Mike & Carl in Late 1997 Question/Discussion

[HeyJude]

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!  

But at this stage in some cases I see folks pre-emptively calling out "Mike bashing" when it isn't even occurring. It has become pre-emptively uber-defensive in some cases. Again, as an example, asking "What do you think Elliott Lott meant when he said Mike refused to appear on stage with Carl?" is not a "Mike bashing" thread.

This thread has inadvertently become a prime example of the straw man that some "anti-anti-Mike" fans have started to create. Apart from one poster, I haven't seen any "Mike bashing" in this thread. Pondering something that *may* be construed as reflecting negatively on Mike is not a Mike bashing thread.

[GhostyTMRS]

Are you not reading the responses to this thread? It starts about halfway down the first page.

[drbeachboy]

Also HeyJude, you bring up a subject that we will never have a complete answer. When this type of stuff is put forth, it just devolves into opinion and taking sides. It's kind of a natural reaction.

[HeyJude]

Also HeyJude, you bring up a subject that we will never have a complete answer. When this type of stuff is put forth, it just devolves into opinion and taking sides. It's kind of a natural reaction.

Sure, that's absolutely true. I didn't expect concrete answers. My original post was simply trying to shake out any information fellow fans and scholars might have on the curious, and rarely-repeated or explored contention that Mike at some point in later 1997 refused to appear on stage with Carl.

I wasn't trying to elicit opinions on whether Mike's a good guy or bad guy, nor was I trying to elicit fond (or negative) memories of Carl's final tour (although those stories are great to read). It was simple: Here's what Elliott Lott said Mike said. What do you all think? Any other information out there about this? Does this make sense timeline-wise, or make sense in terms of simple logic?

[Rob Dean]

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.uswhat.archive.org/18/items/PhoneInnerviewWwarrenDuffyAug132009/DuffyConcallAug132009_vbr.mp3

Sorry just listened to it , Duffy comes out with a load of BS (wrong dates/facts etc....) - But he does admit at the start of the interview that he took a lot of drugs during the 1960's NUFF SAID  

[GhostyTMRS]

Also HeyJude, you bring up a subject that we will never have a complete answer. When this type of stuff is put forth, it just devolves into opinion and taking sides. It's kind of a natural reaction.

In HeyJude's defense he stated implicitly that it wasn't his intention to go in that direction but even Brian's BBC God Only Knows thread went off the rails. Man, it's tough to be a fan who likes all of The Beach Boys in this forum. My second favorite member after Brian is Dennis and allegedly he did a lot of lousy things to people (especially some women) but at some point you have to go...does any of this affect my enjoyment of the music?

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Man, it's tough to be a fan who likes all of The Beach Boys in this forum. My second favorite member after Brian is Dennis and allegedly he did a lot of lousy things to people (especially some women) but at some point you have to go...does any of this affect my enjoyment of the music?

A-FREAKIN'-MEN.

[GhostyTMRS]

Back to the topic at hand: There's no way to speculate what anyone's motives were in a tragic situation like this. A friend of mine had terminal cancer and passed away last year. I'd watch him come in to work at the end stages. He'd walk up a flight of stairs, sit down in a chair and then after a few hours, walk down stairs and have to take a nap because the physical exertion of just doing THAT took the wind out of his sails.
Some of us were thinking "He shouldn't be doing this. It's sapping his strength. He needs that strength to stay alive and fight this" while some of use were saying "Doing this is what's keeping him going. Even if it's taking a horrible toll".

So who was right in that situation?

Maybe there was no right answer. Maybe in Carl's situation it was just sad all around.   

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Well said.

[Cam Mott]

First of all if Mike had refused to appear with anyone in 1997 HE would have been absent from the tour not Carl or Al. This didn't happen so Mike did not refuse to appear with Carl or Al in 1997. So Lott is wrong.

Lott's claim is confusing when compared to reality but Mike's reason is right there in Lott's quote: love. So your smoking gun is Mike loved his cousin Carl. Case closed.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Shows & sessions 1997

Number of shows played: 94
Number of shows Mike was absent from: 0

To be entirely fair to Lott, he didn't say Mike refused to play with Carl and carried out his stated intention: what he actually said was ...

"You need to put this into perspective," he said. "Carl  very sick. He'd lost his hair and had to wear a wig. He needed oxygen after
every song. Mike didn't want to appear with Carl out of love for him."

