Mike & Carl in Late 1997 Question/Discussion

[Pretty Funky]

I bet there have been many times Mike would have been over the moon if 53 years ago the group had been called 'Mike Love and the Beach Boys'. He could have flicked off the trouble makers just like Frankie Valli, Paul Revere, Dave Clarke etc probably did.

[Cam Mott]

If Carl hadn't gotten sick, Al would've been out sooner. Simple as that. They weren't going to replace TWO members that year, regardless of how much Mike wanted Al out for whatever reason.

OK but the quote says he refused to tour with Carl AND Al and he toured with both and Al without Carl. Others are claiming Mike already had David groomed as a replacement. So it also may not be as simple as that.

[Pretty Funky]

If Carl hadn't gotten sick, Al would've been out sooner. Simple as that. They weren't going to replace TWO members that year, regardless of how much Mike wanted Al out for whatever reason.

OK but the quote says he refused to tour with Carl AND Al and he toured with both and Al without Carl. Others are claiming Mike already had David groomed as a replacement. So it also may not be as simple as that.

Page 217 again

...The fact that Carl was sick and beginning chemotherapy, coupled with David drinking himself into big trouble again, temporarily shuffled Mike's plan.



Also keep in mind, unless I'm mistaken, the contract at the time still required 4 Beach Boys. Someone else may be able to confirm this.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Exactly,  PF.

[Lonely Summer]

If Carl were still alive, we would still have a legit BB's.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

i think so, too.

[Jay]

Consider this: In the last few months that Carl toured with the group(June-August 1997), there is an exceedingly high chance that every single person who was onstage knew that Carl was dying, and pretty much any show could have been their last with Carl. Could you, or would you, be able to see your loved one struggle every single night to do their absolute best, when every ounce of reason told you that the only place the person should have been was in bed resting? Carl was hurting(imagine how his swelling feet felt?), and need oxygen after spending his energy on his fans and fellow bandmates. Can you really blame Mike for not wanting to have Carl out every night?

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I can only imagine how hard that must've been for all involved. I also really wish I had gone to that show in 1997 at the Woodlands instead of changing my mind at the last minute.

[Autotune]

Of course that "Mike refused to tour with his terminally-ill cousin" sounds outrageous. Just like the WIBN book where it says that Carl delayed treatment for Dennis under Dr. Landy due to Christmas Holiday and then Dennis died. Enough of this utter sh*t.

Regarding Mike during Carl's fight against cancer, we know both shared the stage. We know how fragile Carl's health was. I don't know what else is there to be said. Every person is entitled to deal with illness of their loved ones as they can. To suggest that Mike removed terminally-il Carl in order to pursue an ego-driven plan to take over the group is beyond insulting to everyone involved, alive or not.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Of course that "Mike refused to tour with his terminally-ill cousin" sounds outrageous. Just like the WIBN book where it says that Carl delayed treatment for Dennis under Dr. Landy due to Christmas Holiday and then Dennis died. Enough of this utter sh*t.

Regarding Mike during Carl's fight against cancer, we know both shared the stage. We know how fragile Carl's health was. I don't know what else is there to be said. Every person is entitled to deal with illness of their loved ones as they can. To suggest that Mike removed terminally-il Carl in order to pursue an ego-driven plan to take over the group is beyond insulting to everyone involved, alive or not.

Sadly, there are those here whose postings would indicate that this is exactly what they think. Even if they are joking in any degree, it's still insulting beyond belief to all concerned. Can't argue with this sort of Westboro Baptist mentality, so I'm not even going to waste my time and effort trying... but I will pity them.

[filledeplage]

Of course that "Mike refused to tour with his terminally-ill cousin" sounds outrageous. Just like the WIBN book where it says that Carl delayed treatment for Dennis under Dr. Landy due to Christmas Holiday and then Dennis died. Enough of this utter sh*t.

Regarding Mike during Carl's fight against cancer, we know both shared the stage. We know how fragile Carl's health was. I don't know what else is there to be said. Every person is entitled to deal with illness of their loved ones as they can. To suggest that Mike removed terminally-il Carl in order to pursue an ego-driven plan to take over the group is beyond insulting to everyone involved, alive or not.

