I don't know, but if I had to guess (and I'm hopeful someone will come in and confirm or deny) that Dennis played drums on "Good Timin'", "Shortenin' Bread" and perhaps "Lady Lynda" (though it doesn't sound like his style) on L.A., and "My Diane" on M.I.U.  They're all released after LOVE YOU, do any of the drum sessions date from after LOVE YOU?

Actually as I think about it both "Angel Come Home" and "Love Surrounds Me" sound very Dennis drum-wise (particularly "Angel").  There's actually a timing error on the drums on "Angel" towards the end of the track that they covered with overdubs.

Bobby F. drummed on "Angel", "LSM" and "LL". It's Dennis on "Good Timin'", "Shortenin' Bread", and a small overdub on "LSM". Plus "My Diane", "Hey Little Tomboy", "Come Go With Me" and "Peggy Sue" from the previous album. He drummed at an early KTSA session, for "Johnny B. Goode" and an attempt at "Oh Darlin'". But probably the last time he drummed in the studio for a potential BBs release was "Stevie".
The last time Dennis drummed

Are you referring to the early (booted) version of Oh Darlin' with Brian vocal? Or some other previous and rejected unheard version?
Man, I love the drum sound on Stevie. It's got a hint of the POB drum sound.

 We know what you and others believe regarding Mike's actions and sayings, because you remind us in every thread you post in. Can't you just let go a little bit?

I can, and I will try... but I also ask you this question... do you not also see the flipside of what you are saying is also an "issue" on this board as well? Meaning, a group of people who are unable to aim any criticism, real or even hypothetical, towards one particular bandmate, under seemingly any circumstances, and avoid/duck questions which could possibly involve them being critical? Do you not see that strange phenomenon as an instance where those people also need to "let go a little bit" of their refusal to back down from their starry-eyed blind praise? You can't have it both ways, where there's a desire to have some people cease critical comments... while the complete lack of critical comments from another group of people, even when criticism would obviously be warranted, is considered perfectly acceptable, reasonable, and rational.

Stamos' drumming is fine in that clip of catch a wave. It's started too slow before he comes in, so I doubt there was much he could do.

Catch a Wave is a semi-deep cut. What are the deepest cuts that Stamos has been the main drummer on?

[Not]

Everything becomes blown out of proportion for nothing.  And the insults fly, "Stamos" threads become created, out of frustration, because he is an easy target.  

I have no real problem with Stamos as a dude, seeing he is a lucky BB fanboy, and seems like a good guy without ego issues. But I do wonder what would happen if Mike started deeply incorporating Stamos musically into the M&B sets. Like having Stamos sing 50+% of the songs in every set. Including Surf's Up. Would Kokomaoists be down with that, or would even Cam find finally buckle?  

Stamos is lucky. First, do you really think that a guy who is apparently in such demand (whether you care for his work or not) for commercials, or theater or a TV series, has 200 or so days a year, to account for BB travel to venues, a day or so on either end, and give up his "day job" to be a touring band member?  Seriously.

Second, the term Kokomaoist is a pejorative one.  Using it "frames your argument" with underlying bias. Please don't use my post with either that term or the similarly pejorative one for Brian's band.  I'm a BB fan.  

Third, could he play well enough to do this job? Maybe.  He does a very respectable job on percussion, was doing gigs with Carl, who, as I read was a pretty rigorous taskmaster on tour.  He has a nice spot as a guest. And he is a big enough fan to know the words.  It works for lots of young concertgoers, and not so much for haters.  

Do I think that is a reality? Absolutely not.

And what does Cam have to do with this? Only on this board could there be an "arranged marriage" with not even one email between the parties.  

Well, regardless of Kokomaoist label or not, you did a swell job of not answering my hypothetical question. I'm just trying to prove a point that some people, even if they think Stamos is a joke, would magically have no problem with such a situation if it occurred, if it would mean having to say something less than positive about Mike's decisions.

A swell job of "not answering" a "hypothetical question" that was not "hypothetical" in the least?  It appears that the question was "projecting" as to whether that was a future possibility.  

It was a "what are the odds that he would be a permanent touring band member?" That was the question, thinly-veiled.
Seriously.

