Jardine challenges Love to battle of the bands in explosive interview...

[Mike's Beard]

Here's food for thought; if at the beginning of the reunion somebody had stated that is would be MIKE who'd choose to end the party and effectively cease working with Brian again they would have been laughed off this board. Hasn't the general consensus been for years that Mike would give his left nut to work with Brian in any capacity? Shows how little we really do know about these people, doesn't it?

[Nicko1234]

Here's food for thought; if at the beginning of the reunion somebody had stated that is would be MIKE who'd choose to end the party and effectively cease working with Brian again they would have been laughed off this board. Hasn't the general consensus been for years that Mike would give his left nut to work with Brian in any capacity? Shows how little we really do know about these people, doesn't it?

Not really. Wasn't it said a few years ago that Brian brought up the subject of writing together and that Mike was only interested if they could get back in a room together like the old days?

[Andrew G. Doe]

Our evidence at hand, including the likelihood that post-C50 Mike/Bruce dates were booked very early into if not prior to the beginning of the reunion tour, suggests to me that Mike planned all along to go back to his thing, and perhaps he just became less and less willing to not do things his own way as the C50 project progressed. That’s all fine for him to do whatever he wants, but I don’t see any indication that somebody else in the organization did something so heinous that soured Mike and stopped him from continuing the reunion.

Hey Jude, GREAT POST as always. Your concluding paragraph though this leads me to what I believe may actually be the biggest and most interesting question of all:

**WHY DID MIKE LOVE AGREE TO DO THE 50th AT ALL?**

(in caps because I think it's a really important question, not because I'm asking it out of incredulity or anger ). Does anyone have an answer and/or theory?

Same reason Brian Wilson, Alan Jardine, Bruce Johnston & David Marks did.

You are a cruel man AGD. But it's an honor to be insulted by you.

Not an insult, dear heart - just a hugely simplistic rendering of a hugely complex answer. They did it because they're The Beach Boys, and because they're The Beach Boys, everything ensued exactly as it did.

[JohnMill]

Here's food for thought; if at the beginning of the reunion somebody had stated that is would be MIKE who'd choose to end the party and effectively cease working with Brian again they would have been laughed off this board. Hasn't the general consensus been for years that Mike would give his left nut to work with Brian in any capacity? Shows how little we really do know about these people, doesn't it?

There was a faction on this forum at the time the C50 was being organized that did not want to see it take place period.  So given that my answer to you would be who knows?

[Mike's Beard]

Here's food for thought; if at the beginning of the reunion somebody had stated that is would be MIKE who'd choose to end the party and effectively cease working with Brian again they would have been laughed off this board. Hasn't the general consensus been for years that Mike would give his left nut to work with Brian in any capacity? Shows how little we really do know about these people, doesn't it?

Not really. Wasn't it said a few years ago that Brian brought up the subject of writing together and that Mike was only interested if they could get back in a room together like the old days?

True that's been Mike's dream since the 1990's, to again "write hits with his cousin", but you can't tell me that the average Myke hater didn't always hold the view that 'evil, talentless Mike Love' was desperate to work with his couz again at any cost.

[Sheriff John Stone]

That being said I agree with AGD that something of a very substantial nature had to have happened to motivate Mike Love to turn all of this down so he could once again embrace the opportunity to tour the circuit with Bruce Johnston and his touring band.  Also AGD's point about Mike Love receiving plaudits (for a change!) shouldn't pass without mention.  Personally I'm not all that convinced that the diehard fanbase's opinion of Love really matters all that much to the man but there was a great amount of good will floating around last year between the band as a whole and the fanbase and given the sour events that have transpired since then now many of us are left with questions such as "Were happy families just being played for a period of one year in order to sell an album and move tickets?"

At first I was also amazed that Mike dispensed with the most good will from fans, the press, and critics that he had garnered in ages. Then I remembered that the evidence to me indicates he cares not one bit about that. That's not a negative or positive necessarily.

I view it as a positive. You could also throw in there, as JohnMill mentioned in an above post, that the continuation C50 reunion could've led to more financially lucrative opportunities. One can question, disagree, and hate Mike Love for his recent decisions. That's left up to each fan to determine. But, Mike's decisions, as unpopular as they are, show a man who, at the very least, stands up for what he believes in, and will ultimately live with the consequences.

As a Beach Boy fan for 40 years, I am still shocked that Mike is passing up ANY opportunity to work with Brian. I never thought I'd see the day. But it is showing me that Mike isn't just in it for the money (by continuing a lucrative tour and recording a new album and other perks that accompany the reunion), isn't interested in just being associated with Brian Wilson (by continuing sharing a stage with and recording a new album on BRIAN'S terms - yes, I'm speculating on that), and isn't interested in being politically correct by working with "people" he is not comfortable with just to viewed as a good guy and spreading the group's good vibes - when they might not, in reality, be there.

Again, fans can view Mike as self-centered, stubborn, or just plain wrong in his recent decisions. Hell, I'm extremely pissed that we didn't get more C50 shows and a new studio album. Damn... But, personally, I at least respect Mike for standing up for what HE BELIEVES IN, just as I respect Brian and Al (and David) for pursuing the paths that they believe in. I think many fans on this board are not respecting Mike's decision. They respect his right to have one. I just don't think people are really looking deeply into WHY Mike feels the way he does, after carrying the Beach Boys' torch for 51 years, many of those years by himself, when Brian chose not to be a Beach Boy. I do find it uncomfortable and disconcerting how many people, almost instinctively and almost sympathetically, take the side of Brian, or specifically WHAT BRIAN WANTS, after so many decades of him not wanting to be a Beach Boy and after Brian saying some of the things he has said about the group - and Mike. Just to clarify, this is my opinion.

