R.I.P. Michael Meros

[mikeddonn]

Carl was loved by every backing band member and demanded perfection. That's why the best backing band was known as Carl's Band, it had all the right parts.  After Carl's death the "wheels" came off  with Al leaving and other's fired. That was the death blow and ended all the right parts.

It's all about opinions.  Why did you post almost the exact same post a year apart? Genuine question.

[Emily]

Carl was loved by every backing band member and demanded perfection. That's why the best backing band was known as Carl's Band, it had all the right parts.  After Carl's death the "wheels" came off  with Al leaving and other's fired. That was the death blow and ended all the right parts.

It's all about opinions.  Why did you post almost the exact same post a year apart? Genuine question.

I think it's because it's the anniversary of his friend's passing so he's having a remembrance.

[Emily]

Actually, first cousins likely share 12.5% DNA regardless of last name.

[filledeplage]

Actually, first cousins likely share 12.5% DNA regardless of last name.

You're probably closer to having taken Biology than am I.  It sounds like classic punnet square IIRC.  But that is not the point.  The actual percentage of DNA inherent as to each member is still 50% as is the right to use the name as a surname.  It has been traditional in Western culture to take the name of the father.  Some religious groups take the bloodline lineage approach and recognize the mother as the qualifier for bona fides for purposes of religious affiliation.  

The surnaming has evolved since the 70's or so, and parents have been naming their children as having been born equally of both mother and father.  

This is not DNA common to all as cousins, but standing alone, having 50% as from each ancestor, as equal siblings in the previous generation being reported as born of common parents, as were Glee and Murry, in that generation.  

[Emily]

Actually, first cousins likely share 12.5% DNA regardless of last name.

You're probably closer to having taken Biology than am I.  It sounds like classic punnet square IIRC.  But that is not the point.  The actual percentage of DNA inherent as to each member is still 50% as is the right to use the name as a surname.  It has been traditional in Western culture to take the name of the father.  Some religious groups take the bloodline lineage approach and recognize the mother as the qualifier for bona fides for purposes of religious affiliation.  

The surnaming has evolved since the 70's or so, and parents have been naming their children as having been born equally of both mother and father.  

This is not DNA common to all as cousins, but standing alone, having 50% as from each ancestor, as equal siblings in the previous generation being reported as born of common parents, as were Glee and Murry, in that generation.  

I'm with you on the last name thing. People identify themselves by a single name when they are actually made of the genetics and culture and ancestral parenting of thousands of names.
But, with the 50% - you have to apply the same thinking - Murry and Glee are each half (and not the same half) Wilson, whether we are reckoning by name or DNA; but their Wilson parent was only half Wilson, so actually Murry and Glee were only 1/4 Wilson, by DNA or name (after all, they had 4 grandparents with 4 last names which they rightfully inherit if we are eliminating patriarchy for this hypothetical. But each of them were only 1/2 Wilson, so Murry and Glee's parents were only 1/4, so Murry and Glee were only 1/8 (after all they had 8 great-grandparents with 8 last names which they rightfully inherit), etc. If we could trace back to the first Wilson, he would probably be at least 600 years ago - so a low estimate would be 24 generations, meaning all the Wilsons and Loves we are talking about are only 1/8388608 Wilson.

But, in any case, the Wilsons of the Beach Boy generation have 12.5% consanguinity with Mike Love.

[filledeplage]

Actually, first cousins likely share 12.5% DNA regardless of last name.

You're probably closer to having taken Biology than am I.  It sounds like classic punnet square IIRC.  But that is not the point.  The actual percentage of DNA inherent as to each member is still 50% as is the right to use the name as a surname.  It has been traditional in Western culture to take the name of the father.  Some religious groups take the bloodline lineage approach and recognize the mother as the qualifier for bona fides for purposes of religious affiliation.  

The surnaming has evolved since the 70's or so, and parents have been naming their children as having been born equally of both mother and father.  

This is not DNA common to all as cousins, but standing alone, having 50% as from each ancestor, as equal siblings in the previous generation being reported as born of common parents, as were Glee and Murry, in that generation.  

