The Beach Boys: Stamos, Love, Johnston

[NHC]

http://seaworldparks.com/en/seaworld-orlando/Events/Bands-Brew-and-BBQ

This is pretty disgraceful. The "Beach Boys" mentioned in tiny letters somewhere under a picture of fried chicken!

I wonder if Brian's jealous with all that BBQ that will be going around....

Take a look at the other names that are playing this event on different days. Hall & Oates, Michael MacDonald, Sheryl Crow, Meryl Haggard, etc. It's not that low-paying of a gig if those other acts are playing there. They may not be Bruce Springsteen or U2, but that's a pretty good representation of middle-level acts that command good pay days.

Dude, it's THE BEACH BOYS. They are U2 or Springsteen level. The only person who doesn't think so is Mike Love.

My problem with Mike in a nutshell, the BBs name should be nowhere near seaworld.

I think this is at the crux of the issue that a lot of BB fans have with Love. 

BB fans want them to be the Rolling Stones, Mike is happy with them being Herman's Hermits.

He probably is being more realistic, to be honest.

Actually, Peter Noone's current incarnation of Herman's Hermits puts on a great show...and I don't have to mortgage the house to see them.

Exactly. There's a horrible snobbishness here which says that some people (mostly poor, rural or Southern people) don't deserve entertainment unless they're willing to pay a week's wages and drive hundreds of miles to a 'major market'.
If Mike and Bruce are willing to play more gigs, and play more kinds of venues, than McCartney or U2, then to my mind that's *a good thing*. That's hundreds of thousands of people -- *at a minimum* because they still play large places too -- who are getting to see a show they otherwise wouldn't have seen, which for many of them will be *more special* than the 'major market' show would be. If you only get to see one or two gigs a year, because no band comes within a hundred miles of your town, then you will remember -- probably for the rest of your life -- that time the Beach Boys came to town.
I entirely get why some bands don't want to play that kind of venue, but what I don't get is this attitude that says that bands -- at least good ones -- *shouldn't* play those venues. Poor people, rural people, people who for whatever reason aren't willing or able to spend huge amounts of money for a couple of hours' entertainment -- those people deserve nice things too. If those people aren't 'classy' enough for some fans, then frankly I think it's those fans who are the problem, not the people going to Seaworld or their local county fair or wherever to have a good time.

All true. I wouldn't look up from my daily nap to see the Stones or Springsteen, but I'd watch the Beach Boys anywhere.  Who cares where they play? Why does it matter? The fact that they bring the music to everyone should be celebrated, not criticized.

[Don Malcolm]

Ah, the endless argument about the Endless Summer...LOL. The Beach Boys' story mirrors the fractious events over the past thirty-five years of American history--how something great got rather cheesy and lost its way due to success and excess, greed and torpor, shifting allegiances and back-stabbling in smoke-filled rooms (feel free to supply whatever materials are creating that smoke depending on your own predilections!).

I think Mike just wants to keep up his lifestyle, leave something for his (many) kids, and continue to defy the ravages of time for as long as possible. He's proud of his work ethic, and why shouldn't he be? Plus going out without Brian allows him to indulge as much as he wants/needs for being the focal point. His falling out with Al is partially a product of the fact that without Carl around to handle the "artier" songs, Mike would have to elevate him in the structure of the shows, which is something that goes against the historical grain of the band (particularly as Mike has come to define it). Bruce is a better foil for Mike these days--having similar politics doesn't hurt, either--and he knows he can't replace Carl as a lead singer, so he's more malleable to Mike's approach, which allows him to showcase "special guests" to sing songs that Carl would have been doing.

I think the BBs (full group, as in the C50 tour...) should do a special limited "Summer Reunion" tour every other year, in the years of USA elections, where their timeless message of good cheer, matchless BW compositions, and Mike's age-defying antics can distract people from the perils of politics for at least part of the summer. They should conclude the tour on the Sunday before the election with a benefit concert raising funds and "consciousness" for campaign finance reform--a cause really needing a spokesman, lemme tell ya!

