I dunno. I know the world of the BB's can be strange, and they can seem unfamiliar with very common, obvious things. But I'm not prepared to think that we knew or know more about what was *going* to happen or what is going to happen than the other band members.

It's true, these articles are painting a picture where Brian, Al, and David don't seem to want to end the reunion, while Mike has some sort of mixed feelings about the prospect.

Thing is, I think all these articles are blurring the question of ending "the reunion" as opposed to "the reunion tour".

In Sydney, David and his wife were very much looking forward to getting back home to New York, because this was the longest and most intense tour he's been on in...  ever?  Certainly since he was a teenager, I'd say.  He toured regularly for a bit more than a year in 1998-99, but that was a less packed schedule.  I don't think they're up for the Mike&Bruce endless-roadtrip lifestyle.  Al, similarly...  it's been fifteen years since he was doing the long hauls.  And Brian?  About twenty-five years since he last did a tour this big.  I figure they're all up for a break from the road.

Mike, on the other hand...  He tours.  That's what he does.  You know he'd be going out on the road again even if he didn't have the Beach Boys name behind him.  And he's hardly going to sit on his ass till after they get a new album out.

But at the same time, you've got Brian already talking about doing another album, Mike saying he's up for it if he can write with Brian, Al saying he wants to concentrate on working with the band...  that doesn't sound like anyone wanting to end the reunion.

The only issue is whether the Mike/Bruce group touring between reunion gigs cheapens the band name.  Me, maybe I'd resurrect the Endless Summer Beach Band for a bit...

Cheers,
Jon Blum

Mike using some other name to tour under would maybe make things more palatable and less confusing for promoters at present. But I don't see it happening. Nobody buys tickets to see the "Endless Summer Band" or "America's Band", etc. Yes, they could get some bookings at smaller venues and get some tickets sold with good promotion. But using the BB name increases possibilities a million fold.

If Mike had ever considered retiring the BB name, it would have happened long ago.

I dunno how much legal stuff and politics and whatnot go into it, but while the "corporate" structure as we understand it seems to indicate that they could vote to take the license away at some point, I'd also have to believe that Mike would not be so bold as to use the name if he had an indication that the others were firmly against it, because he would risk having it taken away.

As has been said a million times, these scenarios were all considered by all of us before the reunion started. But I would have thought something a bit more tidy and formal would have happened. Maybe not just a continuing of the reunion lineup, but something a bit more orderly and well-explained for fans than following up reunion gigs at Royal Albert Hall and Wembley with non-reunion gigs within days or weeks in Biloxi, preceded by a statement from Mike that seems to not directly match up with what some of the other guys feel about future reunion prospects.

It's interesting that only certain individuals in the band and their camp have seemed to continue to toot the "The reunion was a set amount of time that ends on September 28th" horn. As I believe Howie Edelson pointed out months ago, Bruce seemed almost gleeful in stating before the tour started that it had a *definite* ending period after which no more shows with all five BB's would happen.

Hopefully some clarification or more comments from the band members will surface.

Confusing? Yes.

Push and pull between the factions? Maybe, but I really don't think with Brian. Al and David got bumped, but, again, that was probably decided months ago, and they both knew it was coming.

I'm not ignoring what Brian has said (positive things) about touring; I'm going with my gut, and history.

You're right, it's not odd to speculate considering the confusing statements coming out. That's what we do. But, speculating is one thing, jumping to conclusions and blaming people and taking sides and proclaiming evidence is another thing. I'm not ready to go there - yet.

I think saying that Brian, Al, and David got "bumped" would be the wrong way to put it. Any "reunion" activity would simply require everybody to agree to it. It doesn't sound like anybody got bumped or dumped. Rather, it *may* be that some folks in the band had/have a desire to continue it, and other members either aren't interested or have mixed feelings about it, thus passively not allowing it to happen.

