New Mike interview in HuffPost

[HeyJude]

My guess is that Mike's actions in -- ending the tour / holding it to its specified end date / whatever you want to call it -- have rather informed folks' feelings about the current state of affairs. If the C50 lineup had continued, we wouldn't have seen those actions, and many would feel differently about Mike.

That all depends on when and how it would have ended as it was never going to last too long (the proof being that it didn't).

First and foremost, I think many fans were bummed the reunion didn't continue. Pure and simple, seperate from any blame. It was just a total suck event (or lack of an event).

After that, we then arrive at the fact that it *could* have continued. There were no guarantees about what would happen after the tour, and any fan with even a passing knowledge of all the circumstances could have told you what was *likely* to happen after (e.g. back to the status quo). But they *could* have continued the reunion. It was a very doable thing, both functionally, and in terms of the commentary from the group members which indicated that 3/5 of the band wanted to continue. We also have clear references to solid specific offers being on the table from promoters to do more shows and the like. So we see a number of factors that were literally paving the way for the reunion to continue.

After that, we then arrive at who didn't allow those factors to pave the way for more reunion shows, etc. Again, notwithstanding vague references to the painfully obvious fact that we don't know precisely what happened on the tour, we have the group's own comments at our disposal which STILL indicate Mike didn't want to continue. That's where blame starts to creep into the discussion.

After that, we start getting into the really inane, circular debates about how Mike did "what he contractually agreed to", how a "set end date" is the mantra, and so on. To me, these are totally invalid in terms of the discussion at hand. As Wirestone alluded to awhile back, the whole "set end date" nonsense is a conceipt meant solely to cut off debate and discussion. We also start to get into a weird area where choosing to defend Mike based on legal technicalities (hello, nobody has claimed Mike violated any contracts or did anything freaking illegal!) ignores the OBVIOUS fact that when fans are lamenting the end of the reunion, and Mike's potential role in that, they are clearly making a subjective, moral/personal/emotional case. Just like saying it's sad the group didn't put this song or that song out even though it was better than what they were releasing. These fans aren't saying Mike was obligated to continue. They're basically saying he's a d**k if he was the reason it didn't continue. Even from there, the detractors branch off into multiple categories. Some attempt to say "Mike isn't a d**k, it actually wasn't his fault at all that the reunion didn't continue", while others branch off into "So what if Mike was the one who blocked it, that doesn't make him a d**k at all." Yet others have branched off into "you're an idiot, get over it" territory, which obviously kind of defeats the purpose of having a discussion in the first place, and I feel is kind of ironic considering the thing to get over in this case is literally the continued existence of the fullest lineup possible of the freaking band we're here talking about in the first place that we supposedly love! 

[HeyJude]

No secret that I for one was glad that C50 ended when it did, on one almighty high note. Always leave them wanting more... for once in their checkered career, the band got it exactly right, whether by design or accident.

The key difference in POV here seems to be, you wanted them to end on a high note before they stuffed it up.  Others see the resulting burst of bad publicity and infighting and the loss of the next album (or at least, the loss of Bruce and Mike's voices from it as well as the Beach Boys name) as precisely that sort of stuffing up...

Cheers,
Jon Blum

Exactly. The whole "high note" idea isn't a bad one, but the moment the PR went bad BEFORE the end of the tour itself, that high note was already impossible to acheive without doing something else to make it better. I also am still utterly perplexed as to how, even if we ignore that bad PR, it's any kind of an "end" when Mike and Bruce continue using the name, playing a show literally 24 hours after the reunion tour ends.

Ending on a high note, leaving everybody wanting more, etc., those are all things that can only be achieved by the entire group devising a unified concept and strategy for the true end game for the group. This could have been acheived in a number of ways. That the C50 tour was so amazing is certainly a good start, and even with bad PR and Mike and Bruce continuing to use the name, is a better ending than freaking "Summer in Paradise" or "Stars and Stripes." But an end game could have and still can be devised much more gracefully, with some real dignity and respect for the band's name, legacy, and music.