Looks to me like Mike changed his mind, either off his own bat, or was talked around. Is all. Irrefutable fact is, Mike played all the shows in 1997 that Carl played. How many of us have said "well I'm not doing that !", and then have ? Difference being, we didn't have a manager who told everyone two years later. It shoudl be further noted that, according to the recollections of many posters here, Carl didn't need oxygen after every song as Lott stated.

Move along, nothing to see here...

[Cam Mott]

Good point.

[HeyJude]

Back to the topic at hand: There's no way to speculate what anyone's motives were in a tragic situation like this. A friend of mine had terminal cancer and passed away last year. I'd watch him come in to work at the end stages. He'd walk up a flight of stairs, sit down in a chair and then after a few hours, walk down stairs and have to take a nap because the physical exertion of just doing THAT took the wind out of his sails.
Some of us were thinking "He shouldn't be doing this. It's sapping his strength. He needs that strength to stay alive and fight this" while some of use were saying "Doing this is what's keeping him going. Even if it's taking a horrible toll".

So who was right in that situation?

Maybe there was no right answer. Maybe in Carl's situation it was just sad all around.  

Again, the whole point of investigating this was NOT to make a judgment on whether such a sentiment as “not wanting to appear” with someone sick is acceptable or not. It goes without saying that every case is different, and each person’s attitude is different. I’ve faced very similar circumstances myself. This was PURELY about collecting information about the timeline.

I know the situation with Carl was and is a sensitive subject for fans (to say nothing of those actually in the band or close to band members). But I’m just curious to know more about what happened with the band at this time. With all due respect to AGD, this isn’t a case of “nothing to see here.” It’s a vastly complex situation, clearly. Again, I’m perplexed as to why we can be sticklers here about release dates, and which session player played which thing on what, and we can have threads about “What if the Beach Boys were born women?”, but a discussion of the band’s manager making a curious statement (and yes, addressing a potentially inflammatory topic) is somehow beyond the scope of topics worthy of discussion?

[HeyJude]

First of all if Mike had refused to appear with anyone in 1997 HE would have been absent from the tour not Carl or Al. This didn't happen so Mike did not refuse to appear with Carl or Al in 1997. So Lott is wrong.

Lott's claim is confusing when compared to reality but Mike's reason is right there in Lott's quote: love. So your smoking gun is Mike loved his cousin Carl. Case closed.

I always figured that *if* the assertion that Mike refused to appear on stage with Carl was correct, it wouldn’t have been a case of Mike quitting the tour. Rather, it would be a case of politely telling Carl to take time off, as in “I don’t feel comfortable appearing on stage with Carl in his current state. I think he needs to be asked to take some time off.”

*That* is one of the main reasons I raised this issue, to find out if the stories of Carl *choosing* to take time off are actually accurate or not. And as I’ve mentioned a million times now, this area of study of the band’s history is a case of minutiae, but I think it’s BS to dismiss this question with “who cares?” and then turn around dissect which month of which year a photo of the band was taken or something.

[drbeachboy]

Back to the topic at hand: There's no way to speculate what anyone's motives were in a tragic situation like this. A friend of mine had terminal cancer and passed away last year. I'd watch him come in to work at the end stages. He'd walk up a flight of stairs, sit down in a chair and then after a few hours, walk down stairs and have to take a nap because the physical exertion of just doing THAT took the wind out of his sails.
Some of us were thinking "He shouldn't be doing this. It's sapping his strength. He needs that strength to stay alive and fight this" while some of use were saying "Doing this is what's keeping him going. Even if it's taking a horrible toll".

So who was right in that situation?

Maybe there was no right answer. Maybe in Carl's situation it was just sad all around.   

Again, the whole point of investigating this was NOT to make a judgment on whether such a sentiment as “not wanting to appear” with someone sick is acceptable or not. It goes without saying that every case is different, and each person’s attitude is different. I’ve faced very similar circumstances myself. This was PURELY about collecting information about the timeline.

I know the situation with Carl was and is a sensitive subject for fans (to say nothing of those actually in the band or close to band members). But I’m just curious to know more about what happened with the band at this time. With all due respect to AGD, this isn’t a case of “nothing to see here.” It’s a vastly complex situation, clearly. Again, I’m perplexed as to why we can be sticklers here about release dates, and which session player played which thing on what, and we can have threads about “What if the Beach Boys were born women?”, but a discussion of the band’s manager making a curious (and yes, addressing a potentially inflammatory topic) statement is somehow beyond the scope of topics worthy of discussion?

