Another S**t stirring article in The Independent today !

[Wirestone]

I do think it's simply a question of what we value. We're ardent fans, so the big band, diverse setlist shows are things we think are inherently worthwhile. Mike likes to play quickly and easily, do a lot of shows, and not be encumbered by a lot of hand-holding of various parties. These are entirely justifiable positions, but they are quite separate concerns from the artier ones that a lot of fans hold.

Mike, going into this, certainly did not intend to give up the way he spends most of his time -- touring with Bruce and their small band. So even if he sympathizes with the artistic concerns (and I'm sure he can comprehend them, if not necessarily agree with them), they're not going to retool how he lives his life and spends his career. He's already decided that, for better or worse. Brian and Al have accepted lives of sporadic touring and a lot of time at home. Mike has never accepted that, and I'm sure he sees this new action as an attempt to make him semi-retire. Not going to happen.

As for the challenges of working with the BW org, I'm sure there's truth to that as well. But you can't separate Brian from his hangers-on. They are part of the package, and how he manipulates situations for his own ends. Brian orchestrated the reunion, and clearly sees himself as Mike's equal (or superior) in the band's balance of power. That must unsettle Mike a bit, especially as Brian is a tad less easily manipulated these days.

After Mike's statement they proclaimed this, right? Mike's statement was before they expressed these desires to continue on the non-reunion tour and started linking to petitions and such and was accurate and according to the wishes the others had approved at the time the statement was given. Is that right?

Yes, of course. The statements from Al and Brian and the petitions were in direct response to Mike's press release. That's a main crux of this whole debacle, that the others didn't know of Mike's decision or plans, or at least the degree to which he would carry on his own band and not do reunion shows.

Well the fan reaction and the Boys reactions make no sense. So Mike is doing only what was agreed. They set the rules, Mike states their rules, their rules apply, but some how Mike is wrong because he said what they agreed to. So where since the Boys have expressed their disregard for their own rules has Mike said that more reunion shows are off the table, or anything that justifies the fan/Boys reactions and that petition?

They aren't rules. They are simply agreements. Some parties wanted the agreements changed, and their feelings were hurt when others refuse to do so. That's how human beings work. Humans aren't contract-robots. We have feelings, and what those feelings are evolve over time.

[HeyJude]

As a fan, I'm obvious biased towards the feelings and decisions of band members that result in more amazing reunion shows. Mike is placing his interests first, presumably. So are all the others. Their interest is in working together as a full group and doing more shows. Mike's interest is in making more money and having more control and less headaches. Makes sense for him, but he is going to be characterized thusly by fans. Of course it's not literally as simple as Mike placing money over everything else, but that certainly *appears* to be part of what's going on if the possible reasons for him not wanting more reunion shows right now that we've discussed are accurate.

Regardless of the money issue...you don't think the "headaches" as you put it aren't valid enough?  Dealing with the added stress of more people/crew and then most of all the Brian management team--isn't something one would feel sympathetic for, regardless of your biases as a fan?  That issue alone is bigger than the "money" issue, to me.

That's a tough question, and one we of course can't speak to for certain. I would lean towards what may well be a slightly less sympathetic position that they all did it in 2012, and are still touring comfortably (by industry standards) and making plenty of money, so it could be done again in 2013, and/or could have been done on a slightly extended schedule in 2012 and/or 2013.

The BB's don't owe us anything, let me make that clear. That's a debate that has raged in every fan community I've been a part of.

I believe it's a tough question for many to answer because no one simply wants to answer it.  Can't we all simply admit that it may possibly not be ALL about the money but rather it's Mike's resistance to deal with Brian/management and their issues?  Only Mike can answer that but knowing what we know about Brian, how he works and how much his band (and Jeff) have to support him, working with Brian is a HUGE package deal.  It's not just Brian you're getting.  It's Brian plus about 20 additional people (that includes Melinda, of course).  Mike played nice and worked around them for this special anniversary.  At this point, Mike hasn't shared when or how he'd work with them again.

I find it very convenient that we've all now just turned a blind eye to Brian and his issues, and we have "no idea" why Mike has hesitations about working with Brian again.

