David Marks' take on the end of C50 tour

[Eric Aniversario]

One Beach Boy we didn't hear much from publicly about the end of the c50 tour was David Marks. Here, he discusses his take on it, and also discusses the possibility of another reunion.

http://m.tbrnews.com/lifestyle/always-a-beach-boy-david-marks-an-original-member-of/article_e8928950-4421-11e4-9f7c-4b2c9a19d6c3.html

[HeyJude]

Interesting, and not surprising. I'm glad Dave pointed out that they don't have a lot of time left to do something else, rather bluntly pointing out that one of them could die.

I don't know how precisely we should parse what he says, but he seems to indicate that "at the beginning" of the C50 tour, Mike said he had already booked his own non-reunion Beach Boys shows. While that still isn't a reason to not do more reunion shows (it's simply a reason why he couldn't do more reunion shows at the same time he was doing his own shows), it is interesting that Dave specifically says Mike had already booked shows, and that they all already knew that's what was going to happen at the end.

This also makes Brian's "no more live dates" statement during the tour rather pointless, and makes Mike citing Brian's "no more live dates"  as a reason to not continue the tour as even more head-scratching.  If he had already booked post-reunion shows, why would Brian's "no more shows" message matter?

Bad management, disorganization, and lack of communication obviously are the main takeaways from the episode.

[Cam Mott]

Interesting.

[MarcellaHasDirtyFeet]

You see guys? No big deal. There was actually some kind of set end date from the start.

[Andrew G. Doe]

How about this for a timeline ?

Tour booked for 50 dates, ending August 15th, Mike tells them he's booking dates in October.

Tour goes well, extra overseas dates booked, all agree that's it, "no more shows for Wilsons" email.

Added dates go down a storm, Brian & Alan want to carry on despite the previous agreement, Mike declines.

Brian's people then request a press release stating the post September line up won't include him, Alan or David, Mike issues same (granted, timing wasn't the best).

Media jumps to erroneous assumption BA&D have been fired. You know the rest.

[HeyJude]

How about this for a timeline ?

Tour booked for 50 dates, ending August 15th, Mike tells them he's booking dates in October.

Tour goes well, extra overseas dates booked, all agree that's it, "no more shows for Wilsons" email.

Added dates go down a storm, Brian & Alan want to carry on despite the previous agreement, Mike declines.

Brian's people then request a press release stating the post September line up won't include him, Alan or David, Mike issues same (granted, timing wasn't the best).

Media jumps to erroneous assumption BA&D have been fired. You know the rest.

Assuming this timeline is correct (I’m not convinced it necessarily is, but let’s go with it), it still renders Brian’s “no more shows” e-mail as entirely superfluous, both in terms of his reasoning for doing it and for Mike caring about it. Mike had already booked his own shows and, if David Marks is to be believed, they all knew it would be going back to the previous “status quo” anyway. So why would the Brian e-mail mean anything to Mike?

More importantly, it ignores the chief criticism that has been made against Mike, which is why he wouldn’t agree to do MORE shows. That will continue to be the burning question until everybody answers *that* question honestly.

The idiotic media falsely reporting a “firing” has been used as a cover for long enough. They were lazy and wrong. But “Mike didn’t fire Brian” can’t be used as an answer to the question “why didn’t you want to do more reunion shows?”

Brian saying no more shows, and then changing his mind, is NEVER going to be something that any reasonable fan will find fault with. The guy that says “no” when Brian Wilson changes his mind and wants to be a Beach Boy and continue a critically-acclaimed world tour is always going to be painted as the bad guy.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Assuming this timeline is correct (I’m not convinced it necessarily is, but let’s go with it)...

Not assuming it's correct either - merely for purposes of discussion. 

[Cam Mott]

How about this for a timeline ?

Tour booked for 50 dates, ending August 15th, Mike tells them he's booking dates in October.

Tour goes well, extra overseas dates booked, all agree that's it, "no more shows for Wilsons" email.

Added dates go down a storm, Brian & Alan want to carry on despite the previous agreement, Mike declines.

