I'm not the moderator, so I can't answer that.

Okay then

Dude, talk about whatever you want.

And I will ... in this thread

The issue of what artists make via streaming and whether streaming is "supporting" the artist does actually still have NOTHING to do with THIS PARTICULAR case with the issue of the current non-release of "Feel Flows."

The preparation and planning for "Feel Flows" was not made in a vacuum. It was prepared for release within all of the context of the current music business/industry.

Further, as I've said a MILLION times now, those industry factors have NOTHING to do with the delays on "Feel Flows." The issues regarding the hold up on "Feel Flows" are totally separate internal issues.

How streaming impacts the industry and artists is a real topic, as is the usefulness or lack thereof of singling out individual fans for legally streaming music uploaded by the labels, but all of that should have a *separate* thread. There are many, many issues and ills befalling the music industry, but talking about that instead of lobbying for a set that WASN'T and ISN'T a victim of those industry issues is not helping anything.

In *this* thread, it is 100% distracting from the goal of lobbying and telling the band and all parties that we want this set. If the hang up behind the scenes had ANYTHING to do with issues of the eroding market for purchashing vs. streaming, I'd say so. That is NOT the case here.

Any people out there that would *not* want the "Feel Flows" set's non-release to be discussed would love for the topic here to shift to haranguing *individual* fans for streaming music.

So this thread can only discuss the non-release of Feel Flows? And cannot include other relevant conversations and ideas? Such as Feel Flows being a copyright-oriented project, and the post from Alan Boyd about supporting such releases by purchasing vs. streaming? And how this may relate to future releases - which does in fact include Feel Flows?

I'm not the moderator, so I can't answer that. If "Feel Flows" were announced for release, then the question of HOW to purchase it or listen to it would seem more worth discussing *right now*. But right now we're trying to convince them to release the set, so getting bogged down in pages of trying to guilt one or two fans for streaming music seems counterproductive.

The stuff you're talking about isn't any more germane to "Feel Flows" than the myriad of other music industry issues.

Discussing purchasing vs. streaming is an interesting topic (I have plenty of thoughts myself), so regardless of what's "allowed", I think it would make sense to start another thread, because right now we're talking about THAT instead of talking about why the set should be released.

It's ridiculous in my view to let a few people's fixation on this "streaming isn't supporting the artists" issues bog down a thread that really needs to focus on lobbying for the release of the set.

Well you keep moving the target.

I'm talking about Alan Boyd's post - which is interesting and relevant IMO - letting fans know that lack of purchasing of the copyright sets threatens the continuation of the sets. Regardless of the drama surrounding how that post came about, and how it was introduced into this thread (I'm not participating in that part), I think that is valid and legit.

It's particularly valid in the scenario in which FF is released as a deluxe box set but maybe doesn't sell as much as expected because everyone is streaming it. Then maybe we don't get another lavish set, and just get basic dumps with bare minimum. I am personally most looking forward to a 1976-era set tbh. And I would wish that that particular set is a multi-disc physical box, vinyl, etc.

So what is the big conspiracy here? I don't see how a thread that becomes a circle jerk of "I really want FF to come out!" is really any more helpful than an active conversation with a natural flow. What exactly, in your opinion, should people be discussing here?

The issue of what artists make via streaming and whether streaming is "supporting" the artist does actually still have NOTHING to do with THIS PARTICULAR case with the issue of the current non-release of "Feel Flows."

The preparation and planning for "Feel Flows" was not made in a vacuum. It was prepared for release within all of the context of the current music business/industry.

Further, as I've said a MILLION times now, those industry factors have NOTHING to do with the delays on "Feel Flows." The issues regarding the hold up on "Feel Flows" are totally separate internal issues.

How streaming impacts the industry and artists is a real topic, as is the usefulness or lack thereof of singling out individual fans for legally streaming music uploaded by the labels, but all of that should have a *separate* thread. There are many, many issues and ills befalling the music industry, but talking about that instead of lobbying for a set that WASN'T and ISN'T a victim of those industry issues is not helping anything.

