Mike and Bruce Tour 2015

[SMiLE Brian]

Isn't it time to pretend BW and Al are here.

[drbeachboy]

Isn't it time to pretend BW and Al aren't here.

No need to pretend, they won't be.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Isn't it time was a great song, although I prefer the album version to the single.

Wait...what?  

[bgas]

It's About Time is a great song....

[Mayoman]

Here's Fire Brigade from last night: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MsTaXcsX5U

and here's Let Him Run Wild: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=900znyESspc

[CenturyDeprived]

Sheriff, It wasn't a personal attack upon anyone, other than a blunt assessment. A music review. And we all know that all of them are subjective.

Those four clips kind of summed up the paradox to me. Even on one of Brian's most difficult nights, I've never seen his touring band less than nail nuanced, fully textured tracks, such as anything from Pet Sounds. When you've got a truncated set-up such as Mike's solo band -   - I mean BEACH BOYS band, there are fewer moving parts. So what do you think is going to happen when they try to weave a tapestry such as All I Wanna Do? A-for-effort, but the result (that night) was subpar. Kinda like a bar band. It was. That and the fact that Mike's voice has taken a beating these past few years what with all the dates.

BUT...Farmers Daughter and Cottonfields fit the bill, and the touring ensemble fit into those like a well worn set of Hush Puppies. They fit nicely.

I give props to Mike's band for learning these newly-played classic songs, and I think their hearts are in the right place, though I wonder if it's a sense of competition above all else that's motivating Mike to play these songs. Better late than never I guess. Not intended whatsoever as a diss to any musician, but I do doubt that any member of the band would in their heart of hearts dispute that the songs would probably sound better with a greater quantity of musicians onstage, on par with C50, but I am quite glad they are being played, and I give props to Mike for playing them too.

What bugs me is the Kokomaoists who think it's perfectly fine (and not in any way in poor taste or inappropriate for Mike to continually point out) when Mike does interviews for Mike to bring up Brian having issues and not performing at his otherwise optimal level due to excessive substance abuse decades earlier, but somehow the same Kokomaoists will find it offensive for someone on this board to suggest that Mike may not be singing at his own otherwise optimal level and perhaps would have a stronger voice if it was conserved more by less excessive touring, right? I'm just curious how any Kokomaoist on this board could not call this a hypocritical stance.

These are the things that ultimately piss off fans, and increase divisions. It's a no-brainer that since none of those types of things were said by Mike in interviews during C50, that they are being said now out of some bitter agenda; it ain't a coincidence, folks. If more Kokomaoists stopped being blind yes-men to defending this type of interview stuff, and less (how about zero?) fans openly defended these interviews, perhaps we'd hear less of this type of needless sh*t-stirring in interviews, and then we'd have world peace.

I agree with most of the above and it was the sense that Surf's Up and Til I Die were being done for competitive reasons that I found irritating - though if that is not the case then I'm happy to apologise. 

That's infantile thinking. And you are repeating a pattern here: spilling the garbage, waiting for somebody to prove you wrong, and then trying a mild apology. You have no idea, and yet you pass conjecture as fact and leave it to others to prove you wrong.

The "competitive reasons" is a projection of your own feelings (i.e. how you think Mike might act) and is ultimately pointless as long as the quality is good (and that's the issue to be discussed, I think).

BTW, lots of great things in BB history have been done for competitive reasons, and there's nothing wrong with it. I don't want to come after you every time, but you do yourself no favor.

The inclusion of SU on the setlist irritates you who knows for what reason, and you are coming up with faux arguments to battle against it.

Various things being done throughout history of this band for competitive reasons, such as making music to compete with the Beatles, is different from when a bandmate is trying to outdo another one.  I'm all for upping the quality all around, but a certain point the dysfunctional undertones begin to leave a bit of a bitter taste in one's mouth. Yeah, it's easy to say that this is just projection, but I think it's obvious that this is probably not far from the truth.  I will also say that I'm still glad that these rare songs are being played, regardless of motivation.