Brian's people then request a press release stating the post September line up won't include him, Alan or David, Mike issues same (granted, timing wasn't the best).

Media jumps to erroneous assumption BA&D have been fired. You know the rest.

Assuming this timeline is correct (I’m not convinced it necessarily is, but let’s go with it), it still renders Brian’s “no more shows” e-mail as entirely superfluous, both in terms of his reasoning for doing it and for Mike caring about it. Mike had already booked his own shows and, if David Marks is to be believed, they all knew it would be going back to the previous “status quo” anyway. So why would the Brian e-mail mean anything to Mike?

More importantly, it ignores the chief criticism that has been made against Mike, which is why he wouldn’t agree to do MORE shows. That will continue to be the burning question until everybody answers *that* question honestly.

The idiotic media falsely reporting a “firing” has been used as a cover for long enough. They were lazy and wrong. But “Mike didn’t fire Brian” can’t be used as an answer to the question “why didn’t you want to do more reunion shows?”

Brian saying no more shows, and then changing his mind, is NEVER going to be something that any reasonable fan will find fault with. The guy that says “no” when Brian Wilson changes his mind and wants to be a Beach Boy and continue a critically-acclaimed world tour is always going to be painted as the bad guy.

You would have to ask Brian but apparently it was just for emphasis at the time, just in case someone else was wanting to add even more dates. It wouldn't have to be dates beyond the end date, it could dates in addition to the new dates within the end date. Just a guess, many plausibilities.

I guess Mike doesn't need to justify sticking to an agreement and commitments. Be careful what you wish for I guess is the moral of the story.

[southbay]

How about this for a timeline ?

Tour booked for 50 dates, ending August 15th, Mike tells them he's booking dates in October.

Tour goes well, extra overseas dates booked, all agree that's it, "no more shows for Wilsons" email.

Added dates go down a storm, Brian & Alan want to carry on despite the previous agreement, Mike declines.

Brian's people then request a press release stating the post September line up won't include him, Alan or David, Mike issues same (granted, timing wasn't the best).

Media jumps to erroneous assumption BA&D have been fired. You know the rest.

Assuming this timeline is correct (I’m not convinced it necessarily is, but let’s go with it), it still renders Brian’s “no more shows” e-mail as entirely superfluous, both in terms of his reasoning for doing it and for Mike caring about it. Mike had already booked his own shows and, if David Marks is to be believed, they all knew it would be going back to the previous “status quo” anyway. So why would the Brian e-mail mean anything to Mike?

More importantly, it ignores the chief criticism that has been made against Mike, which is why he wouldn’t agree to do MORE shows. That will continue to be the burning question until everybody answers *that* question honestly.

To me this is indeed the important and ignored question.  Why couldn't Love do his previously scheduled shows and then the resumption could commence? The M&B "prior commitments" was always a red herring. Go ahead and fulfill the prior commitments, no big deal--if all parties still wanted to be Beach Boys together they would be.  Clearly somebody does not and won't answer why. I don't know, maybe Love deserves credit for not airing out the dirty laundry, but the prior commitments created a pause, not an end...

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Why couldn't Love do his previously scheduled shows and then the resumption could commence?

Nobody has said that wasn't the plan to begin with. Obviously, the situation deteriorated rapidly to the point where that didn't happen...yet.

[CenturyDeprived]

How about this for a timeline ?

Tour booked for 50 dates, ending August 15th, Mike tells them he's booking dates in October.

Tour goes well, extra overseas dates booked, all agree that's it, "no more shows for Wilsons" email.

Added dates go down a storm, Brian & Alan want to carry on despite the previous agreement, Mike declines.

Brian's people then request a press release stating the post September line up won't include him, Alan or David, Mike issues same (granted, timing wasn't the best).

Media jumps to erroneous assumption BA&D have been fired. You know the rest.

Assuming this timeline is correct (I’m not convinced it necessarily is, but let’s go with it), it still renders Brian’s “no more shows” e-mail as entirely superfluous, both in terms of his reasoning for doing it and for Mike caring about it. Mike had already booked his own shows and, if David Marks is to be believed, they all knew it would be going back to the previous “status quo” anyway. So why would the Brian e-mail mean anything to Mike?

