gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
680598 Posts in 27600 Topics by 4068 Members - Latest Member: Dae Lims March 28, 2024, 09:03:51 PM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Mike & Carl in Late 1997 Question/Discussion  (Read 60239 times)
Nicko1234
Guest
« Reply #75 on: October 23, 2014, 08:36:47 AM »


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?

No it doesn`t make Mike look more guilty. Nobody reading a quote like, `Mike didn't want to appear with Carl out of love for him.` could think it made Mike look more guilty unless they were looking for a negative connotation in the first place.

Your other questions are fairly obvious surely...
Logged
drbeachboy
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5214



View Profile
« Reply #76 on: October 23, 2014, 08:43:31 AM »

@ HeyJude
You know why Lott phrased it that way? Because of people like you who start a thread saying that it isn't a "Mike Basher", yet you "Duh" anyone defending Mike. Did you ever think that maybe Mike may have said something that in written word may not of come-off as intended? That Lott was trying to set things straight. I know if I had read Mike was refusing to be on stage with Carl, I would have been outraged. Doing it "out of love" kind of softens why it was said.
Logged

The Brianista Prayer

Oh Brian
Thou Art In Hawthorne,
Harmonied Be Thy name
Your Kingdom Come,
Your Steak Well Done,
On Stage As It Is In Studio,
Give Us This Day, Our Shortenin' Bread
And Forgive Us Our Bootlegs,
As We Also Have Forgiven Our Wife And Managers,
And Lead Us Not Into Kokomo,
But Deliver Us From Mike Love.
Amen.  ---hypehat
bgas
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6372


Oh for the good old days


View Profile
« Reply #77 on: October 23, 2014, 09:15:39 AM »


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. 


Evidently Lott's comments didn't make it to RS print. ( I just checked the RS archives for December 1999 and there was zero BBs)

@ HeyJude
You know why Lott phrased it that way? Because of people like you who start a thread saying that it isn't a "Mike Basher", yet you "Duh" anyone defending Mike. Did you ever think that maybe Mike may have said something that in written word may not of come-off as intended? That Lott was trying to set things straight. I know if I had read Mike was refusing to be on stage with Carl, I would have been outraged. Doing it "out of love" kind of softens why it was said.

That would mean that maybe there's a ML quote out there somewhere which Lott was trying to soften?    THAT would take a lot of searching....
Logged

Nothing I post is my opinion, it's all a message from God
Andrew G. Doe
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 17767


The triumph of The Hickey Script !


View Profile WWW
« Reply #78 on: October 23, 2014, 09:16:46 AM »

I wish Brian would get his ass into gear and release the gosh-darned album... this is getting old fast.
Logged

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

Gender: Male
Posts: 5214



View Profile
« Reply #79 on: October 23, 2014, 09:32:49 AM »


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. 


Evidently Lott's comments didn't make it to RS print. ( I just checked the RS archives for December 1999 and there was zero BBs)

@ HeyJude
You know why Lott phrased it that way? Because of people like you who start a thread saying that it isn't a "Mike Basher", yet you "Duh" anyone defending Mike. Did you ever think that maybe Mike may have said something that in written word may not of come-off as intended? That Lott was trying to set things straight. I know if I had read Mike was refusing to be on stage with Carl, I would have been outraged. Doing it "out of love" kind of softens why it was said.

That would mean that maybe there's a ML quote out there somewhere which Lott was trying to soften?    THAT would take a lot of searching....
While I don't have anything specific, the whole tone of the Lott comment sounds like back peddling on something Mike might have said earlier. They were in Atlantic City for a 2 or 3 day stay. Carl performed at the first show (Friday night), but at the show that I attended (Saturday night), it was announced before the curtain went up that Carl would not be performing due to his health. Phil Bardowell was announced by Mike as an emergency call up to fill in for Carl.
Logged

The Brianista Prayer

Oh Brian
Thou Art In Hawthorne,
Harmonied Be Thy name
Your Kingdom Come,
Your Steak Well Done,
On Stage As It Is In Studio,
Give Us This Day, Our Shortenin' Bread
And Forgive Us Our Bootlegs,
As We Also Have Forgiven Our Wife And Managers,
And Lead Us Not Into Kokomo,
But Deliver Us From Mike Love.
Amen.  ---hypehat
Cam Mott
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4171


View Profile
« Reply #80 on: October 23, 2014, 09:50:53 AM »

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.

