic stuff. Was that the board with the "Flux" crap? Or was that Smile Shop? Or was that here?  

That interview did indeed at least elicit more of a substantive response concerning C50 than any of these other interviews we’ve been talking about. He still avoids addressing why he didn’t want to do more reunion shows and falls back on stating the obvious; that they did all the shows they agreed to do. But his verbiage concerning C50 is becoming almost comically more and more “bleh.” Now the best we get is that it was “interesting.” We don’t even get the “it was a fun and we had a good time” sort of response anymore.

It reminds me of one time I took a distant relative out to dinner. Afterward, their reaction started as “the food was great.” Then, once they got cues from others that they thought the food wasn’t that great, a few hours later the reaction had shifted to “it was okay.” By the end of the night, it had turned to “it wasn’t that great.” Weeks later, when the topic came up, it was “oh my god, that was the worst meal I’ve ever had, and here are the ten reasons it was so horrendous.”

But Mike is, sadly for fans of the band who want some sort of indication that the guys might do something together again, using even stronger, more pointed language concerning Brian. As I’ve often said with Brian, even if all these points are accurate, they’ve always been accurate. If you work with the guy and say everything’s a-okay, but then when things aren’t going the way you want, point out how f-ed up you think his situation is, it kind of undercuts credibility.

As for the “second album”, I view that as the same situation as “another tour.” There would never be another tour or album until they all agreed to do another one. I don’t think Fine or Brian have said Mike agreed to do another album and then backed out. I think what they’ve indicated is that Brian had more material ready to do another BB album, wanted to do another BB album, and Mike didn’t under those circumstances.

Same thing with the “fired” thing. Mike is now using the ignorant press comments as a straw man. Nobody is still asking or saying Mike fired Brian. Even Brian said he hadn’t been fired. The question concerns why Mike didn’t want to do more shows. The answer we have thus far is still nothing more than “we didn’t do more shows because we didn’t do more shows.”

How many here were on the two Usenet newsgroups back in the day? We’re talking mid-late 90’s. I think those were pretty dead by 2000 or so. I think AGD was there (he can correct me if I’m wrong), and Brad Elliott posted there a lot (back in the pleasant days when he was just an actual insider working on BB projects, before all that s**t hit the fan), Mark Linett posted there. That was where, if I’m recalling correctly, the epic “Family & Friends” legal debates took place that I had with Cam.

There was also the PSML (Pet Sounds Mailing List). I think that’s still going. I think one of my old e-mail addresses is still subscribed to it.

I think I remember the Cabinessence board (which I believe had a few iterations), the Smile Shop, I think I posted here and on the Shut Down board for awhile. AGD’s mentioning an “American Band” board also rings a bell from the early days. I also do recall the “Imagination” website and board.

As I recall, Summer in Paradise did not start out as a Beach Boys album.  It began as a Mike Love/Terry Melcher/Bruce Johnston recording project, with the idea of making the ultimate "summer album."  Gradually, Carl was coerced or persuaded to participate, and then Al made his small contributions.  It sort of stumbled into becoming a Beach Boys album as the others came in.

Well, Al was off at behavior modification camp or something along those lines during much of the recording, IIRC.

Alan was 'suspended' from the band due to a serious attitude problem. There was a band meeting, issues were addressed and and he made his contributions to the album.

But was Al “suspended” from all group activities, or just not invited to the “SIP” sessions? I don’t recall Al missing any large string of shows in the 1991-1992 timeframe.

I know the “attitude problem” is the wording used in the “ComGuide”, and Mike’s Goldmine interview seems to indeed indicate something along those lines. I’m very curious what those “attitude problems” consisted of. If even the less scandalous biographical descriptions of BB history are at all accurate, most of these guys seemed to have “attitude problems” at one time or another.

I’m interested in the issue raised above in another post concerning the “SIP” sessions starting as a non-BB album. Was it for certain a BB album at the time Al was “suspended?”

