gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
680601 Posts in 27601 Topics by 4068 Members - Latest Member: Dae Lims March 29, 2024, 02:17:43 PM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Damn, I miss it being C50  (Read 35040 times)
Mikie
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5887



View Profile
« Reply #50 on: October 17, 2014, 10:55:04 AM »

I'm not "telling" anyone anything, Pertwats. Maybe just mildy suggesting in a roundabout way that the subject has been brought up over and over and milked to death for all its worth, that's all. I'm allowed, aren't I? You know, free speech and all that?

And speaking of "not getting very far". I don't think anyone in the Beach Boys camp is listening anymore, especially Mike Love.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2014, 10:57:43 AM by Mikie » Logged

I, I love the colorful clothes she wears, and she's already working on my brain. I only looked in her eyes, but I picked up something I just can't explain. I, I bet I know what she’s like, and I can feel how right she’d be for me. It’s weird how she comes in so strong, and I wonder what she’s picking up from me. I hope it’s good, good, good, good vibrations, yeah!!
ontor pertawst
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2575


L♡VE ALWAYS WINS


View Profile WWW
« Reply #51 on: October 17, 2014, 11:01:13 AM »

Well, Mikie, I'm hardly infringing on your "free speech" by pointing out that it's unreasonable to expect people not to discuss the ludicrous end of the last Beach Boys tour on a Beach Boys forum, particularly on a thread lamenting... the end of the last Beach Boys tour. It's what fans do! It was only two years ago, we're still trying to perfect Smiley Smile...

I don't think they expect Mike Love to be following the discussion and going "yeah, good point."
 
Derailing discussions just because you think they are boring and repetitive make me wonder why don't you just read another thread instead? I'll leave you to your brave stand on free speech, have a nice day and thanks for cleverly inserting twat into my handle. It's adorable and really says a lot about where you're coming from here. My real name is Andre, you're welcome to misspell it as asshole if it makes you feel good about yourself.

To bring it back to CenturyDeprived's point:

Quote
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...

For all the sneering I did about his "room," yeah - it IS a legit major reason. All of the "What was Paul McCartney, chopped liver?" talk...

I wonder how many years it'll be before we get the RAH show...
« Last Edit: October 17, 2014, 11:47:25 AM by ontor pertawst » Logged
Sheriff John Stone
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5309



View Profile
« Reply #52 on: October 17, 2014, 11:26:46 AM »

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...

With all due respect, this thread isn't about "what might have been". Oh, the thread could've started out that way, as could've each individual post. But, this thread, and almost every other one on this board, serves another purpose - to criticize Mike Love. The people on this board enjoy venting about their dislike of Mike Love. If they didn't enjoy it, they wouldn't continue to post about it. And I'm not saying people can't write about whatever the hell they please. They can. But let's make it clear. You can feel the hatred in the posts. It's like a morphine drip. This board needs a thread to constantly run in order to take shots at every aspect of Mike Love's being. And, before I'm accused of being pro-Mike Love....I don't particularly care for him one way or another.
Logged
ontor pertawst
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2575


L♡VE ALWAYS WINS


View Profile WWW
« Reply #53 on: October 17, 2014, 11:27:49 AM »

If you don't particularly care for him one way or the other, why bother getting so worked up about it to the tune of thousands and thousands of words? You sound awfully defensive. What's bugging you, then? I mean, a morphine drip? Huh?!!

I know what's bugging me. NOT GETTING THE RAH SHOW. Cmon, Alan, I know you're reading this... tell us what the deal is there and what complicated business arrangement owns the recordings and if they will come out within a decade!

I'll settle for the Hollywood Bowl show. I seem to remember Irvine as being better, probably because I had better seats...

Damn, I miss it being C50!
« Last Edit: October 17, 2014, 11:34:27 AM by ontor pertawst » Logged
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 8432



View Profile
« Reply #54 on: October 17, 2014, 11:41:27 AM »

Ontor, you need to make the official C50 DVD! Grin
Logged

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

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #55 on: October 17, 2014, 11:43:56 AM »

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

Nah, it's still discussion of the band. It's more on-topic than a post criticizing those who continue to discuss C50.

