gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
680601 Posts in 27601 Topics by 4068 Members - Latest Member: Dae Lims March 29, 2024, 12:44:18 PM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Why the Mike/Bruce Combo?  (Read 34520 times)
Cam Mott
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4171


View Profile
« Reply #150 on: March 05, 2014, 03:10:16 AM »

Cam on the other hand spreads what he THINKS might be the truth as fact, when really it's just his opinion.

Fair point. I'm sure I could do a better job of labeling.

In this thread I believe I've made it pretty clear and even replied to you that I only know what everybody else knows.
Logged

"Bring me the head of Carmen Sandiego" Lynne "The Chief" Thigpen
Jim V.
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 3038



View Profile
« Reply #151 on: March 05, 2014, 08:04:55 AM »

All I was trying to articulate, is that I don't buy Brian being the victim in this thing, whether it's he himself stating it, or his fans... i'm also a fan of course.  

An niteresting thing that someone above mentioned, was that Brian probably only wanted to do a couple weeks worth of extra dates or whatever... which sounds likely....

which ultimately means that really the whole to-do is just over a months worth of missed opportunities.  So Mike couldn't be bothered to give a couple weeks of extra work, and Brian got so upset over a couple of weeks worth of work... Most normal people could have worked something out.  

That it's apparently driven a wedge between the BB's so they are once again not working together (so far) on future projects just shows how trepidacious and strained their relationship is at this late date.  Sad.  

See, I don't think it's quite that. Somewhat close though.

I think, as Brian said in the LA Times thing, and also like you've surmised, he wanted to do a few more shows that we on the table, such as another appearance at the Hollywood Bowl and also a New Years show, or whatever there was on the table.

Now also, remember that Brian was saying that he wanted to do another album with The Beach Boys. And also remember that Jon Stebbins reported that there was an offer on the table for a new album, and because of Mike opting out they had to leave it sitting there.

So I think it was more that Mike decided to finish The Beach Boys as an ongoing concern artistically, instead just reverting to the touring jukebox with Bruce. And he had (and still has) the right to do that. However, that is why I think most of us are bummed. He could have still probably done the half-ass "Beach Boys" thing with Bruce and tour state fairs and then also have the real group play bigger, more concentrated tours, and also release albums. I have to imagine a deal like that must have been floated at some point.
Logged
Ron
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5086


View Profile
« Reply #152 on: March 05, 2014, 08:08:18 AM »

I wish he would have done it too... but I doubt Mike would do something (or not do something) without reasons.  Apparently he didn't enjoy the whole ordeal as much as Brian did.  "Really Brian... it's not you, it's Me"

Logged
donald
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2485



View Profile
« Reply #153 on: March 05, 2014, 08:25:49 AM »

The Mike & Bruce show is in Tahoe this weekend, a couple hours drive away. After the C50, I'll never go see this band again - it'll ruin my memories of the original line-up on stage a couple of years ago.


Mikie, that sounded like a good time, Beachboys and Tahoe, you should have GONE!   Spent a couple of days in Tahoe last summer and went over to the Mountain Winery to see Mike and Bruce and Scotty and John  on the way back to Monterey.   Sometimes you gotta just go with the premise that "its all good"....... Smiley
Logged
Robbie Mac
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Gender: Male
Posts: 877


Carl Wilson is not amused.


View Profile
« Reply #154 on: March 05, 2014, 08:29:24 AM »



I’d argue that if they’d stayed together, recorded more album(s), made less live appearances with an emphasis of quality over quantity, and publicly established a legitimate, long-term mending of fences, that the brand name would be held in a considerably higher regard - there’d probably be an award-winning documentary made about it, and hearing the band name might begin to have a lot less people cringe (due to immediate associations with things like Stamos and Full House) when they think of the BBs. We can't know just how much goodwill they were *sooo* close to having that just slipped away.



Ok. I have cut down your post just to make it easier to reply to.

I think you overestimate a lot of things about the reunion tour and about how realistic the possibilities were that, even if it had carried on for a few more months, Brian would have wanted it to be done every year. The fact that Mike and Bruce have been able to go back to touring in their current line up with such ease shows just how little many members of the general public care about who is on stage with The Beach Boys. I don`t think anyone cares about `mending of fences` outside of the hardcore fanbase and the legacy of the group is already set in stone. Brian and Mike getting on stage together in their mid-70s would change nothing about that.

Aside from the money, then what was the point of the reunion?
Logged

The world could come together as one
If everybody under the sun
Adds some 🎼 to your day
Sheriff John Stone
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5309



View Profile
« Reply #155 on: March 05, 2014, 09:38:22 AM »

He (Mike) could have still probably done the half-ass "Beach Boys" thing with Bruce and tour state fairs and then also have the real group play bigger, more concentrated tours...

I think that would've been a PR, marketing, and maybe even legal nightmare. Who's sitting in tonight? Will Brian be there? Is Al & David joining Mike & Bruce? This show was advertised with a group picture including Brian does that mean he will be appearing? Who's "The Beach Boys" - Mike & Bruce or the group with Brian, Al, and David? You know what I mean...
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #156 on: March 05, 2014, 10:20:52 AM »



I’d argue that if they’d stayed together, recorded more album(s), made less live appearances with an emphasis of quality over quantity, and publicly established a legitimate, long-term mending of fences, that the brand name would be held in a considerably higher regard - there’d probably be an award-winning documentary made about it, and hearing the band name might begin to have a lot less people cringe (due to immediate associations with things like Stamos and Full House) when they think of the BBs. We can't know just how much goodwill they were *sooo* close to having that just slipped away.



Ok. I have cut down your post just to make it easier to reply to.

I think you overestimate a lot of things about the reunion tour and about how realistic the possibilities were that, even if it had carried on for a few more months, Brian would have wanted it to be done every year. The fact that Mike and Bruce have been able to go back to touring in their current line up with such ease shows just how little many members of the general public care about who is on stage with The Beach Boys. I don`t think anyone cares about `mending of fences` outside of the hardcore fanbase and the legacy of the group is already set in stone. Brian and Mike getting on stage together in their mid-70s would change nothing about that.

Aside from the money, then what was the point of the reunion?