Goldmine July 28th 2000.
Alan Jardine
A Beach Boy still riding the waves
by Ken Sharp.


GM:  So what prompted your decision to stop touring with Love's version of The Beach Boys?

AJ:  We had a symphony tour lined up for the United States. Lots of interested symphonies that could give our music a breadth and depth that we didn't have before and get them a little extra business they needed. A lot of symphonies were going bankrupt. For instance, The San Diego Symphony was in a desperate state, and we were going to do our rehearsal concert there in San Diego. They would get one and we would get one. That kind of deal where they get one for their coffers and we'd get a chance to rehearse and get it under way. And then go to the Hollywood Bowl, get that wonderful place sold out and take it from there all over the country. Carry our charts with us and give them to all the different symphonies.

GM:  What happened?

AJ:  Love steadfastly refused to do it. He insisted Brian be there. I remember that remark which is not all wrong. I don't disagree with that. It would be great if Brian could be everywhere, but we all have to be realistic. He's not going to be predictable that way. He's got only so much energy for that kind of work. He's not built for it.

GM:  Brian never like to tour.

AJ: I think Brian was designing our songs back in the day so that we wouldn't be dependent on him. Anyway, I suggested that he conduct the concert at the Hollywood Bowl. I thought it would be neat if he could come out and take some credit for all that great work. Anyway, that wasn't to be. The concert series fell apart by and large because Mike refused to do it. I think it would have been a great tribute to Carl. It would have been built around the music, not the messenger. It wouldn't have been built around any of us.

GM: After Carl passed away you were still in the band and then decided to leave the Love touring line up sometime after that.

AJ: Right. It became one of those moments. Love continued to tour. He didn't stop touring. He just didn't want to stop touring in that modality. That just wasn't his idea of “fun, fun, fun.” [laughs] So he continued to work with his band, The California Beach Band, and he would go out and do dates and have surrogate singers to do Carl's parts. I thought that that was tasteless. While at the same time not going out with The Beach Boys because of Carl's passing so there's some kind of contradiction in that, in my opinion. In fact, my son Matthew at the time was still in that employ, which I did not disagree with because I don't want him not able to earn a living. But at some point it got uncomfortable.

GM: So at what point did you pack it in with that line-up?

AJ: When Mike refused to tour with The Beach Boys. He just refused to tour with us in any fashion. I can't go into detail with you right now, [but] it got reorganised where Love took the band with an exclusive licence and I didn't. And Bruce decided to go with the guy who sang all the big hits. Matthew had to make some big decisions of his own. We decided to form this entity – Beach Boys, Family And Friends, which I felt would more accurately define the harmonies and the vitality that was missing in the waning years of the band.


Is Mike Love Evil?
Taken from the December 2004 Edition of Mojo magazine.
 Bill Holdship


Love reserves most of his current animosity for the other living original Beach Boy, Al Jardine, who he alleges tried to orchestrate a Beach Boys symphonic tour with Peter Cetera and Brian – but without Mike – the week Carl Wilson died from lung cancer in 1998. There's a snide quality in his voice but still no real sense of anger. “Carl was always the mediator in The Beach Boys, so his absence created a very big void. I didn't feel like continuing with Al after that,  so that launched the whole thing where Al went off and did his own thing and I did mine with Bruce. It definitely created a schism which has lasted to this day. Alan has repeatedly brought lawsuits against Brother Records. But we've been successful at defending ourselves and so his antagonistic approach hasn't gotten him anywhere.”
Logged

"Bring me the head of Carmen Sandiego" Lynne "The Chief" Thigpen
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #81 on: October 23, 2014, 09:51:18 AM »

@ HeyJude
You know why Lott phrased it that way? Because of people like you who start a thread saying that it isn't a "Mike Basher", yet you "Duh" anyone defending Mike. Did you ever think that maybe Mike may have said something that in written word may not of come-off as intended? That Lott was trying to set things straight. I know if I had read Mike was refusing to be on stage with Carl, I would have been outraged. Doing it "out of love" kind of softens why it was said.

