Mike does talk about the dysfunction every time he speaks about Murry. Which he did. Even mentioning how it affected David and him leaving the group.

It's kind of weird that, at this stage, he's the only one regularly, and semi-unprompted, bringing up all of this negative stuff from up to 50-plus years ago. It just reeks of holding a grudge. Which is weird, because Al has several times been pegged as the guy who stews on stuff for years and won't get over it. But here we have Mike still bringing up Murry, Murry's business deals, the songwriting issues, and Wilson substance abuse. Here's some breaking news: Murry is dead. Mike's name is on those songs and has been for 20 years, and he collects royalties now for those songs. Two of the three Wilsons are dead. These are all very old issues, and bringing it all up kind of undermines this "meditate every day" stuff. There were some clear wrongs done to him and others many years ago. But this is true of most of us in life. I'm not saying these things still shouldn't be discussed. In the proper forum (e.g. a nice epic documentary film or true, full biography on the band), all of these things should still be brought up in detail.

But to take the majority of a short promotional interview to bring up the same negative stuff, things that have mostly been corrected either via the courts or no longer an issue due to death, just seems unbecoming, and that's saying something when it comes to the BB's.

I would agree with Howie - Watergate, it ain't. And, not for nothing, but Stamos did popularize the song. There are well over a million hits on YouTube. Carl sang it from time to time, but Stamos gave it mass media attention.  He has had an undeniably huge role in memorializing Dennis.  If people don't like him, it is their problem. He gets a ton of applause and he does not dominate the stage.  Really, no one does, and they give each other room to shine.

There are a lot of haters out there who should just get over it.  Stamos intro'd them a month after the purported "incident."  It's a "slow news day" to dredge this up.  It is old.  

Yes, yes. YouTube hits, yogurt commercials, this are the same citations as in other threads. All of this is subjective, non-measurable, non-provable assertions. Stamos has a million hits on YouTube for the song, where people can click for free. I'll go ahead and follow suit and re-state my same piece of evidence to refute how popular Stamos' rendition of the song was: The Beach Boys put his version on one of their albums ("Summer in Paradise"), and that album failed to reach the *TOP 200* on the album charts in 1992. This was the around the peak of popularity for "Full House" and Stamos' rendition of the song.

Actually, maybe that clears the whole thing up. Clearly, the Beach Boys were dragging Stamos down. If the album had been released under Stamos' name, it would have hit the Top 10. 

I would refute the characterization that Stamos never "dominates" the stage. I've seen ample video evidence of this, as well as reports/reviews from audience members. No, he doesn't elbow Mike to the side and sing every song. But, as Howie mentioned, Stamos does pretty much just go on stage and do whatever he wants. It's the total opposite of being humble and standing on the merits of one's own music.

Yes, it appears that the video failed. I know little about the technical aspect of this business but I do know from setting up TV's, VCR's, cable boxes, sling boxes, and media streamers that the audio is separate, generally, from video, and they can perform or fail, independent of one another.  It seems as though this is what happened. 

The only thing particularly apparent is that we don’t know what happened on that stage precisely, let alone how it happened. By many accounts, the band didn’t know there was a problem for much of the song. That suggests the Dennis vocal track was making it from its source (presumably at the main/house mixing board area) to the mixing board handling the band’s on-stage monitors (which is usually handled separately, often to the side of the stage or somehow nearer the stage) and out into the band’s monitors (most of the band used in-ear monitors, but I believe Al still uses floor monitors “old school” style).

Somehow, that vocal feed was apparently making it to the band’s monitors but not back out into the PA. That would suggest the *source* of the audio feed for Dennis’ vocal was not compromised. It was when it was fed into the house PA that things went awry apparently.

As Howie has mentioned, it’s pretty far-fetched that there was a vast conspiracy to cut the audio, while simultaneously making it look like an accidental malfunction. If one wanted to do it, though, it would simply require either a really keen eye and familiarity with the audio setup at the show, and/or the assistance of someone else with that familiarity and access. Pretty far-fetched.

Problem is, even with it clearly being a pure accidental malfunction, Stamos clearly rubbed band members, audience members, and fans the wrong way. Not all of them, or even the majority of them, I don’t know. But some. Even some fans who don’t really care one way or the other might say that objectively Stamos’ move was tacky.  