The comment about some sort of tour industry person saying they should give it a "rest" for a year sounds strange. As I said before, "oversaturation" of the market is a real thing to think about. But I just can't imagine some industry person saying "You know Mike, you guys should wait a year before doing another reunion tour so that you can build more interest and demand. But in the meantime, you should also continue to book 100 to 150 shows next year under that same 'Beach Boys' name, just with shorter shows, 60% less actual Beach Boys, and a backing band half the size."

The LA Times depicts the situation as the other BBs being caught off-guard by Mike's decision. That can't be so. They had to be aware. We were.

How could they not be aware if it has been known to the public since July-ish? Something seems a little off, but then bits and pieces are being thrown here and there so I don't think we'll really know for sure what is going on post reunion until they have a straight explanation.

I dunno. I know the world of the BB's can be strange, and they can seem unfamiliar with very common, obvious things. But I'm not prepared to think that we knew or know more about what was *going* to happen or what is going to happen than the other band members.

It's true, these articles are painting a picture where Brian, Al, and David don't seem to want to end the reunion, while Mike has some sort of mixed feelings about the prospect. I don't think it's totally far-fetched that perhaps things were (or are) still up on the air, and maybe Brian/Al/David knew Mike had a few gigs booked, but maybe there were indications they were going to do more reunion stuff sooner rather than later, and perhaps Mike or his camp made a more declarative statement about his immediate future plans than the rest of the guys were aware of.

There are little pieces here and there that suggest Brian and Al want to continue. Brian seems positive at the moment. Al seems even more adament about keeping on with the reunion. On the other hand, Mike has in past months expressed at least a passive bit of shying away from having a huge, expensive backing band and all of the big machinery involved with this big tour, and he also seems to place a condition (writing with Brian) on doing another album. Given the portrayal in the Rolling Stone article a few months ago about how Mike felt about the closing "suite" of songs, it's not unfathomable that he's not interested in another melancholy, Brian-centric Beach Boys album.

I don't buy for a second that "Brian is bummed" is just a total joke. That makes no sense at all, whatsoever. Maybe they didn't mean it so dramatically, like Brian just felt like "bummer, okay, what next?" If that's a joke, it's the most subtle, dry, non-joke joke they could have made.

This article does also give us a bit of information regarding those who have been suggesting that these upcoming Mike/Bruce gigs were some sort of contractual obligations that they couldn't get out of. The article states that Mike made the decision to cancel the "Nutty Jerry's" show due to the confusion. That doesn't mean there weren't perhaps some financial consequences to that, but it demonstrates that Mike is able and willing to cancel a show after it's been publicized.

The idea about not watering down the band's name by going right back out on the road is interesting. However, this reasoning would only work if Mike was going back out on the road under a different name. He's been diluting the "Beach Boys" brand for decades now (and Al and Carl and the rest were part of this too going back to the 80's and 90's), and that's one of the reason they aren't playing Anaheim Stadium like they were in 1976 or indoor areans like they were as late as 1980, and so on. A lot of factors play into venue sizes and whatnot, but even Carl back in the 80's commented that they were diluting the name by doing 100-150 shows per year, every year.

If the BB's had simply ceased touring in 1998, and then the 2012 shows were not only the first "reunion" gigs, but the first gigs of any kind under the BB name since '98, they would have probably been playing larger venues. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy seeing them at the Greek Theater in Berkeley instead of a baseball stadium or basketball arena.

Again, this is the strange world of BB politics. I don't think the current state of the band is crystal clear to anyone. It sounds like Brian, Al, and David would probably like to continue with the lineup, but not do 150 shows per year. As many have said lately, Brian and Al can attempt to pull the license at some point here if they feel that strongly about Mike not going back to his version of the BB's. But that wouldn't exactly foster a closer bond to then pull together for another album and tour.

I can envision them moving between the Mike/Bruce lineup and a reunion lineup, but it will eventually get confusing for all of the machinery of the touring industry, namely promoters, agents, venues, and so on.

Mike going back out and doing a 150 shows in 2013 will not help build demand for a 2014 "reunion" lineup. And you know what? These guys are too old to try to do it every "two or three years." I hope they live another 50 years each, but they won't be able to do this freakishly amazing sounding live show for another 20 years.

