Damn, I miss it being C50

[PS]

I was just thinking about the C50 tour when I saw Brian and Al in Long Beach the other night.  I definitely miss the C50 tour--it was just a great show to attend.  Satisfying on all levels.  You left the show completely happy.  Wish I could experience that again.

Watching the entire Japanese show tonight really cheered me up, thank you so much for the reminder, stack. Reminded me of being at the soundcheck and in the 10th center at the ecstatic Red Rocks show. I still can't believe how great they sound together with the perfect combination of the two bands. Oh man, the most joyous/celebratory/life comes full circle concert of my life.

And what a disaster the DVD's and CD of the tour turned out to be. I never watch or listen to 'em. If only they released the HD version of this show.

Jack Rieley was right.

PS, I recall you were right in the middle of all the discussions of the upcoming releases of more official DVDs from the tour.  Shame how plans evaporated, isn't it?  I think part of what makes things even more frustrating is that we never got THE perfect live document to represent the tour.  The Phoenix DVD was a huge miss.  Overdubbed vocals, autotuned and edited down to like 90 minutes.  A special edition 2 disc version of either the Royal Albert Hall or Wembley show would have been the perfect product.  But in typical Beach Boys fashion....they screw that up.

Last I heard, the "producers" (David C. Levy and his wife Donna Levy, old classmates from my high school in NY) had other things on their minds...(classic Beach Boys saga continues)

http://www.imdb.com/company/co0394589/

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/feds-real-life-wolf-wall-street-10-years-article-1.1589984

http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/March13/DavidandDonnaLevyVerdictsPR.php

Have no idea of the legal status of the material. Last I heard from Marc Bennett (who is listed as "co-director" with Joe Thomas on the DVD of C-50 that we do have), he was working with John Anderson (excellent director with whom I worked with on the Smile concert DVD) before the shite hit the fan, as it were...

[the professor]

A certain BB archivist has told me he longs to get his hands on the RAH audio; I hope he, the only trustworthy producer fit for the job, will do so. What happened to that "movie" version of the Hollywood Bowl show? Many of you used to tease the professor about being hung up on the 50th. Welcome aboard, boys.

[Justin]

Thanks PS.  Real shame that everyone seems to have moved on from the project but can't say I blame anyone.  The group has since disbanded and there is no real demand for something like that to the mass public now.  I wonder how much work they put into it....is it even edited?  Whatever it is,  I hope they return to it one day.

[ontor pertawst]

I'm doing hypnotic Bela Lugosi hand gestures now, someone send me the RAH GoPro footage and I'll stitch it together. Go raw, embrace that aspect of it, forget the bullshit autotuning and rerecording.

[Jim V.]

The BIG difference with the Beach Boys, and the one that rightly or wrongly paints Mike Love as the villain, is that a couple of the members continued under the same name. I'm pretty sure Sting would have gotten plenty of s**t from fans and the media/critics if he had continued on without the other two guys as "The Police", even moreso if the other two guys *wanted* to keep going as a group. I'm sure Fleetwood and McVie would have been scorned if they had moved to continue on as "Fleetwood Mac" in the later 90's and 2000's without Nicks and Buckingham, while both Nicks and Buckingham were ready and willing. Can anyone imagine Mick Fleetwood going "you know, the smaller markets just can't afford Steve Nicks being in the band, so we're going back to the way it was before the reunion, with Bonnie Bramlett's daughter and Dave Mason."

I totally agree with you on most, except the Fleetwood Mac part. If by chance Mick wanted to do that, I think he would surely be in his rights to tour without Lindsey or Stevie (or Christine). And the reason for that is, Fleetwood Mac was his band for approximately eight years before Lindsey and Stevie joined. However, if Lindsey and Stevie are available, you bet Mick wants them on stage, same with Christine. And the reason for that is, he knows the fans wanna watch the people they love playing and singing the music they love. Mike Love on the other hand apparently thinks he is all that is necessary for his "Beach Boys" group to be THE BEACH BOYS. And therein lies the difference between Mike Love and many, many, many others in the music industry (besides Axl Rose). And in Axl's defense, at least he's put out a new recording in the last 20 years without all the other guys he claims he doesn't need.

[Eric Aniversario]

The BIG difference with the Beach Boys, and the one that rightly or wrongly paints Mike Love as the villain, is that a couple of the members continued under the same name. I'm pretty sure Sting would have gotten plenty of s**t from fans and the media/critics if he had continued on without the other two guys as "The Police", even moreso if the other two guys *wanted* to keep going as a group. I'm sure Fleetwood and McVie would have been scorned if they had moved to continue on as "Fleetwood Mac" in the later 90's and 2000's without Nicks and Buckingham, while both Nicks and Buckingham were ready and willing. Can anyone imagine Mick Fleetwood going "you know, the smaller markets just can't afford Steve Nicks being in the band, so we're going back to the way it was before the reunion, with Bonnie Bramlett's daughter and Dave Mason."

I totally agree with you on most, except the Fleetwood Mac part. If by chance Mick wanted to do that, I think he would surely be in his rights to tour without Lindsey or Stevie (or Christine). And the reason for that is, Fleetwood Mac was his band for approximately eight years before Lindsey and Stevie joined. However, if Lindsey and Stevie are available, you bet Mick wants them on stage, same with Christine. And the reason for that is, he knows the fans wanna watch the people they love playing and singing the music they love. Mike Love on the other hand apparently thinks he is all that is necessary for his "Beach Boys" group to be THE BEACH BOYS. And therein lies the difference between Mike Love and many, many, many others in the music industry (besides Axl Rose). And in Axl's defense, at least he's put out a new recording in the last 20 years without all the other guys he claims he doesn't need.

