Mike and Bruce Tour 2015

[HeyJude]

I wasn't referring to the press release. It was on topic imo and Mike did both: explained why he did the venues he did with the non-C50 band and why the 2012 post C50 venues were not appropriate for the C50 band and that the promoters in 2012 were promoting for venues in 2013. As far as talk v. discussion, maybe you missed where Brian said the same thing as Mike.

Did you miss Howie Edelson’s interview transcript where Mike mentioned talk of another album and more touring? I’m sure you didn’t, which means we’re back to the ridiculous “talk vs. discussion” semantics to try to explain that awful diatribe Mike wrote to David Beard. Don’t need to go there again.

As to the talk of post-C50 shows that had already been booked, as has been mentioned in the past, those shows could have easily been bought off or rescheduled or converted to C50 shows if they had been inclined to continue C50 (or, gasp, Mike could have just done those few shows on his own and then went back to more reunion shows). As I’ve said a million times, the reunion didn’t ground to a halt because of a few shows Mike had, *oops* booked and couldn’t get out of. It appears he booked more shows before the reunion tour was over because, in my opinion, he didn’t want to do more reunion shows and wanted to do more of his own shows. The simple explanation makes the most sense. Why he nor you can just say that plainly and simply, I do not know.

It’s like someone asking their spouse, “So what you’re saying is you want to end the marriage?” and the other answering “The thing is, I’ve already planned some dates for after our divorce, and these dates aren’t really conducive to incorporating my ex, so what can I do?” instead of just saying “Yes, I want to end this marriage.”

"There was never any discussions within the group either during, at the end or after the scheduled and agreed upon ending of the reunion tour."

"As for more offers…I was presented with very nebulous offers, in other words, offers without documentation (i.e none). I asked for the offers to be presented in writing from the offering party, but never received a formal offer. It sounded odd to me that Wrigley Field wanted a show in October. Madison Square Garden for New Year's Eve was a stretch considering Phish was already booked." 
Mike Love Examiner  February 25, 2015



"There's only one 50th anniversary, obviously, but... there's talk of us going and doing a return to the Grammys next year, and there's talk about doing another album together,

 "There's nothing in stone, but there's a lot of ideas being floated around. So after this year, after completing the 50th anniversary reunion, we'll entertain doing some more studio work and see what we can come up with and can do in the future." 
Mike Love June 27 2012 Billboard



" So, we'll just have to see what happens in the future. There's nothin' definitely in stone, but there's a lot of ideas bein' floated around -- and there's been some very successful concerts. Y'know, 17-and-a-half thousand people at the Hollywood Bowl sold out and there's interest from promoters, obviously, 'cause that's how they make money."

"After this year completing the 50th anniversary reunion, we'll entertain doing some more studio work and see what we'll come up with and then we'll look at what to do in the future."
Mike Love to Howie Edelson during C50 tour



"I'm disappointed that Mike would now say that the release was done at the request of my representative. The first I heard about it was at the Grammy Museum event. We hadn't even discussed as a band what we were going to do with all the offers that were coming in for more 50th shows.
Al and I just assumed based on everyone's enthusiasm we would at least want to take those offers into consideration since we all knew about them. I mean, who wouldn't want to play the Hollywood Bowl again, Madison Square Garden and Wrigley Field? And what better way to celebrate New Year's Eve than with the 50th band? "
Brian Wilson LA Times Oct 9 2012

I read it. They all agree promoters, Capitol, Grammys were talking but there was never discussion within the group about the promoters, Capitol, Grammys talk of offers. Brian and Mike make a distinction but it is getting ignored for some reason imo.

Also according to Mike the reunion shows promoters were talking were  in 2013 after giving the reunion a year off at the promoters' suggestion.  Either Brian was talking NYE at MSG in 2013 on October 9 2012 or he was unaware that Phish had already announced on October 2 2012 it was playing NYE at MSG.

So I guess we will just disagree for now.

Here's the full quote Howie Edelson offered from his interview from the middle of the tour in 2012:

"There's talk of another album, yeah. Y'know, the record company's completely stoked about how well this whole project has gone. There's the Grammys coming up next year and there's talk of us going back and doing a return to the Grammys and there's talk of doin' a new album together. So, we'll just have to see what happens in the future. There's nothin' definitely in stone, but there's a lot of ideas bein' floated around -- and there's been some very successful concerts. Y'know, 17-and-a-half thousand people at the Hollywood Bowl sold out and there's interest from promoters, obviously, 'cause that's how they make money."

and. . .