No, my question in case it was unclear, was would a chunk of people on this board still not be able to find fault in Mike's decision if Stamos were to assume a massively large role in the band as a lead vocalist, cowriter, musical contributor, etc. Not pondering the likelihood of why that is unlikely - I know that is unlikely. Simply pondering whether that decision  (if, nevertheless, it was to still actually happen, despite all odds - strange things happen in BB world) would still be praised due to an unwillingness to criticize certain bandmembers. If you'd rather focus about why it's an unlikely thing to happen, instead of actually answering my question and heaven forbid admitting that I have a point, well please go right ahead and keep doing it.  

Everything becomes blown out of proportion for nothing.  And the insults fly, "Stamos" threads become created, out of frustration, because he is an easy target.  

I have no real problem with Stamos as a dude, seeing he is a lucky BB fanboy, and seems like a good guy without ego issues. But I do wonder what would happen if Mike started deeply incorporating Stamos musically into the M&B sets. Like having Stamos sing 50+% of the songs in every set. Including Surf's Up. Would Kokomaoists be down with that, or would even Cam find finally buckle?  

Stamos is lucky. First, do you really think that a guy who is apparently in such demand (whether you care for his work or not) for commercials, or theater or a TV series, has 200 or so days a year, to account for BB travel to venues, a day or so on either end, and give up his "day job" to be a touring band member?  Seriously.

Second, the term Kokomaoist is a pejorative one.  Using it "frames your argument" with underlying bias. Please don't use my post with either that term or the similarly pejorative one for Brian's band.  I'm a BB fan.  

Third, could he play well enough to do this job? Maybe.  He does a very respectable job on percussion, was doing gigs with Carl, who, as I read was a pretty rigorous taskmaster on tour.  He has a nice spot as a guest. And he is a big enough fan to know the words.  It works for lots of young concertgoers, and not so much for haters.  

Do I think that is a reality? Absolutely not.

And what does Cam have to do with this? Only on this board could there be an "arranged marriage" with not even one email between the parties.  

Well, regardless of Kokomaoist label or not, you did a swell job of not answering my hypothetical question. I'm not trying to determine the parameters of Stamos actually doing a thing in his busy schedule. Did you really think that was what I was getting at?   I'm just trying to prove a point that some people, even if they think Stamos is a joke, would magically have no problem with such a situation if it occurred, if it would mean having to say something less than positive about Mike's decisions. The fact that the heart of the question got avoided sorta kinda proved my point.

So, the "history" outweighs the music for "some people". I pity them, I truly do.

The sad thing is, and I am not trying to be inflammatory, but this very quote of yours could apply to Mike... it seems his feelings regarding history, of being slighted throughout BB history, or slighted in terms of public perception, have informed his actions which clearly show that a great many petty things, including a deep and unflinching respect for SED® (Set End Date) have "outweighed the music", so to speak. You know it's true. And speaking of pity, I pity that a man who stands for peace, love and positivity could have such a warped mindset of prioritization, particularly because the music that they collectively were making as a whole means a great deal to me, and I for one make no apologies for venting about his widely-regarded-as-ridiculous actions.

The problem is, you and others try to give Mike what you think is his due, by filling up threads with anti-Mike posts, endless guessing and off-base remarks. You do yourself and others no favor. Other posters have beans to do with the things Mike said, says, does or did, and yet suffer all the time the consequences of your (and other people's) peculiar sense of justice. Derailing a thread of people celebrating Mike's concerts hurts that people, period. We know what you and others believe regarding Mike's actions and sayings, because you remind us in every thread you post in. Can't you just let go a little bit?

I don't happen to think my remark that you quoted is particularly off-base, and I was simply pointing out irony. Fans who are vocal about having issues with some of Mike's decisions are accused of having priorities out of whack (and maybe we do - at least I can concede to admit it!), but we aren't the only ones! Hypocrisy in what certain posters choose to not point out bugs me. I think that people like me are motivated to post more when seeing a clutch of people who cannot bring themselves to ever type out that there is an element of truth to those types of remarks (even when I think that they probably actually see quite a bit of truth in them, but would prefer to quietly sweep everything under the rug). I actually also said a number of positive things about Mike and his band adding deeper cuts to their setlist. But if I dare to not say complete gushing praise, and if I also dare to mention some things that still bug me, I get accused of derailing threads.  Being honest with ones' feelings is frowned upon, and muzzling is requested. Sounds like a great plan to me.

Everything becomes blown out of proportion for nothing.  And the insults fly, "Stamos" threads become created, out of frustration, because he is an easy target.  

