Is anybody going to one of the Mike&Bruce gigs?

[HeyJude]

My comment in this particular point was purely to express how shocked I am that a fan would actively advocate for no further reunion shows. I understand that everybody has their own opinion, etc. I'm just super surprised specifically that someone would actively advocate for that.

Well, here's another one who doesn't want another reunion tour. For me it's over. They had a big finale and I don't think they can top it. That's what I've been saying for quite a while now (regarding new album and/or tour): if they can't top the recent one they shouldn't do it.

I appreciate the clarify with which your opinion is made. I just don't share it, and it boggles my mind especially if someone really liked this reunion tour, why they wouldn't want to see it continue, at least for a while. "TWGMTR" is a good album, but far from their greatest, and this tour has been amazing but not neccesarily the clear candidate for their best tour ever, so they already aren't literally doing the best work they've ever done. They're just doing really, really well. Extended it for a bit is something I can't fathom being against.

That's not even addressing the possibility that another album and tour could actually be better in some way.

[BB Universe]

(1) To answer the question posed; yes, I will go see M&B if they appear near my way in the future. We have done so before and will again. And, we'll see Brian and his band and also Al and his outfit (though they hardly ever appear in the east coast (or at least less than major MSA's). Agreeing with what AGD said earlier, I rather like the music!

(2) This whole debate really hinges on 1 underlying thing: many other major acts go on a tour for a period of time and then the tour ends - in some instances the individuals then tour as solo performers until a future time when they regroup and tour again: the difference here is simply that this group (ie the members) has licensed out the right to use the name - it really isn't anything more than that. If M&B went out as anything other than The Beach Boys there probably would be no issue; its just that ML has the right (granted by BRI) to use the name and he is doing so. That some of the others would like to continue past this point in time was not part of the reunion arrangement as it seems from the posts related to this issue. 

(3) One thought about the M&B shows over the years and that is they have appeared in some smaller locales than just the "big cities" and that has allowed many fans to see the shows and hear the music that might not otherwise have been able to do so. Brian did so too, but on a lesser scale.

[SurfRiderHawaii]

And I'd love to see David, Brian and Al go out and do the same.  If not, get their own license and tour as the Beach Boys.

That wouldn't be the Beach Boys either

No, obviously.  I didn't say that. But three original members vs one.  The best voice - Al. And as Dennis supposedly said, "Brian Wilson IS the Beach Boys".

In any case you can't seriously defend the Mike/Bruce show as "The Beach Boys".  They shouldn't be billed that way any more, in my opinion.
Be interesting to see if anything happens with the license.

[Aegir]

David being an "original member" is just a coincidence at this point, really. Most of the songs the band plays live, he didn't play on. And the ones he did play on, he often doesn't play his guitar part, but Carl's. I don't see how that makes him more legitimate than Bruce.

[Justin]

3) his not wanting to deal with BW and his organization.

Could you elaborate on this one? I know about Brian wanting to add a song (or two, which Mike agreed to, and they went over well) but I'm not aware of other issues.

I'm borrowing a little from Mike's canned response from years passed whenever asked about a reunion he would always blame Brian's agents/management for being so difficult.  He never went into specifics but it was something that lingered in my head.  Couple that with our knowledge regarding just how much Brian relies on his support group (band members, wife and management), we can assume that these were the very issues that Mike had to face head on during the tour.  I mentioned in another thread that Brian is part of a package deal.  You're not just getting Brian but you're getting Brian, Melinda, managers and also Jeff Foskett.  You're not really accommodating just Brian...you're accommodating all those other people whose role is to ensure Brian is presented in a favorable light.  That's a bit more work for someone like Mike who's in control of the setlist and also sharing the stage with another lead vocalist.  Whether or not these issues actually exist, we can safely agree that Mike has absolutely nobody to answer to when he tours with his own group.  That in itself, I believe, is cause for Mike to hold off on anymore shows with Brian and the rest of the group.

[SMiLE Brian]

David being an "original member" is just a coincidence at this point, really. Most of the songs the band plays live, he didn't play on. And the ones he did play on, he often doesn't play his guitar part, but Carl's. I don't see how that makes him more legitimate than Bruce.

David isn't a hired gun like Bruce was. David grew up with the band in Hawthorne.

[Sheriff John Stone]

3) his not wanting to deal with BW and his organization.