I do think it's a disappointment that Mike won't tour with Brian and Al and Dave permanently, but I must respond to that last sentence. Mike has released songs under his own name in the last 20 years. Cool Head, Warm Heart, Hungry Heart, and Pisces Brothers all come to mind. Not to mention the Catch a Wave promo in 1996, and NASCAR in 1998 with the limited involvement of Bruce and David. That said, I enjoy all the touring bands very much, but would love to have them all together again.

[Nicko1234]

I totally agree with you on most, except the Fleetwood Mac part. If by chance Mick wanted to do that, I think he would surely be in his rights to tour without Lindsey or Stevie (or Christine). And the reason for that is, Fleetwood Mac was his band for approximately eight years before Lindsey and Stevie joined. However, if Lindsey and Stevie are available, you bet Mick wants them on stage, same with Christine. And the reason for that is, he knows the fans wanna watch the people they love playing and singing the music they love. Mike Love on the other hand apparently thinks he is all that is necessary for his "Beach Boys" group to be THE BEACH BOYS. And therein lies the difference between Mike Love and many, many, many others in the music industry (besides Axl Rose). And in Axl's defense, at least he's put out a new recording in the last 20 years without all the other guys he claims he doesn't need.

I really don`t think that if Mike had singlehandedly put out some recordings under The Beach Boys name over the past 16 years (if he had the right to) that it would be in his defense.

[Andrew G. Doe]

I totally agree with you on most, except the Fleetwood Mac part. If by chance Mick wanted to do that, I think he would surely be in his rights to tour without Lindsey or Stevie (or Christine). And the reason for that is, Fleetwood Mac was his band for approximately eight years before Lindsey and Stevie joined. However, if Lindsey and Stevie are available, you bet Mick wants them on stage, same with Christine. And the reason for that is, he knows the fans wanna watch the people they love playing and singing the music they love. Mike Love on the other hand apparently thinks he is all that is necessary for his "Beach Boys" group to be THE BEACH BOYS. And therein lies the difference between Mike Love and many, many, many others in the music industry (besides Axl Rose). And in Axl's defense, at least he's put out a new recording in the last 20 years without all the other guys he claims he doesn't need.

Nope. Three out of four voting BRI members think it's OK for Mike to tour as The Beach Boys. So, they awarded him a license. Simples.

Also, as we all know here, the use of the trademark is, in Mike's case, for touring only: he couldn't release anything as by "The Beach Boys" even if he wanted to (and my impression is that he doesn't).

[Nicko1234]

With regard to releasing live stuff, Bruce has commented in the past that they have tapes of the unplugged tour in 1993 in the vaults so they have already been sitting there for 21 years. Plus obviously there are other vintage recordings out there.

I`m not holding my breath over any more C50 releases.

[Fire Wind]

Are GoPro cameras just those little ones fixed about the place?  There were two guys with real cameras going about the stage at the RAH.  There should be better footage.

[guitarfool2002]

I have thought the same exact thing. What incentive was there (past a certain point) to promote BB reunion-related product?  I think that's why Isn't it Time got very little traction, I have a hunch that the promotion machine was cut off at the knees and called off early.

I'm not sure that anyone knows the exact timeline in C50 of when the sh*t hit the fan internally, when there started to be some real hurt feelings and lack of communication... certainly when M&B didn't attend that famous dinner, though I think it was brewing right around the time of the Grammy Museum performance. I think that timeline would probably coincide with certain other things getting called off (besides more reunion shows). Prior to myself or anyone publicly knowing about the impending C50 implosion, I briefly talked to Joe Thomas about the Isn't it Time single version at the Grammy museum, and I do wonder how much it must've seemed to everyone behind the scenes that the new single (which they spent time re-doing as a single version) was dead in the water because the reunion was about to be also.

In any event, I think that the only reunion-related releases since it imploded have purely been contractual. I'd wonder if more care would've been put into the autotune disasters on the live CD if there wasn't so much bad blood around then. When the band gives less of a damn than they would have in other circumstances, I'll bet the approval process was easier to let sloppy stuff slip through and get released.  

I don't think the band (certainly Mike) needs more releases to remind people of C50. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I wonder if he wishes it had never happened at this point, if he could do it all over again, because he gets asked about it (and finds himself in a defensive position about it) in most interviews since 2012.  At a certain point, that might tip the scale and be more negative than whatever he "got" out of the reunion (which obviously wasn't what he wanted, at least songwriting-wise).

Several good points mentioned there. The one in bold, some of that timeline was described in the LA-based press reports around the time of the Grammy event, and specifically on the backlash from that press release that started the whole shitstorm.

Paraphrasing a few things, I think the infamous/oft-told "Nutty Jerry's" situation with having to cancel a Beach Boys show due to confusion over which Beach Boys would be playing there (that in itself speaks volumes...or could) was one of the tipping points. Reading into the press coverage, there was concern within the mechanics of the C50 tour about confusion with the name, a meeting was requested to clarify things and have an official statement on the issues (that according to one of Brian's follow-up replies in the newspaper), and before that could happen Mike's PR team issued their own statement which caused the firestorm, and apparently was released before the other band members had known about it. Then one of Mike's replies on the situations offended the Eagles and their management, who fired off an angry public letter to Mike in reply, and the whole thing which perhaps could have been handled better turned into a debacle.