Andy Botwin - Yes, I echo that question too...

And I reiterate your question to Nicko - what was the point of the reunion besides money?  Your post almost makes it seem like that was the sole reason that the bandmembers had in mind, and I contend that's not the case.

It seems to me that, besides the obvious desire to make touring money from ticket sales of a reunion tour, it was thought/hoped for by the bandmembers (and their spouses) that if the reunion went well, this could be a major step at hatchet-burying, not to mention reaping long-term benefits (which would have been financial + image-related to repair the public persona of a fractured band that was a shadow of its former self). I'd really like to think that Mike Love wasn't ONLY thinking of making bucks the whole time. I'll give him more credit than that. There were surely lots of reasons why the reunion happened, and lots of hopes which differed from person to person. Nobody at the onset could have really known the outcome, but I think they were all taking things one step at a time, as evidenced by the "safe" cover of Do it Again, then the music video (sans David), then with David, etc. etc.

And the assertion that "The fact that Mike and Bruce have been able to go back to touring in their current line up with such ease shows just how little many members of the general public care about who is on stage with The Beach Boys" doesn't really gel with me. M&B have been able to find an audience, and more power to them. But IMO, the audience of the M&B show doesn't constitute the "general public" as much as a small, relatively much less discerning contingent of fans + some *super* hardcore fans who will take what they can get and are just happy to see any BBs playing. No insult intended to any M&B fans/attendees - hell, I've been a M&B attendee before (and I’m not trying to start a discussion about the musical merits of M&B show).

Whether or not we can agree how many of the “general public” care, or would have been aware of the band *legitimately* having mended fences/gotten along, presenting an ongoing public image of releasing seriously good, critically-praised music, and playing fewer - but better and high profile –shows, I contend that if that had continued from 2012-forward, the amount of benefits/cred/change in public perception (the non M&B attendee perception) that could have been gained could have been staggering, if handled well by good PR people.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 10:38:59 AM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #157 on: March 05, 2014, 10:35:11 AM »

He (Mike) could have still probably done the half-ass "Beach Boys" thing with Bruce and tour state fairs and then also have the real group play bigger, more concentrated tours...

I think that would've been a PR, marketing, and maybe even legal nightmare. Who's sitting in tonight? Will Brian be there? Is Al & David joining Mike & Bruce? This show was advertised with a group picture including Brian does that mean he will be appearing? Who's "The Beach Boys" - Mike & Bruce or the group with Brian, Al, and David? You know what I mean...

Here's an idea: Mike & Bruce could simply be billed as "Mike Love and Bruce Johnston" and not as "The BBs", and just deal with having smaller audiences, then return to the fold and tour as "The BBs" when all the members were present.  Or better idea - they could simply take some time off from touring altogether... and decide that the brand name will only be used in a united way from here on out. Granted, the short term cash cow would be affected. I have no idea if Brian's people would have presented either idea as an option (since their bottom line would be affected too, as would Carl's estate + Al). Again, it's taking a chance that there'd have been some big picture financial or legacy/image-related rewards to reap based upon using the brand name in a more well-thought-out, calculated way with quality over quantity.  

But supposing either idea was suggested (or would have been suggested) by Brian's people to Mike, I still do not think it's an unreasonable request to ask of Mike. Maybe a difficult request worthy of soul searching that would've been tough to accept, but IMO something that many reasonable people in his shoes would nonetheless eventually be able to wrap their heads around.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 10:45:27 AM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
Nicko1234
Guest
« Reply #158 on: March 05, 2014, 10:47:03 AM »



Whether or not we can agree how many of the “general public” care, or would have been aware of the band *legitimately* having mended fences/gotten along, presenting an ongoing public image of releasing seriously good, critically-praised music, and playing fewer - but better and high profile –shows, I contend that if that had continued from 2012-forward, the amount of benefits/cred/change in public perception (the non M&B attendee perception) that could have been gained could have been staggering, if handled well by good PR people.


Problem number one: I have never seen it stated anywhere that any of the band members had ever contemplated that this might become a permanent thing (and that includes Brian). If Brian had ever said that he wanted to completely give up his solo career to become a permanent Beach Boy again then I apologize.
Logged
Nicko1234
Guest
« Reply #159 on: March 05, 2014, 10:50:54 AM »



Here's an idea: Mike & Bruce could simply be billed as "Mike Love and Bruce Johnston" and not as "The BBs", and just deal with having smaller audiences, then return to the fold and tour as "The BBs" when all the members were present.  Or better idea - they could simply take some time off from touring altogether... and decide that the brand name will only be used in a united way from here on out. Granted, the short term cash cow would be affected. I have no idea if Brian's people would have presented either idea as an option (since their bottom line would be affected too, as would Carl's estate + Al). Again, it's taking a chance that there'd have been some big picture financial or legacy/image-related rewards to reap based upon using the brand name in a more well-thought-out, calculated way with quality over quantity.  

But supposing either idea was suggested (or would have been suggested) by Brian's people to Mike, I still do not think it's an unreasonable request to ask of Mike. Maybe a difficult request worthy of soul searching that would've been tough to accept, but IMO something that many reasonable people in his shoes would nonetheless eventually be able to wrap their heads around.

Problem number two: The whole reason that Mike has paid Brian and Al a stack of money since 1998 for doing nothing is because he did not want to tour as Mike Love and Bruce Johnston (or America`s Band or any other alternative). It IS completely unrealistic to think that he would start to do that again.
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #160 on: March 05, 2014, 11:00:31 AM »



Whether or not we can agree how many of the “general public” care, or would have been aware of the band *legitimately* having mended fences/gotten along, presenting an ongoing public image of releasing seriously good, critically-praised music, and playing fewer - but better and high profile –shows, I contend that if that had continued from 2012-forward, the amount of benefits/cred/change in public perception (the non M&B attendee perception) that could have been gained could have been staggering, if handled well by good PR people.


Problem number one: I have never seen it stated anywhere that any of the band members had ever contemplated that this might become a permanent thing (and that includes Brian). If Brian had ever said that he wanted to completely give up his solo career to become a permanent Beach Boy again then I apologize.