Could you elaborate on this one? I know about Brian wanting to add a song (or two, which Mike agreed to, and they went over well) but I'm not aware of other issues.

I'm borrowing a little from Mike's canned response from years passed whenever asked about a reunion he would always blame Brian's agents/management for being so difficult.  He never went into specifics but it was something that lingered in my head.  Couple that with our knowledge regarding just how much Brian relies on his support group (band members, wife and management), we can assume that these were the very issues that Mike had to face head on during the tour.  I mentioned in another thread that Brian is part of a package deal.  You're not just getting Brian but you're getting Brian, Melinda, managers and also Jeff Foskett.  You're not really accommodating just Brian...you're accommodating all those other people whose role is to ensure Brian is presented in a favorable light.  That's a bit more work for someone like Mike who's in control of the setlist and also sharing the stage with another lead vocalist.  Whether or not these issues actually exist, we can safely agree that Mike has absolutely nobody to answer to when he tours with his own group.  That in itself, I believe, is cause for Mike to hold off on anymore shows with Brian and the rest of the group.

Total speculation on my part, and I'm basing it on attending one V.I.P. Package concert, numerous articles/interviews, TV appearances, and the odd YouTube videos, but I did not view any displeasure with Jeff Foskett on Mike's part. Also, I was looking for possible interference from Melinda - but didn't notice any. I did note with interest her hanging out with Mike's wife frequently(?).

I'm only bringing up this subject because I was wondering how Brian could be a factor in Mike NOT wanting to continue the reunion, when, frankly, as far as Mike WANTING to be associated with Brian - IN ANY MANNER - I feel exactly the opposite of your view.

[Justin]

David being an "original member" is just a coincidence at this point, really. Most of the songs the band plays live, he didn't play on. And the ones he did play on, he often doesn't play his guitar part, but Carl's. I don't see how that makes him more legitimate than Bruce.

David isn't a hired gun like Bruce was. David grew up with the band in Hawthorne.

I've NEVER understood the whole "Bruce isn't a Beach Boy" thing.  He's been with the band since freakin' 1965...only 4 years after the group was actually formed.  Not an official member?  What the hell?  Stones don't fans don't write off Ronnie Wood for joining the band thirteen years after the group formed....I really don't get why Bruce is dissed so often.  He's on more BB albums than the ones he's not on.

[oldsurferdude]

And I'd love to see David, Brian and Al go out and do the same.  If not, get their own license and tour as the Beach Boys.

That wouldn't be the Beach Boys either

It would be a hell of a lot more genuine and legit than Myke Luhv and his butler-and a lot more successful in the studio and on the road.

[ontor pertawst]

I've NEVER understood the whole "Bruce isn't a Beach Boy" thing.  He's been with the band since freakin' 1965...only 4 years after the group was actually formed.  Not an official member?  What the hell?

That's more the band than the fans, isn't it? If they wanted him to be a full Beach Boy, they'd cut him in and give him a vote. What's hard to understand about that?

[Justin]

Total speculation on my part, and I'm basing it on attending one V.I.P. Package concert, numerous articles/interviews, TV appearances, and the odd YouTube videos, but I did not view any displeasure with Jeff Foskett on Mike's part. Also, I was looking for possible interference from Melinda - but didn't notice any. I did note with interest her hanging out with Mike's wife frequently(?).

I'm only bringing up this subject because I was wondering how Brian could be a factor in Mike NOT wanting to continue the reunion, when, frankly, as far as Mike WANTING to be associated with Brian - IN ANY MANNER - I feel exactly the opposite of your view.

Well, aside from the song choices being a point of compromise, we should also remember that it was mainly Brian's band who backed them up on this tour.  They are obviously the best band for the job but we also know that Brian needed to see his own guys up there to feel more at ease himself.  So yet again we have an example of Brian being a "package deal"...not only do you get Brian (plus Melinda, managers and the possible drama with all that) you also get his entire band to come along.  What follows is a significant domino effect:  bigger band --> bigger crew --> bigger costs.  And now we're dealing with Mike's issues about the costs of touring such a big show. 

With that said, I do believe Mike when he says he'd love to work with Brian again.  I don't doubt that.  But I do acknowledge that Brian can be a handful to deal with which is probably why Mike is cautious to make any further plans with Brian and the rest of the group.

[hypehat]

3) his not wanting to deal with BW and his organization.

