David Marks' take on the end of C50 tour

[CenturyDeprived]

Or could be the guy writing the lyrics, rather than the lyrics themselves.

Or, possibly, the fact that they were written before the project?

Or, more likely, a combination of both.

I suppose I can understand that. But as I was saying, this didn't seem to be such a big problem before. Why wasn't this such a big deal in the BB85 era?

And why (the biggest WTF question of all) was Mike's sole released solo album, by a guy who repeatedly reminds the world of his lyrical talents, have so few Mike-penned lyrics? Even the title track doesn't have lyrics by Mike. It's just baffling.

The only thing that makes sense to me is that Mike only cares deeply to be the lyricist when it means writing with Brian so that if it becomes a hit, it can show how Brian needs Mike. It's some sick psychological game, and I say this because it's just so damn inconsistent coming from Mike, based on the examples I've listed here (and there are many others I'm sure). And yes, I know it's human nature for any person/artist to feel wanted, needed, etc. I think Mike cares so badly especially because he knows what his reputation is and feels immensely slighted, and thought this would be his golden opportunity to somehow correct that.

[the professor]

Well, as 2 bands play Saturday in CA with BB members (Mike and Bruce playing somewhere Sat too?), it's a critical time, as Dave said and as they all know. What should Mike do now?  I fight for gain, Vulcan: what does he gain here if he gets together with Brian, et al, for shows and an album?

The other question for Mike would be, why would a guy (Mike) who as far as I know has always claimed that jealously was a non-issue regarding the other lyricists in the BB story of the 60s, suddenly take issue with outside lyricists in 2012?

He changed his mind.

[job]

They did the C50 tour for MONEY, and possibly for the MONEY. If they cared about being together, they'd still be together.

ftfy

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

If it was all about money, it would have happened earlier and lasted longer.

[Cam Mott]

Hasn't Mike complained that people said things were going to be a certain way and then they weren't and things were done by somebody in a less than honorable?

[Pretty Funky]

If it was all about money, it would have happened earlier and lasted longer.

This story today hits the nail on the head I think and the writer won't be falted here...

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2014/09/25/3263164_beach-boys-brian-wilson-and-al.html?rh=1


For many years, Stebbins said, Love toured as the Beach Boys. But once Brian Wilson decided to tour again, he said, that posed a problem.

“Since Carl died in the late ’90s, Mike has basically been the man,” Stebbins said. “He runs the operations, and he runs the show. And I think for the 50th anniversary tour, he had to step back.”

When the surviving Beach Boys were together, Stebbins said, it was Brian Wilson — the mastermind behind the group — who won the biggest applause.

“Night after night after night after night, Mike is making less money getting reminded that Brian is more popular than him,” Stebbins said. “And he has to answer to people instead of calling all the shots himself.”

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Well, yeah, considering the cost of running those shows (bigger venues, bigger band) and more people taking a cut. So, no way that tour was only about making money.

[Pretty Funky]

But for Mike I suspect 'being the man' is the main driver.

[Andrew G. Doe]

This summer, more than once, I posited to those who would be involved the notion of a Pet Sounds 50th anniversary celebration  - hereafter referred to as PS50 - which included another full-on reunion tour (I claim no credit, Helen Keller could see that one coming), and the response was negative, and surprisingly heatedly so. My strong impression is that given the current situation (arising from the summer nonsense), no more whole band onstage reunions. Ever.

That said, these are The Beach Boys: never say never, as the usual rules don't apply. We got The Smile Sessions, we got C50.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

If that fiasco hadn't happened,  do you think it'd be more likely?

[Andrew G. Doe]

It'd be the epitome of a no-brainer.

[ToneBender631]

This summer, more than once, I posited to those who would be involved the notion of a Pet Sounds 50th anniversary celebration  - hereafter referred to as PS50 - which included another full-on reunion tour (I claim no credit, Helen Keller could see that one coming), and the response was negative, and surprisingly heatedly so. My strong impression is that given the current situation (arising from the summer nonsense), no more whole band onstage reunions. Ever.

