It doesn't appear as if the post if still on Nelson's FB page--unless I am missing it somehow. It does say the last post, dated 6/12, was edited--was that where it appeared?

"Even before he started substantially altering his mindset with substances, Brian was prone to making some very questionable decisions on very dubious or whimsical grounds, viz. the "Little Honda" tale: he was playing back the final mix and when someone passing by stuck their head into the control room, Brian asked their opinion of the band's projected next single. "Nah, don't like it" was the response, whereupon Brian canned it as a A side on the spot.

Allegedly - it may be apocryphal, but even so, serves to illustrate a point."

Mike should have hired that guy to walk by the control room whenever Brian was mixing something he didn't like. "Hey, what do you think of Smile?" "Nah, don't like it."

I'm waiting for the day when you can surf again?

Not exactly related to where Carl was in the vocal stack, but I always wondered if Carl having few lead vocals in the early days of the group was because of the presence of Murry, and Carl's attempts to avoid his wrath? We know that Dennis and Brian butted heads with Murry, but I wonder, for Carl, if taking a secondary role in the group allowed him to escape the negative attention of his father. Is it a coincidence that Carl became much more promient once Murry was no longer involved with the day to day managing of the band? Again, I have no evidence to back this up, just a theory--maybe unprovable--based on what I know of Carl's less confrontational temperment.

Also-what exactly was Carl's relationship like with his father? I have read much about Murry's relationship with Dennis and Brian, but little about how he and Carl got along, or didn't get along. Wasn't Carl the only son to go to Murry's funeral? Was that because of real affection, a sense of obligation, or because of Audree?

I think a good "anonymous" supergroup comparison to the Beach Boys is Pink Floyd. How many regular people know who Roger Waters or David Gilmour are, never mind Nick Mason or Rick Wright? And Floyd has had two of the biggest selling albums of all time in Dark Side of the Moon and The Wall. Despite this, they were able to tour in the 1980s and 1990s to stadium size crowds without Roger Waters, their principal songwriter,

You were replying to my In Concert arrangement post and went off on a different tangent about vocalists and thin bar band sound. Personally, I don't give a sh*t what you like. Could care less. John is a professional musician and deserves respect when he posts in here. And you did disrespect him in your posts. Go back and reread them.

I think my entire original post that set you off was, "sounds like a bar band" as in the sound is thin. This has been a criticism of Mike's BB's for years, especially in comparison to Brian's bigger band sound. And for that, I blame Mike Love, who is ultimately responsible for what his Beach Boys band sounds like. I don't blame John Cowsill for this--I even said he is a good vocalist and drummer. The vocalists comment was in reference to your comment about Darian--maybe you should re-read your own posts. And sorry, I never joined the John Cowsill Sycophant Society.

This will be my last post on this topic. You may respond with more venom if you wish, but I have nothing more to say to you. I have been a lurker here for years, but rarely post, and this is why. I don't need to get into pointless battles with people I don't know over minor things like how good Mike Love's fake Beach Boys sound. Being on message boards is supposed to be a fun diversion, but this isn't fun, fun, fun.

Excuse me, show respect to who? Cowsill? Did I say anything bad about him, did I criticize him at all? From what I have seen and heard, he is a very good drummer, and has a good voice. You know, even bar bands can have good musicians/singers in them. I just don't like this version of the song--it sounds like a bar--or, to be more accurate cover--band, which is exactly what it is. I would feel the same if Mike was singing lead. And no, I don't think that John's voice fits this song that well. I also don't love Darian's version of Darlin. I think that all songs that cannot be sung by BBs any longer--Don't Worry Baby, Darlin, etc.--should be retired. Pretending that Christian sounds like Carl, or the Darian does, or that Cowsill does, is nonsense. There was just one Carl--and Brian and Dennis and Mike and Al.  I am not going to be critcized for expressing an "opinion" about something. It's not like I'm criticzing you for liking the song.

The In Concert version also has, you know, the actual Beach Boys on it, unlike this version. That kinda makes it better too.

No, the In Concert version sounds infinitely better. Better vocals, fatter sound.

Sounds like a bar band doing a cover of the song. Even if the arrangements are the same as ones from the 1970s--and I know and like the version that is being talked about--the way it is done here eliminates all the subtle nuisances that makes the song great. Hence, my bar band comment.