I'm with you on the last name thing. People identify themselves by a single name when they are actually made of the genetics and culture and ancestral parenting of thousands of names.
But, with the 50% - you have to apply the same thinking - Murry and Glee are each half (and not the same half) Wilson, whether we are reckoning by name or DNA; but their Wilson parent was only half Wilson, so actually Murry and Glee were only 1/4 Wilson, by DNA or name (after all, they had 4 grandparents with 4 last names which they rightfully inherit if we are eliminating patriarchy for this hypothetical. But each of them were only 1/2 Wilson, so Murry and Glee's parents were only 1/4, so Murry and Glee were only 1/8 (after all they had 8 great-grandparents with 8 last names which they rightfully inherit), etc. If we could trace back to the first Wilson, he would probably be at least 600 years ago - so a low estimate would be 24 generations, meaning all the Wilsons and Loves we are talking about are only 1/8388608 Wilson.

But, in any case, the Wilsons of the Beach Boy generation have 12.5% consanguinity with Mike Love.

Emily - The consanguinity thing is a term I avoided.  And consanguinity with regard forbidden intermarriage, within "certain degrees of kinship" to avoid genetic diseases being passed on.  That is a public policy.  

This is not as among the first cousins, but going up to (working backwards) whom their parents were to establish common lineage.  My kids share two common ancestors (their grandparents) with their first cousins.  They would only share one parent if they are half siblings.  As I understand they shared two parents.

But you don't get your last name horizontally but vertically as direct descendants.  Their parents (Glee and Murry) had two parents as common ancestors, as my siblings and I have two common ancestors as parents (where the 50%+50% = 100% DNA.)

And, I get to use both names of my parents because I am a direct descedent; 50% from one and 50% from the other.  I could/can use my mother's maiden name. (She used both.)  It is Mike's mother's maiden name.  A sister (Glee) is the same as a brother (Murry.) It is like the new rules for becoming monarch of England, as girls can ascend the throne in order of birth, regardless of gender.

It relates to parents and children who share two parents in common, within a generation as siblings.  It is not the degree of kinship among first cousins but the common ancestry, that comes from the parents as siblings, at "that" generation.  That is 50% as between Mike's mother (who became 50% DNA with Milton) and B/D/C's father(who became 50% each DNA with Audree) because they each shared two parents.  It only drops down to 25%, in the next generation from the two common ancestors for each first cousin, not the paternal name but the maternal-paternal genes.  
    
The relationship emanates from vertical ancestry not just horizontal kinship relating among each other.   You look at the vertical for commonality as the common genes come from the two common ancestors, not the one bearing the surname that is used.  

It is the difference between latitude and longitude.  The longitude is parent to child, and the latitude at each generation is sibling to sibling (to each other) and cousin to cousin along each generational line.  

[Emily]

Actually, first cousins likely share 12.5% DNA regardless of last name.

You're probably closer to having taken Biology than am I.  It sounds like classic punnet square IIRC.  But that is not the point.  The actual percentage of DNA inherent as to each member is still 50% as is the right to use the name as a surname.  It has been traditional in Western culture to take the name of the father.  Some religious groups take the bloodline lineage approach and recognize the mother as the qualifier for bona fides for purposes of religious affiliation.  

The surnaming has evolved since the 70's or so, and parents have been naming their children as having been born equally of both mother and father.  

This is not DNA common to all as cousins, but standing alone, having 50% as from each ancestor, as equal siblings in the previous generation being reported as born of common parents, as were Glee and Murry, in that generation.  

I'm with you on the last name thing. People identify themselves by a single name when they are actually made of the genetics and culture and ancestral parenting of thousands of names.
But, with the 50% - you have to apply the same thinking - Murry and Glee are each half (and not the same half) Wilson, whether we are reckoning by name or DNA; but their Wilson parent was only half Wilson, so actually Murry and Glee were only 1/4 Wilson, by DNA or name (after all, they had 4 grandparents with 4 last names which they rightfully inherit if we are eliminating patriarchy for this hypothetical. But each of them were only 1/2 Wilson, so Murry and Glee's parents were only 1/4, so Murry and Glee were only 1/8 (after all they had 8 great-grandparents with 8 last names which they rightfully inherit), etc. If we could trace back to the first Wilson, he would probably be at least 600 years ago - so a low estimate would be 24 generations, meaning all the Wilsons and Loves we are talking about are only 1/8388608 Wilson.