I would indeed say that if you're tired of C50 discussion, it's probably advisable to not click on a thread titled "Damn, I miss it being C50." Built right into that thread title is the likelihood that it will focus predominantly on lamenting the demise of the tour.

I've actually found the comparison and contrasts to other band lineups and reunions rather interesting.
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
ontor pertawst
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2575


L♡VE ALWAYS WINS


View Profile WWW
« Reply #56 on: October 17, 2014, 11:45:19 AM »

Yeah, I found the talk about Fleetwood Mac more interesting than Fleetwood Mac!
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #57 on: October 17, 2014, 11:55:35 AM »

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...

With all due respect, this thread isn't about "what might have been". Oh, the thread could've started out that way, as could've each individual post. But, this thread, and almost every other one on this board, serves another purpose - to criticize Mike Love. The people on this board enjoy venting about their dislike of Mike Love. If they didn't enjoy it, they wouldn't continue to post about it. And I'm not saying people can't write about whatever the hell they please. They can. But let's make it clear. You can feel the hatred in the posts. It's like a morphine drip. This board needs a thread to constantly run in order to take shots at every aspect of Mike Love's being. And, before I'm accused of being pro-Mike Love....I don't particularly care for him one way or another.

If the thread was about chicken pot pie, or Bruce's "Going Public" album, or something like that, and it came around to attacking Mike Love, then this would make sense.

But the thread title suggests dissatisfaction with the end of C50. If you don't like that topic, then it's easy to skip it. But any discussion of the end of C50, beyond "it occurred", can't *not* include discussion of Mike's role. If Mike had wanted to continue and Al said he didn't, then this discussion would come around to how it was a bummer Al put the brakes on it.

Sure, these threads usually have a trajectory. But it's fed from both "sides", few of whom on either side are staunchly pro or anti-Mike. What I see actually are largely people who like the ENTIRE band being bummed the tour ended, and pointing out it was Mike who, in the immediate term, dictated that that happened. On the other side, I don't see so much "pro Mike" folks, but more people who are trying to use semantics to attack those who lament the end of C50.

Frankly, I think some of the people who dismissed and ridiculed the folks who lamented the end of C50 (e.g. implying anyone who though it could continue are unrealistic idiots) got off repeating variations of "set end date" far more than any fans who lamented end of C50 got off on criticizing Mike. Simply put, criticism of Mike in the aftermath of C50 is 100% justified. Ad hominem attacks aren't, but I haven't seen much of that on this board. On-point criticism is justified. It is repetitive, and unconstructive, and pissing in the wind? Yeah, usually. But so what? It's not any less on-point than a discussion of your favorite Beach Boys hair style, or another thread about "is Brian really in control?", or a thread about "we should all just be happy we have THREE different touring bands! Yay!" It's all on-topic. It's all good.
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
Mikie
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5887



View Profile
« Reply #58 on: October 17, 2014, 12:33:13 PM »

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

Nah, it's still discussion of the band. It's more on-topic than a post criticizing those who continue to discuss C50.

I would indeed say that if you're tired of C50 discussion, it's probably advisable to not click on a thread titled "Damn, I miss it being C50." Built right into that thread title is the likelihood that it will focus predominantly on lamenting the demise of the tour.

I've actually found the comparison and contrasts to other band lineups and reunions rather interesting.

Well, Jude, you would say that in defense of your constant ramblings on the matter. Because for two long years you have contributed to each and every thread concerning the end of the C50 with ifs, ands, butts, woulda, coulda, shouldas. Some people just can't shake the reality of the C50's demise. Some people have just got to talk and re-talk it out incessantly in order to reconcile it in their minds. It's a form of therapy, like talking to a psychiatrist, I guess. Like Jeff Lynne once said, "It's over, it's over, it's all over, and what can I do?"
« Last Edit: October 17, 2014, 04:19:49 PM by Mikie » Logged

I, I love the colorful clothes she wears, and she's already working on my brain. I only looked in her eyes, but I picked up something I just can't explain. I, I bet I know what she’s like, and I can feel how right she’d be for me. It’s weird how she comes in so strong, and I wonder what she’s picking up from me. I hope it’s good, good, good, good vibrations, yeah!!
mikeddonn
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 976


View Profile
« Reply #59 on: October 17, 2014, 12:41:19 PM »