I was “duh-ing” a very specific case of oversimplification and stating-the-obvious, in the form of suggesting that Lott answered a question because he was asked (duh), and that attempting to defend Mike was done in an effort to defend Mike (duh).

The thread was truly, honestly to simply delve into what Lott’s comments meant. Again, apart from one inflammatory case of someone with some anti-Mike rhetoric, all of the discussion of this thread of “anti-Mike” sort of stuff has come from those who seem too quick to be offended or outraged by anti-Mike rhetoric, which largely isn’t there.

Reading through this thread, it has been those people, not the “anti-Mike” folks, who have derailed the thread with straw man arguments and manufactured outrage. I’m just bummed that it appears some folks literally functionally cannot discuss certain topics. There’s more “anti-anti-Mike” rhetoric on this board now than actual “anti-Mike” rhetoric. I don’t even take issue with “anti-anti-Mike” rhetoric when it’s actually targeted at actual people or their comments. But in the case of this thread, it’s targeted at nobody and nothing, because it isn’t there.

Simply put, posing the question “Did Mike refuse to appear on stage with Carl Wilson?” (when the only reason the question is raised is because the band’s manager confirmed it) does NOT automatically mean it’s a veiled attempt at an anti-Mike thread. For those that are jumping to that conclusion, that’s on you.

I’m just interested in the band’s late 90’s timeline. There is still some confusion and ambiguity about that period of time.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2014, 10:06:18 AM by HeyJude » 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/
Cam Mott
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4171


View Profile
« Reply #82 on: October 23, 2014, 09:59:05 AM »

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.

Which, as I pointed out, leaves his supposed refusal to tour with Al which went on for almost another year. So Lott refers to something that didn't happen. Maybe it was said in desperation for Carl's health but that still leaves Mike not refusing to tour with Al for another year. Maybe Lott is getting two events mixed up after two or three years: an effort out of love toward Carl and a refusal to tour with Al after the replace-Mike-with-Peter-Cetera-the-week-after-Carl's-death tour. Who knows but it seems whatever Lott is referring to didn't happen the way he says. Or something.
Logged

"Bring me the head of Carmen Sandiego" Lynne "The Chief" Thigpen
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #83 on: October 23, 2014, 10:00:44 AM »


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?

No it doesn`t make Mike look more guilty. Nobody reading a quote like, `Mike didn't want to appear with Carl out of love for him.` could think it made Mike look more guilty unless they were looking for a negative connotation in the first place.

Your other questions are fairly obvious surely...

I disagree. Again, I would submit that responding to the question, and the nature of Lott’s response, reeked of defensiveness and trying to salvage the situation PR-wise. I’m not looking for any connotation. I’m saying objectively, given all of the known factors, Lott’s comments did not help anyone. Unless they pulled his quotes from court documents or something where he was forced to give a deposition or something, he didn’t have to say anything.

I could think of numerous responses, if one *had* to give a response, that would have not been a case of lying, but just selectively and politely addresses the issue. For instance: “Carl was ill and had to take time off. Mike was looking forward to playing together with Carl again when/if he recovered.” Or “This is a non-issue. Mike never forced Carl to leave the band, and he would have continued to play with Carl as soon as he got better.”

I’m just perplexed and surprised that he said yes, Mike did refuse to appear on stage with Carl. Even if done “out of love”, it implies some sort of scenario where Carl wanted to keep touring and/or didn’t realize how bad he looked on stage or something. That’s why I’m trying to get the timeline down, and determine if the implication that Mike *had* to invoke his desire to not appear on stage with Carl means there was some point where Carl wanted to continue touring but was not allowed to. If people want to think this is just a way to knock Mike or something, feel free. But it’s not the case here. I’m just exploring the timeline and available evidence. This would be an extremely convoluted, unclear, time-consuming way to do an “anti Mike” thread.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2014, 10:07:41 AM by HeyJude » 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/
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #84 on: October 23, 2014, 10:05:43 AM »


Which, as I pointed out, leaves his supposed refusal to tour with Al which went on for almost another year. So Lott refers to something that didn't happen. Maybe it was said in desperation for Carl's health but that still leaves Mike not refusing to tour with Al for another year. Maybe Lott is getting two events mixed up after two or three years: an effort out of love toward Carl and a refusal to tour with Al after the replace-Mike-with-Peter-Cetera-the-week-after-Carl's-death tour. Who knows but it seems whatever Lott is referring to didn't happen the way he says. Or something.