[HeyJude]

I think Alan Jardine is the only human being on earth who believes there were 5 geniuses in the Beach Boys. Not even Mike tries to sell that one.

I've never picked up on anything like this, and certainly not recently. Al has been pretty effusive in his praise for Brian in the last few years especially, and not only has he not ever referred to himself as a genius as far as I know, but has never, as far as I can remember, tried to equate the talents of all or most of the rest of the band with Brian.

If anything, Bruce goes a lot farther in the interviews in implying that Mike, by virtue of writing some lyrics, is on par with Brian.

[HeyJude]

Very few people know exactly what happened between June and September: I'm guessing it's not as black and white as some would like to presume.

That's as much guessing as guessing everybody who posts here is breathing all the time.

I just mean AGD going on and on about how Mike did everything right on the C50 and its a good thing M&B are back with their shows.

I don't think that he says that at all, I think that's what you read into his words. When he says Mike compromised for C50 and stuck to his previous commitments after the set end date it doesn't equal with Mike doing everything right. This "everything" thing is a black/white point of view that doesn't reflect the real world.

I don't think it was ever specifically stated that Mike "did everything right", but can someone point to a comment from AGD where he specifically mentioned something that specifically Mike did wrong in relation to the demise of the reunion? This isn't a rhetorical question, I'm really curious to know if that occured at some point. I don't really recall any comments along those lines, and the lack of such comments from what I can remember, coupled with a pattern of continually jumping to the defence of Mike while seeking out chances to criticize Brian and/or his camp and/or "Brianistas", and seeking out chances to criticize Al Jardine for criticizing Mike's decision, have all kind of given the impression that Mike hasn't particulary done anything wrong. This may be an incorrect impression, I dunno.

[HeyJude]

I can't believe people are happy that the band broke up again.

Who said anyone was happy about it?

No secret that I for one was glad that C50 ended when it did, on one almighty high note.

I'm glad the reunion ended before it could get stale.

Thank you. That was my point. Justfied or not, agreeable or not, there are folks who are GLAD the reunion ended. I think this is an important point, because my personal opinion is that *some* of those who hold that opinion MUST have some other motive or agenda, because it's hard for me to understand why a fan would want the best group tour since, arguably, the mid 70's, to end so soon. We're not talking running the reunion into the ground. We're talking maybe another album and tour.

[Dancing Bear]

I think Alan Jardine is the only human being on earth who believes there were 5 geniuses in the Beach Boys. Not even Mike tries to sell that one.

I've never picked up on anything like this, and certainly not recently. Al has been pretty effusive in his praise for Brian in the last few years especially, and not only has he not ever referred to himself as a genius as far as I know, but has never, as far as I can remember, tried to equate the talents of all or most of the rest of the band with Brian.

If anything, Bruce goes a lot farther in the interviews in implying that Mike, by virtue of writing some lyrics, is on par with Brian.

I think Al told David Leaf in a private conversation in the 90s: "What you don't get, David, is that there wasn't only one genius in the band. You had 5 geniuses there". Since then Al got a lot smarter and began to say all the right things.

By the way, I think when Bruce praises Brian's talents it sounds very endearing. Even if he doesn't love Friends or everything that Brian has ever done.

[Dancing Bear]

I can't believe people are happy that the band broke up again.

Who said anyone was happy about it?

No secret that I for one was glad that C50 ended when it did, on one almighty high note.

I'm glad the reunion ended before it could get stale.

Thank you. That was my point. Justfied or not, agreeable or not, there are folks who are GLAD the reunion ended. I think this is an important point, because my personal opinion is that *some* of those who hold that opinion MUST have some other motive or agenda, because it's hard for me to understand why a fan would want the best group tour since, arguably, the mid 70's, to end so soon. We're not talking running the reunion into the ground. We're talking maybe another album and tour.