Obviously there are lots of unknowns about the Brian's team's intent - we can only presume what Brian's team would have proposed to Mike. I think it was a step-by-step process that would have involved taking things one step at a time, and things may have been asked to be put on hold during the figuring-out process. My point is, while we don't (and likely will never) know what parameters might have been asked of Mike (if it even got to the presenting-him-options stage), what's the *worst* or most "outrageous" proposal that either was (or could possibly have been) offered to Mike by Brian's team? Again, he wasn't being asked to give up his firstborn son or anything.  Smiley
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 11:03:48 AM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
Cam Mott
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4171


View Profile
« Reply #161 on: March 05, 2014, 11:05:58 AM »



Whether or not we can agree how many of the “general public” care, or would have been aware of the band *legitimately* having mended fences/gotten along, presenting an ongoing public image of releasing seriously good, critically-praised music, and playing fewer - but better and high profile –shows, I contend that if that had continued from 2012-forward, the amount of benefits/cred/change in public perception (the non M&B attendee perception) that could have been gained could have been staggering, if handled well by good PR people.


Problem number one: I have never seen it stated anywhere that any of the band members had ever contemplated that this might become a permanent thing (and that includes Brian). If Brian had ever said that he wanted to completely give up his solo career to become a permanent Beach Boy again then I apologize.

Yeah, my memory is whenever the principals spoke about it, it was as a one time thing and maybe a last time thing tied to the 50th.
Logged

"Bring me the head of Carmen Sandiego" Lynne "The Chief" Thigpen
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #162 on: March 05, 2014, 11:06:40 AM »



Here's an idea: Mike & Bruce could simply be billed as "Mike Love and Bruce Johnston" and not as "The BBs", and just deal with having smaller audiences, then return to the fold and tour as "The BBs" when all the members were present.  Or better idea - they could simply take some time off from touring altogether... and decide that the brand name will only be used in a united way from here on out. Granted, the short term cash cow would be affected. I have no idea if Brian's people would have presented either idea as an option (since their bottom line would be affected too, as would Carl's estate + Al). Again, it's taking a chance that there'd have been some big picture financial or legacy/image-related rewards to reap based upon using the brand name in a more well-thought-out, calculated way with quality over quantity.  

But supposing either idea was suggested (or would have been suggested) by Brian's people to Mike, I still do not think it's an unreasonable request to ask of Mike. Maybe a difficult request worthy of soul searching that would've been tough to accept, but IMO something that many reasonable people in his shoes would nonetheless eventually be able to wrap their heads around.

Problem number two: The whole reason that Mike has paid Brian and Al a stack of money since 1998 for doing nothing is because he did not want to tour as Mike Love and Bruce Johnston (or America`s Band or any other alternative). It IS completely unrealistic to think that he would start to do that again.

I know Mike didn't want to tour billed as "M&B" (with that being the only touring that he'd do)... but if he could be billed as "M&B" for his paired-down shows, and then get to be part of "The BBs" again for the unified, bigger shows/tours, I fail to see why that's an absurd hypothetical request worthy of a drama queen reaction - unless it's an ego thing.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 11:09:21 AM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
Sheriff John Stone
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5309



View Profile
« Reply #163 on: March 05, 2014, 11:29:27 AM »



Here's an idea: Mike & Bruce could simply be billed as "Mike Love and Bruce Johnston" and not as "The BBs", and just deal with having smaller audiences, then return to the fold and tour as "The BBs" when all the members were present.  Or better idea - they could simply take some time off from touring altogether... and decide that the brand name will only be used in a united way from here on out. Granted, the short term cash cow would be affected. I have no idea if Brian's people would have presented either idea as an option (since their bottom line would be affected too, as would Carl's estate + Al). Again, it's taking a chance that there'd have been some big picture financial or legacy/image-related rewards to reap based upon using the brand name in a more well-thought-out, calculated way with quality over quantity.  

But supposing either idea was suggested (or would have been suggested) by Brian's people to Mike, I still do not think it's an unreasonable request to ask of Mike. Maybe a difficult request worthy of soul searching that would've been tough to accept, but IMO something that many reasonable people in his shoes would nonetheless eventually be able to wrap their heads around.

Problem number two: The whole reason that Mike has paid Brian and Al a stack of money since 1998 for doing nothing is because he did not want to tour as Mike Love and Bruce Johnston (or America`s Band or any other alternative). It IS completely unrealistic to think that he would start to do that again.

I know Mike didn't want to tour billed as "M&B" (with that being the only touring that he'd do)... but if he could be billed as "M&B" for his paired-down shows, and then get to be part of "The BBs" again for the unified, bigger shows/tours, I fail to see why that's an absurd hypothetical request worthy of a drama queen reaction - unless it's an ego thing.

It's absurd on two levels. First, how many tickets would the "Mike Love & Bruce Johnston Of The Beach Boys Band" sell? And how long, after they are playing to half-filled venues, would they not be able to continue? I'd give them a year. Mike would never agree to that proposal.

And second, Brian, Carl Wilson's Estate, and maybe even Al would never agree to that set-up, jeopardizing big $$$$$$$$$$ for doing absolutely nothing. I know I keep bringing that up, but, for some reason you (and others) either don't agree or DON'T WANT to accept it. You can continue to think that Mike Love is the only Beach "in it for the money" or PRIMARILY "in it for the money", but I am of the opinion that OTHER Beach Boys were also following the money and some are continuing to do so. I'm not seeing or hearing a lot of "art" coming out of 'em...
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #164 on: March 05, 2014, 11:41:53 AM »



Here's an idea: Mike & Bruce could simply be billed as "Mike Love and Bruce Johnston" and not as "The BBs", and just deal with having smaller audiences, then return to the fold and tour as "The BBs" when all the members were present.  Or better idea - they could simply take some time off from touring altogether... and decide that the brand name will only be used in a united way from here on out. Granted, the short term cash cow would be affected. I have no idea if Brian's people would have presented either idea as an option (since their bottom line would be affected too, as would Carl's estate + Al). Again, it's taking a chance that there'd have been some big picture financial or legacy/image-related rewards to reap based upon using the brand name in a more well-thought-out, calculated way with quality over quantity.  