[Mike's Beard]

That being said I agree with AGD that something of a very substantial nature had to have happened to motivate Mike Love to turn all of this down so he could once again embrace the opportunity to tour the circuit with Bruce Johnston and his touring band.  Also AGD's point about Mike Love receiving plaudits (for a change!) shouldn't pass without mention.  Personally I'm not all that convinced that the diehard fanbase's opinion of Love really matters all that much to the man but there was a great amount of good will floating around last year between the band as a whole and the fanbase and given the sour events that have transpired since then now many of us are left with questions such as "Were happy families just being played for a period of one year in order to sell an album and move tickets?"

At first I was also amazed that Mike dispensed with the most good will from fans, the press, and critics that he had garnered in ages. Then I remembered that the evidence to me indicates he cares not one bit about that. That's not a negative or positive necessarily.

I view it as a positive. You could also throw in there, as JohnMill mentioned in an above post, that the continuation C50 reunion could've led to more financially lucrative opportunities. One can question, disagree, and hate Mike Love for his recent decisions. That's left up to each fan to determine. But, Mike's decisions, as unpopular as they are, show a man who, at the very least, stands up for what he believes in, and will ultimately live with the consequences.

As a Beach Boy fan for 40 years, I am still shocked that Mike is passing up ANY opportunity to work with Brian. I never thought I'd see the day. But it is showing me that Mike isn't just in it for the money (by continuing a lucrative tour and recording a new album and other perks that accompany the reunion), isn't interested in just being associated with Brian Wilson (by continuing sharing a stage with and recording a new album on BRIAN'S terms - yes, I'm speculating on that), and isn't interested in being politically correct by working with "people" he is not comfortable with just to viewed as a good guy and spreading the group's good vibes - when they might not, in reality, be there.

Again, fans can view Mike as self-centered, stubborn, or just plain wrong in his recent decisions. Hell, I'm extremely pissed that we didn't get more C50 shows and a new studio album. Damn... But, personally, I at least respect Mike for standing up for what HE BELIEVES IN, just as I respect Brian and Al (and David) for pursuing the paths that they believe in. I think many fans on this board are not respecting Mike's decision. They respect his right to have one. I just don't think people are really looking deeply into WHY Mike feels the way he does, after carrying the Beach Boys' torch for 51 years, many of those years by himself, when Brian chose not to be a Beach Boy. I do find it uncomfortable and disconcerting how many people, almost instinctively and almost sympathetically, take the side of Brian, or specifically WHAT BRIAN WANTS, after so many decades of him not wanting to be a Beach Boy and after Brian saying some of the things he has said about the group - and Mike. Just to clarify, this is my opinion.

Testify.

[JohnMill]

That being said I agree with AGD that something of a very substantial nature had to have happened to motivate Mike Love to turn all of this down so he could once again embrace the opportunity to tour the circuit with Bruce Johnston and his touring band.  Also AGD's point about Mike Love receiving plaudits (for a change!) shouldn't pass without mention.  Personally I'm not all that convinced that the diehard fanbase's opinion of Love really matters all that much to the man but there was a great amount of good will floating around last year between the band as a whole and the fanbase and given the sour events that have transpired since then now many of us are left with questions such as "Were happy families just being played for a period of one year in order to sell an album and move tickets?"

At first I was also amazed that Mike dispensed with the most good will from fans, the press, and critics that he had garnered in ages. Then I remembered that the evidence to me indicates he cares not one bit about that. That's not a negative or positive necessarily.

Again, fans can view Mike as self-centered, stubborn, or just plain wrong in his recent decisions. Hell, I'm extremely pissed that we didn't get more C50 shows and a new studio album. Damn... But, personally, I at least respect Mike for standing up for what HE BELIEVES IN, just as I respect Brian and Al (and David) for pursuing the paths that they believe in. I think many fans on this board are not respecting Mike's decision. They respect his right to have one. I just don't think people are really looking deeply into WHY Mike feels the way he does, after carrying the Beach Boys' torch for 51 years, many of those years by himself, when Brian chose not to be a Beach Boy. I do find it uncomfortable and disconcerting how many people, almost instinctively and almost sympathetically, take the side of Brian, or specifically WHAT BRIAN WANTS, after so many decades of him not wanting to be a Beach Boy and after Brian saying some of the things he has said about the group - and Mike. Just to clarify, this is my opinion.

In regards to The Beach Boys, I'm not sure you can ever make direct comparisons or judgments to the decisions Mike Love has made in his life pertaining to this matter and the decisions Brian Wilson has made in his life pertaining to this matter.  Without belaboring the point Brian Wilson went through what can easily be termed as an extremely shattering experience in his life, one which to some degree or another he is still dealing with to this day.  We've all heard the stories including some horrific ones regarding Brian's struggles basically since the SMiLE project collapsed so no need to rehash them here.  The one thing that does stand out though in all those stories is whatever issues were going on in Brian's life at the time where he may have not wanted to be engrossed in The Beach Boys' as many fans might've wanted him to be, well lets just say "being a Beach Boy" wasn't the only thing he wasn't engrossed in during those times.  Complexity would be the operative word here and I certainly don't feel right commenting on it any further than I already have.