The issue I’m trying to explore has *nothing* to do with Al. I’m addressing solely the point of Lott specifically stating that Mike refused to appear on stage with Carl. If you want to paste more stuff from 15 years ago about Al, feel free. But it doesn’t speak to Mike’s attitude towards Carl in late 1997. Lott’s comments are clear. I don’t think he’s confusing Carl and Al. If he was, then they *really* need new management.
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/
drbeachboy
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5214



View Profile
« Reply #85 on: October 23, 2014, 10:09:43 AM »

@ HeyJude
You know why Lott phrased it that way? Because of people like you who start a thread saying that it isn't a "Mike Basher", yet you "Duh" anyone defending Mike. Did you ever think that maybe Mike may have said something that in written word may not of come-off as intended? That Lott was trying to set things straight. I know if I had read Mike was refusing to be on stage with Carl, I would have been outraged. Doing it "out of love" kind of softens why it was said.

I was “duh-ing” a very specific case of oversimplification and stating-the-obvious, in the form of suggesting that Lott’s answer a question because he was asked (duh), and that attempting to defend Mike was done in an effort to defend Mike (duh).

The thread was truly, honestly to simply delve into what Lott’s comments meant. Again, apart from one inflammatory case of someone with some anti-Mike rhetoric, all of the discussion of this thread of “anti-Mike” sort of stuff has come from those who seem too quick to be offended or outraged by anti-Mike rhetoric, which largely isn’t there.

Reading through this thread, it has been those people, not the “anti-Mike” folks, who have derailed the thread with straw man arguments and manufactured outrage. I’m just bummed that it appears some folks literally functionally cannot discuss certain topics. There’s more “anti-anti-Mike” rhetoric on this board now than actual “anti-Mike” rhetoric. I don’t even take issue with “anti-anti-Mike” rhetoric when it’s actually targeted at actual people or their comments. But in the case of this thread, it’s targeted at nobody and nothing, because it isn’t there.

Simply put, posing the question “Did Mike refuse to appear on stage with Carl Wilson?” (when the only reason the question is raised is because the band’s manager confirmed it) does NOT automatically mean it’s a veiled attempt at an anti-Mike thread. For those that are jumping to that conclusion, that’s on you.

I’m just interested in the band’s late 90’s timeline. There is still some confusion and ambiguity about that period of time.

Well, I'll say this, you do not "Duh" people if you expect folks to be part of a conversation. This thread, like many others veers off-course from the stated objective every now and then. As stated, I was at the first show without Carl when this all went down. The Lott explanation was clearly put there due to something Mike said in passing that was overheard or something. I can't imagine him even bringing it up like that unless something Mike said was going to eventually be taken out of context. I doubt that we will ever really know for sure. For Phil Bardowell to show up as quickly as he did, there must have been some discussion ahead of time to have someone else in place. Carl leaving before the end of the tour had to have been discussed before that last Saturday night in AC.
Logged

The Brianista Prayer

Oh Brian
Thou Art In Hawthorne,
Harmonied Be Thy name
Your Kingdom Come,
Your Steak Well Done,
On Stage As It Is In Studio,
Give Us This Day, Our Shortenin' Bread
And Forgive Us Our Bootlegs,
As We Also Have Forgiven Our Wife And Managers,
And Lead Us Not Into Kokomo,
But Deliver Us From Mike Love.
Amen.  ---hypehat
Cam Mott
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4171


View Profile
« Reply #86 on: October 23, 2014, 10:11:32 AM »


Which, as I pointed out, leaves his supposed refusal to tour with Al which went on for almost another year. So Lott refers to something that didn't happen. Maybe it was said in desperation for Carl's health but that still leaves Mike not refusing to tour with Al for another year. Maybe Lott is getting two events mixed up after two or three years: an effort out of love toward Carl and a refusal to tour with Al after the replace-Mike-with-Peter-Cetera-the-week-after-Carl's-death tour. Who knows but it seems whatever Lott is referring to didn't happen the way he says. Or something.