Also, I think some folks in the past have snarkily, sarcastically mentioned that perhaps Al had an attitude problems in part because of the material on display during the “SIP” sessions, but I actually wonder if that album might have been a factor. That is, if indeed it was a BB album by the time Al’s ‘tude was on display, was his attitude in part due to seeing that the new group album was being undertaken as essentially a Mike solo album, both in terms of songwriting as well as overall execution? The group essentially funded the album themselves, right? That’s where I would question if it was still not set in stone as a BB album by the time recording commenced, as that would have potentially been a group-funded endeavor.

I also still want to determine what had already occurred some two years prior to the “SIP” era. As I’ve mentioned many times, Peter Ames Carlin’s book mentions that an attempt to oust Al from the band was made in 1990. He doesn’t really offer any specifics or any reasoning behind this. I think I asked him about it on this board some years back and I believe he had seem some reference to this in some sort of paperwork he had seen, but I never saw any further details about this.

I’ve always assumed Mike and Al became more estranged, and in a weird slight role reversal of the 70’s situation, it was Carl who eventually sort of acquiesced and allowed Mike to take control of things, and this in turn estranged Al from Carl and Al was marginalized. (This marginalization became even stronger once Carl was gone, it would seem.) 

Ok, now we're debating Mike's ulterior motives IF he decided to record a new BB album by himself.

I think it's a discussion about whether Mike has attempted or considered recording such an album. I suppose that would include a discussion of motives. Not so much ulterior. If he wanted to record a BB album, I think the motive would be pretty obvious as it is with any artist.

I think the discussion also concerns more whether he would be able to record such an album.

It's not a crazy scenario. The SIP album isn't too far removed from such a scenario.

As I recall, Summer in Paradise did not start out as a Beach Boys album.  It began as a Mike Love/Terry Melcher/Bruce Johnston recording project, with the idea of making the ultimate "summer album."  Gradually, Carl was coerced or persuaded to participate, and then Al made his small contributions.  It sort of stumbled into becoming a Beach Boys album as the others came in.

Well, Al was off at behavior modification camp or something along those lines during much of the recording, IIRC.

 

I've always wondered what the deal was with Al around that time. We pretty much have that one Mike interview from Goldmine where he talks a bit about Al's issues. I also recall reading there may have been an issue with tinnitus, but that seems unclear.

Listening to "SIP" years later, while Carl and Al's vocals (and a small handful of decent/catchy compositions) are the saving grace of the album, I was surprised by how awful and dated the production is. The production on this album, especially the "drums" (not sure how much of the drums are real), sounds more fake and dated than even the '85 album in most cases. I don't know how much has to do with perhaps low sampling rates or something used on that very early-era ProTools recording setup. But the whole thing sounds very shrill, thin, tinny, etc. Even the cheesy 80's synths on the '85 album somehow have more warmth sonically.

Seriously, just about anything else they did in 5-10 years before or after that album sounds so much better sonically. That's not even getting into the compositions.

I think there was simply a point where, for the most part, the Beach Boys stopped being a fully-functioning band that does what bands typically do, which is release albums and tour. By the 80’s, they had clearly stopped prioritizing recording. In, say, 1973, or even 1979, the Beach Boys could still be seen as a “recording group” who also toured. By the mid-late 80’s, and certainly the 90’s and onward, they were, to put it most sympathetically, a band that primarily toured and then occasionally did some studio work. A more cynical view would be that, at a certain stage, the Beach Boys were largely a registered trademark under which a group of musicians toured.

I think the late 80’s and early-mid 90’s were simply some final attempts at taking a stab at it again. The success of “Kokomo” probably fueled “Still Cruisin’” (both in terms of creating a motivation to do an album, and in terms of hooking Capitol into a one-shot record deal). As for “Summer in Paradise”, I don’t think Mike spearheading that album in 1992 was anything like what would occur today. He apparently had the support of enough additional group members to get “SIP” made. I’m not sure how much Brian knew or cared or had any say in whether “SIP” came out. All the other BB’s appear on it, which would imply even if he was against it, he was outvoted. In 1992, he was also in the midst of being extracted from the Landy situation, so I don’t know how he or a potential conservator might have played a role in having any say. I would imagine “SIP” got made because the other voting members of the group either willingly or begrudgingly rolled over and handed over artistic control to Mike.