In *this* thread, it is 100% distracting from the goal of lobbying and telling the band and all parties that we want this set. If the hang up behind the scenes had ANYTHING to do with issues of the eroding market for purchashing vs. streaming, I'd say so. That is NOT the case here.

Any people out there that would *not* want the "Feel Flows" set's non-release to be discussed would love for the topic here to shift to haranguing *individual* fans for streaming music.

Also, guess what?

If FF is not released this year, it's possible it's pushed out further. And then further. And then - maybe re-assessed? Maybe re-assessed a year or two later with considerations for things like, I don't know ... sales and budgets? This is an on-topic tangent.

I don't wanna talk about streaming vs. physical etc as a stand alone - it's a boring topic, and I've been through that many times on other music/gear/industry forums.

What I want to talk about is The Beach Boys, Feel Flows, and how streaming vs. physical products affects these copyright releases. And how maybe, just maybe - this is relevant to this thread because if FF is not released - we are gonna get another copyright dump this year. And it's likely gonna be a bare bones one. And 2021 is a different year than 2020, and sales of these sets are relevant to future releases, including FF.

The policing of this thread is getting weird IMO.

The issue of what artists make via streaming and whether streaming is "supporting" the artist does actually still have NOTHING to do with THIS PARTICULAR case with the issue of the current non-release of "Feel Flows."

The preparation and planning for "Feel Flows" was not made in a vacuum. It was prepared for release within all of the context of the current music business/industry.

Further, as I've said a MILLION times now, those industry factors have NOTHING to do with the delays on "Feel Flows." The issues regarding the hold up on "Feel Flows" are totally separate internal issues.

How streaming impacts the industry and artists is a real topic, as is the usefulness or lack thereof of singling out individual fans for legally streaming music uploaded by the labels, but all of that should have a *separate* thread. There are many, many issues and ills befalling the music industry, but talking about that instead of lobbying for a set that WASN'T and ISN'T a victim of those industry issues is not helping anything.

In *this* thread, it is 100% distracting from the goal of lobbying and telling the band and all parties that we want this set. If the hang up behind the scenes had ANYTHING to do with issues of the eroding market for purchashing vs. streaming, I'd say so. That is NOT the case here.

Any people out there that would *not* want the "Feel Flows" set's non-release to be discussed would love for the topic here to shift to haranguing *individual* fans for streaming music.

And who said it did?

So this thread can only discuss the non-release of Feel Flows? And cannot include other relevant conversations and ideas? Such as Feel Flows being a copyright-oriented project, and the post from Alan Boyd about supporting such releases by purchasing vs. streaming? And how this may relate to future releases - which does in fact include Feel Flows?

The tangent/subtopic is about Alan Boyd coming to the site to let us know that if the archive releases don’t get sufficient $$$/support, we might not keep getting them. Clearly, this does not seem to be the concern with Feel Flows. But it’s a relevant point - let’s say FF is released and sells a lot. Maybe we’ll get another lavish set. Let’s say more people choose to stream - even though it’s released physically ... we might not. Pretty simple.

Implying paying for a streaming service supports a release is the thing. It doesn’t.

Right on. One has to wonder if there's a theoretical way that we could go one step further than a petition and literally show our financial support for a physical set before the fact (kind of like crowdfunding). I follow plenty of independent artists who do stuff like this - they'll say 'We want to press 500 LPs, but we're only going to manufacture them if 500 people pre-order, and if we fail to meet the target everyone gets a refund'. Takes the risk out of the equation altogether and guarantees a profit. Of course, that sort of thing would have to be set up by the label itself so it won't happen - it's just a novel thought.