[Cam Mott]

So Mike can't just find it emotionally satisfying as he said, motives must be invented out of thin air and then Mike must be accountable to these imaginary motives?  Anybody have anything like evidence for any of these refusal and/or competitive conspiracy theories?

[CenturyDeprived]

So Mike can't just find it emotionally satisfying as he said, motives must be invented out of thin air and then Mike must be accountable to these imaginary motives?  Anybody have anything like evidence for any of these refusal and/or competitive conspiracy theories?

One can still find a level of emotional satisfaction in playing said songs, but a big factor behind playing them can also still be a sense of competition, ya know. The two aren't mutually exclusive. If Brian was not currently touring, nor was L&M coming out, nor was Brian's book coming out, I'm not so sure that these songs would have been played, nor would I imagine that Mike would be much motivated to write a book out of the blue either.

[Cam Mott]

So Mike can't just find it emotionally satisfying as he said, motives must be invented out of thin air and then Mike must be accountable to these imaginary motives?  Anybody have anything like evidence for any of these refusal and/or competitive conspiracy theories?

One can still find a level of emotional satisfaction in playing said songs, but a big factor behind playing them can also still be a sense of competition, ya know. The two aren't mutually exclusive. If Brian was not currently touring, nor was L&M coming out, nor was Brian's book coming out, I'm not so sure that these songs would have been played, nor would I imagine that Mike would be much motivated to write a book out of the blue either.

In other words "no", you don't have.

[bgas]

So Mike can't just find it emotionally satisfying as he said, motives must be invented out of thin air and then Mike must be accountable to these imaginary motives?  Anybody have anything like evidence for any of these refusal and/or competitive conspiracy theories?

One can still find a level of emotional satisfaction in playing said songs, but a big factor behind playing them can also still be a sense of competition, ya know. The two aren't mutually exclusive. If Brian was not currently touring, nor was L&M coming out, nor was Brian's book coming out, I'm not so sure that these songs would have been played, nor would I imagine that Mike would be much motivated to write a book out of the blue either.

In other words "no", you don't have.

Thinking the only way to get hard evidence is to tie Mike down and, using truth serum, get the real story as to why he's now adding these songs to the setlist. Might be easier to get him to participate if there is a fellator involved

[CenturyDeprived]

So Mike can't just find it emotionally satisfying as he said, motives must be invented out of thin air and then Mike must be accountable to these imaginary motives?  Anybody have anything like evidence for any of these refusal and/or competitive conspiracy theories?

One can still find a level of emotional satisfaction in playing said songs, but a big factor behind playing them can also still be a sense of competition, ya know. The two aren't mutually exclusive. If Brian was not currently touring, nor was L&M coming out, nor was Brian's book coming out, I'm not so sure that these songs would have been played, nor would I imagine that Mike would be much motivated to write a book out of the blue either.

In other words "no", you don't have.

Thinking the only way to get hard evidence is to tie Mike down and, using truth serum, get the real story as to why he's now adding these songs to the setlist. Might be easier to get him to participate if there is a fellator involved

 

[STE]

Great show tonight at the RAH in London!
58 songs played.  Brass and percussion ensemble.  
Scott on fire.

[CenturyDeprived]

So Mike can't just find it emotionally satisfying as he said, motives must be invented out of thin air and then Mike must be accountable to these imaginary motives?  Anybody have anything like evidence for any of these refusal and/or competitive conspiracy theories?

One can still find a level of emotional satisfaction in playing said songs, but a big factor behind playing them can also still be a sense of competition, ya know. The two aren't mutually exclusive. If Brian was not currently touring, nor was L&M coming out, nor was Brian's book coming out, I'm not so sure that these songs would have been played, nor would I imagine that Mike would be much motivated to write a book out of the blue either.

In other words "no", you don't have.

Well, it's called a history of actions that point in that direction. Do we have "anything like evidence", as you like to say, that Dennis did certain things at least in part out of lashing out at/making a statement to Mike, or do we just use an educated guess based on what seems quite plainly obvious?