But, in any case, the Wilsons of the Beach Boy generation have 12.5% consanguinity with Mike Love.

Emily - The consanguinity thing is a term I avoided.  And consanguinity with regard forbidden intermarriage, within "certain degrees of kinship" to avoid genetic diseases being passed on.  That is a public policy. 

This is not as among the first cousins, but going up to (working backwards) whom their parents were to establish common lineage.  My kids share two common ancestors (their grandparents) with their first cousins.  They would only share one parent if they are half siblings.  As I understand they shared two parents.

But you don't get your last name horizontally but vertically as direct descendants.  Their parents (Glee and Murry) had two parents as common ancestors, as my siblings and I have two common ancestors as parents (where the 50%+50% = 100% DNA.)

And, I get to use both names of my parents because I am a direct descedent; 50% from one and 50% from the other.  I could/can use my mother's maiden name. (She used both.)  It is Mike's mother's maiden name.  A sister (Glee) is the same as a brother (Murry.) It is like the new rules for becoming monarch of England, as girls can ascend the throne in order or birth, regardless of gender.

It relates to parents and children who share two parents common, within a generation as siblings.  It is not the degree of kinship among first cousins but the common ancestry, that comes from the parents as siblings, at "that" generation.  That is 50% as between Mike's mother (who became 50% DNA with Milton) and B/D/C's father(who became 50% each DNA with Audree) because they each shared two parents.  It only drops down to 25%, in the next generation from the two common ancestors for each first cousin, not the paternal name but the maternal-paternal genes. 
     
The relationship emanates from vertical ancestry not just horizontal kinship relating among each other.   You look at the vertical for commonality as the common genes come from the two common ancestors, not the one bearing the surname that is used. 

It is the difference between latitude and longitude.  The longitude is parent to child, and the latitude at each generation is sibling to sibling (to each other) and cousin to cousin along each generational line.   

When the law used the word 'consanguinity' it did not erase the general meaning of the word.
It is specifically your name thing that I was following to reach the 8388608. If you have two names, then so did each of your parents. So you have 4. But so did your grandparents, so you have 8, etc. It's a little arbitrary to stop at one generation.

My point is, if you are talking about genetic inheritance, they share 12.5%.
If you are talking about names, by your logic, they share 50% of 8388608 names, but the essence to take away from that is that a name is meaningless. "Wilson" is a legal and social tag. Outside of the law and society, one is no more "Wilson" or "Love" than one is any other of those 8388608 names. But as far as law and society goes, B, C and D Wilson are "Wilsons" and M Love is a "Love".
If you are talking environment, it's clear their environments were quite different, within the world of LA County.

[filledeplage]

Actually, first cousins likely share 12.5% DNA regardless of last name.

You're probably closer to having taken Biology than am I.  It sounds like classic punnet square IIRC.  But that is not the point.  The actual percentage of DNA inherent as to each member is still 50% as is the right to use the name as a surname.  It has been traditional in Western culture to take the name of the father.  Some religious groups take the bloodline lineage approach and recognize the mother as the qualifier for bona fides for purposes of religious affiliation.  

The surnaming has evolved since the 70's or so, and parents have been naming their children as having been born equally of both mother and father.  

This is not DNA common to all as cousins, but standing alone, having 50% as from each ancestor, as equal siblings in the previous generation being reported as born of common parents, as were Glee and Murry, in that generation.  

I'm with you on the last name thing. People identify themselves by a single name when they are actually made of the genetics and culture and ancestral parenting of thousands of names.
But, with the 50% - you have to apply the same thinking - Murry and Glee are each half (and not the same half) Wilson, whether we are reckoning by name or DNA; but their Wilson parent was only half Wilson, so actually Murry and Glee were only 1/4 Wilson, by DNA or name (after all, they had 4 grandparents with 4 last names which they rightfully inherit if we are eliminating patriarchy for this hypothetical. But each of them were only 1/2 Wilson, so Murry and Glee's parents were only 1/4, so Murry and Glee were only 1/8 (after all they had 8 great-grandparents with 8 last names which they rightfully inherit), etc. If we could trace back to the first Wilson, he would probably be at least 600 years ago - so a low estimate would be 24 generations, meaning all the Wilsons and Loves we are talking about are only 1/8388608 Wilson.