Ok, you won. I'm really glad that C50 ended because Brian's melancholy was ruining Mike's positivity. My idol Mike Love must live to the age of 150 to spread good vibration to the next 4 generations.

[Cam Mott]

I think Alan Jardine is the only human being on earth who believes there were 5 geniuses in the Beach Boys. Not even Mike tries to sell that one.

I've never picked up on anything like this, and certainly not recently. Al has been pretty effusive in his praise for Brian in the last few years especially, and not only has he not ever referred to himself as a genius as far as I know, but has never, as far as I can remember, tried to equate the talents of all or most of the rest of the band with Brian.

If anything, Bruce goes a lot farther in the interviews in implying that Mike, by virtue of writing some lyrics, is on par with Brian.

I think Al told David Leaf in a private conversation in the 90s: "What you don't get, David, is that there wasn't only one genius in the band. You had 5 geniuses there". Since then Al got a lot smarter and began to say all the right things.

By the way, I think when Bruce praises Brian's talents it sounds very endearing. Even if he doesn't love Friends or everything that Brian has ever done.

What's really tiresome is how for some fans no matter how much Mike [Al, Carl, Dennis, David, Bruce] is wronged, kisses ass, sacrifices, puts up with, or puts themselves  out or second [third,fourth, fifth] it is never enough. And to ask Brian to do any of that in even the slightest is too much.

[HeyJude]

I think Alan Jardine is the only human being on earth who believes there were 5 geniuses in the Beach Boys. Not even Mike tries to sell that one.

I've never picked up on anything like this, and certainly not recently. Al has been pretty effusive in his praise for Brian in the last few years especially, and not only has he not ever referred to himself as a genius as far as I know, but has never, as far as I can remember, tried to equate the talents of all or most of the rest of the band with Brian.

If anything, Bruce goes a lot farther in the interviews in implying that Mike, by virtue of writing some lyrics, is on par with Brian.

I think Al told David Leaf in a private conversation in the 90s: "What you don't get, David, is that there wasn't only one genius in the band. You had 5 geniuses there". Since then Al got a lot smarter and began to say all the right things.

By the way, I think when Bruce praises Brian's talents it sounds very endearing. Even if he doesn't love Friends or everything that Brian has ever done.

I do vaguely recall reading that quote, which seems more hyperbolic and probably just overly-defensive in the face of a lot of the Brian genius talk.

I don't believe that Al presently believes that everyone in the band were geniuses, or were all on par with Brian.

[HeyJude]

I think Alan Jardine is the only human being on earth who believes there were 5 geniuses in the Beach Boys. Not even Mike tries to sell that one.

I've never picked up on anything like this, and certainly not recently. Al has been pretty effusive in his praise for Brian in the last few years especially, and not only has he not ever referred to himself as a genius as far as I know, but has never, as far as I can remember, tried to equate the talents of all or most of the rest of the band with Brian.

If anything, Bruce goes a lot farther in the interviews in implying that Mike, by virtue of writing some lyrics, is on par with Brian.

I think Al told David Leaf in a private conversation in the 90s: "What you don't get, David, is that there wasn't only one genius in the band. You had 5 geniuses there". Since then Al got a lot smarter and began to say all the right things.

By the way, I think when Bruce praises Brian's talents it sounds very endearing. Even if he doesn't love Friends or everything that Brian has ever done.

What's really tiresome is how for some fans no matter how much Mike [Al, Carl, Dennis, David, Bruce] is wronged, kisses ass, sacrifices, puts up with, or puts themselves  out or second [third,fourth, fifth] it is never enough.

I don't think anybody in the group is a martyr of this magnitude. It's laughable. With the possible exception of Dave, all of these guys have and continue to live very comfortable lives based on the success of the group.

I highly doubt Mike himself would try to portray himself as a martyr of this magnitude.

[Cam Mott]

My point illustrated.

[CenturyDeprived]

I just mean AGD going on and on about how Mike did everything right on the C50 and its a good thing M&B are back with their shows.