Could you elaborate on this one? I know about Brian wanting to add a song (or two, which Mike agreed to, and they went over well) but I'm not aware of other issues.

I'm borrowing a little from Mike's canned response from years passed whenever asked about a reunion he would always blame Brian's agents/management for being so difficult.  He never went into specifics but it was something that lingered in my head.  Couple that with our knowledge regarding just how much Brian relies on his support group (band members, wife and management), we can assume that these were the very issues that Mike had to face head on during the tour.  I mentioned in another thread that Brian is part of a package deal.  You're not just getting Brian but you're getting Brian, Melinda, managers and also Jeff Foskett.  You're not really accommodating just Brian...you're accommodating all those other people whose role is to ensure Brian is presented in a favorable light.  That's a bit more work for someone like Mike who's in control of the setlist and also sharing the stage with another lead vocalist.  Whether or not these issues actually exist, we can safely agree that Mike has absolutely nobody to answer to when he tours with his own group.  That in itself, I believe, is cause for Mike to hold off on anymore shows with Brian and the rest of the group.

I'm not inclined to think of that as a wholly bad thing, seeing as Brian Wilson probably needs an entourage to make sure he takes his medication, help him about with his dodgy back and keep his nerves in check. And we know he loves his band. He's been touring with them for 13 years, has known them for longer (Jeff for much longer), and regularly collaborates and hangs out with them! Plus, they're f***ing amazing!

He's also quite canny, but IDK whether the band, Melinda, and everyone else is solely there as his PR, y'know? He's a pensioner with well-documented mental issues. And, if presenting BW in a favourable light = playing Our Prayer and Marcella, who's complaining?

I think the 'no-one to answer to' thing is key. Both Brian & Mike think that they own the band, I think - the prevailing thing that springs to mind is during the nineties, where Brian kept trying to regain control with songs, and in the studio (he never really stopped even after going solo according to what we know now). He finally got that on TWGMTR, although not without struggle. What's odd is that Mike's domain has always really been the stage - If Brian decided never to record with the group again, Mike wouldn't dare record under The Beach Boys' name (I wonder if the licence provisions ever got into THAT minefield) just as no-one ever suggested that Brian tour solely as The Beach Boys. But Brian's been walking on Mike's turf - suggesting songs that he's never played, that Mike might well like but sees as anathema due to their obscurity. After all, he's a businessman, and a born entertainer - he wants safe, cheap, repeatable thrills. Brian just goes 'let's play Marcella, I love that song, my band know it, GO' (if the Rolling Stone article is any indication), even though I don't think BW's band have played Marcella for years!

Maybe Brian and Melinda spend their spare moments plotting Mike's downfall by playing 'Summer's Gone', but I seriously doubt that. But I think the impression that presenting the spectrum of The Beach Boys music, from Kokomo down to CATP, is being perceived as a threat or a controversial move by certain parties is really quite sad.

It's weird. All Mike's ever wanted is to write with Brian again, sell records, do big shows. And now he's got that! And it's not good enough. He wants control of his band that he's been touring for the last 50 years whilst Brian's been doing god knows what.

Conversely, all Brian wants is his band back doing what he wants them to, like they should - I reckon Brian's always seen them as 'his' band, maybe abdicating it to Carl in more difficult times or the nineties, with Mike 'King of the Road'. But Brian always took care of the music, he was always called on for it even when he was 300lbs and inhaling cocaine in a bathrobe. I don't think calling it his band, and that him being in charge as a state of affairs is unreasonable, if only because when the band opposed him in the nineties we missed out on a new Beach Boys album full of Paley session songs (that would probably have saved the world) and a Pet Sounds symphonic tour, both with Carl Wilson. Terrible ideas.  

I'm just thinking out loud, as this whole business has been stewing in my head since Wembley - I'm not picking on you, Justin, if that's what you think!

[SMiLE Brian]

David being an "original member" is just a coincidence at this point, really. Most of the songs the band plays live, he didn't play on. And the ones he did play on, he often doesn't play his guitar part, but Carl's. I don't see how that makes him more legitimate than Bruce.

David isn't a hired gun like Bruce was. David grew up with the band in Hawthorne.

I've NEVER understood the whole "Bruce isn't a Beach Boy" thing.  He's been with the band since freakin' 1965...only 4 years after the group was actually formed.  Not an official member?  What the hell?  Stones don't fans don't write off Ronnie Wood for joining the band thirteen years after the group formed....I really don't get why Bruce is dissed so often.  He's on more BB albums than the ones he's not on.