"After this year completing the 50th anniversary reunion, we'll entertain doing some more studio work and see what we'll come up with and then we'll look at what to do in the future."

You continue to imply that the reunion ended because "discussion" never took place, and/or nothing was set in stone. This ignores any reasonable definition of "discussion" in my opinion, and ignores the zillion other indications that Mike simply didn't like the reunion setup and wanted to go back to his own thing.

Even Mike listed off in some interviews (which you did not reproduce above) a bunch of stuff he didn't like about the reunion. Why is it hard to grasp or admit that he just would rather do his own thing? Actions indicate he'd rather play the rodeo with his lineup than do more reunion shows the way C50 was set up.

The "build up demand" stuff is BS in my opinion. We don't know who made this suggestion to him, and the fact that it's 2015 and there hasn't been more reunion activity suggests the idea of building up demand for a year or two was meaningless and in my opinion a way to get interviewers  to stop bugging him back in 2012 by implying the break was short term.

[RubberSoul13]

I don't know the backstage politics...but if everyone just "got along", I don't see why The Beach Boys can't just tour as a singular entity with Mike Love, Bruce Johnston, Al Jardine, and David Marks at every concert. They could maintain the current touring demand and probably get slightly nicer venues than some of the ones they get now. Then, bring Brian Wilson out every summer so it's not overly demanding to his needs. Let him have his own tour bus...he can pay for it.

Then that summer lineup could pursue the Wrigley Field and Madison Square Garden offers in the peak BB concert season, while the others "keep the summer alive" (as it were) in the frigid months. I'm sure there's less than good vibrations between Mike and Al right now, but aside from that...I don't see any kinks in this plan.

[Andrew G. Doe]

I'm sure a hunk of the bookings Mike does are at fine venues; he books some of the same venues Brian does and C50 did.

But, if you read, and believe, the posts of some of the other, ah, "contributors" to this forum, all Mike ever, ever, ever plays are state & county fairs, rodeos, postgame in the minor leagues and theme parks. Never played a decent venue since Carl died. That's not reasoned debate, like we're having here, and have had before - that's just complete stupidity from completely stupid people.

True, but if in fact M&B were to only, exclusively play such venues from 1998 to present, there would be a few people on this forum who'd think that was totally splendid as well. That's the puzzling thing to me.

Ah, now there I can help you: it's very simple (has to be, or I wouldn't understand it). There are completely stupid people on both sides of the divide. True of life, even truer here, seemingly. 

[CenturyDeprived]

I don't know the backstage politics...but if everyone just "got along", I don't see why The Beach Boys can't just tour as a singular entity with Mike Love, Bruce Johnston, Al Jardine, and David Marks at every concert. They could maintain the current touring demand and probably get slightly nicer venues than some of the ones they get now. Then, bring Brian Wilson out every summer so it's not overly demanding to his needs. Let him have his own tour bus...he can pay for it.

Then that summer lineup could pursue the Wrigley Field and Madison Square Garden offers in the peak BB concert season, while the others "keep the summer alive" (as it were) in the frigid months. I'm sure there's less than good vibrations between Mike and Al right now, but aside from that...I don't see any kinks in this plan.

 The kink is that Brian and Al most likely feel crapped on by Mike and his actions at the end of 2012. I cannot imagine that they feel anything but disrespected by how things went down. However, unfortunately Mike probably feels the same way because  (sniffle) he wasn't able to write with his cousin (a cousin who would have a hard time saying no to Mike's surely wonderful lyrical ideas) alone in a room.  

They just can't get along enough for that to happen. You'd think it would be reasonable for the man who has suffered from mental illness and has been through the ringer to be able to call the shots again, but unless Mike can reclaim some mythic respect throne of personally being lauded as a songwriter more than he is now, he throws a passive aggressive hissyfit and the whole thing falls apart. It's understandable for anyone to want their ideas to "matter", but at what cost?

I think Brian deserves to call the shots around here. He said he misses it, after all, in 1998. But Mike probably didn't listen to Your Imagination, so he never got the memo.