That said, these are The Beach Boys: never say never, as the usual rules don't apply. We got The Smile Sessions, we got C50.

Do you think that any of the negativity might also stem from the fact that a "PS50" tour would inevitably result in the press rehashing of the C50 ending and talking about "BRIAN WILSON'S MAGNUM OPUS, PET SOUNDS". In addition to the fact that they'd all be two years older, I gotta imagine that it'd be pretty exhausting dealing with all of that nonsense when doing promotion. If I'm Mike Love, other than cementing the band's artistic legacy, I see very little appealing about a worldwide PS50 tour.

Perhaps instead of a full blown tour they'd be better served doing some short residencies at the appropriate venues in the big markets (LA, NY, London, etc). As a NY'er, I'm envisioning 4 or 5 shows at Carnegie Hall or Radio City with a full orchestra, take a few weeks off and then move to the next market. That'd drop the touring expenses pretty dramatically (local back line would be much cheaper for multiple nights, no need for buses, etc.) and it would also give them the opportunity to build up the prestige for the shows and charge appropriate ticket prices.

[RubberSoul13]

This summer, more than once, I posited to those who would be involved the notion of a Pet Sounds 50th anniversary celebration  - hereafter referred to as PS50 - which included another full-on reunion tour (I claim no credit, Helen Keller could see that one coming), and the response was negative, and surprisingly heatedly so. My strong impression is that given the current situation (arising from the summer nonsense), no more whole band onstage reunions. Ever.

That said, these are The Beach Boys: never say never, as the usual rules don't apply. We got The Smile Sessions, we got C50.

Do you think that any of the negativity might also stem from the fact that a "PS50" tour would inevitably result in the press rehashing of the C50 ending and talking about "BRIAN WILSON'S MAGNUM OPUS, PET SOUNDS". In addition to the fact that they'd all be two years older, I gotta imagine that it'd be pretty exhausting dealing with all of that nonsense when doing promotion. If I'm Mike Love, other than cementing the band's artistic legacy, I see very little appealing about a worldwide PS50 tour.

Perhaps instead of a full blown tour they'd be better served doing some short residencies at the appropriate venues in the big markets (LA, NY, London, etc). As a NY'er, I'm envisioning 4 or 5 shows at Carnegie Hall or Radio City with a full orchestra, take a few weeks off and then move to the next market. That'd drop the touring expenses pretty dramatically (local back line would be much cheaper for multiple nights, no need for buses, etc.) and it would also give them the opportunity to build up the prestige for the shows and charge appropriate ticket prices.

That's the way to go. However, we're all certainly jumping the gun a bit as David pointed out....we may not have five living beach boys when this anniversary is celebrated! But then I guess that raises another question: would something like this still be on the table if we lose one of them by then? Not trying to take this down a morbid path or anything, but I couldn't see this having any media hype if Brian OR Mike were no longer with us to make it happen.

[HeyJude]

This summer, more than once, I posited to those who would be involved the notion of a Pet Sounds 50th anniversary celebration  - hereafter referred to as PS50 - which included another full-on reunion tour (I claim no credit, Helen Keller could see that one coming), and the response was negative, and surprisingly heatedly so. My strong impression is that given the current situation (arising from the summer nonsense), no more whole band onstage reunions. Ever.

That said, these are The Beach Boys: never say never, as the usual rules don't apply. We got The Smile Sessions, we got C50.

Do you think that any of the negativity might also stem from the fact that a "PS50" tour would inevitably result in the press rehashing of the C50 ending and talking about "BRIAN WILSON'S MAGNUM OPUS, PET SOUNDS". In addition to the fact that they'd all be two years older, I gotta imagine that it'd be pretty exhausting dealing with all of that nonsense when doing promotion. If I'm Mike Love, other than cementing the band's artistic legacy, I see very little appealing about a worldwide PS50 tour.