I never said he was not a BBs, I said he was a hired gun to replace Brian in the touring band. Also, he was great in the studio with the group in 1965-1970 and wrote a couple great songs during his first stint in the group.  He has done very little with the group in studio or onstage since he has returned to the group. In short, he joined an established group, while David helped build the group from the ground up.

[Justin]

I've NEVER understood the whole "Bruce isn't a Beach Boy" thing.  He's been with the band since freakin' 1965...only 4 years after the group was actually formed.  Not an official member?  What the hell?

That's more the band than the fans, isn't it? If they wanted him to be a full Beach Boy, they'd cut him in and give him a vote. What's hard to understand about that?

Is David Marks cut in and given a vote?  

[ontor pertawst]

I don't understand what David Marks has to do with your question about Bruce not being considered a "real" Beach Boy, or mine that isn't it more the band and their management that decided that...

Was that supposed to be some devastating point that makes me go "oh! ya got me!" or something? Because obviously you know he doesn't have a vote and I have no clue what financial arrangements he made for the 2012 tour and album. I sure hope he did well out of it, he added a helluva lot and it made me very happy to see him up there!

[Howie Edelson]

Doesn't it suck that we're even having this conversation? This tour was unbelievable. Finally it was The Beach Boys. It was arguably the best they've been since '75. Brian's band with Totten and Cowsill -- this thing was an embarrassment of riches. Everybody was there nailing it. And it's over before it even began. It's heartbreaking is that it has to go back to what it was before April. Mike and Bruce's show is tight and professional, but Mike's voice is shot from never taking a break over the years and the show includes a FULL HOUR of someone else singing the tunes while Mike points at his temple and waves. Al's show has never gained enough traction to ever evolve past rehearsal/soundcheck levels, and Brian's gigs have devolved at times into "Weekend At Bernie's" territory. But somehow when they all get together -- and together with David, who's happy, healthy, and batting .1000 -- it amazingly all fits. The carry each other and reach incredible heights together. It was masterful.

The "timing" of the announcement is a moot point. I think a week into this tour everybody kinda looked at each other and thought, "Wow -- not only is this happening, but this is actually ART. This thing is what it was always SUPPOSED to be and always fell flat. It's not cheap, it's not lame." That this thing is running the risk of being a one-off is a sin. And I sincerely believe that despite a tour wrap set for England, the fact that this was the best live show running made everyone believe -- ESPECIALLY due to the fact that Mike Love has been pining to finally get Brian "back" for 15 years -- that this would be how it will play out (e.g. with panache and class and Brian Wilson for once wanting to be a Beach Boy.) Instead it's like a kid getting adopted by a rich family and being sent back to the orphanage after a year. Pointing out that that was always the plan doesn't mean anything in the grand scope of things. A choice was made and it was a poor choice. It was the wrong choice.

[Justin]

David being an "original member" is just a coincidence at this point, really. Most of the songs the band plays live, he didn't play on. And the ones he did play on, he often doesn't play his guitar part, but Carl's. I don't see how that makes him more legitimate than Bruce.

David isn't a hired gun like Bruce was. David grew up with the band in Hawthorne.

I've NEVER understood the whole "Bruce isn't a Beach Boy" thing.  He's been with the band since freakin' 1965...only 4 years after the group was actually formed.  Not an official member?  What the hell?  Stones don't fans don't write off Ronnie Wood for joining the band thirteen years after the group formed....I really don't get why Bruce is dissed so often.  He's on more BB albums than the ones he's not on.

I never said he was not a BBs, I said he was a hired gun to replace Brian in the touring band. Also, he was great in the studio with the group in 1965-1970 and wrote a couple great songs during his first stint in the group.  He has done very little with the group in studio or onstage since he has returned to the group. In short, he joined an established group, while David helped build the group from the ground up.

I'm sure we could go on endlessly about this issue and we'd still be in the same spot.  David may have been there to "build the group from the ground up" but by the time Bruce joined, the group had long passed the surf music and morphed into nearly a different band with a huge shift in their sound.  Bruce had come at a pivotal point in the Beach Boys career just as importantly as David was there to create the band in the beginning.  I don't see one member being "more" critical than the other.  The fact is, David was there to help create the band when they started and was in the band for about a year while Bruce joined during a crucial turning point for the band and has been there ever since.  I don't see how one is more "legitimate" than the other.  That is obviously just me.

