Brian could have reunited the band years ago.  Brian wrote those songs for "Radio" back in 1998 with a plan to use them in the future.  It took him years to get to that point. In the meantime, he reached the age of 70, as did Al, and Mike is 71.  So, why didn't Brian plan better and start on the reunion a few years ago, when  they were all younger and it would have been easier to plan a schedule of two years breaks in between touring?  Just saying.  Yeah, I know Brian had a great solo career to think about, like doing "Smile," not to mention covers of Disney songs.

This has nothing to do with the current state of affairs as it pertains to the reunion that *actually* took place and could continue to.

All of the BB's, maybe some more than others, are to blame for not getting their s*** together and working together sooner, and more often. Brian was hesitant for a long time, clearly. Al has been pining for it for awhile now.

Point is, they all actually made it happen this year. If Mike wanted to work with Brian in 1998 or whatever, and Brian didn't, then that's to some degree on Brian. Similarly, if Brian wants to keep the reunion together now and Mike doesn't, that's not to some degree on Mike. I would argue continuing the present reunion after all of the groundwork (both interpersonally and functionally/logistically) has been laid is less of an undertaking compared to trying to reunite the band from scratch in 1998 in the middle of lawsuits and in the immediate aftermath of Carl's death.

That's a lot of stretching and assuming. It seems pretty obvious Brian wanted the reunion to continue in some form...

Just to clarify, are you assuming that Brian wanted the reunion to continue from Brian's insightful and telling quote, "I'm bummed"?

Sure, that's part of it. I assume if he's bummed about Mike going back to his old touring lineup, that implies he wants the current lineup to continue in some sort of form, and does not want it to continue with Mike doing his own touring thing. Also, Rolling Stone reported the following:

However, Brian Wilson seemed optimistic about continuing with the band. When asked recently what his future plans were, Wilson told Rolling Stone, "I want to continue touring with the Beach Boys indefinitely." Still, Wilson was unsure of the possibilities of that happening. "I don't know. I really don't know. I just know I'm going to continue to tour with them," he said.

Again, to me, that doesn't state precisely what Brian wants or envisions, but indicates he didn't want the reunion to end.

Also, I weigh accordingly the mention by Jon Stebbins of additional reunion bookings that Brian/Al/David reportedly wanted to do and Mike reportedly did not.

All of this doesn't add up to any kind of ironclad proof. But if somebody out there really believes any mention of Brian wanting to continue the reunion is just a complete fabrication is just stretching this a bit too thin. Yes, people speak for Brian (as they do all of these guys apparently), and Brian's words are not always exactly precise. But all of the evidence points to Brian wanting more reuntion activity and Mike not so much at this time.

My comment in this particular point was purely to express how shocked I am that a fan would actively advocate for no further reunion shows. I understand that everybody has their own opinion, etc. I'm just super surprised specifically that someone would actively advocate for that.

Well, here's another one who doesn't want another reunion tour. For me it's over. They had a big finale and I don't think they can top it. That's what I've been saying for quite a while now (regarding new album and/or tour): if they can't top the recent one they shouldn't do it.

I appreciate the clarify with which your opinion is made. I just don't share it, and it boggles my mind especially if someone really liked this reunion tour, why they wouldn't want to see it continue, at least for a while. "TWGMTR" is a good album, but far from their greatest, and this tour has been amazing but not neccesarily the clear candidate for their best tour ever, so they already aren't literally doing the best work they've ever done. They're just doing really, really well. Extended it for a bit is something I can't fathom being against.

That's not even addressing the possibility that another album and tour could actually be better in some way.

Didn't someone who was backstage at the Australian reunion gigs say that one of Brian's band members said that Brian planned to return to Australia some time in the next year and play as a solo act?  Brian has been planning for his own solo career to continue without the other Beach Boys so I'm not sure why he implied otherwise to the press.  If he weren't expecting the break-up, he wouldn't be planning more solo tours.