Certainly Capitol has no problem putting up the dollars, and will surely earn a handsome profit for all - Sunflower and Surf’s Up are seriously acclaimed records and this era in the BB is ripe for the masses right now.. I bought a couple friends the twofer CD awhile back as a gift, and they were like, “wow I can’t believe this is the Beach Boys, how have we not heard this?!? It’s so good” and on and on. Think about artists like Rodriguez or Nick Drake - unknown in their time, famous many years later. Early ‘70s BB are very similar - just waiting in the wings to take off when the stars align.

Let’s not conflate digital only releases with streaming.

That's true - digital purchase i.e. iTunes is great, but I suspect it's not an option favoured by many consumers nowadays considering the product is the exact same one that can be streamed for a much lower price point (or free in the case of YT music). There's very little incentive for the consumer, so I'd say the vast majority would still just stream it in that instance.

It's also the reason most smaller artists aren't bothering with CDs anymore - if it's free to stream anyway, then the only way to get people to pay a higher price point for something that's already freely available online is to have a 'deluxe' physical option i.e. vinyl with extra goodies. People don't go for the in between option

Interesting point. I don’t really know the breakdown of demographics etc - just my own experience, selling and buying. As a consumer, I don’t buy digital anything and I don’t stream (unless you count want you might call “sampling” here and there via YouTube etc). In terms of selling music, CDs always sold more than digital download, streaming, vinyl, and cassette combined - even in recent years (I stopped selling CDs awhile back).

If there is so little audience for this music as you all seem to imply, then Capitol shouldn’t waste time releasing it.

My god, you treat this band as if they’re struggling indie rockers instead of being well-paid stars for the last half-century.

I refuse to be guilted over something like this. I believe the band owns its masters at this point (at least for this era) and could release them whenever and however and for whatever sums they want. They choose, out of cowardice, to remain with a major label and make the galling compromises that entails. They choose to be paid less because it makes them feel important.

But the label, at least in this case, isn’t even standing in the way. It’s not concerned about streaming. It wants to release a lavish physical boxed set, of the sort that I and all of you would buy in a heartbeat.

How many of you bought the OCA double colored vinyl? Not too many, if the lack of discussion on this board is any indication. But I did.

No idea what this post is supposed to be all about but ... streaming isn’t “supporting” the release. No one is saying anyone should feel guilty for streaming only. Maybe a person doesn’t have the bread, or they’re not all that interested in all of the material, or they just don’t care. Nothing wrong with that, who cares man.

It’s also not about lining rich rock star pockets with extra Ferrari $$$, or providing evidence that you’ve supported the group enough ‘cause you once bought an orange record. The tangent/subtopic is about Alan Boyd coming to the site to let us know that if the archive releases don’t get sufficient $$$/support, we might not keep getting them. Clearly, this does not seem to be the concern with Feel Flows. But it’s a relevant point - let’s say FF is released and sells a lot. Maybe we’ll get another lavish set. Let’s say more people choose to stream - even though it’s released physically ... we might not. Pretty simple.

Implying paying for a streaming service supports a release is the thing. It doesn’t.

By no means am I saying the audience is small. I never suggested that - I'm saying the current streaming system is unjust to the point that even a release which receives almost a million streams on Spotify will only make about $4000 dollars. I.e. you essentially have to be getting tens if not hundreds of millions of streams to make real money on a digital only release.

My main point is that a physical release is therefore essential to make a decent profit, and the absence of a physical release would appear to indicate a complete lack of confidence in the material from the record label's end (referring to the 1968 sets here). Some have suggested they'd be okay with streaming only as a compromise - I'm merely suggesting it'd not only be a poor compromise for all involved, but also a nonsensical business choice.

Anyway, based on Howie's comments, it seems the label indeed wants this one to come out, physical set and all.

Let’s not conflate digital only releases with streaming.

Yeah, the whole thing attacking GF was weird. I stream the end-of-year collections, too. I pay for my streaming subscriptions (Apple and Amazon), and some amount of that goes to the band. I understand problems with the streaming economy, but if you put the music on streaming platforms you conceivably hope that people will listen to them that way. Everyone on this board has shelled out more money in our lifetimes on this band than any rational person could defend, so let's be kind.

