Mike Love Sets The Record Straight.

[HeyJude]

I think we keep forgetting that the Reunion was the exception and not the rule. "The Beach Boys" have gone back to what they have been for the last 15 years. The Reunion was the separate agreement, not Mike's licensing of the name.

It has been that way for 14 years, but I don't think the state of the band for the previous 14 years matters in light of this year's developments.

[HeyJude]

The whole statement is indeed much more elegant than the press release, that I appreciate. But it indeed doesn't really change much of the basic assertions that have been put forth in at least the discussions/debates I've been reading in the past weeks. Some interesting points about Mike's piece:

Mike doesn't refute and in fact confirms that Brian and Al wanted to do more live shows, and Mike did not. I know a few people were still doubting this, despite Jon Stebbins mentioning it.

This part of Mike's statement is interesting:

It is not feasible, both logistically and economically, for the 50th anniversary tour to play these markets. It’s vitally important for the smaller markets to experience our live shows, as this is how we’ve maintained a loyal fan base for 50 years. You can’t sustain a fan base on a great catalog alone. You must take your music directly to the people.

I would agree that these venues would not sustain the large 50th tour. But the rest of this is nonsense in my opinion. The Beach Boys CAN stand on their catalog alone, certainly at this point. I would agree that having a touring BB's does keep the name alive and whatnot, but that doesn't mean 100+ shows every year. If the BB's play Dallas and don't play Waco, if they play New Orleans but don't play Biloxi, their fan base will be just fine.

Many other bands, of less stature, sales, fame, etc. than the Beach Boys, sustain nice fan bases with MUCH less touring, sometimes with several years between touring.

Mike is framing the "small market" gigs as some sort of altrustic venture for fans. I don't believe it. It's a nice fringe benefit, but he plays the gigs because he makes money. I applaud Mike's new statement as it is much more eloquent. But I wish he would have also been honest and also stated that profit is a much motive in this as well. He admitted this in past interviews, including the one from the 90's where he literally said he hears the ringing of a cash register when he plays the old hits.

The fact that he mentioned that it was not economically feasible, means that there is less income to be made. 

True, I suppose. But he tries very hard to totally soften this by suggesting the smaller gigs are about bringing music to fans as opposed to making money. If the next sentence had been "These smaller markets are vital, because I can make more money", then that would make sense and be 100% truthful.

[Andrew G. Doe]

If Mike gets the majority of BRI to vote for him to have an exclusive license...

And exactly how, pray, did he 'get' Brian (and by 'Brian' of course, we mean Melinda) & Carl's estate to side with him ? Hearts & flowers ? A hissy fit ? Threats ? The vote for the so-called 'Love license' was free and based on the merits of the terms thereof. Either party could have voted against or abstained. Fact is, they didn't.

[HeyJude]

If Mike gets the majority of BRI to vote for him to have an exclusive license...

And exactly how, pray, did he 'get' Brian (and by 'Brian' of course, we mean Melinda) & Carl's estate to side with him ? Hearts & flowers ? A hissy fit ? Threats ? The vote for the so-called 'Love license' was free and based on the merits of the terms thereof. Either party could have voted against or abstained. Fact is, they didn't.

Yes, which is why I've always said Brian and Carl's estate deserve the blame, *if* one feels blame is to be had, for siding with Mike over Al on that issue.

Seperately, it is worth pointing out that there was leverage allegedly being asserted when those votes took place. They could have voted anyway they wanted, but I've heard that Brian's vote for Mike back then to have the exclusive license had to do with more than simply wanting profits from Mike's tours or liking Mike's license proposal more than Al's.

[drbeachboy]

I think we keep forgetting that the Reunion was the exception and not the rule. "The Beach Boys" have gone back to what they have been for the last 15 years. The Reunion was the separate agreement, not Mike's licensing of the name.

It has been that way for 14 years, but I don't think the state of the band for the previous 14 years matters in light of this year's developments.

Of course it matters, they signed a separate agreement to do the reunion tour. A one off agreement for 50 shows that had to be amended to add 25 more. Notice "Argeement", "Amendments", in other words, contracts.

[Myk Luhv]

My favourite part is where Mike misspells Audree

[SMiLE Brian]

Things were different in 1998, its time for the reunited group to stay and this divided group crap to end. Who honestly only wants to see the M&B band tour smaller venues, its time for the BBs name to have full meaning again. A late career rebirth is rare and the full BBs were doing it.

[Cam Mott]

If Mike gets the majority of BRI to vote for him to have an exclusive license...