Some thoughts in no particular order:
I don't think this is surprisning at all. Mike has always loved to perform. Brian not so much if at all. One guy wants to be on the road alot; the other hardly at all.
Mike and Bruce are keeping the Beach Boys name as an ongoing band in the public's mind as they have done so since Carl's passing. And, the non-touring members do benefit financially from the touring "Beach Boys".

Just to clarify, only the "corporate" members benefit financially as far as I know, so if David's not on the tour, I don't believe he's making anything. Also, the "corporate" members only split the licensing fee, not the entire wad of money the tour generates. I'm not saying anybody was saying otherwise, I just continue to read comments occasionally elsewhere that suggest Al and Brian make the same amount of money sitting at home as they would if they were in the touring BB's, and that is of course not true.

Don't get me wrong, even simply the licensing fee is a nice little chunk of change for sitting at home. 

It's funny; I've always been disapproving or, at best, kind of ambivalent about the Mike/Bruce shows, and I haven't gone to see them. Based on how good Totten and Cowsill are, and that Mike actually sounds pretty good overall vocally, I'd probably consider seeing that show now based on nothing but being pleasantly surprised by them.

But, maybe it makes no sense and sounds petty or too finicky or too simplistic, but I'm almost more apt to not see the scaled back BB show now not because I object to use of the name (or insert the other arguments people have used since 1998), but simply out of almost a protest to signify how much of a missed opportunity it is not not continue with this reunion lineup.

I admit it, it's literally a case of holding the Mike/Bruce band to a higher standard (calling itself the BB's mind you) in light of something I didn't know was going to be so good until I saw it, and that is the awesome reunion lineup. As I said before, aside from it being the novelty of a "reunion" and a 50th anniversary, it's just an awesome live show.

I don't even feel like this tour was a bigger production or a bigger hassle or expense. I saw the reunion lineup at the same venue I saw Brian play in 2005, and I don't think the tickets were much more expensive than the the most expensive Brian tickets I've bought. Bring the reunion on again, same venue, same lineup, same price! I'll be there!

For the whole reunion tour I often wondered if the tour was put together very quickly (and thankfully very, very well) because of the bookings that Mike & Bruce already had for October (and didn't they also have to cancel some shows earlier this year?). So contracts were already signed for the Mike&Bruce show to play after the Beach Boys tour. I'm not surprised that Brian didn't know this (see Rolling Stone) as this is Brian. Plus no one ever said that it would be certain they'd continue together.

I know that we don't know the details concerning these October bookings, but based on what I've heard and what I've observed, I think it's at the very least very debatable as to whether the Mike/Bruce show absolutely *had* to do these October gigs. There may have been little or no consequences to cancelling those shows.

The recent announcement also doesn't read as if this scaled back lineup just has to knock out a few random shows they were previously obligated to do. It reads as though after September 28th, it's back to the way it's been for 14 years.

I dunno. It's still a mystery to me. The three shows I saw online are mid October shows - one in Waco (at a 5K seater) and two gigs in Biloxi. And mid October to boot. I just don't understand why the chinese fire drill to get back on the road, when you could easily do it in mid to late November. Heck, call 'em Christmas shows. Doing it on the heels of London, with greatest hits, a DVD and a boxset in the offing seem mercenary.

And I know it's all PR rah-rah, but these press releases that speak of how these shows will prove 'the music lives on' are just jive. Of course the music lives on...it lived and breathed this summer as it hasn't in decades.

I think you make some good points concerning why they are so quick to get back on the road, and to play those types of venus and cities. Nothing against those venues or cities. But it is odd to go to an over dozen-piece reunion lineup with 5 Beach Boys playing Wembley Arena to a 7-piece band with 2 Beach Boys playing a casino in Biloxi.

As long it doesn`t interfere with the possibility of the group doing more recording in future, I don`t see this as being a big deal. In recent years the Mike and Bruce shows have been excellent and musically similar to the recent reunion tour. If they were to pass through my town (they won`t) then I wouldn`t hesitate to go to see them.