Perhaps instead of a full blown tour they'd be better served doing some short residencies at the appropriate venues in the big markets (LA, NY, London, etc). As a NY'er, I'm envisioning 4 or 5 shows at Carnegie Hall or Radio City with a full orchestra, take a few weeks off and then move to the next market. That'd drop the touring expenses pretty dramatically (local back line would be much cheaper for multiple nights, no need for buses, etc.) and it would also give them the opportunity to build up the prestige for the shows and charge appropriate ticket prices.

If they actually decided to do another reunion tour in any sort of format, I don’t think anybody would worry too much about re-hashing C50. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, when they get back together, that’s the most effective away to deflect or get past questions about past acrimony, lawsuits, etc. No doubt, those questions still come up. But they are neutralized quickly because the questions about acrimony usually heavily involve asking about what’s going on *now*, and if they are in the middle of a reunion tour, it’s very self-evident where the acrimony level is *now*. That’s not to say there isn’t still acrimony during their reunions, but it requires somewhat less BS-ing on the part of the band members to suggest things are “okay” between them now if they are actually really working together.

However, a “Pet Sounds 50” is, I would guess, an even harder sell to make to Mike than C50. Clearly, Mike was at best guardedly optimistic if not almost ambivalent about some aspects of C50, and that was a project that celebrated the whole band and did not celebrate any one member or era excessively more than another. (Yes, there was an obvious “order of billing”, and plenty of compromise, etc., but it allowed the various eras and styles of music relatively equal play. They did “I Just Wasn’t Made for These Times” and “Marcella”, but they also did “It’s OK” and “Kokomo.”) But, as much as Mike will tell anyone who will listen that he likes PS and championed it back in the 60’s (and I’m not even getting into the veracity of such implications), it is a very “Brian-centric” item in many different ways. Brian has the majority of the lead vocals. It’s Brian’s crowning achievement. He has been extra associated with it due to his Pet Sounds tours in the past. It would just be a harder sell ego-wise to Mike than even the C50 tour was.

Now, a good PR person or manager or tour promoter who knows their s**t and knows how to sell band members of different personalities on such things, *could* still convince all of the guys to do such a tour. Let’s keep in mind that they did between 43 or 44 and 61 songs at each show on C50. Even after PS being performed in a set, they would have 30-40 songs to work with. They could try to not over-emphasize the PS aspect while still noting its 50th anniversary. Call it the “From Surfin’ USA to Pet Sounds Tour” or something.

As far as I’m concerned, the C50 tour was so amazing, if they had to make more concessions to Mike to make it happen, I wouldn’t terribly mind. If it even means churning out a somewhat crappier studio album where Brian and Mike co-write everything with nobody else’s help, and even if they have to play “Kokomo” three times and hire an impartial go-between for Mike and Al so they don’t have to actually talk to each other, even then it would be worth the musical benefits of the full reunion band performing live.

[Autotune]

I don't buy that Mike backed off a reunion due to merely his own ego issues. He was aware that he'd have to give up some decision-making, knew that BW would get more attention, knew that he would have to accomodate the setlist to please his cousin. Whatever ego issue, it was dealt with previously-- even in the distant past.

As somebody posted, in mid 2012 Mike envisioned a certain role for Cal Saga in the future, and it involved that current BBs lineup for all that could be inferred. My point is that something happened towards Aug 2012-- something that hurt him or made him change his mind. And -let me guess as everybody does- he probably reacted to the "feel like being fired" bullshit. Besides, with the wives being present during the tour, I wouldn't be surprised if bitterness between the ladies was part of the reason for the break up. We know how Mary Ann feels about issues that happened years before the reunion, and probably Jacquie's beautiful shirts were not to everyone's taste. Perhaps Mike felt that he deserved that his "color of the day" dressing code be respected, after agreeing to perform Marcella or getting rid of Stamos.