The issue I’m trying to explore has *nothing* to do with Al. I’m addressing solely the point of Lott specifically stating that Mike refused to appear on stage with Carl. If you want to paste more stuff from 15 years ago about Al, feel free. But it doesn’t speak to Mike’s attitude towards Carl in late 1997. Lott’s comments are clear. I don’t think he’s confusing Carl and Al. If he was, then they *really* need new management.

Lott's quote involves Al and Mike's refusal to tour with Carl AND Al involves Al.

So you believe Lott's statement is credible as far as Mike's refusal to tour with both Carl and Al during Carl's lifetime (which didn't happen) but you don't believe his statement is credible when he says it was with love?
Logged

"Bring me the head of Carmen Sandiego" Lynne "The Chief" Thigpen
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #87 on: October 23, 2014, 10:17:25 AM »


Which, as I pointed out, leaves his supposed refusal to tour with Al which went on for almost another year. So Lott refers to something that didn't happen. Maybe it was said in desperation for Carl's health but that still leaves Mike not refusing to tour with Al for another year. Maybe Lott is getting two events mixed up after two or three years: an effort out of love toward Carl and a refusal to tour with Al after the replace-Mike-with-Peter-Cetera-the-week-after-Carl's-death tour. Who knows but it seems whatever Lott is referring to didn't happen the way he says. Or something.

The issue I’m trying to explore has *nothing* to do with Al. I’m addressing solely the point of Lott specifically stating that Mike refused to appear on stage with Carl. If you want to paste more stuff from 15 years ago about Al, feel free. But it doesn’t speak to Mike’s attitude towards Carl in late 1997. Lott’s comments are clear. I don’t think he’s confusing Carl and Al. If he was, then they *really* need new management.

Lott's quote involves Al and Mike's refusal to tour with Carl AND Al involves Al.

So you believe Lott's statement is credible as far as Mike's refusal to tour with both Carl and Al during Carl's lifetime (which didn't happen) but you don't believe his statement is credible when he says it was with love?

Lott's statement is credible as far as I can tell. That's why I'm trying to figure out what was happening. Mike wouldn't bother to even let that opinion be known unless there was someone who disagreed. This simply contradicts the common story of Carl choosing to take time off. Either that, or Carl did just take time off and Mike, unprompted, refused to appear on stage with someone that wasn't in the band.
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/
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #88 on: October 23, 2014, 10:20:23 AM »

@ HeyJude
You know why Lott phrased it that way? Because of people like you who start a thread saying that it isn't a "Mike Basher", yet you "Duh" anyone defending Mike. Did you ever think that maybe Mike may have said something that in written word may not of come-off as intended? That Lott was trying to set things straight. I know if I had read Mike was refusing to be on stage with Carl, I would have been outraged. Doing it "out of love" kind of softens why it was said.

I was “duh-ing” a very specific case of oversimplification and stating-the-obvious, in the form of suggesting that Lott’s answer a question because he was asked (duh), and that attempting to defend Mike was done in an effort to defend Mike (duh).

The thread was truly, honestly to simply delve into what Lott’s comments meant. Again, apart from one inflammatory case of someone with some anti-Mike rhetoric, all of the discussion of this thread of “anti-Mike” sort of stuff has come from those who seem too quick to be offended or outraged by anti-Mike rhetoric, which largely isn’t there.

Reading through this thread, it has been those people, not the “anti-Mike” folks, who have derailed the thread with straw man arguments and manufactured outrage. I’m just bummed that it appears some folks literally functionally cannot discuss certain topics. There’s more “anti-anti-Mike” rhetoric on this board now than actual “anti-Mike” rhetoric. I don’t even take issue with “anti-anti-Mike” rhetoric when it’s actually targeted at actual people or their comments. But in the case of this thread, it’s targeted at nobody and nothing, because it isn’t there.