Sadly, there are those here whose postings would indicate that this is exactly what they think. Even if they are joking in any degree, it's still insulting beyond belief to all concerned. Can't argue with this sort of Westboro Baptist mentality, so I'm not even going to waste my time and effort trying... but I will pity them.

Yes, agreed.  And there are more than a few posters who had a similar concert experience seeing Carl that last fateful summer.  And having seen him between the times of some of the accounts above, I know they had a similar experience.  I was close to the stage and can tell you I never knew he had a wig on.  I never saw oxygen in use.  He was on a stool singing at least SOS, and gave a performance which stupefied the audience. And he got more than one standing ovation, of considerable length.  Tears and cheers of considerable duration.

Hatred of the willful blind sort is anyone's choice but get your facts straight.  It is revisionist history at it's worst. There were gaps in his appearances due to back to back shows, which I read about in August.  And it is more consistent with exhaustion than purported exclusionary tactics.  And Carl appears by all indications to have been elated with the blockbuster hit, Kokomo.  It also appears that no one had to twist his arm to be involved in the video.  

The chronology is pretty irrelevant.  This was a band in grief, performing under enormous duress.  And there are those who would suggest otherwise.  It is highly offensive to those of us who witnessed otherwise.  

Bring it on.  

[Cam Mott]

Of course that "Mike refused to tour with his terminally-ill cousin" sounds outrageous. Just like the WIBN book where it says that Carl delayed treatment for Dennis under Dr. Landy due to Christmas Holiday and then Dennis died. Enough of this utter sh*t.

Regarding Mike during Carl's fight against cancer, we know both shared the stage. We know how fragile Carl's health was. I don't know what else is there to be said. Every person is entitled to deal with illness of their loved ones as they can. To suggest that Mike removed terminally-il Carl in order to pursue an ego-driven plan to take over the group is beyond insulting to everyone involved, alive or not.

Agreed.

[HeyJude]

Consider this: In the last few months that Carl toured with the group(June-August 1997), there is an exceedingly high chance that every single person who was onstage knew that Carl was dying, and pretty much any show could have been their last with Carl. Could you, or would you, be able to see your loved one struggle every single night to do their absolute best, when every ounce of reason told you that the only place the person should have been was in bed resting? Carl was hurting(imagine how his swelling feet felt?), and need oxygen after spending his energy on his fans and fellow bandmates. Can you really blame Mike for not wanting to have Carl out every night?

This seems to be the type of argument that Elliott Lott is making in that 1999 article. I'm not making a value judgement on such an attitude; we can't really say how someone else should deal with such a situation.

I'm simply curious why that attitude/opinion was even being voiced in late 1999, when not only was the point moot, but most other indications were that Carl and/or his illness dictated his departure (then hoped to be temporary) from the touring band. If Carl was forced to exit and chose to, why would someone else in the band need to suggest they didn't want to appear on stage with Carl?

The only scenario I can think of is that Carl needed to take time off and chose to, and voiced that he would return as soon as he could, and Mike took that opportunity to mention that he wouldn't appear on stage with Carl until he was well (and the only measure of "well" we have would be from Lott's comments about wearing a wig, needing oxygen, etc.). But even this seems like an odd sequence of events, and it's even more strange that the would volunteer this sentiment of Mike's nearly two years after Carl's death.

[HeyJude]

Of course that "Mike refused to tour with his terminally-ill cousin" sounds outrageous. Just like the WIBN book where it says that Carl delayed treatment for Dennis under Dr. Landy due to Christmas Holiday and then Dennis died. Enough of this utter sh*t.

Regarding Mike during Carl's fight against cancer, we know both shared the stage. We know how fragile Carl's health was. I don't know what else is there to be said. Every person is entitled to deal with illness of their loved ones as they can. To suggest that Mike removed terminally-il Carl in order to pursue an ego-driven plan to take over the group is beyond insulting to everyone involved, alive or not.