I have no real problem with Stamos as a dude, seeing he is a lucky BB fanboy, and seems like a good guy without ego issues. But I do wonder what would happen if Mike started deeply incorporating Stamos musically into the M&B sets. Like having Stamos sing 50+% of the songs in every set. Including Surf's Up. Would Kokomaoists be down with that, or would even Cam find finally buckle?  

So, the "history" outweighs the music for "some people". I pity them, I truly do.

The sad thing is, and I am not trying to be inflammatory, but this very quote of yours could apply to Mike... it seems his feelings regarding history, of being slighted throughout BB history, or slighted in terms of public perception, have informed his actions which clearly show that a great many petty things, including a deep and unflinching respect for SED® (Set End Date) have "outweighed the music", so to speak. You know it's true. And speaking of pity, I pity that a man who stands for peace, love and positivity could have such a warped mindset of prioritization, particularly because the music that they collectively were making as a whole means a great deal to me, and I for one make no apologies for venting about his widely-regarded-as-ridiculous actions.

If it was "Love and Mercy" or "In My Car" or "Lay Down Burden" or "Imagination," there might be a cogent argument to be made. That was solo work.  And, who knows, maybe they will cover some of those some day...I had truly wished they had done "Love and Mercy" to close C50. But, it wasn't my choice.  

In what way is "In My Car" a solo song? It's on a Beach Boys album and features at least three original Beach Boys (Brian, Carl and Al).

In the way that it was recorded as a BW solo track and offered for the album, as Bruce told me, "very late... big surprise". Carl and Alan's vocals are so obviously later overdubs.

Kinda like Caroline, No? And a good hunk of Brian's best tracks were essentially Brian doing all the music on his own in a solo manner, with the Boys coming in for later overdubs. Not even sure what this discussion is about, just chiming in to say that IMC should not be considered any less a BB song than quite a few other highly regarded BB songs.

What do you all think were the contributing factors to Brian rarely writing lyrics in the band? This obviously started from the early days, and continued throughout the years, though there are notable exceptions. I happen to think that many of Brian's lyrics are not half bad, even though there are quite a few clunky ones.

Did the band, Murry, or anyone else ever encourage or discourage Brian to write lyrics on his own? Were they supportive or not about it? I wonder if he didn't have confidence due to somebody early on questioning his abilities in that arena.

How many listeners bought or even got into these records (i.e. the 'classics' from the 60's) primarily on the strength of the lyrics? Did the kids/fans in the 60's hear whatever single was on the radio then go out and buy the 45 based primarily on lyrics?

Not many if any at all, Id wager. Even as a kid I thought the Beach Boys lyrics were pretty cheesy. It didnt hamper things much, because I thought of them as fun summer music to listen to on the car ride down to the beach with my family. But it was the melodies and amazing vocal harmonies that got me hooked, and that was almost 100% Brian's contribution. And now that I'm older, honestly I think it's the lyrics that are the greatest detriment to most of their work. Not just the early stuff from Mike but most of Brian's stuff on Love You and debatably VDP's stuff on SMiLE too. Goes without saying I love it, but it is very oblique and not everyone's style, which makes it harder to turn some people unto that music.

+1. Despite a good number of exceptions, I tend to love this band despite the lyrics, not typically because of them. A lot of BB lyrics are an acquired taste (both Mike's and Brian's). I know lots and lots of people who don't like or won't give this band a chance specifically because of the lyrics. Their loss, of course.

I Can Hear Music:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjw-ub0KW2Y

GREAT video!!  What a bunch of dorky looking guys they were, tho.

At ~2:22, Bruce does a dorky twirling-in-midair jump, which appears to be a proto version of his dorky twirly midair jumps he does onstage these days  

I think Goin' On and Endless Harmony save Keepin' The Summer Alive.

OK, most people disagree, but I LOVE Summer In Paradise (UK) and Slow Summer Dancin, and I think they saved the SIP album. And that album was HARD to save.

Except from the AWFUL AWFUL super shrill drum snare sound (so, so, so bad... really, soooo bad!), Slow Summer Dancin is a cool track and I quite dig it. It (along with Strange Things happen + Lahaini Aloha, and maybe in a generous mood one or two other tracks) make SIP half a listenable album. It's like an early 90s BB EP. Just pretend about half of it doesn't exist, and it's much better that way.

Help Me Ronda > Help Me Rhonda (and I don't terribly love either version)

Be True to Your School (album version) > Be True to Your School (single version)

Ballad of Ole Betsy (w/ Mike on lead) from the NASCAR CD is surprisingly not that bad (runs for the hills, but I'm actually serious!)

