gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
680597 Posts in 27600 Topics by 4068 Members - Latest Member: Dae Lims March 28, 2024, 03:59:35 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 60233 times)
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10029



View Profile WWW
« Reply #125 on: October 24, 2014, 09:02:32 AM »

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.

Listening to the guy, he sounds like some of the people I overhear at concerts. Their perception of their knowledge of the band is about a hundred times larger than what they actually know. It's weird though, because the guy remembers Al raising horses in Big Sur and all of that. He clearly remembers which guy Al is. But the only guy in the late 70's who was anything close to being "continually fired and rehired" was Dennis.
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: 10029



View Profile WWW
« Reply #126 on: October 24, 2014, 09:12:42 AM »

Despite the "disclaimer," that preceded the thread, it is very hard to regard the interest as purely "informational"

You can question the motives for starting this thread all you want. In this case, you're wrong. It was 100% informational. There are far easier ways, and far more damning assertions to make, if one is inclined to start a thread intended to purposely reflect poorly on Mike. This was literally a case of "The books say Carl left, then Elliott Lott said this, so what could have happened?"


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.  

And? Who said otherwise? And what does this have to do with what happened in 1997? This is just a bunch of "argumentum ad passions."



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. 

You mean the blog titled specifically "Beach Boys Opinion Page?"

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.  

I see far more attacking of other posters and fans (mostly straw men) than I do any attacks on band members.

Asking "Did Mike refuse to appear on stage with Carl?" is not an attack on Mike, especially when the group's manager discussed and confirmed it.
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/
Andrew G. Doe
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 17767


The triumph of The Hickey Script !


View Profile WWW
« Reply #127 on: October 24, 2014, 09:16:39 AM »

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.

Listening to the guy, he sounds like some of the people I overhear at concerts. Their perception of their knowledge of the band is about a hundred times larger than what they actually know. It's weird though, because the guy remembers Al raising horses in Big Sur and all of that. He clearly remembers which guy Al is. But the only guy in the late 70's who was anything close to being "continually fired and rehired" was Dennis.

Possible explanation (the dope aside):

"I can't tell them apart: it's the beards." - Priscilla Presley's sister, then Brother Studios receptionist.
Logged

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

Posts: 4171


View Profile
« Reply #128 on: October 24, 2014, 09:30:17 AM »

I can believe Mike said something about not wanting Carl to tour when he was so ill. He may have even said he would not appear because of love if Carl did tour. I do not believe that he could or would prevent Carl or Al from appearing. I think you've got it backwards there with your assumption. So timeline-wise, if it happened at all, it could have happened as soon as they knew how sick Carl was in 1997 through Carl's death because Mike never missed a tour date with Carl or Al.
Logged

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

Posts: 10029



View Profile WWW
« Reply #129 on: October 24, 2014, 09:34:28 AM »

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.

Listening to the guy, he sounds like some of the people I overhear at concerts. Their perception of their knowledge of the band is about a hundred times larger than what they actually know. It's weird though, because the guy remembers Al raising horses in Big Sur and all of that. He clearly remembers which guy Al is. But the only guy in the late 70's who was anything close to being "continually fired and rehired" was Dennis.

Possible explanation (the dope aside):

"I can't tell them apart: it's the beards." - Priscilla Presley's sister, then Brother Studios receptionist.

I love that! I should add that to my signature line!

And I guess it's kinda true....



Or maybe the guy was mixing these three guys up:

« Last Edit: October 24, 2014, 09:37:06 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/
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #130 on: October 24, 2014, 10:23:50 AM »

Despite the "disclaimer," that preceded the thread, it is very hard to regard the interest as purely "informational"

You can question the motives for starting this thread all you want. In this case, you're wrong. It was 100% informational. There are far easier ways, and far more damning assertions to make, if one is inclined to start a thread intended to purposely reflect poorly on Mike. This was literally a case of "The books say Carl left, then Elliott Lott said this, so what could have happened?"


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.  

And? Who said otherwise? And what does this have to do with what happened in 1997? This is just a bunch of "argumentum ad passions."

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. 

You mean the blog titled specifically "Beach Boys Opinion Page?"

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.  

I see far more attacking of other posters and fans (mostly straw men) than I do any attacks on band members.

