Endless Summer Quarterly feedback

[HeyJude]

This is purely, 100% only my impression, but that article reads very similarly to the piece that was printed in the concurrent ESQ issue. The takeaway I get from both of the pieces is, and again this is only my impression, essentially “it’s a bummer the reunion couldn’t continue and Mike couldn't agree to more shows..."

But Mike, and everyone else, had already agreed to more shows: 24 over the original 50, in fact, and everyone signed off on those, with part of the agreement being that this was it, no more (which fits in nicely with the "no more shows for Wilsons" email Ambha mentioned). Then, somewhere down the line, seemingly, Alan & Brian and/or his people decide they actually want to do more shows, despite signing off on not doing exactly that and despite knowing that Mike was booking shows for himself as far back as June. I agree the timing of the September announcement was at best unfortunate but don't forget, it was made at the express instigation of Brian's management. It's not as simple as "Mike didn't want to do any more shows". These are The Beach Boys - if you asked them for the time you'd get five different answers, probably. They don't do "simple". For me, the wonder of the C50 tour is that it happened at all, that it was as astonishingly good as it was and that all the principals played every single gig: I would have bet good money on the last item not happening. Hope I'm around when the definitive recounting of the events of 2012 emerges.

Normally, this would be nitpicky, semantics sort of stuff, but I think that positing the following speaks volumes, to me anyway:

Then, somewhere down the line, seemingly, Alan & Brian and/or his people decide they actually want to do more shows, despite signing off on not doing exactly that

I don’t think this is true. It completely twists around how the situation unfolded and how a contract would work. As far as we know, and as would be extremely likely given typical contracts, the contract would have laid out what was going to happen, NOT what was not going to happen. In other words, they all agreed to X number of dates taking place on specific dates. I highly doubt anything was written into the agreement that Al and Brian were NOT going to entertain more reunion shows. To say they signed off “on not doing exactly that” is using, to me, some sort of reverse logic where now the accusation is that Brian and Al were trying to BREACH an agreement to NOT do more shows.

Agreeing to shows is not the same thing as agreeing to not do shows at any time that isn’t laid out in the contract to do shows. It’s like saying someone signs a five-album deal with a record company, and then claiming that implicit in that contract is that they will NEVER make another album after those five, and if they attempt to re-sign with the label, they’re going back on their word and trying to breach the contract.

But as far as I’m concerned, this is still all just variations on “set end date”, “this was how it was always going to be”, etc. It’s definitely the easy answer, and happens to conveniently be an answer that absolves Mike Love of most or all of any blame (to the degree blame needs to be assigned at this stage). I still believe Howie’s words on the topic succinctly speak to the typically cited “reasons” the reunion tour ended.

[HeyJude]

There`s no doubt that Howie`s posts are harder hitting and they are very interesting to read but I wouldn`t say they are necessarily better examples of writing. Just different.

The ESQ article keeps things simple and to the point whereas Howie`s writing branches out more and, in places, I feel has a sense of `wish fulfillment` about it (not meant in a pejorative way). The comments about a Vegas residency for example...

I wasn’t particularly trying to suggest that Howie’s posts are the most well-written in terms of style. As I mentioned, if these posts had been published in a magazine or something along those lines, I would imagine the “editorial voice” would have been a bit different, and the thing would have been worded slightly differently. We’re talking about some message board posts.

I was speaking to the content and sentiment of what Howie wrote. But Howie publishes stuff as well, and his writing for news services and whatnot are as well-written as anything in ESQ. I’m sure Howie could have taken those posts and worked them into an editorial in ESQ or any other venue.

Those posts are the best writing on the demise of the reunion because they tell it like it is, they come from an uber-fan who understands the band as well as  anyone could, and who more than anything is coming from the place that most of us did, from a place of feeling the reunion was amazing. He doesn’t’ have an axe to grind with a particular member. He rightly points out the whole band fudged up the entire thing, but also calls bull**** on the tired, evasive “set end date” arguments. He points out the weaknesses in all of the members’ projects; the point being that getting them all together is what it makes it work.