Are you of the opinion of believing that Mike does not ever do any actions out of trying to specifically compete with Brian, and that Dennis never did things as an act of intentionally pissing off Mike? I bring Dennis into the equation only to prove a point that some things are plain as day with these guys.

I'm sure you won't directly admit what you know inside to be true, which is that obviously the answer is that yes, in both cases there are surely a number of incidents which those types of motivating factors which I listed above have surely sometimes been part of the equation. I do not know why there is some great fear in admitting such. Do you deny such? Or feel free to duck the question, as I'm sure you'll do, based on your own history of actually answering questions posed to you.

[The Shift]

Great show tonight at the RAH in London!
58 songs played.  Brass and percussion ensemble. 
Scott on fire.

Seconded. A superb night. But no point posting here about it… the noise of arguments has deafened former fans to the sound of the music.

Just wondered who it was suggested the album TWGMTR was being ignored, or that this band was in denial about it.

[drbeachboy]

So Mike can't just find it emotionally satisfying as he said, motives must be invented out of thin air and then Mike must be accountable to these imaginary motives?  Anybody have anything like evidence for any of these refusal and/or competitive conspiracy theories?

One can still find a level of emotional satisfaction in playing said songs, but a big factor behind playing them can also still be a sense of competition, ya know. The two aren't mutually exclusive. If Brian was not currently touring, nor was L&M coming out, nor was Brian's book coming out, I'm not so sure that these songs would have been played, nor would I imagine that Mike would be much motivated to write a book out of the blue either.

In other words "no", you don't have.

Well, it's called a history of actions that point in that direction. Do we have "anything like evidence", as you like to say, that Dennis did certain things at least in part out of lashing out at/making a statement to Mike, or do we just use an educated guess based on what seems quite plainly obvious?

Are you of the opinion of believing that Mike does not ever do any actions out of trying to specifically compete with Brian, and that Dennis never did things as an act of intentionally pissing off Mike? I bring Dennis into the equation only to prove a point that some things are plain as day with these guys.

I'm sure you won't directly admit what you know inside to be true, which is that obviously the answer is that yes, in both cases there are surely a number of incidents which those types of motivating factors which I listed above have surely sometimes been part of the equation. I do not know why there is some great fear in admitting such. Do you deny such? Or feel free to duck the question, as I'm sure you'll do (speaking of peoples' histories of actions).

You're kind of pushing the envelope there just a bit. How do you equate what you just wrote there with choosing new songs to play in a set list? Grasping at straws now to try and make your point?

[CenturyDeprived]

Great show tonight at the RAH in London!
58 songs played.  Brass and percussion ensemble. 
Scott on fire.

Seconded. A superb night. But no point posting here about it… the noise of arguments has deafened former fans to the sound of the music.

Just wondered who it was suggested the album TWGMTR was being ignored, or that this band was in denial about it.

Well, Mike could also take the opportunity to redo the Summer's Gone lyrics with his positive spin for a 2015 live version, because the album version is such a negative bummer 

[CenturyDeprived]

So Mike can't just find it emotionally satisfying as he said, motives must be invented out of thin air and then Mike must be accountable to these imaginary motives?  Anybody have anything like evidence for any of these refusal and/or competitive conspiracy theories?

One can still find a level of emotional satisfaction in playing said songs, but a big factor behind playing them can also still be a sense of competition, ya know. The two aren't mutually exclusive. If Brian was not currently touring, nor was L&M coming out, nor was Brian's book coming out, I'm not so sure that these songs would have been played, nor would I imagine that Mike would be much motivated to write a book out of the blue either.

In other words "no", you don't have.

Well, it's called a history of actions that point in that direction. Do we have "anything like evidence", as you like to say, that Dennis did certain things at least in part out of lashing out at/making a statement to Mike, or do we just use an educated guess based on what seems quite plainly obvious?