I went to great pains in my original post to make it explicitly clear that this was not about villainizing Mike. I’m not sure what the point is of creating a straw man argument that people are contending Mike was trying to boot the sick Carl Wilson out of the band in an ego-driven power play.

To the contrary; all the evidence including the words of Al, Dave, and Jon Stebbins’ books (and Carlin as well) make the case that, if anything, Mike was trying to get *Al* out in an ego-driven power play.

Despite what it seemed like in 1997 when Carl disappeared and David Marks almost immediately reappeared, the Stebbins/Marks book paints a clear picture of Dave being groomed as Al’s replacement. The implication is that Mike wanted the lineup to be himself, Bruce, Dave, and Carl. What he would have done after sh**canning Al in an alternate timeline had Carl survived, is obviously pure speculation. For that matter, had Carl been well, it’s unclear whether Mike would have so easily sh**canned Al.

For the most part, it appears getting Al out of the band and Carl’s illness were two mostly if not entirely separate issues going on with the band. They just happened to converge at a certain point.

This is why my main question amounts to a pretty simple, and very open-ended one: What is Elliott Lott talking about when he acknowledges Mike refused to appear on stage with Carl? Why, nearly two years after Carl’s death, in an article about the “Family & Friends” debacle, is he even broaching this subject?

What happened in mid-late 1997 that dictated that two years later, Lott was being asked a question about Mike refusing to appear on stage with Carl, and that Lott confirmed this? My recollection is that the attitude of even the most disgruntled fans back in 1998/1999 involved being bummed about Carl’s death, and off-put that Mike was continuing using the name without both Carl and Al. But I don’t recall anyone even mentioning, let alone harboring any animosity, regarding Mike having tried to pre-emptively get Carl to stop playing on tour in 1997. I’m just curious was elicited Lott’s comments.  

[HeyJude]

The chronology is pretty irrelevant.  This was a band in grief, performing under enormous duress.  And there are those who would suggest otherwise.  It is highly offensive to those of us who witnessed otherwise.  

Bring it on.  

Apart from one poster in this thread, I don't see anyone else making offensive comments or suggesting Mike was selfishly booting Carl out of the band. Again, this is simply a straw man argument being created to voice outrage where none is needed. Manufactured outrage is not needed.

The chronology is NOT irrelevent. This is a board where people obsessively and sometimes combatively correct each other when the wrong song lyric is cited, or a photo is erroneously dated 1983 instead of 1982. But trying to figure out what the hell Elliott Lott is talking about when he volunteers the information that Mike let it be known he didn't want to appear on stage with Carl, that's "irrelevant?"

It's the exact oppposite of irrelevant, and if fans and scholars want to figure out what those comments and the timeline are all about, it doesn't mean they're secretly trying to imply some nefarious motive on Mike's or anybody else's part. In this particular case, I think those rushing to create this anti-Mike straw man are only showing thier predilection for defending Mike when nobody is attacking him.

We're often left discussing how threads always turn into Mike bashing threads and whatnot. But in this case, despite my attempt to ask folks to *not* dismiss the open question about Lott's comments with a "why does it matter?" response, and despite my attempt to specifically state that this is a fact-finding sort of inquiry and not a method to attack Mike, we have defenders of Mike assuming both of those positions.

[SMiLE Brian]

Let me clarify, Mike loved Carl as his cousin and bandmate. But he wanted Al out of the group with David replacing him. Carl's illness changed his plans for doing the removal of Al. Using David to replace Carl was a way to get the plan back on track for Mike.  *Maybe* using  the hint of "not appearing on stage with Carl" to Carl that he need to leave the band to get medical treatment while David took his spot.

[Mr. Cohen]

The only reason I can think of Mike not wanting Al in the band so bad is that Al actually has a mind of his own. You only get to be in the Mike band if you follow Mike's lead. Al always wants to throw a few of his songs into the setlist, and - get this - is actually sympathetic to Brian when Brian has his stuff together.

I still think that Foskett article was weird. It was like he was publicly bowing to his liege lord. "Mike even lets me visit castles!"