All likely possibilities. But a project like that is inherently a compromise, so I lean towards seeing Mike being hesitant about doing this sort of thing again, and others being more enthusiastic about it, as Mike being less willing to compromise. Mike apparently had this production company with Brian and Joe Thomas to do this tour, and we've also heard pretty much everybody say that Mike was the "gatekeeper" of the setlist, and had one of "his" guys as co-musical director, so I think he still appeared to yield a good amount of control on this reunion. Just because it was less than his autonomous, solo "Beach Boys" operation, doesn't mean he's being extremely put out by making it a compromise situation.

[SMiLE Brian]

I'm glad Brian has his confidence back and is willing to deal as Mike's equal in the BBs.

[HeyJude]

After Mike's statement they proclaimed this, right? Mike's statement was before they expressed these desires to continue on the non-reunion tour and started linking to petitions and such and was accurate and according to the wishes the others had approved at the time the statement was given. Is that right?

Yes, of course. The statements from Al and Brian and the petitions were in direct response to Mike's press release. That's a main crux of this whole debacle, that the others didn't know of Mike's decision or plans, or at least the degree to which he would carry on his own band and not do reunion shows.

Well the fan reaction and the Boys reactions make no sense. So Mike is doing only what was agreed. They set the rules, Mike states their rules, their rules apply, but some how Mike is wrong because he said what they agreed to. So where since the Boys have expressed their disregard for their own rules has Mike said that more reunion shows are off the table, or anything that justifies the fan/Boys reactions and that petition?

Um, yeah, I guess this may just boil down to whether one likes the idea of "sticking to the agreement" more than some of the band changing their minds and doing more reunion gigs. I vote for the latter, and Mike's statement/decision is the former apparently. That's why we're getting this reaction. It makes sense if you like the idea of more reunion shows.

[Cam Mott]

Mike's statement is based on all there was when he gave the statement: the agreement of the Boys. You are holding Mike accountable to a choice that is not made with the statement, is not address in the statement because it was not on the table from the Boys at the time of the statement, and hasn't been expressed by Mike.

[HeyJude]

Mike's statement is based on all there was when he gave the statement: the agreement of the Boys. You are holding Mike accountable to a choice that is not made with the statement, is not address in the statement because it was not on the table from the Boys at the time of the statement, and hasn't been expressed by Mike.

If offers for additional shows were made, then there may have been an offer "on the table" at some point.

[Wirestone]

Mike's statement is based on all there was when he gave the statement: the agreement of the Boys. You are holding Mike accountable to a choice that is not made with the statement, is not address in the statement because it was not on the table from the Boys at the time of the statement, and hasn't been expressed by Mike.

This isn't a logic problem. It's about human feelings and desires. They change. They are hedged. Sometimes they are hidden.

Yeah, it sucks that people aren't all automatons or easy to read. But that's the way it is.

Just because someone knows he's good looking and smarter than most people doesn't mean he runs around telling everyone about it at the top of his lungs, in the bluntest possible fashion. It may be true, he may have the right to do it, but it surely proves annoying to most folks after awhile.

[Cam Mott]

Mike's statement is based on all there was when he gave the statement: the agreement of the Boys. You are holding Mike accountable to a choice that is not made with the statement, is not address in the statement because it was not on the table from the Boys at the time of the statement, and hasn't been expressed by Mike.

If offers for additional shows were made, then there may have been an offer "on the table" at some point.

The offer from the Boys about doing more shows then they agreed to was not on the table until after the statement, it hadn't been publically proclaimed. It would have been pretty presumptious of Mike to release a statement about continuing the reunion before the Boys had agreed to it.

[BB Universe]

All these points are very good and lend a good perspective to the dynamics that could be going on.
Here's a further scenario for consideration: The scheduled concerts by M&B are at venues that financially can't support the reunion group; being scheduled the reunion group can't take on more concerts because of conflicting dates etc.; Brian et. al. don't want to do a lot of dates going forward in 2013 but M&B do; its difficult (impossible?) to have some concerts as M&B and others as the entire outfit - that's a PR nightmare.
There really is no easy answer to the situation given everyone's perceived preferences, the financial implications; and otherwise. No one is right and no one is wrong.