But, in any case, the Wilsons of the Beach Boy generation have 12.5% consanguinity with Mike Love.

Emily - The consanguinity thing is a term I avoided.  And consanguinity with regard forbidden intermarriage, within "certain degrees of kinship" to avoid genetic diseases being passed on.  That is a public policy.  

This is not as among the first cousins, but going up to (working backwards) whom their parents were to establish common lineage.  My kids share two common ancestors (their grandparents) with their first cousins.  They would only share one parent if they are half siblings.  As I understand they shared two parents.

But you don't get your last name horizontally but vertically as direct descendants.  Their parents (Glee and Murry) had two parents as common ancestors, as my siblings and I have two common ancestors as parents (where the 50%+50% = 100% DNA.)

And, I get to use both names of my parents because I am a direct descedent; 50% from one and 50% from the other.  I could/can use my mother's maiden name. (She used both.)  It is Mike's mother's maiden name.  A sister (Glee) is the same as a brother (Murry.) It is like the new rules for becoming monarch of England, as girls can ascend the throne in order or birth, regardless of gender.

It relates to parents and children who share two parents common, within a generation as siblings.  It is not the degree of kinship among first cousins but the common ancestry, that comes from the parents as siblings, at "that" generation.  That is 50% as between Mike's mother (who became 50% DNA with Milton) and B/D/C's father(who became 50% each DNA with Audree) because they each shared two parents.  It only drops down to 25%, in the next generation from the two common ancestors for each first cousin, not the paternal name but the maternal-paternal genes.  
    
The relationship emanates from vertical ancestry not just horizontal kinship relating among each other.   You look at the vertical for commonality as the common genes come from the two common ancestors, not the one bearing the surname that is used.  

It is the difference between latitude and longitude.  The longitude is parent to child, and the latitude at each generation is sibling to sibling (to each other) and cousin to cousin along each generational line.  

When the law used the word 'consanguinity' it did not erase the general meaning of the word.
It is specifically your name thing that I was following to reach the 8388608. If you have two names, then so did each of your parents. So you have 4. But so did your grandparents, so you have 8, etc. It's a little arbitrary to stop at one generation.

My point is, if you are talking about genetic inheritance, they share 12.5%.
If you are talking about names, by your logic, they share 50% of 8388608 names, but the essence to take away from that is that a name is meaningless. "Wilson" is a legal and social tag. Outside of the law and society, one is no more "Wilson" or "Love" than one is any other of those 8388608 names. But as far as law and society goes, B, C and D Wilson are "Wilsons" and M Love is a "Love".
If you are talking environment, it's clear their environments were quite different, within the world of LA County.

Emily - Not so, they share 25% because they come from two sets of genes as do all first cousins. You are omitting Brian's mother and Mike's father whose DNA caused the two different newer family units (but Wilson commonality as between the two)   It is not about inheritance.  That 8 million give-or-take number seems to be on ancestry.com, as Wilsons of Scottish, English or Northern Irish lineage, not any math problem which I would not ever suggest.

This is about the right to use both names, that comes from each parent; the names that appear on your birth certificate.  A mother's name and a father's name.

Wilson is a common name.  It is on baseballs and tennis balls, and rackets, etc. from Wilson Sporting Goods. A president, Woodrow.  

The Beach Boys connotation relates the name to the entity.  They were known as an entity (and the "sound") before the inquiry as to whom the names of the members as individuals.  

[AndrewHickey]

Carl was loved by every backing band member and demanded " perfection". That's why the best backing band was known as " Carl's Band", it had all the right parts.  After Carl's death the "wheels" came off  with Al leaving and other's fired. That was the death blow and ended the Beach Boys best band.  Meros , Carter, & Hinsche were the all time greats !