Nobody knows anymore than what has been written here so far. I think we're soon to the point of  

[HeyJude]

Nobody knows anymore than what has been written here so far. I think we're soon to the point of  

I feel pretty certain that at least a few folks who post here at some sort of interval do actually know more about all of this than what we currently know. They understandably may not be able to add more. I hoped either folks in that category, or some fans who remember any tidbits, might have been able to have more insight into the situation, something beyond defending Mike against charges that nobody is making.

[HeyJude]

Shows & sessions 1997

Number of shows played: 94
Number of shows Mike was absent from: 0

To be entirely fair to Lott, he didn't say Mike refused to play with Carl and carried out his stated intention: what he actually said was ...

"You need to put this into perspective," he said. "Carl  very sick. He'd lost his hair and had to wear a wig. He needed oxygen after
every song. Mike didn't want to appear with Carl out of love for him."

Looks to me like Mike changed his mind, either off his own bat, or was talked around. Is all. Irrefutable fact is, Mike played all the shows in 1997 that Carl played. How many of us have said "well I'm not doing that !", and then have ? Difference being, we didn't have a manager who told everyone two years later. It shoudl be further noted that, according to the recollections of many posters here, Carl didn't need oxygen after every song as Lott stated.

Move along, nothing to see here...

That scenario makes Lott look like an idiot, though. Why would he confirm Mike refused to appear on stage with Carl if Mike actually ended up changing his mind? *Especially* two years after Carl’s death, when nothing would be gained by even discussing the topic in the first place. Why would he overstate Carl’s need for oxygen? I know that if my manager erroneously confirmed an accusation that I refused to appear on stage with an ill band member, I’d be pretty close to firing that manager.

That being said, the crux of what I’ve been interested in involves what the hell Lott was talking about here. One possibly answer is that he wasn’t entirely accurate with his statement. If we’re able to deduce that from this discussion, then that’s a good little tidbit of information to have. To me, anyway. Clearly not much of anybody else cares.

[filledeplage]

First of all if Mike had refused to appear with anyone in 1997 HE would have been absent from the tour not Carl or Al. This didn't happen so Mike did not refuse to appear with Carl or Al in 1997. So Lott is wrong.

Lott's claim is confusing when compared to reality but Mike's reason is right there in Lott's quote: love. So your smoking gun is Mike loved his cousin Carl. Case closed.

I always figured that *if* the assertion that Mike refused to appear on stage with Carl was correct, it wouldn’t have been a case of Mike quitting the tour. Rather, it would be a case of politely telling Carl to take time off, as in “I don’t feel comfortable appearing on stage with Carl in his current state. I think he needs to be asked to take some time off.”

*That* is one of the main reasons I raised this issue, to find out if the stories of Carl *choosing* to take time off are actually accurate or not. And as I’ve mentioned a million times now, this area of study of the band’s history is a case of minutiae, but I think it’s BS to dismiss this question with “who cares?” and then turn around dissect which month of which year a photo of the band was taken or something.

Despite the "disclaimer," that preceded the thread, it is very hard to regard the interest as purely "informational" and you are correct that people have strong feelings about that last season in '97.  But body language says a lot in my book. I saw the band members, including Mike turn their backs on the audience during C50 for GOK to watch the screen, for both Dennis and Carl.  

Actions speak louder than words.  Even now, in the absence of video, the "blue lights" become illuminated, and those who can trace their concert history back to the later 60's know it is both tribute to this magnificent song, and to Carl.  

But, I guess that there is, for me a cred problem, as I clicked onto your blog.  And it illustrates, in my opinion, the position.
It begs the question as to why BB fans are hounded to "choose" a side, as in a soccer, or football game.  It diminished slightly during C50 when the group reunited for a pre-agreed upon and finite number of performances.  And why can't fans like and embrace all forms of the music performed, whether by Al, Mike or Brian?  I've seen each lineup except the "Family and Friends" thing, but have seen Al's fabulous band.  This "divide and conquer" thing is getting old, as is a thinly-veiled "research" effort.  It is back to "business as usual" with the attacks on individual band members.  

Managers come and go, but where the "rubber meets the road" is when they take the stage and do their thing.  And as I've learned, not every book is credible.  Mostly, thanks to this board, I've learned a lot and continue to learn.

And while it might be "interesting" to know how many shows Carl did, and as others, I suspect he was sick a lot longer than we knew he was.  Looking back at photos from 1996, shows a "worn appearance" and maybe he suffered longer than any of us would know.  Really, health is a private matter.  He just shared what he had left.  