Asking "Did Mike refuse to appear on stage with Carl?" is not an attack on Mike, especially when the group's manager discussed and confirmed it.
It appears to be a "fishing expedition." And, about a sensitive topic to both fans, band, and band-related personnel, not only concerning  "the voice" that remains unparalleled, also a result of the lasting impression that a terminally-ill Beach Boy "put on his shoes" for as long as he was physically able, and courageously sang to his fans and appears to remain a role model to his bandmates. 

Many have come forward to write about what they saw.  It was such a profound experience that people are less likely to forget details.  (I wrote an account a day or so later so I can refer to that. ) and have a few "mediocre" photos.  I'm not strictly relying on my memory. 

Sorry, that is my impression. 
Logged
ontor pertawst
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2575


L♡VE ALWAYS WINS


View Profile WWW
« Reply #131 on: October 24, 2014, 10:28:14 AM »

You know, you don't actually have to "use" those quotes "all the time."

Logged
Jim Rockford
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 286



View Profile
« Reply #132 on: October 24, 2014, 10:30:50 AM »

Despite the "disclaimer," that preceded the thread, it is very hard to regard the interest as purely "informational"

You can question the motives for starting this thread all you want. In this case, you're wrong. It was 100% informational. There are far easier ways, and far more damning assertions to make, if one is inclined to start a thread intended to purposely reflect poorly on Mike. This was literally a case of "The books say Carl left, then Elliott Lott said this, so what could have happened?"


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.  

And? Who said otherwise? And what does this have to do with what happened in 1997? This is just a bunch of "argumentum ad passions."

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. 

You mean the blog titled specifically "Beach Boys Opinion Page?"

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.  

I see far more attacking of other posters and fans (mostly straw men) than I do any attacks on band members.

Asking "Did Mike refuse to appear on stage with Carl?" is not an attack on Mike, especially when the group's manager discussed and confirmed it.
It appears to be a "fishing expedition." And, about a sensitive topic to both fans, band, and band-related personnel, not only concerning  "the voice" that remains unparalleled, also a result of the lasting impression that a terminally-ill Beach Boy "put on his shoes" for as long as he was physically able, and courageously sang to his fans and appears to remain a role model to his bandmates. 

Many have come forward to write about what they saw.  It was such a profound experience that people are less likely to forget details.  (I wrote an account a day or so later so I can refer to that. ) and have a few "mediocre" photos.  I'm not strictly relying on my memory. 

Sorry, that is my impression. 

That's why you gotta love Carl. He marched on through the pain and he gave his best. You gotta admire that.
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #133 on: October 24, 2014, 10:32:13 AM »

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.

It doesn't seem out of bounds to think that Mike's refusal to appear with Carl, in addition to being motivated in part out of love and desire to see his cousin rest and not put himself (Carl) through more than he could take, could also have been partially motivated by a sense of opportunism, even if inadvertent. At the very least, Mike's actions possibly could have served a dual purpose since the timeline coincidentally converged with the Al Jardine-related politics of the time.  To me, it's not unquestionable to think this *may*, and I stress the word *may*, be the case. I don't think that even Mike's biggest defenders would dispute that Mike seems to be a guy who, if he sees an opportunity, he'll grab it, particularly if it means a power play situation where he can finagle a situation to get his ultimate way in the end.  

Even *if* that's the case, that doesn't mean that Mike's motivations weren't still largely done out of love.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2014, 10:48:23 AM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
Emdeeh
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2980



View Profile
« Reply #134 on: October 24, 2014, 10:34:51 AM »

I thought it was said that Carl developed a blood clot, and had to leave the tour for health/medical reasons.

That's exactly the way I heard that it happened, at the time of the event. Carl had a blood clot in his leg, which was getting increasingly painful. There's a huge risk whenever someone gets a blood clot in the leg -- it can move to the lungs and cause fatigue and worse. The docs decided that the clot needed to be removed immediately and that's why Carl left the tour.

I have friends who went through clot experiences. In both cases, they didn't have to have surgery, but had to be hospitalized for at least a week and stay out of work for a while beyond that to recover. In Carl's case, he had other health issues in play to compound the time he needed to recover from the surgery.

I deeply appreciate what Carl did, going on tour that last time and reaching out to the fans the way he did. I was one of the fans he sang a verse of GOK to personally (looking straight into my eyes and pointing at me from the stage) at the Raleigh show, and I'll never forget that.

Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #135 on: October 24, 2014, 10:40:18 AM »

You know, you don't actually have to "use" those quotes "all the time."
Yes, I might have used italics as a substitute. It is aggravating on an iPad. Plenty of posters write very poorly but their ideas are always welcome.  This isn't a grammar class.

However, quotes may be used for terms used in a special way.

Examples.  

It's an oil-extraction method known as "fracking."

He did some "experimenting" in his college days.

I had a visit from my "friend" the tax man.

From grammarbook.com

The lack of quotes is a prime reason that students are cited for plagiarism. Attribution of work.

« Last Edit: October 24, 2014, 10:42:12 AM by filledeplage » Logged
Jim V.
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 3038



View Profile
« Reply #136 on: October 24, 2014, 10:56:55 AM »

You know, you don't actually have to "use" those quotes "all the time."
Yes, I might have used italics as a substitute. It is aggravating on an iPad. Plenty of posters write very poorly but their ideas are always welcome.  This isn't a grammar class.

However, quotes may be used for terms used in a special way.

Examples.  

It's an oil-extraction method known as "fracking."

He did some "experimenting" in his college days.

I had a visit from my "friend" the tax man.

From grammarbook.com

The lack of quotes is a prime reason that students are cited for plagiarism. Attribution of work.



I never have a fuckin' clue what filledpage is ever talking about. It's always very, very, very loosely tangentially related to the topic at hand. I don't get it.
Logged
LostArt
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 914



View Profile
« Reply #137 on: October 24, 2014, 11:04:48 AM »

I thought it was said that Carl developed a blood clot, and had to leave the tour for health/medical reasons.

That's exactly the way I heard that it happened, at the time of the event. Carl had a blood clot in his leg, which was getting increasingly painful. There's a huge risk whenever someone gets a blood clot in the leg -- it can move to the lungs and cause fatigue and worse. The docs decided that the clot needed to be removed immediately and that's why Carl left the tour.

I have friends who went through clot experiences. In both cases, they didn't have to have surgery, but had to be hospitalized for at least a week and stay out of work for a while beyond that to recover. In Carl's case, he had other health issues in play to compound the time he needed to recover from the surgery.

I went through that myself.  I had clots in both lungs, and it got so bad I could not walk from my living room to the bathroom (about 30 feet) without gasping for air.  Had about a four day hospital stay, and was out of work for a couple of weeks.  They told me that if I'd have waited much longer to go to the hospital, I might not have made it.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2014, 11:10:14 AM by LostArt » Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #138 on: October 24, 2014, 11:09:20 AM »

You know, you don't actually have to "use" those quotes "all the time."
Yes, I might have used italics as a substitute. It is aggravating on an iPad. Plenty of posters write very poorly but their ideas are always welcome.  This isn't a grammar class.

However, quotes may be used for terms used in a special way.

Examples.  

It's an oil-extraction method known as "fracking."

He did some "experimenting" in his college days.

I had a visit from my "friend" the tax man.

From grammarbook.com

The lack of quotes is a prime reason that students are cited for plagiarism. Attribution of work.


I never have a fuckin' clue what filledpage is ever talking about. It's always very, very, very loosely tangentially related to the topic at hand. I don't get it.
No clue?

Getting called out on quotes is lame, in my view, and a distractor.  I've never called out anyone on spelling or grammar.  And I think the rules of the road (quotes omitted) on this board, call for respect to each other.  

The issue in this thread concerns info on the 97 tour.  
« Last Edit: October 24, 2014, 11:10:34 AM by filledeplage » Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10029



View Profile WWW
« Reply #139 on: October 24, 2014, 11:12:51 AM »

I thought it was said that Carl developed a blood clot, and had to leave the tour for health/medical reasons.

That's exactly the way I heard that it happened, at the time of the event. Carl had a blood clot in his leg, which was getting increasingly painful. There's a huge risk whenever someone gets a blood clot in the leg -- it can move to the lungs and cause fatigue and worse. The docs decided that the clot needed to be removed immediately and that's why Carl left the tour.

I have friends who went through clot experiences. In both cases, they didn't have to have surgery, but had to be hospitalized for at least a week and stay out of work for a while beyond that to recover. In Carl's case, he had other health issues in play to compound the time he needed to recover from the surgery.