Little Deuce Coupe (song) is not too great, and excepting Barbara Ann, might be the weakest hit song the band ever had.

After seeing the latest You Tube's, the addition, finally, of one Alan Jardine would sew this new incarnation up oh so well. I know I'm dreaming. Dream on......

Too bad Jardine was a combination of too busy, unavailable, and had no interest in performing in the band... oh, wait...

I wonder what was the bigger womp womp; not getting to write in a room, or no longer getting to be a member of the band you helped cofound decades earlier.

You claim to be level-headed when it comes to discussing ML (actually you make that claim on your own, as you seem to be the only one that perceives you in that way), but still you keep filling up thread after thread with your off-base endless guessing and crappy tirades like your post above that easily derail a thread.

Level-headed indeed.

Well it is mighty hard to not lament what we are missing.  I try, believe me I do, to enjoy watching these live songs on YouTube.  And I do somewhat. And then I see a comment like that which I responded to, since it reminds me of the sad, unfortunate truth. It would be much easier to be a fan with my head in the sand like an ostrich. Denial is a powerful thing.

And I consider myself level–headed because I call out vicious extreme anti Mike hatred as being inappropriate and over the line when I see it.

That said, I apologize for "derailing" any thread just because I injected a little bit of honesty into the proceedings, and dared to stand my ground of not being an ostrich. Not having Al when he is willing and available feels like an amputation, and I'd like the drug that makes me feel that this is an ok and acceptable situation which I should keep quiet about. The way that Mike took fans' advice about playing certain songs? Maybe if every single show had hoards of people with Bring Back Al Jardine posters, he'd consider bringing him back. Nevertheless... I ultimately am honestly, truly happy that they are upping their game the way they are.

You seem to be forgetting that Al was due to play with Mike not too long ago and blew him off to appear with Brian.

I am not forgetting that. Sadly, despite my wish, the relationships are probably way too far gone at this point, though I hope that all the guys can play again at some point. The recent event you mention I imagine was probably what Al viewed as an insulting offer to be a one-off type of deal, instead of being reinstated as a proper band member as he should have been since 1998, or at least since Al apparently (or possibly not - Mike would be the one to ask) rid himself from his "attitude problem" towards Mike's iron fist rule of the BBs touring band, as a result of Al's decade-plus banishment to rockstar Siberia (BB Member Reform School).  

That unfortunate booting was in part easier to pull off because the fans who didn't know any better simply tolerated it, kept showing up at shows, and unlike a Beatle booting another Beatle from The Beatles, the booting slipped under the radar of the fans of the faceless BBs. I guess it also proved the public doesn't really care if Al Jardine is in the Beach Boys or not, since assembly lines of people kept on a' coming to the M&B shows, and that realization of his minimization probably had to hurt Al's feelings. Mike is lucky that he himself never had to experience that type of feeling of being extracted (sans Novocaine) like an unneeded wisdom tooth out of the live band (in fact, Mike and Carl are the only members who haven't at some point experienced the feeling of actually being, or essentially being, kicked out of the touring BB band). It's hard to not empathize with Al about that.

Weird that they kept Landy’s name on the barebones reissue; I thought it was by court order and/or by a settlement agreement that Landy’s name would be taken off everything.

Not everything. The 2000 reissue still includes his name as executive producer. And given that's the credit on the outside of the 1988 CD, keeping it must not have been a huge deal.

I had forgotten that Landy’s name was still on the 2000 reissue. I know they did take his name off of the back cover of the 2000 (and thus 2015) reissue, and they of course took his name off the songwriting credits. But it sounds like they did keep his name as Executive Producer somewhere in the innards of the booklet.

I wonder if that was just a goof of someone not doing a CONTROL + F for all instances of "Landy" at the printing factory, or if there was any intention to keep that lone credit there.

After seeing the latest You Tube's, the addition, finally, of one Alan Jardine would sew this new incarnation up oh so well. I know I'm dreaming. Dream on......

Too bad Jardine was a combination of too busy, unavailable, and had no interest in performing in the band... oh, wait...

I wonder what was the bigger womp womp; not getting to write in a room, or no longer getting to be a member of the band you helped cofound decades earlier.

You claim to be level-headed when it comes to discussing ML (actually you make that claim on your own, as you seem to be the only one that perceives you in that way), but still you keep filling up thread after thread with your off-base endless guessing and crappy tirades like your post above that easily derail a thread.