Simply put, posing the question “Did Mike refuse to appear on stage with Carl Wilson?” (when the only reason the question is raised is because the band’s manager confirmed it) does NOT automatically mean it’s a veiled attempt at an anti-Mike thread. For those that are jumping to that conclusion, that’s on you.

I’m just interested in the band’s late 90’s timeline. There is still some confusion and ambiguity about that period of time.

Well, I'll say this, you do not "Duh" people if you expect folks to be part of a conversation. This thread, like many others veers off-course from the stated objective every now and then. As stated, I was at the first show without Carl when this all went down. The Lott explanation was clearly put there due to something Mike said in passing that was overheard or something. I can't imagine him even bringing it up like that unless something Mike said was going to eventually be taken out of context. I doubt that we will ever really know for sure. For Phil Bardowell to show up as quickly as he did, there must have been some discussion ahead of time to have someone else in place. Carl leaving before the end of the tour had to have been discussed before that last Saturday night in AC.

Your theory is possible. But my best guess is something in the Al/Family & Friends lawsuit paperwork cited Mike's refusal to play with Carl, and that's what Lott was responding to. It is then because Lott confirms this that I'm curious to know more details timeline-wise.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2014, 10:24:59 AM by HeyJude » 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/
GhostyTMRS
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 722



View Profile
« Reply #89 on: October 23, 2014, 04:11:18 PM »

For what it's worth, Phil Miglioratti's interview with Warren Duffy discusses some of these issues. He contends that Al was being routinely fired and rehired during the 1970's without the public's knowledge. The conversation begins around 14 minutes in:

http://ia600409.us.archive.org/18/items/PhoneInnerviewWwarrenDuffyAug132009/DuffyConcallAug132009_vbr.mp3
Logged
♩♬🐸 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 #90 on: October 23, 2014, 04:23:02 PM »

I

Quote
GM: So at what point did you pack it in with that line-up?

AJ: When Mike refused to tour with The Beach Boys. He just refused to tour with us in any fashion. I can't go into detail with you right now, [but] it got reorganised where Love took the band with an exclusive licence and I didn't.

Mike *never* refused to tour with the Beach Boys...which 'us' is Alan referring to?! Him and Brian? Brian was doing his own thing at the time. So, in other words, Al is referring to himself as 'The Beach Boys'. No wonder there was a lawsuit. Now, if he's saying Mike did in fact refuse to tour with the 'Beach Boys' after Carl died, then why in the blue gravy f*** didn't he use that bit of info when they were fighting over the license? Easy answer: it didn't happen.
Logged

Need your song mixed/mastered? Contact me at fear2stop@yahoo.com. Serious inquiries only, please!
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #91 on: October 23, 2014, 04:31:51 PM »

For what it's worth, Phil Miglioratti's interview with Warren Duffy discusses some of these issues. He contends that Al was being routinely fired and rehired during the 1970's without the public's knowledge. The conversation begins around 14 minutes in:

http://ia600409.us.archive.org/18/items/PhoneInnerviewWwarrenDuffyAug132009/DuffyConcallAug132009_vbr.mp3

Interesting, and I know you're just passing this along for what it's worth. But the guy sounds a bit sketchy. He continually refers to Al being the bass player (which, by the 70's, he was only rarely playing), and contends Al was the weak link vocally in the late 70's for the band, and that it was because Al continually fluffed his vocals and bass (?) and "kept his distance", that he was continually fired and rehired. This, despite the fact that during the era he's talking about, the mid-late 70's, Al was sometimes the only guy (along with Mike) holding the show together. He continually refers to "four part harmonies" as if Brian, Carl, and Mike had their s**t together 100% of the time and Al was the weak link. I'd actually buy the story more if it was that there were interpersonal clashes. But even most of those seemed to take hold in the 80's and moreso in the 90's.

It also completely goes against the power structure within the band in the late 70's, where Mike and the Loves (and Brian) needed Al's vote.

He sounds like a radio DJ who over the years dipped in and out of paying attention to the group.