I'm sure it won't functionally interfere with future reunion activities. But if they had any even slight idea that they might do something else together, I would think such an annoucement that firmly states exactly who is and isn't in the touring lineup going forward wouldn't be needed. Unless, again as AGD pointed out, this is just something to back them up when or if people start complaining about future scaled-back shows.

Why couldn't that press release at least end on a positive note and say something like "Keep an eye out for possible future plans with all original members of the Beach Boys in the near future.  Stay tuned!"

What would those plans be, though?

That is a very good question. But this "announcement" makes it seem like the reunion is over, period. Which it may be. But unless they're trying to set up the next reunion project as a surprise by letting as assume it won't happen again, all this announcement does is reflect negatively. AGD is right, it's a good "CYA" item I suppose in terms of setting up expectations.

I wish I could think of a less ham-handed analogy, but this announcent reads like an e-mail from your bank that states "Good news! Concerning your $5000 balance, as we go forward, you will see that the $3000 you deposited this month is no longer there, but the original $2000 you started with is still there rockin' out some good vibrations and keeping the spirit of your bank account alive!"

I don't know why this has to be a "I told ya so and you're an idiot for not knowing this would happen." I for one was fully prepared for the strong liklihood of this happening, but the quality of this tour has changed things for some fans. I think a lot of old, grizzled, skeptical fans who have in the past disapproved of Love's use of the BB name had kind of become resigned to it in more recent years. Then Mike improved his live show, winning over more fans, and then was a huge part of this reunion tour, and then that reunion tour became not just a nice novelty, but an actual kick-ass live show that is amazing regardless of the context of it being a reunion or an anniversary. Mike hasn't been in the good graces of more BB fans this much in decades. Given that, I'm still not surprised that Mike is going back out on his own, not only going back out, but publicizing it in a way that suggests he's not terribly interested in another reunion tour of his magnitude. I'm not surprised, but I think the high quality of this reunion tour has made a lot of even previously jaded and grumpy fans very happy, so now they are more disappointed than they would have been had the reunion never happened.

I think it was Mr. Edelson that posted a really eloquent and to-the-point post a few months ago that really spoke to why Mike shouldn't just revert back to his old tour.

At the same time, everybody should also remember that Mike licenses the name from a group that consists of Brian, Mike, Al, and Carl's estate. I don't know what kind of "votes' have taken place in recent years, but if Al and Brian (and Carl's estate for that matter) both firmly decided they did not want Mike using the name, they could prevent it at some point, whenever the current license is up.

This pseudo-press release about Mike continuing with Bruce and without the other seems much less like a happy announcement, and more like a warning, basically saying "Hey, if you buy Beach Boys tickets for shows after 9/28, this is what you'll be getting."

Whatever you think if Mike continuing with the name, this "announcement' is objectively not something that reflects positively on Mike. Why they also "officially" announced this prior to the end of the reunion shows is also puzzling, as they now open themselves up to awkward questions about why they are going to cheap out on the tour again and have shorter shows, fewer band members (both main members and backing members), and why they are leaving the most well-known member of the band (Brian) and the the guy with the most in-tact voice (Al) behind.

Everything seems pretty muddy. It seems likely that Brian doesn't want to do the type of touring that Mike wants to. It's unclear what Al or David want. But it also doesn't seem like Brian (or Al or David) are ready to just revert to what this was in 2011.

But being saddened about this turn of events doesn't mean one isn't aware of the realities of all of this. It was probably going to happen, and there probably won't be much of any long-term ramifications for Mike and Bruce. Maybe some bad press for a time, maybe a few more confused venues promoting the shows incorrectly, but who knows....

Bleccch. Still hoping we get another album and tour..........

I don't think we'll ever know much of any particulars. They surely made plenty of money by the standards of most "normal" folks. There was no evidence of poor ticket sales in any city from what I heard.