Level-headed indeed.

Well it is mighty hard to not lament what we are missing.  I try, believe me I do, to enjoy watching these live songs on YouTube.  And I do somewhat. And then I see a comment like that which I responded to, since it reminds me of the sad, unfortunate truth. It would be much easier to be a fan with my head in the sand like an ostrich. Denial is a powerful thing.

And I consider myself level–headed because I call out vicious extreme anti Mike hatred as being inappropriate and over the line when I see it.

That said, I apologize for "derailing" any thread just because I injected a little bit of honesty into the proceedings, and dared to stand my ground of not being an ostrich. Not having Al when he is willing and available feels like an amputation, and I'd like the drug that makes me feel that this is an ok and acceptable situation which I should keep quiet about. The way that Mike took fans' advice about playing certain songs? Maybe if every single show had hoards of people with Bring Back Al Jardine posters, he'd consider bringing him back. Nevertheless... I ultimately am honestly, truly happy that they are upping their game the way they are.

So Mike can't just find it emotionally satisfying as he said, motives must be invented out of thin air and then Mike must be accountable to these imaginary motives?  Anybody have anything like evidence for any of these refusal and/or competitive conspiracy theories?

One can still find a level of emotional satisfaction in playing said songs, but a big factor behind playing them can also still be a sense of competition, ya know. The two aren't mutually exclusive. If Brian was not currently touring, nor was L&M coming out, nor was Brian's book coming out, I'm not so sure that these songs would have been played, nor would I imagine that Mike would be much motivated to write a book out of the blue either.

In other words "no", you don't have.

Well, it's called a history of actions that point in that direction. Do we have "anything like evidence", as you like to say, that Dennis did certain things at least in part out of lashing out at/making a statement to Mike, or do we just use an educated guess based on what seems quite plainly obvious?

Are you of the opinion of believing that Mike does not ever do any actions out of trying to specifically compete with Brian, and that Dennis never did things as an act of intentionally pissing off Mike? I bring Dennis into the equation only to prove a point that some things are plain as day with these guys.

I'm sure you won't directly admit what you know inside to be true, which is that obviously the answer is that yes, in both cases there are surely a number of incidents which those types of motivating factors which I listed above have surely sometimes been part of the equation. I do not know why there is some great fear in admitting such. Do you deny such? Or feel free to duck the question, as I'm sure you'll do (speaking of peoples' histories of actions).

You're kind of pushing the envelope there just a bit. How do you equate what you just wrote there with choosing new songs to play in a set list? Grasping at straws now to try and make your point?

My only point is that while there's no way we can "prove" motivations, it's preposterous to suggest that it's suuuuch as stretch as Cam would like to think it is.

And no way to prove it just wasn't Scott suggesting they try some new material. This is truly the making of a mountain out of a mole hill. Can we please drop this sh*t now, so we can hear from our fellow members who are attending the shows that this topic was intended for. It would be most appreciated. Thanks!

Not sure why having a discussion is "sh*t". I'm just expressing my opinion, and I'm also saying that I'm still nonetheless quite glad that Mike is doing these songs to begin with. The true definition of "sh*t" is extremism (on either side), which when it's pro-Mike is never remotely questioned by Kokomaoists.

Knock off the Kokomoaist bullshit. I'm a Beach Boys fan, plain & simple! I'm sick & tired of having the handful of you Mike haters hijacking every freakin' thread on this mother freakin' Board. Enough already!

I ain't a Mike hater, man. I have some issues with him, yes, though these songs regardless of motivation are a step in a good direction. The Kokomaoist thing is not imagined; even a number of people who defend Mike most fervently have vaguely admitted that the defense angle gets into absurd territory sometimes, yet those defenders will never proactively call out extremism when they see it, only grudgingly admit it happens (if pinned down/cornered in a discussion), while avoiding specifics. That's not imagined; that's an actual thing, which you too should concede is ridiculous Kokomaoism! I get the desire to want to avoid negativity, but I do not get the desire to want to avoid reality.

Go do it in another thread. This isn't the thread to do it in. You were given the answer by Scott regarding the additions to the set list. My motivations to come here is to have a place to fly my fandom, not to hate on the band members every time they do something I don't like. You have to admit there are some members here whose sole purpose here is to bust on Mike. I have no problem with questioning motives, but I do in the way in which we do it.