As for the stuff like the Vegas residency, I didn’t take it so much as “wish fulfillment”, but more a case of pointing out what any band that has been going for half a century would entertain if they had even a modicum of organization or a sense of how to properly run a band/brand/franchise.

[Nicko1234]

I wasn’t particularly trying to suggest that Howie’s posts are the most well-written in terms of style. As I mentioned, if these posts had been published in a magazine or something along those lines, I would imagine the “editorial voice” would have been a bit different, and the thing would have been worded slightly differently. We’re talking about some message board posts.

I was speaking the content and sentiment of what Howie wrote. But Howie publishes stuff as well, and his writing for news services and whatnot are as well-written as anything in ESQ. I’m sure Howie could have taken those posts and worked them into an editorial in ESQ or any other venue.

I didn`t say they are worse. Just different. I wouldn`t make any judgment on whether Howie`s writing is, `as well-written as anything in ESQ` anyway because that somehow implies that they are competing with each other rather than just having differing opinions.

Those posts are the best writing on the demise of the reunion because they tell it like it is, they come from an uber-fan who understands the band as well as  anyone could, and who more than anything is coming from the place that most of us did, from a place of feeling the reunion was amazing. He doesn’t’ have an axe to grind with a particular member. He rightly points out the whole band fudged up the entire thing, but also calls bull**** on the tired, evasive “set end date” arguments. He points out the weaknesses in all of the members’ projects; the point being that getting them all together is what it makes it work.

As for the stuff like the Vegas residency, I didn’t take it so much as “wish fulfillment”, but more a case of pointing out what any band that has been going for half a century would entertain if they had even a modicum of organization or a sense of how to properly run a band/brand/franchise.

Well actually, and I may get slated for saying it, the current touring set up of a couple of long time members is how 90% of bands end up. For every Beatles or Abba who went out on top there are dozens of Guns and Roses, Queen, Monkees, The Shadows etc. who go on in various formats due to the human element. I think it`s that human element that is the most important aspect to the whole thing (and Howie touched on it with his reference to the wives) but it`s also an aspect that these comments can`t really cover fully.

 

[HeyJude]

I wasn’t particularly trying to suggest that Howie’s posts are the most well-written in terms of style. As I mentioned, if these posts had been published in a magazine or something along those lines, I would imagine the “editorial voice” would have been a bit different, and the thing would have been worded slightly differently. We’re talking about some message board posts.

I was speaking the content and sentiment of what Howie wrote. But Howie publishes stuff as well, and his writing for news services and whatnot are as well-written as anything in ESQ. I’m sure Howie could have taken those posts and worked them into an editorial in ESQ or any other venue.

I didn`t say they are worse. Just different. I wouldn`t make any judgment on whether Howie`s writing is, `as well-written as anything in ESQ` anyway because that somehow implies that they are competing with each other rather than just having differing opinions.

Those posts are the best writing on the demise of the reunion because they tell it like it is, they come from an uber-fan who understands the band as well as  anyone could, and who more than anything is coming from the place that most of us did, from a place of feeling the reunion was amazing. He doesn’t’ have an axe to grind with a particular member. He rightly points out the whole band fudged up the entire thing, but also calls bull**** on the tired, evasive “set end date” arguments. He points out the weaknesses in all of the members’ projects; the point being that getting them all together is what it makes it work.

As for the stuff like the Vegas residency, I didn’t take it so much as “wish fulfillment”, but more a case of pointing out what any band that has been going for half a century would entertain if they had even a modicum of organization or a sense of how to properly run a band/brand/franchise.

Well actually, and I may get slated for saying it, the current touring set up of a couple of long time members is how 90% of bands end up. For every Beatles or Abba who went out on top there are dozens of Guns and Roses, Queen, Monkees, The Shadows etc. who go on in various formats due to the human element. I think it`s that human element that is the most important aspect to the whole thing (and Howie touched on it with his reference to the wives) but it`s also an aspect that these comments can`t really cover fully.