Are you of the opinion of believing that Mike does not ever do any actions out of trying to specifically compete with Brian, and that Dennis never did things as an act of intentionally pissing off Mike? I bring Dennis into the equation only to prove a point that some things are plain as day with these guys.

I'm sure you won't directly admit what you know inside to be true, which is that obviously the answer is that yes, in both cases there are surely a number of incidents which those types of motivating factors which I listed above have surely sometimes been part of the equation. I do not know why there is some great fear in admitting such. Do you deny such? Or feel free to duck the question, as I'm sure you'll do (speaking of peoples' histories of actions).

You're kind of pushing the envelope there just a bit. How do you equate what you just wrote there with choosing new songs to play in a set list? Grasping at straws now to try and make your point?

My only point is that while there's no way we can "prove" motivations, it's preposterous to suggest that it's suuuuch as stretch as Cam would like to think it is. I'm trying to get him to back down from his extreme stonewalling of logic viewpoint, yet his extremism will continue to go unquestioned by Kokomaoists, even those who probably know that his viewpoint is too one-sided.

Still, what I'm getting at is that it doesn't mean that Mike's probable motivation is some horrible, awful thing, but that IMO it's somewhat unfortunate that it probably took Brian's high profile projects to get Mike to up his game a bit. Still glad that he is trying though.

[drbeachboy]

So Mike can't just find it emotionally satisfying as he said, motives must be invented out of thin air and then Mike must be accountable to these imaginary motives?  Anybody have anything like evidence for any of these refusal and/or competitive conspiracy theories?

One can still find a level of emotional satisfaction in playing said songs, but a big factor behind playing them can also still be a sense of competition, ya know. The two aren't mutually exclusive. If Brian was not currently touring, nor was L&M coming out, nor was Brian's book coming out, I'm not so sure that these songs would have been played, nor would I imagine that Mike would be much motivated to write a book out of the blue either.

In other words "no", you don't have.

Well, it's called a history of actions that point in that direction. Do we have "anything like evidence", as you like to say, that Dennis did certain things at least in part out of lashing out at/making a statement to Mike, or do we just use an educated guess based on what seems quite plainly obvious?

Are you of the opinion of believing that Mike does not ever do any actions out of trying to specifically compete with Brian, and that Dennis never did things as an act of intentionally pissing off Mike? I bring Dennis into the equation only to prove a point that some things are plain as day with these guys.

I'm sure you won't directly admit what you know inside to be true, which is that obviously the answer is that yes, in both cases there are surely a number of incidents which those types of motivating factors which I listed above have surely sometimes been part of the equation. I do not know why there is some great fear in admitting such. Do you deny such? Or feel free to duck the question, as I'm sure you'll do (speaking of peoples' histories of actions).

You're kind of pushing the envelope there just a bit. How do you equate what you just wrote there with choosing new songs to play in a set list? Grasping at straws now to try and make your point?

My only point is that while there's no way we can "prove" motivations, it's preposterous to suggest that it's suuuuch as stretch as Cam would like to think it is.

And no way to prove it just wasn't Scott suggesting they try some new material. This is truly the making of a mountain out of a mole hill. Can we please drop this sh*t now, so we can hear from our fellow members who are attending the shows that this topic was intended for. It would be most appreciated. Thanks!

[CenturyDeprived]

So Mike can't just find it emotionally satisfying as he said, motives must be invented out of thin air and then Mike must be accountable to these imaginary motives?  Anybody have anything like evidence for any of these refusal and/or competitive conspiracy theories?

One can still find a level of emotional satisfaction in playing said songs, but a big factor behind playing them can also still be a sense of competition, ya know. The two aren't mutually exclusive. If Brian was not currently touring, nor was L&M coming out, nor was Brian's book coming out, I'm not so sure that these songs would have been played, nor would I imagine that Mike would be much motivated to write a book out of the blue either.

In other words "no", you don't have.

Well, it's called a history of actions that point in that direction. Do we have "anything like evidence", as you like to say, that Dennis did certain things at least in part out of lashing out at/making a statement to Mike, or do we just use an educated guess based on what seems quite plainly obvious?