Take a straw poll and I think you'll find most folk here, and elsewhere, are glad Brian's away from Mike. Which rather contradicts the desire for the C50 to reconvene. Can't have it both ways. Summer 2012 was an extended moment that will never happen again. I was as amazed as anyone that it worked as well as it did.

One interesting thing to think about, is that at the Grammy Museum performance for California Saga (on July 10, 2012), which happened a few months before the full Beach Boys performance there, Mike was in the audience and joined the band onstage for California Girls. There's a video of part of Mike's onstage appearance, which Justin filmed, on YouTube.

Anyway, during Mike's onstage appearance (at 2:35 in the Youtube video), he mentioned that California Saga would be joining the Beach Boys *next* summer on tour.  His words were "I  look forward to them [Cal Saga] being an opening act for the Beach Boys next summer [2013]". It seemed as though that was an actual plan of sorts that was to have taken fruition, from the way Mike proudly mentioned it.  Even if a Cal Saga/BBs tour was not booked "officially" yet (it was probably just "talk" that they were all collectively discussing as a possibility), it seemed like ML was totally serious about it happening.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xe5y7G8RQQ8

I'm trying to wrap my head around it. Because at that point (based on the nature of his comments), it seemed like Mike had anything but a "set end date" in mind. The California Saga-touring-with-the-Beach-Boys talk certainly gave me the impression (obviously I was wrong) that he was thinking about long-term reunion stuff happening (in some capacity), and that the kids would be joining them for a proper tour, which surely would've been wonderful.

I was there, a few feet away from the Lovester when he said these words captured on the video, and I guess witnessing those words in person made it all the more disappointing when the sh*t hit the fan so soon afterwards.

I was wondering if this possibly throws a monkey wrench into the whole idea that the reunion was in fact going to end as a planned thing. Or if something really messed up happened (post July 10, 2012) to interfere with the BBs relationships at some point after that initial Grammy Museum appearance.  I can't possibly think that Mike would believe that California Saga would tour with the Mike & Bruce show. Could that have been what he was actually thinking about? That's more than a little nutty of an idea. I wish some interviewer would ask him.

Were any post C50 Mike & Bruce shows booked already by this point? Was ML thinking that the Mike & Bruce band would play *some* shows post C50, and that the full BBs (with BAD in tow) would rejoin the lineup in summer 2013, and Cal Saga would then happily tour with them then? To me, that seems to be the most logical theory which would’ve been Mike’s thought process at the time… but Brian/Al not being happy about those plans (to have the M&B show continue at that point) caused the plans to derail. Maybe Mike always ideally wanted to have BAD rejoin the “BBs” touring group in summer 2013, but the  Brian/Al feeling hurt and then starting a press sh*tstorm made that an impossibility.

This is all so confusing, but one really has to wonder what ML's intentions were at the time. Trying to figure this out is like trying to get inside the head of a crazy person, and figure out why they do the things they do.

Either way, this segment in the video tells me there's more to the whole C50 implosion story than meets the eye.

[Cyncie]

Here's my perspective on the whole thing. I am not a Mike hater. I've always acknowledged his contribution to the band, even though I find his onstage persona to be cocky and sometimes borderline creepy these days. The lawsuits, to me were part of the internal affairs of the band, and didn't affect my response to the music, or the band members. Prior to C50, I was fine with the Mike/Bruce Beach Boys Band, because Brian and Al were obviously out of the group going solo and there didn't seem to be any way for reconciliation. So, the Mike and Bruce show was the closest you were going to get to a real Beach Boys concert, and you had Brian's solo projects as a bonus.