But supposing either idea was suggested (or would have been suggested) by Brian's people to Mike, I still do not think it's an unreasonable request to ask of Mike. Maybe a difficult request worthy of soul searching that would've been tough to accept, but IMO something that many reasonable people in his shoes would nonetheless eventually be able to wrap their heads around.

Problem number two: The whole reason that Mike has paid Brian and Al a stack of money since 1998 for doing nothing is because he did not want to tour as Mike Love and Bruce Johnston (or America`s Band or any other alternative). It IS completely unrealistic to think that he would start to do that again.

I know Mike didn't want to tour billed as "M&B" (with that being the only touring that he'd do)... but if he could be billed as "M&B" for his paired-down shows, and then get to be part of "The BBs" again for the unified, bigger shows/tours, I fail to see why that's an absurd hypothetical request worthy of a drama queen reaction - unless it's an ego thing.

It's absurd on two levels. First, how many tickets would the "Mike Love & Bruce Johnston Of The Beach Boys Band" sell? And how long, after they are playing to half-filled venues, would they not be able to continue? I'd give them a year. Mike would never agree to that proposal.

And second, Brian, Carl Wilson's Estate, and maybe even Al would never agree to that set-up, jeopardizing big $$$$$$$$$$ for doing absolutely nothing. I know I keep bringing that up, but, for some reason you (and others) either don't agree or DON'T WANT to accept it. You can continue to think that Mike Love is the only Beach "in it for the money" or PRIMARILY "in it for the money", but I am of the opinion that OTHER Beach Boys were also following the money and some are continuing to do so. I'm not seeing or hearing a lot of "art" coming out of 'em...

I agree that Brian/Al/Carl's estate all want money too. Absolutely. Therefore I don't know what the terms of the actual proposal would have been. I do think it's safe to say that, relative to Mike, the other BB members care about money less and legacy/art more. Again - I'm *not* saying that Brian never does things just for money and doesn't like getting checks for the M&B show - he DOES.

Brian got really miffed/pissed about *something* in terms of a difference of opinion (and how this was handled) regarding how C50 would have hypothetically continued. That's why I'm only speculating at what the proposals could have been. But as far as I can see it, there couldn't have been too many different options for Brian's team to have proposed to Mike (if it even got to the hypothetical discussion/proposal stage). I wonder if it even did get to that discussion stage. But there had to have been some series of actions/concessions that Mike could have done that would have made Brian not pissed at Mike and not take out an LA Times article. We can only guess at what those actions would have been.
 
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 11:43:34 AM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
mikeddonn
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 976


View Profile
« Reply #165 on: March 05, 2014, 11:54:48 AM »

.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 11:57:08 AM by mikeddonn » Logged
Dancing Bear
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1371



View Profile
« Reply #166 on: March 05, 2014, 12:03:20 PM »

I agree that Brian/Al/Carl's estate all want money too. Absolutely.

Brian doesn't need the touring money, he's been good for life since 1965 with royalties and such. He wants it though, and he's in his right.
Al - I don't know.
Carl's estate definetly needs the touring money.
Logged

I'm fat as a cow oh how'd I ever get this way!
Sheriff John Stone
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5309



View Profile
« Reply #167 on: March 05, 2014, 12:05:24 PM »



Here's an idea: Mike & Bruce could simply be billed as "Mike Love and Bruce Johnston" and not as "The BBs", and just deal with having smaller audiences, then return to the fold and tour as "The BBs" when all the members were present.  Or better idea - they could simply take some time off from touring altogether... and decide that the brand name will only be used in a united way from here on out. Granted, the short term cash cow would be affected. I have no idea if Brian's people would have presented either idea as an option (since their bottom line would be affected too, as would Carl's estate + Al). Again, it's taking a chance that there'd have been some big picture financial or legacy/image-related rewards to reap based upon using the brand name in a more well-thought-out, calculated way with quality over quantity.  

But supposing either idea was suggested (or would have been suggested) by Brian's people to Mike, I still do not think it's an unreasonable request to ask of Mike. Maybe a difficult request worthy of soul searching that would've been tough to accept, but IMO something that many reasonable people in his shoes would nonetheless eventually be able to wrap their heads around.

Problem number two: The whole reason that Mike has paid Brian and Al a stack of money since 1998 for doing nothing is because he did not want to tour as Mike Love and Bruce Johnston (or America`s Band or any other alternative). It IS completely unrealistic to think that he would start to do that again.

I know Mike didn't want to tour billed as "M&B" (with that being the only touring that he'd do)... but if he could be billed as "M&B" for his paired-down shows, and then get to be part of "The BBs" again for the unified, bigger shows/tours, I fail to see why that's an absurd hypothetical request worthy of a drama queen reaction - unless it's an ego thing.

It's absurd on two levels. First, how many tickets would the "Mike Love & Bruce Johnston Of The Beach Boys Band" sell? And how long, after they are playing to half-filled venues, would they not be able to continue? I'd give them a year. Mike would never agree to that proposal.

And second, Brian, Carl Wilson's Estate, and maybe even Al would never agree to that set-up, jeopardizing big $$$$$$$$$$ for doing absolutely nothing. I know I keep bringing that up, but, for some reason you (and others) either don't agree or DON'T WANT to accept it. You can continue to think that Mike Love is the only Beach "in it for the money" or PRIMARILY "in it for the money", but I am of the opinion that OTHER Beach Boys were also following the money and some are continuing to do so. I'm not seeing or hearing a lot of "art" coming out of 'em...

I agree that Brian/Al/Carl's estate all want money too. Absolutely. Therefore I don't know what the terms of the actual proposal would have been. I do think it's safe to say that, relative to Mike, the other BB members care about money less and legacy/art more. Again - I'm *not* saying that Brian never does things just for money and doesn't like getting checks for the M&B show - he DOES.

Brian got really miffed/pissed about *something* in terms of a difference of opinion (and how this was handled) regarding how C50 would have hypothetically continued. That's why I'm only speculating at what the proposals could have been. But as far as I can see it, there couldn't have been too many different options for Brian's team to have proposed to Mike (if it even got to the hypothetical discussion/proposal stage). I wonder if it even did get to that discussion stage. But there had to have been some series of actions/concessions that Mike could have done that would have made Brian not pissed at Mike and not take out an LA Times article. We can only guess at what those actions would have been.