[hypehat]

Howie, you are killing it lately. I agree 1000%

[ontor pertawst]

Pointing out that that was always the plan doesn't mean anything in the grand scope of things. A choice was made and it was a poor choice. It was the wrong choice.

Great post but this is the important thing, isn't it? It was the wrong choice. It actually worked. Why should we make excuses for greed and need for control in the face of such beauty and magic? It worked and Mike is making a big mistake going back to the way things were in the face of this (till now) amazing press and amidst a slew of wonderful performances.

Maybe he doesn't NEED to do 270 performances the next year, huh? His cousin who basically gave him his career with those amazing melodies, has more up his sleeve and wants to continue the work they started. And he's picking casinos and his lean n' mean operation instead? And we're supposed to applaud that because of the aggravation of dealing with Brian's wife and his spectacular band? He still got to control the setlists and I'm sure made a decent profit. He built up so much goodwill this past year that a couple penny ante gigs flushed down the toilet. He says he wants to write more songs with Brian, when exactly? In between gigs in Waco?

it's a g*ddamn shame, Mike Love!

[Justin]

I don't understand what David Marks has to do with your question about Bruce not being considered a "real" Beach Boy, or mine that isn't it more the band and their management that decided that...

Was that supposed to be some devastating point that makes me go "oh! ya got me!" or something?

I was asking information on David so then I could understand why perhaps people feel that David is "more" of a member than Bruce.  Considering how much David is respected and viewed as a "real" Beach Boy (and rightfully so)...I was expecting to read that he was cut in.  But now I see that both men are not part of BRI and have no vote or say in matters at all.  So really they are in essence (on paper, anyway): equals.   I was taking your "point" and taking it a step further. 

[ontor pertawst]

Ah, I see. But in the end, it doesn't really matter what I think or if he gets some corporate vote. When he dies, that obituary is gonna read BEACH BOY BRUCE JOHNSTON.

Maybe he just needs a career rehabbing bio right about now.

[SMiLE Brian]

David being an "original member" is just a coincidence at this point, really. Most of the songs the band plays live, he didn't play on. And the ones he did play on, he often doesn't play his guitar part, but Carl's. I don't see how that makes him more legitimate than Bruce.

David isn't a hired gun like Bruce was. David grew up with the band in Hawthorne.

I've NEVER understood the whole "Bruce isn't a Beach Boy" thing.  He's been with the band since freakin' 1965...only 4 years after the group was actually formed.  Not an official member?  What the hell?  Stones don't fans don't write off Ronnie Wood for joining the band thirteen years after the group formed....I really don't get why Bruce is dissed so often.  He's on more BB albums than the ones he's not on.

I never said he was not a BBs, I said he was a hired gun to replace Brian in the touring band. Also, he was great in the studio with the group in 1965-1970 and wrote a couple great songs during his first stint in the group.  He has done very little with the group in studio or onstage since he has returned to the group. In short, he joined an established group, while David helped build the group from the ground up.

I'm sure we could go on endlessly about this issue and we'd still be in the same spot.  David may have been there to "build the group from the ground up" but by the time Bruce joined, the group had long passed the surf music and morphed into nearly a different band with a huge shift in their sound.  Bruce had come at a pivotal point in the Beach Boys career just as importantly as David was there to create the band in the beginning.  I don't see one member being "more" critical than the other.  The fact is, David was there to help create the band when they started and was in the band for about a year while Bruce joined during a crucial turning point for the band and has been there ever since.  I don't see how one is more "legitimate" than the other.  That is obviously just me.

David is more respected due to him not being a phony like Bruce, who has said at times he is only in the BBs for the money.

[SurfRiderHawaii]

David being an "original member" is just a coincidence at this point, really. Most of the songs the band plays live, he didn't play on. And the ones he did play on, he often doesn't play his guitar part, but Carl's. I don't see how that makes him more legitimate than Bruce.

Good luck arguing that one with Jon Stebbins dude.

[SurfRiderHawaii]

I've NEVER understood the whole "Bruce isn't a Beach Boy" thing.  He's been with the band since freakin' 1965...only 4 years after the group was actually formed.  Not an official member?  What the hell?