 

I don’t think they’re in competition. But this thread has included discussion of how ESQ could improve or change. We all want to be polite about it, but ultimately I’m glad we’re able to be blunt but respectful here in pointing out shortcomings. I think ESQ wants constructive feedback. That includes having more ba**s in the writing like Howie’s pieces do. It’s not a case of competition, but it is a case of perception. Nearly every person I’ve talked to about ESQ seems to have a very similar perception. They like that the magazine exists, they love the in-depth analysis, the find the non-Beach Boys stuff usually tedious, and they recognize that the editorial voice of the magazine has always leaned *heavily* towards treating all of the members with kid gloves. This sometimes is an issue for some readers, because a lot of controversial, acrimonious things tend to revolve around the group. So there have been times where there’s this big elephant in the room that ESQ doesn’t particularly address in a detailed, editorial way, such as the Mike/Al issues in the late 90’s and 2000’s.

As for the way the band operates, the BB’s certainly have certain aspects that are emblematic of how many aging bands exist (continued touring with only a few members, etc.), and they also have some situations that are quite atypical. I’m guessing, for instance, there aren’t that many bands with five “core” members, three of which own the trademark, where they collectively license the trademark to one member, yet when two of the three members that own the trademark want to keep the full band together, they are shot down by the member they are licensing the trademark to, but aren’t interested enough to try to do anything about it. A lot of stuff is ass-backwards.

Howie’s points about how the BB’s haven’t done the simple showbiz things they could have or should have doesn’t, to me, suggest that all bands do it properly. Rather, it pinpoints that the members themselves and their frame of mind and motivations are what keep f-ing things up. In the specific case of the reunion demise, we have clear evidence that three of the members were, for once, getting it right and realizing the personal, professional, artistic, and financial benefits of getting their s**t together and doing something right for a change; to put the band above any individual for the sake of fans, their legacy, and their own sense of what artistically is the best move and most fulfilling.

[Nicko1234]

I don’t think they’re in competition. But this thread has included discussion of how ESQ could improve or change. We all want to be polite about it, but ultimately I’m glad we’re able to be blunt but respectful here in pointing out shortcomings. I think ESQ wants constructive feedback. That includes having more ba**s in the writing like Howie’s pieces do. It’s not a case of competition, but it is a case of perception. Nearly every person I’ve talked to about ESQ seems to have a very similar perception. They like that the magazine exists, they love the in-depth analysis, the find the non-Beach Boys stuff usually tedious, and they recognize that the editorial voice of the magazine has always leaned *heavily* towards treating all of the members with kid gloves. This sometimes is an issue for some readers, because a lot of controversial, acrimonious things tend to revolve around the group. So there have been times where there’s this big elephant in the room that ESQ doesn’t particularly address in an detailed, editorial way, such as the Mike/Al issues in the late 90’s and 2000’s.

As for the way the band operates, the BB’s certainly have certain aspects that are emblematic of how many aging bands exist (continued touring with only a few members, etc.), and they also have some situations that are quite atypical. I’m guessing, for instance, there aren’t that many bands with five “core” members, three of which own the trademark, where they collectively license the trademark to one member, yet when two of the three members that own the trademark want to keep the full band together, they are shot down by the member they are licensing the trademark to, but aren’t interested enough to try to do anything about it. A lot of stuff is ass-backwards.

Howie’s points about how the BB’s haven’t done the simple showbiz things they could have or should have doesn’t, to me, suggest that all bands do it properly. Rather, it pinpoints that the members themselves and their frame of mind and motivations are what keep f-ing things up. In the specific case of the reunion demise, we have clear evidence that three of the members were, for once, getting it right and realizing the personal, professional, artistic, and financial benefits of getting their s**t together and doing something right for a change; to put the band above any individual for the sake of fans, their legacy, and their own sense of what artistically is the best move and most fulfilling.

No, I don`t think it suggests that most bands do things properly. I just think comments like, `It`s that simple. It`s Showbiz 101`ignores slightly the fact that most bands don`t do it properly and that it is a complicated situation. I personally feel that the, `They should have just completed concerts in China...` do ignore the human element too much but there we are....