[Doo Dah]

To comment on Justin's observation about respecting Mike's feelings, I can only speak for myself - the clock is ticking. Let him continue on his way and perform some quick and dirty little shows at the Poughkeepsie community theater, but come January I'll be very interested to see what happens next.

If, and it's a very big if, Mike's appreciation of a down-scaled hit machine is the norm, then he's fully deserving of the scorn and ridicule of the fan base. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Spock said that, and I agree. Till then, let him play his dinky shows and let Bruce get the crowd up on their feet.

[Nicko1234]

Yes, of course. The statements from Al and Brian and the petitions were in direct response to Mike's press release. That's a main crux of this whole debacle, that the others didn't know of Mike's decision or plans, or at least the degree to which he would carry on his own band and not do reunion shows.

That`s something that I can`t believe for a second. Members of this board have known about the gigs coming up for months, Bruce has said in interviews for ages that the reunion tour has a definite end date by which time they have to be finished, Brian I think was asked about M&B South American shows a while back. Are we seriously suggesting that Brian and Al, two members of BRI, were unaware of this and that all of their managers/associates were also ignorant. They knew.

The reason it came to a head when the press release was issued is because then the band members were asked what their opinions were. Naturally they said that they wanted the reunion to continue.

[Nicko1234]

All these points are very good and lend a good perspective to the dynamics that could be going on.
Here's a further scenario for consideration: The scheduled concerts by M&B are at venues that financially can't support the reunion group; being scheduled the reunion group can't take on more concerts because of conflicting dates etc.; Brian et. al. don't want to do a lot of dates going forward in 2013 but M&B do; its difficult (impossible?) to have some concerts as M&B and others as the entire outfit - that's a PR nightmare.
There really is no easy answer to the situation given everyone's perceived preferences, the financial implications; and otherwise. No one is right and no one is wrong.

Agreed. Great post.

[adamghost]

You know what's kind of a shock to me...that they didn't have an end game for this whole thing.  Or perhaps, given what is sometimes implied about lines of communication in the band, I shouldn't be.  But it just seems like something that should have been discussed and gamed out and some kind of unified statement put out there that had a nod to everyone's desires (including the fans') but made a clear statement about what was going to happen next.

I can certainly imagine a few (very plausible, though I have no inside knowledge) scenarios why that didn't happen.  But I guess it's just surprising, becuase that's what bands on that level supposedly do.  Have a business meeting, figure out the plan, let tempers be heard, reach a decision, and the publicist sorts it out.  Seems like things just moved along parallel lines and (pure speculation here) Mike wanted to get out in front of an evolving situation that he might not be able to control and (not for the first time) made himself look bad in the process.

Given the different people and centers of power involved, it's amazing it held together as long as it has.  There's something poetic in a way about it having this kind of period on it, even though there's a bitter aftertaste to it.  It was a really impressive achievement.

[Dave Modny]

You know what's kind of a shock to me...that they didn't have an end game for this whole thing.  Or perhaps, given what is sometimes implied about lines of communication in the band, I shouldn't be.  But it just seems like something that should have been discussed and gamed out and some kind of unified statement put out there that had a nod to everyone's desires (including the fans') but made a clear statement about what was going to happen next.

I can certainly imagine a few (very plausible, though I have no inside knowledge) scenarios why that didn't happen.  But I guess it's just surprising, becuase that's what bands on that level supposedly do.  Have a business meeting, figure out the plan, let tempers be heard, reach a decision, and the publicist sorts it out.  Seems like things just moved along parallel lines and (pure speculation here) Mike wanted to get out in front of an evolving situation that he might not be able to control and (not for the first time) made himself look bad in the process.

Given the different people and centers of power involved, it's amazing it held together as long as it has.  There's something poetic in a way about it having this kind of period on it, even though there's a bitter aftertaste to it.  It was a really impressive achievement.

Indeed. Definitely a few possible scenarios, and some that may have been more complicated than meets the eye.