CenturyDeprived, you are and have been ASSUMING that Brian Wilson WOULD PREFER touring as/with The Beach Boys for about 20-25 dates per year (yes, those are my numbers but I think they're close to yours also?), as opposed to NOT touring as/with The Beach Boys at all and having Mike & Bruce carry on as they have been for the last 15 years.

I don't agree with that assumption. You have one interview to hang your hat on, and you don't know if Brian was behind that interview, or if it was motivated by his wifeandmanagers. There was no follow-up interview and Brian, to the best of my knowledge hasn't even uttered the term "Beach Boys" since the end of the reunion.

Yes, Mike only mentioned the "Brian said please no more dates" quote in one interview, but he has repeated the "reunion had an agreed upon beginning and ending" in a few subsequent interviews. Maybe he's full of crap, but he has been consistent.

There could be some things going on behind the scenes as we are sitting here posting, I don't know...But, if Brian really wants to be a Beach Boy or have that C50 band continue, he doesn't appear to very proactive in accomplishing that goal. Is he doing anything in the way of negotiating future terms for the group? If that Rolling Thunder Revue he staged last year was his way of making a point, I'm not sure he made any inroads....
Logged
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 8432



View Profile
« Reply #168 on: March 05, 2014, 12:18:21 PM »

I think Brian and Mike are both treading carefully in this situation, a lawsuit could derail a BBs reunion for years or even for good.
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #169 on: March 05, 2014, 12:21:23 PM »



Here's an idea: Mike & Bruce could simply be billed as "Mike Love and Bruce Johnston" and not as "The BBs", and just deal with having smaller audiences, then return to the fold and tour as "The BBs" when all the members were present.  Or better idea - they could simply take some time off from touring altogether... and decide that the brand name will only be used in a united way from here on out. Granted, the short term cash cow would be affected. I have no idea if Brian's people would have presented either idea as an option (since their bottom line would be affected too, as would Carl's estate + Al). Again, it's taking a chance that there'd have been some big picture financial or legacy/image-related rewards to reap based upon using the brand name in a more well-thought-out, calculated way with quality over quantity.  

But supposing either idea was suggested (or would have been suggested) by Brian's people to Mike, I still do not think it's an unreasonable request to ask of Mike. Maybe a difficult request worthy of soul searching that would've been tough to accept, but IMO something that many reasonable people in his shoes would nonetheless eventually be able to wrap their heads around.

Problem number two: The whole reason that Mike has paid Brian and Al a stack of money since 1998 for doing nothing is because he did not want to tour as Mike Love and Bruce Johnston (or America`s Band or any other alternative). It IS completely unrealistic to think that he would start to do that again.

I know Mike didn't want to tour billed as "M&B" (with that being the only touring that he'd do)... but if he could be billed as "M&B" for his paired-down shows, and then get to be part of "The BBs" again for the unified, bigger shows/tours, I fail to see why that's an absurd hypothetical request worthy of a drama queen reaction - unless it's an ego thing.

It's absurd on two levels. First, how many tickets would the "Mike Love & Bruce Johnston Of The Beach Boys Band" sell? And how long, after they are playing to half-filled venues, would they not be able to continue? I'd give them a year. Mike would never agree to that proposal.

And second, Brian, Carl Wilson's Estate, and maybe even Al would never agree to that set-up, jeopardizing big $$$$$$$$$$ for doing absolutely nothing. I know I keep bringing that up, but, for some reason you (and others) either don't agree or DON'T WANT to accept it. You can continue to think that Mike Love is the only Beach "in it for the money" or PRIMARILY "in it for the money", but I am of the opinion that OTHER Beach Boys were also following the money and some are continuing to do so. I'm not seeing or hearing a lot of "art" coming out of 'em...

I agree that Brian/Al/Carl's estate all want money too. Absolutely. Therefore I don't know what the terms of the actual proposal would have been. I do think it's safe to say that, relative to Mike, the other BB members care about money less and legacy/art more. Again - I'm *not* saying that Brian never does things just for money and doesn't like getting checks for the M&B show - he DOES.

Brian got really miffed/pissed about *something* in terms of a difference of opinion (and how this was handled) regarding how C50 would have hypothetically continued. That's why I'm only speculating at what the proposals could have been. But as far as I can see it, there couldn't have been too many different options for Brian's team to have proposed to Mike (if it even got to the hypothetical discussion/proposal stage). I wonder if it even did get to that discussion stage. But there had to have been some series of actions/concessions that Mike could have done that would have made Brian not pissed at Mike and not take out an LA Times article. We can only guess at what those actions would have been.

CenturyDeprived, you are and have been ASSUMING that Brian Wilson WOULD PREFER touring as/with The Beach Boys for about 20-25 dates per year (yes, those are my numbers but I think they're close to yours also?), as opposed to NOT touring as/with The Beach Boys at all and having Mike & Bruce carry on as they have been for the last 15 years.

I don't agree with that assumption. You have one interview to hang your hat on, and you don't know if Brian was behind that interview, or if it was motivated by his wifeandmanagers. There was no follow-up interview and Brian, to the best of my knowledge hasn't even uttered the term "Beach Boys" since the end of the reunion.

Yes, Mike only mentioned the "Brian said please no more dates" quote in one interview, but he has repeated the "reunion had an agreed upon beginning and ending" in a few subsequent interviews. Maybe he's full of crap, but he has been consistent.

There could be some things going on behind the scenes as we are sitting here posting, I don't know...But, if Brian really wants to be a Beach Boy or have that C50 band continue, he doesn't appear to very proactive in accomplishing that goal. Is he doing anything in the way of negotiating future terms for the group? If that Rolling Thunder Revue he staged last year was his way of making a point, I'm not sure he made any inroads....