Mike Love's recent decision to not continue on with the C50 on the other hand whether you agree with it or not was a business decision (even if it wasn't as cold-hearted as some might like to portray it) so the reviews on that matter are going to come in a little bit differently than how Brian Wilson may be judged for some of his decisions.  Mike Love just isn't going to get the benefit of the doubt the way Brian Wilson does if we are to compare the two situations, that's just reality for you there.  It doesn't mean Mike Love has to be portrayed as a villain though either as he has every right to feel the way he does, conduct his life and his business the way he does which is essentially what he is doing.  

[HeyJude]

Our evidence at hand, including the likelihood that post-C50 Mike/Bruce dates were booked very early into if not prior to the beginning of the reunion tour, suggests to me that Mike planned all along to go back to his thing, and perhaps he just became less and less willing to not do things his own way as the C50 project progressed. That’s all fine for him to do whatever he wants, but I don’t see any indication that somebody else in the organization did something so heinous that soured Mike and stopped him from continuing the reunion.

Hey Jude, GREAT POST as always. Your concluding paragraph though this leads me to what I believe may actually be the biggest and most interesting question of all:

**WHY DID MIKE LOVE AGREE TO DO THE 50th AT ALL?**

(in caps because I think it's a really important question, not because I'm asking it out of incredulity or anger ). Does anyone have an answer and/or theory?

Same reason Brian Wilson, Alan Jardine, Bruce Johnston & David Marks did.

I don’t think this is true at all. I think they had some potentially vastly differing reasons for doing the tour. We can’t even say they at least all shared the reason of doing it for the money, because I would say it’s still at least possible that Mike made less touring in 2012 than he did in 2011.

They came from different places and positions of power. First of all, why did Bruce do the reunion? Because he follows Mike. I don’t even mean this to demean Bruce, but just literally he does seem to follow Mike. David Marks didn’t have an axe to grind or any place to sort of “negotiate down” from. In other words, he didn’t have anything comparable going on prior. Al Jardine is essentially in that same boat; he wasn’t touring much and was done tinkering with his own album. Brian and Mike were the ones that had the most to lose or gain logistically from doing the reunion. Don’t get me wrong, an emotional/nostalgic/we’re getting older thread was undoubtedly running through everything too.

But exactly why Mike did the reunion is an interesting question, and I don’t think we have all the answers, beyond the obvious answers. The fact that he did take a potential financial hit and ceded some control and adulation and whatnot is both impressive, and also a possible explanation of why such an occasion was limited to one tour.

[HeyJude]

When on tour with his band, Mike flies coach, stays in non-expensive hotels etc. Basically he's very cheap.

The lavishness of the C50 must have made him nuts.

I think this may have been a huge reason Mike didn’t want to continue it. While he has mentioned these factors to varying degrees in interviews, he has not directly connected his feelings about expenses with not continuing the reunion. He has not said “I won’t continue the reunion unless we get rid of the some of the band and lower expenses”, and likely won’t because it would make him look bad, worrying about the bottom line more than the art, especially when the “bloated” tour format still yields plenty of profit and also yields better reviews, more acclaim, and so on. 

[Shady]

When on tour with his band, Mike flies coach, stays in non-expensive hotels etc. Basically he's very cheap.

The lavishness of the C50 must have made him nuts.

I think this may have been a huge reason Mike didn’t want to continue it. While he has mentioned these factors to varying degrees in interviews, he has not directly connected his feelings about expenses with not continuing the reunion. He has not said “I won’t continue the reunion unless we get rid of the some of the band and lower expenses”, and likely won’t because it would make him look bad, worrying about the bottom line more than the art, especially when the “bloated” tour format still yields plenty of profit and also yields better reviews, more acclaim, and so on. 

Mike hasn't worried about looking cantankerous in the past. I imagine if he had a problem with the tour and the expenses he would step up and address those issues. I think he probably did and that's where the bad blood started, I'm gonna go guess and say Mike and Brian's camp butted heads more than once.

[HeyJude]

Someone mentioned the C50 Tour as an "embarrassment of riches" and I guess it was.  Necessary, to achieve a superb rendition of the music and yet so "over the top" with "baggage" and configuration that appeared almost necessary to become "extricated from."

 The Band performed so well with this support, and "special effects" and yet I felt this yearning to see MY Boys get "back to basics" which is what the Touring Band is, having seen the Band in a far simpler context from 1967.  

But, I'm not clear about why you are shocked by the quality of the music.  

An “embarrassment of riches” is an apt description. But I don’t think “over the top” is a readily apparent perception of the reunion band, other than as perceived by Mike and perhaps his accountants. Maybe over the top and needed to be extricated from when it comes to Mike’s ideas of revenue and control, but that’s not good enough of a reason to me to throw out that “embarrassment of riches.” The reunion tour apparently/presumably made plenty of money, and got rave reviews and interest from more promoters to book more shows, and from Capitol to do another album. There’s nothing in that scenario that, overall, sounds like “over the top.” Again, only Mike seemed to object to any of this.