I deeply appreciate what Carl did, going on tour that last time and reaching out to the fans the way he did. I was one of the fans he sang a verse of GOK to personally (looking straight into my eyes and pointing at me from the stage) at the Raleigh show, and I'll never forget that.



And this is the type of info I was hoping I could elicit; anecdotal info and remembrances from fans who remember that time period. Thank you! It's obviously not happy information at all, but this is the sort of stuff I hoped folks could add.

In this case it may even raise more questions than it answers, but that sort of info is welcomed.
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: 10029



View Profile WWW
« Reply #140 on: October 24, 2014, 11:19:07 AM »


It appears to be a "fishing expedition." And, about a sensitive topic to both fans, band, and band-related personnel, not only concerning  "the voice" that remains unparalleled, also a result of the lasting impression that a terminally-ill Beach Boy "put on his shoes" for as long as he was physically able, and courageously sang to his fans and appears to remain a role model to his bandmates. 

Many have come forward to write about what they saw.  It was such a profound experience that people are less likely to forget details.  (I wrote an account a day or so later so I can refer to that. ) and have a few "mediocre" photos.  I'm not strictly relying on my memory. 

Sorry, that is my impression. 

It's not a fishing expedition, unless we can call it fishing for more information about that time period. What else would I be fishing for? You continue to imply some nefarious motive for my post, and it's frankly becoming insulting and rude.

I appreciate the anecdotes about Carl on tour. They don't really relate specifically to the questions I was raising in my original post. Thus, your continued invoking of how brave Carl was on tour and how great the band was towards him has falsely and rudely implied I or others have suggested anything to the contrary. You keep producing evidence as if anybody has said anything to the contrary.
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/
Andrew G. Doe
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 17767


The triumph of The Hickey Script !


View Profile WWW
« Reply #141 on: October 24, 2014, 11:19:53 AM »

You know, you don't actually have to "use" those quotes "all the time."
Yes, I might have used italics as a substitute.

Or - and this is a "radical notion", but one that I feel has "merit" - you might just "stop doing it". It comes across as "extremely condescending". This is a "Beach Boys" forum, not a "grammar class" as you rightly state. We've "had" this "conversation" before.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2014, 11:21:32 AM by The Legendary AGD » Logged

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

Posts: 10029



View Profile WWW
« Reply #142 on: October 24, 2014, 11:23:03 AM »

It doesn't seem out of bounds to think that Mike's refusal to appear with Carl, in addition to being motivated in part out of love and desire to see his cousin rest and not put himself (Carl) through more than he could take, could also have been partially motivated by a sense of opportunism, even if inadvertent. At the very least, Mike's actions possibly could have served a dual purpose since the timeline coincidentally converged with the Al Jardine-related politics of the time.  To me, it's not unquestionable to think this *may*, and I stress the word *may*, be the case. I don't think that even Mike's biggest defenders would dispute that Mike seems to be a guy who, if he sees an opportunity, he'll grab it, particularly if it means a power play situation where he can finagle a situation to get his ultimate way in the end.  

Even *if* that's the case, that doesn't mean that Mike's motivations weren't still largely done out of love.

Stop it, you're making too much sense and being too logical and civil about it.  Grin

That's one of the reasons I'm bummed about the trajectory of this thread. I went out of my way to not even say something like what is mentioned above, which is very plausible and simply stated. I tried to make it even more hands-off than that. Here's a fact: Elliott Lott said X. What does this mean?

The answer to that question is apparently "Carl was brave on the tour and sang great", with an implication that I or anybody said otherwise.
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 #143 on: October 24, 2014, 11:35:54 AM »


It appears to be a "fishing expedition." And, about a sensitive topic to both fans, band, and band-related personnel, not only concerning  "the voice" that remains unparalleled, also a result of the lasting impression that a terminally-ill Beach Boy "put on his shoes" for as long as he was physically able, and courageously sang to his fans and appears to remain a role model to his bandmates. 

Many have come forward to write about what they saw.  It was such a profound experience that people are less likely to forget details.  (I wrote an account a day or so later so I can refer to that. ) and have a few "mediocre" photos.  I'm not strictly relying on my memory. 

Sorry, that is my impression. 