I would guess almost everybody on stage, with the possible exception of Al who still misses the words to "Wouldn't It Be Nice" almost 50 years later, knew the words to the song.  It seems pretty clear the Dennis vocal track was making it through their on-stage monitors (the monitors are run through a different board than the main soundboard that goes out to the PA). The people on stage didn't know the Dennis vocal wasn't making it to the PA apparently.

That doesn't mean Stamos had to start singing. He could have left it alone, or, as I mentioned elsewhere, he could have shouted really loud in a band member's ear that someone needed to pick up the vocal. Would Stamos have started singing "God Only Knows" if there had been a malfunction there? There's an interesting question! I would guess no. It's an ego thing. "Forever" is "his" song.

David Marks must know the words. But not Mike, Brian or Al I would guess.

Stamos singing it was certainly better than it remaining as an instrumental anyway as the response from the crowd indicates.

Not that it matters much, but I would imagine Brian would know the words. He was performing “Forever” in concert as early as 2001 as I recall.

Would Stamos have started singing "God Only Knows" if there had been a malfunction there? There's an interesting question!

And frankly, a ridiculous one.  

"God Only Knows" is a Beach Boys classic staple and nowhere near the popularity or familiarity of "Forever." Had the Carl video malfunctioned as well---Stamos would have been smart enough to guess that someone on that stage would have picked up the slack and filled in.  The song is part of the BB canon of greatest hits like "Surfin' USA" or "Good Vibrations."  Plus he is aware that he has no business singing that song when Brian Wilson is on stage.  Like it or not, Stamos has made himself the sole "caretaker" of the tune "Forever": over the years he has reintroduced "Forever" both to mainstream audiences by performing it on "Full House" and also to the BB's own fanbase by performing it whenever he's played with M&B.  It's a relatively obscure tune to mainstream audiences and if Stamos isn't present, the M&B band don't even play the song.  Sure David has sung it too, but Stamos has undoubtedly put his stamp on the song--like it or not.  With that said, maybe that explains why there was such a long gap during the Beacon malfunction before Stamos finally jumped in---perhaps he was waiting for David Marks to jump in?  When it was clear that David was not taking over...Stamos took it upon himself to correct the mistake.  Not a big deal--unless you have a personal problem with Stamos of course.

If John Stamos has “no business” singing “God Only Knows” when Brian is on stage, then he has no business singing “Forever” when Brian is on stage. I doubt Brian or the other BB’s (save perhaps Mike and Bruce) feel like “Forever” is any less tied to Dennis and the Wilsons than “God Only Knows” is tied to Carl and the Wilsons, simply because Stamos has had a hard-on for “Forever” since the 90’s and peformed it on “Full House” several times.

I do think Al should have handed over the lead to “Help Me Rhonda” to those two guys from “Short Circuit 2” though.

It’s also simply a logical fallacy to suggest that if one doesn’t want Stamos on stage, that it follows that one has a personal problem with Stamos. I think Stamos is fine; I watched “Full House” and still will if it’s on TV I suppose. Stamos seems like a nice guy who really digs the BB’s. I believe all of that. But he doesn’t belong on stage or on a BB album. That’s all.

  Once again had it been anyone else--we wouldn't even be having this conversation.  Had Neil Young jumped in and sung "Forever" like that it would've been "wow so cool!  Good for Neil" but because it's Stamos--he's an ego maniac.

Criticizing Stamos to this level is a frankly, overkill. 

There is something to this. I don’t think any other person on the planet jumping in would have been free of criticism. But some had a critical eye toward Stamos on that occasion for pretty specific reasons, not just that they “don’t like him.” He has been horning in on the group’s activities to varying degrees since the mid-late 80’s. He has been a nuisance (to some, mostly “hardcore” fans) to the band’s stage performances, and has specifically glommed onto the group using a specific song previously written and performed by a beloved, long deceased member of the band.

So when he jumps up on stage during the band’s anniversary tour, the same two groups of fans are going to have the same reactions they usually do, only more extreme. If you love Stamos’ presence with the band, then you’ll think the incident was cool. If you loathe Stamos’ presence with the band over the years, then the whole thing will come across as extra groan-inducing.

To quickly reference something mentioned in past threads, Stamos himself is aware of the segment of fans that don’t like him. Further, he has said in an interview that he understands not only that some fans don’t like him, but understands why they have problems with him. He admitted that he if was in the audience and Scott Baio jumped on stage, he would be annoyed too. I think, even if he doesn’t agree with it, Stamos seems to at least *understand* why fans loathe him more than some of his own fans/supporters do.