I realize we're all sort of operating on some guesswork and speculation, but how did one band member mentioning Brian wanting to come back there turn into Brian planning a solo tour and contradicting himself to the press? That's a lot of stretching and assuming. It seems pretty obvious Brian wanted the reunion to continue in some form, and in some form other than Mike continuing without him with some sort of vague possibility of more reunion work at some point. I don't think any plans would preclude more solo plans from any of the BB's. Brian (or Al, or anybody else) could work solo gigs around any potential reunion shows.

As I said, we're speculating on a lot of this. But as opposed to that vague bit from one of Brian's band members, we have much more firm evidence of certain things relating to Mike's plans. We have clear evidence of booking shows on Mike's part, whether it was before, during, or after the reunion. Further, while Mike's plans involve taking a different group out and using the same name as the reunion band, any potential Brian gigs would, I assume, be billed as "Brian Wilson" as they always have.

That's another area where Mike would have saved himself all the bad PR by issuing the exact same press release, but with one change: "Mike will be continuing the Endless Summer with his own solo tour celebrating the Beach Boys' music." That would never happen, but he could do that if he wanted to.

My comment in this particular point was purely to express how shocked I am that a fan would actively advocate for no further reunion shows. I understand that everybody has their own opinion, etc. I'm just super surprised specifically that someone would actively advocate for that.

I think when we talk about "perception" as it relates to Mike's press release, we're talking about two very different groups. The masses, the uninformed media, they don't know anything about the BRI license to use the BB name, they don't know who has been in the band for the last 14 years, and/or they are too lazy to research it. That ignorance is not right, but it's a reality. For the BB organization, and specifically whomever planned out Mike's press release, to not understand in light of the hugely increased interest and awareness raised for the BB's this year due to their awesome tour that such a press release would result in a bunch of negative press is just incompetent.

As for the fans' perception, yes, we did know more than the masses about the realities of the "norm" for BB tours of recent years, and that it could go back to that.

What apparently both categories, the fans and the masses, agree on is that the press release is just a disaster in terms of PR. One can say that objectively regardless of how much you like or dislike Mike or his band.

This continued sort of robotic response that the content of Mike's press release is accurate does not take any sort of emotion or PR or perception into account.

If being informationally and factually correct are the only standards for such press releases, then a press release that reads "I have the license to use the name and Al can go fudge himself and remake 'The Many Moods of Murry Wilson'" is also technically accurate. Yes, that is an obvious exaggeration. 

I'll go, should they return to these shores, because I'm a fan. It's what I do, and because I happen to rather like the music, and because the guys in Mike & Bruce's band are all nice people.

As for a full-on reunion next summer... I don't see that happening, and in truth, I hope it doesn't.

I won't continue to beat on this point, but I just don't get this. We lost out on 14 years of the possibility of these guys playing together, and they blew us away with an amazing show this year. Seeing it in person, and seeing that they could pull off a 61-song setlist, and that they rehearsed stuff like "Surf's Up" with Al singing his original part, I just can't understand both actively supporting the idea of Mike and Bruce continuing to tour and wanting them to exclude Brian and/or Al and/or David by virtue of actively not wanting any more reunion shows.

These guys don't have a lot of years left of touring in them. But they have it in them right now, so while I understand the realities of the unliklihood of them doing more reunion stuff, I can't imagine actively hoping against it just to have some sort of theoretical "high point" to go out on.

Why didn`t they have an agreement to only use the reunion group in 2012? Because for Mike to have agreed to that Brian would probably have had to sign up for close to 100 shows right from the beginning which was never likely to happen.

Why would Brian or anybody have to sign up for 100 shows? Why couldn't Mike just do the reunion gigs, whether 50 or 75 or more, and committ to no non-reunion shows until 2013, whether the reunion ended in July or September or whenever? A lot of comments seem to be predicated on the idea that Mike *has* to keep booking shows throughout the years. That is at least part of the reason that is leading to some of the negative characterizations of him, that he can't just leave the band's name alone for a few months. Yes, I know why he wants to keep going; it's the same reason he didn't want to take, say, some or all of 1998 to get past Carl's death, and so on. He does what he wants to do, what he feels is best. That's fine, but I don't think anyone should be surprised that it leaves him open to criticism if he needs to wring every bit of revenue out of the band's name as he can.