More importantly, it ignores the chief criticism that has been made against Mike, which is why he wouldn’t agree to do MORE shows. That will continue to be the burning question until everybody answers *that* question honestly.

To me this is indeed the important and ignored question.  Why couldn't Love do his previously scheduled shows and then the resumption could commence? The M&B "prior commitments" was always a red herring. Go ahead and fulfill the prior commitments, no big deal--if all parties still wanted to be Beach Boys together they would be.  Clearly somebody does not and won't answer why. I don't know, maybe Love deserves credit for not airing out the dirty laundry, but the prior commitments created a pause, not an end...

The somebody is Mike Love, and he's essentially already answered why (or at least a significant part of the "why") in so many words: because he didn't like the "outside forces" (ie. people other than Mike Love) taking away from the writing/collaborating/recording process as he (Mike Love) thinks it should occur, with Mike having a more substantial role, and reclaiming the measure of respect and importance that he thinks he is owed.

That's the only argument/ excuse I've really heard him publicly make that, IMO, is in any way publicly "spinnable" to get Mike some sympathy for his plight. Sure, Mike will talk about the importance of hitting smaller markets, but he hasn't ever come clean about the fact that he simply wants control and to not be bogged down by any sort of group vote that could take away the ease and control he's built up since 1998.  There's no easy way for Mike to outright say that in an honest way in an interview that won't make him come off poorly, so he simply doesn't address the need for control being a factor.

[GhostyTMRS]

To me this is indeed the important and ignored question.  Why couldn't Love do his previously scheduled shows and then the resumption could commence? The M&B "prior commitments" was always a red herring. Go ahead and fulfill the prior commitments, no big deal--if all parties still wanted to be Beach Boys together they would be.  Clearly somebody does not and won't answer why. I don't know, maybe Love deserves credit for not airing out the dirty laundry, but the prior commitments created a pause, not an end...

Maybe the "we've been fired"/Facebook petition stuff ticked Mike off, especially since it was agreed that the M&B tour would resume after the C50 (and we all knew about those M&B dates during the early stages of the tour too. That was no surprise to anyone. It was discussed on this board).

As for why Mike & Bruce wanted to go back to their touring band after the C50...they call the shots, they get along better with that crew, they're both in their 70's and don't like to change from a comfortable routine (ask any grandparent about this). There are probably a ton of reasons.  

I had hoped maybe that the surviving Beach Boys would do their individual projects for the remainder of the year and then regroup every summer for a few dates (as Al had suggested at the time) but that's not the way it worked out obviously, but it would have been the best of both worlds. Heck, it could still happen.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

How about this for a timeline ?

Tour booked for 50 dates, ending August 15th, Mike tells them he's booking dates in October.

Tour goes well, extra overseas dates booked, all agree that's it, "no more shows for Wilsons" email.

Added dates go down a storm, Brian & Alan want to carry on despite the previous agreement, Mike declines.

Brian's people then request a press release stating the post September line up won't include him, Alan or David, Mike issues same (granted, timing wasn't the best).

Media jumps to erroneous assumption BA&D have been fired. You know the rest.

Assuming this timeline is correct (I’m not convinced it necessarily is, but let’s go with it), it still renders Brian’s “no more shows” e-mail as entirely superfluous, both in terms of his reasoning for doing it and for Mike caring about it. Mike had already booked his own shows and, if David Marks is to be believed, they all knew it would be going back to the previous “status quo” anyway. So why would the Brian e-mail mean anything to Mike?

More importantly, it ignores the chief criticism that has been made against Mike, which is why he wouldn’t agree to do MORE shows. That will continue to be the burning question until everybody answers *that* question honestly.

To me this is indeed the important and ignored question.  Why couldn't Love do his previously scheduled shows and then the resumption could commence? The M&B "prior commitments" was always a red herring. Go ahead and fulfill the prior commitments, no big deal--if all parties still wanted to be Beach Boys together they would be.  Clearly somebody does not and won't answer why. I don't know, maybe Love deserves credit for not airing out the dirty laundry, but the prior commitments created a pause, not an end...