All of that is pretty well outlined if you search for the press, especially from the LA news outlet who was covering it closely, from around the time of the Grammy event. The writer even mentioned thinking what it would be like to be a fly on the wall backstage at those UK shows, which the band was heading off to do after this public relations debacle played out at the time of the Grammy museum event.

Side note: The timing sucked. IMO. Maybe one issue some fans have to this day is that you don't put out statements which in any way could affect the reputation of or even the positivity surrounding a tour while the tour is still in progress. Not to mention how it affected things internally, which we don't know except for what was revealed regarding the never-held meetings, surprise press releases and the like. Simple PR...you had Brian on the record saying how much he was enjoying it and how he was having fun being a Beach Boy, including writing songs, you had Al being his usual enthusiastic self about playing on stage with this group, David seemed to be having fun with it, there were some notions that more offers for them to play were coming in, then you get a press release and public comments from Mike saying it's over and The Beach Boys will be returning to the pre-50th lineup.

Timing is everything, and that timing sucked. Hindsight is 20/20, though.

The dinner photo was at the end of the UK run, at a dinner thrown by Brian and Melinda Wilson for the musicians and crew. Weren't they originally on Facebook with a description?

As far as when things started to go sour during the tour's run, I don't think anyone has ever publicly pinpointed a specific time or has talked about it at all publicly, but the statements from Mike and his PR team around the time of the Grammy thing was when I think it went public. Couldn't have been a good scene behind the scenes.

And I've said before, that dinner photo might say more about the whole thing than anything which has been written or said about it.

[guitarfool2002]

I have to mention Fleetwood Mac since they were brought up, and since they just played a show in Philly Wednesday night, the first shows all of them have been playing for years. Great reviews, strong sales, etc.

Just putting it into perspective, how many people would buy into a Fleetwood Mac show or even a single release if it were just Mick Fleetwood? Are the fans going to see Mick Fleetwood regardless of the others? Yeah, he was a founder, but still...perspective.

What I heard from this show was that Lindsey's solo spots and guitar work was a highlight, as was Tusk. And fans seeing Christine back with them, and Stevie's normal fans coming out...so are they coming out to see Mick's band?

I'm just purely speculating here...but doesn't this "reunion" tour sound a lot like the template from C50? Pull all available members together, give the fans a bang-up helluva good show, and the positive reviews and good sales start rolling in. New album in the works? Need to ask Lindsey on that one. Some might forget there were several different lineups and albums and whatnot in the past decades when Mick did in fact decide to go on his own and call it Fleetwood Mac, and I don't think anyone can name a song or remember a successful tour from those years that didn't have Lindsey and Stevie.

It didn't gel, no matter how good those bands were or Mick is, fans probably expect what was playing in Philly last night when they're at a Fleetwood Mac show.

[Nicko1234]

I have to mention Fleetwood Mac since they were brought up, and since they just played a show in Philly Wednesday night, the first shows all of them have been playing for years. Great reviews, strong sales, etc.

Just putting it into perspective, how many people would buy into a Fleetwood Mac show or even a single release if it were just Mick Fleetwood? Are the fans going to see Mick Fleetwood regardless of the others? Yeah, he was a founder, but still...perspective.

What I heard from this show was that Lindsey's solo spots and guitar work was a highlight, as was Tusk. And fans seeing Christine back with them, and Stevie's normal fans coming out...so are they coming out to see Mick's band?

I'm just purely speculating here...but doesn't this "reunion" tour sound a lot like the template from C50? Pull all available members together, give the fans a bang-up helluva good show, and the positive reviews and good sales start rolling in. New album in the works? Need to ask Lindsey on that one. Some might forget there were several different lineups and albums and whatnot in the past decades when Mick did in fact decide to go on his own and call it Fleetwood Mac, and I don't think anyone can name a song or remember a successful tour from those years that didn't have Lindsey and Stevie.

It didn't gel, no matter how good those bands were or Mick is, fans probably expect what was playing in Philly last night when they're at a Fleetwood Mac show.

Is he the lead singer and frontman?

[guitarfool2002]

On the topic of Fleetwood Mac and a new album: http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2014/10/15/fleetwood-macs-lindsey-buckingham-on-the-groups-new-album-plans/

Tell me some of this doesn't feel like a deja vu vibe with C50: 

Extending their tour into 2015 won’t deter Fleetwood Mac from recording what might become their first album in almost three decades of new songs composed by Lindsey Buckingham, Christine McVie and Stevie Nicks.

During a telephone conversation last week, Buckingham said McVie had presented him with demos of her new compositions. “Piano and voice,” he said. He brought them back to his studio in Los Angeles. With McVie’s approval, he added, “I took massive liberties with them.”

Nicks was “otherwise engaged. A running commentary these days,” he said, perhaps referring to preparations for her exhibition of her self-portrait photography now ongoing at the Morrison Hotel galleries in Los Angeles and New York as well as the release last week of “24 Karat Gold: Songs from the Vault,” her album of new versions of old, mostly unfamiliar compositions. “Christine and I were able to concentrate on each other,” Buckingham said. “We were exploring some new turf. That became enlightening to me.”