And exactly how, pray, did he 'get' Brian (and by 'Brian' of course, we mean Melinda) & Carl's estate to side with him ? Hearts & flowers ? A hissy fit ? Threats ? The vote for the so-called 'Love license' was free and based on the merits of the terms thereof. Either party could have voted against or abstained. Fact is, they didn't.

Yes, which is why I've always said Brian and Carl's estate deserve the blame, *if* one feels blame is to be had, for siding with Mike over Al on that issue.

Seperately, it is worth pointing out that there was leverage allegedly being asserted when those votes took place. They could have voted anyway they wanted, but I've heard that Brian's vote for Mike back then to have the exclusive license had to do with more than simply wanting profits from Mike's tours or liking Mike's license proposal more than Al's.

You mean like Brian wanted Mike to have the license and didn't want Al to have the license?

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Let's see what happens when these contractually obligated previously committed shows are over. Some of you might be very pleasantly surprised by what may happen after...

[Wah Wah Wah Ooooo]

Let's see what happens when these contractually obligated previously committed shows are over. Some of you might be very pleasantly surprised by what may happen after...

This is what I've been thinking for several days now...I'd love an announcement of a tour and album sometime in the spring of 2013.  It'd be like the happy, joyous feeling of last winter's reunion announcements all over again

[KittyKat]

It's all manufactured publicity.  People who weren't fans and didn't care about the Beach Boys have now read all about the reunion this past summer, the band's history, and the fact that Mike supposedly fired the rest of the band.  I'm not sure he would have gotten a self-authored (or partly self-authored, at least) piece in a major newspaper like the LA Times, complete with his byline, without that kind of attention.  Which will get more worldwide publicity.  So, next reunion tour will be bigger venues, more cities, higher ticket prices.  Or so they hope.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Yup

[joe_blow]

"I sang on "Pet Sounds," I wrote songs for the album and I even named it."

Though this may be true, I think to the average reader it leads them to think he wrote more than he did.
To the best of my knowledge, Mike contributed lyrics to 3 songs on the, and two (WIBN and IKTAA) were already near completion.
I might not be giving Love enough credit, but someting like "I contributed lyrics to some songs on the album" might have been more appropriate.
How's that for nitpicking?

[drbeachboy]

"I sang on "Pet Sounds," I wrote songs for the album and I even named it."

Though this may be true, I think to the average reader it leads them to think he wrote more than he did.
To the best of my knowledge, Mike contributed lyrics to 3 songs on the, and two (WIBN and IKTAA) were already near completion.
I might not be giving Love enough credit, but someting like "I contributed lyrics to some songs on the album" might have been more appropriate.
How's that for nitpicking?

Good job, nitpicking, there.

[Rocker]

Good move by Mike and hopefully all these blinded and - excuse me - dumb writers and Brianistas will finally understand that this was always the way it was gonna be and that all the fuss was only made by statements from Brian and Al that were totally taken out of context.
I don't like the idea of Mike&Bruce touring under that name since the only way The Beach Boys can exist these days is like the reunion tour (Brian, Al and David wouldn't deserve that name either) but this is business. Contracts were signed way before the reunion and no one can blame Mike for not breaking them.

[HeyJude]

I think we keep forgetting that the Reunion was the exception and not the rule. "The Beach Boys" have gone back to what they have been for the last 15 years. The Reunion was the separate agreement, not Mike's licensing of the name.

It has been that way for 14 years, but I don't think the state of the band for the previous 14 years matters in light of this year's developments.

Of course it matters, they signed a separate agreement to do the reunion tour. A one off agreement for 50 shows that had to be amended to add 25 more. Notice "Argeement", "Amendments", in other words, contracts.

Mike having toured that way for the past 14 years doesn't preclude them from doing 10, 50, 100, or 1,000 more reunion shows, as evidenced by the reunion tour agreement they signed. So, to me, stating that it's going back to the way it was for 14 years doesn't mean anything in terms of whether more reunion shows could or should happen.

[HeyJude]

Let's see what happens when these contractually obligated previously committed shows are over. Some of you might be very pleasantly surprised by what may happen after...

This is what I've been thinking for several days now...I'd love an announcement of a tour and album sometime in the spring of 2013.  It'd be like the happy, joyous feeling of last winter's reunion announcements all over again

I hope you both are right. I fear otherwise, only because we've seen supposedly an April 2013 booking which certainly doesn't look like a "reunion" booking. Obviously, they could still start a reunion tour in May or June, etc.

[HeyJude]

You mean like Brian wanted Mike to have the license and didn't want Al to have the license?