As far as getting back to basics, I think a stripped-down, small band can be a good thing sometimes. But if the “touring band” are “your boys”, then more power to you. The current touring band has very little to do with the reunion band, or the 1967 band. Having seen the C50 tour, there was not one moment where the thought crossed my mind that “Gee, I wish the band was smaller and less lush”, or “Wow, this is great I guess, but I hope Brian, Al, and David are gone by next year and the band is smaller. Seeing Al Jardine tour with the band for the first time in 15 years is cool, but I miss Christian Love.”

The term "embarrassment of riches" is not mine. And, I maintain that it was likely necessary given it was an "event," to do justice to the work.  I absolutely loved the visuals of their many LP's playing onscreen, onstage.  It gave context to their career; their highs and not so.  I see Brian and Al whenever possible.  The 1967 model was about 8 musicians max.  That is "back to basics" in my personal context.  And, not to exclude or include one over the other.  But, C50 was an "event."

And, BRI likely, sets the Touring Band's parameters.  And, it was an agreement.  It doesn't matter what bookings were made, but the whole circuit of entertainment venues did not have the "annual visit" from the Touring Band. Thinking in terms of "See you next year, BB's!" After Carl died, it looked dismal for any BB's. And it was delightful that Mike was willing to step up to the challenge of rebuilding a viable Band, who could keep the music alive in the "live" context.  Lots of naysayers back then who now have to "eat their words with a fork and spoon."  

So, with C50 involvement, the other branch of the business, seemed to be put "on hold."  This has been debated ad nauseum.  

  - as my mother would say having a J&B with lunch, "It's four o'clock somewhere!"  

Yes, I’m aware the “embarrassment of riches” phrase was made by Howie Edelson, and his post on the matter was one of the best I’ve seen. I’ve referenced it numerous times.

The reunion could have “replaced” Mike’s stripped-down tour. It could have happened for another year, or for the foreseeable future. The reunion tour increased the band’s prestige, it’s “cred” or whatever you want to call it, among the press, which was especially impressive considering, as either Stebbins or Edelson pointed out some time back, the band has next to zero presence on classic rock radio.  The band were playing larger venues (and some of the same size and type), and getting offers for even larger venues (indoor arenas). It could have been stepped down back to Mike’s format at any time. The public and concert promoters are not going to forget about the Beach Boys because the five-piece reunion lineup replaces the two-man lineup.

I would also disagree with the characterization of Mike “rebuilding” the band after Carl’s death. He took the same band that had been touring with Carl, and simply did it without Carl and Al and Matt Jardine. He actually started “rebuilding” the band while Carl and Al were still there, as described in Jon Stebbins’ and David Marks’ book.

I for one never ignored that Mike was taking the music to the masses. It was debatable whether he was doing that in the face of nobody else wanting to do it, as the legal tangling with Al indicated that Al at least had some sort of interest in it somehow.

The argument could actually be made that, had the BB’s simply stopped in 1998 with Carl’s death and had not toured at all between 1998 and 2011, they may have been booking even larger venues on their reunion tour. Mike, in keeping the music alive, has also in a business sense diluted the band’s trademark. He didn’t do it alone (Carl and Al joined the incessant touring pre-1998), but he’s the main person behind it presently.

[JohnMill]

When on tour with his band, Mike flies coach, stays in non-expensive hotels etc. Basically he's very cheap.

The lavishness of the C50 must have made him nuts.

I think this may have been a huge reason Mike didn’t want to continue it. While he has mentioned these factors to varying degrees in interviews, he has not directly connected his feelings about expenses with not continuing the reunion. He has not said “I won’t continue the reunion unless we get rid of the some of the band and lower expenses”, and likely won’t because it would make him look bad, worrying about the bottom line more than the art, especially when the “bloated” tour format still yields plenty of profit and also yields better reviews, more acclaim, and so on.  

Mike hasn't worried about looking cantankerous in the past. I imagine if he had a problem with the tour and the expenses he would step up and address those issues. I think he probably did and that's where the bad blood started, I'm gonna go guess and say Mike and Brian's camp butted heads more than once.

It does seem to beg the question why was a compromise out of the question that could've saw the C50 continue?  For example if Mike Love had such deep grievances about the way business on the C50 was being conducted why couldn't he go to the other members of the group (and whomever else he would need to address) with these issues and say something like "Look guys, for me to feel comfortable about continuing on with this C50 tour, the following issues are going to need to be looked at and addressed".  

We don't know whether or not during the C50 Mike ever attempted to have such a discussion with the appropriate parties or not.  We also don't know whether or not Mike's decision to stomp the C50 was the only option he had available to him come the fall.  Perhaps he realized that there was simply no point in trying to work out a means of going forward with the C50 with the other necessary parties as he had tried that avenue several times prior and had been shut down.  So given that he just removed himself (and Bruce by extension) from the picture entirely.

[Bicyclerider]

When on tour with his band, Mike flies coach, stays in non-expensive hotels etc. Basically he's very cheap.

The lavishness of the C50 must have made him nuts.

I think this may have been a huge reason Mike didn’t want to continue it. While he has mentioned these factors to varying degrees in interviews, he has not directly connected his feelings about expenses with not continuing the reunion. He has not said “I won’t continue the reunion unless we get rid of the some of the band and lower expenses”, and likely won’t because it would make him look bad, worrying about the bottom line more than the art, especially when the “bloated” tour format still yields plenty of profit and also yields better reviews, more acclaim, and so on.  

Mike hasn't worried about looking cantankerous in the past. I imagine if he had a problem with the tour and the expenses he would step up and address those issues. I think he probably did and that's where the bad blood started, I'm gonna go guess and say Mike and Brian's camp butted heads more than once.

