Exactly, Mike needs to puff himself up for no reason. I don't see Tony Asher or VDP doing the same stuff on a consistent basis.

Well, he has a reason. He did cowrite a significant streak of hits with Brian in the 60s. That's undeniable, and it was a remarkable achievement (I say that non-sarcastically, but legitimately), but that probably warped his way of thinking (ie. he got a big head over it). Kokomo without Brian really sealed the deal in that department. Does Mike not think he has a big head and inflated ego, or that he brags too much? And if he does not, who he (or any uber Mike defenders) quantify as an example of someone with a big head and inflated ego who brags too much?

IIRC - Landy was the reason with Kokomo, as I learned, on this forum, but that Brian sang on the Spanish version. John Phillips, Scott McKenzie and Terry Melcher co-wrote.

If it was an interview there were questions that Mike responded to.

Sure, I am not blaming Mike for Brian's non-appearance on the US Kokomo. I wasn't sure if you thought that was my line of thinking, but it wasn't. Still, for a guy who probably wants to prove himself, he was likely very happy to have had such a massive hit (in and of itself), let alone without anyone being able to say it was mainly due to Brian's magic touch. Nobody could say that with Kokomo.

Exactly, Mike needs to puff himself up for no reason. I don't see Tony Asher or VDP doing the same stuff on a consistent basis.

Well, he has a reason. He did cowrite a significant streak of hits with Brian in the 60s. That's undeniable, and it was a remarkable achievement (I say that non-sarcastically, but legitimately), but that probably warped his way of thinking (ie. he got a big head over it). Kokomo without Brian really sealed the deal in that department. Does Mike not think he has a big head and inflated ego, or that he brags too much? And if he does not, who would he (or any diehard Kokomoaists) quantify as an example of someone else with a big head and inflated ego who brags too much?

Brian called Mike a "conceptual genius" on Charlie Rose in 2012. I think that Brian may agree with Mike's statement more so than most posters here.

I don't doubt that Brian feels that Mike has made some great contributions. I do as well. But also remember that Brian is somebody who has said that Norbit is his favorite movie.  It doesn't seem very hard for Brian to hand out deep compliments. Regardless, it's Brian's place to say it, not Mike's to say/imply it about himself.

Mike probably latched on to this idea of what the Beach Boys mean conceptually because Brian called Mike a "conceptual genius" multiple times during promotion for the C50 tour.  

Well that was legitimately sweet of him. I'm sure he knows how much Mike feels like he's in Brian's own shadow, so he was trying to do a genuinely nice thing and boost Mike a bit. A typically selfless thing that Brian does. Nice to see how Mike returned the favor by refusing to rethink the set end date.

It's an incredibly outrageous statement.

Mike has nearly finished rewriting the band's history in his image. It's not enough that he gets to be the lyricist to some of Brian's most successful songs, and the band's onstage front man. He has to now believe he was the band's dominant creative force.

That will be the mission statement of the book, mark my words. It's nuts.

The compliment of Brian had to be followed by a "but". But of course.
And since when should the term "always" be used like it was in that article? Often at best.

I didn't "bring OMR into it", you commented on Wirestone's comment about my comment on OMR and I answered in that context.

I know you previously answered in that context. So if I now remove OMR from the equation, and ask you to respond to my question independently of any OMR discussion, is that something you would be able to do?

Regardless of mental illness, everyone should do their best to treat everyone as they need to be treated. Cousins who grew up together and worked together would know what each other needed, where as fans who never knew either one and were speculating from second-hand info shouldn't judge.

Fair enough. I would really like to think that everyone involved at the time had enough purely instinctual knowledge to do the right thing. I'm not so sure that was always the case, especially considering their dysfunctional backgrounds- and I think it's quite idealistic to blanketly assume such (if you really indeed do), but hell, what do I know. By that same train of logic, you should also say there's no way that anyone should judge Murry's actions.  He watched his kids grow up and do what they needed too, right?  I honestly am not in any way comparing the two mens' actions, and I think Mike is many miles above Murry in terms of a human being; I'm only saying that it's odd how some people can only find other people's actions questionable when there is perceptable physical evidence of abuse, thus enabling questionable emotional treatment to happen.