As for Neil Young, he’s a professional singer, songwriter, musician, etc. If he had been there guesting and then took the lead when the recording malfunctioned, there wouldn’t have been any egotistical motive for him to do it. He hasn’t been trying to be the “new Dennis” of the group for 25 years. He hasn’t co-opted the song “Forever.” I’m also not convinced someone like Young would have jumped on stage and started singing.

The thing is, Carl's smoking adversely affected Carl. Yes, it impacted the group as well because he was gone. But I think it's just extra judgment on Carl that is unneeded. I've never smoked in my life, but I've known people who have smoked, had lung cancer, and died from it. Most know they brought it on themselves. The guilt is plentiful without anyone else having to point it out. Carl paid the absolute ultimate price. To pass judgment on the guy over 16 years after his death just seems odd, especially when brought up in the midst of discussing how drug and alcohol abuse directly impacted the band for years while the abuse was occurring. To say nothing of the fact that it really doesn't need to be pointed out at this stage that smoking causes lung cancer.

The comment just struck me as hugely judgmental (and stating the obvious), especially in the midst of touting one's clean living and meditation, etc.

I doubt it was intended as a judgment having read Mike talking about it in the past. More an expression of sorrow/frustration that it caused Carl`s passing (in Mike`s eyes). If anything maybe a judgment against tobacco...

It is indeed of course difficult to determine one’s motivation for bringing something like that up. To me, simply even bringing it up is a rather judgmental move, whether it was intended or not. Especially, as I mentioned, when specifically contrasted against “Well, *I* never did drugs.”

Bringing up “Carl started smoking when he was young and then got lung cancer” just reminds me of like a parent talking to their adult kids and bringing up all the mistakes they made years ago. What’s the point? I think in this case it’s a thing that reflects negatively on someone else to contrast against oneself.

It just struck me as a weird, judgmental comment (the comment striking me as both inherently judgmental by its nature, as well as judgmental in its context) about someone who very clearly paid the price for that mistake.

Basically, he [Champlin] was reading Brian's eccentricity as Brian being a d**k, probably because he  didn't know a lot about Brian.

Duck... dirk... dork... dark ?

Anyone wanting the answer will have to pick up McParland's excellent and now much more easily able-to-be-purchased tome "The Wilson Project (2013 Edition)." There's a free plug!   

The book really is tantalizing for those that don't have it. A must-purchase for fans and scholars.

I’ve said before in other threads, while Stamos himself and “Stamos Incident” from 2012 had no particular actual impact on the band or its legacy, that Stamos situation is a good representation of the dissonance between the ideological/musical/cultural/personality differences between the two main “camps.”

Stamos serves a very good purpose as a sort of litmus test. Whether you like him or loathe him and/or his presence on stage, if you told me that there are two people, two “camps”, one of which *loves* everything about Stamos and his being in the band while the other finds it all annoying and inappropriate, I’d tell you those are two people and two camps that are probably very different from each other in many ways.

As for the “Forever” incident, I won’t reiterate in detail my thoughts on that from my posts back in 2012. Regardless of how the “malfunction” happened, I think it could have been handled differently. Stamos did not *have* to get up there at all. The performance was already a shambles, at least from a technical/logistical standpoint. That he sang the lead vocal for the latter portion of the song did not erase the malfunction from the minds of the audience. He could have let them finish the song as an instrumental, or I can’t imagine he couldn’t have gone back on stage and screamed into one of the band members’ ears that no lead was going out to the audience, and tell them to pick the lead vocal up, and if that didn’t work, then just ride the song out as an instrumental. I know it’s loud and confusing on stage, but it could have been attempted. Frankly, as a “guest” that night, Stamos should have let Foskett or Totten take the lead before he did.

The band and the show in general would not have been measurably worse if they had just done the song as an instrumental, and/or stopped cold and restarted it later. Taking the lead did not “save” the show; it only drew more attention to the malfunction and more attention to Stamos.

It was a split second decision.  And I don't think an instrumental version would have been any better.  The video failed and either scenario wasn't going to improve the situation, the audio dropped and the video continued to flicker on and off even as John began to sing.  There was no way around it.  The line "the show must go on" applies here and while the principles were guilty of being caught in the headlights, they decided to push forward and Stamos thought it'd be best to at least salvage the situation as best as he thought.