Are you of the opinion of believing that Mike does not ever do any actions out of trying to specifically compete with Brian, and that Dennis never did things as an act of intentionally pissing off Mike? I bring Dennis into the equation only to prove a point that some things are plain as day with these guys.

I'm sure you won't directly admit what you know inside to be true, which is that obviously the answer is that yes, in both cases there are surely a number of incidents which those types of motivating factors which I listed above have surely sometimes been part of the equation. I do not know why there is some great fear in admitting such. Do you deny such? Or feel free to duck the question, as I'm sure you'll do (speaking of peoples' histories of actions).

You're kind of pushing the envelope there just a bit. How do you equate what you just wrote there with choosing new songs to play in a set list? Grasping at straws now to try and make your point?

My only point is that while there's no way we can "prove" motivations, it's preposterous to suggest that it's suuuuch as stretch as Cam would like to think it is.

And no way to prove it just wasn't Scott suggesting they try some new material. This is truly the making of a mountain out of a mole hill. Can we please drop this sh*t now, so we can hear from our fellow members who are attending the shows that this topic was intended for. It would be most appreciated. Thanks!

Not sure why having a discussion is "sh*t". I'm just expressing my opinion, and I'm also saying that I'm still nonetheless quite glad that Mike is doing these songs to begin with. The true definition of "sh*t" is extremism (on either side), which when it's pro-Mike is never remotely questioned by Kokomaoists.

[SMiLE Brian]

Exactly CD. It's like 1984 for kokomaoists and Mike.

[drbeachboy]

So Mike can't just find it emotionally satisfying as he said, motives must be invented out of thin air and then Mike must be accountable to these imaginary motives?  Anybody have anything like evidence for any of these refusal and/or competitive conspiracy theories?

One can still find a level of emotional satisfaction in playing said songs, but a big factor behind playing them can also still be a sense of competition, ya know. The two aren't mutually exclusive. If Brian was not currently touring, nor was L&M coming out, nor was Brian's book coming out, I'm not so sure that these songs would have been played, nor would I imagine that Mike would be much motivated to write a book out of the blue either.

In other words "no", you don't have.

Well, it's called a history of actions that point in that direction. Do we have "anything like evidence", as you like to say, that Dennis did certain things at least in part out of lashing out at/making a statement to Mike, or do we just use an educated guess based on what seems quite plainly obvious?

Are you of the opinion of believing that Mike does not ever do any actions out of trying to specifically compete with Brian, and that Dennis never did things as an act of intentionally pissing off Mike? I bring Dennis into the equation only to prove a point that some things are plain as day with these guys.

I'm sure you won't directly admit what you know inside to be true, which is that obviously the answer is that yes, in both cases there are surely a number of incidents which those types of motivating factors which I listed above have surely sometimes been part of the equation. I do not know why there is some great fear in admitting such. Do you deny such? Or feel free to duck the question, as I'm sure you'll do (speaking of peoples' histories of actions).

You're kind of pushing the envelope there just a bit. How do you equate what you just wrote there with choosing new songs to play in a set list? Grasping at straws now to try and make your point?

My only point is that while there's no way we can "prove" motivations, it's preposterous to suggest that it's suuuuch as stretch as Cam would like to think it is.

And no way to prove it just wasn't Scott suggesting they try some new material. This is truly the making of a mountain out of a mole hill. Can we please drop this sh*t now, so we can hear from our fellow members who are attending the shows that this topic was intended for. It would be most appreciated. Thanks!

Not sure why having a discussion is "sh*t". I'm just expressing my opinion, and I'm also saying that I'm still nonetheless quite glad that Mike is doing these songs to begin with. The true definition of "sh*t" is extremism (on either side), which when it's pro-Mike is never remotely questioned by Kokomaoists.

Knock off the Kokomoaist bullshit. I'm a Beach Boys fan, plain & simple! I'm sick & tired of having the handful of you Mike haters hijacking every freakin' thread on this mother freakin' Board. Enough already!