[SMiLE Brian]

I saw M&B at a local fairground in 2011. It was a good time but nothing like the C50 show. I just want all the guys touring together in great venues.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

It's just something about Sea World in particular that is lame.... It's not a matter of me having a problem with them playing smaller, oddball places. As I said, state fairs are cool and speak to the American spirit that the Beach Boys are a part of. It's just SEA WORLD?? .... They might as well be playing LegoLand.

[ontor pertawst]

Only if they were celebrating the launch of a line of Wilson Family & Friends LEGOs. Hawthorne High sold separately! Collect 'em all.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Only if they were celebrating the launch of a line of Wilson Family & Friends LEGOs. Hawthorne High sold separately! Collect 'em all.

Yes! With a Mount Vernon & Fairway set for Mike!

[Andrew G. Doe]

It's just something about Sea World in particular that is lame.... It's not a matter of me having a problem with them playing smaller, oddball places. As I said, state fairs are cool and speak to the American spirit that the Beach Boys are a part of. It's just SEA WORLD?? .... They might as well be playing LegoLand.

Or The Corn Palace, Mitchell SD ?

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

But who doesn't love corn? Certainly not the Lovester.

That Winter Party Dance Tour is a cool idea if a bit grim.

[Doo Dah]

It's just something about Sea World in particular that is lame.... It's not a matter of me having a problem with them playing smaller, oddball places. As I said, state fairs are cool and speak to the American spirit that the Beach Boys are a part of. It's just SEA WORLD?? .... They might as well be playing LegoLand.

Or The Corn Palace, Mitchell SD ?

Hey, don't be dissin' on the Corn Palace. I been there. I couldn't resist the constant advertising that IMPLORED me to turn off the highway and visit this architectural wonder. And it IS cool...in a Cabinessence kinda way.

[KittyKat]

I'm not sure why SeaWorld is considered any lamer than say, Disneyland. The ticket prices to get into Sea World are very high. It has a lot of animal displays (both land and sea life),  in addition to the animal shows, plus rides. The one in San Diego has an awesome indoor refrigerated penguin habitat, including the enormous emperor penguins, which are found in almost no other zoos or aquariums. Jack Hanna is involved with them. I'm sure Brian Wilson would gladly play a SeaWorld fest if they asked him, and I'm sure his wife and kids would be happy to go, not to mention his fans. Then, it would be a cool, kooky place so typical of eccentric Brian if it were he instead of Mike playing there.

[Aegir]

why the hell do you guys want the band to be playing big expensive places? I wish they would play coffeeshops and basements! five dollars at the door to stand two inches away from them. that's the best way to see a band. you guys and your classic rock bias. the biggest place I would ever want to see a band play is something like Maxwell's, in Hoboken.

[LostArt]

Look who showed up...

[AndrewHickey]

why the hell do you guys want the band to be playing big expensive places? I wish they would play coffeeshops and basements! five dollars at the door to stand two inches away from them. that's the best way to see a band. you guys and your classic rock bias. the biggest place I would ever want to see a band play is something like Maxwell's, in Hoboken.

Quite.

[Shady]

Look who showed up...

Any chance to take his shirt off

[HeyJude]

Exactly. There's a horrible snobbishness here which says that some people (mostly poor, rural or Southern people) don't deserve entertainment unless they're willing to pay a week's wages and drive hundreds of miles to a 'major market'.
If Mike and Bruce are willing to play more gigs, and play more kinds of venues, than McCartney or U2, then to my mind that's *a good thing*. That's hundreds of thousands of people -- *at a minimum* because they still play large places too -- who are getting to see a show they otherwise wouldn't have seen, which for many of them will be *more special* than the 'major market' show would be. If you only get to see one or two gigs a year, because no band comes within a hundred miles of your town, then you will remember -- probably for the rest of your life -- that time the Beach Boys came to town.
I entirely get why some bands don't want to play that kind of venue, but what I don't get is this attitude that says that bands -- at least good ones -- *shouldn't* play those venues. Poor people, rural people, people who for whatever reason aren't willing or able to spend huge amounts of money for a couple of hours' entertainment -- those people deserve nice things too. If those people aren't 'classy' enough for some fans, then frankly I think it's those fans who are the problem, not the people going to Seaworld or their local county fair or wherever to have a good time.