I simply disagree with these assertions. An instrumental version would not have been particularly better (unless one is inclined to really dislike Stamos being involved), but it would not have been any worse. All else being equal, I think the classy, non-egotistical thing to do would have been to stay back and not jump in. "The show must go on" isn't applicable here. The show was going on, and would have gone on. Stamos didn't save the drums from falling into a water tank or something. He didn't keep the stage set from collapsing. His stepping in was not needed.

The only positive that came out of him stepping in to sing was an ego boost for him, another chance to showboat. Howie Edelson has even mentioned there were groans from the audience about it. Many fans came away feeling the entire show was worse for Stamos being there, especially being so present.

How many other singers were standing there who could have more than capably leaned in the whole half inch to their already stationed mic and started singing? I mean Jeff's standing there who's primary job (in part) is to start singing when/if Brian craps out or something. I find it a bit tough to swallow that no one else thought to take up the slack ........ unless none of them could remember the words unprepared!  .... If it indeed hadn't been planned and everyone was just standing there looking at each other, then why not jump in if you're Stamos and know the words?

I would guess almost everybody on stage, with the possible exception of Al who still misses the words to "Wouldn't It Be Nice" almost 50 years later, knew the words to the song.  It seems pretty clear the Dennis vocal track was making it through their on-stage monitors (the monitors are run through a different board than the main soundboard that goes out to the PA). The people on stage didn't know the Dennis vocal wasn't making it to the PA apparently.

That doesn't mean Stamos had to start singing. He could have left it alone, or, as I mentioned elsewhere, he could have shouted really loud in a band member's ear that someone needed to pick up the vocal. Would Stamos have started singing "God Only Knows" if there had been a malfunction there? There's an interesting question! I would guess no. It's an ego thing. "Forever" is "his" song.

Brian has three gigs in the US lined up, and the only one being publicized on his site and on Twitter/Facebook is the Modesto show.  Tickets are on sale to all three shows. What, do only shows with Al Jardine count? Are they waiting for Al to agree to appear before they publicize a show?  I would think announcing a gig that's coming up in August should take priority over one that doesn't take place until October.

Why does this matter? Brian's camp is notorious for being scattered about tour dates. I saw the "Smile" 2004 show in November 2004 at Davies Symphony Hall in San Francisco. The show was added to the schedule a bit after most of the shows as I recall. More importantly, it was *never* added to the tour schedule on Brian's website. Not before the show. Not the night of the show. Not after. It was still a sell out (not that that matters in terms of what's being discussed). But if you went by their schedule, the show I went to never took place. 

I pondered trying to make the Modesto show, but it's just too far. I'm hoping more dates pop up at some point, hopefully with Al in tow.

I'm glad to see Al is still a part of hopefully at least some of the shows.

I’ve said before in other threads, while Stamos himself and “Stamos Incident” from 2012 had no particular actual impact on the band or its legacy, that Stamos situation is a good representation of the dissonance between the ideological/musical/cultural/personality differences between the two main “camps.”

Stamos serves a very good purpose as a sort of litmus test. Whether you like him or loathe him and/or his presence on stage, if you told me that there are two people, two “camps”, one of which *loves* everything about Stamos and his being in the band while the other finds it all annoying and inappropriate, I’d tell you those are two people and two camps that are probably very different from each other in many ways.

As for the “Forever” incident, I won’t reiterate in detail my thoughts on that from my posts back in 2012. Regardless of how the “malfunction” happened, I think it could have been handled differently. Stamos did not *have* to get up there at all. The performance was already a shambles, at least from a technical/logistical standpoint. That he sang the lead vocal for the latter portion of the song did not erase the malfunction from the minds of the audience. He could have let them finish the song as an instrumental, or I can’t imagine he couldn’t have gone back on stage and screamed into one of the band members’ ears that no lead was going out to the audience, and tell them to pick the lead vocal up, and if that didn’t work, then just ride the song out as an instrumental. I know it’s loud and confusing on stage, but it could have been attempted. Frankly, as a “guest” that night, Stamos should have let Foskett or Totten take the lead before he did.

The band and the show in general would not have been measurably worse if they had just done the song as an instrumental, and/or stopped cold and restarted it later. Taking the lead did not “save” the show; it only drew more attention to the malfunction and more attention to Stamos.