I recall the reason for being poopy about the clip showing up on Youtube had more to do with the general sort of "permission of the artist/copyrights/royalties" sort of arguments. I remember thinking at the time that they were probably all valid gripes, but it seemed even that many years ago that complaining about something you sang being on Youtube without your permission was kind of almost funny considering how much stuff was already up on there.

Please remember that these Mike & Bruce shows were originally scheduled before the reunion dates and originally to start well over a month after the original reunion ending date. The UK shows were added much later in the tour.

Do we really know that any or all of these October  tour dates were scheduled before the reunion dates? Were the scheduled before the reunion tour began, or scheduled before the reunion shows were even schedules? I don't think we know, and I think there is some circumstantial evidence that, at the very least, these October dates could have been cancelled, rescheduled, or postponed if they were indeed booked a long time ago.

I think it's quite possible that post-reunion shows were still being booked or firmed up after the reunion tour was scheduled and perhaps had begun.

I also don't understand why it matters much that these October dates were some sort of "prior committment." First of all, I'm no 100% convinced that is absolutely the case. But even if it is, we've seen evidence that they are going to book and play more Mike/Bruce shows. The press release states that more shows with this lineup will be announced. I think Mike's ultimate intentions for the immediate aftermath of the reunion tour never changed, either before, during, or after any stage of the reunion. That's totally his decision, but again it will paint him in a negative light with some fans because it may indicate less flexibility in keeping a reunion going sooner rather than later.

Please remember that these Mike & Bruce shows were originally scheduled before the reunion dates and originally to start well over a month after the original reunion ending date. The UK shows were added much later in the tour.

Exactly, and that's an important point, maybe THE point. And, somebody (I think it was Nicko1234) made the point awhile back.

People are finding yet another reason to criticize Mike by saying, "I can't believe how SOON Mike and Bruce are going out after the last reunion gig..." But, originally it wasn't that way. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the reunion tour EXTENDED by a month and a half to two months? (As an aside, obviously Mike agreed to those extra dates). If they didn't extend the reunion tour, Mike & Bruce would've waited about two months before resuming touring, and as somebody else pointed out awhile back, things would've died down and it wouldn't "looked" as bad, as if Mike & Bruce couldn't wait to get out there again.

Did I mention that Mike must've agreed to the extra/extended reuinion dates?

I think the timeframe during which these October shows were booked only matter in terms of talking about how the timing of that press release seemed bad in PR terms. Doing those gigs so soon after the reunion gigs just looks bad. I'm less concerned with when those shows are taking place, and more concerned with booking those and likely more shows being an indicator of not particularly even entertaining the idea of more reunion shows.

I refer back to one of my old questions, which is why did he have to book October gigs at all? That was totally by choice. Why not just go take a break until the new year? The answer may well be all the standbys, "He's a road warrior, that's what he does", or "He wants to generate more revenue", etc. Those are all reasons that make sense for Mike, no question. But he is then going to be painted in a negative light accordingly if he needed so desperately to do more gigs.

The fact that they didn't at least have one part of the game plan for this reunion set up, which was to perhaps institute some sort of "no non-reunion shows in 2012 to avoid confusion and bad PR" does speak to adamghost's point that even as dysfunctional as the BB's can apparently be, it's surprising they didn't have a little bit more set in stone.

Mike's statement is based on all there was when he gave the statement: the agreement of the Boys. You are holding Mike accountable to a choice that is not made with the statement, is not address in the statement because it was not on the table from the Boys at the time of the statement, and hasn't been expressed by Mike.

If offers for additional shows were made, then there may have been an offer "on the table" at some point.