[HeyJude]

I don't buy that Mike backed off a reunion due to merely his own ego issues. He was aware that he'd have to give up some decision-making, knew that BW would get more attention, knew that he would have to accomodate the setlist to please his cousin. Whatever ego issue, it was dealt with previously-- even in the distant past.

As somebody posted, in mid 2012 Mike envisioned a certain role for Cal Saga in the future, and it involved that current BBs lineup for all that could be inferred. My point is that something happened towards Aug 2012-- something that hurt him or made him change his mind. And -let me guess as everybody does- he probably reacted to the "feel like being fired" bullshit. Besides, with the wives being present during the tour, I wouldn't be surprised if bitterness between the ladies was part of the reason for the break up. We know how Mary Ann feels about issues that happened years before the reunion, and probably Jacquie's beautiful shirts were not to everyone's taste. Perhaps Mike felt that he deserved that his "color of the day" dressing code be respected, after agreeing to perform Marcella or getting rid of Stamos.

According to David Marks (and common sense), it appears Mike had already been booking “non-reunion” shows before and/or during the C50 tour. He always planned to move on in the immediate aftermath of the tour.

I think their management (lack thereof) and PR disaster during and after the tour may well have soured some of them (and apparently not Brian or Al) on doing anything together a year or two later. The incorrect “firing” headlines surely didn’t help the prospects or another reunion, but an argument can be made that bad (as in no) management and HORRIBLE PR staff (or again, perhaps none?) is what led to the “firing” headlines in the first place. It kind of seemed to be a bit of unintentional self-fulfilling prophecy if those headlines soured a reunion for Mike even more.

[guitarfool2002]

If you believe the account that was published at the time all of it went down, the issue of the confusion regarding "Nutty Jerry's" booking who they thought was the Beach Boys 50th but was actually the pre-50th touring band, then cancelling the show entirely, caused concern enough to ask for a meeting or a clarification session between all the camps to avoid this kind of confusion, or to issue a statement to clarify. And before that meeting, before a group statement could be drafted and released with all in agreement, Mike's PR team released their own statement to the press, unbeknownst to anyone else until it hit the media, and again as there were additional offers to continue the 50th tour and book some high-profile venues on the table.

And in that aftermath, the remark about feeling like we'd been fired got picked up by the press and reported/twisted into actually being fired...spinning in order to create a blaring headline as the press is wont to do. But all that aside, the PR staff working on Mike's behalf did jump the gun, they did put out a statement before the requested meeting which perhaps would have led to a more cohesive group statement or at least a discussion involving all the parties on how to proceed, and I get the feeling even through that one news account that the other parties felt blindsided by both the release and the wording of that statement as it had apparently been news to everyone but Mike's camp when it appeared in the press.

Again, if I'm wrong, correct it, but that's the summary I got from those initial reports and descriptions of what went down.


The million-dollar question is what shows did Mike already have booked the day that press release appeared, around the time of that Grammy Museum ceremony? Simply put, does anyone know how many actual confirmed dates he had in the book when the sh*t hit the fan in the press? I know one was a gig in South America, any others?

[HeyJude]

If you believe the account that was published at the time all of it went down, the issue of the confusion regarding "Nutty Jerry's" booking who they thought was the Beach Boys 50th but was actually the pre-50th touring band, then cancelling the show entirely, caused concern enough to ask for a meeting or a clarification session between all the camps to avoid this kind of confusion, or to issue a statement to clarify. And before that meeting, before a group statement could be drafted and released with all in agreement, Mike's PR team released their own statement to the press, unbeknownst to anyone else until it hit the media, and again as there were additional offers to continue the 50th tour and book some high-profile venues on the table.

And in that aftermath, the remark about feeling like we'd been fired got picked up by the press and reported/twisted into actually being fired...spinning in order to create a blaring headline as the press is wont to do. But all that aside, the PR staff working on Mike's behalf did jump the gun, they did put out a statement before the requested meeting which perhaps would have led to a more cohesive group statement or at least a discussion involving all the parties on how to proceed, and I get the feeling even through that one news account that the other parties felt blindsided by both the release and the wording of that statement as it had apparently been news to everyone but Mike's camp when it appeared in the press.