With Christine McVie back in the band for the first time in 16 years, Fleetwood Mac will be on the road through next March. “We never envisioned finishing the album in the short term,” he said. “We set it aside. Stevie will come in and participate. I have material I had been working on. There’s no danger that it will slip between the tracks. It’s too profound to.”

Buckingham hinted the band might tour behind new material. The current “On With The Show” concert tour features only songs from Fleetwood Mac’s hit-making era from 1975 through 1987’s “Tango in the Night,” the last album to feature Buckingham, McVie and Nicks with drummer Mick Fleetwood and bassist John McVie.

“Once we finish it,” Buckingham said, “we can think about going out and trying something new.”

As for the vibe now among the quintet with Christine McVie back on board, he said, “It’s a very interesting thing when someone who helped to define the interaction leaves for that amount of time. You don’t know how it’s going to play out. But this something that feels really good. It feels really circular.”

[TheLazenby]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldD9Vg1izy0

Or if you've got almost 2 hours: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdUeD2ehz64

The Live In Japan video....

Notice anything odd about the album cover collage at the start?  They not only totally ignored "Summer In Paradise" (and "Stars and Stripes", to be fair) - but they also left out "Friends"?!  That's an odd choice.

[HeyJude]

The BIG difference with the Beach Boys, and the one that rightly or wrongly paints Mike Love as the villain, is that a couple of the members continued under the same name. I'm pretty sure Sting would have gotten plenty of s**t from fans and the media/critics if he had continued on without the other two guys as "The Police", even moreso if the other two guys *wanted* to keep going as a group. I'm sure Fleetwood and McVie would have been scorned if they had moved to continue on as "Fleetwood Mac" in the later 90's and 2000's without Nicks and Buckingham, while both Nicks and Buckingham were ready and willing. Can anyone imagine Mick Fleetwood going "you know, the smaller markets just can't afford Steve Nicks being in the band, so we're going back to the way it was before the reunion, with Bonnie Bramlett's daughter and Dave Mason."

I totally agree with you on most, except the Fleetwood Mac part. If by chance Mick wanted to do that, I think he would surely be in his rights to tour without Lindsey or Stevie (or Christine). And the reason for that is, Fleetwood Mac was his band for approximately eight years before Lindsey and Stevie joined. However, if Lindsey and Stevie are available, you bet Mick wants them on stage, same with Christine. And the reason for that is, he knows the fans wanna watch the people they love playing and singing the music they love. Mike Love on the other hand apparently thinks he is all that is necessary for his "Beach Boys" group to be THE BEACH BOYS. And therein lies the difference between Mike Love and many, many, many others in the music industry (besides Axl Rose). And in Axl's defense, at least he's put out a new recording in the last 20 years without all the other guys he claims he doesn't need.

Yes, Fleetwood Mac is even weirder case in some ways than the BB’s, because they essentially were an entirely different band in the pre-Nicks/Buckingham era, simply with two members carried over through the different iterations. I suppose if Fleetwood and McVie went out without Nicks and Buckingham and did the early era Peter Green type stuff only, that would probably be less frowned upon or scoffed at. But as far as I know, they never do pre-Nicks/Buckingham stuff when Nicks and Buckingham are in the lineup. (I’m not sure if they’ve ever done the stuff from the mid-era like “Bare Trees” when Christine McVie had joined but Nicks and Buckingham hadn’t yet).

So the comparison has more to do with audience (and critics’) expectations. If Fleetwood and McVie went out without all surrogate singers and did “Rumors”-era material, that would be frowned upon, despite the fact that Fleetwood and McVie control the name. (Ironically, while I’m not sure, I *believe* they actually *own* the name outright, they don’t simply license it from some corporate entity).

[HeyJude]

The BIG difference with the Beach Boys, and the one that rightly or wrongly paints Mike Love as the villain, is that a couple of the members continued under the same name. I'm pretty sure Sting would have gotten plenty of s**t from fans and the media/critics if he had continued on without the other two guys as "The Police", even moreso if the other two guys *wanted* to keep going as a group. I'm sure Fleetwood and McVie would have been scorned if they had moved to continue on as "Fleetwood Mac" in the later 90's and 2000's without Nicks and Buckingham, while both Nicks and Buckingham were ready and willing. Can anyone imagine Mick Fleetwood going "you know, the smaller markets just can't afford Steve Nicks being in the band, so we're going back to the way it was before the reunion, with Bonnie Bramlett's daughter and Dave Mason."

I totally agree with you on most, except the Fleetwood Mac part. If by chance Mick wanted to do that, I think he would surely be in his rights to tour without Lindsey or Stevie (or Christine). And the reason for that is, Fleetwood Mac was his band for approximately eight years before Lindsey and Stevie joined. However, if Lindsey and Stevie are available, you bet Mick wants them on stage, same with Christine. And the reason for that is, he knows the fans wanna watch the people they love playing and singing the music they love. Mike Love on the other hand apparently thinks he is all that is necessary for his "Beach Boys" group to be THE BEACH BOYS. And therein lies the difference between Mike Love and many, many, many others in the music industry (besides Axl Rose). And in Axl's defense, at least he's put out a new recording in the last 20 years without all the other guys he claims he doesn't need.

I do think it's a disappointment that Mike won't tour with Brian and Al and Dave permanently, but I must respond to that last sentence. Mike has released songs under his own name in the last 20 years. Cool Head, Warm Heart, Hungry Heart, and Pisces Brothers all come to mind. Not to mention the Catch a Wave promo in 1996, and NASCAR in 1998 with the limited involvement of Bruce and David. That said, I enjoy all the touring bands very much, but would love to have them all together again.