[Nicko1234]

I don't know the backstage politics...but if everyone just "got along", I don't see why The Beach Boys can't just tour as a singular entity with Mike Love, Bruce Johnston, Al Jardine, and David Marks at every concert. They could maintain the current touring demand and probably get slightly nicer venues than some of the ones they get now. Then, bring Brian Wilson out every summer so it's not overly demanding to his needs. Let him have his own tour bus...he can pay for it.

Then that summer lineup could pursue the Wrigley Field and Madison Square Garden offers in the peak BB concert season, while the others "keep the summer alive" (as it were) in the frigid months. I'm sure there's less than good vibrations between Mike and Al right now, but aside from that...I don't see any kinks in this plan.

Contrary to the previous post, the kink clearly isn`t simply about 2012. The fact that this didn`t happen between 1998 and 2011 is evidence of that.

One kink is that it wouldn`t make business sense for the 4 of them to go out together compared with the current touring. The increase in ticket sales would be negligible.

Another is that I`ve never heard Al say that he would like to join the current touring band to do 100 shows a year.

And to go back to the C50 touring style would require a lot more than just an extra tour bus. Somehow I can`t see Brian agreeing to pay for all of his musicians` expenses out of his own pocket and nor should he...

[Cam Mott]

Here's the full quote Howie Edelson offered from his interview from the middle of the tour in 2012:

"There's talk of another album, yeah. Y'know, the record company's completely stoked about how well this whole project has gone. There's the Grammys coming up next year and there's talk of us going back and doing a return to the Grammys and there's talk of doin' a new album together. So, we'll just have to see what happens in the future. There's nothin' definitely in stone, but there's a lot of ideas bein' floated around -- and there's been some very successful concerts. Y'know, 17-and-a-half thousand people at the Hollywood Bowl sold out and there's interest from promoters, obviously, 'cause that's how they make money."

and. . .

"After this year completing the 50th anniversary reunion, we'll entertain doing some more studio work and see what we'll come up with and then we'll look at what to do in the future."

You continue to imply that the reunion ended because "discussion" never took place, and/or nothing was set in stone. This ignores any reasonable definition of "discussion" in my opinion, and ignores the zillion other indications that Mike simply didn't like the reunion setup and wanted to go back to his own thing.

Even Mike listed off in some interviews (which you did not reproduce above) a bunch of stuff he didn't like about the reunion. Why is it hard to grasp or admit that he just would rather do his own thing? Actions indicate he'd rather play the rodeo with his lineup than do more reunion shows the way C50 was set up.

The "build up demand" stuff is BS in my opinion. We don't know who made this suggestion to him, and the fact that it's 2015 and there hasn't been more reunion activity suggests the idea of building up demand for a year or two was meaningless and in my opinion a way to get interviewers  to stop bugging him back in 2012 by implying the break was short term.

Brian and Mike make the distinction between promoter talk and group talk and make the claims that the group talk didn't happen, you're not arguing with me.

Mike gave his reasons why the reunion line up didn't continue for the pre-booked 2012 shows. There were his practical/financial reasons but one of the reasons was he, Brian, and Al had agreed they wouldn't be in those shows.

"Brian, Al and I signed an agreement outlining the beginning and end of the tour. Then, thanks to glowing reviews, the support of our loyal fans (and the prodding of promoters), we amended our agreement to add 25 more dates. As the year went on, Brian and Al wanted to keep the 50th anniversary tour going beyond the 75 dates.

Like any good party, no one wanted it to end. However, that was impossible, given that we had already set up shows in smaller cities with a different configuration of the band -- the configuration that had been touring together every year for the last 13 years. Brian and Al would not be joining for these small market dates, as was long agreed upon.

It is not feasible, both logistically and economically, for the 50th anniversary tour to play these markets. It’s vitally important for the smaller markets to experience our live shows, as this is how we’ve maintained a loyal fan base for 50 years. You can’t sustain a fan base on a great catalog alone. You must take your music directly to the people." Mike Love LA Times Oct. 5 2012

So that post-C50 group discussion was something that Brian and Mike  both wagged their chin about being important but both say it didn't happen.  They should have gotten together for that group discussion that would have set in stone post-C50 things instead talking past each other and pointing fingers at each other in the press about all of the promoter talk.