I've discussed some *possible* scenarios that *might* have been proposed by Brian's people (like M&B giving it a rest, etc.) for the simple point of the fact that IMO, even the scenarios that would have made Mike sacrifice the most (relatively speaking) still don't seem unreasonable to me. I can't say I have any real concrete assumptions on what Brian's team would have wanted, and how many BB dates (either with him or some without him) that would have totaled out to.  I hypothesize that once Brian really started enjoying himself and "wanted to be a BB again", that Brian and his people would have then WANTED the band to continue united, using a baby-steps approach, fielding offers one step at a time and seeing where things took them.

I mean, I guess this is my question: If Mike had made up his mind to go along with what Brian wanted (without resentment), and Brian's team was calling the shots, where would the band be now? What's the worst that would have happened? An already super rich Mike loses some money? Cry me a river. Had they gone down that road, what's the "unconscionable" thing that could possibly have occurred (that Mike was soooo afraid of happening) that he imploded the reunion for?  Find a way to convince me that this is about anything other than control, fear, and ego. I'd (honestly) love to believe that Mike's actions truly were sourced out of anything but those things.

Regarding why Brian isn't making some huge effort in 2014 to get a BB reunion with Mike going again: Brian is probably still hurt (even if he's gotten "over" it to a large extent), and would probably think that the ball would be in Mike's court.
 
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 12:26:52 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
Sheriff John Stone
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5309



View Profile
« Reply #170 on: March 05, 2014, 02:05:19 PM »



Here's an idea: Mike & Bruce could simply be billed as "Mike Love and Bruce Johnston" and not as "The BBs", and just deal with having smaller audiences, then return to the fold and tour as "The BBs" when all the members were present.  Or better idea - they could simply take some time off from touring altogether... and decide that the brand name will only be used in a united way from here on out. Granted, the short term cash cow would be affected. I have no idea if Brian's people would have presented either idea as an option (since their bottom line would be affected too, as would Carl's estate + Al). Again, it's taking a chance that there'd have been some big picture financial or legacy/image-related rewards to reap based upon using the brand name in a more well-thought-out, calculated way with quality over quantity.  

But supposing either idea was suggested (or would have been suggested) by Brian's people to Mike, I still do not think it's an unreasonable request to ask of Mike. Maybe a difficult request worthy of soul searching that would've been tough to accept, but IMO something that many reasonable people in his shoes would nonetheless eventually be able to wrap their heads around.

Problem number two: The whole reason that Mike has paid Brian and Al a stack of money since 1998 for doing nothing is because he did not want to tour as Mike Love and Bruce Johnston (or America`s Band or any other alternative). It IS completely unrealistic to think that he would start to do that again.

I know Mike didn't want to tour billed as "M&B" (with that being the only touring that he'd do)... but if he could be billed as "M&B" for his paired-down shows, and then get to be part of "The BBs" again for the unified, bigger shows/tours, I fail to see why that's an absurd hypothetical request worthy of a drama queen reaction - unless it's an ego thing.

It's absurd on two levels. First, how many tickets would the "Mike Love & Bruce Johnston Of The Beach Boys Band" sell? And how long, after they are playing to half-filled venues, would they not be able to continue? I'd give them a year. Mike would never agree to that proposal.

And second, Brian, Carl Wilson's Estate, and maybe even Al would never agree to that set-up, jeopardizing big $$$$$$$$$$ for doing absolutely nothing. I know I keep bringing that up, but, for some reason you (and others) either don't agree or DON'T WANT to accept it. You can continue to think that Mike Love is the only Beach "in it for the money" or PRIMARILY "in it for the money", but I am of the opinion that OTHER Beach Boys were also following the money and some are continuing to do so. I'm not seeing or hearing a lot of "art" coming out of 'em...

I agree that Brian/Al/Carl's estate all want money too. Absolutely. Therefore I don't know what the terms of the actual proposal would have been. I do think it's safe to say that, relative to Mike, the other BB members care about money less and legacy/art more. Again - I'm *not* saying that Brian never does things just for money and doesn't like getting checks for the M&B show - he DOES.

Brian got really miffed/pissed about *something* in terms of a difference of opinion (and how this was handled) regarding how C50 would have hypothetically continued. That's why I'm only speculating at what the proposals could have been. But as far as I can see it, there couldn't have been too many different options for Brian's team to have proposed to Mike (if it even got to the hypothetical discussion/proposal stage). I wonder if it even did get to that discussion stage. But there had to have been some series of actions/concessions that Mike could have done that would have made Brian not pissed at Mike and not take out an LA Times article. We can only guess at what those actions would have been.

CenturyDeprived, you are and have been ASSUMING that Brian Wilson WOULD PREFER touring as/with The Beach Boys for about 20-25 dates per year (yes, those are my numbers but I think they're close to yours also?), as opposed to NOT touring as/with The Beach Boys at all and having Mike & Bruce carry on as they have been for the last 15 years.

I don't agree with that assumption. You have one interview to hang your hat on, and you don't know if Brian was behind that interview, or if it was motivated by his wifeandmanagers. There was no follow-up interview and Brian, to the best of my knowledge hasn't even uttered the term "Beach Boys" since the end of the reunion.

Yes, Mike only mentioned the "Brian said please no more dates" quote in one interview, but he has repeated the "reunion had an agreed upon beginning and ending" in a few subsequent interviews. Maybe he's full of crap, but he has been consistent.

There could be some things going on behind the scenes as we are sitting here posting, I don't know...But, if Brian really wants to be a Beach Boy or have that C50 band continue, he doesn't appear to very proactive in accomplishing that goal. Is he doing anything in the way of negotiating future terms for the group? If that Rolling Thunder Revue he staged last year was his way of making a point, I'm not sure he made any inroads....
I mean, I guess this is my question: If Mike had made up his mind to go along with what Brian wanted (without resentment), and Brian's team was calling the shots, where would the band be now? What's the worst that would have happened? An already super rich Mike loses some money? Cry me a river. Had they gone down that road, what's the "unconscionable" thing that could possibly have occurred (that Mike was soooo afraid of happening) that he imploded the reunion for?  Find a way to convince me that this is about anything other than control, fear, and ego. I'd (honestly) love to believe that Mike's actions truly were sourced out of anything but those things.