[guitarfool2002]

Here's more from Howie, September 30, 2012:

When I last spoke at length to Mike in late June, I pressed him hard about what 2013 would hold in store for the band and he made it seem that after the tour the principles would regroup to record at some point -- preferably on songs he and Brian co-wrote -- and discuss future dates.

Just catching up on this discussion, this one line stood out. And it reminded me of an interview with Mike which went like this, published on MassLive this past month:

Q: What about the recent Rolling Stone report that Brian was deep into writing songs for a new Beach Boys album when you pulled the plug on the reunion tour? (Wilson told the magazine, "I was so proud of how the Boys were singing. Then it just ended.")

Mike: I saw what Jason Fine wrote. There never was a second album planned. I find it very disappointing that this information is being perpetuated. It’s erroneous and fallacious, but I suppose that is part of human nature.



*This* is the kind of issue I'd like to see an interviewer follow up with Mike, as there seems to be a contradiction between Summer 2012 and Summer 2014 in terms of a having the idea of a follow-up Beach Boys album being considered. Is it parsing words in Mike's case to say the word "planned" as in no legal contracts were agreed and signed, or is it a case of him contradicting in 2012 what he said in 2104, where in 2012 he suggested they'd regroup to record and in 2014 he calls that idea "fallacious"? It's not erroneous and fallacious to suggest something that Mike himself allegedly told others about in 2012.

It's this type of question that I'd like to see an interviewer, any interviewer, follow up. I don't think it would be out of line to ask for a clarification. Just the spectacle of fans hearing both rumors and statements in interviews about another "new" group album *possibly* in consideration featuring newly-written original songs is enough to warrant something like a clarification...isn't it?

[HeyJude]

I don’t think they’re in competition. But this thread has included discussion of how ESQ could improve or change. We all want to be polite about it, but ultimately I’m glad we’re able to be blunt but respectful here in pointing out shortcomings. I think ESQ wants constructive feedback. That includes having more ba**s in the writing like Howie’s pieces do. It’s not a case of competition, but it is a case of perception. Nearly every person I’ve talked to about ESQ seems to have a very similar perception. They like that the magazine exists, they love the in-depth analysis, the find the non-Beach Boys stuff usually tedious, and they recognize that the editorial voice of the magazine has always leaned *heavily* towards treating all of the members with kid gloves. This sometimes is an issue for some readers, because a lot of controversial, acrimonious things tend to revolve around the group. So there have been times where there’s this big elephant in the room that ESQ doesn’t particularly address in an detailed, editorial way, such as the Mike/Al issues in the late 90’s and 2000’s.

As for the way the band operates, the BB’s certainly have certain aspects that are emblematic of how many aging bands exist (continued touring with only a few members, etc.), and they also have some situations that are quite atypical. I’m guessing, for instance, there aren’t that many bands with five “core” members, three of which own the trademark, where they collectively license the trademark to one member, yet when two of the three members that own the trademark want to keep the full band together, they are shot down by the member they are licensing the trademark to, but aren’t interested enough to try to do anything about it. A lot of stuff is ass-backwards.

Howie’s points about how the BB’s haven’t done the simple showbiz things they could have or should have doesn’t, to me, suggest that all bands do it properly. Rather, it pinpoints that the members themselves and their frame of mind and motivations are what keep f-ing things up. In the specific case of the reunion demise, we have clear evidence that three of the members were, for once, getting it right and realizing the personal, professional, artistic, and financial benefits of getting their s**t together and doing something right for a change; to put the band above any individual for the sake of fans, their legacy, and their own sense of what artistically is the best move and most fulfilling.

No, I don`t think it suggests that most bands do things properly. I just think comments like, `It`s that simple. It`s Showbiz 101`ignores slightly the fact that most bands don`t do it properly and that it is a complicated situation. I personally feel that the, `They should have just completed concerts in China...` do ignore the human element too much but there we are....

It's probably not wise to speculate much more on what Howie meant in his comments. If he'd like to add any comments, I'll let him.  