It's not a fishing expedition, unless we can call it fishing for more information about that time period. What else would I be fishing for? You continue to imply some nefarious motive for my post, and it's frankly becoming insulting and rude.

I appreciate the anecdotes about Carl on tour. They don't really relate specifically to the questions I was raising in my original post. Thus, your continued invoking of how brave Carl was on tour and how great the band was towards him has falsely and rudely implied I or others have suggested anything to the contrary. You keep producing evidence as if anybody has said anything to the contrary.

If that is what you wanted, then that was brought up in the 2nd post, page one. We wasted 5 pages when it was there all along. Just kidding. Wink
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
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #144 on: October 24, 2014, 11:40:24 AM »

You know, you don't actually have to "use" those quotes "all the time."
Yes, I might have used italics as a substitute.

Or - and this is a "radical notion", but one that I feel has "merit" - you might just "stop doing it". It comes across as "extremely condescending". This is a "Beach Boys" forum, not a "grammar class" as you rightly state. We've "had" this "conversation" before.

Yes, Andrew, it isn't a grammar class, but a place for idea and info exchange in a respectful manner.  But, under any number of pretexts, it has often become a bashing forum. JMO

Logged
southbay
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Gender: Male
Posts: 1482



View Profile
« Reply #145 on: October 24, 2014, 11:49:26 AM »

It doesn't seem out of bounds to think that Mike's refusal to appear with Carl, in addition to being motivated in part out of love and desire to see his cousin rest and not put himself (Carl) through more than he could take, could also have been partially motivated by a sense of opportunism, even if inadvertent. At the very least, Mike's actions possibly could have served a dual purpose since the timeline coincidentally converged with the Al Jardine-related politics of the time.  To me, it's not unquestionable to think this *may*, and I stress the word *may*, be the case. I don't think that even Mike's biggest defenders would dispute that Mike seems to be a guy who, if he sees an opportunity, he'll grab it, particularly if it means a power play situation where he can finagle a situation to get his ultimate way in the end.  

Even *if* that's the case, that doesn't mean that Mike's motivations weren't still largely done out of love.

Stop it, you're making too much sense and being too logical and civil about it.  Grin

That's one of the reasons I'm bummed about the trajectory of this thread. I went out of my way to not even say something like what is mentioned above, which is very plausible and simply stated. I tried to make it even more hands-off than that. Here's a fact: Elliott Lott said X. What does this mean?

The answer to that question is apparently "Carl was brave on the tour and sang great", with an implication that I or anybody said otherwise.


My account was intended to respond to your question with first hand knowledge in response to Elliott Lott's quote.  I was able to see what Carl's condition was, albeit briefly, as late as August 3, 1997. In direct response to Lott's quote--yes, he was wearing a wig.  No, he was not using oxygen and there was no sign of oxygen on stage, on their tour bus or anywhere in the backstage area.  My intention in describing his performance was not to cast Carl as being brave, but rather (again in response to your original post) show that at least to the paying public he was the opposite of an embarrassment to the band.
Logged

Summer's gone...it's finally sinking in
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10029



View Profile WWW
« Reply #146 on: October 24, 2014, 11:57:37 AM »

It doesn't seem out of bounds to think that Mike's refusal to appear with Carl, in addition to being motivated in part out of love and desire to see his cousin rest and not put himself (Carl) through more than he could take, could also have been partially motivated by a sense of opportunism, even if inadvertent. At the very least, Mike's actions possibly could have served a dual purpose since the timeline coincidentally converged with the Al Jardine-related politics of the time.  To me, it's not unquestionable to think this *may*, and I stress the word *may*, be the case. I don't think that even Mike's biggest defenders would dispute that Mike seems to be a guy who, if he sees an opportunity, he'll grab it, particularly if it means a power play situation where he can finagle a situation to get his ultimate way in the end.  

Even *if* that's the case, that doesn't mean that Mike's motivations weren't still largely done out of love.

Stop it, you're making too much sense and being too logical and civil about it.  Grin

That's one of the reasons I'm bummed about the trajectory of this thread. I went out of my way to not even say something like what is mentioned above, which is very plausible and simply stated. I tried to make it even more hands-off than that. Here's a fact: Elliott Lott said X. What does this mean?

The answer to that question is apparently "Carl was brave on the tour and sang great", with an implication that I or anybody said otherwise.