The somebody is Mike Love, and he's essentially already answered why (or at least a significant part of the "why") in so many words: because he didn't like the "outside forces" (ie. people other than Mike Love) taking away from the writing/collaborating/recording process as he (Mike Love) thinks it should occur, with Mike having a more substantial role, and reclaiming the measure of respect and importance that he thinks he is owed.

That's the only argument/ excuse I've really heard him publicly make that, IMO, is in any way publicly "spinnable" to get Mike some sympathy for his plight. Sure, Mike will talk about the importance of hitting smaller markets, but he hasn't ever come clean about the fact that he simply wants control and to not be bogged down by any sort of group vote that could take away the ease and control he's built up since 1998.  There's no easy way for Mike to outright say that in an honest way in an interview that won't make him come off poorly, so he simply doesn't address the need for control being a factor.

Control is part of it, but not the main part, and blaming it entirely on that minimizes the other issues, but the 'outside forces' part of it...would definitely not disagree with that one bit.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

To me this is indeed the important and ignored question.  Why couldn't Love do his previously scheduled shows and then the resumption could commence? The M&B "prior commitments" was always a red herring. Go ahead and fulfill the prior commitments, no big deal--if all parties still wanted to be Beach Boys together they would be.  Clearly somebody does not and won't answer why. I don't know, maybe Love deserves credit for not airing out the dirty laundry, but the prior commitments created a pause, not an end...

Maybe the "we've been fired"/Facebook petition stuff ticked Mike off, especially since it was agreed that the M&B tour would resume after the C50 (and we all knew about those M&B dates during the early stages of the tour too. That was no surprise to anyone. It was discussed on this board).

As for why Mike & Bruce wanted to go back to their touring band after the C50...they call the shots, they get along better with that crew, they're both in their 70's and don't like to change from a comfortable routine (ask any grandparent about this). There are probably a ton of reasons.  

I had hoped maybe that the surviving Beach Boys would do their individual projects for the remainder of the year and then regroup every summer for a few dates (as Al had suggested at the time) but that's not the way it worked out obviously, but it would have been the best of both worlds. Heck, it could still happen.

Bolded for truth.  See my above post.

And hopefully it does happen again. They do their best work together (although Brian's latest may end up rivaling all but the best BB work..we shall see....)

[HeyJude]

How about this for a timeline ?

Tour booked for 50 dates, ending August 15th, Mike tells them he's booking dates in October.

Tour goes well, extra overseas dates booked, all agree that's it, "no more shows for Wilsons" email.

Added dates go down a storm, Brian & Alan want to carry on despite the previous agreement, Mike declines.

Brian's people then request a press release stating the post September line up won't include him, Alan or David, Mike issues same (granted, timing wasn't the best).

Media jumps to erroneous assumption BA&D have been fired. You know the rest.

Assuming this timeline is correct (I’m not convinced it necessarily is, but let’s go with it), it still renders Brian’s “no more shows” e-mail as entirely superfluous, both in terms of his reasoning for doing it and for Mike caring about it. Mike had already booked his own shows and, if David Marks is to be believed, they all knew it would be going back to the previous “status quo” anyway. So why would the Brian e-mail mean anything to Mike?

More importantly, it ignores the chief criticism that has been made against Mike, which is why he wouldn’t agree to do MORE shows. That will continue to be the burning question until everybody answers *that* question honestly.

The idiotic media falsely reporting a “firing” has been used as a cover for long enough. They were lazy and wrong. But “Mike didn’t fire Brian” can’t be used as an answer to the question “why didn’t you want to do more reunion shows?”

Brian saying no more shows, and then changing his mind, is NEVER going to be something that any reasonable fan will find fault with. The guy that says “no” when Brian Wilson changes his mind and wants to be a Beach Boy and continue a critically-acclaimed world tour is always going to be painted as the bad guy.