Not control, not fear, not ego. Money. I'm sorry but that's my honest opinion. Money trumps everything. It always did and it always will. If Mike and Bruce DON'T do their usual 70+ dates per year, BRI will make less money. And making less money than possible is not an option. Try to convince me that Mike or Brian ('s team) or Carl's Estate would prefer those 20-something "quality" real-deal Beach Boys' concerts - for the sake of art, prestige, internal fulfillment, or the fans - over the Mike & Bruce money-makin' gravy train. That's a tough sell....
Logged
mikeddonn
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 976


View Profile
« Reply #171 on: March 05, 2014, 02:11:09 PM »

I don't think Brian is too bothered.  I don't think he is sitting around 'hurt'.  He's spent most of his career not touring with the Beach Boys. Why would he be so concerned now?  If Brian really truly wanted it then I'm sure it would happen IMHO.

As I said earlier the Beach Boys are probably ok with each other.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 02:26:13 PM by mikeddonn » Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #172 on: March 05, 2014, 03:37:23 PM »



Here's an idea: Mike & Bruce could simply be billed as "Mike Love and Bruce Johnston" and not as "The BBs", and just deal with having smaller audiences, then return to the fold and tour as "The BBs" when all the members were present.  Or better idea - they could simply take some time off from touring altogether... and decide that the brand name will only be used in a united way from here on out. Granted, the short term cash cow would be affected. I have no idea if Brian's people would have presented either idea as an option (since their bottom line would be affected too, as would Carl's estate + Al). Again, it's taking a chance that there'd have been some big picture financial or legacy/image-related rewards to reap based upon using the brand name in a more well-thought-out, calculated way with quality over quantity.  

But supposing either idea was suggested (or would have been suggested) by Brian's people to Mike, I still do not think it's an unreasonable request to ask of Mike. Maybe a difficult request worthy of soul searching that would've been tough to accept, but IMO something that many reasonable people in his shoes would nonetheless eventually be able to wrap their heads around.

Problem number two: The whole reason that Mike has paid Brian and Al a stack of money since 1998 for doing nothing is because he did not want to tour as Mike Love and Bruce Johnston (or America`s Band or any other alternative). It IS completely unrealistic to think that he would start to do that again.

I know Mike didn't want to tour billed as "M&B" (with that being the only touring that he'd do)... but if he could be billed as "M&B" for his paired-down shows, and then get to be part of "The BBs" again for the unified, bigger shows/tours, I fail to see why that's an absurd hypothetical request worthy of a drama queen reaction - unless it's an ego thing.

It's absurd on two levels. First, how many tickets would the "Mike Love & Bruce Johnston Of The Beach Boys Band" sell? And how long, after they are playing to half-filled venues, would they not be able to continue? I'd give them a year. Mike would never agree to that proposal.

And second, Brian, Carl Wilson's Estate, and maybe even Al would never agree to that set-up, jeopardizing big $$$$$$$$$$ for doing absolutely nothing. I know I keep bringing that up, but, for some reason you (and others) either don't agree or DON'T WANT to accept it. You can continue to think that Mike Love is the only Beach "in it for the money" or PRIMARILY "in it for the money", but I am of the opinion that OTHER Beach Boys were also following the money and some are continuing to do so. I'm not seeing or hearing a lot of "art" coming out of 'em...

I agree that Brian/Al/Carl's estate all want money too. Absolutely. Therefore I don't know what the terms of the actual proposal would have been. I do think it's safe to say that, relative to Mike, the other BB members care about money less and legacy/art more. Again - I'm *not* saying that Brian never does things just for money and doesn't like getting checks for the M&B show - he DOES.

Brian got really miffed/pissed about *something* in terms of a difference of opinion (and how this was handled) regarding how C50 would have hypothetically continued. That's why I'm only speculating at what the proposals could have been. But as far as I can see it, there couldn't have been too many different options for Brian's team to have proposed to Mike (if it even got to the hypothetical discussion/proposal stage). I wonder if it even did get to that discussion stage. But there had to have been some series of actions/concessions that Mike could have done that would have made Brian not pissed at Mike and not take out an LA Times article. We can only guess at what those actions would have been.

CenturyDeprived, you are and have been ASSUMING that Brian Wilson WOULD PREFER touring as/with The Beach Boys for about 20-25 dates per year (yes, those are my numbers but I think they're close to yours also?), as opposed to NOT touring as/with The Beach Boys at all and having Mike & Bruce carry on as they have been for the last 15 years.

I don't agree with that assumption. You have one interview to hang your hat on, and you don't know if Brian was behind that interview, or if it was motivated by his wifeandmanagers. There was no follow-up interview and Brian, to the best of my knowledge hasn't even uttered the term "Beach Boys" since the end of the reunion.

Yes, Mike only mentioned the "Brian said please no more dates" quote in one interview, but he has repeated the "reunion had an agreed upon beginning and ending" in a few subsequent interviews. Maybe he's full of crap, but he has been consistent.

There could be some things going on behind the scenes as we are sitting here posting, I don't know...But, if Brian really wants to be a Beach Boy or have that C50 band continue, he doesn't appear to very proactive in accomplishing that goal. Is he doing anything in the way of negotiating future terms for the group? If that Rolling Thunder Revue he staged last year was his way of making a point, I'm not sure he made any inroads....
I mean, I guess this is my question: If Mike had made up his mind to go along with what Brian wanted (without resentment), and Brian's team was calling the shots, where would the band be now? What's the worst that would have happened? An already super rich Mike loses some money? Cry me a river. Had they gone down that road, what's the "unconscionable" thing that could possibly have occurred (that Mike was soooo afraid of happening) that he imploded the reunion for?  Find a way to convince me that this is about anything other than control, fear, and ego. I'd (honestly) love to believe that Mike's actions truly were sourced out of anything but those things.

Not control, not fear, not ego. Money. I'm sorry but that's my honest opinion. Money trumps everything. It always did and it always will. If Mike and Bruce DON'T do their usual 70+ dates per year, BRI will make less money. And making less money than possible is not an option. Try to convince me that Mike or Brian ('s team) or Carl's Estate would prefer those 20-something "quality" real-deal Beach Boys' concerts - for the sake of art, prestige, internal fulfillment, or the fans - over the Mike & Bruce money-makin' gravy train. That's a tough sell....