I didn't "bring OMR into it", you commented on Wirestone's comment about my comment on OMR and I answered in that context.

I know you previously answered in that context. So if I now remove OMR from the equation, and ask you to respond to my question independently of any OMR discussion, is that something you would be able to do?

[In your opinion, is it honorable that Mike decided to end The Beach Boys as a creative entity to tour with the same name on his own]

And you managed to not answer the bolded question. You related to Cam Mott by chance? I'll try again. Leaving fair or whatever out of it.

In your opinion, is it honorable that Mike decided to end The Beach Boys as a creative entity to tour with the same name on his own?

I'm still waiting for Cam to answer my question regarding if people with mental illness should possibly be talked to in different manner than people without mental illness, which I posed to him in another thread. He answered a completely different question than the one I asked. Sort of like asking someone what their favorite brand of automobile is, and they say Burger King.

I answered your question,  your follow up question was irrelevant to the convo in my opinion. That was my answer.

Sorry, but you answered everything BUT my question.
 
My original question was just a general question, not about OMR, or even about anyone in the band:

 
And in your estimation, people who suffer mental illness should be treated/talked to exactly the same way by those around them as the way emotionally well-adjusted people who do not suffer mental illness should be treated/talked to?

Your response (bringing OMR into the convo, which had zero to do with what the question asked - the Burger King response to the favorite automobile question):

Imo mental illness would have nothing to do with it, if Brian thought Mike was too cocky then Mike should apologize. If the band was fed up with OMR then Brian should apologize. I'm going to guess that neither expected the other to apologize and thought of it as the normal back and forth of family and friends in a band together.

However, to that, sir, I do agree with you; if Brian thought Mike was too cocky then Mike should apologize. I'm sincerely glad we can agree on this. Still, my original question (which has zero to do with OMR) remains unanswered, because you answered solely about OMR, which was not the question.

To which, my reply was:

Even if you think this was totally normal back and forth stuff, you didnt answer my question. As a general rule of thumb, not just necessarily about this OMR incident, how would you answer my question I posed to you above, Cam?

 

To which you said:

My answer was mental illness had nothing to do with it imo.

What's the "it" you are talking about? You keep talking about OMR, which was NOT my question.  Then you say:

To be clear, I answered your question. Mental illness has nothing to do with whether people owe each other an apology, if you owe an apology or are owed an apology it is regardless of mental illness. People should be civil to each other regardless of mental illness.

Again – I largely agree with that sentiment, but it’s not my question; you are implying I mentioned an apology (which I did not).
So, WITHOUT mentioning items that are not part my question (OMR, apologies), can you answer my original question? I changed the color to yellow so it’s very clear. It’s a general question. I understand it’s a complex subject too. If you don’t have an answer for it, that’s ok, but just say so; let’s do away with pretending that any of your answers (regarding OMR or apologies) have anything to do with what I asked.

Nobody did anything to stop the reunion or quit the reunion. The reunion ended and Brian, Mike and Al did nothing to keep it going.

Disclaimer: As I said several places earlier in the thread in case anyone missed it, all my opinion from published or public material, I have no inside knowledge and may be wrong.

The Gospel according to Mr. Cruz

 

"pudgy" (find me another band, famous or otherwise, that has this in a lyric)

In total honesty, the word "pudgy" appears in the Frank Zappa song "The Illinois Enema Bandit", already mentioned twice in this thread.  Honestly, it's like some of you don't know it or something.

Well I'll be hog-swaggled!
I did not realize that (Rob Lowe's Wayne's World voice).
I'm very unfamiliar with Zappa; interesting to learn this stuff...

more...