[BB Universe]

Regarding Carl, I went to see the Beach Boys as the New York State fair in Syracuse, NY on 8/21/97 (America opened the show). After a brief rain delay, the BB came on. IIRC Matt Jardine was also with them (and he sounded very good!). Carl looked a bit "bloated" from the chemo treatment I'd imagine and his beard gray-ish; but his voice was as strong and sweet as ever. Midway through, he sat on a stool for a bit. At one point during the show (encore?), the other guys (including Mike) did the bit where they knelt and bowed to Carl (in homage) while he played a guitar solo and he did the guitar line dance bit during Barbara Ann. From our seats, there didn't appear any issues between the band-mates.

As to the item about Al, I thought someplace on the board and in the books, it was said that Al had started to make plans and try to book some shows for a "symphonic" concert (not sure if only PS) without Mike et al. knowing and this, plus some other personality issues at this time, was the reason that Dave was to have replaced him. I'm just stating this from general memory and might stand to be corrected. Somewhat interesting in retrospect is that with the supposed Mike-Al tension at this time, Matt was touring.

[filledeplage]

The chronology is pretty irrelevant.  This was a band in grief, performing under enormous duress.  And there are those who would suggest otherwise.  It is highly offensive to those of us who witnessed otherwise.  
Bring it on.  

Apart from one poster in this thread, I don't see anyone else making offensive comments or suggesting Mike was selfishly booting Carl out of the band. Again, this is simply a straw man argument being created to voice outrage where none is needed. Manufactured outrage is not needed.

The chronology is NOT irrelevent. This is a board where people obsessively and sometimes combatively correct each other when the wrong song lyric is cited, or a photo is erroneously dated 1983 instead of 1982. But trying to figure out what the hell Elliott Lott is talking about when he volunteers the information that Mike let it be known he didn't want to appear on stage with Carl, that's "irrelevant?"

It's the exact oppposite of irrelevant, and if fans and scholars want to figure out what those comments and the timeline are all about, it doesn't mean they're secretly trying to imply some nefarious motive on Mike's or anybody else's part. In this particular case, I think those rushing to create this anti-Mike straw man are only showing thier predilection for defending Mike when nobody is attacking him.

We're often left discussing how threads always turn into Mike bashing threads and whatnot. But in this case, despite my attempt to ask folks to *not* dismiss the open question about Lott's comments with a "why does it matter?" response, and despite my attempt to specifically state that this is a fact-finding sort of inquiry and not a method to attack Mike, we have defenders of Mike assuming both of those positions.

HeyJude- at our own peril, do we believe all that we read.  When people say, "I read it on the internet..."do we really know its veracity?  Pseudo means fake, or false.  Pseudo-scholarly means that it is not scholarly.  I don't believe everything I read. But there are several eyewitnesses, and I personally know others who don't post here, who have told me amazing stories of their last "Carl" show.  

Carl had a serious illness, but sometimes people who have serious illnesses with a rest day in between can summon enough energy to get through something important, such as a wedding of a child, etc.  And in Carl's case, as many performances as humanly possible.  

Everyone that I know who had a similar experience, has had the same lasting effect.  And everyone onstage was "wired" to be aware of the slightest problem that Carl might have had they might assist with.  And, yes, hearing such allegations is disturbing, coming 17 years after-the-fact. All stage eyes and concertgoers' eyes were on him, hoping that whatever he was doing was not to his detriment.  I guess it feels "invasive" in an area of health matters, which are always personal, to dredge up what is isn't music-based, and the domain that is "off-stage." I regard that as off the table.  Not everyone agrees.

The outrage here, is hardly manufactured.  And there are some "scholars" and eyewitnesses who have different position.  And as against "eyewitness" who know and remember what they saw.

And, I have no idea what YouTubes might be online so people might get a sense of enormous inter band cooperation was going on, while traveling on this 1997 tour.  There is a good reason that "hearsay" is excluded in court, and why "eyewitnesses" have cred.  