This isn't theoretical, it was a real event in 1987 and the group in the salute doesn't represent the BBs in 1987. Mike wasn't in control of the band. He could no more leave Al out of the Beach Boys then Al could leave Mike out of the Beach Boys in 1987. What about Carl and Brian, are we also theorizing that Mike had the power to leave them out of an event and still call it the BBs?

I'm kind of confused, as I'm  not sure what happened in 1987 that is applicable to the 1998 Super Bowl show or anything in this discussion.

In 1998, Mike left Al out, and simply couldn't call it "The Beach Boys" yet. As I said, had he done that gig in 1999 with the same lineup, he could and I believe would have called it "The Beach Boys." Again, that gig was more of a symptom of their problems than the cause of anything.

After Mike's statement they proclaimed this, right? Mike's statement was before they expressed these desires to continue on the non-reunion tour and started linking to petitions and such and was accurate and according to the wishes the others had approved at the time the statement was given. Is that right?

Yes, of course. The statements from Al and Brian and the petitions were in direct response to Mike's press release. That's a main crux of this whole debacle, that the others didn't know of Mike's decision or plans, or at least the degree to which he would carry on his own band and not do reunion shows.

Well the fan reaction and the Boys reactions make no sense. So Mike is doing only what was agreed. They set the rules, Mike states their rules, their rules apply, but some how Mike is wrong because he said what they agreed to. So where since the Boys have expressed their disregard for their own rules has Mike said that more reunion shows are off the table, or anything that justifies the fan/Boys reactions and that petition?

Um, yeah, I guess this may just boil down to whether one likes the idea of "sticking to the agreement" more than some of the band changing their minds and doing more reunion gigs. I vote for the latter, and Mike's statement/decision is the former apparently. That's why we're getting this reaction. It makes sense if you like the idea of more reunion shows.

[not]

As a fan, I'm obvious biased towards the feelings and decisions of band members that result in more amazing reunion shows. Mike is placing his interests first, presumably. So are all the others. Their interest is in working together as a full group and doing more shows. Mike's interest is in making more money and having more control and less headaches. Makes sense for him, but he is going to be characterized thusly by fans. Of course it's not literally as simple as Mike placing money over everything else, but that certainly *appears* to be part of what's going on if the possible reasons for him not wanting more reunion shows right now that we've discussed are accurate.

Regardless of the money issue...you don't think the "headaches" as you put it aren't valid enough?  Dealing with the added stress of more people/crew and then most of all the Brian management team--isn't something one would feel sympathetic for, regardless of your biases as a fan?  That issue alone is bigger than the "money" issue, to me.

That's a tough question, and one we of course can't speak to for certain. I would lean towards what may well be a slightly less sympathetic position that they all did it in 2012, and are still touring comfortably (by industry standards) and making plenty of money, so it could be done again in 2013, and/or could have been done on a slightly extended schedule in 2012 and/or 2013.

The BB's don't owe us anything, let me make that clear. That's a debate that has raged in every fan community I've been a part of.

I believe it's a tough question for many to answer because no one simply wants to answer it.  Can't we all simply admit that it may possibly not be ALL about the money but rather it's Mike's resistance to deal with Brian/management and their issues?  Only Mike can answer that but knowing what we know about Brian, how he works and how much his band (and Jeff) have to support him, working with Brian is a HUGE package deal.  It's not just Brian you're getting.  It's Brian plus about 20 additional people (that includes Melinda, of course).  Mike played nice and worked around them for this special anniversary.  At this point, Mike hasn't shared when or how he'd work with them again.

I find it very convenient that we've all now just turned a blind eye to Brian and his issues, and we have "no idea" why Mike has hesitations about working with Brian again.

All likely possibilities. But a project like that is inherently a compromise, so I lean towards seeing Mike being hesitant about doing this sort of thing again, and others being more enthusiastic about it, as Mike being less willing to compromise. Mike apparently had this production company with Brian and Joe Thomas to do this tour, and we've also heard pretty much everybody say that Mike was the "gatekeeper" of the setlist, and had one of "his" guys as co-musical director, so I think he still appeared to yield a good amount of control on this reunion. Just because it was less than his autonomous, solo "Beach Boys" operation, doesn't mean he's being extremely put out by making it a compromise situation.