Recently re-reading some bits of the Usher “Wilson Project” book, it appears that even into 1987, the group saw themselves as a viable recording group to some degree, so much so that they saw fit to specifically hold meetings on the subject and outline, at one stage, that Brian was “out” as the group’s producer and Terry Melcher was “in.”

Simply put though, presently Mike would need approval and/or a different license to record under the BB name. As others have pointed out, I think he has very little interest in doing this in any event. He does seem to see the touring band as his bailiwick.

I would also guess, especially now, that he would not so easily obtain a license from BRI to release an album under the BB name. I’m not as certain Brian would agree to that at this stage. The cost/benefit ratio would be nothing like it is for the touring setup. An album under ideal circumstances with all five members would not necessarily be a huge moneymaker. So an album with only Mike and Bruce (both in terms of writing and selling power) would likely do even more poorly, and could potentially result in damaging reviews as well.

I'm guessing if anymore reunions should take place Bragg won't be invited.

I hope you're wrong. He brings a dynamism to the show that few others ever do. He's versatile, talented and creative, good with the fans and seems to live for the music.

And one more thing that Nelson can Bragg about:  His girlfriend ain't bad looking.

Well... since this seems to be a pissing contest, How does she look.... say.... compared to Rebecca Romain Stamos?

I’m not sure how applicable this is, as she divorced Stamos nine years ago and no longer uses his name....

Does anyone have any idea roughly how many TWGMTR has sold though btw?

Round the end of that summer, Bruce told us in Sydney that it had sold about 180,000 copies.  Which compares well with Sunflower, but isn't exactly gold...

Cheers,
Jon Blum

Nowadays this is a good selling album...

But maybe Mike is still thinking of the days when even non-hit albums sold a lot more. Didn`t BW88 shift twice as many copies back in the day?

You may be onto something. This theory is supported by Mike’s comments in the one interview about the album needing a hit single. That showed a massive lack of understanding of how the charts work these days, both functionally and in terms of what type of music and what era of bands still have “hit singles.”

Does anyone have any idea roughly how many TWGMTR has sold though btw?

Round the end of that summer, Bruce told us in Sydney that it had sold about 180,000 copies.  Which compares well with Sunflower, but isn't exactly gold...

Cheers,
Jon Blum

Someone needs send off a fax or e-mail to those guys with sales numbers for “Summer in Paradise.”

I don’t recall a bunch of self-deprecating stuff from Mike on the massive failure of that album.

My guess is that if TWGMTR had featured writing on all the tracks from Mike and had been written and recorded the way he wanted, and if he had felt great about all the aspects of the reunion, he would have been gushing about how amazing a #3 chart placement was, how it was the best album charting they had had in decades, etc.

I also think it's kind of weird that he lumped Carl's smoking in with drug and alcohol abuse. Don't get me wrong, smoking is horrendous for one's health. But in the context of discussing things that adversely impacted the group, that's kind of weird to mention.

I also think it's kind of funny that he completely misses the point of the question about the public domain-related releases. 

Carl had his own issues with alcohol/drugs but of course it wasn't on the level of his brothers... to Mike who views himself as really straight edge, he sees all 3 of them as druggies, at least in the late 60's. 

I think people get way too worked up over what Mike says.  It's just his opinion, he could be completely wrong.  He's not saying he didn't like his cousins, he's just saying he didn't like that they did drugs.  Your opinion may be different, that's just his.  I think he loves all 3 of them as much as he possibly can, what else do people want from him?  He's 74, he's not going to change, that's the best he's got.  He didn't like that they took drugs, and if an interviewer says "Tell me something bad" he's going to go to "My cousins did drugs" over and over again.  He thinks that's really bad and they hurt the band by doing it.... and he's pretty much right.  It just sounds like sh*t to say it out loud, over and over again. 