[CenturyDeprived]

So Mike can't just find it emotionally satisfying as he said, motives must be invented out of thin air and then Mike must be accountable to these imaginary motives?  Anybody have anything like evidence for any of these refusal and/or competitive conspiracy theories?

One can still find a level of emotional satisfaction in playing said songs, but a big factor behind playing them can also still be a sense of competition, ya know. The two aren't mutually exclusive. If Brian was not currently touring, nor was L&M coming out, nor was Brian's book coming out, I'm not so sure that these songs would have been played, nor would I imagine that Mike would be much motivated to write a book out of the blue either.

In other words "no", you don't have.

Well, it's called a history of actions that point in that direction. Do we have "anything like evidence", as you like to say, that Dennis did certain things at least in part out of lashing out at/making a statement to Mike, or do we just use an educated guess based on what seems quite plainly obvious?

Are you of the opinion of believing that Mike does not ever do any actions out of trying to specifically compete with Brian, and that Dennis never did things as an act of intentionally pissing off Mike? I bring Dennis into the equation only to prove a point that some things are plain as day with these guys.

I'm sure you won't directly admit what you know inside to be true, which is that obviously the answer is that yes, in both cases there are surely a number of incidents which those types of motivating factors which I listed above have surely sometimes been part of the equation. I do not know why there is some great fear in admitting such. Do you deny such? Or feel free to duck the question, as I'm sure you'll do (speaking of peoples' histories of actions).

You're kind of pushing the envelope there just a bit. How do you equate what you just wrote there with choosing new songs to play in a set list? Grasping at straws now to try and make your point?

My only point is that while there's no way we can "prove" motivations, it's preposterous to suggest that it's suuuuch as stretch as Cam would like to think it is.

And no way to prove it just wasn't Scott suggesting they try some new material. This is truly the making of a mountain out of a mole hill. Can we please drop this sh*t now, so we can hear from our fellow members who are attending the shows that this topic was intended for. It would be most appreciated. Thanks!

Not sure why having a discussion is "sh*t". I'm just expressing my opinion, and I'm also saying that I'm still nonetheless quite glad that Mike is doing these songs to begin with. The true definition of "sh*t" is extremism (on either side), which when it's pro-Mike is never remotely questioned by Kokomaoists.

Knock off the Kokomoaist bullshit. I'm a Beach Boys fan, plain & simple! I'm sick & tired of having the handful of you Mike haters hijacking every freakin' thread on this mother freakin' Board. Enough already!

I ain't a Mike hater, man. I have some issues with him, yes, though these songs regardless of motivation are a step in a good direction. The Kokomaoist thing is not imagined; even a number of people who defend Mike most fervently have vaguely admitted that the defense angle gets into absurd territory sometimes, yet those defenders will never proactively call out extremism when they see it, only grudgingly admit it happens (if pinned down/cornered in a discussion), while avoiding specifics. That's not imagined; that's an actual thing, which you too should concede is ridiculous Kokomaoism! I get the desire to want to avoid negativity, but I do not get the desire to want to avoid reality.

[Postcard From Jardine]

Exactly CD. It's like 1984 for kokomaoists and Mike.

[drbeachboy]

So Mike can't just find it emotionally satisfying as he said, motives must be invented out of thin air and then Mike must be accountable to these imaginary motives?  Anybody have anything like evidence for any of these refusal and/or competitive conspiracy theories?

One can still find a level of emotional satisfaction in playing said songs, but a big factor behind playing them can also still be a sense of competition, ya know. The two aren't mutually exclusive. If Brian was not currently touring, nor was L&M coming out, nor was Brian's book coming out, I'm not so sure that these songs would have been played, nor would I imagine that Mike would be much motivated to write a book out of the blue either.

In other words "no", you don't have.

Well, it's called a history of actions that point in that direction. Do we have "anything like evidence", as you like to say, that Dennis did certain things at least in part out of lashing out at/making a statement to Mike, or do we just use an educated guess based on what seems quite plainly obvious?