It does seem to beg the question why was a compromise out of the question that could've saw the C50 continue?  For example if Mike Love had such deep grievances about the way business on the C50 was being conducted why couldn't he go to the other members of the group (and whomever else he would need to address) with these issues and say something like "Look guys, for me to feel comfortable about continuing on with this C50 tour, the following issues are going to need to be looked at and addressed".  

We don't know whether or not during the C50 Mike ever attempted to have such a discussion with the appropriate parties or not.  We also don't know whether or not Mike's decision to stomp the C50 was the only option he had available to him come the fall.  Perhaps he realized that there was simply no point in trying to work out a means of going forward with the C50 with the other necessary parties as he had tried that avenue several times prior and had been shut down.  So given that he just removed himself (and Bruce by extension) from the picture entirely.

My impression is that the C50 tour while initially a joint project with decision making power split between Mike and Brian soon became Brian/Melinda's show.  Look at the Rolling Stone article about the disputes over set list - when Brian wanted a song added, over Mike's objections, it was added.  Mike wanted control back over the band as he has had for the past, oh, 15 years, and he wasn't going to get it with the c50 band.  Plus I don't think you can discount monetary reasons - with the huge band, equipment, lights people, hangers-on for Brian and the rest, I suspect Mike was making LESS on tour than he is now.  However to be fair Mike has to look at revenue from the DVD, C50 tour album, increased sales of TWGMTR from tour promotion, merchandise sales, etc.  This is new revenue going to mike that he would never have without a Brian led reunion and album.

[ontor pertawst]

Al Jardine, Brian Wilson, and maybe David Marks have a new car song. THE LAST CAR SONG. They should just call it that.

[filledeplage]

Someone mentioned the C50 Tour as an "embarrassment of riches" and I guess it was.  Necessary, to achieve a superb rendition of the music and yet so "over the top" with "baggage" and configuration that appeared almost necessary to become "extricated from."

 The Band performed so well with this support, and "special effects" and yet I felt this yearning to see MY Boys get "back to basics" which is what the Touring Band is, having seen the Band in a far simpler context from 1967.  

But, I'm not clear about why you are shocked by the quality of the music.  

An “embarrassment of riches” is an apt description. But I don’t think “over the top” is a readily apparent perception of the reunion band, other than as perceived by Mike and perhaps his accountants. Maybe over the top and needed to be extricated from when it comes to Mike’s ideas of revenue and control, but that’s not good enough of a reason to me to throw out that “embarrassment of riches.” The reunion tour apparently/presumably made plenty of money, and got rave reviews and interest from more promoters to book more shows, and from Capitol to do another album. There’s nothing in that scenario that, overall, sounds like “over the top.” Again, only Mike seemed to object to any of this.

As far as getting back to basics, I think a stripped-down, small band can be a good thing sometimes. But if the “touring band” are “your boys”, then more power to you. The current touring band has very little to do with the reunion band, or the 1967 band. Having seen the C50 tour, there was not one moment where the thought crossed my mind that “Gee, I wish the band was smaller and less lush”, or “Wow, this is great I guess, but I hope Brian, Al, and David are gone by next year and the band is smaller. Seeing Al Jardine tour with the band for the first time in 15 years is cool, but I miss Christian Love.”

The term "embarrassment of riches" is not mine. And, I maintain that it was likely necessary given it was an "event," to do justice to the work.  I absolutely loved the visuals of their many LP's playing onscreen, onstage.  It gave context to their career; their highs and not so.  I see Brian and Al whenever possible.  The 1967 model was about 8 musicians max.  That is "back to basics" in my personal context.  And, not to exclude or include one over the other.  But, C50 was an "event."

And, BRI likely, sets the Touring Band's parameters.  And, it was an agreement.  It doesn't matter what bookings were made, but the whole circuit of entertainment venues did not have the "annual visit" from the Touring Band. Thinking in terms of "See you next year, BB's!" After Carl died, it looked dismal for any BB's. And it was delightful that Mike was willing to step up to the challenge of rebuilding a viable Band, who could keep the music alive in the "live" context.  Lots of naysayers back then who now have to "eat their words with a fork and spoon."  

So, with C50 involvement, the other branch of the business, seemed to be put "on hold."  This has been debated ad nauseum.  

  - as my mother would say having a J&B with lunch, "It's four o'clock somewhere!"  

Yes, I’m aware the “embarrassment of riches” phrase was made by Howie Edelson, and his post on the matter was one of the best I’ve seen. I’ve referenced it numerous times.

The reunion could have “replaced” Mike’s stripped-down tour. It could have happened for another year, or for the foreseeable future. The reunion tour increased the band’s prestige, it’s “cred” or whatever you want to call it, among the press, which was especially impressive considering, as either Stebbins or Edelson pointed out some time back, the band has next to zero presence on classic rock radio.  The band were playing larger venues (and some of the same size and type), and getting offers for even larger venues (indoor arenas). It could have been stepped down back to Mike’s format at any time. The public and concert promoters are not going to forget about the Beach Boys because the five-piece reunion lineup replaces the two-man lineup.

I would also disagree with the characterization of Mike “rebuilding” the band after Carl’s death. He took the same band that had been touring with Carl, and simply did it without Carl and Al and Matt Jardine. He actually started “rebuilding” the band while Carl and Al were still there, as described in Jon Stebbins’ and David Marks’ book.