OK, but I don't remember that group being called the BBs [it wasn't the BBs after all] but I can't find any video of it so......

I don't think it's that difficult of a theoretical scenario/concept to grasp: Mike played the show with his band, largely made of the Beach Boys touring band, minus Al. If Mike had used that same lineup for a show in 1999, he would have called it "The Beach Boys." If he could have called it "The Beach Boys" in 1998, he would have, and would have done it without Al.

As a fan, I'm obvious biased towards the feelings and decisions of band members that result in more amazing reunion shows. Mike is placing his interests first, presumably. So are all the others. Their interest is in working together as a full group and doing more shows. Mike's interest is in making more money and having more control and less headaches. Makes sense for him, but he is going to be characterized thusly by fans. Of course it's not literally as simple as Mike placing money over everything else, but that certainly *appears* to be part of what's going on if the possible reasons for him not wanting more reunion shows right now that we've discussed are accurate.

Regardless of the money issue...you don't think the "headaches" as you put it aren't valid enough?  Dealing with the added stress of more people/crew and then most of all the Brian management team--isn't something one would feel sympathetic for, regardless of your biases as a fan?  That issue alone is bigger than the "money" issue, to me.

That's a tough question, and one we of course can't speak to for certain. I would lean towards what may well be a slightly less sympathetic position that they all did it in 2012, and are still touring comfortably (by industry standards) and making plenty of money, so it could be done again in 2013, and/or could have been done on a slightly extended schedule in 2012 and/or 2013.

The BB's don't owe us anything, let me make that clear. That's a debate that has raged in every fan community I've been a part of.

After Mike's statement they proclaimed this, right? Mike's statement was before they expressed these desires to continue on the non-reunion tour and started linking to petitions and such and was accurate and according to the wishes the others had approved at the time the statement was given. Is that right?

Yes, of course. The statements from Al and Brian and the petitions were in direct response to Mike's press release. That's a main crux of this whole debacle, that the others didn't know of Mike's decision or plans, or at least the degree to which he would carry on his own band and not do reunion shows.

Why can't we just take this factual statement as a factual statement at the time it was given? What it says is all it means. Brian, Al and David agreed to set amount of dates in a given timeframe. The reunion tour is coming to the established end and the non-reunion dates are about to begin. How is it bad timing to state what was agreed to especially when there is already confusion because of the reunion tour.

Frankly it seems childish of the Brian and Al to presume something other than they agreed to. And what the heck is up with all of their presumptuous statements and linking to dumbass "news" and insulting petitions. That petition flat out insults Mike and they are sharing it when the statement that it references says only what they agreed to. What is this, kindergarten. Lordy Miss Mitchell, I'm embarrassed for them.

Simple: It sounds like Brian, Al, and David *changed their minds* and want to do more reunion gigs. Some fans feel that is the most wonderful decision changing we could ask for. 

Absolutely it is.  Well if all parties are really up for it...why not make a bigger compromise if they REALLY want to continue?  They've done the large scale tour....can they scale it back?  Can they skip the large stage?  Bring the prices down?  Play the casinos once in a while?  It seems that there are two extremes here and no one is suggesting an even middle area for them to work with here.....

I'm certainly open for seeing some evidence of some compromise. It doesn't sound like it got to that level of discussion, though. Is it as simple as more reunion shows being offered, Brian, Al, and David saying yes and Mike (and thus Bruce) saying no, end of story? That we don't know.