"He has always had a remarkable ability to "translate" and make "available" what Brian is trying to convey with his music.  No one else has had that talent."

Nope, not Tony Asher, nor Van Dyke Parks, nor Roger Christian, etc.

So, here's my question: What has Mike on the defensive all of a sudden?  I know he was getting the same annoying "what happened to the reunion tour" questions for months, but he handled it better at the beginning. Now, he's starting to make it sound like the whole thing was a death march that he was forced to participate in.

When the reunion tour ended, Mike was the one saying that it was over and things were going back to the way they were, see ya later. Then Brian and Al were all, "We felt like we were fired. Nyeh!" Then Mike responded with, "Yeah, but you weren't. It was always meant to end and I'm just going back to the plan. No hard feelings. Summer's Gone. Pffft!"

Brian goes back to the studio and says he ain't planning on any more reunions.  Mike goes to SeaWorld with Bruce and says all is right with the world, Brian's in the studio, he's on the road. Big pause.  Brian picks up a Grammy. Mike plays various fairs. Next thing we know, Brian's announcing an album, a tour with Al and Dave. He's got a movie bio, a book deal and a fall tour with Jeff Beck. Seemingly simultaneously, Mike adds C50 elements (the things he claimed to hate about the reunion tour) to his Beach Boys show, and starts complaining that the reunion and the last album weren't all that. All the while lamenting that he never gets to write with "Cousin Brian" anymore because Joe Thomas, or Homeland Security or someone won't let him.

Is there a competition going on? Is Brian making play for control of the Beach Boys name? Is someone else making a play for the Beach Boys name?  Is Mike worried that the C50 success and SMiLE Grammy have given Brian some increased cache and Mike might have played the C50 ending the wrong way? Is Al the one behind all of this? What about Dave? Maybe he's the master manipulator! What's going on? Curious minds want to know!

In reality, they'd do themselves a favor by zipping their lips, but I don't see that happening.

I do think it's interesting to watch Mike try to up his game to C50 levels while at the same time disparaging those who produced it. All the while talking nice-nice about "Cousin Brian."

Methinks there's been a power shift.

I agree with this, and have been thinking along the same lines myself. Mike's comments about the reunion have been getting more pointed, at the exact time when Brian is putting together a tour with Jeff Beck that is one of his better selling tickets, according to his people. Mike's whole thing is about control. He wants to write in a room with Brian because I believe he thinks he can better control Brian that way, without all those outsiders interfering. He goes back to his BB configuration after C50 because he can control that. However, he likes control as long as it comes with greater success than the rest of the band, which is now being threatened by Brian. We all know how much Mike values "commercialism." For the past several years, however, Brian's tours haven't done better than Mike's BB tours--as a  matter of fact, there have been many reports of Brian playing to half-empty venues. So, Brian hasn't been a threat, commerically. However, now we have Brian gearing up for an exciting new tour (and album) featuring Jeff Beck and Al and Dave, while Mike is doing what he has always done since 1998. While Mike says he is content doing his country fairs and casinos, I think he likes it in the context of Brian and the rest of the band not eclipsing him.

In addition, the C50 made it widely known that Mike's BB's only feature him and Bruce, and that there are other BB's who he won't allow to be part of the group. (Even if that is not 100% accurate, the media narrative was that "Mike fired Brian, et. al" and that Brian and Al and Dave wanted to continue the reunion.) So, the media is now constantly asking Mike about the reunion's ending. I am sure he wasn't getting these kinds of questions before C50--no one was asking him in 2007 where Brian Wilson or Al or Dave were. While its never been a secret that Mike's BBs only had two "original" members, it probably wasn't a fact widely known by the casual journalist or fan. Now, however, even the local reporter who does a puff piece on Mike and Bruce coming to the county fair next week knows that this is not the real BB's.    

"When Carl was singing Rhonda and Al was singing Brian's stuff, etc. there weren't two separate oldies acts with different members competing for the same live audiences.  There was one BEACH BOYS."

Beyond whatever everyone thinks of Mike as a person and an artist, the essential problem is that everyone in BB land wants to have their cake and eat it too. Mike wants to be the Beach Boys, but doesn't want to have anything to do with the other Beach Boys, except for Bruce obviously. And Brian and Al can make all the noises they want about Mike not wanting to tour with them, but they are unwilling to give up the money they get from Mike's BBs. If Mike wants to be a Beach Boy, he should learn to put up with the rest of the group. If he doesn't want to do that, he shouldn't be a BB. Simiarly, if Brian and Al don't like getting "fired" by Mike, they should have never let him have the BB name in the first place.