I’m very pragmatic about what Mike says and how he says it. I don’t think he should say something else. Rather, I’m perplexed by the apparent attitude that Mike and/or a small number of fans sometimes have, along the lines of “why do people think he sounds like a dick sometimes?” That’s what astonishes me. Objectively, he says a number of things that sound that way. That it comes across that way to some, or that some point this out, is simply a reaction to what Mike says. We can argue that we shouldn’t react, but that’s kind of the point of a discussion board I think.

We as fans know more of the back story than an average person, so we discuss and parse and figure out some stuff that sounds dick-ish but is actually understandable given the band’s history (e.g. frustration with and arguably judgment towards drug and alcohol abuse), and perhaps some other stuff will still sound completely devoid of logic or reasoning or just sounds disagreeable on its face (e.g. most of the stuff he has said about the demise of C50).

There is also the separate issue of the interviews being repetitive, and I think interviewers are partly to blame. I think it’s also quite clear that Mike has stock, go-to answers ready and he doesn’t seem inclined to stray for those even if the questions don’t quite fit those answers. That’s not so much objectionable or disagreeable, that’s just kind of annoying from the fan perspective of simply wanting to read something we haven’t already read.

You know what worries me? Things usually reach true fever pitch the two weeks before a new release. And we don't even have a release date for the new BW album or movie yet! We might be in for some apocalyptic meltdowns...

I think there's a good chance we'll see the album this year. But the film is debuting at one film festival in September, and the best guess is that part of that process involves courting potential distributors. So most of us could well not even have a chance to see this film in a theater, let alone at home, until next year.

Recently, we've seen some Mike Love interviews. People have complained about them being the same old softball questions with the same old stock answers.

So, let's cut to the chase. What are some questions YOU would ask Mike Love?

It would be hard to lay out the questions for a discussion of the C50 demise, as it would probably entail a lot of steering it away from the stock answers.

I would start by asking an accurate question. I would start with, "Why did you not want to take offers to do additional shows with the reunion lineup?" Slightly alternately, "Regardless of what was said before or during the tour, if Brian and Al did indeed decide near or at the end of the tour that they wanted to do more reunion lineup shows, and offers were on the table, what kept you from agreeing to those?"

I would probably have to end up asking, "Do you feel issues of finances and control are at play in your decision?"

The questions would probably be more detailed as follow-ups to responses.

It would be tempting to ask non-substantive questions meant to test his underlying feelings and ability to concede any point. Things like "Would you agree, even if it isn't logistically, personally, or financially possible, that the best lineup to tour would be the full five-man reunion lineup?"

I would like to give one final mention, at the risk of being uber-repetitive, that there is a big distinction between not preferring John Stamos as a prominent musical component to the BB's, versus disliking him personally.

As Mr. Cowsill alludes to, it's pretty difficult to dislike someone on a personal level without knowing them.

I can't speak for everybody, but many of the folks who have professed a preference for Stamos to say on the sidelines don't dislike him personally.

Indeed, I truly believe he's a huge BB fan. There's no doubt. He also seems like a nice guy. He's probably a blast to hang out with. I think the same can be said for many folks out there. But that's different than being musically involved.

I think when Stamos intro'ed the show at, I believe it was New Orleans, on the 50th tour, that was a great role for him to fill. A well-known guy who is a big fan.

I will join any others who would love for John Cowsill, or any other folks who could possibly sway things, to convince any and all involved to revive the "reunion" lineup.

If I could meet John Cowsill in person, I would tell him what he probably already knows: Even some of the most curmudgeonly, cranky, jaded Beach Boys fans agree that you took part in the best Beach Boys tour since their heyday of touring in the early-mid 70's. I will go further and say it was one of the best concerts I've ever seen. EVER. I can only guess you would probably play drums again for that lineup in a heart beat if the chance arose. I sure hope it does. We're all getting older......

[What didn't you like about it?First of all the lyrics. Second of all the arrangements weren't commercial enough. Third of all it sounded like sh*t compared to what he could sound like.]