You would have to ask Brian but apparently it was just for emphasis at the time, just in case someone else was wanting to add even more dates. It wouldn't have to be dates beyond the end date, it could dates in addition to the new dates within the end date. Just a guess, many plausibilities.

I guess Mike doesn't need to justify sticking to an agreement and commitments. Be careful what you wish for I guess is the moral of the story.

I don't believe Mike Love ever signed an agreement or committed to never do more reunion shows. ALL of them stuck to the agreement to do the shows they contracted to do. Some of them wanted to do more. Mike didn't. That lack of action is not "sticking to an agreement." The second the tour ended, the agreement was over. Mike not wanting to do more shows was, well, Mike not wanting to do more shows. No contracts were broken. But the guy that wants to end the party at 7:30pm, kick everybody out, and continue the party with only the people he *really* likes, is going to be labeled as the d*ck.

[CenturyDeprived]

To me this is indeed the important and ignored question.  Why couldn't Love do his previously scheduled shows and then the resumption could commence? The M&B "prior commitments" was always a red herring. Go ahead and fulfill the prior commitments, no big deal--if all parties still wanted to be Beach Boys together they would be.  Clearly somebody does not and won't answer why. I don't know, maybe Love deserves credit for not airing out the dirty laundry, but the prior commitments created a pause, not an end...

Maybe the "we've been fired"/Facebook petition stuff ticked Mike off, especially since it was agreed that the M&B tour would resume after the C50 (and we all knew about those M&B dates during the early stages of the tour too. That was no surprise to anyone. It was discussed on this board).

As for why Mike & Bruce wanted to go back to their touring band after the C50...they call the shots, they get along better with that crew, they're both in their 70's and don't like to change from a comfortable routine (ask any grandparent about this). There are probably a ton of reasons.  

I had hoped maybe that the surviving Beach Boys would do their individual projects for the remainder of the year and then regroup every summer for a few dates (as Al had suggested at the time) but that's not the way it worked out obviously, but it would have been the best of both worlds. Heck, it could still happen.

That's not just what Al had suggested at the time... Mike hinted at a future BB universe that would harmoniously have California Saga opening for the BBs "next" summer (2013) in July 2012 at the Grammy Museum.

At least at that point (July 2012) Mike had an inkling that a future (one full year in advance) could exist. In my mind, that means that there was still a level of harmony (no pun intended) that was thought could exist beyond C50. Because I really don't think he was thinking that Cal Saga would tour opening for M&B (I don't see that happening, even though some of the members have individually guested at M&B shows or attended M&B shows).

I just wonder if this hypothetical tour was envisioned as a tour that would happen:

- opening for M&B (doubtful, IMO)
- opening for a continually reunited full band BB lineup
- or perhaps a reunited full band BB lineup that would have occasionally reunited for summer shows, and M&B at all other times.

Someone should really ask Mike or someone in Cal Saga what the plan was, even if it was just talk. I can't imagine Mike would have publicly announced it (even in just an offhand remark) at a live show/interview type event if it wasn't at least talked about between some people a little bit beforehand.

[startBBtoday]

I wish both parties would just admit that they didn't want to continue the tour instead of trying to throw the other camp under the bus in an attempt to save face.

We got a tour that we never thought would happen, and now the members of the band -- save for Al -- get to continue to live their lives as they want.

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

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Someone should really ask Mike or someone in Cal Saga what the plan was, even if it was just talk.

Some of us have...now whether or not the answer is believable, remains to be seen! And also, things change :/

[southbay]

How about this for a timeline ?

Tour booked for 50 dates, ending August 15th, Mike tells them he's booking dates in October.

Tour goes well, extra overseas dates booked, all agree that's it, "no more shows for Wilsons" email.

Added dates go down a storm, Brian & Alan want to carry on despite the previous agreement, Mike declines.

Brian's people then request a press release stating the post September line up won't include him, Alan or David, Mike issues same (granted, timing wasn't the best).

Media jumps to erroneous assumption BA&D have been fired. You know the rest.