"ozone layer"
"pudgy" (find me another band, famous or otherwise, that has this in a lyric) EDIT: I guess Weird Al does
"doughy"
"greenhouse effect"
"ffft" (unsure how to spell the cigarette butt sound)
"athletes"
"suffocated"
"patchwork"
"elderly"

gotta love this wacky band.

You can probably leave it at "enemas" -- tough to top.

There's no way I can conceive that that word is in any other song by any other famous band.  With the potential exception of Tool, and possibly a punk/metal band or two.  The BBs broke ground (and wind) with that one. Kinda like the band Live with "placenta".

There are lots...

"enemas"
"lengthy"
"cuckoo"
"slit"
"whole grains"

the list is practically endless 

I was perusing the “Top LPs” chart published in the July 2, 1966 issue of Billboard Magazine, the week when Pet Sounds peaked at #10,  when I saw the following, interesting advertisement for the album:

“Thank you. We’re moved over the fact that our Pet Sounds brought on nothing but Good Vibrations.”

The Good Vibrations single would not be released for another 3 months and I didn’t think that the term “good vibrations” was yet a part of the vernacular at that time.

Was this meant to be an early advertisement for the upcoming single?

The entire issue may be found here:

http://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-Billboard/60s/1966/Billboard%201966-07-02.pdf

The "Top LPs" chart is on page 36 and the subject ad is on page 39.

Fascinating. It seems likely it was an attempt (maybe by Derek Taylor's PR machine?) to get the term out there into the public consciousness as a sneak preview. But I too wonder, had the term GV ever been used at an earlier date? I'm going to guess the answer is yes. It just probably wasn't common. "Good Vibes" probably was more common than anyone saying "Good Vibrations" prior to the song being released. Anyone know more?

From Brian's Facebook site:

Hats off to whoever decided it would be a good idea to have Mark Linnett play Chuck Britz. Super awesome idea!

Never Learn Not To Love
 

Nice to see this song get some love. Manson connection or not, it's a brilliant production, and seriously underrated rad track. If no Manson connection, it would probably be hailed as Denny's earliest masterpiece.

Anyone not wishing to answer a certain question, I am posting this for your convenience for future use.

Strangely, you seem to be siding against Mike...

Oh man, you (or somebody) should remove the other boys from the photo and just have Mike and his scary, icy-cold scowl. It is so weird how such negativity emanates from the self-proclaimed Mr. Positivity.

I included the other boys specifically because of the look on Carl's face!

Anyone not wishing to answer a certain question, I am posting this for your convenience for future use.

Honestly though, why would someone want to refuse to answer a question in the middle of a back-and-forth messageboard discussion? It's not an answer to say "they just don't want to answer". Again - that has the nutritional value of eating paper. You know there's a reason. Because they have determined that there's no way they can answer the question without saying something that reflects poorly on a person they are trying to defend. They know there's some logic in the question they are being posed, but they feel the bigger-picture motive of strict defense of the topic at hand is to be prioritized, so no backing down, just avoiding the question. Right? At least let's agree on that. We can agree that it's someone's "right" to do that, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking there's another reason for why. That's more or less what's happening here, and you know it. Same thing that happens in politics.

Am I off base in saying this?

[(Mike Love) "What I think is the right way to go about things, is to do a PBS special at the Hollywood Bowl with some guests and maybe one at Wembley Stadium (in London) with a couple of guests like Paul McCartney -- if he likes Pet Sounds so much and if he likes "God Only Knows" so well -- then have him sing it with us at Wembley stadium, along with Elton John singing something, so on and so forth. Maybe Eric Clapton will come out and do it for charity, do it for a really good cause and then the same thing at the Hollywood Bowl and that would be really cool." (Bruce Johnston) "That would be the great reunion."]