But if you check out videos from C50, before they combined the emotionally intense "dedication" to both Dennis and Carl, you'll see a band, including, and especially Mike, turning right around and watch the video, large enough to swallow us all. And it was great to read all the eyewitnesses post their reflections, who saw Carl and shared that memory.  Thanks for that.  
 

[drbeachboy]

First of all if Mike had refused to appear with anyone in 1997 HE would have been absent from the tour not Carl or Al. This didn't happen so Mike did not refuse to appear with Carl or Al in 1997. So Lott is wrong.

Lott's claim is confusing when compared to reality but Mike's reason is right there in Lott's quote: love. So your smoking gun is Mike loved his cousin Carl. Case closed.

I always figured that *if* the assertion that Mike refused to appear on stage with Carl was correct, it wouldn’t have been a case of Mike quitting the tour. Rather, it would be a case of politely telling Carl to take time off, as in “I don’t feel comfortable appearing on stage with Carl in his current state. I think he needs to be asked to take some time off.”

*That* is one of the main reasons I raised this issue, to find out if the stories of Carl *choosing* to take time off are actually accurate or not. And as I’ve mentioned a million times now, this area of study of the band’s history is a case of minutiae, but I think it’s BS to dismiss this question with “who cares?” and then turn around dissect which month of which year a photo of the band was taken or something.

Despite the "disclaimer," that preceded the thread, it is very hard to regard the interest as purely "informational" and you are correct that people have strong feelings about that last season in '97.  But body language says a lot in my book. I saw the band members, including Mike turn their backs on the audience during C50 for GOK to watch the screen, for both Dennis and Carl.   

Actions speak louder than words.  Even now, in the absence of video, the "blue lights" become illuminated, and those who can trace their concert history back to the later 60's know it is both tribute to this magnificent song, and to Carl. 

But, I guess that there is, for me a cred problem, as I clicked onto your blog.  And it illustrates, in my opinion, the position.
It begs the question as to why BB fans are hounded to "choose" a side, as in a soccer, or football game.  It diminished slightly during C50 when the group reunited for a pre-agreed upon and finite number of performances.  And why can't fans like and embrace all forms of the music performed, whether by Al, Mike or Brian?  I've seen each lineup except the "Family and Friends" thing, but have seen Al's fabulous band.  This "divide and conquer" thing is getting old, as is a thinly-veiled "research" effort.  It is back to "business as usual" with the attacks on individual band members. 

Managers come and go, but where the "rubber meets the road" is when they take the stage and do their thing.  And as I've learned not every book is credible.  Mostly, thanks to this board, I've learned a lot and continue to learn.

And while it might be "interesting" to know how many shows Carl did, and as others, I suspect he was sick a lot longer than we knew he was.  Looking back at photos from 1996, shows a "worn appearance" and maybe he suffered longer than any of us would know.  Really, health is a private matter.  He just shared what he had left. 

But if you check out videos from C50, before they combined the emotionally intense "dedication" to both Dennis and Carl, you'll see a band, including, and especially Mike, turning right around and watch the video, large enough to swallow us all. And it was great to read all the eyewitnesses post their reflections, who saw Carl and shared that memory.  Thanks for that. 
 

I'm with you on this, thanks for the great post. I also see this as a thinly-veiled research effort. To what ends does knowing about this do for history? Carl has always been my favorite band member, yet I have never needed to know down to the last second what went down that Friday night or Saturday before the show in Atlantic City. To me it is a private band matter better left untouched this some 17 years later.

[Cam Mott]

First of all if Mike had refused to appear with anyone in 1997 HE would have been absent from the tour not Carl or Al. This didn't happen so Mike did not refuse to appear with Carl or Al in 1997. So Lott is wrong.

Lott's claim is confusing when compared to reality but Mike's reason is right there in Lott's quote: love. So your smoking gun is Mike loved his cousin Carl. Case closed.

I always figured that *if* the assertion that Mike refused to appear on stage with Carl was correct, it wouldn’t have been a case of Mike quitting the tour. Rather, it would be a case of politely telling Carl to take time off, as in “I don’t feel comfortable appearing on stage with Carl in his current state. I think he needs to be asked to take some time off.”

*That* is one of the main reasons I raised this issue, to find out if the stories of Carl *choosing* to take time off are actually accurate or not. And as I’ve mentioned a million times now, this area of study of the band’s history is a case of minutiae, but I think it’s BS to dismiss this question with “who cares?” and then turn around dissect which month of which year a photo of the band was taken or something.