So then, we can agree that the reasons above are very plausible for why Mike would want to take a breather from any more reunion shows (and why perhaps he had no problem booking more shows after this tour)?  Well if we're all so very cautious of Brian, Al and Dave's "feelings" about wanting them to continue, shouldn't we also consider Mike's feelings?  If we can agree that these issues are his concerns---why should we FORCE Mike to put them aside and push through with more reunion shows when it still doesn't solve any of those issues (the large scale show, high costs, and dealing with Brian/his peeps)?  Those issues will STILL be there.  Regardless if we do not believe those issues hold any water---they hold water for Mike.  We have to accept that--and most of all respect that.  Why should we respect Brian's wishes and not Mike's?  The secret for this tour was that everyone WANTED to be there.  Everyone wanted to sacrifice their own issues for this to work.  The expiration date for this tour has now passed.  Mike is ready to go back to a less stressful arrangement for a little while.  Is that really so bad?

As a fan, I'm obvious biased towards the feelings and decisions of band members that result in more amazing reunion shows. Mike is placing his interests first, presumably. So are all the others. Their interest is in working together as a full group and doing more shows. Mike's interest is in making more money and having more control and less headaches. Makes sense for him, but he is going to be characterized thusly by fans. Of course it's not literally as simple as Mike placing money over everything else, but that certainly *appears* to be part of what's going on if the possible reasons for him not wanting more reunion shows right now that we've discussed are accurate.

Actually I believe it was "A Salute to California" featuring "America's Band". Something like that.

And if this was Al being edged out of the BBs, wouldn't it be Carl edging him out in 1987? Did Al even participate in Mike's side band in those days. Mike might have been edging Al out of his side band but if not being there is being edged out of the BB band then who was edging out Brian and Carl? Al, Brian and Carl weren't there but together they constituted a majority in BRI.

I don't think the Super Bowl gig in 1998 is a big deal in the grand scheme of things. It's just another bit of evidence of Mike and Al splintering. As for Al being edged out in 1987, or 1990, or 1997, it sounds like Carl did not actively pursue any such plan, but may have at certain points been passive about it, sometimes to Al's detrement. It certainly sounds like Al and Carl disagreed on Carl being passive about the re-arranging of the tour production situation.

Why can't we just take this factual statement as a factual statement at the time it was given? What it says is all it means. Brian, Al and David agreed to set amount of dates in a given timeframe. The reunion tour is coming to the established end and the non-reunion dates are about to begin. How is it bad timing to state what was agreed to especially when there is already confusion because of the reunion tour.

Frankly it seems childish of the Brian and Al to presume something other than they agreed to. And what the heck is up with all of their presumptuous statements and linking to dumbass "news" and insulting petitions. That petition flat out insults Mike and they are sharing it when the statement that it references says only what they agreed to. What is this, kindergarten. Lordy Miss Mitchell, I'm embarrassed for them.

Simple: It sounds like Brian, Al, and David *changed their minds* and want to do more reunion gigs. Some fans feel that is the most wonderful decision changing we could ask for. 

Well, you can't say that I didn't ask ya....

I'm starting to burn out on this subject (not that I can't be re-charged by a boneheaded post), so I can't engage in much more dialogue regarding this mess. But, I would like to ask you a fairly straightforward question. But first, imagine - or assume(?) - that this could happen.

What if Brian knocked on Mike's hotel door, and the two of them spent a few moments talking. And, Brian said to Mike, "You know, Mike, I can't believe how much I enjoyed this tour. I really didn't want to do it, and I had my doubts, but I'm glad we did it. We were pretty good for a bunch of old men weren't we? I actually had such a good time that I wouldn't mind doing more touring like this. What do YOU think about that?"

If that would happen (imagine it happening), and knowing what you know about The Beach Boys, what do think Mike would say to Brian?

Good question. My guess is it would be something non-committal, wavering between trying to put a positive spin on it but still coming across as kind of egotistical and interested in the bottom line/profit. Somethink like "Yeah, Brian, I had a good time on the tour too. I'd love to maybe do some more stuff at some point too. But we gotta write some more stuff together, like more upbeat stuff. The show is great, but that band is really expensive. I don't think you're that into doing a lot of gigs all year long. So I'll go out next year, and maybe we'll try to write and record later on, and then maybe we can talk about some more shows."

Nowhere in the answer would Al or David even come up as topics, nor would their possible interest in doing more shows sooner.