I agree that little is simple in the BB world. I probably identify with what Howie says in his posts because I have a similar frame of mind. Objectively noting that something *should* be does not equate to objectively actually thinking those things *will* be. It's a variation on all the reunion debates. I was met often with "anyone who thought the reunion would go on indefinitely is delusional." But to me, pointing out that they should be continuing the reunion (or whatever the topic is) doesn't mean I actually think it will occur.

The Beach Boys indeed should have been wrapping up international legs in 2013 and doing a Vegas residency and all of that. It doesn't mean I think that's at all realistic. But the fact that those things aren't realistic is not, in my opinion, a valid excuse for not doing them. Again, it's a variation on "we're going back to touring the way we have for 15 years." That statement is true, but it is not a logically valid reason for not continuing the reunion. It's literally a logical fallacy; an "Appeal to Tradition."

[Jon Stebbins]

Here's more from Howie, September 30, 2012:

When I last spoke at length to Mike in late June, I pressed him hard about what 2013 would hold in store for the band and he made it seem that after the tour the principles would regroup to record at some point -- preferably on songs he and Brian co-wrote -- and discuss future dates.

Just catching up on this discussion, this one line stood out. And it reminded me of an interview with Mike which went like this, published on MassLive this past month:

Q: What about the recent Rolling Stone report that Brian was deep into writing songs for a new Beach Boys album when you pulled the plug on the reunion tour? (Wilson told the magazine, "I was so proud of how the Boys were singing. Then it just ended.")

Mike: I saw what Jason Fine wrote. There never was a second album planned. I find it very disappointing that this information is being perpetuated. It’s erroneous and fallacious, but I suppose that is part of human nature.



*This* is the kind of issue I'd like to see an interviewer follow up with Mike, as there seems to be a contradiction between Summer 2012 and Summer 2014 in terms of a having the idea of a follow-up Beach Boys album being considered. Is it parsing words in Mike's case to say the word "planned" as in no legal contracts were agreed and signed, or is it a case of him contradicting in 2012 what he said in 2104, where in 2012 he suggested they'd regroup to record and in 2014 he calls that idea "fallacious"? It's not erroneous and fallacious to suggest something that Mike himself allegedly told others about in 2012.

It's this type of question that I'd like to see an interviewer, any interviewer, follow up. I don't think it would be out of line to ask for a clarification. Just the spectacle of fans hearing both rumors and statements in interviews about another "new" group album *possibly* in consideration featuring newly-written original songs is enough to warrant something like a clarification...isn't it?

I think Mike saying there was "no plan" for a second album may be technically correct...but it was certainly being considered. I was at the Grammy Museum appearance the reunited group did in September 2012 and when asked what the plan for the immediate future was... Brian enthusiastically responded (I'll paraphrase) "I want to write and record another Beach Boys album!" I clearly recall that Al and David happily nodded in agreement...and Mike and Bruce did not. I sensed something was not copacetic, and this was confirmed to me (off the record) by the most reliable source later that night.

[Andrew G. Doe]

This is purely, 100% only my impression, but that article reads very similarly to the piece that was printed in the concurrent ESQ issue. The takeaway I get from both of the pieces is, and again this is only my impression, essentially “it’s a bummer the reunion couldn’t continue and Mike couldn't agree to more shows..."

But Mike, and everyone else, had already agreed to more shows: 24 over the original 50, in fact, and everyone signed off on those, with part of the agreement being that this was it, no more (which fits in nicely with the "no more shows for Wilsons" email Ambha mentioned). Then, somewhere down the line, seemingly, Alan & Brian and/or his people decide they actually want to do more shows, despite signing off on not doing exactly that and despite knowing that Mike was booking shows for himself as far back as June. I agree the timing of the September announcement was at best unfortunate but don't forget, it was made at the express instigation of Brian's management. It's not as simple as "Mike didn't want to do any more shows". These are The Beach Boys - if you asked them for the time you'd get five different answers, probably. They don't do "simple". For me, the wonder of the C50 tour is that it happened at all, that it was as astonishingly good as it was and that all the principals played every single gig: I would have bet good money on the last item not happening. Hope I'm around when the definitive recounting of the events of 2012 emerges.