Again, if I'm wrong, correct it, but that's the summary I got from those initial reports and descriptions of what went down.


The million-dollar question is what shows did Mike already have booked the day that press release appeared, around the time of that Grammy Museum ceremony? Simply put, does anyone know how many actual confirmed dates he had in the book when the sh*t hit the fan in the press? I know one was a gig in South America, any others?

They often book shows FAR in advance of when they actually take place. Marks has said Mike was booking shows before or during the tour. Shows are negotiated and booked sometimes well before they are announced or go on sale. In many cases, the venues have a “season” of shows that they announce at a far later date.

Didn’t someone (Bruce?) say years back on the BB Britain board that they sometimes book select shows nearly TWO years in advance?

It’s highly probable that 2013 dates were already being booked by the time C50 was ending, if not earlier.

As for Mike’s statement, it was horribly executed on numerous levels: The timing was horrible. The wording was a totally ham-fisted. They could have ended the tour permanently and still done it far better PR-wise. They should have gotten together and issued a unified group statement, timed appropriately, and worded appropriately. They could have imparted the exact same information far better which, if nothing else, would have at least left their opening for a later reunion to be a cleaner process. That Mike will not even objectively admit that episode was executed poorly (not even a “gosh, yeah, I wish we could have done that announcement better”) is just comical.

[guitarfool2002]

If you believe the account that was published at the time all of it went down, the issue of the confusion regarding "Nutty Jerry's" booking who they thought was the Beach Boys 50th but was actually the pre-50th touring band, then cancelling the show entirely, caused concern enough to ask for a meeting or a clarification session between all the camps to avoid this kind of confusion, or to issue a statement to clarify. And before that meeting, before a group statement could be drafted and released with all in agreement, Mike's PR team released their own statement to the press, unbeknownst to anyone else until it hit the media, and again as there were additional offers to continue the 50th tour and book some high-profile venues on the table.

And in that aftermath, the remark about feeling like we'd been fired got picked up by the press and reported/twisted into actually being fired...spinning in order to create a blaring headline as the press is wont to do. But all that aside, the PR staff working on Mike's behalf did jump the gun, they did put out a statement before the requested meeting which perhaps would have led to a more cohesive group statement or at least a discussion involving all the parties on how to proceed, and I get the feeling even through that one news account that the other parties felt blindsided by both the release and the wording of that statement as it had apparently been news to everyone but Mike's camp when it appeared in the press.

Again, if I'm wrong, correct it, but that's the summary I got from those initial reports and descriptions of what went down.


The million-dollar question is what shows did Mike already have booked the day that press release appeared, around the time of that Grammy Museum ceremony? Simply put, does anyone know how many actual confirmed dates he had in the book when the sh*t hit the fan in the press? I know one was a gig in South America, any others?

They often book shows FAR in advance of when they actually take place. Marks has said Mike was booking shows before or during the tour. Shows are negotiated and booked sometimes well before they are announced or go on sale. In many cases, the venues have a “season” of shows that they announce at a far later date.

Didn’t someone (Bruce?) say years back on the BB Britain board that they sometimes book select shows nearly TWO years in advance?

It’s highly probable that 2015 dates were already being booked by the time C50 was ending, if not earlier.

As for Mike’s statement, it was horribly executed on numerous levels: The timing was horrible. The wording was a totally ham-fisted. They could have ended the tour permanently and still done it far better PR-wise. They should have gotten together and issued a unified group statement, timed appropriately, and worded appropriately. They could have imparted the exact same information far better which, if nothing else, would have at least left their opening for a later reunion to be a cleaner process. That Mike will not even objectively admit that episode was executed poorly (not even a “gosh, yeah, I wish we could have done that announcement better”) is just comical.

Ham-fisted is the word, for sure! 