I'm not hating on anyone. I am commending the additions of the songs, but not blindly saying that everything is wonderful, la-la-la-la. That would seem to suit quite a few Kokomaoists on this board. Just because some people including myself have some peripheral mixed emotions about the songs' inclusions due to context, despite being happy about them being played (I for one am VERY happy that AIWD was finally dusted off), no reason anyone need to be muzzled or told to start a new thread. If, for example, the same songs were included at an earlier date without the repeated veiled insults directed at BW in many interviews, I'd have an easier time enjoying it all. Context matters, and even if you fail to see things as I do, I have a right to express my feelings without being called a hater. My opinions are nuanced, and do not veer into faux later territory.

I'm done here. Time for a break from this place. I can't even come here and enjoy myself anymore. I am tired of arguing. Knock yourself out second guessing all of Mike's moves. Later!

Sorry, man. I was not meaning for you to feel like that, anymore than I would like to feel muzzled for trying to express my not 100% complete (yet still genuinely partial) enthusiasm.

After seeing the latest You Tube's, the addition, finally, of one Alan Jardine would sew this new incarnation up oh so well. I know I'm dreaming. Dream on......

Too bad Jardine was a combination of too busy, unavailable, and had no interest in performing in the band... oh, wait...

I wonder what was the bigger womp womp; not getting to write in a room, or no longer getting to be a member of the band you helped cofound decades earlier.

How epic was the "wheeeen" on BTTYS.

It's still going, last I checked.

Maybe someone could request an extended "Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeendy?"

So Mike can't just find it emotionally satisfying as he said, motives must be invented out of thin air and then Mike must be accountable to these imaginary motives?  Anybody have anything like evidence for any of these refusal and/or competitive conspiracy theories?

One can still find a level of emotional satisfaction in playing said songs, but a big factor behind playing them can also still be a sense of competition, ya know. The two aren't mutually exclusive. If Brian was not currently touring, nor was L&M coming out, nor was Brian's book coming out, I'm not so sure that these songs would have been played, nor would I imagine that Mike would be much motivated to write a book out of the blue either.

In other words "no", you don't have.

Well, it's called a history of actions that point in that direction. Do we have "anything like evidence", as you like to say, that Dennis did certain things at least in part out of lashing out at/making a statement to Mike, or do we just use an educated guess based on what seems quite plainly obvious?

Are you of the opinion of believing that Mike does not ever do any actions out of trying to specifically compete with Brian, and that Dennis never did things as an act of intentionally pissing off Mike? I bring Dennis into the equation only to prove a point that some things are plain as day with these guys.

I'm sure you won't directly admit what you know inside to be true, which is that obviously the answer is that yes, in both cases there are surely a number of incidents which those types of motivating factors which I listed above have surely sometimes been part of the equation. I do not know why there is some great fear in admitting such. Do you deny such? Or feel free to duck the question, as I'm sure you'll do (speaking of peoples' histories of actions).

You're kind of pushing the envelope there just a bit. How do you equate what you just wrote there with choosing new songs to play in a set list? Grasping at straws now to try and make your point?

My only point is that while there's no way we can "prove" motivations, it's preposterous to suggest that it's suuuuch as stretch as Cam would like to think it is.

And no way to prove it just wasn't Scott suggesting they try some new material. This is truly the making of a mountain out of a mole hill. Can we please drop this sh*t now, so we can hear from our fellow members who are attending the shows that this topic was intended for. It would be most appreciated. Thanks!

Not sure why having a discussion is "sh*t". I'm just expressing my opinion, and I'm also saying that I'm still nonetheless quite glad that Mike is doing these songs to begin with. The true definition of "sh*t" is extremism (on either side), which when it's pro-Mike is never remotely questioned by Kokomaoists.

Knock off the Kokomoaist bullshit. I'm a Beach Boys fan, plain & simple! I'm sick & tired of having the handful of you Mike haters hijacking every freakin' thread on this mother freakin' Board. Enough already!

I ain't a Mike hater, man. I have some issues with him, yes, though these songs regardless of motivation are a step in a good direction. The Kokomaoist thing is not imagined; even a number of people who defend Mike most fervently have vaguely admitted that the defense angle gets into absurd territory sometimes, yet those defenders will never proactively call out extremism when they see it, only grudgingly admit it happens (if pinned down/cornered in a discussion), while avoiding specifics. That's not imagined; that's an actual thing, which you too should concede is ridiculous Kokomaoism! I get the desire to want to avoid negativity, but I do not get the desire to want to avoid reality.