That probably contradicts my post earlier calling some folks idiots, but a foolish consistency is a hobgoblin of little minds.

And finally, good on ESQ.

Sorry but anyone who thinks streaming revenue will support future archive releases is delusional.

Not saying anyone is required to buy them or support them - stream away if you want - but presenting streaming as “supporting” the releases is a fallacy.

I think Wirestone is simply pointing out that the band/Capitol choose to put all of their material on streaming platforms. He's saying they're not putting it there for us NOT to listen to it.

Of course streaming has greatly devalued (both figuratively and literally) music, and of course artists make next to nothing on it, and of course it de-incentivizes people to buy it.

But none of this has anything to do with "Feel Flows" (other than, as I mentioned before, that a stopgap digital release at the end of this year could kill any eventual full release of "Feel Flows").

"Feel Flows" was devised and made in the context of 2020 music industry conditions, with full knowledge of the realities of the industry.

The hold-up is unrelated to any of these industry economics issues.

Sure, now and any time is always good to mention that yes, BUYING this set will help immensely more than not.

I think it is related to Feel Flows - not the holdup, but the project.

I’m referring to the tangent convo surrounding Alan Boyd stopping by a couple years ago imploring the fans to support these archive projects to ensure they keep coming out. As we are now aware, they don’t have to release such deluxe sets.

Capitol of course decides to offer these releases on streaming services - including YouTube. And of course I have no issue with fans streaming them and not buying them - that’s the game, that’s all fine. Capitol and the group are offering these as legal, guilt free options.

Wirestone said “I pay for my streaming subscription and some amount of that goes to the band”. What I’m calling out is the implication that paying for a streaming service supports the projects, because that is a fallacy IMO.

Yeah, the whole thing attacking GF was weird. I stream the end-of-year collections, too. I pay for my streaming subscriptions (Apple and Amazon), and some amount of that goes to the band. I understand problems with the streaming economy, but if you put the music on streaming platforms you conceivably hope that people will listen to them that way. Everyone on this board has shelled out more money in our lifetimes on this band than any rational person could defend, so let's be kind.

That probably contradicts my post earlier calling some folks idiots, but a foolish consistency is a hobgoblin of little minds.

And finally, good on ESQ.

Sorry but anyone who thinks streaming revenue will support future archive releases is delusional.

Not saying anyone is required to buy them or support them - stream away if you want - but presenting streaming as “supporting” the releases is a fallacy.

Thanks!

With all this talk about Sunflower and Surf’s Up, are we forgetting that the set would also include sessions from like half of So Tough, along with “Break Away”-era, and live tracks -potentially even stuff like BW at the Whisky on the Rocksichord? And Dennis’ unfinished solo record?

Let's just pause for a moment and think about how the distance in time between Stars & Stripes and now is the same as Pet Sounds to "Problem Child".

You're just regurgitating the same stuff we've been reading on message boards for 7 years. Does anyone stop to consider whether these copyright "facts" are even accurate? The only thing I'm confused about is why some fans are posing as copyright experts.

Mine was rhetorical question. If I were looking for serious answers re: copyright extension I’d consult a music lawyer (and even they don’t seem to agree on the European copyright thing). Some musicians including The Beach Boys have just been playing it safe – that’s all.

I just think it’s funny that the very same posters who used to carefully explain in legal terms why The Beach Boys were releasing piles of session outtakes and concerts are the same people who are now explaining how only unreleased songs are in copyright peril. It’s almost as if nobody knows anything. Including me.

I think it’s possible we get a 5CD boxset.
I think it’s possible we get a large digital dump at the end of the year.
I think it’s possible we get a bare bones handful of 1970 songs at the end of the year.
I think it’s possible we get nothing.

And if you're right, that Feel Flows MUST come out before Dec 31st, then what is everybody fretting about?

HeyJude answered this question pages back and I even quoted it yesterday in direct response to your exact question. Please read his post(s) carefully.