Assuming this timeline is correct (I’m not convinced it necessarily is, but let’s go with it), it still renders Brian’s “no more shows” e-mail as entirely superfluous, both in terms of his reasoning for doing it and for Mike caring about it. Mike had already booked his own shows and, if David Marks is to be believed, they all knew it would be going back to the previous “status quo” anyway. So why would the Brian e-mail mean anything to Mike?

More importantly, it ignores the chief criticism that has been made against Mike, which is why he wouldn’t agree to do MORE shows. That will continue to be the burning question until everybody answers *that* question honestly.

To me this is indeed the important and ignored question.  Why couldn't Love do his previously scheduled shows and then the resumption could commence? The M&B "prior commitments" was always a red herring. Go ahead and fulfill the prior commitments, no big deal--if all parties still wanted to be Beach Boys together they would be.  Clearly somebody does not and won't answer why. I don't know, maybe Love deserves credit for not airing out the dirty laundry, but the prior commitments created a pause, not an end...

The somebody is Mike Love, and he's essentially already answered why (or at least a significant part of the "why") in so many words: because he didn't like the "outside forces" (ie. people other than Mike Love) taking away from the writing/collaborating/recording process as he (Mike Love) thinks it should occur, with Mike having a more substantial role, and reclaiming the measure of respect and importance that he thinks he is owed.

That's the only argument/ excuse I've really heard him publicly make that, IMO, is in any way publicly "spinnable" to get Mike some sympathy for his plight. Sure, Mike will talk about the importance of hitting smaller markets, but he hasn't ever come clean about the fact that he simply wants control and to not be bogged down by any sort of group vote that could take away the ease and control he's built up since 1998.  There's no easy way for Mike to outright say that in an honest way in an interview that won't make him come off poorly, so he simply doesn't address the need for control being a factor.

Yes, I know it was Love and nobody that I have seen has ever pressed him on his answers of why the writing/recording process is not acceptable. The obvious (to me) retort would be that he wrote the lyrics to two of the greatest compositions in popular music history in just the same fashion. If he can dictate the lyrics to the already completed California Girls and Good Vibrations then, why must he insist on writing with Brian in the same room now or its no go?

[CenturyDeprived]

Someone should really ask Mike or someone in Cal Saga what the plan was, even if it was just talk.

Some of us have...now whether or not the answer is believable, remains to be seen! And also, things change :/

Can the answer be publicly shared?
Regardless, yeah there is no doubt that things change, and quickly between the BB personalities. Things seemed to go south pretty fast at a certain point.

[the professor]

Dave sounds very much like he hopes to all play together. Now, Al, Dave, and Jeff have all said it.......

The consensus among these three is that being together, playing together, doing anything including an album is their first and best destiny.  Brian likely agrees on many levels. Bruce will always be up for it.  Mike?  He needs something given to him, something acknowledged.  IIT and SV are the most playable songs from TWGMTR along with the 3 great melancholy pieces. SV should have been the single, pushed until it charted.......Oh, says the Professor......

I have nothing but hope, lads.

The Professor

One Beach Boy we didn't hear much from publicly about the end of the c50 tour was David Marks. Here, he discusses his take on it, and also discusses the possibility of another reunion.

http://m.tbrnews.com/lifestyle/always-a-beach-boy-david-marks-an-original-member-of/article_e8928950-4421-11e4-9f7c-4b2c9a19d6c3.html

[HeyJude]

That's the only argument/ excuse I've really heard him publicly make that, IMO, is in any way publicly "spinnable" to get Mike some sympathy for his plight. Sure, Mike will talk about the importance of hitting smaller markets, but he hasn't ever come clean about the fact that he simply wants control and to not be bogged down by any sort of group vote that could take away the ease and control he's built up since 1998.  There's no easy way for Mike to outright say that in an honest way in an interview that won't make him come off poorly, so he simply doesn't address the need for control being a factor.

Well put. This is a big part of it, especially in terms of how the debates flow among fans.

It's true that it holds no PR advantage for Mike, but if he was able to offer some detailed explanation that included some things that perhaps reflect a big negatively on him, it would negate much of the criticism, at least from folks here.