Go do it in another thread. This isn't the thread to do it in. You were given the answer by Scott regarding the additions to the set list. My motivations to come here is to have a place to fly my fandom, not to hate on the band members every time they do something I don't like. You have to admit there are some members here whose sole purpose here is to bust on Mike. I have no problem with questioning motives, but I do in the way in which we do it.

I'm not hating on anyone. I am commending the additions of the songs, but not blindly saying that everything is wonderful, la-la-la-la. That would seem to suit quite a few Kokomaoists on this board. Just because some people including myself have some peripheral mixed emotions about the songs' inclusions due to context, despite being happy about them being played (I for one am VERY happy that AIWD was finally dusted off), no reason anyone need to be muzzled or told to start a new thread. If, for example, the same songs were included at an earlier date without the repeated veiled insults directed at BW in many interviews, I'd have an easier time enjoying it all. Context matters, and even if you fail to see things as I do, I have a right to express my feelings without being called a hater.  My opinions are nuanced, and do not veer into faux later territory.

So Mike can't just find it emotionally satisfying as he said, motives must be invented out of thin air and then Mike must be accountable to these imaginary motives?  Anybody have anything like evidence for any of these refusal and/or competitive conspiracy theories?

One can still find a level of emotional satisfaction in playing said songs, but a big factor behind playing them can also still be a sense of competition, ya know. The two aren't mutually exclusive. If Brian was not currently touring, nor was L&M coming out, nor was Brian's book coming out, I'm not so sure that these songs would have been played, nor would I imagine that Mike would be much motivated to write a book out of the blue either.

In other words "no", you don't have.

Well, it's called a history of actions that point in that direction. Do we have "anything like evidence", as you like to say, that Dennis did certain things at least in part out of lashing out at/making a statement to Mike, or do we just use an educated guess based on what seems quite plainly obvious?

Are you of the opinion of believing that Mike does not ever do any actions out of trying to specifically compete with Brian, and that Dennis never did things as an act of intentionally pissing off Mike? I bring Dennis into the equation only to prove a point that some things are plain as day with these guys.

I'm sure you won't directly admit what you know inside to be true, which is that obviously the answer is that yes, in both cases there are surely a number of incidents which those types of motivating factors which I listed above have surely sometimes been part of the equation. I do not know why there is some great fear in admitting such. Do you deny such? Or feel free to duck the question, as I'm sure you'll do (speaking of peoples' histories of actions).

You're kind of pushing the envelope there just a bit. How do you equate what you just wrote there with choosing new songs to play in a set list? Grasping at straws now to try and make your point?

My only point is that while there's no way we can "prove" motivations, it's preposterous to suggest that it's suuuuch as stretch as Cam would like to think it is.

And no way to prove it just wasn't Scott suggesting they try some new material. This is truly the making of a mountain out of a mole hill. Can we please drop this sh*t now, so we can hear from our fellow members who are attending the shows that this topic was intended for. It would be most appreciated. Thanks!

Not sure why having a discussion is "sh*t". I'm just expressing my opinion, and I'm also saying that I'm still nonetheless quite glad that Mike is doing these songs to begin with. The true definition of "sh*t" is extremism (on either side), which when it's pro-Mike is never remotely questioned by Kokomaoists.

Knock off the Kokomoaist bullshit. I'm a Beach Boys fan, plain & simple! I'm sick & tired of having the handful of you Mike haters hijacking every freakin' thread on this mother freakin' Board. Enough already!

I ain't a Mike hater, man. I have some issues with him, yes, though these songs regardless of motivation are a step in a good direction. The Kokomaoist thing is not imagined; even a number of people who defend Mike most fervently have vaguely admitted that the defense angle gets into absurd territory sometimes, yet those defenders will never proactively call out extremism when they see it, only grudgingly admit it happens (if pinned down/cornered in a discussion), while avoiding specifics. That's not imagined; that's an actual thing, which you too should concede is ridiculous Kokomaoism! I get the desire to want to avoid negativity, but I do not get the desire to want to avoid reality.

So Mike can't just find it emotionally satisfying as he said, motives must be invented out of thin air and then Mike must be accountable to these imaginary motives?  Anybody have anything like evidence for any of these refusal and/or competitive conspiracy theories?