Normally, this would be nitpicky, semantics sort of stuff, but I think that positing the following speaks volumes, to me anyway:

Then, somewhere down the line, seemingly, Alan & Brian and/or his people decide they actually want to do more shows, despite signing off on not doing exactly that

I don’t think this is true.

Actually, it is. But as my father told me, can't tell someone something they don't want to hear, so I'll leave it at that. 

[HeyJude]

This is purely, 100% only my impression, but that article reads very similarly to the piece that was printed in the concurrent ESQ issue. The takeaway I get from both of the pieces is, and again this is only my impression, essentially “it’s a bummer the reunion couldn’t continue and Mike couldn't agree to more shows..."

But Mike, and everyone else, had already agreed to more shows: 24 over the original 50, in fact, and everyone signed off on those, with part of the agreement being that this was it, no more (which fits in nicely with the "no more shows for Wilsons" email Ambha mentioned). Then, somewhere down the line, seemingly, Alan & Brian and/or his people decide they actually want to do more shows, despite signing off on not doing exactly that and despite knowing that Mike was booking shows for himself as far back as June. I agree the timing of the September announcement was at best unfortunate but don't forget, it was made at the express instigation of Brian's management. It's not as simple as "Mike didn't want to do any more shows". These are The Beach Boys - if you asked them for the time you'd get five different answers, probably. They don't do "simple". For me, the wonder of the C50 tour is that it happened at all, that it was as astonishingly good as it was and that all the principals played every single gig: I would have bet good money on the last item not happening. Hope I'm around when the definitive recounting of the events of 2012 emerges.

Normally, this would be nitpicky, semantics sort of stuff, but I think that positing the following speaks volumes, to me anyway:

Then, somewhere down the line, seemingly, Alan & Brian and/or his people decide they actually want to do more shows, despite signing off on not doing exactly that

I don’t think this is true.

Actually, it is. But as my father told me, can't tell someone something they don't want to hear, so I'll leave it at that. 

We would obviously have to see the actual agreement to know for sure, but knowing the amount of legalese that I do, I highly doubt there is a provision in the contract that *prohibits* them from doing more shows. Contract verbiage stating things like “this contract limits the interactions to the following 73 dates, and no more” is *NOT* the same thing as agreeing to not do more shows in the future or never do more shows. Again, a recording deal stating “this agreement is limited to five albums, nothing more” does not prevent both parties to the contract from drawing *another* contract. If I sign a two-year contract with a cell phone provider, it doesn’t mean we can’t do business together once the contract is expired and all terms met.

Why in the world would anybody in the band sign an agreement binding them to never appear together again or book a tour? It’s nearly legally impossible to execute such a contract and, even if they did specifically sign a contract stating “we all agree to never play a show together again or attempt to book shows or a tour, for the rest our lives, forever…”, such an asinine contract could be nullified if they all agreed to draw up a new contract revoking the old one.

Was the verbiage on the “first 50 dates” contract the same as well? “50 dates, no more.” If so, they all revoked that when they did 73.

[guitarfool2002]

Of course all contracts can be renegotiated, amended, and even made null and void if all parties agree to the terms and sign off on the agreement. That's the nature of contracts in general beyond entertainment issues. But the issues of all parties who signed the original contract agreeing to the changes is the ultimate factor.

[HeyJude]

Of course all contracts can be renegotiated, amended, and even made null and void if all parties agree to the terms and sign off on the agreement. That's the nature of contracts in general beyond entertainment issues. But the issues of all parties who signed the original contract agreeing to the changes is the ultimate factor.

The assertion here was that Brian and Al were somehow contradicting or going back on their word by proposing more shows. Considering that they were proposing that all parties agree to it, and all parties agreeing to it could have made it happen, I don't see how Brian or Al could possibly be painted as the bad guy in this scenario. Naive perhaps. Too optimistic perhaps.

[guitarfool2002]

Of course all contracts can be renegotiated, amended, and even made null and void if all parties agree to the terms and sign off on the agreement. That's the nature of contracts in general beyond entertainment issues. But the issues of all parties who signed the original contract agreeing to the changes is the ultimate factor.