If I can just comment on the "Mike being the biggest cheerleader" for anything -- Mike told me several times he envisioned the 50th being two shows -- not a tour: TWO shows for PBS culled from TWO concerts using the original band -- one at the Hollywood Bowl and the other at Wembley Arena with special guests. THAT'S what Mike wanted. But the cash from the reunion mixed with the press that would get the word "BEACH BOYS" into the average consumer's consciousness was far too good to pass up. So he didn't.

In July 2006 Mike Love and  Bruce Johnston outlined their plans to me for a televised reunion with co-founders Brian Wilson, David Marks and Al Jardine, saying, quote: "(Mike Love) "What I think is the right way to go about things, is to do a PBS special at the Hollywood Bowl with some guests and maybe one at Wembley Stadium (in London) with a couple of guests like Paul McCartney -- if he likes Pet Sounds so much and if he likes "God Only Knows" so well -- then have him sing it with us at Wembley stadium, along with Elton John singing something, so on and so forth. Maybe Eric Clapton will come out and do it for charity, do it for a really good cause and then the same thing at the Hollywood Bowl and that would be really cool." (Bruce Johnston) "That would be the great reunion."


In August 2009 Al Jardine rejected that plan outright, telling me, quote: "Of course, you don't have Carl Wilson there which would be a big minus as far as I'm concerned. There's ways to do it -- but again, that's like doing a one-off, isn't it? I wouldn't be interested in doing just a one show deal like that. If you want to create an organization that goes out and works and produces a show that's of high value, of high quality -- then you rehearse your ass off, make it the best you can, and you tour as a unit. You tour for a year. Like the Rolling Stones, they don't do one show for PBS, one show for... You do a tour. You either do it or don't do it. If it was going to be something like that it should be a worldwide tour, otherwise, no. I wouldn't be interested."

Mike Love didn't "fire" The Beach Boys as much as he QUIT them.

He QUIT.

So this obviously lends itself to the question... what possible logic would Mike Love have for doing JUST a one-off or two-off set of concerts like what he envisioned?

I can only think that he was scared from the onset that if he let it get beyond those two hypothetical shows, that it could eventually lead to a series of events which could strip him from his ability to tour as "The BBs". That, and maybe he was so afraid of the politics (and of losing control), that he didn't want to risk committing to anything further, or to even proposing anything further as a desire.

Can anyone else think of ANY OTHER logical reason why Mike would have only wanted such a minimal 2-show reunion? Bearing in mind that simply saying "that's just what he wanted" is a non-answer, equivalent to the nutritional value of eating paper.

My uninformed opinion is maybe he was worried that a tour with the surviving members "done right" would take the shine off of the Mike and Bruce shows which are his bread and butter.

Although I guess it does lend credence to the thought that the set end date thing was Mike's desire from the very 2006 rooftop origins of the idea of C50. Two shows... then the set end date has arrived!

Anyone not wishing to answer a certain question, I am posting this for your convenience for future use.

Strangely, you seem to be siding against Mike...

For CD!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMNry4PE93Y

 

[is it honorable that Mike decided to end The Beach Boys as a creative entity to tour with the same name on his own]

As things stand means everyone involved is healthy and working. This is good. Would we rather someone had died in the middle of the C50 tour or that it was Brian who decided when it was over? ..... Even if others in the band wanted it to continue? ... As it ended might be a sour note, but it's a reality that was going to come one way or another.

Funny thing is, if it had been BRIAN who had called time on the whole thing (even if everyone else wanted to continue) the same people who tear Mike a new one for bowing out would be defending Brian's decision to the hilt.

This has been said before.

But it makes no sense, because Brian doesn't -- and never has -- toured as the Beach Boys.

It's not a small distinction. It's the entire point of the thing.

I don't think anyone would begrudge Mike if he wanted to tour and perform BB music under his own name, as Brian has. But after the C50 shows, Mike's willingness to return to the M&B format -- and bill it as the Beach Boys -- was appalling.