C50, however, was a whole different experience.  The surviving members were there, the music soared, and it really seemed like a celebration of the music and the band's legacy.  At the time, I understood that this was a one off concert tour with a set ending. I was fine with that. But, then it seemed that there were other options on the table, including additional high profile concerts, a follow up album, and TV appearances. It appeared that Brian, Al and Dave wanted to consider these options. It also appeared that the options never got a real consideration because Mike refused to come back to the bargaining table. If the other options had been considered, and the group had issued a statement that they had decided to move on, I don't think there would be the Mike backlash that we're seeing now. But, since Mike rather publicly closed the door without, apparently,  any real discussion, there was never any opportunity to work out whatever roadblocks might have been in the way. Rightly or wrongly, the perception is that Mike ended the party, and no one likes a party pooper.

[Sheriff John Stone]

First and foremost, I think many fans were bummed the reunion didn't continue. Pure and simple, seperate from any blame. It was just a total suck event (or lack of an event).

After that, we then arrive at the fact that it *could* have continued. There were no guarantees about what would happen after the tour, and any fan with even a passing knowledge of all the circumstances could have told you what was *likely* to happen after (e.g. back to the status quo). But they *could* have continued the reunion. It was a very doable thing, both functionally, and in terms of the commentary from the group members which indicated that 3/5 of the band wanted to continue. We also have clear references to solid specific offers being on the table from promoters to do more shows and the like. So we see a number of factors that were literally paving the way for the reunion to continue.

After that, we then arrive at who didn't allow those factors to pave the way for more reunion shows, etc. Again, notwithstanding vague references to the painfully obvious fact that we don't know precisely what happened on the tour, we have the group's own comments at our disposal which STILL indicate Mike didn't want to continue. That's where blame starts to creep into the discussion.

After that, we start getting into the really inane, circular debates about how Mike did "what he contractually agreed to", how a "set end date" is the mantra, and so on. To me, these are totally invalid in terms of the discussion at hand. As Wirestone alluded to awhile back, the whole "set end date" nonsense is a conceipt meant solely to cut off debate and discussion. We also start to get into a weird area where choosing to defend Mike based on legal technicalities (hello, nobody has claimed Mike violated any contracts or did anything freaking illegal!) ignores the OBVIOUS fact that when fans are lamenting the end of the reunion, and Mike's potential role in that, they are clearly making a subjective, moral/personal/emotional case. Just like saying it's sad the group didn't put this song or that song out even though it was better than what they were releasing. These fans aren't saying Mike was obligated to continue. They're basically saying he's a d**k if he was the reason it didn't continue. Even from there, the detractors branch off into multiple categories. Some attempt to say "Mike isn't a d**k, it actually wasn't his fault at all that the reunion didn't continue", while others branch off into "So what if Mike was the one who blocked it, that doesn't make him a d**k at all." Yet others have branched off into "you're an idiot, get over it" territory, which obviously kind of defeats the purpose of having a discussion in the first place, and I feel is kind of ironic considering the thing to get over in this case is literally the continued existence of the fullest lineup possible of the freaking band we're here talking about in the first place that we supposedly love! 

After saying all that, you forgot to mention that Brian told Mike, "No more dates for us, please".

[Mike's Beard]

I would have loved for the C50 band to continue - if that's what they all wanted and everybody's heart and soul was into making it continue. Clearly it wasn't so it was for the best that it did wind down. The C50 proved to me that you can only wind the clock back 20, 30, 40 years for so long then reality kicks in.  

[Andrew G. Doe]

In the aftermath of the lamentable demise of the reunion, in an effort to track WHO completely fudged the whole thing up, criticism has *then* turned to Mike Love, and justifiably so notwithstanding the vague allusions to what "we don't know" happened on the tour.

"Justifiably so" only in the light of what is currently common knowledge... um, which public record includes Mike's statement in the UK press last summer - which was never contradicted by anyone at all - that Brian, or Brian's people said "no more shows" after agreeing to an extension to 73... which, of course, removes much of that justification at a stroke. According to said statement, Mike was told that 73 shows was the limit for Brian's involvement and made his post C50 plans accordingly. Then, apparently, Brian changed his mind and was put-out that Mike didn't compromise a second time. Remember, I'm basing all this on a comment by Mike in the UK press that, as no-one contradicted it, must be assumed to be accurate.