My account was intended to respond to your question with first hand knowledge in response to Elliott Lott's quote.  I was able to see what Carl's condition was, albeit briefly, as late as August 3, 1997. In direct response to Lott's quote--yes, he was wearing a wig.  No, he was not using oxygen and there was no sign of oxygen on stage, on their tour bus or anywhere in the backstage area.  My intention in describing his performance was not to cast Carl as being brave, but rather (again in response to your original post) show that at least to the paying public he was the opposite of an embarrassment to the band.

Yes, I should clarify that anecdotes about the tour such as yours do help. I appreciate those. The anecdotes that simply report what someone saw on that tour, and how what they saw might contradict Lott's comments, are helpful.

I was speaking more to those (one really) who are implying that I or others have swept in with the accusation that Mike coldly kicked Carl to the curb during the 1997 tour. Not only is it a case of shooting the messenger (I didn't say it, Lott did), but it also ignores that my original post calls into question how much sense Lott's comments make. Not only is his comment demonstrably false in terms of the reference to oxygen (or, one could argue, his statement isn't so much false but overgeneralized), but the timeline of Mike not wanting to appear on stage with Carl doesn't necessarily mesh with the other stories of Carl needing/choosing to take time off.
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 #147 on: October 24, 2014, 12:03:16 PM »

Is any of this relevant?

"He died last year on February 6th," he said. "What was scary is my Jackie is a registered surgical nurse especially pulmonary stuff. And I remember on December 7th the year before last that Carl had to go back to the hospital because they couldn’t stop the bleeding down into his lungs and chest from all the radiation. And Jackie told me that that’s not a good sign at all and she gave him two months. That was December 7th, I remember because it was Pearl Harbor Day and on February 6th, two months later almost exactly, he passed away.

I mean we’re all subject to anything but hey he fought it as best he could. We were in Atlantic City at the Resorts a year ago last August when he developed a blood clot and had to go. That was his last show. Right up until then he just focused on trying to surmount the problem but it just spread too far and it was a real shock. Believe me, it’s been an adjustment."

Mike Love 2/5/1999


How dates did Carl do in 1997? Is it possible he only ever intended to do the Summer shows?


"Even though he was diagnosed with cancer last year and going through treatment for a year, he was a real fighter," said publicist Alyson Dutch. "He participated in the (group's) entire summer tour this year."

Beach Boy Carl Wilson dead at 51
CNN February 7, 1998
Logged

"Bring me the head of Carmen Sandiego" Lynne "The Chief" Thigpen
Pretty Funky
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 5855


View Profile
« Reply #148 on: October 24, 2014, 12:06:45 PM »

I recall the sad days of 97/98 and see similarities with the end of the C50.

'Mike Love Refuses To Tour With Carl Wilson' and 'Mike Love Fires Brian Wilson' make better press than what may actually have gone down.
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10029



View Profile WWW
« Reply #149 on: October 24, 2014, 12:12:53 PM »

I recall the sad days of 97/98 and see similarities with the end of the C50.

'Mike Love Refuses To Tour With Carl Wilson' and 'Mike Love Fires Brian Wilson' make better press than what may actually have gone down.

The excerpts Cam reprinted above are relevant, and seem to go along with the idea that has been usually put around, which is that Carl's health forced him to take time off.

But Elliott Lott isn't a member of the ignorant press. He's the band's manager. Maybe this is more about Lott than the Beach Boys, I don't know. I just find it beyond odd that their manager wouldn't say "that's ridiculous; Mike always wanted Carl there, and then Carl needed to take some time off" or something like that, rather than confirming Mike refused to appear on stage. Lott may or may not be an awesome manager, I don't know. Considering how much we talk about this band, we seem to know relatively little about the guy. But I don't find it particularly plausible that he was just utterly wrong in his comment to the press. I think it's likely that it's rooted in something, some incident or discussion.

Could Carl have taken time off, and then wanted to come back, but at that stage Mike felt it was inappropriate? There doesn't seem to be much of a time frame available for even that to have taken place. The Stebbins/Marks book relates Carl hearing of David's return to the band in October, and nothing is mentioned in terms of Carl having any desire or interest or even focusing much attention on the touring band, as he was busy with his health and his mother's health.
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 0.602 seconds with 22 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!