Carter and Hinsche were out of the band in mid-1996, and Carl continued touring for another year without them. No-one was fired directly after Carl's death -- the only other band member to leave was Matt Jardine, who was asked to continue and refused without his father. Mike Meros remained in the touring band more than two years after Carl died.
The touring band lineup actually remained fairly consistent over the period in which Carl died. Other than Carl dying, Al and Matt leaving, and David Marks and Adrian Baker replacing them (and Marks leaving again eighteen months or so later) there weren't any lineup changes until mid-2000 -- the core backing band remained as Phil Bardowell, Chris Farmer, Tim Bonhomme, Meros, and Kowalski, as it had been in 1996 and 97 when Carl was touring. And obviously Carl had toured with both Marks and Baker previously,
Meros and Bardowell were replaced by Scott Totten and John Cowsill in, IIRC, June 2000. Baker was replaced by Randell Kirsch in 2004, and Farmer and Kowalski didn't go til about 2007 (when Kirsch moved to bass, Cowsill moved to drums, and Christian Love joined).
The idea that there was no continuity between the two bands is just wrong -- until Scott Totten and John Cowsill joined, every musician on stage was someone who had played with the band while Carl was there. And given that *everyone* who has seen Mike's band praises Totten and Cowsill more than anyone else, it's hard to see an argument that they made the band worse...

[AndrewHickey]

I think the people saying "it's not the Beach Boys with no Wilsons" aren't talking genetically. They simply mean that for them, the band without its principal songwriter, its lead guitarist/best singer, and its drummer and second-best songwriter is not the same band.
It's a reasonable point. A strong majority of what I love about the Beach Boys comes from one or more of the Wilson brothers. I wouldn't want to minimise the contributions of Mike, Al, Bruce, Blondie, and Ricky, all of whom have done things I love, but they're not *why I love* the band.
I'm actually a fairly massive fan of the current touring band , who have done several of the best gigs I've ever seen in my life, and who are all extraordinarily good vocalists and musicians. But even I am slightly in two minds about their use of the name -- they're clearly *not* the same band.

[Emily]

Emily - Not so, they share 25% because they come from two sets of genes as do all first cousins. You are omitting Brian's mother and Mike's father whose DNA caused the two different newer family units (but Wilson commonality as between the two)   It is not about inheritance.  That 8 million give-or-take number seems to be on ancestry.com, as Wilsons of Scottish, English or Northern Irish lineage, not any math problem which I would not ever suggest.

This is about the right to use both names, that comes from each parent; the names that appear on your birth certificate.  A mother's name and a father's name.

Wilson is a common name.  It is on baseballs and tennis balls, and rackets, etc. from Wilson Sporting Goods. A president, Woodrow.  

The Beach Boys connotation relates the name to the entity.  They were known as an entity (and the "sound") before the inquiry as to whom the names of the members as individuals.  

The 8 million give or take number came from calculating 2 to the 23rd power. Simple arithmetic.
One has the legal right to use any name one wants, though there seem to be some restrictions; I think numbers aren't allowed.
You are incorrect about 25%; it's on average 12.5% because Murry and Glee did not inherit the same genes from their father or mother.

eta: I seem to share the same nitpicking convulsion (eta - haha, I mean compulsion, but it does seem like convulsions sometimes!) as those who have lots of Beach Boy facts at their fingertips. I don't consider any of this to really have anything to do with the question of the legitimacy of Mike Love using the name of the Beach Boys.

[filledeplage]

Emily - Not so, they share 25% because they come from two sets of genes as do all first cousins. You are omitting Brian's mother and Mike's father whose DNA caused the two different newer family units (but Wilson commonality as between the two)   It is not about inheritance.  That 8 million give-or-take number seems to be on ancestry.com, as Wilsons of Scottish, English or Northern Irish lineage, not any math problem which I would not ever suggest.

This is about the right to use both names, that comes from each parent; the names that appear on your birth certificate.  A mother's name and a father's name.

Wilson is a common name.  It is on baseballs and tennis balls, and rackets, etc. from Wilson Sporting Goods. A president, Woodrow.  

The Beach Boys connotation relates the name to the entity.  They were known as an entity (and the "sound") before the inquiry as to whom the names of the members as individuals.  

The 8 million give or take number came from calculating 2 to the 23rd power. Simple arithmetic.
One has the legal right to use any name one wants, though there seem to be some restrictions; I think numbers aren't allowed.
You are incorrect about 25%; it's on average 12.5% because Murry and Glee did not inherit the same genes from their father.

eta: I seem to share the same nitpicking convulsion as those who have lots of Beach Boy facts at their fingertips. I don't consider any of this to really have anything to do with the question of the legitimacy of Mike Love using the name of the Beach Boys.

Emily - arithmetic that is simple for you mightn't be simple for me...