I think the situations are too varied to make any blanket statements about ticket prices, venues, and proximity to rural or urban areas. The Mike/Bruce show isn't always just a cheap alternative. I've seen them book shows in my area that are very expensive, and I don't mean oddball charity events or anything, but just regular bookings in regular mainstream venues. As with most live shows, they charge as much as they can in each venue and each area.

More importantly, we also have the continuing semantics issue of Mike using the band's name. He can do all of this "bringing the music to smaller markets" thing under his own name. Would less people in those areas see and hear the show if it's not called "The Beach Boys?" Surely, but at that point, if they were not interested enough in the music in the first place to know that Mike Love's show is full of Beach Boys music, then I don't think anyone needs to bring that music to that particular audience.

I'm not suggesting everyone should quit touring and retire, but I 100% disagree with Mike Love's comment in his LA Times piece that playing small markets each and every year is crucial to keep up awareness of the band's music. There's no question that playing live gigs would likely only draw more fans in. But the Beach Boys' legacy, like other big-name bands, would survive even if they didn't tour every year, and even if they didn't do over 100 shows per year.

[Nicko1234]

I'm not suggesting everyone should quit touring and retire, but I 100% disagree with Mike Love's comment in his LA Times piece that playing small markets each and every year is crucial to keep up awareness of the band's music. There's no question that playing live gigs would likely only draw more fans in. But the Beach Boys' legacy, like other big-name bands, would survive even if they didn't tour every year, and even if they didn't do over 100 shows per year.

It would indeed but as you've said the gigs do draw more fans in so they do play a part.

[AndrewHickey]

I think the situations are too varied to make any blanket statements about ticket prices, venues, and proximity to rural or urban areas. The Mike/Bruce show isn't always just a cheap alternative. I've seen them book shows in my area that are very expensive, and I don't mean oddball charity events or anything, but just regular bookings in regular mainstream venues. As with most live shows, they charge as much as they can in each venue and each area.

Absolutely -- I've actually only seen Mike & Bruce playing medium sized or large, relatively 'classy' venues with relatively high ticket prices, myself. But nobody here is complaining about them playing Warwick Castle or the Manchester Apollo. They're complaining about those other shows. They're complaining about county fairs and Seaworld.

More importantly, we also have the continuing semantics issue of Mike using the band's name. He can do all of this "bringing the music to smaller markets" thing under his own name. Would less people in those areas see and hear the show if it's not called "The Beach Boys?" Surely, but at that point, if they were not interested enough in the music in the first place to know that Mike Love's show is full of Beach Boys music, then I don't think anyone needs to bring that music to that particular audience.

Why not? Should we perhaps have a quiz on the door of all concert venues, with people turned away if they don't know all the band members' names?

The bulk of the Beach Boys' audience has *never* known the names of the band members, other than maybe Brian, or at least that's been the case post-Endless Summer. It doesn't mean they don't like the music and won't enjoy the show.

I'm not suggesting everyone should quit touring and retire, but I 100% disagree with Mike Love's comment in his LA Times piece that playing small markets each and every year is crucial to keep up awareness of the band's music. There's no question that playing live gigs would likely only draw more fans in. But the Beach Boys' legacy, like other big-name bands, would survive even if they didn't tour every year, and even if they didn't do over 100 shows per year.

That's true enough. But a lot of people -- including Mike and presumably Bruce, but also the audiences -- would miss out on an enjoyable experience, and nobody would actually gain anything.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

I'm not suggesting everyone should quit touring and retire, but I 100% disagree with Mike Love's comment in his LA Times piece that playing small markets each and every year is crucial to keep up awareness of the band's music. There's no question that playing live gigs would likely only draw more fans in. But the Beach Boys' legacy, like other big-name bands, would survive even if they didn't tour every year, and even if they didn't do over 100 shows per year.

It would indeed but as you've said the gigs do draw more fans in so they do play a part.

But really, who the hell will get through life not knowing who The Beach Boys are unless they stumble upon them at Nutty Jerry's or Sea World? .... Has anyone forgotten who The Beatles are over the past 43 years, and I don't see them booked at Sea World?