In a parallel dimension C50 continued.  The Beach Boys played a critically acclaimed show at Madison Square Garden.  Then in 2013 after a break for Christmas and New Year Brian Wilson went in to the studio to record "No Pier Pressure", his new solo album.  Al Jardine played a few gigs with The Beach Boys and didn't see eye-to-eye with Mike so left the band by mutual consent and said, "I'll see you for Pet Sounds 50". Grin
Logged
ontor pertawst
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2575


L♡VE ALWAYS WINS


View Profile WWW
« Reply #60 on: October 17, 2014, 12:48:58 PM »

Or Mike Love spends 2015 complaining that "Pisces Brothers" was his only contribution to "No Pier Pressure" by The Beach Boys, expresses very little enthusiasm indeed for "Last Song" and jokes it should have been called "Car Song," and then winds down with a bitter whine about the guest stars reducing the number of leads he get despite his obvious delight in pointing and pantomiming a few feet from Lana Del Rey singing "The Monkey's Uncle" on Jimmy Fallon's Parallel Dimension Show.

In this parallel dimension, Bruce calls Obama an asshole again. Al Jardine says "doggone it!" to a journalist. Some things never change.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2014, 01:01:49 PM by ontor pertawst » Logged
Sheriff John Stone
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5309



View Profile
« Reply #61 on: October 17, 2014, 12:59:46 PM »

If you don't particularly care for him one way or the other, why bother getting so worked up about it to the tune of thousands and thousands of words? You sound awfully defensive. What's bugging you, then?

Not moving on. But, see, that would entail MOVING ON from making Mike Love the sole villain, which is clearly the most fun, to asking what the other voting factions of BRI are doing about it, which isn't any fun at all. That would be making some people put their money where their mouth is - literally.

It's much easier to say or think "it would get tied up in the courts for too long" which isn't necessarily true, and "it would be too cumbersome and emotional for the parties involved" which isn't necessarily true, or "it would result in outrageous legal fees to fight it" which is probably true, but....isn't it worth it? No contract is that iron clad that it can't be challenged. I find it hard to believe the parties' attorneys would've agreed to such a licensing agreement that the circumstances of today (2014) couldn't/wouldn't result in a challenge. Things have changed (which have been mentioned ad nauseum on this board) that were unforeseen 15 years ago. BRI making tons and tons more money from a C50 tour than Mike & Bruce's lineup is one significant one. Not that I necessarily believe that, I don't, but if it is true, the licensing could be challenged.
Logged
NHC
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 529


View Profile
« Reply #62 on: October 17, 2014, 02:20:10 PM »

Mikie's not telling anybody what or what not to do or y or talk about.  He's only pointing out how some of this gets grandly tiresome after a year or two.  Or three.  Or four. But then again I've been fielding that complaint about me at home for decades, so we learn to live with it, I guess.
Logged
Mendota Heights
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 927



View Profile
« Reply #63 on: October 17, 2014, 02:37:18 PM »

How about: peace.

Logged

I have been dubbed Mr. Pet Sounds and Mr. Country Love by polite and honored board member Smile Brian. I hope I live up to those esteemed titles.
Andrew G. Doe
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 17767


The triumph of The Hickey Script !


View Profile WWW
« Reply #64 on: October 17, 2014, 02:38:02 PM »

What I see actually are largely people who like the ENTIRE band being bummed the tour ended, and pointing out it was Mike who, in the immediate term, dictated that that happened. On the other side, I don't see so much "pro Mike" folks, but more people who are trying to use semantics to attack those who lament the end of C50.

Frankly, I think some of the people who dismissed and ridiculed the folks who lamented the end of C50 (e.g. implying anyone who though it could continue are unrealistic idiots) got off repeating variations of "set end date" far more than any fans who lamented end of C50 got off on criticizing Mike. Simply put, criticism of Mike in the aftermath of C50 is 100% justified. Ad hominem attacks aren't, but I haven't seen much of that on this board. On-point criticism is justified.