Also worth mentioning is that when Mike is feeling feisty and the interviewer is willing to go to specific places, Mike can give an entertaining (if also sometimes disagreeable) interview. The best example I can think of is the 1992 Goldmine interview. He seems really agitated and feisty. Some of the answers seem ridiculous and don’t paint him in a very positive light, but at least they seem to be honest and passionate, and sometimes awesomely hilarious:  http://troun.tripod.com/mikelove.html

Thanks a lot for posting that, that was important!

In one of the threads earlier this year I tried to place that specific interview into context, and if it's been forgotten since I'll try to sum it up!  

That interview has everything to do with both *timing* and *context*. This was a classic case of catching Mike - well, possibly anyone - at one of the worst times for an interview about the Beach Boys.

When he did this interview, Brian had just won his lawsuit awarding him millions in back payments from the Murry-led Sea Of Tunes sale debacle. It was an amazing amount of money.

Trace the backstory of what happened, I won't recap that here, but Mike at this specific time felt that he was due money from Brian via that deal and the legal teams involved, and that he was also unable to reach or contact Brian directly to discuss it. It was all going through "have my lawyer call your lawyer" for specific legal reasons.

So in that Goldmine piece, you get Mike at perhaps his most angry, most bitter, most confrontational, and most unguarded. Read what he says: He's basically unloading years of baggage and perhaps pent-up anger on the Goldmine interviewer, and throwing darts wildly around all sorts of topics.

It's pure frustration, and again consider this was at one of the worst times they could have had Mike sit down for an "extensive" interview about the Beach Boys and specifically Brian. He was as angry in the interview as you'll see in any of his history of interviews.

Perhaps for PR reasons someone should have cancelled it in light of the timing.  

The interview does indeed seem to be fueled by that songwriting issue/case being a fresh issue at the time.

But it is rather interesting that Mike *still* brings it up in an interview in 2014, after it has been resolved resoundingly in his favor. Yes, he's less fired up about it now. But he still seems just as annoyed that it happened in the first place. I just find that funny in light of the same 1992 interview referencing Al getting hung up on old issues and not being to get over stuff.

The songwriting stuff in that 1992 interview isn't nearly as interesting as the fact that his being all worked up about that issue seemed to lead to offering more unvarnished opinions on other stuff having nothing to do with the songwriting lawsuit. We're unlikely to see Mike saying this about a Brian album in 2014:

In reference to the '88 album:

What didn't you like about it?

First of all the lyrics. Second of all the arrangements weren't commercial enough. Third of all it sounded like sh*t compared to what he could sound like.

If that's how Mike really feels about something, I do truly want to know it. It's extremely refreshing. And yes, it's also fun to read this commentary from the guy who, in the same year, spearheaded the "Summer in Paradise" album. We can then weigh the opinions on lyrics, arrangements, and commerciality accordingly.

[Howie Edelson has gotten some unique stuff out of these guys as well, no doubt because he’s a knowledgeable fan who also knows how to write and how to conduct interviews. Who else has been able to interview Mike and ask about their corporate set-up, suggest they use a Neil Aspinall-type to run their business and even float Jerry Schilling’s name?]

So Mike can be asked anything and he seems to answer everything so again the problem seems to be the questions.

The interviewer certainly plays a large role in how the interview goes. In most cases, the same or very similar questions are indeed being asked, and follow-up questions are not pursued. I’m not even talking about Mike Wallace-style grilling or something, but just natural follow-up questions to steer the conversation.

However, I’ve seen a pattern, particularly lately, of Mike providing near word-for-word identical responses, and not always to the same precise questions. It comes across as if he has the same half-dozen or so talking points, and he plans to run through those even if the questions don’t precisely match up. This pattern came come about for any number of reasons. Sometimes it’s simply to get through tedious interviews quickly. Sometimes it comes from defensiveness and insecurity. Sometimes it comes from deflecting the precise actual question. Sometimes it’s to convey a particular agenda. Sometimes, like McCartney, you can tell it’s simply a case of doing an interview on “autopilot.”