OK but I think that is an unusual assumption and goes against the claim. Mike supposedly said he would not appear. If he doesn't appear he is not there, but Al and Carl would be there because they are the reason he did not appear. You have it backwards it seems to me. Why would you assume that if Mike will not appear that it would be Al and Carl that would not appear instead? How would Mike even keep them from appearing?

[HeyJude]

First of all if Mike had refused to appear with anyone in 1997 HE would have been absent from the tour not Carl or Al. This didn't happen so Mike did not refuse to appear with Carl or Al in 1997. So Lott is wrong.

Lott's claim is confusing when compared to reality but Mike's reason is right there in Lott's quote: love. So your smoking gun is Mike loved his cousin Carl. Case closed.

I always figured that *if* the assertion that Mike refused to appear on stage with Carl was correct, it wouldn’t have been a case of Mike quitting the tour. Rather, it would be a case of politely telling Carl to take time off, as in “I don’t feel comfortable appearing on stage with Carl in his current state. I think he needs to be asked to take some time off.”

*That* is one of the main reasons I raised this issue, to find out if the stories of Carl *choosing* to take time off are actually accurate or not. And as I’ve mentioned a million times now, this area of study of the band’s history is a case of minutiae, but I think it’s BS to dismiss this question with “who cares?” and then turn around dissect which month of which year a photo of the band was taken or something.

Despite the "disclaimer," that preceded the thread, it is very hard to regard the interest as purely "informational" and you are correct that people have strong feelings about that last season in '97.  But body language says a lot in my book. I saw the band members, including Mike turn their backs on the audience during C50 for GOK to watch the screen, for both Dennis and Carl.   

Actions speak louder than words.  Even now, in the absence of video, the "blue lights" become illuminated, and those who can trace their concert history back to the later 60's know it is both tribute to this magnificent song, and to Carl. 

But, I guess that there is, for me a cred problem, as I clicked onto your blog.  And it illustrates, in my opinion, the position.
It begs the question as to why BB fans are hounded to "choose" a side, as in a soccer, or football game.  It diminished slightly during C50 when the group reunited for a pre-agreed upon and finite number of performances.  And why can't fans like and embrace all forms of the music performed, whether by Al, Mike or Brian?  I've seen each lineup except the "Family and Friends" thing, but have seen Al's fabulous band.  This "divide and conquer" thing is getting old, as is a thinly-veiled "research" effort.  It is back to "business as usual" with the attacks on individual band members. 

Managers come and go, but where the "rubber meets the road" is when they take the stage and do their thing.  And as I've learned not every book is credible.  Mostly, thanks to this board, I've learned a lot and continue to learn.

And while it might be "interesting" to know how many shows Carl did, and as others, I suspect he was sick a lot longer than we knew he was.  Looking back at photos from 1996, shows a "worn appearance" and maybe he suffered longer than any of us would know.  Really, health is a private matter.  He just shared what he had left. 

But if you check out videos from C50, before they combined the emotionally intense "dedication" to both Dennis and Carl, you'll see a band, including, and especially Mike, turning right around and watch the video, large enough to swallow us all. And it was great to read all the eyewitnesses post their reflections, who saw Carl and shared that memory.  Thanks for that. 
 

I'm with you on this, thanks for the great post. I also see this as a thinly-veiled research effort. To what ends does knowing about this do for history? Carl has always been my favorite band member, yet I have never needed to know down to the last second what went down that Friday night or Saturday before the show in Atlantic City. To me it is a private band matter better left untouched this some 17 years later.

It's just about getting a timeline down. No veil in place. There are less convoluted ways to rail against Mike if one chooses.  I'm not researching a book. Was just curious. I'm bummed some folks are so circumspect and unwilling to discuss such a topic. But I tried.

[Andrew G. Doe]

That scenario makes Lott look like an idiot, though. Why would he confirm Mike refused to appear on stage with Carl if Mike actually ended up changing his mind? *Especially* two years after Carl’s death, when nothing would be gained by even discussing the topic in the first place. Why would he overstate Carl’s need for oxygen? I know that if my manager erroneously confirmed an accusation that I refused to appear on stage with an ill band member, I’d be pretty close to firing that manager.

That being said, the crux of what I’ve been interested in involves what the hell Lott was talking about here. One possibly answer is that he wasn’t entirely accurate with his statement. If we’re able to deduce that from this discussion, then that’s a good little tidbit of information to have. To me, anyway. Clearly not much of anybody else cares.