His description of Al sounds like he's somehow conflating Al and Bruce and Dennis.  LOL
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/
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #92 on: October 23, 2014, 04:36:38 PM »

I

Quote
GM: So at what point did you pack it in with that line-up?

AJ: When Mike refused to tour with The Beach Boys. He just refused to tour with us in any fashion. I can't go into detail with you right now, [but] it got reorganised where Love took the band with an exclusive licence and I didn't.

Mike *never* refused to tour with the Beach Boys...which 'us' is Alan referring to?! Him and Brian? Brian was doing his own thing at the time. So, in other words, Al is referring to himself as 'The Beach Boys'. No wonder there was a lawsuit. Now, if he's saying Mike did in fact refuse to tour with the 'Beach Boys' after Carl died, then why in the blue gravy f*** didn't he use that bit of info when they were fighting over the license? Easy answer: it didn't happen.

It's an odd turn of phrase. I think when he says this, he means Mike refused to tour with what was at that time the current incarnation of the Beach Boys, both lineup-wise and business-wise. If you're refusing to play with Al, and in some form or another supposedly refusing to tour with Carl, I would imagine Al read that as a refusal to tour with the correct or current incarnation of the band.

I don't think Al means Mike showed up to a meeting and simply went on strike. It's quite the opposite. He wanted to play *more* dates as the Beach Boys, just without Al (and by whatever circumstance, without Carl). Al may also be factoring in the vague stories of his "Pet Sounds" tour idea being turned down.

But the way the thing went down, since their previous organizational structure didn't allow for simply "firing" Al exactly, it did kind of come off a bit like essentially breaking the group up, and then reforming it without Al. Organizationally/Business-wise, that's kind of what was happening in the late 90's according to the info we have.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2014, 04:38:13 PM by HeyJude » 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/
GhostyTMRS
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 722



View Profile
« Reply #93 on: October 23, 2014, 04:41:34 PM »

Yeah, and it flies in the face of what David Leaf told us in his book, that Mike and Al were as thick as thieves and opposed to Brian, Carl and Dennis's vision of the band.
Honestly, there are so many conflicting stories here, and so many hazy or just downright wrong memories from the principals involved that in the end all of this is speculation Every bit of it. Except maybe record release dates...oh wait...sometimes those are disputed too.

To quote Sgt. Schultz "I know nothiiiiiing".    Grin
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #94 on: October 23, 2014, 04:45:11 PM »

Yeah, and it flies in the face of what David Leaf told us in his book, that Mike and Al were as thick as thieves and opposed to Brian, Carl and Dennis's vision of the band.
Honestly, there are so many conflicting stories here, and so many hazy or just downright wrong memories from the principals involved that in the end all of this is speculation Every bit of it. Except maybe record release dates...oh wait...sometimes those are disputed too.

To quote Sgt. Schultz "I know nothiiiiiing".    Grin

Very true. While new info surprisingly continues to pop up years and years later, I would think that someone out of Stebbins or Leaf or White or Carlin or someone would have picked up some scrap of info if they had "fired and rehired" Al numerous times in the 70's.
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/
tpesky
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1031


View Profile
« Reply #95 on: October 23, 2014, 04:48:51 PM »

I think Brian and Melinda had the Pet Sounds tour idea, which might be different than the symphonic tour. The only person who has ever mentioned that Peter Cetera thing . Peter Cetera has barely toured at all since he left Chicago .  That could be one of things with little credibility and something that has been twisted.

It's amazing how far people will go to defend Mike on things on this board now. This whole period is very interesting and has never been explored. But that's not going to happen here if every comment Mike ever made or action did needs to be defended.
Logged
tpesky
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1031


View Profile
« Reply #96 on: October 23, 2014, 04:52:09 PM »

Yeah, and it flies in the face of what David Leaf told us in his book, that Mike and Al were as thick as thieves and opposed to Brian, Carl and Dennis's vision of the band.
Honestly, there are so many conflicting stories here, and so many hazy or just downright wrong memories from the principals involved that in the end all of this is speculation Every bit of it. Except maybe record release dates...oh wait...sometimes those are disputed too.