As a musician always trying to scrape for gigs and money to pay the bills, I've actually gotten into, on a VERY small scale, having to book some local live gigs and private parties, and it's not always an advance thing while other times it is, for special events like weddings, holidays, etc. Just this past year I had two weeks to pull together and rehearse a band for three sets plus, and play a local show. Other times you can pencil in a few months or more in advance, *granted* this is nothing like staging a major band's tour with a traveling crew and accommodations and all related operations details, but it's a smaller version of the same thing and still it sometimes happens really fast and off-the-cuff where a show is offered, added, and planned really fast.

Nutty Jerry's, that booking happened as the C50 tour was underway and the gig was close to overlapping with C50 enough that it caused the confusion...deliberately? Who knows. There was also a show immediately after C50's curtain call in Europe, a charity show at a CA winery which John Stamos participated in, where if I remember there were fans who i think assumed it would be the full band who had been touring as C50 because I believe it happened almost immediately after the C50 bands returned to the States. There were shows afterward where the incorrect promo photos showing or even suggesting C50's lineup were being used to promote them.

Maybe I'm waaaaay off, but i got the feeling that some of the impetus behind the Nutty Jerry's booking was trying to strike while the iron was hot, so to speak, and it got so hot it actually burned those involved.    How's that for being obtuse? 

To further pinpoint my question, what shows were booked for the months immediately after C50? I know of the South America, I know of the charity winery event, I suppose I could look up the others. But the timing of it all does add to all this, especially when they were booked.

[Nicko1234]

My only memory of the timeline was Bruce saying from very early on in the tour that it had to be finished by a certain point. I could be completely wrong but I have vague recollection of him saying August and I presumed it was to leave a gap between the C50 and him and Mike returning to the slimline group to avoid confusion. Then extra gigs were added and so there was no gap at all. Obviously some of those October gigs were certainly announced many months in advance anyway and could have been booked long before that.

[Cam Mott]

The other question for Mike would be, why would a guy (Mike) who as far as I know has always claimed that jealously was a non-issue regarding the other lyricists in the BB story of the 60s, suddenly take issue with outside lyricists in 2012?

He changed his mind.

He has explained the situation it seems to me: he was lead to believe (by Brian at the very beginning the way I took it) that it would be just he and Brian and without interference or much more just he and Brian with much less interference than actually happened.

[Nicko1234]

I think a lot of Mike`s comments about this situation (both during and since C50) can be taken with a pinch of salt.

Him commenting on stage that he`d like California Saga to support the group the following summer doesn`t mean he was seriously considering it (or that he meant that version of The Beach Boys).

And his comments since are not going to be 100% accurate or inaccurate.

Shades of grey... (the last time I will use that phrase I promise  )

[Cam Mott]

If it was all about money, it would have happened earlier and lasted longer.

Good point.

On another topic,  has anyone considered that it might be as simple as a guy wishing to get back in a way to a place of the best and most productive time of their lives with his cousin?

[HeyJude]

The other question for Mike would be, why would a guy (Mike) who as far as I know has always claimed that jealously was a non-issue regarding the other lyricists in the BB story of the 60s, suddenly take issue with outside lyricists in 2012?

He changed his mind.

He has explained the situation it seems to me: he was lead to believe (by Brian at the very beginning the way I took it) that it would be just he and Brian and without interference or much more just he and Brian with much less interference than actually happened.

I don’t think this is accurate. While Mike has said there very early discussions of re-recording some oldies/favorites (it was never clarified whether this was cover versions of other artists or old BB songs), which occurred well before the actual project took place, it was well established at the outset of the recording project that it was largely pre-existing material penned by Brian and Joe Thomas. It is was these recordings that netted the recorded deal with Capitol. Despite that, Mike still got a solo song flown into the album, and also added lyrics to several songs (including at least two tracks written more or less from scratch with Mike). But it had to have been well-known that it was largely the Brian/Joe stuff that would be on the album. In fact, it seems likely that a number of the backing tracks were not only recorded without the other BB’s present, but were in fact cut before they even entered the project. For that matter, Brian and Foskett had already laid vocals down on a bunch of the stuff as well.