It was a split second decision.  And I don't think an instrumental version would have been any better.  The video failed and either scenario wasn't going to improve the situation, the audio dropped and the video continued to flicker on and off even as John began to sing.  There was no way around it.  The line "the show must go on" applies here and while the principles were guilty of being caught in the headlights, they decided to push forward and Stamos thought it'd be best to at least salvage the situation as best as he thought.

I simply disagree with these assertions. An instrumental version would not have been particularly better (unless one is inclined to really dislike Stamos being involved), but it would not have been any worse. All else being equal, I think the classy, non-egotistical thing to do would have been to stay back and not jump in. "The show must go on" isn't applicable here. The show was going on, and would have gone on. Stamos didn't save the drums from falling into a water tank or something. He didn't keep the stage set from collapsing. His stepping in was not needed.

The only positive that came out of him stepping in to sing was an ego boost for him, another chance to showboat. Howie Edelson has even mentioned there were groans from the audience about it. Many fans came away feeling the entire show was worse for Stamos being there, especially being so present.

I'm guessing that Stamos wouldn't have been involved at all regardless of the backing bands opinions without the consent of the principal Beach Boys.

Which principal Beach Boy(s) would be the question to ask?

My guess would be BRI: Brian, Al, Mike, and Carl's Estate's attorney.

I'm only guessing, but I HIGHLY doubt the members of BRI were consulted and permission asked for someone to sit in for part of the set for one or two nights. I would tend to doubt such a thing is required either.

A bigger and more interesting question to me is this: Setting aside any contractual/legal issues, did Mike (and/or any other involved parties) ask the other BB's (specifically, the corporate members Brian and Al) if Stamos could sit it, or did he simply *tell* them Stamos would be sitting in? Did Brian and/or his people know how active Stamos would be on stage?

I haven't gone back and read the contemporary reviews of those two Beacon shows, but I recall some suggesting some sort of "talking to" had to have occurred, resulting in Stamos being much more low key on the second night on stage, and not appearing again during the tour (or did he make one other appearance later?; I vaguely recall that happening).

[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 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. 

Mike has said before though that he blames smoking for Carl`s demise so not really weird to mention if he feels that way.

The thing is, Carl's smoking adversely affected Carl. Yes, it impacted the group as well because he was gone. But I think it's just extra judgment on Carl that is unneeded. I've never smoked in my life, but I've known people who have smoked, had lung cancer, and died from it. Most know they brought it on themselves. The guilt is plentiful without anyone else having to point it out. Carl paid the absolute ultimate price. To pass judgment on the guy over 16 years after his death just seems odd, especially when brought up in the midst of discussing how drug and alcohol abuse directly impacted the band for years while the abuse was occurring. To say nothing of the fact that it really doesn't need to be pointed out at this stage that smoking causes lung cancer.

The comment just struck me as hugely judgmental (and stating the obvious), especially in the midst of touting one's clean living and meditation, etc.

A lot of fuss about nothing...

When I read the thread title I was expecting it to be about much more serious issues.

Stamos singing half a song two years ago is of no importance anymore and Nelson can`t have been thinking straight when he made his post.

I know misspellings and crazy punctuation and grammar are par for the course on facebook and the like, those things do tend to undercut the credibility of what's being said.

A much more cogent argument that would have allowed for no accusations to be made would have been preferable. A strong case can be made that Stamos is a "douche", or that jumping on stage is a douche maneuver.

But unless there is proof or at least some more specifics about what happened, the post does come across like it was written as a crackpot conspiracy theory. As someone else mentioned, how would this have occurred? Would he have had to go pull some cables out of the mixing board, or be in cahoots with someone on the crew? Far from impossible, but it would take a lot of maneuvering.

On the other hand, it's kind of a heavy accusation to make if he didn't know anything more than what the fans know, and he's just assuming. As others have mentioned, it does seem pretty darn coincidental that the one song Stamos sings on stage with the band malfunctioned on the specific night Stamos was in attendance.

As someone else also mentioned, the semi-dig at other band members is intriguing.

Congratulations Beach Boys. Now the dysfunction has spread from you to your fans and now to your backing band members.

What does Ed Carter have to say about all of this?  

I wanted to punch Bill Champlin after reading that, but there are two sides to every story.

What did Champlin say? I've searched and can't really find anything but reaction to it. I'm a big fan of his and didn't know he had said negative things about BW.