Hilarious. Nice to end the day with a good belly laugh. One thing: you say "On-point criticism is justified." I'd modify that to "On-point criticism is justified if backed by plausible evidence as opposed to personal opinion". "Simply put, criticism of Mike in the aftermath of C50 is 100% justified" is your own opinion. From what he said in a recent interview, dude called Marks would seem to disagree with you.
Logged

The four sweetest words in my vocabulary: "This poster is ignored".
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #65 on: October 17, 2014, 02:38:37 PM »

If you don't particularly care for him one way or the other, why bother getting so worked up about it to the tune of thousands and thousands of words? You sound awfully defensive. What's bugging you, then?

Not moving on. But, see, that would entail MOVING ON from making Mike Love the sole villain, which is clearly the most fun, to asking what the other voting factions of BRI are doing about it, which isn't any fun at all. That would be making some people put their money where their mouth is - literally.

It's much easier to say or think "it would get tied up in the courts for too long" which isn't necessarily true, and "it would be too cumbersome and emotional for the parties involved" which isn't necessarily true, or "it would result in outrageous legal fees to fight it" which is probably true, but....isn't it worth it? No contract is that iron clad that it can't be challenged. I find it hard to believe the parties' attorneys would've agreed to such a licensing agreement that the circumstances of today (2014) couldn't/wouldn't result in a challenge. Things have changed (which have been mentioned ad nauseum on this board) that were unforeseen 15 years ago. BRI making tons and tons more money from a C50 tour than Mike & Bruce's lineup is one significant one. Not that I necessarily believe that, I don't, but if it is true, the licensing could be challenged.

Sheriff - other than the obvious fact that Brian and Carl's estate like receiving M&B  income, which of course is a major factor - do you honestly not think that Mike's past lawsuits (especially the legal action against Al, which many people have said seemed particularly vindictive) would put some measurable fear into anyone from legally challenging him? And by fear, I mean the implied idea that it would get dragged on for years and years, wasting many millions. I think that fear is in the air, and that all parties are aware of it.  At Brian's age, and considering how much emotional crapola he's dealt with over the years, who needs that type of emotional stress/uncertainty lingering around them for who knows how many years? There would be too many question marks. Mike knows this, and it's obviously to his advantage to have been lawsuit-happy, as this has created an implied barrier around him, don't you think? I think that's probably the most significant factor in why the status quo has continued (besides the obvious fact that all BRI members get the free income).

Plus, I think the other thing is that, despite the hurt feelings that Brian had/has over C50, trying to organize steps to actually strip the name from his cousin would be something that he knows would deeply wound Mike, as close to a knife to the heart/ego as you can get, and I'm not sure that Brian wants to do something so vindictive himself.  He doesn't strike me as wanting to do an action that would wound somebody so much, especially when we're talking about old men who don't have a ton of years left. I also think that Brian feels that Mike, for his major contributions to the brand, probably deserves to use the name - to an extent. I think ultimately, Brian's team and Carl's estate just want peace , and rocking the boat too much could cause things to get uglier than they ever have in the past. I do applaud the Wilson brothers' children/ex-wives, etc for attending M&B shows, because despite the media ugliness that set in post C50, I imagine in part they do it to help try and keep peace between the other parties of the older generation (the BBs themselves) who come from such dysfunction.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2014, 02:50:51 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
Mikie
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5887



View Profile
« Reply #66 on: October 17, 2014, 04:21:19 PM »

Mikie's not telling anybody what or what not to do or y or talk about.  He's only pointing out how some of this gets grandly tiresome after a year or two.  Or three.  Or four. But then again I've been fielding that complaint about me at home for decades, so we learn to live with it, I guess.

Exactly.  Go Giants!
Logged

I, I love the colorful clothes she wears, and she's already working on my brain. I only looked in her eyes, but I picked up something I just can't explain. I, I bet I know what she’s like, and I can feel how right she’d be for me. It’s weird how she comes in so strong, and I wonder what she’s picking up from me. I hope it’s good, good, good, good vibrations, yeah!!
The Shift
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Gender: Male
Posts: 7427


Biding time


View Profile
« Reply #67 on: October 17, 2014, 04:26:18 PM »

I think it's 5 o'clock somewhere… Copper Dragon anyone?
Logged

“We live in divisive times.”
♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇
Pissing off drunks since 1978
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11844


🍦🍦 Pet Demon for Sale - $5 or best offer ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #68 on: October 17, 2014, 04:30:04 PM »

Mikie's not telling anybody what or what not to do or y or talk about.  He's only pointing out how some of this gets grandly tiresome after a year or two.  Or three.  Or four. But then again I've been fielding that complaint about me at home for decades, so we learn to live with it, I guess.