That's more the band than the fans, isn't it? If they wanted him to be a full Beach Boy, they'd cut him in and give him a vote. What's hard to understand about that?

I think Bruce had a share/vote in BRI and sold it.  AGD went over that way back when.
Bruce is a valid member/real Beach Boy in my eyes, he's just not an original like David. Just sayin Brian, Al and David are three originals.

[Justin]

I'm not inclined to think of that as a wholly bad thing, seeing as Brian Wilson probably needs an entourage to make sure he takes his medication, help him about with his dodgy back and keep his nerves in check. And we know he loves his band. He's been touring with them for 13 years, has known them for longer (Jeff for much longer), and regularly collaborates and hangs out with them! Plus, they're f***ing amazing!

He's also quite canny, but IDK whether the band, Melinda, and everyone else is solely there as his PR, y'know? He's a pensioner with well-documented mental issues. And, if presenting BW in a favourable light = playing Our Prayer and Marcella, who's complaining?

I think the 'no-one to answer to' thing is key. Both Brian & Mike think that they own the band, I think - the prevailing thing that springs to mind is during the nineties, where Brian kept trying to regain control with songs, and in the studio (he never really stopped even after going solo according to what we know now). He finally got that on TWGMTR, although not without struggle. What's odd is that Mike's domain has always really been the stage - If Brian decided never to record with the group again, Mike wouldn't dare record under The Beach Boys' name (I wonder if the licence provisions ever got into THAT minefield) just as no-one ever suggested that Brian tour solely as The Beach Boys. But Brian's been walking on Mike's turf - suggesting songs that he's never played, that Mike might well like but sees as anathema due to their obscurity. After all, he's a businessman, and a born entertainer - he wants safe, cheap, repeatable thrills. Brian just goes 'let's play Marcella, I love that song, my band know it, GO' (if the Rolling Stone article is any indication), even though I don't think BW's band have played Marcella for years!

Maybe Brian and Melinda spend their spare moments plotting Mike's downfall by playing 'Summer's Gone', but I seriously doubt that. But I think the impression that presenting the spectrum of The Beach Boys music, from Kokomo down to CATP, is being perceived as a threat or a controversial move by certain parties is really quite sad.

It's weird. All Mike's ever wanted is to write with Brian again, sell records, do big shows. And now he's got that! And it's not good enough. He wants control of his band that he's been touring for the last 50 years whilst Brian's been doing god knows what.

Conversely, all Brian wants is his band back doing what he wants them to, like they should - I reckon Brian's always seen them as 'his' band, maybe abdicating it to Carl in more difficult times or the nineties, with Mike 'King of the Road'. But Brian always took care of the music, he was always called on for it even when he was 300lbs and inhaling cocaine in a bathrobe. I don't think calling it his band, and that him being in charge as a state of affairs is unreasonable, if only because when the band opposed him in the nineties we missed out on a new Beach Boys album full of Paley session songs (that would probably have saved the world) and a Pet Sounds symphonic tour, both with Carl Wilson. Terrible ideas. 

I'm just thinking out loud, as this whole business has been stewing in my head since Wembley - I'm not picking on you, Justin, if that's what you think!

Nice post!  Thanks for a great exchange here.  I think we're essentially on a similar page but we're just focusing on a few separate ideas.  We could agree that this whole thing is way too complicated to answer in a few words...or even a quick press release!    There are so many strings criss-crossing across this topic that it's difficult to pin down one sole reason.  But I'm starting to realize that each issue is strongly connected to the other and eventually creates a domino effect that could effect any future plans.  I, of course, don't think Brian and Melinda were there plotting schemes and plans because I truely believe they also were lenient and open on this tour (I'm not as confident things would remain as serene if they were to tour together on a consistent basis, though).  Like I said earlier, everyone on board put the BS aside to try to get through this tour and it proved to work in everyone's favor.  Your point about the tug of war on control of the band is spot on.  Both Brian and Mike have their own way of presenting the music but I believe that Mike had to concede to Brian and his team to execute this tour.  Basically I feel that Mike had to put aside his issues and simply allow things to go as they were planned.  For Mike, I think it took a lot.  He obviously survived and came out (practically) unscathed but it was more "accommodating" than he's been used to.  I'm sure he was happy to do so it but I wouldn't guess he'd be up for all that "accommdating" being a permanent thing--and that is in itself what we're arguing here:  why won't Mike accept this reunion as a permanent thing?