I think a lot of the obvious control/money/power/ego issues are what drive a lot of the motivations. All of the external factors (those influences "outside" the core band members) perhaps often serve as things that exacerbate the situation, perhaps sometimes serve as the tipping point.

A lot of those "outside" things Mike has to deal with are probably legit gripes. (Other band members may have similar types of gripes of course). But underlying all of that is the motivation that brings them to the table in the first place. Brian, for a period, seemed to be on the same page as Al in simply acknowledging how the tour was amazing, how the whole was greater than the sum, etc. I think Mike was more guarded and skeptical from the get go, and all of those external factors perhaps were tipping points for Mike while Brian and Al were still good to go to do more gigs. I'm still amazed (and grateful) that he did the tour.

[CenturyDeprived]

How about this for a timeline ?

Tour booked for 50 dates, ending August 15th, Mike tells them he's booking dates in October.

Tour goes well, extra overseas dates booked, all agree that's it, "no more shows for Wilsons" email.

Added dates go down a storm, Brian & Alan want to carry on despite the previous agreement, Mike declines.

Brian's people then request a press release stating the post September line up won't include him, Alan or David, Mike issues same (granted, timing wasn't the best).

Media jumps to erroneous assumption BA&D have been fired. You know the rest.

Assuming this timeline is correct (I’m not convinced it necessarily is, but let’s go with it), it still renders Brian’s “no more shows” e-mail as entirely superfluous, both in terms of his reasoning for doing it and for Mike caring about it. Mike had already booked his own shows and, if David Marks is to be believed, they all knew it would be going back to the previous “status quo” anyway. So why would the Brian e-mail mean anything to Mike?

More importantly, it ignores the chief criticism that has been made against Mike, which is why he wouldn’t agree to do MORE shows. That will continue to be the burning question until everybody answers *that* question honestly.

To me this is indeed the important and ignored question.  Why couldn't Love do his previously scheduled shows and then the resumption could commence? The M&B "prior commitments" was always a red herring. Go ahead and fulfill the prior commitments, no big deal--if all parties still wanted to be Beach Boys together they would be.  Clearly somebody does not and won't answer why. I don't know, maybe Love deserves credit for not airing out the dirty laundry, but the prior commitments created a pause, not an end...

The somebody is Mike Love, and he's essentially already answered why (or at least a significant part of the "why") in so many words: because he didn't like the "outside forces" (ie. people other than Mike Love) taking away from the writing/collaborating/recording process as he (Mike Love) thinks it should occur, with Mike having a more substantial role, and reclaiming the measure of respect and importance that he thinks he is owed.

That's the only argument/ excuse I've really heard him publicly make that, IMO, is in any way publicly "spinnable" to get Mike some sympathy for his plight. Sure, Mike will talk about the importance of hitting smaller markets, but he hasn't ever come clean about the fact that he simply wants control and to not be bogged down by any sort of group vote that could take away the ease and control he's built up since 1998.  There's no easy way for Mike to outright say that in an honest way in an interview that won't make him come off poorly, so he simply doesn't address the need for control being a factor.

Yes, I know it was Love and nobody that I have seen has ever pressed him on his answers of why the writing/recording process is not acceptable. The obvious (to me) retort would be that he wrote the lyrics to two of the greatest compositions in popular music history in just the same fashion. If he can dictate the lyrics to the already completed California Girls and Good Vibrations then, why must he insist on writing with Brian in the same room now or its no go?

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?

I didn't see Mike saying that the lyrics on TWGMTR were not "relatable" or "commercial", as was his main claim to the problem he had with VDP's lyrics. I'm sure Mike thinks that his lyrics would be "better" and would maybe have made the album go to #1, but I simply don't see how it's a "problem" in and of itself that there are other writers involved; there often have been throughout the BBs story. Just admit that he wants the vision of the BBs to match his vision of the "glory days" where Mike was on top. Admit it's an ego thing, or that it's largely an ego thing.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

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.

[Sheriff John Stone]

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.