If an "exclusive" license is what was ultimately voted on, then that would by its definition preclude Al from any such license. As I've heard it, and apologies for being cryptic, Brian voting for Mike to have that license had nothing to do with Al. Brian may well have voted for Mike to have an exclusive license even if there had been no other factor than choosing who he liked more, I dunno. But Brian had an extra incentive to vote the way he did due to additional leverage that was allegedly weighing against him. None of that matters anymore, of course.

[drbeachboy]

I think we keep forgetting that the Reunion was the exception and not the rule. "The Beach Boys" have gone back to what they have been for the last 15 years. The Reunion was the separate agreement, not Mike's licensing of the name.

It has been that way for 14 years, but I don't think the state of the band for the previous 14 years matters in light of this year's developments.

Of course it matters, they signed a separate agreement to do the reunion tour. A one off agreement for 50 shows that had to be amended to add 25 more. Notice "Argeement", "Amendments", in other words, contracts.

Mike having toured that way for the past 14 years doesn't preclude them from doing 10, 50, 100, or 1,000 more reunion shows, as evidenced by the reunion tour agreement they signed. So, to me, stating that it's going back to the way it was for 14 years doesn't mean anything in terms of whether more reunion shows could or should happen.

True, no one said they couldn't. Just not for these shows here in 2012 that were already booked pre-reunion.

[HeyJude]

Things were different in 1998, its time for the reunited group to stay and this divided group crap to end. Who honestly only wants to see the M&B band tour smaller venues, its time for the BBs name to have full meaning again. A late career rebirth is rare and the full BBs were doing it.

This is one of my main feelings in all of this. Things have changed. This continued assertion that "we've been doing this for 14 years this way" means it should go back to that ignores the fact that the reunion was may more successful than anybody, including apparently some or all of the band, thought it would.

As I've said before, in a strange way I have to give Mike kudos for doing the reunion knowing (or he should have known anyway) that his own "version" of the band would be viewed with different eyes by fans and the masses and media if or when the reunion ended and he went back to his band.

We don't know Mike personally, but it seems he often has to quantify success with numbers, either sales, or chart placement, or placement on some sort of poll, or revenue, or something along those lines, as opposed to just his own gut feeling or purely reviews. This is why he always has to remind us about how the BB's are big on oldies radio, or beat the Beatles in the NME poll, and why he never will just actively, unprompted tell you that "Let Us Go On This Way" or something is an awesome song. I personally believe this is a big part of why the reunion is not continuing. For all the amazing press and reviews it got, it probably made him less money, and it appears that part of the way his brain is wired tells him that that is not as successful. This is the more kind interpretation, as opposed to it being pure, rolling-around-in-piles-of-money-and-gold-jewelry greed.

[Cam Mott]

You mean something nefarious like blackmail or death threat or Brian's wife didn't want Al to have the license.

If it were true that there was that level of secret leverage why did Brian go along with taking back Mike's exclusive license to try to give Al a license of his own?

[HeyJude]

True, no one said they couldn't. Just not for these shows here in 2012 that were already booked pre-reunion.

I think this is part of where Mike's new statement is maybe technically correct, but misses what is probably really going on. He mentions that Brian and Al should not have been surprised about non-reunion shows. I think what Brian and Al were maybe surprised by was not announcement of some October dates, but a perceived more definitive statement that indicated only non-reunion shows for the foreseeable future. Also, I think Brian and Al's statements were meant more to build public momentum towards helping Mike realize he should do more reunion stuff.

Time will tell us for sure, but I don't think all of this is down to Mike having a few October gigs. He has made it pretty clear that his own version of the band is now what we'll get unless or until we hear otherwise. That's different than just having to do a few pre-arranged October gigs.

[HeyJude]

You mean something nefarious like blackmail or death threat or Brian's wife didn't want Al to have the license.

If it were true that there was that level of secret leverage why did Brian go along with taking back Mike's exclusive license to try to give Al a license of his own?

I'm talking about the later, presumably ultimate vote that ended with Mike having the exclusive license he has today. At some point, he was granted that, and presumably/supposedly/allegedly, Al did not vote in favor of it.

And no, I'm not saying nor have I ever said there were neferious death threats or anything along those lines.

[drbeachboy]

Well, what is Mike supposed to say if he or the other members have no idea yet whether they are going to again next year. We have to be realistic here. Let him and the band address one issue at a time.

[Cam Mott]

So Brian did vote originally without pressure or leverage to give Mike an exclusive license? But it took pressure/leverage to make Brian vote the same way again after Al had threatened to sue BRI and tried to renegoiate the terms and operate without a license? I must not be following.