I'll throw a [potentially worthless] possibility out there...and my apologies if any of this has already been more succinctly stated:


That is, even though the tour may have originally been agreed upon by all parties as a finite plan with a definite end game, and possibly agreed upon by a certain member *only* with those conditions firmly in place (ML), I can't help but wonder if another certain member went into this whole shebang hoping and wishing he could change that game plan all along, despite what he may have openly agreed to (AJ). All the while hoping that, yet, another (obviously key and fragile) member might find out he didn't want the tour to be so finite after all, and once he found himself actually enjoying everything again (BW). In return, giving member number two the leverage he hoped for all along to change the ultimate outcome (AJ again). Hence, the maneuvering and power plays we're seeing right now in order to reconcile all these agendas, and the resulting disarray that has occurred. In a nutshell, the end game might only be muddled because some members' motives or intents with the tour reunion may not have been perfectly "pure" or definite to begin with, while another's may have been as clear as a bell.


Thus, I'm not sure that any initial communication may have prevented or resolved this with so many fuzzy variables in play. Though, at the same time, I do have to wonder what kind of verbal evolution might have occurred, if any, while the tour was taking place? As Al hinted in the RS interview, communication and camaraderie weren't exactly what he had hoped for at that point.


(**The above scenario -- pure speculation on my part of course**)


Look, it's no secret that Al has wanted to get the "real" Beach Boys back together for some time. At one point he called it his dream. Can any fan blame him? He's also the one major player with probably the most to win or lose at this point (And I say this with the utmost respect for Al. He's unquestionably my favorite vocalist on that current BBs stage, and he got to sing what is, arguably, the band's first masterpiece-of-a-track in decades. Maybe their last.). When he joined up with Brian's tour on his own dime, I'd reckon it wasn't just to exchange pleasantries -- musical or otherwise. I'd also reckon that Al realizes how difficult it might be to put it all back together, again, if everyone parts ways at this point. Especially in the always complicated world that involves Brian. Thus, I'm not really surprised at what's happening right now. I'm also not surprised that Brian would be the wild card in all of this, or that Mike would be the one with his own unwavering plan. I also think early 2013 will probably be the tipping point where we see whether everything can truly be reconciled. Once those upcoming dates are satisfied by Mike and Bruce (and we also see whether those dates or personal relationships suffered any fallout from what's currently happening), I think we'll know where everyone's true motives and future intentions lie. At that point, there will be no place to hide in this card game. Let's just hope that a certain fragile, and noted wild card member is still interested in playing along. Without him, all this is academic.


Personally...I wouldn't mind more new music. I'll always want more new music from the unit as a complete whole. Though, if it doesn't happen, I really can't complain in light of what we got this year. For me, "Summer's Gone" would be the perfect capper to an amazing musical story.

[relx]

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.  

[Dave Modny]

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.  

Some interesting perspective there. Welcome.

The cynic in me might say that, right or wrong, Mike knew all along that booking dates *immediately* after this tour ended would be his best chance to "ride the wave" or snag a few more flies...so to speak. Unfortunately, as you stated, he may not have realized the backlash that would outweigh any possible financial uptick. More importantly, and considering those dates that were already canceled by the promoter in the summer after finding out it wasn't the real deal, I'm not sure he's completely out of the woods yet with these upcoming shows. Press releases can only do so much. The court of public opinion may indeed have their own opinion after the viral stuff.


(All speculation on my part, again, of course)

[drbeachboy]

Please remember that these Mike & Bruce shows were originally scheduled before the reunion dates and originally to start well over a month after the original reunion ending date. The UK shows were added much later in the tour.

[Sheriff John Stone]

Indeed. Definitely a few possible scenarios, and some that may have been more complicated than meets the eye.