Exactly.  Go Giants!

No! Royals! Banned~!!!!

LOL
Logged

Need your song mixed/mastered? Contact me at fear2stop@yahoo.com. Serious inquiries only, please!
Nicko1234
Guest
« Reply #69 on: October 17, 2014, 05:49:28 PM »

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...

Another example of somebody thinking that the world is black and white...

Logged
Nicko1234
Guest
« Reply #70 on: October 17, 2014, 06:01:51 PM »


If the thread was about chicken pot pie, or Bruce's "Going Public" album, or something like that, and it came around to attacking Mike Love, then this would make sense.

But the thread title suggests dissatisfaction with the end of C50. If you don't like that topic, then it's easy to skip it. But any discussion of the end of C50, beyond "it occurred", can't *not* include discussion of Mike's role. If Mike had wanted to continue and Al said he didn't, then this discussion would come around to how it was a bummer Al put the brakes on it.

Sure, these threads usually have a trajectory. But it's fed from both "sides", few of whom on either side are staunchly pro or anti-Mike. What I see actually are largely people who like the ENTIRE band being bummed the tour ended, and pointing out it was Mike who, in the immediate term, dictated that that happened. On the other side, I don't see so much "pro Mike" folks, but more people who are trying to use semantics to attack those who lament the end of C50.

Frankly, I think some of the people who dismissed and ridiculed the folks who lamented the end of C50 (e.g. implying anyone who though it could continue are unrealistic idiots) got off repeating variations of "set end date" far more than any fans who lamented end of C50 got off on criticizing Mike. Simply put, criticism of Mike in the aftermath of C50 is 100% justified. Ad hominem attacks aren't, but I haven't seen much of that on this board. On-point criticism is justified. It is repetitive, and unconstructive, and pissing in the wind? Yeah, usually. But so what? It's not any less on-point than a discussion of your favorite Beach Boys hair style, or another thread about "is Brian really in control?", or a thread about "we should all just be happy we have THREE different touring bands! Yay!" It's all on-topic. It's all good.

Attacks? Yeah right. Semantics? Hmmm...

I haven`t seen anyone saying that people saying it could have continued are `unrealistic idiots`. I would be interested to see that quote though.

The facts are the facts however. The Beach Boys have a long history of pulling together for a short period of time before going their separate ways again. It happened in the mid-90s, it happened in 1985, it happened with the LA album etc.  Not to mention that Brian and Al are content to play 9 concerts in 6 months while Mike and Bruce play 9 concerts in 6 days!

As for Fleetwood Mac, there is no comparison. If we are going to be comparing them with the Beach Boys then how about also comparing all of the groups who do continue with only 1 or 2 original members. Those groups are far, far more prevalent out there after all...

Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #71 on: October 17, 2014, 06:13:39 PM »

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...

Another example of somebody thinking that the world is black and white...


I'm responding simply because of your post's implication that I've said something off-base, and I'm not sure that I did. I don't think there are many people (including Mike by his own admission) that he *at some point* wanted to return to being fully in control of the BB live act. Am I off base in saying that?  I'm not saying that Mike didn't make compromises. He did! But my point is not about that.

It's my assumption (of course I surely could be wrong, as could you) of doubting that he ever truly desired anything less than an eventual return to that... and certainly, once he realized (probably pretty early on) that his vision was going to be compromised from its ideal and that there was no way his needs could be met, that regaining control idea probably solidified. I know he made compromises, but I think that each C50 compromise he made helped to further his desire to find the foolproof M&B escape hatch which he eventually utilized.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2014, 06:16:38 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
alf wiedersehen
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2178


View Profile
« Reply #72 on: October 17, 2014, 06:16:27 PM »

Who's winning?
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #73 on: October 17, 2014, 06:23:53 PM »


If the thread was about chicken pot pie, or Bruce's "Going Public" album, or something like that, and it came around to attacking Mike Love, then this would make sense.