Going from memory here based on the McParland/Usher book: Usher brought in Champlin as a "session singer" for some of the demos he was cutting with Brian. Apparently, Champlin was not a big of Brian (or his personality anyway). I remember the specific reference being not trusting a guy who only laughs at his own jokes. Apparently, Champlin noted that Brian was stonefaced when anyone else in the room made jokes. But when Brian would make a joke, Brian would laugh and laugh.

My recollection while reading this was that Champlin, being an "outsider", was not used to Brian's weirdness and idiosyncrasies, and may not have known a lot of Brian's detailed backstory. Basically, he was reading Brian's eccentricity as Brian being a d**k, probably because he (Chaplin) didn't know a lot about Brian.

I remember feeling that Champlin was kind of being a d**k about it, but as with many outside observers who get brief glimpse of the inside, who have made these types of observations (e.g. Jeff Beck, who I should note made some observations about Brian that were more sympathetic even if they made Brian look bad), there probably is some truth to elements of what they're saying. Brian shouldn't have been getting a free pass to be an a-hole because he had a rough life. On the other hand, Champlin was kind of coming across as an a-hole himself.

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. 

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

I'm pretty sure he would be part of that "too many musicians and singers competing for parts" that was cited in an interview. I can't imagine some of the guys in the band wouldn't be perhaps a bit put off by being lamented in interviews a bit, even if no particular member was particularly targeted.

I’ve said before in other threads, while Stamos himself and “Stamos Incident” from 2012 had no particular actual impact on the band or its legacy, that Stamos situation is a good representation of the dissonance between the ideological/musical/cultural/personality differences between the two main “camps.”

Stamos serves a very good purpose as a sort of litmus test. Whether you like him or loathe him and/or his presence on stage, if you told me that there are two people, two “camps”, one of which *loves* everything about Stamos and his being in the band while the other finds it all annoying and inappropriate, I’d tell you those are two people and two camps that are probably very different from each other in many ways.

As for the “Forever” incident, I won’t reiterate in detail my thoughts on that from my posts back in 2012. Regardless of how the “malfunction” happened, I think it could have been handled differently. Stamos did not *have* to get up there at all. The performance was already a shambles, at least from a technical/logistical standpoint. That he sang the lead vocal for the latter portion of the song did not erase the malfunction from the minds of the audience. He could have let them finish the song as an instrumental, or I can’t imagine he couldn’t have gone back on stage and screamed into one of the band members’ ears that no lead was going out to the audience, and tell them to pick the lead vocal up, and if that didn’t work, then just ride the song out as an instrumental. I know it’s loud and confusing on stage, but it could have been attempted. Frankly, as a “guest” that night, Stamos should have let Foskett or Totten take the lead before he did.

The band and the show in general would not have been measurably worse if they had just done the song as an instrumental, and/or stopped cold and restarted it later. Taking the lead did not “save” the show; it only drew more attention to the malfunction and more attention to Stamos.

Difference is, this time he says there was an agreement on an end date that everyone, er,  agreed to and signed off. Now, if that's not the case, then it's a very, very silly thing to say, not to mention being actionable. And as we know, The Beach Boys are possibly the most litigious rock band in history.  

Mike has been saying all along, as far as I can remember, that there was an “agreed upon” end date. Nobody has ever disputed that. That’s how tours and contracts with promoters work. You sign on for a tour and set a scheduled end date. Of course everybody agreed upon an end date.

An agreed-upon end date has nothing to do with scheduling more shows. Nobody has ever claimed Mike canceled the reunion tour while it still had dates scheduled. He simply did not want to do any additional dates, while some of the others did, apparently with the motivation of actual tangible offers from promoters.  

I don’t think the suggestion is that everybody signed an agreement that stated “no more shows together ever, forever, for all time, after show #73.”

As I said, nothing new in this article at all. We’re literally talking about an alternate wording of the same “set end date” stuff we’ve been getting all along.

 Yeah, I have to say there was precisely ZERO in terms of new information in that article. In fact, it was almost word-for-word what he has said in every interview. Seriously. I get it. He’s on the defensive when it comes to C50, and he has his “prepared” go-to statement memorized at this stage. But seriously, if you can’t or won’t go into any detail, then perhaps it’s better to demur and, when floated a question as innocuous as simply asking for reflections on the tour, simply say it was a good time and leave it at that.