Wirestone - maybe I don't understand what you wrote, but each singular band performs Beach Boys' music.  It just can't be billed as "BB's," except for the Touring Band.  People would be very disappointed if Brian or Al didn't play BB music.  They expect exactly that, alongside whatever "themed" music is performed.

I'm not Wirestone, but here it is filledleplage. The thing is, if Brian was the one who broke up the reunion, he couldn't go back to his solo career and call it "The Beach Boys", so it's different.

On the other hand, you have Mike Love who didn't want to work with the true BEACH BOYS anymore, but decided he wanted to go back out on the road with only one other Beach Boy (and a replacement member at that) and ignored the call of the other members to stay together.

So simply put so you can understand it, Mike basically quit THE BEACH BOYS and in turn, got to keep touring as The Beach Boys, basically losing nothing. Whereas if Brian had pulled the plug on the reunion, he wouldn't have been able to go out there with Al, Darian and Probyn and whoever and call himself "The Beach Boys." So right there is the difference.

And just to finish, I have no fuckin' clue what your post even meant, as regarding the music that each Beach Boys-related band plays? Wirestone wasn't even talking about that. So what on earth did that reply have to do with his post?

It is BRI that sets the "terms and conditions" to be licensed to tour.  There are "conditions precedent" that must be fulfilled to tour, whether that is money, certain tour operators, or merchandise agents, or not recording as BB's, or anything else.

And, I'm (or you're) not "privy" to, if you are not a member of BRI, or the attorney or other agent/s who know and abide by the terms or conditions.  Or those who "monitor" what happens on tour to be sure that the "rules of the road" are followed.

While people may not like this, it is what it is.  Until such time as BRI chooses to "reform" this, and the touring members abide by the "terms and conditions" the ball is in their court.  Not mine, and not yours, unless you are a member of BRI.

And people on this board may opine as they choose, but unless they are members/agents/attys., they only speculate about what they don't like or do like.  

Aaaaaaaand once again, you just post a bunch of stuff everybody on this thread already knows. You manage to say so little with so many words.

Anyways, do you feel that it's fair that Mike got to end The Beach Boys as a creative entity to be able to go play Sea World as "The Beach Boys" with his son and Randell Kirsch? I don't care about the legalities or what have you.

My question, bolded so there is no misunderstanding is, is it honorable that Mike decided to end The Beach Boys as a creative entity to tour with the same name on his own?

We aren't discussing "fair" - but what is "objective" by looking at, pre and post C50 goings on.  BRI decides what works for its' business model. Not me, and not you.

FYI - I like the work of both Christian and Randell very much.  (That is opinion.)

And you managed to not answer the bolded question. You related to Cam Mott by chance? I'll try again. Leaving fair or whatever out of it.

In your opinion, is it honorable that Mike decided to end The Beach Boys as a creative entity to tour with the same name on his own?

I'm still waiting for Cam to answer my question regarding how people with mental illness should be talked to which I posed to him in another thread. He answered a completely different question than the one I asked. Sort of like asking someone what their favorite brand of automobile is, and they say Burger King.

You may ask all you like.  Don't hold your breath.  

Demanding an answer is an inappropriate turn-off.  

No one "owes" an answer to anyone.  

Then at least people should have the cojones to say "I outright refuse to answer that question" instead of pretending that it has actually been answered with a Burger King-type response to a favorite automobile-type question.

People should have the discretion to respond or not.  And not demand a response.  If there is no response forthcoming, that creates an inference that they are disinclined to respond.

That is their prerogative.  

Sure, it's their prerogative. But could it be said that Mike Love's "chickensh*t" adjective directed at Mick Jagger at the Rock HOF could be equated to this case? Or totally out of line for me to equate? (But conversely, totally ok for Mike to have said in '88?)

[is it honorable that Mike decided to end The Beach Boys as a creative entity to tour with the same name on his own]

As things stand means everyone involved is healthy and working. This is good. Would we rather someone had died in the middle of the C50 tour or that it was Brian who decided when it was over? ..... Even if others in the band wanted it to continue? ... As it ended might be a sour note, but it's a reality that was going to come one way or another.