[HeyJude]

I think the BBs (full group, as in the C50 tour...) should do a special limited "Summer Reunion" tour every other year, in the years of USA elections, where their timeless message of good cheer, matchless BW compositions, and Mike's age-defying antics can distract people from the perils of politics for at least part of the summer. They should conclude the tour on the Sunday before the election with a benefit concert raising funds and "consciousness" for campaign finance reform--a cause really needing a spokesman, lemme tell ya!

If this were 10 years ago or so, I'd be much more enthusiastic about a theoretical "tour every two or three years" idea for the full lineup. But these guys are fast approaching their mid-70's. They've had great longevity, and they could well last another decade or more. But as each year passes, the chance increases exponentially of something happening that will render a five-man reunion lineup impossible.

[HeyJude]

Sure, some of the argument is just a sort of surface, kneejerk reaction to playing an apparently tacky venue. Some of those criticisms hold more water than others. For me personally, the only point at which I care about the discussing of "needing" to play small venues and smaller markets is when Mike uses it in a statement to the LA Times as one of the reasons to discontinue reunion shows in favor of his smaller version of the band. I certainly don't think it's worth dismantling the reunion lineup in order to play "Seaworld" instead of a large venue in a metropolitan area. Of course, as I've said before, I question how much if at all the supposed altruistic idea of playing "smaller" venues and markets is really a factor in moving back to the two-man BB lineup.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

why the hell do you guys want the band to be playing big expensive places? I wish they would play coffeeshops and basements! five dollars at the door to stand two inches away from them. that's the best way to see a band. you guys and your classic rock bias. the biggest place I would ever want to see a band play is something like Maxwell's, in Hoboken.

I don't know anything about Maxwell's, but I agree with you.

[Nicko1234]

But really, who the hell will get through life not knowing who The Beach Boys are unless they stumble upon them at Nutty Jerry's or Sea World? .... Has anyone forgotten who The Beatles are over the past 43 years, and I don't see them booked at Sea World?

It's not just about knowing who The Beach Boys are though, it's also about going out to buy their music (or downloading it). There will be some people at outdoor shows who know only a little about the group before seeing the live show and then go on to become bigger fans. It's the old fashioned attitude of, 'the people who see us in concert will buy our album'.

Now obviously Mike's main reasons for touring are presumably money, the limelight, the girls etc. but bringing the music to a wider audience is a happy by-product.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

But really, who the hell will get through life not knowing who The Beach Boys are unless they stumble upon them at Nutty Jerry's or Sea World? .... Has anyone forgotten who The Beatles are over the past 43 years, and I don't see them booked at Sea World?

It's not just about knowing who The Beach Boys are though, it's also about going out to buy their music (or downloading it). There will be some people at outdoor shows who know only a little about the group before seeing the live show and then go on to become bigger fans. It's the old fashioned attitude of, 'the people who see us in concert will buy our album'.

Now obviously Mike's main reasons for touring are presumably money, the limelight, the girls etc. but bringing the music to a wider audience is a happy by-product.

You are absolutely right, but also: allowing their mystique and legend to grow based upon their catalog/reputation would also lead to record sales as it has for countless other bands.... Can't blame Mike for keeping at it for the girls and the limelight, but just think he'd get all that in an even bigger/better way if he didn't tour so relentlessly and make fans wade through Sea World to get to the gig.

[SMiLE Brian]

Mike is also running his voice into the ground with all the touring. The C50 interviews even showed his speaking voice is rough from all the touring.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Mike is also running his voice into the ground with all the touring. The C50 interviews even showed his speaking voice is rough from all the touring.

And how do we know Brian hasn't been asked to play Sea World? I honestly don't think he would... Brian and his band are willing to go out and lose money but play less insulting places and retain some dignity.... I think Mike and Bruce actually have the better band, so it sucks to be saying this... I mean, Springsteen could go play some local bowling alley saying that he needs even more people to know who he is and buy his records, but what's the point? He's already Bruce Springsteen!!!!

What's the lowest Brian's ever gone venue-wise?