Let’s also keep it in perspective: Mike hasn’t released anything approaching a full album of new material. 90’s re-records with Adrian Baker aren’t the same as Axl Rose putting out a “new” album. Al Jardine has at this stage released more “new” material since 1998 than Mike has.

Mike has made it both directly (via interviews) and implicitly pretty clear he doesn’t care much about recording new material, either as the “Beach Boys” or as a solo artist. Even in the case where he’s clearly bent out of shape about the “TWGMTR” album, I don’t think his frustration over that album comes from him starting out of the gate desperately wanting to make a new album of new material. His attitude seemed to be more a case of, *if* a new Beach Boys album is going to come out, he should write more of the lyrics.

Not to digress too much, but I sometime wonder if his actual main beef with the “TWGMTR” album is that Joe Thomas probably made more off of songwriting royalties on the album than Mike did.

[HeyJude]

I have to mention Fleetwood Mac since they were brought up, and since they just played a show in Philly Wednesday night, the first shows all of them have been playing for years. Great reviews, strong sales, etc.

Just putting it into perspective, how many people would buy into a Fleetwood Mac show or even a single release if it were just Mick Fleetwood? Are the fans going to see Mick Fleetwood regardless of the others? Yeah, he was a founder, but still...perspective.

What I heard from this show was that Lindsey's solo spots and guitar work was a highlight, as was Tusk. And fans seeing Christine back with them, and Stevie's normal fans coming out...so are they coming out to see Mick's band?

I'm just purely speculating here...but doesn't this "reunion" tour sound a lot like the template from C50? Pull all available members together, give the fans a bang-up helluva good show, and the positive reviews and good sales start rolling in. New album in the works? Need to ask Lindsey on that one. Some might forget there were several different lineups and albums and whatnot in the past decades when Mick did in fact decide to go on his own and call it Fleetwood Mac, and I don't think anyone can name a song or remember a successful tour from those years that didn't have Lindsey and Stevie.

It didn't gel, no matter how good those bands were or Mick is, fans probably expect what was playing in Philly last night when they're at a Fleetwood Mac show.

Is he the lead singer and frontman?

I think Mick Fleetwood and McVie were raised as the examples only because they are the guys in the band’s case who have the rights to the name. We can easily switch the example over to, say, Lindsey Buckingham. If he toured under the Fleetwood Mac name, without one or no other “core” members, and had surrogate singers on the front line singing the leads of Nicks and McVie, etc., he’d probably field a lot of criticism.

Another item on the litany of ways the BB’s kind of fudged themselves is that they cultivated an image as a performing artist, and let Mike grasp control of the group, to a point where he isn’t questioned much about the legitimacy of his group, other than by hardcore fans. He has certainly devalued the trademark and the group’s image by continuing to tour. The group’s reputation and “cred” among critics and the general public has diminished because of his touring. But he clearly doesn’t care (nor do most of the other BB’s), and he has molded the situation over the years to a point where having no Wilsons on stage, and having only one original member and only two of five living core members on stage, even while the other three are ready and willing to play together, is not resulting in a ruinous amount of bad press or disgruntled ticket buyers.

But my feeling is that one either has to poop or get off the pot. If the argument is he’s legally entitled to use the name because he has a license, and he has the approval of the majority of the trademark owners, then I think you have to stick to that argument. *And*, you have to accept that making that argument will justifiably lead some to see that argument as devoid of any goodwill and motivated by nothing more than legalese and sharkish economics. The whole secondary argument that we can measure the degree to which one is entitled to the name in a “moral” sense or whatever based on how being the “front man” or “lead singer” doesn’t mix at all with the “he’s legally entitled” argument.

[filledeplage]

I have to mention Fleetwood Mac since they were brought up, and since they just played a show in Philly Wednesday night, the first shows all of them have been playing for years. Great reviews, strong sales, etc.

Just putting it into perspective, how many people would buy into a Fleetwood Mac show or even a single release if it were just Mick Fleetwood? Are the fans going to see Mick Fleetwood regardless of the others? Yeah, he was a founder, but still...perspective.

What I heard from this show was that Lindsey's solo spots and guitar work was a highlight, as was Tusk. And fans seeing Christine back with them, and Stevie's normal fans coming out...so are they coming out to see Mick's band?

I'm just purely speculating here...but doesn't this "reunion" tour sound a lot like the template from C50? Pull all available members together, give the fans a bang-up helluva good show, and the positive reviews and good sales start rolling in. New album in the works? Need to ask Lindsey on that one. Some might forget there were several different lineups and albums and whatnot in the past decades when Mick did in fact decide to go on his own and call it Fleetwood Mac, and I don't think anyone can name a song or remember a successful tour from those years that didn't have Lindsey and Stevie.

It didn't gel, no matter how good those bands were or Mick is, fans probably expect what was playing in Philly last night when they're at a Fleetwood Mac show.

Is he the lead singer and frontman?

I think Mick Fleetwood and McVie were raised as the examples only because they are the guys in the band’s case who have the rights to the name. We can easily switch the example over to, say, Lindsey Buckingham. If he toured under the Fleetwood Mac name, without one or no other “core” members, and had surrogate singers on the front line singing the leads of Nicks and McVie, etc., he’d probably field a lot of criticism.