[Nicko1234]

This seems to be the type of argument that Elliott Lott is making in that 1999 article. I'm not making a value judgement on such an attitude; we can't really say how someone else should deal with such a situation.

I'm simply curious why that attitude/opinion was even being voiced in late 1999, when not only was the point moot, but most other indications were that Carl and/or his illness dictated his departure (then hoped to be temporary) from the touring band. If Carl was forced to exit and chose to, why would someone else in the band need to suggest they didn't want to appear on stage with Carl?

The only scenario I can think of is that Carl needed to take time off and chose to, and voiced that he would return as soon as he could, and Mike took that opportunity to mention that he wouldn't appear on stage with Carl until he was well (and the only measure of "well" we have would be from Lott's comments about wearing a wig, needing oxygen, etc.). But even this seems like an odd sequence of events, and it's even more strange that the would volunteer this sentiment of Mike's nearly two years after Carl's death.

He was obviously being specifically asked about that period of time so there is nothing strange at all about him giving those reasons.

[HeyJude]

The chronology is pretty irrelevant.  This was a band in grief, performing under enormous duress.  And there are those who would suggest otherwise.  It is highly offensive to those of us who witnessed otherwise.  
Bring it on.  

Apart from one poster in this thread, I don't see anyone else making offensive comments or suggesting Mike was selfishly booting Carl out of the band. Again, this is simply a straw man argument being created to voice outrage where none is needed. Manufactured outrage is not needed.

The chronology is NOT irrelevent. This is a board where people obsessively and sometimes combatively correct each other when the wrong song lyric is cited, or a photo is erroneously dated 1983 instead of 1982. But trying to figure out what the hell Elliott Lott is talking about when he volunteers the information that Mike let it be known he didn't want to appear on stage with Carl, that's "irrelevant?"

It's the exact oppposite of irrelevant, and if fans and scholars want to figure out what those comments and the timeline are all about, it doesn't mean they're secretly trying to imply some nefarious motive on Mike's or anybody else's part. In this particular case, I think those rushing to create this anti-Mike straw man are only showing thier predilection for defending Mike when nobody is attacking him.

We're often left discussing how threads always turn into Mike bashing threads and whatnot. But in this case, despite my attempt to ask folks to *not* dismiss the open question about Lott's comments with a "why does it matter?" response, and despite my attempt to specifically state that this is a fact-finding sort of inquiry and not a method to attack Mike, we have defenders of Mike assuming both of those positions.

HeyJude- at our own peril, do we believe all that we read.  When people say, "I read it on the internet..."do we really know its veracity?  Pseudo means fake, or false.  Pseudo-scholarly means that it is not scholarly.  I don't believe everything I read. But there are several eyewitnesses, and I personally know others who don't post here, who have told me amazing stories of their last "Carl" show.  

Carl had a serious illness, but sometimes people who have serious illnesses with a rest day in between can summon enough energy to get through something important, such as a wedding of a child, etc.  And in Carl's case, as many performances as humanly possible.  

Everyone that I know who had a similar experience, has had the same lasting effect.  And everyone onstage was "wired" to be aware of the slightest problem that Carl might have had they might assist with.  And, yes, hearing such allegations is disturbing, coming 17 years after-the-fact. All stage eyes and concertgoers' eyes were on him, hoping that whatever he was doing was not to his detriment.  I guess it feels "invasive" in an area of health matters, which are always personal, to dredge up what is isn't music-based, and the domain that is "off-stage." I regard that as off the table.  Not everyone agrees.

The outrage here, is hardly manufactured.  And there are some "scholars" and eyewitnesses who have different position.  And as against "eyewitness" who know and remember what they saw.

And, I have no idea what YouTubes might be online so people might get a sense of enormous inter band cooperation was going on, while traveling on this 1997 tour.  There is a good reason that "hearsay" is excluded in court, and why "eyewitnesses" have cred.  

To be frank, I’m not sure what you’re talking about. I actually don’t see anyone refuting yours or any other stories of Carl’s performances on tour.