Given he's willingly chosen to manage The (almost unmanageable) Beach Boys for close to 25 years, I'd have to say his smarts have to be questioned, however good his heart. 

Here's a little illustration about the fallibility of memory: my parents & I would have sworn black was white that we heard that Herbert Lom had died in the early 1990s (long before he really did in 2012), to the extent that, when he was introduced to present an award on some TV show after his "passing", we all chorused as one "BUT HE'S DEAD !!".

[MarcellaHasDirtyFeet]

I know that we are just here to argue semantics about arguments, but I would guess that the interview posted above referencing all of the times "Al" screwed up his vocals and couldn't play bass are probably a misremembered Brian Wilson, whose voice WAS shot and occasionally played bass? I didn't actually listen to the interview, but it sounds like a case of mistaken identity to me.

Anyways, if you take Mike at his word (shortly after the incident at hand), he brought champagne to Dennis' wake to celebrate his life, not his demise. I believe that version of events. If you take Lott at his word, Mike expressed concern about "business as usual" during Carl's cancer battle, out of love for his cousin/bandmate. I believe that version of events.

[HeyJude]

First of all if Mike had refused to appear with anyone in 1997 HE would have been absent from the tour not Carl or Al. This didn't happen so Mike did not refuse to appear with Carl or Al in 1997. So Lott is wrong.

Lott's claim is confusing when compared to reality but Mike's reason is right there in Lott's quote: love. So your smoking gun is Mike loved his cousin Carl. Case closed.

I always figured that *if* the assertion that Mike refused to appear on stage with Carl was correct, it wouldn’t have been a case of Mike quitting the tour. Rather, it would be a case of politely telling Carl to take time off, as in “I don’t feel comfortable appearing on stage with Carl in his current state. I think he needs to be asked to take some time off.”

*That* is one of the main reasons I raised this issue, to find out if the stories of Carl *choosing* to take time off are actually accurate or not. And as I’ve mentioned a million times now, this area of study of the band’s history is a case of minutiae, but I think it’s BS to dismiss this question with “who cares?” and then turn around dissect which month of which year a photo of the band was taken or something.

OK but I think that is an unusual assumption and goes against the claim. Mike supposedly said he would not appear. If he doesn't appear he is not there, but Al and Carl would be there because they are the reason he did not appear. You have it backwards it seems to me. Why would you assume that if Mike will not appear that it would be Al and Carl that would not appear instead? How would Mike even keep them from appearing?

This is getting too circular. A theoretical/potential explanation is cited above in my previous post, and makes more sense in light of the obvious fact that Mike never missed shows in 1997. It certainly makes more sense than citing Mike not missing any shows as evidence of.. what? That Elliott Lott just pulled that confirmation of the story out of his a**?

It's all theoretical, but I don't know how to be more clear. Again, THOERETICAL, it's simple: I don't want to appear on stage with X = We need to remove X from the stage.

It may well be that Carl needing to depart and Mike feeling Carl should take some time off both happened around the same time. It *could* be that simple.

[HeyJude]

That scenario makes Lott look like an idiot, though. Why would he confirm Mike refused to appear on stage with Carl if Mike actually ended up changing his mind? *Especially* two years after Carl’s death, when nothing would be gained by even discussing the topic in the first place. Why would he overstate Carl’s need for oxygen? I know that if my manager erroneously confirmed an accusation that I refused to appear on stage with an ill band member, I’d be pretty close to firing that manager.

That being said, the crux of what I’ve been interested in involves what the hell Lott was talking about here. One possibly answer is that he wasn’t entirely accurate with his statement. If we’re able to deduce that from this discussion, then that’s a good little tidbit of information to have. To me, anyway. Clearly not much of anybody else cares.

Given he's willingly chosen to manage The (almost unmanageable) Beach Boys for close to 25 years, I'd have to say his smarts have to be questioned, however good his heart. 

Here's a little illustration about the fallibility of memory: my parents & I would have sworn black was white that we heard that Herbert Lom had died in the early 1990s (long before he really did in 2012), to the extent that, when he was introduced to present an award on some TV show after his "passing", we all chorused as one "BUT HE'S DEAD !!".

For the last near decade I was under the false impression that Wilfred Brimley was dead. Not just an assumption; I could have sworn I saw news reports of it. But the guy is still alive! I guess it made jokes about him on "Family Guy" somewhat less distasteful.