I also got the impression that Capitol didn’t want the band d**king around in the studio for a year or two trying to slap together an album, so having it largely written and recorded, with the Beach Boys coming in to basically stick their name on it and add vocals, was also the expedient thing to do to get the album out on time and while the tour was still going. As it was, they oddly didn’t get the album released until nearly a month and a half into the tour.

I don’t think the nature of the composition of the album changed from the time the project began, other than the obvious political concessions made such as adding the Mike track. I think, much like the comments about the C50 tour (too many voices and players; no small markets), Mike probably had a number of standing gripes as the project progressed, as likely most of the guys did (Bruce and Al didn’t get their songs on the album, etc.), but still to his (and the other guys’) credit, pushed through and finished the project. Then, as is human nature, in the aftermath and safety of being back to his own thing, he was able to voice these gripes more bluntly.

[guitarfool2002]

Just to recap/revisit the information being discussed, and to add some specific timeline dates to all of this, here is the rundown. (For those interested, of course)

Rewind to the third week in June 2012. The Beach Boys C50 had just played in the Houston area, earlier that June. A promotional release was put out less than two weeks later to the local press announcing that the Beach Boys would be returning to the Houston area in early October. The local music beat writer got this news, fact-checked it with Nutty Jerry's, and they confirmed that it was in fact the band with Wilson-Marks-Jardine who had played Houston a few weeks ago. That writer then published the announcement along with ticket info, this was on or around June 20th.

Several days later, June 25th, the writer published a correction and follow-up, as he had since been informed by Nutty Jerry's that the gig was not in fact the C50 Beach Boys but instead the touring band from before the C50 tour, minus Wilson-Marks-Jardine. That writer published the official statement from Nutty Jerry's which cancelled the show: "Due to a misunderstanding with the Beach Boy's management and a local booking agent, the October 6th Beach Boys concert at Nutty Jerry's has been cancelled. The group that was scheduled to perform at Nutty Jerry's is not the same lineup as the current "Beach Boys 50th Anniversary" tour. As a result Nutty Jerry's did not feel that we could advertise the show as the "original" Beach Boys. Nutty Jerry's regrets the misunderstanding and any inconvenience to our loyal customers.

Rolling Stone picked up the story and printed it the next day, June 26th, along with comments from Brian where he said he wasn't aware of the South America booking slated for October, and also mentioning the possibility of working on a new Beach Boys album and continuing the C50 tour.

That article also mentioned that as of that time, only one confirmed show had been booked, the South America date in October.

Fast forward to Sept 19th 2012, with the LA Times report of the Grammy Museum events. This statement was in that report: The shift in the touring lineup also has caused some confusion outside the group itself. Texas club Nutty Jerry's had booked a Beach Boys show, which has since been canceled. Love's manager Jay Jones said it was Love's decision to halt the show because it was being inaccurately promoted as part of the reunion tour with the original members.


So a few months removed, there is a contradiction. Nutty Jerry's canceled the show within a week via that press release of June 25, and in September via this report, it's told that Mike actually cancelled the show.

Which one is it? Anyway, that's a sidebar.

When this Nutty Jerry's situation broke nationally via Rolling Stone, again June 26th, at that point there had been one booking for October in South America. The Nutty Jerry's October 6th gig was scheduled to happen almost a week after the band was to play the last show in England, that last week of September.

Almost immediately after the C50 tour returned from England, there was the charity gig Sept 30th at the Santaluz Club in California, with John Stamos.

That third week in June 2012 seems to have been the first indication that shows were being booked separate from C50 as C50 was in full force on the road. At that time, the only gigs known to have been booked were the failed Nutty Jerry's show in October, and the South American show in October.


I'm only outlining that to put all the dates and timeline issues into some context with the discussions. What happened in the way of what was or wasn't booked from July 2012 up to the Grammy event just prior to the European trip for C50 is subject to more digging.