I for one never ignored that Mike was taking the music to the masses. It was debatable whether he was doing that in the face of nobody else wanting to do it, as the legal tangling with Al indicated that Al at least had some sort of interest in it somehow.

The argument could actually be made that, had the BB’s simply stopped in 1998 with Carl’s death and had not toured at all between 1998 and 2011, they may have been booking even larger venues on their reunion tour. Mike, in keeping the music alive, has also in a business sense diluted the band’s trademark. He didn’t do it alone (Carl and Al joined the incessant touring pre-1998), but he’s the main person behind it presently.

Yes, now I remember that it was Howie's turn-of-phrase.  Thanks. To suggest that because the very fickle "press" had now started to give "cred" to the Band, sounds weak to me.  And it would be the same press who turned their noses up at much of their work as substandard or weird, or whatever. The press has not historically been kind to the band and that includes Brian.  I'd go so far as to say that would include the neglected press duties and promo duties of the record company, as reported over time.  

And, while there were different visions of what the Band should be, after Carl died, it emerged as it did, by "agreement of the parties."  The dilution of the trade mark is probably not appropriate for comment here, by me.  

"Incessant touring" as you say, saved them, ultimately, in my view. And, reaching into more obscure markets, cultivated a market, whether it is Disney (abc) Sea World, or other destination venues, beyond what the typical rock venue now lives.  It can't be in the colleges, as a general rule, because their "college kids" are "all growed up" (purposely misspelled.)  It is insulting to disparage those venues, as fans come in all shapes and sizes.  Bonaroo might be a happy exception.  Those YouTubes of those kids rocking to the Boys was just awesome! One of my neighbors drove 1,200 miles to see them.  

Lots of people are "stewing" over what they have NO control over, and projecting their wishes on the band members, in a pretty futile manner, and refusing to look at the whole situation, objectively.  

[BB Universe]

To paraphrase a line from the Game of Thrones, "[We] know nothing, [Smiley Smilers]".
We really know very little, virtually nothing concrete, as to the wind up of C50 Tour. A few interviews (superficial perhaps and no real details) and reports (probably need to be taken with a grain of salt as often reporting should be) so all this is mostly speculation. So many variables, so many characters, perhaps many agendas, numerous contracts, the license terms etc. - no one has all the facts. Some public facts (concert attendance, reviews, record sales, but no behind the scenes information. There are many opinions here, but I think any opinion on this matter is based on speculation and interpretation, not in-depth knowledge - beacuse there isn't much out there on the specific topic.
IMO - yes opinion only - the C50 was going to end at some point. The C50 version of the BBs were not going to be an ongoing group again; I think history shows that (BW doesn't want to perform as much as ML does). For whatever reasons (whether any 1 major one or numerous smaller ones), it ended after a U.S. Tour, European/Asian leg and a final spectacular showing in England. I think its unfortunate that when that was recognized internally (maybe after attempts to make satisfactory arrangements to appear at MSG - again, who knows?) the guys didn't put together a collective PR announcement that said thanks, its been great but the UK shows are it. If that had been done by both camps, this whole post C50 drama might have been avoided in large part.
Maybe its fun to speculate, debate etc. but without hard knowledge, as Buffalo Springfield sang "nobody's right if everybody's wrong".

[HeyJude]

My impression is that the C50 tour while initially a joint project with decision making power split between Mike and Brian soon became Brian/Melinda's show.  Look at the Rolling Stone article about the disputes over set list - when Brian wanted a song added, over Mike's objections, it was added.  Mike wanted control back over the band as he has had for the past, oh, 15 years, and he wasn't going to get it with the c50 band.  Plus I don't think you can discount monetary reasons - with the huge band, equipment, lights people, hangers-on for Brian and the rest, I suspect Mike was making LESS on tour than he is now.  However to be fair Mike has to look at revenue from the DVD, C50 tour album, increased sales of TWGMTR from tour promotion, merchandise sales, etc.  This is new revenue going to mike that he would never have without a Brian led reunion and album.

I'd have to go back and read it to be sure, but I don't believe Mike was said to object to "Marcella" in the setlist, he seemed surprised by the suggestion and apprehensive perhaps.

[Nicko1234]

The reunion could have “replaced” Mike’s stripped-down tour. It could have happened for another year, or for the foreseeable future. The reunion tour increased the band’s prestige, it’s “cred” or whatever you want to call it, among the press, which was especially impressive considering, as either Stebbins or Edelson pointed out some time back, the band has next to zero presence on classic rock radio.  The band were playing larger venues (and some of the same size and type), and getting offers for even larger venues (indoor arenas). It could have been stepped down back to Mike’s format at any time. The public and concert promoters are not going to forget about the Beach Boys because the five-piece reunion lineup replaces the two-man lineup.

I don't think it could realistically. Mike wants to play 100 concerts a year. Brian might have been able to do that for one year but for 2013 as well? Nah.

I also don't think it could have happened because...it didn't happen. The C50 tour was all about Brian and Mike and them being able to compromise for a certain amount of time. That was never going to happen indefinitely though. They both want different things from life...

[HeyJude]

Yes, now I remember that it was Howie's turn-of-phrase.  Thanks. To suggest that because the very fickle "press" had now started to give "cred" to the Band, sounds weak to me.  And it would be the same press who turned their noses up at much of their work as substandard or weird, or whatever. The press has not historically been kind to the band and that includes Brian.  I'd go so far as to say that would include the neglected press duties and promo duties of the record company, as reported over time.  