@freakysmiley, thanks for commenting there! I would be surprised if they answered you, but it was definitely worth a shot.

It is promising that they shared an article about ‘Sunflower’ - surely this must mean something?

The copyright situation is fairly easy to understand, at least in terms of practical considerations and recordings that need to be released. What are you confused about?

1- Compositions and sound recordings are separate copyrights.
2- Any compositions that have not been published need to be released by 12/31 in some form, to be protected.
3- Any unique sound recordings that have not been published need to be released by 12/31. My understanding is an alternate version/mix from the same recording session would be considered covered if released (i.e., a vocals only mix, take 1 vs. take 17, etc.).


What they clearly did on the 1969 set was to quietly release a sort of "alternate" take of "I'm Going Your Way" to fulfill the copyright, while presumably the more final version would be on Feel Flows. They did not need to release any of the other 1969 totally unreleased tracks (aside from "Carnival"), as these have all been released in some form or another.

Looking at Feel Flows, it is clear that a copyright dump is not the same thing as an archive project at this point. With every release, the compilers/producers have included tons of material they don't have to include. Presumably they have also left out material that is deemed never to be released at all, and has not been booted. The main point here is that if there is any possibility that they may want to release it, and/or it has been circulated in some form - it needs to be included.

This includes live recordings. For instance, if there is a recording of Brian performing at the Whisky in 1970 - it seems any surviving sound recordings may become public domain in the UK on 1/1.

There are a myriad of factors beyond the surface here. IMO "Seasons in the Sun" and "Big Sur" would be key tracks to lead the set as "singles" or promos for marketing purposes. "Seasons in the Sun" sounds like a lost BB hit, and it's appealing that the group recorded it prior to the Terry Jacks version. If you guys think we're getting the full copyright dump of "Seasons in the Sun" in good quality - how would you feel if it's in the form of  a 30-second  "Take 4, alternate mix" which features Carl's scratch vocal, and talking and laughing? How would you feel if there's a soundboard recording of Brian at the Whisky, but we get the bootlegged audience recording for the dump?

How would you feel if those kinds of tracks are all we ever get, because the potential lack of releasing Feel Flows by the end of 2020 negates the need for any kind of lavish, comprehensive set? What if the same thing happens in 2021?

I haven't "regurgitated" anything dude - I'm familiar w/ (US) copyright law and I've researched this. You seem to be confused about how it works, so I'll ask again - in what areas are you confused? I can probably clear that up, as I am not confused about how it works. I do not consider myself an expert, but the meat and potatoes of it (and the practical implications) are not difficult to understand.

Also, though I signed it on the first day, I don't really think the petition will have much effect on anything here. IMO it seems like a way for us fans to feel like we're "doing something" or taking some kind of action to change things, when we may not be able to. I'm also thinking that the relatively low number of signatures on it might actually hurt more than it helps. Better ways to influence change might be to be individually creative and figure out our own ways to influence the proceedings, if that's even possible. One man's opinion.

The way I see it, and I’ve said it many many times: given that the petition has spread by word-of-mouth (basically) I am shocked the number is as high as it is now. The trophy hunting petition only started gaining major traction after the media/BW picked up on the story. This petition hasn’t had any boost from anyone in any higher standing of the band or media. Which is why people like me would love for ESQ to post about it.

In my mind, this petition was more about raising awareness of the issue to band members, camp members, media, etc who could possibly nudge whoever is blocking this set into greenlighting it - is this completely unrealistic? Probably, but it’s all we have left at this point.

The low number of the petition shouldn’t hurt anything. The label wants to release this thing, likely because they have actual sales projections. A small petition circulating on one Beach boys forum and some Beach boys related Facebook posts wouldn’t have any negative impact.

That's a fair opinion, though I do disagree personally. Also the trophy hunting thing is a good example - you're correct that it raised awareness, but ultimately it did not stop the gig and potentially caused further rifts (no idea if it did or not).