The assertion here was that Brian and Al were somehow contradicting or going back on their word by proposing more shows. Considering that they were proposing that all parties agree to it, and all parties agreeing to it could have made it happen, I don't see how Brian or Al could possibly be painted as the bad guy in this scenario. Naive perhaps. Too optimistic perhaps.

I agree. I may be naive too but I did not understand how possibly taking on more shows as some very good offers were coming in was a case of going back on an agreement or even going against an existing contract in a negative way. Like I said, contracts can be amended and voided at any time, as the original 50-show contract being stretched to add more dates clearly showed. If all parties had agreed and had come to terms, it would/could have happened. Ultimately all parties did not agree, and we can piece together those who were on board and those who were not just by reading the accounts.

[HeyJude]

Of course all contracts can be renegotiated, amended, and even made null and void if all parties agree to the terms and sign off on the agreement. That's the nature of contracts in general beyond entertainment issues. But the issues of all parties who signed the original contract agreeing to the changes is the ultimate factor.

The assertion here was that Brian and Al were somehow contradicting or going back on their word by proposing more shows. Considering that they were proposing that all parties agree to it, and all parties agreeing to it could have made it happen, I don't see how Brian or Al could possibly be painted as the bad guy in this scenario. Naive perhaps. Too optimistic perhaps.

I agree. I may be naive too but I did not understand how possibly taking on more shows as some very good offers were coming in was a case of going back on an agreement or even going against an existing contract in a negative way. Like I said, contracts can be amended and voided at any time, as the original 50-show contract being stretched to add more dates clearly showed. If all parties had agreed and had come to terms, it would/could have happened. Ultimately all parties did not agree, and we can piece together those who were on board and those who were not just by reading the accounts.

Yeah, that's all I'm trying to say. One can't "go back" on an agreement because they are attempting to do something outside of the scope of the agreement. Brian and Al shouldn't have expected Mike to agree to more dates. But they also weren't "going back" on a previous agreement. Any tour has to have specific terms. Even if the BB's had sat down and said "okay, we're definitely going to tour together each summer from now on", the 2012 tour agreement would have had to lay out the specific dates for that particular tour. When McCartney books a tour, he has a "set end date" too, until or if he does another tour. It doesn't mean he has to break up with himself at the end.

[Mendota Heights]

Mike Love is not interested in touring with The Beach Boys, he is interested in touring with the Mike Love Boys. He knows that when Brian is around he playing the second fiddle because:

• Brian is the talented one who is The Beach Boys
  
• Mike is the not so talented one who wants to use Brian's talent from the 60's to be a pivotal figure wherever he is.

Mike will never be the interesting one in a complete Beach Boys constellation of today. He is a narcissist of sorts after all.  The solution: eliminate the real The Beach Boys and replace them with virtual nobodies. Band members who will even sell out and play Going To the Beach. I am sorry Brian got hurt after the C50 success, but I am glad he is working on some great music that will be released this fall.

[urbanite]

If tickets stopped selling to the Mike and Bruce version of the Beach Boys, I'd wager some form of reunion would happen relativlely quickly.

[Sheriff John Stone]

If tickets stopped selling to the Mike and Bruce version of the Beach Boys, I'd wager some form of reunion would happen relativlely quickly.

Bingo! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[Mendota Heights]

If tickets stopped selling to the Mike and Bruce version of the Beach Boys, I'd wager some form of reunion would happen relativlely quickly.

Bingo! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

The money is not the casual mechanism, it is Mike's mental problems.

[SMiLE Brian]

Agreed frog, Mike's ego is all about himself and how much money he can save around himself to keep his solo ego trip going.

[urbanite]

There are few, if any, people in the rock and roll business that are not all about the money.

[Andrew G. Doe]

If tickets stopped selling to the Mike and Bruce version of the Beach Boys, I'd wager some form of reunion would happen relativlely quickly.

Bingo! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

The money is not the casual mechanism, it is Mike's mental problems.

Care to detail these mental problems ? What, exactly ?