Funny thing is, if it had been BRIAN who had called time on the whole thing (even if everyone else wanted to continue) the same people who tear Mike a new one for bowing out would be defending Brian's decision to the hilt.

This has been said before.

But it makes no sense, because Brian doesn't -- and never has -- toured as the Beach Boys.

It's not a small distinction. It's the entire point of the thing.

I don't think anyone would begrudge Mike if he wanted to tour and perform BB music under his own name, as Brian has. But after the C50 shows, Mike's willingness to return to the M&B format -- and bill it as the Beach Boys -- was appalling.

Wirestone - maybe I don't understand what you wrote, but each singular band performs Beach Boys' music.  It just can't be billed as "BB's," except for the Touring Band.  People would be very disappointed if Brian or Al didn't play BB music.  They expect exactly that, alongside whatever "themed" music is performed.

I'm not Wirestone, but here it is filledleplage. The thing is, if Brian was the one who broke up the reunion, he couldn't go back to his solo career and call it "The Beach Boys", so it's different.

On the other hand, you have Mike Love who didn't want to work with the true BEACH BOYS anymore, but decided he wanted to go back out on the road with only one other Beach Boy (and a replacement member at that) and ignored the call of the other members to stay together.

So simply put so you can understand it, Mike basically quit THE BEACH BOYS and in turn, got to keep touring as The Beach Boys, basically losing nothing. Whereas if Brian had pulled the plug on the reunion, he wouldn't have been able to go out there with Al, Darian and Probyn and whoever and call himself "The Beach Boys." So right there is the difference.

And just to finish, I have no fuckin' clue what your post even meant, as regarding the music that each Beach Boys-related band plays? Wirestone wasn't even talking about that. So what on earth did that reply have to do with his post?

It is BRI that sets the "terms and conditions" to be licensed to tour.  There are "conditions precedent" that must be fulfilled to tour, whether that is money, certain tour operators, or merchandise agents, or not recording as BB's, or anything else.

And, I'm (or you're) not "privy" to, if you are not a member of BRI, or the attorney or other agent/s who know and abide by the terms or conditions.  Or those who "monitor" what happens on tour to be sure that the "rules of the road" are followed.

While people may not like this, it is what it is.  Until such time as BRI chooses to "reform" this, and the touring members abide by the "terms and conditions" the ball is in their court.  Not mine, and not yours, unless you are a member of BRI.

And people on this board may opine as they choose, but unless they are members/agents/attys., they only speculate about what they don't like or do like.  

Aaaaaaaand once again, you just post a bunch of stuff everybody on this thread already knows. You manage to say so little with so many words.

Anyways, do you feel that it's fair that Mike got to end The Beach Boys as a creative entity to be able to go play Sea World as "The Beach Boys" with his son and Randell Kirsch? I don't care about the legalities or what have you.

My question, bolded so there is no misunderstanding is, is it honorable that Mike decided to end The Beach Boys as a creative entity to tour with the same name on his own?

We aren't discussing "fair" - but what is "objective" by looking at, pre and post C50 goings on.  BRI decides what works for its' business model. Not me, and not you.

FYI - I like the work of both Christian and Randell very much.  (That is opinion.)

And you managed to not answer the bolded question. You related to Cam Mott by chance? I'll try again. Leaving fair or whatever out of it.

In your opinion, is it honorable that Mike decided to end The Beach Boys as a creative entity to tour with the same name on his own?

I'm still waiting for Cam to answer my question regarding how people with mental illness should be talked to which I posed to him in another thread. He answered a completely different question than the one I asked. Sort of like asking someone what their favorite brand of automobile is, and they say Burger King.

You may ask all you like.  Don't hold your breath.   

Demanding an answer is an inappropriate turn-off. 