The only new thing in the interview is framing Brian’s statement that he “felt like” it was being fired as a “false” statement. How could how Brian *felt* be a false statement? I think Mike is conflating the media fuss (which did incorrectly state Brian had been “fired”) with Brian’s actual statement. I believe Brian’s statement actually referenced that he had not actually been fired, which was why he was saying it “felt like” being fired. That was the whole point of saying it that way.

And seriously, why do we need to hear about the songwriting lawsuit nearly 20 years after the lawsuit was settled and Mike’s name was put on those songs? For the last 20 years, every CD, sheet music book, and everything else has Mike’s name on it. There doesn’t seem to be any perception left that Mike didn’t co-write those songs (apart from perhaps a few anecdotal disputes like “WIBN”).

Pretty much any interview Mike has done lately has seemed to follow the exact same pattern: softball questions about BB era/image/surf/car/culture, etc., then TM/Maharashi/I knew the Beatles for five minutes in 1968, then a reference (disturbingly sometimes not particularly prompted) to all the drugs the Wilsons did, then discussion of the songwriting lawsuit, then the same non-answer paragraph about the demise of C50 (Set end date, “going back to the way it has been for years”, usually a specific reference to extended the tour from 50 to 73 shows (see? I didn’t cancel the tour! I extended it!)), and some promo fluff about whatever show the article is probably promoting.

This patterned, canned interview response pattern is not new or unique, I realize that. This reads quite a bit like a typical McCartney interview (Beatles coming to America, John telling him to keep the line in “Hey Jude”, “Yesterday” started as “Scrambled Eggs”, etc.).

It’s pretty clear we aren’t going to get a full account of C50, at least not in one of these interviews. We get the same defensive, non-answer response simply when the interview asks for “reflections” on the tour. I’m not sure if actually asking a substantive, challenging question about C50 would result in a better or worse sort of response.

I hope someone can get Mike for an interview where it doesn’t come across so defensive and insecure, and rooted in dragging other members down for things that happened years ago.

Maybe at least Al is happy he got out of that interview relatively unscathed. 

Al's beard looks scary in '83 when it was tightly trimmed.  He looked much better in '70s bushy mountain man mode.  Glad he shaved it off.

It does look a bit weird.



I would imagine, as alluded to above regarding Dennis, Al probably shaved the thing because it was going grey. You can see it going grey in the chin area in the '83 shots that are out there.

And if anyone wants to be a bit more creeped out, there's the uncropped version of that Brian pic, apparently dated January 1984:

And in a goodwill gesture to John Stamos, I will note that he got in on the action in the 90's: 

OK, I'll get started.  Here's a general timeline, people will no doubt correct it for specifics:

Mike - 1966-1982 (but he had a handlebar at one point:  https://arcmusic.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/beach_boys.jpg)
I've seen pictures of him with moustache/goatee recently.
Carl - 1970-1997/8 (shaved it in '77 just prior to the Grammy awards, but seems to have immediately started growing back)
Al - 1971-1983
Dennis - 1968, 1976-1980, 1982
Brian - 1975-1985 (shaved right before Knebworth '80, but grew it back)
Bruce - had a mean goatee at some point

I need to get out more.

(I'm currently working on a two week beard, so this is close to my heart)

Mike definitely got rid of the full beard in 1982. But he eventually started growing various iterations of beards/goatees. I think the goatee has been on and off since around 1998 or so. I'm glad he ditched the goatee for the C50 tour.

The earliest post-1982 example I can remember is early 1988 at the R&R hall of fame:



The only time I've ever seen Mike with more or less a full beard after 1982 is, I believe, 2011:





Bruce had a pretty epic 'stache circa 1971:



That pic also may reveal the genesis of Al's beard.  

Here are very late era pics of Al's beard, from April and June of 1983 respectively:





By June/July, it was gone, and he did all of a sudden look like 20 years younger (for a time):





Here's a random bonus image. Late era bearded Brian letting the beard get a little shaggier than he usually did in the 80's, circa 1984:

Can I make a case for the motion picture classic Summer Dreams? AKA The Beard Movie, it made fake beards hip, after all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5taTzrv400

The fake beards are one of the best parts of "Summer Dreams." Awesome stuff.

Ironically, while the fake beards of "An American Family" were marginally less fake-looking, that was the movie where the actor playing Mike Love has his beard peeling off during a scene at one point, and they didn't even bother to re-shoot it.

Does anyone remember when someone innocently called him "BJ" on another board several years back? Bruce hilariously did NOT have a sense of humor about that one.