There has been discussion in other threads, mostly revolving around future potential Mike/Bruce gigs, that it's easily conceivable that Mike actually made less money on this reunion tour than he would on a typical Mike/Bruce BB tour, simply due to not having to split any proceeds (other than the licensing fee) with any other corporate BB members.

The total obvious but completely speculative take on it would be that Al and David made more touring this year than they have for some time (perhaps ever for David), but that has as much to do with the sheer lack of gigs those two guys have played in recent years. It's a total guess as to whether Brian made more than he usually does on his tours, although he certainly played more gigs in a short, compacted period of time on this tour than he usually does.

Others who have more inside info have stated that this tour was not produced under the normal Mike/Bruce production operation, but was produced by a "50 Big Ones" production company which involves some kind of partnership between Brian, Mike, and Joe Thomas.

I think the tour has been plenty successful, but some are fearing that we may not see another tour if it continues to be a lesser financial opportunity for Mike. Obviously, again speculation, is that Brian and Al (and Carl's estate) have some leverage in that if they really wanted to make sure only a reunion lineup tours in the future, they could vote to only allow the reunion lineup to have a license to use the name. I somehow doubt Carl's estate and Brian feel *that* strongly about continuing the "reunion" tour for numerous years, but we can hope!

Well, barring the time lengths, they set out to do about the same thing. don't they? Present a documentary of a 60s band internally.
And....let's get real here, as much as we love, adore, and worship The Beach Boys, they don't warrant a 10 hour documentary.

Perhaps the comparable period of 1961/62-ish to 1969 doesn't warrant 10 hours for the BB's, if for no other reason that less extant footage of them seems to exist as compared to the Beatles (although that may not even be true; I don't know what's out there).

But considering the BB's continued in various forms through, well, the present, I think now that they have clocked 50 years, they warrant more than 90 mins or two hours for a documentary. Yes, there are vast periods where little needs to be covered. We don't need an hour covering the harrowing tour years of 1993 to 1997.

But I hope they do something more along the lines of the Beatles Anthology, some sort of multi-hour documentary, and get the surviving guys to sit down for thorough interviews while they're still around.

Can't agree that EH and Anthology are similar. Anthology = 8 part documentary series spanning 10+ hours and 3 double CDs. Endless Harmony = 1 2.5 hour documentary and 1 CD.

The EH doc wasn't even 2.5 hours long. The extended DVD edit was only about 1 hour and 45 minutes. That doc was about as good as an "authorized" documentary made in 1998 and made to be only one feature length could possibly be.

I'm curious to know what material from 1982 will be discussed if the cut-off is actually 1982. There really isn't much of anything past 1980 to discuss in terms of released material. They could perhaps just be delving into his condition up until the re-appearance of Landy, and/or making room for some discussion of post-KTSA material like "Stevie" or the "Hamburger" tapes, etc.

Referring back to those pics of David with the band in the 90's for that Baywatch episode, are there any photos of David and Carl (or Dennis for that matter) taken after 1963 or so? I know he popped in a few times at shows and whatnot over the years when Carl was still around; just curious if a photo exists, especially from the 80's or 90's.

From their Facebook:


"The 'Boys signing tour programs in Japan"

...Unless they changed the design of the tourbook..it looks like they're signing the vinyl...

It does actually look like it may be a redesigned tour book. It has the "50" attached to the BB logo unlike the album, and whatever the title is, it's shorter than "That's Why God Made the Radio."

I'm hoping they reform again periodically after this tour.  There's no reason why Brian can't do whatever he wants to do as a solo artist and switch off to Beach Boys work whenever he wants.  Now that the "bridge" between Brian and Mike Love has been completely restored, he should have the freedom to work with them as often as he wants.  Let's hope Brian sees it that way too.  

The "reform every so often" concept sounds like a good compromise, but unfortunately, while these guys have defied all sorts of odds and still put on a great show at age 70+, they don't have a ton of years left to "reform periodically." I'm not saying they can't perhaps pull of a 60th Anniversary Tour, but age may take it's toll at an even more rapid pace at some point here.