In a less greedy world, they would have agreed to retire the Beach Boy name in 1999, which would have headed off all the problems we are seeing now. However, I think that deep down, they are all happy with this arrangement, as only Mike really wants to tour steadily as The Beach Boys, and Brian and Al are happy to receive $ from Mike's touring.

For the most part, the Deadman's Curve movie is fiction. It is based on a 1974 Rolling Stone article, which goes into much more--and accurate--detail about Jan's post-accident recovery. The movie, among many things, almost completely ignores Jan's work as a producer, both during the heyday of Jan and Dean and after the accident. Though he couldn't sing and could barely speak, Jan actually started producing within a year of the 1966 accident, the end result being Carnival of Sound, which was finally released in 2011. Jan also recorded on his own regularly in the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s. He was probably best vocally post-accident during that period. He also started touring again on his own in the mid-1970s. By the time the Deadman's Curve came out in 1978, Jan had been recording and touring for the better part of a decade. (The movie ignores almost all of this, particularly, as I said, the production stuff.) The ending of the movie is based on an actual event, but from what I understand, it was meant as a joke. J&D were supposed to lip synch during their appearance, and Dean--without apparently telling Jan--made it so the record they were lip synching too intentionally skipped, to make fun of their appearances in the 1950s and 60s when they would lip synch. The audience didn't get the joke--or understand what was wrong with Jan, as the DMC movie was still five years away and not many people knew about his condition--and they were booed.

The Jan and Brian relationship is more complicated and less one-sided than most people make it out to be. Yes, Brian was definitely more creative and a better songwriter and singer than Jan. However, Jan, in 1963, 64, was a far better producer than Brian, which shows when you listen to the backing tracks for Jan and Dean records of the time, compared to BB backing tracks. (Of course, the BB had the harmonies.) I think Brian learned a lot about production from Jan, which fully blossomed on his 1965 work and Pet Sounds. (Brian used the same Wrecking Crew musicians that Jan used for J&D records.)

In her flirty, "I love you guys" way, the reporter actually snuck in some good questions. Referring to them doing their "Mke and Bruce" thing, which made Bruce quickly interject,"we're The Beach Boys," as well as asking about the process of writing new material, which forced Mike to completely change the subject, as he obviously did not want to mention Brian at all. For those who are upset about the reunion not continuing, it was interesting to see this kind of interview, in which Mike and Bruce had to deflect questions about the future--yes, we're The Beach Boys, but we're also not The Beach Boys at the same time.

When evaluating Mike, an important point to consider is that The Beach Boys are unlike any other band in that the creative force behind the band is not the dominant figure in the group. Think of the contemporaries of the BB's--Beatles, Rolling Stones, The Who, etc. In each of those bands, the chief creative figures--Townshend in The Who, Jagger and Richards in the Stones, Lennon and McCartney in the Beatles--also controlled the band for the most part, meaning that most if not all of the important decisions were determined by those individuals.

With the Beach Boys, it is entirely different, as the main creative force behind the band--Brian--after the early days was not really the leader of the band. That left a void, which Mike, and Carl when he was alive, had to fill. As a result, you have Mike, who has a "leader" type personality--arrogant, brash--without having the so-called creative "chops" to back it up. (We forgive a lot of our creative types). I have heard just as many stories of bad behavior from the likes of Jagger, Richards, Lennon, Townshend, etc., (worse in fact) than from Mike, but because they also were the creative forces behind their respective bands, much of that behavior is forgiven by the media and the general puiblic. As an example, Richards trashed Jagger in his autobiography, but instead of public outrage--as there was say at Mike's Rock 'n' Roll HOF speech--it was just "Keef being Keef." Imagine if Mike had said the same kinds of things about Brian!