No one "owes" an answer to anyone. 

Then at least people should have the cojones to say "I outright refuse to answer that question" instead of pretending that it has actually been answered with a Burger King-type response to a favorite automobile-type question.

[In your opinion, is it honorable that Mike decided to end The Beach Boys as a creative entity to tour with the same name on his own]

And you managed to not answer the bolded question. You related to Cam Mott by chance? I'll try again. Leaving fair or whatever out of it.

In your opinion, is it honorable that Mike decided to end The Beach Boys as a creative entity to tour with the same name on his own?

I'm still waiting for Cam to answer my question regarding if people with mental illness should possibly be talked to in different manner than people without mental illness, which I posed to him in another thread. He answered a completely different question than the one I asked. Sort of like asking someone what their favorite brand of automobile is, and they say Burger King.

[(Mike Love) "What I think is the right way to go about things, is to do a PBS special at the Hollywood Bowl with some guests and maybe one at Wembley Stadium (in London) with a couple of guests like Paul McCartney -- if he likes Pet Sounds so much and if he likes "God Only Knows" so well -- then have him sing it with us at Wembley stadium, along with Elton John singing something, so on and so forth. Maybe Eric Clapton will come out and do it for charity, do it for a really good cause and then the same thing at the Hollywood Bowl and that would be really cool." (Bruce Johnston) "That would be the great reunion."]

If I can just comment on the "Mike being the biggest cheerleader" for anything -- Mike told me several times he envisioned the 50th being two shows -- not a tour: TWO shows for PBS culled from TWO concerts using the original band -- one at the Hollywood Bowl and the other at Wembley Arena with special guests. THAT'S what Mike wanted. But the cash from the reunion mixed with the press that would get the word "BEACH BOYS" into the average consumer's consciousness was far too good to pass up. So he didn't.

In July 2006 Mike Love and  Bruce Johnston outlined their plans to me for a televised reunion with co-founders Brian Wilson, David Marks and Al Jardine, saying, quote: "(Mike Love) "What I think is the right way to go about things, is to do a PBS special at the Hollywood Bowl with some guests and maybe one at Wembley Stadium (in London) with a couple of guests like Paul McCartney -- if he likes Pet Sounds so much and if he likes "God Only Knows" so well -- then have him sing it with us at Wembley stadium, along with Elton John singing something, so on and so forth. Maybe Eric Clapton will come out and do it for charity, do it for a really good cause and then the same thing at the Hollywood Bowl and that would be really cool." (Bruce Johnston) "That would be the great reunion."


In August 2009 Al Jardine rejected that plan outright, telling me, quote: "Of course, you don't have Carl Wilson there which would be a big minus as far as I'm concerned. There's ways to do it -- but again, that's like doing a one-off, isn't it? I wouldn't be interested in doing just a one show deal like that. If you want to create an organization that goes out and works and produces a show that's of high value, of high quality -- then you rehearse your ass off, make it the best you can, and you tour as a unit. You tour for a year. Like the Rolling Stones, they don't do one show for PBS, one show for... You do a tour. You either do it or don't do it. If it was going to be something like that it should be a worldwide tour, otherwise, no. I wouldn't be interested."

Mike Love didn't "fire" The Beach Boys as much as he QUIT them.

He QUIT.

So this obviously lends itself to the question... what possible logic would Mike Love have for doing JUST a one-off or two-off set of concerts like what he envisioned?

I can only think that he was scared from the onset that if he let it get beyond those two hypothetical shows, that it could eventually lead to a series of events which could strip him from his ability to tour as "The BBs". That, and maybe he was so afraid of the politics (and of losing control), that he didn't want to risk committing to anything further, or to even proposing anything further as a desire.

Can anyone else think of ANY OTHER logical reason why Mike would have only wanted such a minimal 2-show reunion? Bearing in mind that simply saying "that's just what he wanted" is a non-answer, equivalent to the nutritional value of eating paper.