If they have any interest in doing more stuff together, sooner rather than later might be a good idea, meaning a new album and tour in 2013 perhaps.

The article says that David's playing on "Strange world" (if I understood correctly) yet the credits in the booklet don't even have a guitar listed, although very clearly there is one. I would love to have the correct credits. And I would also would love to finally know if he sang on the album or some songs

I think there are credits missing from the CD. I recall, for example, that while saxophone is clearly heard on the title track, none is listed on the credits. If you listen to the b-side backing track of the song from the vinyl 45 single, there is no saxophone on it, suggesting it was a later overdub. It seems maybe some of David's guitar parts were later overdubs as well. It seems perhaps the CD booklet credits are missing some of the later overdub session credits. Just a guess of course.

The only thing I think that is really kind of awkard is the title. "Doin' It Again" just sounds weird and awkward. Even just "Front Row Center" or something would have been better. Did they really have to give this thing a title that sounds like a porn title?

For the longest time, the special had the title "Summer's Gone".  We then heard about Brian changing his mind about this being the last Beach Boys album and then the special's name changed to "Doin' It Again" at the last minute.  Still though, they probably could have thought of something better, even under short circumstances.

Yep, it seemed to have a title change. I'm not sure what a good title would be, but something else had to have been possible other than "Doin' It Again." Do we really need more BB product titled with a dropped G? Goin' On, Keepin' the Summer Alive, Good Timin',  . Yes, I know, "Doing It Again" actually sounds even more awkard somewhow. I dunno, something like "The Beach Boys - Front Row Center - 50th Anniversary Celebration."

Don't get me wrong, the title isn't a big deal to me. The lack of any extra footage or bonus material is really disappointing. I'll get the Blu-ray, if nothing else to clear the HD version off of my DVR and get a version without a local PBS station "bug" in the corner.

I don't know if it's a lighting thing or a makeup thing or just the smaller web browser video frame, but Al all of a sudden looks 10 or 20 years younger in this interview.

Not too bad overall for a BB interview. We all know how awkward they can get, so this one was actually okay. Sadly, these were not quite the most boring, vapid questions that could have been asked. 

This is definitely a weird one. I hadn't seen the '82 and '83 band publicity pics in years (if ever) until they both popped up in the "Add Some Music To Your Day" book from several years back (the one that compiled stuff from a fanzine).

As someone else pointed out, they had a later "posed" band pic of all six BB's from 1983 after Brian had slimmed down, so it's weird that in 1984 they went back to a photo from 1982 when Brian looked vastly different (and that's not even getting into the possibility that at a given show in 1984, Brian may not have been in attendance, as his attendance at BB shows from 1984 and on was spotty).

Granted, normally when you pull a two-year old photo of a band, it usually shouldn't be such a big issue. I don't recall the posing of the '83 photos; maybe it was harder to airbrush Dennis out of that one.

I'd also be curious to know who airbrushed it. Was it the venue, the booking agency, CBS/Caribou, or Brother, or someone else? Venues promoting shows usually just get a stock photo from management to use, so it seems more likely somebody in the BB camp chose the photo and did the airbrushing. Weird stuff.

I certainly hope the BD/DVD has something new that didn't air on PBS. It wasn't a bad doc, but it was trying to do way too much in a very short time. They tried to do a very truncated band history/biography, debut live tour footage, and discuss the new album all in 55 minutes, and there's no way that could ever work.

This makes me wish Al had never stopped singing WIBN to begin with!! One good thing they did in the mixing on that is turn Al up and Jeff down...not a slam against Jeff I would just rather hear Al's voice on this particular song louder.

Yeah, it's amazing to hear Al sing the song in the original live key (meaning going back to the 70's or 80's they played it close to the original key, but I think it's dropped a half step or something; whereas when Brian has done it solo in recent years, they dropped the key quite a bit more).

Al amazingly seems to be able to handle that range still, so I agree, just mix Foskett out and let's hear Al. Granted, at some shows, it seems like Al knows Jeff is also singing and sometimes backs down from the main lead to some degree.