And, while there were different visions of what the Band should be, after Carl died, it emerged as it did, by "agreement of the parties."  The dilution of the trade mark is probably not appropriate for comment here, by me.  

"Incessant touring" as you say, saved them, ultimately, in my view. And, reaching into more obscure markets, cultivated a market, whether it is Disney (abc) Sea World, or other destination venues, beyond what the typical rock venue now lives.  It can't be in the colleges, as a general rule, because their "college kids" are "all growed up" (purposely misspelled.)  It is insulting to disparage those venues, as fans come in all shapes and sizes.  Bonaroo might be a happy exception.  Those YouTubes of those kids rocking to the Boys was just awesome! One of my neighbors drove 1,200 miles to see them.  

Lots of people are "stewing" over what they have NO control over, and projecting their wishes on the band members, in a pretty futile manner, and refusing to look at the whole situation, objectively.  

I’m no apologist for the critics or music press. But objectively, good press from these people, as fickle and ill-informed as they often are, and as bad as they’ve been to the band in the past, can be a good thing. The Beach Boys with the reunion tour did go, as Howie Edelson said in another of his posts,  “from Frankie Valli to Mick Jagger OVERNIGHT.” I don’t think this surprising shift should be ignored out of retribution for how bad the press has been regarding the band. I’m not giving the press any extra credit, I’m just agreeing objectively with Edelson’s point.

As for the band post-Carl, I’m not sure Al and his numerous failed lawsuits would agree with the band emerging by “agreement of the parties.” That doesn’t really matter anymore, but I think how the band emerged in 1998 and on was not a smooth, agreed-upon, highly praised process.

Not sure what else to add about the dilution of the trademark. I think that is a HUGE issue when we get into the topic of “carrying the torch” and the types of tours and venues and audiences the varying configurations of the band have and could garner. Carl saw this happening, alluding in occasional interviews that they should perhaps tour less frequently. But Carl was part of it, he didn’t apparently put up much of a fight for very long. It doesn’t appear anyone in the band ever really attempted to do what Mike himself described promoters telling him to do in the aftermath of the C50 tour, to “give it a rest” to build up demand.

As far as venues, I think the “smaller markets” topic is largely a straw man argument.  Brian nor Al nor most fans who wanted to see the reunion continue ever felt or said anything disparaging about those venues or markets. I think it’s a very debatable and interesting topic as to whether all these past years of touring hindered or helped the band and their legacy. But I would say at this point, in 2012/13, I no longer buy the argument that some form of “Beach Boys” need to tour smaller markets in 2013 for fear of losing any fans. Their legacy is now cemented. If no “Beach Boys” toured starting now, it would be cemented. And certainly, if the scenario discussed by Mike came to pass, that of the “reunion” lineup continuing to tour in 2013 but perhaps not hitting all those small markets, it would be even LESS likely that the band would lose any visibility or fans.

Trying to paint Brian or Al (or fans trying to paint other fans) as disparaging smaller markets by supporting the reunion band, which only arguably would require all larger venues and markets, is to me deflecting away from the fact that Mike Love put the brakes on more reunion activity.

[HeyJude]

The reunion could have “replaced” Mike’s stripped-down tour. It could have happened for another year, or for the foreseeable future. The reunion tour increased the band’s prestige, it’s “cred” or whatever you want to call it, among the press, which was especially impressive considering, as either Stebbins or Edelson pointed out some time back, the band has next to zero presence on classic rock radio.  The band were playing larger venues (and some of the same size and type), and getting offers for even larger venues (indoor arenas). It could have been stepped down back to Mike’s format at any time. The public and concert promoters are not going to forget about the Beach Boys because the five-piece reunion lineup replaces the two-man lineup.

I don't think it could realistically. Mike wants to play 100 concerts a year. Brian might have been able to do that for one year but for 2013 as well? Nah.

I also don't think it could have happened because...it didn't happen. The C50 tour was all about Brian and Mike and them being able to compromise for a certain amount of time. That was never going to happen indefinitely though. They both want different things from life...

I think the idea is that there would be compromise, which might include shifting a touring schedule more along the lines of C50, perhaps even a bit more scaled back. Not what Mike wants, but if we’re just talking about what he wants, then we’re already not talking about anything realistic pertaining to the reunion lineup, as that should be some sort of compromise.

I was speaking of the reunion tour replacing Mike’s tour in terms of placement in the touring industry, among fans and especially promoters and venues. The idea that promoters and venues would be “missing” Mike’s tour in 2012 and I guess therefore need it even more in 2013 ignores that a reunion band would be out there playing other venues (and some same venues) and keeping the band out there in the industry just fine.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Mike, in keeping the music alive, has also in a business sense diluted the band’s trademark. He didn’t do it alone (Carl and Al joined the incessant touring pre-1998), but he’s the main person behind it presently.

He also kept the coffers of BRI topped up very nicely thank you, something the other voting members seem to have no problem with these fifteen-odd years since Carl's passing.

[MBE]

The reunion produced fine results, and it's over. Am I the only one who is OK with that? I am really OK with whatever they do or don't do. Together or separate. Public or private. They have given us the great musical ending we wanted, but they haven't been a full untied group thirty five to forty years. All of a sudden the camps are not going to break down to recombine into one. It's a miracle we got anything after 1973 considering, and now finally there was something we could take pride in and people still complain.