[Andrew G. Doe]

I don't think it was ever specifically stated that Mike "did everything right", but can someone point to a comment from AGD where he specifically mentioned something that specifically Mike did wrong in relation to the demise of the reunion?

Yup - I've repeatedly and consistently said the timing of his September statement was lamentable. Because it was. Caused a shitload of grief for all concerned.

[Mikie]

My God. I come back here and it looks like there's STILL some people trying to deal with the end of the C50. Every possible angle has been addressed. I guess threads like this serve as therapy? It's sad, really.

[HeyJude]

In the aftermath of the lamentable demise of the reunion, in an effort to track WHO completely fudged the whole thing up, criticism has *then* turned to Mike Love, and justifiably so notwithstanding the vague allusions to what "we don't know" happened on the tour.

"Justifiably so" only in the light of what is currently common knowledge... um, which public record includes Mike's statement in the UK press last summer - which was never contradicted by anyone at all - that Brian, or Brian's people said "no more shows" after agreeing to an extension to 73... which, of course, removes much of that justification at a stroke. According to said statement, Mike was told that 73 shows was the limit for Brian's involvement and made his post C50 plans accordingly. Then, apparently, Brian changed his mind and was put-out that Mike didn't compromise a second time. Remember, I'm basing all this on a comment by Mike in the UK press that, as no-one contradicted it, must be assumed to be accurate.

I still view Mike's single comment about Brian saying no to more dates with skepticism, because it contradicts to varying degrees things that others have said, including Mike himself. As weird and dysfunctional and these guys can be, I don't think Brian or his people would draft that epic letter to the LA Times stating he wanted to do more shows, if in fact the exact opposite was true. Mike hasn't said that he was initially open to more dates, then Brian balked, and then Mike was forced to go back to his thing reluctantly. We have oodles of comments from all of them indicating that Mike was the one who did not want to do more reunion shows. Then we have one interview where Mike said Brian said no more shows. That had to be exaggerated or lacking context or something.

I agree Mike's one comment is thought provoking and certainly indicates that there may be more to the story. But it really raises more questions than it answers. Nobody refuted what Mike said, but that means nothing. Didn't Brian's team recently specifically decline to discuss the issue of Mike and the reunion due to potential legal issues?

[HeyJude]

I don't think it was ever specifically stated that Mike "did everything right", but can someone point to a comment from AGD where he specifically mentioned something that specifically Mike did wrong in relation to the demise of the reunion?

Yup - I've repeatedly and consistently said the timing of his September statement was lamentable. Because it was. Caused a shitload of grief for all concerned.

Thanks for reminding me of that. I still feel "ill timing" doesn't particularly relate to any blame for the actual demise of the reunion. That kind if implies he didn't do anything wrong so much as he simply poorly delivered the news of what he was doing. But I appreciate that you characterized the timing of that statement from Mike appropriately.

[HeyJude]

First and foremost, I think many fans were bummed the reunion didn't continue. Pure and simple, seperate from any blame. It was just a total suck event (or lack of an event).

After that, we then arrive at the fact that it *could* have continued. There were no guarantees about what would happen after the tour, and any fan with even a passing knowledge of all the circumstances could have told you what was *likely* to happen after (e.g. back to the status quo). But they *could* have continued the reunion. It was a very doable thing, both functionally, and in terms of the commentary from the group members which indicated that 3/5 of the band wanted to continue. We also have clear references to solid specific offers being on the table from promoters to do more shows and the like. So we see a number of factors that were literally paving the way for the reunion to continue.

After that, we then arrive at who didn't allow those factors to pave the way for more reunion shows, etc. Again, notwithstanding vague references to the painfully obvious fact that we don't know precisely what happened on the tour, we have the group's own comments at our disposal which STILL indicate Mike didn't want to continue. That's where blame starts to creep into the discussion.