I'll throw a [potentially worthless] possibility out there...and my apologies if any of this has already been more succinctly stated:


That is, even though the tour may have originally been agreed upon by all parties as a finite plan with a definite end game, and possibly agreed upon by a certain member *only* with those conditions firmly in place (ML), I can't help but wonder if another certain member went into this whole shebang hoping and wishing he could change that game plan all along, despite what he may have openly agreed to (AJ). All the while hoping that, yet, another (obviously key and fragile) member might find out he didn't want the tour to be so finite after all, and once he found himself actually enjoying everything again (BW). In return, giving member number two the leverage he hoped for all along to change the ultimate outcome (AJ again). Hence, the maneuvering and power plays we're seeing right now in order to reconcile all these agendas, and the resulting disarray that has occurred. In a nutshell, the end game might only be muddled because some members' motives or intents with the tour reunion may not have been perfectly "pure" or definite to begin with, while another's may have been as clear as a bell.


Thus, I'm not sure that any initial communication may have prevented or resolved this with so many fuzzy variables in play. Though, at the same time, I do have to wonder what kind of verbal evolution might have occurred, if any, while the tour was taking place? As Al hinted in the RS interview, communication and camaraderie weren't exactly what he had hoped for at that point.


(**The above scenario -- pure speculation on my part of course**)


Look, it's no secret that Al has wanted to get the "real" Beach Boys back together for some time. At one point he called it his dream. Can any fan blame him? He's also the one major player with probably the most to win or lose at this point (And I say this with the utmost respect for Al. He's unquestionably my favorite vocalist on that current BBs stage, and he got to sing what is, arguably, the band's first masterpiece-of-a-track in decades. Maybe their last.). When he joined up with Brian's tour on his own dime, I'd reckon it wasn't just to exchange pleasantries -- musical or otherwise. I'd also reckon that Al realizes how difficult it might be to put it all back together, again, if everyone parts ways at this point. Especially in the always complicated world that involves Brian. Thus, I'm not really surprised at what's happening right now. I'm also not surprised that Brian would be the wild card in all of this, or that Mike would be the one with his own unwavering plan. I also think early 2013 will probably be the tipping point where we see whether everything can truly be reconciled. Once those upcoming dates are satisfied by Mike and Bruce (and we also see whether those dates or personal relationships suffered any fallout from what's currently happening), I think we'll know where everyone's true motives and future intentions lie. At that point, there will be no place to hide in this card game. Let's just hope that a certain fragile, and noted wild card member is still interested in playing along. Without him, all this is academic.


Personally...I wouldn't mind more new music. I'll always want more new music from the unit as a complete whole. Though, if it doesn't happen, I really can't complain in light of what we got this year. For me, "Summer's Gone" would be the perfect capper to an amazing musical story.

Post of the century! Great writing, Dave.

I just wanted to add that it was Al, more than any of the guys, who in interviews made it a point to say that he/they were making SACRIFICES in leaving their other bands and careers to reunite. Whenever he would say this, I would immediately say to myself, "Yeah, right, Al..." By no means do I hate or even dislike Al; I like ALL of The Beach Boys. But, to me, Al has very little credibility. For years, I wondered why Mike was dismissing Al, considering they were once very close. I even asked the question(s) on this board when threads concerning the Summer In Paradise sessions (without Al) and Al's subsequent dismissal from the touring band came up. Very few direct, factual answers were given, just speculation. I don't have to ask the questions anymore.

[Sheriff John Stone]

Please remember that these Mike & Bruce shows were originally scheduled before the reunion dates and originally to start well over a month after the original reunion ending date. The UK shows were added much later in the tour.

Exactly, and that's an important point, maybe THE point. And, somebody (I think it was Nicko1234) made the point awhile back.

People are finding yet another reason to criticize Mike by saying, "I can't believe how SOON Mike and Bruce are going out after the last reunion gig..." But, originally it wasn't that way. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the reunion tour EXTENDED by a month and a half to two months? (As an aside, obviously Mike agreed to those extra dates). If they didn't extend the reunion tour, Mike & Bruce would've waited about two months before resuming touring, and as somebody else pointed out awhile back, things would've died down and it wouldn't "looked" as bad, as if Mike & Bruce couldn't wait to get out there again.

Did I mention that Mike must've agreed to the extra/extended reuinion dates?

[relx]

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

[drbeachboy]

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

Yes, and it looks to be a benefit show in San Diego.

[the professor]

we need answers, after our 10 days of acute and often generous speculation and rationalization.