Another item on the litany of ways the BB’s kind of fudged themselves is that they cultivated an image as a performing artist, and let Mike grasp control of the group, to a point where he isn’t questioned much about the legitimacy of his group, other than by hardcore fans. He has certainly devalued the trademark and the group’s image by continuing to tour. The group’s reputation and “cred” among critics and the general public has diminished because of his touring. But he clearly doesn’t care (nor do most of the other BB’s), and he has molded the situation over the years to a point where having no Wilsons on stage, and having only one original member and only two of five living core members on stage, even while the other three are ready and willing to play together, is not resulting in a ruinous amount of bad press or disgruntled ticket buyers.

But my feeling is that one either has to poop or get off the pot. If the argument is he’s legally entitled to use the name because he has a license, and he has the approval of the majority of the trademark owners, then I think you have to stick to that argument. *And*, you have to accept that making that argument will justifiably lead some to see that argument as devoid of any goodwill and motivated by nothing more than legalese and sharkish economics. The whole secondary argument that we can measure the degree to which one is entitled to the name in a “moral” sense or whatever based on how being the “front man” or “lead singer” doesn’t mix at all with the “he’s legally entitled” argument.

It is apples and oranges.  What distinguishes this stuff, in my view, is that people have embraced the independent creative time spent apart with Fleetwood Mac, notwithstanding any proprietary drama as to whom is permitted to tour with the name brand.  And have castigated the time spent apart with the BB's.  Stevie Nicks has an amazing movie on Netflix entitled "In Your Dreams" where we get a bird's eye view as to her creative process.  She does work on her album, tours veterans' hospitals, meeting those who had her music in their headphones in the Middle East. 

It was amazing to see her impact on a new generation of fallen or disabled soldiers and her commitment to their care.  Her back story and revulsion concerning what didn't happened, as opposed to what should have happened, with Hurricane Katrina, shows an extraordinary activist side.  That is time well spent away from Fleetwood Mac.  And, she included Mick Fleetwood and Lindsey Buckingham on her first solo album in 10 years.  She also had Waddy Wachtel, David Stewart, as well as her "sister" solo tour vocalists.  Her "Soldier's Angel" supports the Yellow Ribbon Fund for the U.S. Military.

My position is that the creative time apart always makes for a better "reunion."  For Fleetwood Mac and The Beach Boys. 

[Fire Wind]

. I suppose if Fleetwood and McVie went out without Nicks and Buckingham and did the early era Peter Green type stuff only, that would probably be less frowned upon or scoffed at. But as far as I know, they never do pre-Nicks/Buckingham stuff when Nicks and Buckingham are in the lineup. (I’m not sure if they’ve ever done the stuff from the mid-era like “Bare Trees” when Christine McVie had joined but Nicks and Buckingham hadn’t yet).

Haven't seen this tour, but saw the tour previously without Christine McVie.  They did 'Oh Well'.  Yeah, Buckingham was sorta the star of the show.

[HeyJude]

I have to mention Fleetwood Mac since they were brought up, and since they just played a show in Philly Wednesday night, the first shows all of them have been playing for years. Great reviews, strong sales, etc.

Just putting it into perspective, how many people would buy into a Fleetwood Mac show or even a single release if it were just Mick Fleetwood? Are the fans going to see Mick Fleetwood regardless of the others? Yeah, he was a founder, but still...perspective.

What I heard from this show was that Lindsey's solo spots and guitar work was a highlight, as was Tusk. And fans seeing Christine back with them, and Stevie's normal fans coming out...so are they coming out to see Mick's band?

I'm just purely speculating here...but doesn't this "reunion" tour sound a lot like the template from C50? Pull all available members together, give the fans a bang-up helluva good show, and the positive reviews and good sales start rolling in. New album in the works? Need to ask Lindsey on that one. Some might forget there were several different lineups and albums and whatnot in the past decades when Mick did in fact decide to go on his own and call it Fleetwood Mac, and I don't think anyone can name a song or remember a successful tour from those years that didn't have Lindsey and Stevie.

It didn't gel, no matter how good those bands were or Mick is, fans probably expect what was playing in Philly last night when they're at a Fleetwood Mac show.

Is he the lead singer and frontman?

I think Mick Fleetwood and McVie were raised as the examples only because they are the guys in the band’s case who have the rights to the name. We can easily switch the example over to, say, Lindsey Buckingham. If he toured under the Fleetwood Mac name, without one or no other “core” members, and had surrogate singers on the front line singing the leads of Nicks and McVie, etc., he’d probably field a lot of criticism.

Another item on the litany of ways the BB’s kind of fudged themselves is that they cultivated an image as a performing artist, and let Mike grasp control of the group, to a point where he isn’t questioned much about the legitimacy of his group, other than by hardcore fans. He has certainly devalued the trademark and the group’s image by continuing to tour. The group’s reputation and “cred” among critics and the general public has diminished because of his touring. But he clearly doesn’t care (nor do most of the other BB’s), and he has molded the situation over the years to a point where having no Wilsons on stage, and having only one original member and only two of five living core members on stage, even while the other three are ready and willing to play together, is not resulting in a ruinous amount of bad press or disgruntled ticket buyers.