If you’re outraged that someone disagrees that Carl performed well, or showed bravery, etc., then the source of what is offending you is manufactured. Nobody is making claims that Carl didn’t do his best on tour. This thread, at least as I intended it when I started it, had *nothing* to do with that.

In saying that you don’t necessarily believe what is reported, are you suggesting Rolling Stone fabricated the quote from the Beach Boys’ manager, Elliott Lott? Because that’s what I’m simply trying to get to the bottom of. What did his statements mean?

As I’ve said, if your take on that is “why does it matter?”, then that’s fine. Move on to another discussion. But shoehorning outrage about something that isn’t occurring is not furthering the conversation at all.

[acedecade75]

There is one other kind of sad note that you can hear on the audience recording of the Devore, CA August 1997 show.  I think it's about mid way through the show when Carl says "I was just saying to Mike(Meros) that it sure has been a great summer".  You can feel the emotion in his voice.  I think Carl truly felt things were coming to an end.

[HeyJude]

This seems to be the type of argument that Elliott Lott is making in that 1999 article. I'm not making a value judgement on such an attitude; we can't really say how someone else should deal with such a situation.

I'm simply curious why that attitude/opinion was even being voiced in late 1999, when not only was the point moot, but most other indications were that Carl and/or his illness dictated his departure (then hoped to be temporary) from the touring band. If Carl was forced to exit and chose to, why would someone else in the band need to suggest they didn't want to appear on stage with Carl?

The only scenario I can think of is that Carl needed to take time off and chose to, and voiced that he would return as soon as he could, and Mike took that opportunity to mention that he wouldn't appear on stage with Carl until he was well (and the only measure of "well" we have would be from Lott's comments about wearing a wig, needing oxygen, etc.). But even this seems like an odd sequence of events, and it's even more strange that the would volunteer this sentiment of Mike's nearly two years after Carl's death.

He was obviously being specifically asked about that period of time so there is nothing strange at all about him giving those reasons.

Well, duh. C’mon man. It goes without saying that, in a practical/mechanical sense, he’s answering a question because he was asked.

My point was that it would seem odd to get into any detail with a media outlet concerning something that no longer mattered, and objectively speaking, didn’t necessarily help paint anyone in the band in a better light.  

[Nicko1234]

Well, duh. C’mon man. It goes without saying that, in a practical/mechanical sense, he’s answering a question because he was asked.

My point was that it would seem odd to get into any detail with a media outlet concerning something that no longer mattered, and objectively speaking, didn’t necessarily help paint anyone in the band in a better light.  

Because he clearly was trying to paint Mike in a better light by explaining just how sick Carl was. You can tell that quite clearly by how it is phrased. He specifically says, `Mike didn't want to appear with Carl out of love for him.`

Now I`m not saying whether Mike deserves criticism or not for his behaviour at that point but there is no question that Elliott Lott`s comments are an unequivocal defense of Mike.

[HeyJude]

Well, duh. C’mon man. It goes without saying that, in a practical/mechanical sense, he’s answering a question because he was asked.

My point was that it would seem odd to get into any detail with a media outlet concerning something that no longer mattered, and objectively speaking, didn’t necessarily help paint anyone in the band in a better light.  

Because he clearly was trying to paint Mike in a better light by explaining just how sick Carl was. You can tell that quite clearly by how it is phrased.

Again, duh. It's clear that's what he was *trying* to do. I would submit that even commenting on the issue at all was a bad idea (although clearly all of this was soon forgotten by the media and fans), that defending an accusation and even addressing the issue at all in this case made Mike look more guilty than he probably was. Disclosing to the media that Carl was wearing a wig and had to use oxygen is, debatably, also not necessarily something I'd want the band's manager spending time discussing if I were in the band (or Carl's estate).

The main point here that I'm exploring is why Lott commented at all, and more importantly, what the content of these comments means as far as the timeline for the group in late 1997. Back to my original question: Did Mike actually at some point let it be known that he didn't want to appear on stage with Carl? Was there at any time a show that Carl wanted to play that Mike refused to play unless Carl left? If not, then why did he ever need to express the sentiment of not wanting to appear on stage with Carl?