But the thread title suggests dissatisfaction with the end of C50. If you don't like that topic, then it's easy to skip it. But any discussion of the end of C50, beyond "it occurred", can't *not* include discussion of Mike's role. If Mike had wanted to continue and Al said he didn't, then this discussion would come around to how it was a bummer Al put the brakes on it.

Sure, these threads usually have a trajectory. But it's fed from both "sides", few of whom on either side are staunchly pro or anti-Mike. What I see actually are largely people who like the ENTIRE band being bummed the tour ended, and pointing out it was Mike who, in the immediate term, dictated that that happened. On the other side, I don't see so much "pro Mike" folks, but more people who are trying to use semantics to attack those who lament the end of C50.

Frankly, I think some of the people who dismissed and ridiculed the folks who lamented the end of C50 (e.g. implying anyone who though it could continue are unrealistic idiots) got off repeating variations of "set end date" far more than any fans who lamented end of C50 got off on criticizing Mike. Simply put, criticism of Mike in the aftermath of C50 is 100% justified. Ad hominem attacks aren't, but I haven't seen much of that on this board. On-point criticism is justified. It is repetitive, and unconstructive, and pissing in the wind? Yeah, usually. But so what? It's not any less on-point than a discussion of your favorite Beach Boys hair style, or another thread about "is Brian really in control?", or a thread about "we should all just be happy we have THREE different touring bands! Yay!" It's all on-topic. It's all good.

Attacks? Yeah right. Semantics? Hmmm...

I haven`t seen anyone saying that people saying it could have continued are `unrealistic idiots`. I would be interested to see that quote though.

The facts are the facts however. The Beach Boys have a long history of pulling together for a short period of time before going their separate ways again. It happened in the mid-90s, it happened in 1985, it happened with the LA album etc.  Not to mention that Brian and Al are content to play 9 concerts in 6 months while Mike and Bruce play 9 concerts in 6 days!


I don't think Al is "content" with this situation. It's simply a situation he's found himself in, largely due to having been pushed out for some unknown personality differences/musical disputes with Mike. I think he'd like to play quite a few more shows (and I'm not talking about tiny gigs which are mostly all he could get under just his name).  And part of the reason Brian tours so much less is because he spends far more time writing/recording compared to Mike. When there's a completed product he has pride in which he feels like promoting, he wants to play more shows, like circa September 2012. All that said, Mike apparently just can't stop his touring pace... he's set in his ways, and he's showed the world where his priorities lie.  It's his prerogative, but it's a bummer to the majority of people except himself.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2014, 06:32:25 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
Nicko1234
Guest
« Reply #74 on: October 17, 2014, 06:37:51 PM »


I'm responding simply because of your post's implication that I've said something off-base, and I'm not sure that I did. I don't think there are many people (including Mike by his own admission) that he *at some point* wanted to return to being fully in control of the BB live act. Am I off base in saying that?  I'm not saying that Mike didn't make compromises. He did! But my point is not about that.

It's my assumption (of course I surely could be wrong, as could you) of doubting that he ever truly desired anything less than an eventual return to that... and certainly, once he realized (probably pretty early on) that his vision was going to be compromised from its ideal and that there was no way his needs could be met, that regaining control idea probably solidified. I know he made compromises, but I think that each C50 compromise he made helped to further his desire to find the foolproof M&B escape hatch which he eventually utilized.


Things were obviously always going to revert to the Mike and Bruce touring at some point. Even if they`d carried on touring until the end of 2012 that would have been the case and it wouldn`t have been threatened though ...

Obviously Mike didn`t continue with things because he wasn`t entirely happy.

Does that mean that he made demands that he should have a writing credit on every single song on a follow up CD? Not that I`ve ever read.

Did Mike want control in 2012? Well, as I said, he obviously wasn`t entirely happy with things and so I`m sure would have liked to change some aspects of the reunion. Does that mean he wanted complete control? Impossible to say without knowing the debates and discussions that went on between the camps isn`t it.

And `M&B escape hatch`? Really?  LOL

Everyone knew that Mike and Bruce were going to be playing shows together again in October. They did a 50th anniversary reunion (any anniversary by definition has a finite run) and it was arranged based on the touring, new CD and Smile Sessions. It was always going to be a long shot that they could arrange that for a second time...
Logged
gfx
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.678 seconds with 21 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!