One can still find a level of emotional satisfaction in playing said songs, but a big factor behind playing them can also still be a sense of competition, ya know. The two aren't mutually exclusive. If Brian was not currently touring, nor was L&M coming out, nor was Brian's book coming out, I'm not so sure that these songs would have been played, nor would I imagine that Mike would be much motivated to write a book out of the blue either.

In other words "no", you don't have.

Well, it's called a history of actions that point in that direction. Do we have "anything like evidence", as you like to say, that Dennis did certain things at least in part out of lashing out at/making a statement to Mike, or do we just use an educated guess based on what seems quite plainly obvious?

Are you of the opinion of believing that Mike does not ever do any actions out of trying to specifically compete with Brian, and that Dennis never did things as an act of intentionally pissing off Mike? I bring Dennis into the equation only to prove a point that some things are plain as day with these guys.

I'm sure you won't directly admit what you know inside to be true, which is that obviously the answer is that yes, in both cases there are surely a number of incidents which those types of motivating factors which I listed above have surely sometimes been part of the equation. I do not know why there is some great fear in admitting such. Do you deny such? Or feel free to duck the question, as I'm sure you'll do (speaking of peoples' histories of actions).

You're kind of pushing the envelope there just a bit. How do you equate what you just wrote there with choosing new songs to play in a set list? Grasping at straws now to try and make your point?

My only point is that while there's no way we can "prove" motivations, it's preposterous to suggest that it's suuuuch as stretch as Cam would like to think it is.

And no way to prove it just wasn't Scott suggesting they try some new material. This is truly the making of a mountain out of a mole hill. Can we please drop this sh*t now, so we can hear from our fellow members who are attending the shows that this topic was intended for. It would be most appreciated. Thanks!

Not sure why having a discussion is "sh*t". I'm just expressing my opinion, and I'm also saying that I'm still nonetheless quite glad that Mike is doing these songs to begin with. The true definition of "sh*t" is extremism (on either side), which when it's pro-Mike is never remotely questioned by Kokomaoists.

So Mike can't just find it emotionally satisfying as he said, motives must be invented out of thin air and then Mike must be accountable to these imaginary motives?  Anybody have anything like evidence for any of these refusal and/or competitive conspiracy theories?

One can still find a level of emotional satisfaction in playing said songs, but a big factor behind playing them can also still be a sense of competition, ya know. The two aren't mutually exclusive. If Brian was not currently touring, nor was L&M coming out, nor was Brian's book coming out, I'm not so sure that these songs would have been played, nor would I imagine that Mike would be much motivated to write a book out of the blue either.

In other words "no", you don't have.

Well, it's called a history of actions that point in that direction. Do we have "anything like evidence", as you like to say, that Dennis did certain things at least in part out of lashing out at/making a statement to Mike, or do we just use an educated guess based on what seems quite plainly obvious?

Are you of the opinion of believing that Mike does not ever do any actions out of trying to specifically compete with Brian, and that Dennis never did things as an act of intentionally pissing off Mike? I bring Dennis into the equation only to prove a point that some things are plain as day with these guys.

I'm sure you won't directly admit what you know inside to be true, which is that obviously the answer is that yes, in both cases there are surely a number of incidents which those types of motivating factors which I listed above have surely sometimes been part of the equation. I do not know why there is some great fear in admitting such. Do you deny such? Or feel free to duck the question, as I'm sure you'll do (speaking of peoples' histories of actions).

You're kind of pushing the envelope there just a bit. How do you equate what you just wrote there with choosing new songs to play in a set list? Grasping at straws now to try and make your point?

My only point is that while there's no way we can "prove" motivations, it's preposterous to suggest that it's suuuuch as stretch as Cam would like to think it is. I'm trying to get him to back down from his extreme stonewalling of logic viewpoint, yet his extremism will continue to go unquestioned by Kokomaoists, even those who probably know that his viewpoint is too one-sided.

Still, what I'm getting at is that it doesn't mean that Mike's probable motivation is some horrible, awful thing, but that IMO it's somewhat unfortunate that it probably took Brian's high profile projects to get Mike to up his game a bit. Still glad that he is trying though.

Great show tonight at the RAH in London!
58 songs played.  Brass and percussion ensemble. 
Scott on fire.

Seconded. A superb night. But no point posting here about it… the noise of arguments has deafened former fans to the sound of the music.

Just wondered who it was suggested the album TWGMTR was being ignored, or that this band was in denial about it.

Well, Mike could also take the opportunity to redo the Summer's Gone lyrics with his positive spin for a 2015 live version, because the album version is such a negative bummer