*I'm not against the petition, for the record - it's fine/whatever. I just don't believe it will be effective.

Also, though I signed it on the first day, I don't really think the petition will have much effect on anything here. IMO it seems like a way for us fans to feel like we're "doing something" or taking some kind of action to change things, when we may not be able to. I'm also thinking that the relatively low number of signatures on it might actually hurt more than it helps. Better ways to influence change might be to be individually creative and figure out our own ways to influence the proceedings, if that's even possible. One man's opinion.

Mine was rhetorical question. If I were looking for serious answers re: copyright extension I’d consult a music lawyer (and even they don’t seem to agree on the European copyright thing). Some musicians including The Beach Boys have just been playing it safe – that’s all.

I just think it’s funny that the very same posters who used to carefully explain in legal terms why The Beach Boys were releasing piles of session outtakes and concerts are the same people who are now explaining how only unreleased songs are in copyright peril. It’s almost as if nobody knows anything. Including me.

I think it’s possible we get a 5CD boxset.
I think it’s possible we get a large digital dump at the end of the year.
I think it’s possible we get a bare bones handful of 1970 songs at the end of the year.
I think it’s possible we get nothing.

And if you're right, that Feel Flows MUST come out before Dec 31st, then what is everybody fretting about?

HeyJude answered this question pages back and I even quoted it yesterday in direct response to your exact question. Please read his post(s) carefully.

@freakysmiley, thanks for commenting there! I would be surprised if they answered you, but it was definitely worth a shot.

It is promising that they shared an article about ‘Sunflower’ - surely this must mean something?

The copyright situation is fairly easy to understand, at least in terms of practical considerations and recordings that need to be released. What are you confused about?

1- Compositions and sound recordings are separate copyrights.
2- Any compositions that have not been published need to be released by 12/31 in some form, to be protected. [EDIT: *Might be wrong on this point, however it's moot because any relevant previously unreleased composition would be associated with an unreleased sound recording, so see point 3]
3- Any unique sound recordings that have not been published need to be released by 12/31. My understanding is an alternate version/mix from the same recording session would be considered covered if released (i.e., a vocals only mix, take 1 vs. take 17, etc.).


What they clearly did on the 1969 set was to quietly release a sort of "alternate" take of "I'm Going Your Way" to fulfill the copyright, while presumably the more final version would be on Feel Flows. They did not need to release any of the other 1969 totally unreleased tracks (aside from "Carnival"), as these have all been released in some form or another.

Looking at Feel Flows, it is clear that a copyright dump is not the same thing as an archive project at this point. With every release, the compilers/producers have included tons of material they don't have to include. Presumably they have also left out material that is deemed never to be released at all, and has not been booted. The main point here is that if there is any possibility that they may want to release it, and/or it has been circulated in some form - it needs to be included.

This includes live recordings. For instance, if there is a recording of Brian performing at the Whisky in 1970 - it seems any surviving sound recordings may become public domain in the UK on 1/1.

There are a myriad of factors beyond the surface here. IMO "Seasons in the Sun" and "Big Sur" would be key tracks to lead the set as "singles" or promos for marketing purposes. "Seasons in the Sun" sounds like a lost BB hit, and it's appealing that the group recorded it prior to the Terry Jacks version. If you guys think we're getting the full copyright dump of "Seasons in the Sun" in good quality - how would you feel if it's in the form of  a 30-second  "Take 4, alternate mix" which features Carl's scratch vocal, and talking and laughing? How would you feel if there's a soundboard recording of Brian at the Whisky, but we get the bootlegged audience recording for the dump?

How would you feel if those kinds of tracks are all we ever get, because the potential lack of releasing Feel Flows by the end of 2020 negates the need for any kind of lavish, comprehensive set? What if the same thing happens in 2021?

He manages Brother Records, Inc.

Well that clears it up. I guess "group" and corporation are more or less one and the same, though I suppose one could argue Bruce (and David?) are part of the "group" but not BRI.