After that, we start getting into the really inane, circular debates about how Mike did "what he contractually agreed to", how a "set end date" is the mantra, and so on. To me, these are totally invalid in terms of the discussion at hand. As Wirestone alluded to awhile back, the whole "set end date" nonsense is a conceipt meant solely to cut off debate and discussion. We also start to get into a weird area where choosing to defend Mike based on legal technicalities (hello, nobody has claimed Mike violated any contracts or did anything freaking illegal!) ignores the OBVIOUS fact that when fans are lamenting the end of the reunion, and Mike's potential role in that, they are clearly making a subjective, moral/personal/emotional case. Just like saying it's sad the group didn't put this song or that song out even though it was better than what they were releasing. These fans aren't saying Mike was obligated to continue. They're basically saying he's a d**k if he was the reason it didn't continue. Even from there, the detractors branch off into multiple categories. Some attempt to say "Mike isn't a d**k, it actually wasn't his fault at all that the reunion didn't continue", while others branch off into "So what if Mike was the one who blocked it, that doesn't make him a d**k at all." Yet others have branched off into "you're an idiot, get over it" territory, which obviously kind of defeats the purpose of having a discussion in the first place, and I feel is kind of ironic considering the thing to get over in this case is literally the continued existence of the fullest lineup possible of the freaking band we're here talking about in the first place that we supposedly love! 

After saying all that, you forgot to mention that Brian told Mike, "No more dates for us, please".

Brian also said he and David wanted to continue and Mike was the one who did not, and Al has said the same thing. Mike had not refuted this in any other of the numerous interviews he has given. So I view the one single comment about Brian saying no with skepticism. I feel Mike needs to either clarify or give his comment some sort of context, or needs to say Brian and Al were/are making it up for some reason.

[Mike's Beard]

My God. I come back here and it looks like there's STILL some people trying to deal with the end of the C50. Every possible angle has been addressed. I guess threads like this serve as therapy? It's sad, really.

True there's basically nothing new that any of us can discuss on the C50 demise.... at the moment. Once/if a certain baseball capped singer starts naming names and specific problems that made up his mind to walk, I'm certain that will all change.

[HeyJude]

My God. I come back here and it looks like there's STILL some people trying to deal with the end of the C50. Every possible angle has been addressed. I guess threads like this serve as therapy? It's sad, really.

True there's basically nothing new that any of us can discuss on the C50 demise.... at the moment. Once/if a certain baseball capped singer starts naming names and specific problems that made up his mind to walk, I'm certain that will all change.

We're still talking about songwriting issues from the 60's, and Smile, and so on. That's what this place is for. There are a lot of threads and topics and comments over the years that are repetitive or beat a dead horse. It's all on topic, so I see no problem with it. Comments lamenting the repetitive nature of these discussions are less on topic actually.

[Mikie]

My God. I come back here and it looks like there's STILL some people trying to deal with the end of the C50. Every possible angle has been addressed. I guess threads like this serve as therapy? It's sad, really.

True there's basically nothing new that any of us can discuss on the C50 demise.... at the moment. Once/if a certain baseball capped singer starts naming names and specific problems that made up his mind to walk, I'm certain that will all change.

I thought all of the variables and possible interpretations of those statements by specific parties in the past year have been explored and evaluated at length already.  Guess when it gets real slow around here, some people decide to gravitate to a thread with a recent Mike or Brian or Al interview discussion and milk it for all it's worth. Yes - this is an excellent example of beating a dead horse. And also derailing from the original subject matter. There are no further lessons to be learned here for the future. It's a done deal. Nothing gained and (to some) a little bit lost. It's history!  If it helps you to talk about it, please continue on with your therapy.  I encourage you to get closure!  

[guitarfool2002]

Once/if a certain baseball capped singer starts naming names and specific problems that made up his mind to walk, I'm certain that will all change.

Chris Brown?