In addition, Mike does not possess some of the qualities of other "subordinate" band members, such as Roger Daltrey, who, unlike Mike, literally wrote almost nothing for The Who, but still became the long blonde-haired amazing interpreter of Pete Townshend's music. The general consensus about Mike is that he is nothing special as a singer, is off putting as a frontman (I have shown people who know nothing about the BB's clips of the band, and most take an immediate dislike to Mike's stage presence), and that the band could have easily been successful without him. Compare Mike to Dennis, for example--though Mike wrote some of the most well regarded and famous lyrics in rock history, he is considered by many to be dispensable to the band, while Dennis, based on just a handful of songs, was this amazing talent whose greatness was cut short. Stories of Dennis's behavior are far worse than anything Mike ever did, but because Dennis is perceived as talented--and good looking and cool--while his sins are acknowledged, he is also called things like big hearted and sensitive, while Mike is just some ass. I know that people on this board know better than this, but I think these factors I cited are why Mike doesn't have a good rep, and never will. 

"Kokomo" in Austin, TX

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gor_QhU9IO0

More like Live in Alaska--how cold was it in Austin?

For what it's worth, my two cents about this whole thing is that it comes down to "control." Since 1999, Mike has been in total control of "The Beach Boys" without anyone to answer to. He was obviously willing to cede that control temporarily for the 50th anniversary tour. However, in relinquishing that control, he was forced to accept things that he hasn't had to in nearly 15 years. For example, it is obvious that someone on Brian's side put a very quick stop to the Stamos appearances early in the tour. As absurd as many of us think Stamos is, in Mike's vision of the BB's, he is a regular part of the act. In addition, from his own statements, it is obvious that Mike wanted a smaller band. However, Brian wanted a bigger band, so they toured with a bigger band. Furthermore, despite the fact that Mike is supposedly in charge of the set list, if Brian wanted a song in, it went in. The reason that many of us side with Brian is because many of his decisions are more "artistic" and do improve the music. No Stamos, a bigger band, some deep cuts, are all things that enhance the music, and enhanced the reunion tour, but to Mike, they don't match his vision of what The Beach Boys in 2012 are all about.

Finally, I do think that Mike fears, with good reason, that Brian could easily change his mind at anytime about wanting to be a Beach Boy. Just because he is into today, this week, this month, doesn't mean it will be that way in the future. If Mike were to dismantle his version of the BB's, letting all the musicians go into to other jobs and disband the whole operation, what happens if Brian decides in six months, a year, that he no longer wants to be a Beach Boy? I mean, in 2011, Brian said he didn't want to tour with the band again, and now he doesn't want to stop. I don't think it is unreasonable for Mike, having known Brian for his entire life, to fear placing his future livelihood at the whims of Brian Wilson.    

I think that one of the reasons that Mike has such an negative public image also has to do with his treatment of the fans and other people who have encountered him off-stage. While I always read very positive things about people's interactions with Carl, and for the most part, Brian and Al, no one seems to have had any positive experiences with Mike (except attractive women!) From just reading this board, for example, it seems that most of the comments about people meeting Mike are that he was unfriendly or aloof. And this is from both casual fans and those who are more involved with the band. It is well documented that Mike's stage antics have long rubbed many the wrong way, and if you combine that with the fact that many people's one on one interactions have also been unpleasant, you are left with a man who does not engender much good will. Most of us were pleasantly surprised that he acted so well on the anniversary tour, as if bad behavior were the expected norm with Mike.

I also wonder if the media have had similar negative interactions with Mike, and if after he gives his canned answers about everything sounding like 1965, he is friendly towards members of the press off the record.

Wasn't the Sept. 30 M&B date just recently added?

First post here, but I have been a longtime lurker.

I think the main problem here is that Mike scheduled shows with him and Bruce so close to the end of the reunion. I mean, isn't there a M&B show tomorrow night! If Mike had waited until the new year, I don't think he would have gotten the kind of splashback he is getting now. When the reunion was announced, I honestly thought that the only BB shows in 2012 would be for the reunited band.

This also gets at something that I have been thinking of concerning Mike--his relentless need to be on the road. I mean, he just played 75 shows over 5 months, he's 71 years old, yet he is going right back on the road, with barely a break. Ever since I read that blog post from his daughter that someone recently posted about how he has never really been a father to her and how she misses him, I have been thinking about sad it is that Mike obviously uses the road to avoid connecting with his family. (I have no doubt that he would do 365 shows a year if he could.) You would think that an emotionally healthy person, after spending the better part of the last six months touring, even if he loved being on the road more than anything else, would be happy to spend at least a few months home with his family. The fact that Mike can't do that is something I find very sad and very telling about how deep his insecurties are, and how they will most likely never be resolved.