[NOT]

I want to reiterate something I tried to be clear on earlier, but it seems to be misunderstood:

"The Beach Boys" as a group, entity, etc. still exist - NOT Mike's touring band.

The Beach Boys never truly disbanded, they just kind of stopped recording and playing shows together. If Jerry Schilling is still managing the group, this IMO suggests that there is a mediator on the scene to possibly help smooth things over if there is friction between factions within the group.

The "brand" angle, I think is something else entirely. While it may very well be part of why a member may or may not be comfortable w/ Feel Flows, any one member does not have the ability to decide how the group is branded - that is something determined by BRI and I assume people like Schilling. If I recall, there are terms regarding how "The Beach Boys" can be presented (wasn't there an issue about female singers, etc.?). Jerry Schilling was one of Carl's best friends, and we can be assured he has good intentions regarding the legacy of The Beach Boys.

So is BRI managed by someone other than Schilling? If there is no "group", and Schilling does not manage BRI or Mike's touring band, what does he manage exactly?

Disagree that there is no “group”. “The Beach Boys” (not Mike’s touring band) still exist.

Is Jerry Schilling still managing the group?

Well, while all signs point to Mike as far as we can tell right now - I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for a moment and consider it might be more than one member, and/or someone else or some other series of events. After all, stranger things have happened and this is The Beach Boys (who would have thought it was Carl responsible for the 1995 potential album not happening?).

It’s a stretch, but let’s say there’s some tension behind the scenes on FF, and Mike doesn’t want to talk about it in the interview so kind of cuts away to talk about the 60th. “I don’t know how much is in the vaults” - quite possible he truly doesn’t. Maybe he signed off on FF, and Al Jardine is holding it up (ha), and Mike simply doesn’t care that much about it and moved on (“oh well, that seemed like a cool box set but we couldn’t get it together, what’s up next?”).

I went through the exercise to show that I’m not trying to show an anti-Mike bias. I certainly don’t think he usually deserves the kind of talk he gets around here. I think it is certainly possible he’s not the source of the holdup.

BUT - truly, this time all logic points to him being the issue. The whole tone in the interview sounded like was uncomfortable with that topic, and it sure seems like he wants to move right past it all to the next round of having fun fun fun in the sun. My own opinion on the why - just speculating - is that Mike doesn’t like the 1969-71 “brand” of the BB and wants to maintain control of the image of the group as he sees it now. I think he tolerates the Pet Sounds/Smile period because it was still during the commercially successful era, and he was still semi-at the forefront. Wild Honey he was involved with heavily. ‘68-69 didn’t have the commercial nor critical viability for anything beyond the download dump.

That said, I think there may be more to this than just Mike. The band has historically been way more guarded about the Brother era for some reason. I think I mentioned when I met Al, he was quite put off my my mention of “Lookin At Tomorrow”. It was odd. I wonder if there’s some type of perfectionism, someone not happy with some other aspects, or MORE than one member having concerns. Another thing to consider is: Al, Mike, Brian, and Carl’s family obviously let this thing get to the COMPLETED point only to THEN block it at the last minute. That means whatever people were saying months ago (Al & Bruce, etc) May not be relevant now. Something changed when it went from in-progress to finished. Part of why it’s relevant to know if they need a unanimous decision or not. One thing that doesn’t add up is if Mike was opposed to this era getting deluxe treatment, why/how would the project have gotten that far, only to have the breaks put on after? It’s all pretty peculiar.

Just thinking out loud.

Is it known with certainty that all members of BRI have to sign off on an album project? It’s not a situation where 3/4 could? What about the talk about the Love & Mercy soundtrack? Was that different because it was not an album release by The Beach Boys ?

Folks,

I don’t think we’re getting Feel Flows. Mike Love interview from today - he is asked about archival releases, and basically says he’s looking toward the 60th anniversary and the “special” things they might be doing for that - including some kind of talk about collaborations with other artists:

https://youtu.be/OWz7Stun-KI

(forward to around 9:00)