Clearly, Mike has not ruled out ever doing more albums and tours with the guys. But as time goes by, the chances of getting this crew back together will not increase, at least in my opinion.  Also, if Mike had a strong feeling that they will do more shows and albums at some point, he could have put some bit in that press release vaguely referring to simply *hoping* to do more recording and touring. That he didn't even include a small statement along those lines tells me he's not even leaning strongly towards that, or at least not willing to commit to something else, which is fine. It is true that shows need to be booked well in advance, so if we start seeing him booking shows soon into 2013, that tells me he's not interested in any reunion touring soon.

It looks to me that you're looking at this at a very emotional level.  Glass half empty kind of thing.  The press release is meticulously worded so that no confusion can occur for any dopey fan out there who thinks the show they're seeing at the Red Roof Inn is still the reunion show that toured this summer.  The press release does not rule anything out for future plans but mainly rules out any misconception for any shows in the forseeable future.  It needed to be said.  The way it came across may have been taken badly but that's nothing a new press release 3 or 6 months from now announcing a new reunion tour won't fix.  We should all stop looking at this as some end of the world doomsday thing but rather with just a little bit more foresight and rational thinking.

I make no assumptions about what the future holds. It's not a doomsday scenario for me. But it also doesn't appear to me that Mike just booked a few shows on his own and is really actively supporting more reunion activity. If that is the case, then that is another artistic decision Mike has chosen to make regarding this band that I feel reflects negatively on him and is a bummer for the band and its fans.

I understand this sentiment. But I refer back to some earlier posts where I mentioned that I don't think wanting more reunion shows is some kind of pie-in-the-sky, wishful thinking, can't-get-over-it sentiment when three of the five guys are willing to do it and they aren't getting any younger. Nobody believed this reunion would or could go on forever. In fact, part of the reason I for one have a bit of a sense of urgency about doing more reunion stuff is because the time is not on anybody's side. If they are ever inclined to do more reunion stuff, 2013 is better than waiting until the 55th or 60th anniversary.

For me, the sadness about possibly no future reunion shows and Mike going back out is not about some large conceptual thing where they need to "go out on a high note" or "not tarnish the name" or anything like that. It's a very immediate, functional issue of a band that currently has a ready-to-go awesome lineup of players and songs who could very easily do more of these shows, and three of the guys at least willing to do it (and I'd wager Bruce probably wouldn't mind doing more reunion stuff either, and if he does mind, well, that's a whole seperate discussion regarding Bruce and his weird glee about a 2/5 Beach Boys lineup).

If Brian didn't want to do more shows, or if the shows had only been so-so, or if David Marks and Al Jardine had a prior committment to go to carpentry school; if there were any apparent hindrances other than apparently Mike not wanting to do it (and Mike certainly isn't the reason in and of itself; he has reasons he may not want to do it), then any wishes for more shows would indeed be wishful thinking, living in la-la land, etc.

I appreciate your response.

But how much do these issues really weigh in when you have to perhaps consider the fact that although Mike enjoyed himself on this tour he does not necessarily 1) like the large crew/stage/setup to perform shows 2) like the costs of such a tour and 3) enjoy walking on eggshells near Brian and/or his managers/people?  Time not being on their side is a valid concern but when Mike is possibly faced with these much larger issues it is no surprise that he'd want a break from that for a while.  

I think all of the issues you raise may well very be some of if not most of the main issues that would lead to Mike wanting to step away from more reunion shows right now. The question is whether any given fan feels that those are valid enough concerns to warrant not doing more reunion shows. Mike sacrificed for the reunion tour, no question. It's all relative of course, as he may have sacrificed more money for less but still substantial money, sacrificed total control over all aspects for some control but still more than most of the people in the organization (the "50 Big Ones" production company is supposedly Brian, Mike, and Joe Thomas), and so on.

Mike may not want to make those sacrifices to make way for amazing additional reunion shows. He can do that, and fans can choose to say that such a decision still paints him in a negative light.