Sheriff - I don't necessarily agree with your conclusion, but I don't find it completely implausible; perhaps the true answer is partway between what we both think are the true reasons here.

The one thing that doesn't add up to me about what you said, is that if you are implying that Brian's team - at the time of C50 when Brian was feeling happy about being a BB again - would prefer the Mike & Bruce money-makin' gravy train to keep going at all costs... then Brian feeling hurt and writing the LA Times article makes no sense. While Brian + Carl's estate surely love getting a regular check, I don't think Brian wanted M&B to go back to the status quo at the expense of the reunion; while we'll probably never know what Brian's "plan" would have been, IMO it doesn't make sense that he'd get as hurt as he did for just the lost opportunity of "a few more" C50 dates. 
Logged
Nicko1234
Guest
« Reply #173 on: March 05, 2014, 03:38:46 PM »

I've discussed some *possible* scenarios that *might* have been proposed by Brian's people (like M&B giving it a rest, etc.) for the simple point of the fact that IMO, even the scenarios that would have made Mike sacrifice the most (relatively speaking) still don't seem unreasonable to me. I can't say I have any real concrete assumptions on what Brian's team would have wanted, and how many BB dates (either with him or some without him) that would have totaled out to.  I hypothesize that once Brian really started enjoying himself and "wanted to be a BB again", that Brian and his people would have then WANTED the band to continue united, using a baby-steps approach, fielding offers one step at a time and seeing where things took them.

I mean, I guess this is my question: If Mike had made up his mind to go along with what Brian wanted (without resentment), and Brian's team was calling the shots, where would the band be now? What's the worst that would have happened? An already super rich Mike loses some money? Cry me a river. Had they gone down that road, what's the "unconscionable" thing that could possibly have occurred (that Mike was soooo afraid of happening) that he imploded the reunion for?  Find a way to convince me that this is about anything other than control, fear, and ego. I'd (honestly) love to believe that Mike's actions truly were sourced out of anything but those things.

Regarding why Brian isn't making some huge effort in 2014 to get a BB reunion with Mike going again: Brian is probably still hurt (even if he's gotten "over" it to a large extent), and would probably think that the ball would be in Mike's court.
 

Sorry but your comments here seem to indicate that you are only capable of viewing things from one person`s perspective...

Mike has been the head of The Beach Boys for more than 30 years and your suggestions that he should go along with anything that Brian`s management suggested indicate a complete lack of understanding of human nature.

Also, you ignore one pretty simple thing. Mike enjoys touring with Bruce in their group and obviously didn`t mind going back to that. They play to good sized crowds (if they were to tour under their own names they would be as unsuccessful as Al sadly), get on well with the band members (including his son who you imply he should have no problem with permanently firing) and Mike gets to meet as many girls as he wants. Maybe he enjoys touring in a stress free environment with a bunch of guys he gets on well with. As the agreement was only ever to do one tour, why shouldn`t a person go back to what they were doing before?

Your response to this will doubtless be, `because I wanted it to go on forever and ever` though...  Wink
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #174 on: March 05, 2014, 04:54:17 PM »

I've discussed some *possible* scenarios that *might* have been proposed by Brian's people (like M&B giving it a rest, etc.) for the simple point of the fact that IMO, even the scenarios that would have made Mike sacrifice the most (relatively speaking) still don't seem unreasonable to me. I can't say I have any real concrete assumptions on what Brian's team would have wanted, and how many BB dates (either with him or some without him) that would have totaled out to.  I hypothesize that once Brian really started enjoying himself and "wanted to be a BB again", that Brian and his people would have then WANTED the band to continue united, using a baby-steps approach, fielding offers one step at a time and seeing where things took them.

I mean, I guess this is my question: If Mike had made up his mind to go along with what Brian wanted (without resentment), and Brian's team was calling the shots, where would the band be now? What's the worst that would have happened? An already super rich Mike loses some money? Cry me a river. Had they gone down that road, what's the "unconscionable" thing that could possibly have occurred (that Mike was soooo afraid of happening) that he imploded the reunion for?  Find a way to convince me that this is about anything other than control, fear, and ego. I'd (honestly) love to believe that Mike's actions truly were sourced out of anything but those things.

Regarding why Brian isn't making some huge effort in 2014 to get a BB reunion with Mike going again: Brian is probably still hurt (even if he's gotten "over" it to a large extent), and would probably think that the ball would be in Mike's court.
 

Sorry but your comments here seem to indicate that you are only capable of viewing things from one person`s perspective...

Mike has been the head of The Beach Boys for more than 30 years and your suggestions that he should go along with anything that Brian`s management suggested indicate a complete lack of understanding of human nature.

Also, you ignore one pretty simple thing. Mike enjoys touring with Bruce in their group and obviously didn`t mind going back to that. They play to good sized crowds (if they were to tour under their own names they would be as unsuccessful as Al sadly), get on well with the band members (including his son who you imply he should have no problem with permanently firing) and Mike gets to meet as many girls as he wants. Maybe he enjoys touring in a stress free environment with a bunch of guys he gets on well with. As the agreement was only ever to do one tour, why shouldn`t a person go back to what they were doing before?

Your response to this will doubtless be, `because I wanted it to go on forever and ever` though...  Wink

Thanks for finding it necessary to personally insult me in this thread by saying that I have a complete lack of understanding of human nature.  Undecided No need to get personal, man. This is not true. I can "understand" Mike wanting what he wants, and not "wanting" to give up what he feels he has somehow rightly earned.  I can also understand that ego/fear of change/not wanting to lose control are also elements of human nature to some people - surely you must admit that's true for *some* people, regardless of whether or not you agree (or apparently not, in your case) that these were the prime factors of what happened behind the scenes in this case. And lest you think I arrived at my opinions in a bubble... my overall view in this matter is admittedly influenced by the fact that I apparently see things about who owes who a preponderance of favors/concessions, etc. (at this point in the game, with the saga of this band - and its members' relationships/histories taken into consideration) differently than you. IMHO of course.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 05:33:23 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
gfx
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.568 seconds with 21 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!