But my feeling is that one either has to poop or get off the pot. If the argument is he’s legally entitled to use the name because he has a license, and he has the approval of the majority of the trademark owners, then I think you have to stick to that argument. *And*, you have to accept that making that argument will justifiably lead some to see that argument as devoid of any goodwill and motivated by nothing more than legalese and sharkish economics. The whole secondary argument that we can measure the degree to which one is entitled to the name in a “moral” sense or whatever based on how being the “front man” or “lead singer” doesn’t mix at all with the “he’s legally entitled” argument.

It is apples and oranges.  What distinguishes this stuff, in my view, is that people have embraced the independent creative time spent apart with Fleetwood Mac, notwithstanding any proprietary drama as to whom is permitted to tour with the name brand.  And have castigated the time spent apart with the BB's.  Stevie Nicks has an amazing movie on Netflix entitled "In Your Dreams" where we get a bird's eye view as to her creative process.  She does work on her album, tours veterans' hospitals, meeting those who had her music in their headphones in the Middle East. 

It was amazing to see her impact on a new generation of fallen or disabled soldiers and her commitment to their care.  Her back story and revulsion concerning what didn't happened, as opposed to what should have happened, with Hurricane Katrina, shows an extraordinary activist side.  That is time well spent away from Fleetwood Mac.  And, she included Mick Fleetwood and Lindsey Buckingham on her first solo album in 10 years.  She also had Waddy Wachtel, David Stewart, as well as her "sister" solo tour vocalists.  Her "Soldier's Angel" supports the Yellow Ribbon Fund for the U.S. Military.

My position is that the creative time apart always makes for a better "reunion."  For Fleetwood Mac and The Beach Boys. 

Ironically, the person least castigated for spending time away from the group is Brian, who has had a better time (critically, chart position-wise, etc.) as a solo artist in the last 15 years than the BB's have had since the 70's (apart from perhaps 2012, ironically). Yet, the guy who could most easily go back to continuing to establish himself as a SOLO artist, Brian, wanted to continue with the Beach Boys. As far as I'm concerned, Brian is a better judge than any of us about whether it's timely to undertake or continue a reunion. To say nothing of the obvious, which is that "time apart makes for a better reunion" is a total BS justification in my opinion for the 2012 reunion not continuing (and a total BS justification for anything to do with the state of the Beach Boys in the present day). Sounds like something Mike Love would say. Oh yeah, Mike *did* essentially make the same justification at the end of C50, with the total BS (and I believe utterly insincere) stuff about "giving it a rest" and "building up demand."

A 2013 continuation of the reunion tour would have been one thing: AWESOME. If they do ever do another tour together, it won't be better for having not toured in 2013.

I dunno, even some of the folks who are more apt to defend Mike will at least admit that the end of the reunion, whomever is at fault, was nothing but a negative. I'm all for making the best of a situation (the "BAD" tour, etc.), but that's different than trying to paint the sad, embarrassing aftermath of the reunion tour as anything other than sad and pathetic.

The Beach Boys are nearing their mid-70s. There's no more time left to spend "time apart" to make for a "better reunion."

[mikeddonn]

The great thing about C50 was it was unexpected and "with a set end date".  Yes it would be great to have all those guys touring together all the time but it wouldn't have lasted long IMHO.  Brian didn't want to tour with hem when Carl was still alive so I'm glad I got to see The Beach Boys with Brian, having also seen them without.  I never ever thought they would but they did, for a limited time only.  Maybe they will get back together for the 50th of "Pet Sounds"?

In the meantime though I do think Brian and Al should be able to play with the group if they so choose (with the agreement of the majority of BRI votes).  However, this would lead to endless speculation about who would or wouldn't show up.

[CenturyDeprived]

I have to mention Fleetwood Mac since they were brought up, and since they just played a show in Philly Wednesday night, the first shows all of them have been playing for years. Great reviews, strong sales, etc.

Just putting it into perspective, how many people would buy into a Fleetwood Mac show or even a single release if it were just Mick Fleetwood? Are the fans going to see Mick Fleetwood regardless of the others? Yeah, he was a founder, but still...perspective.

What I heard from this show was that Lindsey's solo spots and guitar work was a highlight, as was Tusk. And fans seeing Christine back with them, and Stevie's normal fans coming out...so are they coming out to see Mick's band?

I'm just purely speculating here...but doesn't this "reunion" tour sound a lot like the template from C50? Pull all available members together, give the fans a bang-up helluva good show, and the positive reviews and good sales start rolling in. New album in the works? Need to ask Lindsey on that one. Some might forget there were several different lineups and albums and whatnot in the past decades when Mick did in fact decide to go on his own and call it Fleetwood Mac, and I don't think anyone can name a song or remember a successful tour from those years that didn't have Lindsey and Stevie.

It didn't gel, no matter how good those bands were or Mick is, fans probably expect what was playing in Philly last night when they're at a Fleetwood Mac show.

Is he the lead singer and frontman?

I think Mick Fleetwood and McVie were raised as the examples only because they are the guys in the band’s case who have the rights to the name. We can easily switch the example over to, say, Lindsey Buckingham. If he toured under the Fleetwood Mac name, without one or no other “core” members, and had surrogate singers on the front line singing the leads of Nicks and McVie, etc., he’d probably field a lot of criticism.