For instance, in that recent radio/audio interview that was posted here, Mike is asked about C50 and he immediately starts talking about his current band. It’s literally an answer to a question that wasn’t asked. That answering pattern, coupled with many of the precisely identical turns of phrase used in multiple interviews, screams “stock/scripted response” to a degree that goes beyond even classic repetitive interview subjects like Paul McCartney. The problem with McCartney interviews is about 80% the interviewers’ fault and 20% McCartney’s fault. He’ll actually answer unique and weird questions if they are posed, but he is often asked very specific repetitive questions.

I feel like with Mike, it’s about 50/50 or maybe 60% the interviewers fault, 40% his. Mike, especially lately, has a pattern of going into very stock responses, talking points essentially. Set end date, “there was a term”, “the reunion was for good for the fans”, “we’re doing what we’ve been doing”, “I was screwed on songwriting credits”, “Uncle Murry took advantage”, “the Wilsons abused drugs and alcohol”, “I meditate every day”, “We’re doing about 130 shows this year”, “I hung out with the Beatles in India in 1968”, etc. The interviewers are most definitely feeding into this pattern. But some of the stuff isn’t getting specifically asked, yet we’re getting the same answers. It’s too bad, because like McCartney, Mike has shown that he can under some circumstances do a good interview with non-stock responses. Listen to that Howard Stern interview from the 90’s. Stern did the same thing with McCartney when he finally got McCartney for an interview. Stern did the same interviewing Brian in 1998. One of the skills Stern had/has that he didn’t utilize nearly enough was to get guys like this out of their rut of answering the same questions with the same answers.

Howie Edelson has gotten some unique stuff out of these guys as well, no doubt because he’s a knowledgeable fan who also knows how to write and how to conduct interviews. Who else has been able to interview Mike and ask about their corporate set-up, suggest they use a Neil Aspinall-type to run their business and even float Jerry Schilling’s name?

Also, briefly addressing the issues surrounding how interviewers are or aren’t told what to ask or not to ask, Edelson has mentioned in the past that he has never been told what to ask or not to ask when interviewing these guys. Certainly, whatever is an artist’s new project will be a focus point. But I sense in most cases, especially with the BB’s, it’s interviewers just being either lazy or non-confrontational. It is true, if you grill someone and ask them stuff they don’t want to discuss, your chances of getting another interview could decrease.

Is there a link to this interview?

I think all of that info is found through Howie's posts. He mentioned that he discussed this with Mike when talking with him during the 2012 tour. I do not know if the discussion of Schilling, the touring production setup, etc. and whatnot ended up in any printed article/interview. I would suspect not, as it's pretty "inside baseball" sort of stuff for fans.

But he has been able to wring more information out of these guys by virtue of asking fan-oriented questions rather than softball, "asked a million times already" questions. I believe some of Howie's posts also have some insight into the process of interviewing these guys. I remember him mentioning that he was never told that a topic was "off limits", or otherwise told what to ask or not ask. He also had some interesting insights into the guys in the band and how they approach interviews and hardcore fans, etc. I remember Howie's impressions of Bruce in particular being interesting.

Latest member: nelson

Who could that be 

Nelson Muntz.

Nelson Wilbury? 

[Did you like his first solo album?No.You didn't like it?f*** no.]

Also worth mentioning is that when Mike is feeling feisty and the interviewer is willing to go to specific places, Mike can give an entertaining (if also sometimes disagreeable) interview. The best example I can think of is the 1992 Goldmine interview. He seems really agitated and feisty. Some of the answers seem ridiculous and don’t paint him in a very positive light, but at least they seem to be honest and passionate, and sometimes awesomely hilarious:  http://troun.tripod.com/mikelove.html

Some of my favorite bits from the interview:

On Brian's '88 solo album:

Did you like his first solo album?

No.

You didn't like it?

f*** no.

Asked about the impending songwriting lawsuit (remember, this is the guy that "meditates every day"):

So what will you be doing with this?

Suing his ass to pieces because he's hiding behind his lawyers and all that kind of stuff.