[Mendota Heights]

If tickets stopped selling to the Mike and Bruce version of the Beach Boys, I'd wager some form of reunion would happen relativlely quickly.

Bingo! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

The money is not the casual mechanism, it is Mike's mental problems.

Care to detail these mental problems ? What, exactly ?

Sure, some form of narcissism/megalomania. The way he in every single interview ever focuses on his own (small) achievements and belittles Brian.

Narcissism traits:

• An obvious self-focus in interpersonal exchanges - Check
• Problems in sustaining satisfying relationships - Super check, how many marriages are we talking about, how many BB fights are we talking about?
• Difficulty with empathy - Check
• Hypersensitivity to any insults or imagined insults (see criticism and narcissists, narcissistic rage and narcissistic injury)
• Vulnerability to shame rather than guilt
• Haughty body language - Check
• Flattery towards people who admire and affirm them (narcissistic supply)
• Detesting those who do not admire them (narcissistic abuse)
• Using other people without considering the cost of doing so - Check
• Pretending to be more important than they really are - Check
• Bragging (subtly but persistently) and exaggerating their achievements - Cheeeeeck
• Claiming to be an "expert" at many things - Check, TM, writing songs, world peace, the climate etc
• Inability to view the world from the perspective of other people
• Denial of remorse and gratitude

[/list]

[SMiLE Brian]

I would add greed and anger.

[drbeachboy]

If tickets stopped selling to the Mike and Bruce version of the Beach Boys, I'd wager some form of reunion would happen relativlely quickly.

Bingo! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

The money is not the casual mechanism, it is Mike's mental problems.

Care to detail these mental problems ? What, exactly ?

Sure, some form of narcissism/megalomania. The way he in every single interview ever focuses on his own (small) achievements and belittles Brian.

Narcissism traits:

• An obvious self-focus in interpersonal exchanges - Check

• Problems in sustaining satisfying relationships - Super check, how many marriages are we talking about, how many BB fights are we talking about?

• Difficulty with empathy - Check

• Hypersensitivity to any insults or imagined insults (see criticism and narcissists, narcissistic rage and narcissistic injury)

• Vulnerability to shame rather than guilt
• Haughty body language - Check

• Flattery towards people who admire and affirm them (narcissistic supply)
• Detesting those who do not admire them (narcissistic abuse)
• Using other people without considering the cost of doing so - Check

• Pretending to be more important than they really are - Check

• Bragging (subtly but persistently) and exaggerating their achievements - Cheeeeeck

• Claiming to be an "expert" at many things - Check, TM, writing songs, world peace, the climate etc

• Inability to view the world from the perspective of other people
• Denial of remorse and gratitude

[/list]

I'd like you to post quotes on the "...belittles Brian" part of your post. Thank you.

[Andrew G. Doe]

If tickets stopped selling to the Mike and Bruce version of the Beach Boys, I'd wager some form of reunion would happen relativlely quickly.

Bingo! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

The money is not the casual mechanism, it is Mike's mental problems.

Care to detail these mental problems ? What, exactly ?

Sure, some form of narcissism/megalomania. The way he in every single interview ever focuses on his own (small) achievements and belittles Brian.

Narcissism traits:

• An obvious self-focus in interpersonal exchanges - Check
• Problems in sustaining satisfying relationships - Super check, how many marriages are we talking about, how many BB fights are we talking about?
• Difficulty with empathy - Check
• Hypersensitivity to any insults or imagined insults (see criticism and narcissists, narcissistic rage and narcissistic injury)
• Vulnerability to shame rather than guilt
• Haughty body language - Check
• Flattery towards people who admire and affirm them (narcissistic supply)
• Detesting those who do not admire them (narcissistic abuse)
• Using other people without considering the cost of doing so - Check
• Pretending to be more important than they really are - Check
• Bragging (subtly but persistently) and exaggerating their achievements - Cheeeeeck
• Claiming to be an "expert" at many things - Check, TM, writing songs, world peace, the climate etc
• Inability to view the world from the perspective of other people
• Denial of remorse and gratitude

Thanks for the giggle - that's the funniest damn thing I've read on this forum for a good while.  [/list]