Another item on the litany of ways the BB’s kind of fudged themselves is that they cultivated an image as a performing artist, and let Mike grasp control of the group, to a point where he isn’t questioned much about the legitimacy of his group, other than by hardcore fans. He has certainly devalued the trademark and the group’s image by continuing to tour. The group’s reputation and “cred” among critics and the general public has diminished because of his touring. But he clearly doesn’t care (nor do most of the other BB’s), and he has molded the situation over the years to a point where having no Wilsons on stage, and having only one original member and only two of five living core members on stage, even while the other three are ready and willing to play together, is not resulting in a ruinous amount of bad press or disgruntled ticket buyers.

But my feeling is that one either has to poop or get off the pot. If the argument is he’s legally entitled to use the name because he has a license, and he has the approval of the majority of the trademark owners, then I think you have to stick to that argument. *And*, you have to accept that making that argument will justifiably lead some to see that argument as devoid of any goodwill and motivated by nothing more than legalese and sharkish economics. The whole secondary argument that we can measure the degree to which one is entitled to the name in a “moral” sense or whatever based on how being the “front man” or “lead singer” doesn’t mix at all with the “he’s legally entitled” argument.

It is apples and oranges.  What distinguishes this stuff, in my view, is that people have embraced the independent creative time spent apart with Fleetwood Mac, notwithstanding any proprietary drama as to whom is permitted to tour with the name brand.  And have castigated the time spent apart with the BB's.  Stevie Nicks has an amazing movie on Netflix entitled "In Your Dreams" where we get a bird's eye view as to her creative process.  She does work on her album, tours veterans' hospitals, meeting those who had her music in their headphones in the Middle East.  

It was amazing to see her impact on a new generation of fallen or disabled soldiers and her commitment to their care.  Her back story and revulsion concerning what didn't happened, as opposed to what should have happened, with Hurricane Katrina, shows an extraordinary activist side.  That is time well spent away from Fleetwood Mac.  And, she included Mick Fleetwood and Lindsey Buckingham on her first solo album in 10 years.  She also had Waddy Wachtel, David Stewart, as well as her "sister" solo tour vocalists.  Her "Soldier's Angel" supports the Yellow Ribbon Fund for the U.S. Military.

My position is that the creative time apart always makes for a better "reunion."  For Fleetwood Mac and The Beach Boys.  

Ironically, the person least castigated for spending time away from the group is Brian, who has had a better time (critically, chart position-wise, etc.) as a solo artist in the last 15 years than the BB's have had since the 70's (apart from perhaps 2012, ironically). Yet, the guy who could most easily go back to continuing to establish himself as a SOLO artist, Brian, wanted to continue with the Beach Boys. As far as I'm concerned, Brian is a better judge than any of us about whether it's timely to undertake or continue a reunion. To say nothing of the obvious, which is that "time apart makes for a better reunion" is a total BS justification in my opinion for the 2012 reunion not continuing (and a total BS justification for anything to do with the state of the Beach Boys in the present day). Sounds like something Mike Love would say. Oh yeah, Mike *did* essentially make the same justification at the end of C50, with the total BS (and I believe utterly insincere) stuff about "giving it a rest" and "building up demand."

A 2013 continuation of the reunion tour would have been one thing: AWESOME. If they do ever do another tour together, it won't be better for having not toured in 2013.

I dunno, even some of the folks who are more apt to defend Mike will at least admit that the end of the reunion, whomever is at fault, was nothing but a negative. I'm all for making the best of a situation (the "BAD" tour, etc.), but that's different than trying to paint the sad, embarrassing aftermath of the reunion tour as anything other than sad and pathetic.

The Beach Boys are nearing their mid-70s. There's no more time left to spend "time apart" to make for a "better reunion."

Mike dances all around the real reason(s) that the reunion imploded, and everything else is a GIANT straw-grab. It's obvious. If Mike was writing songs with Brian in a room the way he wanted to, and got his way on the road, there's no way the Madison Square Garden show (if still offered under these hypothetical circumstances) would have been turned down by Mike, nor would the reunion ended with Mike saying that demand needs to be build up. It would have probably continued, and if someone was going to end it, it would likely not be Mike leading the charge.

Mike wanted control, both in the then-present (2012) he wanted there to be zero chance he'd not 100% have control down the line, and he wanted to somehow be taken seriously as a creative force songwriting-wise by ensuring his name was typically mentioned in the same breath as BW's, and thought of as just as vital to the songwriting process as BW's.  When those demands weren't met, he imploded the reunion and stated all sorts of "reasons" to avoid discussing the actual primary reasons. I think people are simply frustrated by his obfuscation. No, I don't have a portal inside his head "Being John Malkovich" style... but it's not rocket science to deduce how he simply found lame excuses for the real reasons. As much as I think the logic is worthy of a disapproving head shake, I'll at least give Mike credit for publicly bitching about his gripe of not being able to write with Brian in the exact manner he wanted to. I'm sure that was a legit major reason, and at least Mike fessed up to it. Now for Mike to fess up to his massive control/ego issues publicly is quite another thing entirely...

[Mikie]

*Cough cough* Regurgitating. *Cough cough* The same. *Cough cough* Post C50. *Cough cough* Diatribe. *Cough cough* Over and over again. *Cough*.

[ontor pertawst]

Well, yeah, so are you with all the let's move on stuff. This is a board that obsesses over what might have been stretching back to the 60s. I'd probably just avoid threads titled "Damn, I miss it being C50" if you want to avoid the inevitable C50 aftermath chatter... Telling people not to talk about things they clearly want to talk about isn't going to get you very far unless you're a moderator.

Good luck with your campaign, tho!