At any rate, on this youtube is the background of where The Beach Boys began...at Christmas...it is a pretty good background.

http://youtu.be/fbTpToOKyT4   at about 4:40 in part of a series of prism films.

Now, let's not get into the agenda of using "The BB name."  It muddies the waters.

[AndrewHickey]

Emily - Not so, they share 25% because they come from two sets of genes as do all first cousins. You are omitting Brian's mother and Mike's father whose DNA caused the two different newer family units (but Wilson commonality as between the two)   It is not about inheritance.  That 8 million give-or-take number seems to be on ancestry.com, as Wilsons of Scottish, English or Northern Irish lineage, not any math problem which I would not ever suggest.

This is about the right to use both names, that comes from each parent; the names that appear on your birth certificate.  A mother's name and a father's name.

Wilson is a common name.  It is on baseballs and tennis balls, and rackets, etc. from Wilson Sporting Goods. A president, Woodrow.  

The Beach Boys connotation relates the name to the entity.  They were known as an entity (and the "sound") before the inquiry as to whom the names of the members as individuals.  

The 8 million give or take number came from calculating 2 to the 23rd power. Simple arithmetic.
One has the legal right to use any name one wants, though there seem to be some restrictions; I think numbers aren't allowed.
You are incorrect about 25%; it's on average 12.5% because Murry and Glee did not inherit the same genes from their father.

eta: I seem to share the same nitpicking convulsion as those who have lots of Beach Boy facts at their fingertips. I don't consider any of this to really have anything to do with the question of the legitimacy of Mike Love using the name of the Beach Boys.

Indeed -- were you not doing such a good job of demonstrating the correct maths in this, I'd be having to do that too. It's a curse...

[Emily]

Emily - Not so, they share 25% because they come from two sets of genes as do all first cousins. You are omitting Brian's mother and Mike's father whose DNA caused the two different newer family units (but Wilson commonality as between the two)   It is not about inheritance.  That 8 million give-or-take number seems to be on ancestry.com, as Wilsons of Scottish, English or Northern Irish lineage, not any math problem which I would not ever suggest.

This is about the right to use both names, that comes from each parent; the names that appear on your birth certificate.  A mother's name and a father's name.

Wilson is a common name.  It is on baseballs and tennis balls, and rackets, etc. from Wilson Sporting Goods. A president, Woodrow.  

The Beach Boys connotation relates the name to the entity.  They were known as an entity (and the "sound") before the inquiry as to whom the names of the members as individuals.  

The 8 million give or take number came from calculating 2 to the 23rd power. Simple arithmetic.
One has the legal right to use any name one wants, though there seem to be some restrictions; I think numbers aren't allowed.
You are incorrect about 25%; it's on average 12.5% because Murry and Glee did not inherit the same genes from their father.

eta: I seem to share the same nitpicking convulsion as those who have lots of Beach Boy facts at their fingertips. I don't consider any of this to really have anything to do with the question of the legitimacy of Mike Love using the name of the Beach Boys.

Emily - arithmetic that is simple for you mightn't be simple for me...

At any rate, on this youtube is the background of where The Beach Boys began...at Christmas...it is a pretty good background.

http://youtu.be/fbTpToOKyT4   at about 4:40 in part of a series of prism films.

Now, let's not get into the agenda of using "The BB name."  It muddies the waters.

yeah, I'm totally not into getting into a spat about the BB name. It is what it is.
Thanks for the link!

[filledeplage]

I think the people saying "it's not the Beach Boys with no Wilsons" aren't talking genetically. They simply mean that for them, the band without its principal songwriter, its lead guitarist/best singer, and its drummer and second-best songwriter is not the same band.
It's a reasonable point. A strong majority of what I love about the Beach Boys comes from one or more of the Wilson brothers. I wouldn't want to minimise the contributions of Mike, Al, Bruce, Blondie, and Ricky, all of whom have done things I love, but they're not *why I love* the band.
I'm actually a fairly massive fan of the current touring band , who have done several of the best gigs I've ever seen in my life, and who are all extraordinarily good vocalists and musicians. But even I am slightly in two minds about their use of the name -- they're clearly *not* the same band.