[filledeplage]

Yes, now I remember that it was Howie's turn-of-phrase.  Thanks. To suggest that because the very fickle "press" had now started to give "cred" to the Band, sounds weak to me.  And it would be the same press who turned their noses up at much of their work as substandard or weird, or whatever. The press has not historically been kind to the band and that includes Brian.  I'd go so far as to say that would include the neglected press duties and promo duties of the record company, as reported over time.  

And, while there were different visions of what the Band should be, after Carl died, it emerged as it did, by "agreement of the parties."  The dilution of the trade mark is probably not appropriate for comment here, by me.  

"Incessant touring" as you say, saved them, ultimately, in my view. And, reaching into more obscure markets, cultivated a market, whether it is Disney (abc) Sea World, or other destination venues, beyond what the typical rock venue now lives.  It can't be in the colleges, as a general rule, because their "college kids" are "all growed up" (purposely misspelled.)  It is insulting to disparage those venues, as fans come in all shapes and sizes.  Bonaroo might be a happy exception.  Those YouTubes of those kids rocking to the Boys was just awesome! One of my neighbors drove 1,200 miles to see them.  

Lots of people are "stewing" over what they have NO control over, and projecting their wishes on the band members, in a pretty futile manner, and refusing to look at the whole situation, objectively.  

I’m no apologist for the critics or music press. But objectively, good press from these people, as fickle and ill-informed as they often are, and as bad as they’ve been to the band in the past, can be a good thing. The Beach Boys with the reunion tour did go, as Howie Edelson said in another of his posts,  “from Frankie Valli to Mick Jagger OVERNIGHT.” I don’t think this surprising shift should be ignored out of retribution for how bad the press has been regarding the band. I’m not giving the press any extra credit, I’m just agreeing objectively with Edelson’s point.

As for the band post-Carl, I’m not sure Al and his numerous failed lawsuits would agree with the band emerging by “agreement of the parties.” That doesn’t really matter anymore, but I think how the band emerged in 1998 and on was not a smooth, agreed-upon, highly praised process.

Not sure what else to add about the dilution of the trademark. I think that is a HUGE issue when we get into the topic of “carrying the torch” and the types of tours and venues and audiences the varying configurations of the band have and could garner. Carl saw this happening, alluding in occasional interviews that they should perhaps tour less frequently. But Carl was part of it, he didn’t apparently put up much of a fight for very long. It doesn’t appear anyone in the band ever really attempted to do what Mike himself described promoters telling him to do in the aftermath of the C50 tour, to “give it a rest” to build up demand.

As far as venues, I think the “smaller markets” topic is largely a straw man argument.  Brian nor Al nor most fans who wanted to see the reunion continue ever felt or said anything disparaging about those venues or markets. I think it’s a very debatable and interesting topic as to whether all these past years of touring hindered or helped the band and their legacy. But I would say at this point, in 2012/13, I no longer buy the argument that some form of “Beach Boys” need to tour smaller markets in 2013 for fear of losing any fans. Their legacy is now cemented. If no “Beach Boys” toured starting now, it would be cemented. And certainly, if the scenario discussed by Mike came to pass, that of the “reunion” lineup continuing to tour in 2013 but perhaps not hitting all those small markets, it would be even LESS likely that the band would lose any visibility or fans.

Trying to paint Brian or Al (or fans trying to paint other fans) as disparaging smaller markets by supporting the reunion band, which only arguably would require all larger venues and markets, is to me deflecting away from the fact that Mike Love put the brakes on more reunion activity.

Not for retribution but, as a barometer of how fickle they've been and often unkind.  

The configurations have been explained by Brian and Melinda on an old Larry King interview. I can't speak to anything else.  It sounds as though you'd (or others) have the Touring Band stop, when they don't appear to have any obligation to do so.  They like it; it suits them. At 70, can't you self-determine?

I never said  the agreement was "smooth" but it appears that BRI had the final say.   Mike went back to "status quo ante" post C50.  There was no surprise in my opinion.  

[HeyJude]

Not for retribution but, as a barometer of how fickle they've been and often unkind.  

The configurations have been explained by Brian and Melinda on an old Larry King interview. I can't speak to anything else.  It sounds as though you'd (or others) have the Touring Band stop, when they don't appear to have any obligation to do so.  They like it; it suits them. At 70, can't you self-determine?

I never said  the agreement was "smooth" but it appears that BRI had the final say.   Mike went back to "status quo ante" post C50.  There was no surprise in my opinion.  

The media is all of those things, fickle, etc. But it’s a good enough barometer for the moment to notice that in 2011 the touring “Beach Boys” had no mainstream media coverage, and in 2012 they had tons of it, and apart from Bruce’s weird TMZ moment and the end debacle, it was all positive coverage.

I’ve never suggested the touring band stop (well, I probably did back circa 1999/2000, but that’s a different area of discussion), and I’ve certainly never suggested they have an obligation to stop. The discussion of late has been around whether a hypothetical continuation of the reunion lineup would be preferable, and how Mike’s motives concerning his touring band have impacted the non-continuation of the reunion.

I think Al, much like many fans, takes issue at this point not so much with Mike touring with his own band, but rather Mike choosing to tour with his own band instead of the reunion lineup.