To quote Sgt. Schultz "I know nothiiiiiing".    Grin

Very true. While new info surprisingly continues to pop up years and years later, I would think that someone out of Stebbins or Leaf or White or Carlin or someone would have picked up some scrap of info if they had "fired and rehired" Al numerous times in the 70's.

Al has flubbed many a lyric over the years and while there could have been frustration with him, I don't think it ever reached the 90s frustration Mike had with him. His voice and role held MANY late 70s shows together. He is the only on who appears to even be trying on that 78 Australian tour and I'm very certain there is a quote where Dennis credited him with saving that tour.  ( Waiting for someone to claim that Mike's vocals on Country Pie and Everyone's In Love With you actually saved that tour in 5,4,5 Smiley )
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #97 on: October 23, 2014, 04:58:23 PM »

I think Brian and Melinda had the Pet Sounds tour idea, which might be different than the symphonic tour. The only person who has ever mentioned that Peter Cetera thing . Peter Cetera has barely toured at all since he left Chicago .  That could be one of things with little credibility and something that has been twisted.

It's amazing how far people will go to defend Mike on things on this board now. This whole period is very interesting and has never been explored. But that's not going to happen here if every comment Mike ever made or action did needs to be defended.

The Peter Cetera thing always struck me as one of Al's flights of fancy, a hasty idea that probably wasn't super thought-out, and clearly wasn't feasible for a bunch of reasons.

Those articles that mentioned that Mike was pissed at Al because Al tried to arrange that Cetera tour behind his back after Carl died don't strike me as totally genuine if we're to believe the stories related in Carlin's book and the Stebbins/Marks book that Al was being angled out far earlier than that.
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/
GhostyTMRS
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 722



View Profile
« Reply #98 on: October 23, 2014, 04:59:45 PM »

I think Brian and Melinda had the Pet Sounds tour idea, which might be different than the symphonic tour. The only person who has ever mentioned that Peter Cetera thing . Peter Cetera has barely toured at all since he left Chicago .  That could be one of things with little credibility and something that has been twisted.

It's amazing how far people will go to defend Mike on things on this board now. This whole period is very interesting and has never been explored. But that's not going to happen here if every comment Mike ever made or action did needs to be defended.

It's not that. You have people on here who don't even like Mike defending him because some of the claims made here are ridiculously over the top. I would suspect that more than a few people are tired of seeing every thread devolve into a "let's trash Mike-a-thon". I get it. He's an easy target but man oh man..day in and day out!  
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #99 on: October 23, 2014, 05:01:14 PM »

Yeah, and it flies in the face of what David Leaf told us in his book, that Mike and Al were as thick as thieves and opposed to Brian, Carl and Dennis's vision of the band.
Honestly, there are so many conflicting stories here, and so many hazy or just downright wrong memories from the principals involved that in the end all of this is speculation Every bit of it. Except maybe record release dates...oh wait...sometimes those are disputed too.

To quote Sgt. Schultz "I know nothiiiiiing".    Grin

Very true. While new info surprisingly continues to pop up years and years later, I would think that someone out of Stebbins or Leaf or White or Carlin or someone would have picked up some scrap of info if they had "fired and rehired" Al numerous times in the 70's.

Al has flubbed many a lyric over the years and while there could have been frustration with him, I don't think it ever reached the 90s frustration Mike had with him. His voice and role held MANY late 70s shows together. He is the only on who appears to even be trying on that 78 Australian tour and I'm very certain there is a quote where Dennis credited him with saving that tour.  ( Waiting for someone to claim that Mike's vocals on Country Pie and Everyone's In Love With you actually saved that tour in 5,4,5 Smiley )

Al still to this day fluffs the lyrics to songs. It's one of his trademarks at this stage. But that radio interview makes it sound like Al wasn't able to correctly sing four-part harmonies in some cases. The guy makes it sound like the late 70's Beach Boys were a slick, tight operation, and Al was stepping in and f***ing it up or something. Makes no sense. There were times when *all* of the guys sounded rather ragged or haggard. But Al, especially in those days, and especially when Carl went off the deep end for a bit, was kind of holding the thing together a bit vocally.
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/
gfx
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.302 seconds with 21 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!