Are these Bruce and Mike shows mainly contractual and not indicative of the band's ending. Is the next album scheduled to start production; will they support the next single with full band appearances; will a"we are no longer saturating the market and are ready to be out there" tour occur with all the members. . . . .

answers answers answers. . . .

[HeyJude]

Please remember that these Mike & Bruce shows were originally scheduled before the reunion dates and originally to start well over a month after the original reunion ending date. The UK shows were added much later in the tour.

Exactly, and that's an important point, maybe THE point. And, somebody (I think it was Nicko1234) made the point awhile back.

People are finding yet another reason to criticize Mike by saying, "I can't believe how SOON Mike and Bruce are going out after the last reunion gig..." But, originally it wasn't that way. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the reunion tour EXTENDED by a month and a half to two months? (As an aside, obviously Mike agreed to those extra dates). If they didn't extend the reunion tour, Mike & Bruce would've waited about two months before resuming touring, and as somebody else pointed out awhile back, things would've died down and it wouldn't "looked" as bad, as if Mike & Bruce couldn't wait to get out there again.

Did I mention that Mike must've agreed to the extra/extended reuinion dates?

I think the timeframe during which these October shows were booked only matter in terms of talking about how the timing of that press release seemed bad in PR terms. Doing those gigs so soon after the reunion gigs just looks bad. I'm less concerned with when those shows are taking place, and more concerned with booking those and likely more shows being an indicator of not particularly even entertaining the idea of more reunion shows.

I refer back to one of my old questions, which is why did he have to book October gigs at all? That was totally by choice. Why not just go take a break until the new year? The answer may well be all the standbys, "He's a road warrior, that's what he does", or "He wants to generate more revenue", etc. Those are all reasons that make sense for Mike, no question. But he is then going to be painted in a negative light accordingly if he needed so desperately to do more gigs.

The fact that they didn't at least have one part of the game plan for this reunion set up, which was to perhaps institute some sort of "no non-reunion shows in 2012 to avoid confusion and bad PR" does speak to adamghost's point that even as dysfunctional as the BB's can apparently be, it's surprising they didn't have a little bit more set in stone.

[HeyJude]

Please remember that these Mike & Bruce shows were originally scheduled before the reunion dates and originally to start well over a month after the original reunion ending date. The UK shows were added much later in the tour.

Do we really know that any or all of these October  tour dates were scheduled before the reunion dates? Were the scheduled before the reunion tour began, or scheduled before the reunion shows were even schedules? I don't think we know, and I think there is some circumstantial evidence that, at the very least, these October dates could have been cancelled, rescheduled, or postponed if they were indeed booked a long time ago.

I think it's quite possible that post-reunion shows were still being booked or firmed up after the reunion tour was scheduled and perhaps had begun.

I also don't understand why it matters much that these October dates were some sort of "prior committment." First of all, I'm no 100% convinced that is absolutely the case. But even if it is, we've seen evidence that they are going to book and play more Mike/Bruce shows. The press release states that more shows with this lineup will be announced. I think Mike's ultimate intentions for the immediate aftermath of the reunion tour never changed, either before, during, or after any stage of the reunion. That's totally his decision, but again it will paint him in a negative light with some fans because it may indicate less flexibility in keeping a reunion going sooner rather than later.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

I think we need to follow Adam's lead here and just sit back for a moment and marvel at what an amazing accomplishment this tour has really been!! I remember back when I bought my Irvine tickets, I honestly felt in the pit of my stomach that the tour would likely implode before they even got to Irvine. Or, at the very  least, Brian would have quit and been back at home in bed. We're talking about a very complicated family/old friends situation here that just also happens to be a corporation employing various configurations of people. I don't think anyone here (other than OSD who was already 40 when Surfin Safari was released) is 70 + or still in the same band with their high school friends. We can only imagine what such relationships will be like at that juncture. I say we just relax and see what happens in June or beyond. No need to be concerned with Mike and Historical touring non-stop in the meantime. They could be playing the local old-folks Bingo hall down the street from me tonight, and I would likely not even have a clue. If/when the "real" beach Boys come back, we will all be in the loop.