Are you of the opinion of believing that Mike does not ever do any actions out of trying to specifically compete with Brian, and that Dennis never did things as an act of intentionally pissing off Mike? I bring Dennis into the equation only to prove a point that some things are plain as day with these guys.

I'm sure you won't directly admit what you know inside to be true, which is that obviously the answer is that yes, in both cases there are surely a number of incidents which those types of motivating factors which I listed above have surely sometimes been part of the equation. I do not know why there is some great fear in admitting such. Do you deny such? Or feel free to duck the question, as I'm sure you'll do (speaking of peoples' histories of actions).

You're kind of pushing the envelope there just a bit. How do you equate what you just wrote there with choosing new songs to play in a set list? Grasping at straws now to try and make your point?

My only point is that while there's no way we can "prove" motivations, it's preposterous to suggest that it's suuuuch as stretch as Cam would like to think it is.

And no way to prove it just wasn't Scott suggesting they try some new material. This is truly the making of a mountain out of a mole hill. Can we please drop this sh*t now, so we can hear from our fellow members who are attending the shows that this topic was intended for. It would be most appreciated. Thanks!

Not sure why having a discussion is "sh*t". I'm just expressing my opinion, and I'm also saying that I'm still nonetheless quite glad that Mike is doing these songs to begin with. The true definition of "sh*t" is extremism (on either side), which when it's pro-Mike is never remotely questioned by Kokomaoists.

Knock off the Kokomoaist bullshit. I'm a Beach Boys fan, plain & simple! I'm sick & tired of having the handful of you Mike haters hijacking every freakin' thread on this mother freakin' Board. Enough already!

I ain't a Mike hater, man. I have some issues with him, yes, though these songs regardless of motivation are a step in a good direction. The Kokomaoist thing is not imagined; even a number of people who defend Mike most fervently have vaguely admitted that the defense angle gets into absurd territory sometimes, yet those defenders will never proactively call out extremism when they see it, only grudgingly admit it happens (if pinned down/cornered in a discussion), while avoiding specifics. That's not imagined; that's an actual thing, which you too should concede is ridiculous Kokomaoism! I get the desire to want to avoid negativity, but I do not get the desire to want to avoid reality.

Go do it in another thread. This isn't the thread to do it in. You were given the answer by Scott regarding the additions to the set list. My motivations to come here is to have a place to fly my fandom, not to hate on the band members every time they do something I don't like. You have to admit there are some members here whose sole purpose here is to bust on Mike. I have no problem with questioning motives, but I do in the way in which we do it.

[The Shift]

Some are already claiming tonight's show as the longest in Beach Boys history. Didn't jot down the set list this time but we had Isn't It Time, Here Today and Wild Honey tonight on top of the setlist from Wednesday night's show in Manchester. Many of those rough edges from Wednesday were planed smooth, tho' Isn't It Time was a first timer and it showed - but what the hell! The poster who suggested this band was in denial about TWGMTR should feel chuffed as I wouldn't be surprised if it was included purely to prove him/her wrong… so thanks! Oops sorry slipping into conspiracy theory mode…

Christopher Cross sang I Can Hear Music and All This is That with the band. The horn section filled out songs like Rock and Roll Music in great style - they provided that "oomph" that was absent with that song during C50.

Cowsill's Wild Honey - penultimate song of a night that kicked off at 8pm and wound-up at 11.15pm - was dynamite. Best live version I've heard.

Please excuse any errors in the above … spent part of the night dancing with a six-year-old and another part of it holding her while she slept before she leapt to her feet for Fun Fun Fun.

The gig was everything to all fan types. There was the surf, the hot rod, the deep cut and the deep and meaningful. Everyone came away happy. Strikes me the only sector of the fan base that wasn't catered for were the negative Nancys who've started to dominate this thread, to its detriment.

If you get this, if you get The Beach Boys, get a ticket.