Andrew - it is hard to argue that The Touring Band did not "evolve" from the original line up.  The prism series I linked below talks about how The Beach Boys began at Christmas when both families (with common ancestors) sang together.  They will always be missing the voice of the Great Carl and the fire of the Great Dennis.  The very saddest concert I ever saw was when Carl was on his personally literal Farewell Tour in 1997. 

And I thought that C50 was a near "spiritual experience."  Who knows if they will re-unite, but if I have learned anything in my years as a fan is that "when you least expect it you will get a great surprise." In the meantime, I just see them all and go with the flow. 

Meros was a great musician with the band; it is a good thing that we get an annual reminder.  No one wants their contributions to be forgotten.   

[HeyJude]

The backing band has continually evolved and continues to. I don’t think core-Beach Boys and their comings and goings have often directly impacted the makeup of the backing band, with a few exceptions. When Carl left in 1981, they moved Ed Carter over to guitar and thus needed a bass player. They added Ernie Knapp and then also ended up hiring Adrian Baker as well, I’d say more for vocals than guitar. When Carl returned in 1982, Knapp was immediately gone and Baker soon after (certainly less needed since Foskett had joined).

“In Concert” by Rusten and Stebbins also mentions the circa 1977 timeframe when multiple backing members were allegedly let go because they weren’t on the TM bandwagon. Ironically, some of the guys that disappeared in 1978 (Figueroa and Hinshce) were back within a few years.

Separately, it appears backing band members have had, not surprisingly, a variety of types of exits from the band. Some more ceremonious than others. Foskett himself gave an interview in the late 90s describing his 1990 exit from the band. That certainly was not the “cleanest” exit.

Adrian Baker ended up posting some things online that indicated his departure from the touring band in the 2000s (2004?) was not on good terms.

I recall reading some stories about the exit of Mike Meros that kind of made it sound as though Meros wasn’t treated so well upon his exit either.

There’s even the story of one of the former backing guys who ended up playing with Al’s “Family & Friends” running into Mike Love and giving him a verbal lashing for making it harder for the guys in Al’s band to just make a living.

I also haven’t heard anything to suggest Randell Kirsche’s exit earlier this year from the band was his choice.

Does anyone know about the departure of Hinsche and Carter? Again, I don’t think they both just chose to retire at the same time, and indeed they both popped up with Al in 1998/1999 (and Carter even played the Farm Aid gig with Brian and Joe Thomas in 1998).  

It’s the way things go, and it has been for decades with the backing band. It appears some backing band guys probably needed to be booted either due to behavior or for musical reasons (e.g. Kowalski’s drumming), and in some cases some backing band guys kinda got the shaft. Sounds like just about every area of industry/business/work.

Back to the issue of how the band’s makeup relates to Carl’s exit, I’d say the band did take a nosedive post-Carl, having as much to do with losing Al and Matt Jardine in addition to Carl obviously. As Howie Edelson once put it, I would agree that Scott Totten probably saved Mike’s reputation (in a live musical sense) more than anyone else.

As has been discussed in some “setlist” threads and discussions, it’s just a totally different climate than it was in the 90s with Carl. It’s just much easier for ANY of the BB touring bands to do more rare stuff, and that has probably helped to attract excellent, nerdy (in the best way) musicians that, no offense, are a bit more specialized than some of the “Papa Doo Run Run” type of guys that have floated around the BB orb for eons.

[AndrewHickey]

Back to the issue of how the band’s makeup relates to Carl’s exit, I’d say the band did take a nosedive post-Carl, having as much to do with losing Al and Matt Jardine in addition to Carl obviously. As Howie Edelson once put it, I would agree that Scott Totten probably saved Mike’s reputation (in a live musical sense) more than anyone else.

Yeah. I think everyone would agree that the band immediately post-Carl was the worst they've ever sounded live. I think they were *starting* to get better even before Scott took over as musical director -- the 2004 UK tour, when Kirsch replaced Baker, was worlds ahead of the shows I saw in 2001 and 2002 -- and I think a lot of that came from Cowsill's stage presence. But Scott has been an absolute godsend to Mike as musical director, and the band as a whole now are (other than the best-of-both-worlds reunion lineup) probably the best set of musicians ever to tour under the Beach Boys' name.

[surf patrol]

 

[Andrew G. Doe]

Let's face it, Jim... you're not exactly a disinterested observer, are you ?