Apparently the interested promoters themselves were the ones talking up the year delay to the group: “You’ve got to be careful not to get overexposed,” Love said. “There are promoters who are interested, but they’ve said, ‘Give it a rest for a year.’ “   Mike Love LA Times Sept. 27 2012

 

[HeyJude]

Brian and Mike make the distinction between promoter talk and group talk and make the claims that the group talk didn't happen, you're not arguing with me.

Nope, they have not made these distinctions clear whatsoever. The fact that Brian and Mike's LA Times letters in 2012 were so at odds, and that Mike's "interview" with David Beard completely contradicted what he said to Howie Edelson is evidence of that. I haven't seen anyone but you parse selective words into a "Brian and Mike agree!" argument. Even some staunch Mike Love defenders would agree the Beard and Edelson interviews are completely at odds.

Mike gave his reasons why the reunion line up didn't continue for the pre-booked 2012 shows. There were his practical/financial reasons but one of the reasons was he, Brian, and Al had agreed they wouldn't be in those shows.

Nope, not buying that failed string of logic again. Brian and Al didn’t agree to not be in shows post-C50 anymore than they have continually agreed year after year to not play in my backyard once per month. An agreement that lays out X, Y, and Z is not an agreement to NOT do something else after.

It would be fair to say nobody was under any contractual obligation to continue the C50 lineup. But it’s total crap to say Brian and Al “agreed” to not be a part of any further shows after the contract ran out. That’s like signing someone up to a one-year employment contract and then, instead of saying “you’re fired” or “we no longer need your services”, saying instead “you agreed to not be a part of this company after one year.” You can’t agree to something that hasn’t and may not happen. An agreement with an end date is an acknowledgment that anything could happen after that agreement. But Al could also catch a cold and race in the Indy 500 after the scheduled end of C50. It doesn’t mean he “agreed” to it.

So that post-C50 group discussion was something that Brian and Mike  both wagged their chin about being important but both say it didn't happen.  They should have gotten together for that group discussion that would have set in stone post-C50 things instead talking past each other and pointing fingers at each other in the press about all of the promoter talk.

Apparently the interested promoters themselves were the ones talking up the year delay to the group: “You’ve got to be careful not to get overexposed,” Love said. “There are promoters who are interested, but they’ve said, ‘Give it a rest for a year.’ “   Mike Love LA Times Sept. 27 2012

It's total BS to imply Brian and Mike both wanted to continue the reunion but the "group discussion" never happened; as if they just didn't logistically make arrangements for a little group sit-down; as if a "group discussion" would have led to more reunion shows. The evidence indicates Mike had his own shows booked before the reunion was over. You continue to ignore Mike's own words about the things he didn't like about C50. Everybody else had nothing but good things to say. It was Mike, and only Mike, saying the band was too big, too many voices completing for parts, that the songwriting setup was not optimal, downplaying the magnitude of a #3 album chart placement, and so on. One more time, all together now, Mike didn't want to continue with the reunion lineup the way things were set up. Nobody else seemed to have a problem with it.

As for promoters, we also have indications promoters were interested in immediately booking more shows. We also have anecdotal evidence that the BB's collectively became a laughing stock of the industry for ending the reunion before most of the big money was even made.

I’d like to find out what promoter suggested to Mike objectively that the reunion should immediately stop and “build up demand”, but that Mike should continue to tour under the exact same name during that “break.” Does anyone really think Mike was ready to do another reunion leg, but stopped when he was advised to “give it a rest” for a year? And if that was the case, I guess I missed the 2014 reunion tour; it must not have come to my area.

Nah, I’ve run into this a million times with people on any range of subjects. It’s a common pattern with some folks’ logic. They reach a decision, but don’t want to own the decision and/or explain the real reasons for the decision, so they search for a bunch of other plausible (and not so plausible) reasons. It’s like breaking up with someone because you simply don’t want to be with them anymore, but continually saying “no, no, it was just a timing thing, we just never discussed and fleshed out our feelings, and I’ve had some friends tell me that maybe we should just take a break for awhile”, instead of just owning it and saying “I don’t want to be with you anymore. I don’t like this, so even though you want to stay together, I’m leaving.”  

[filledeplage]

Brian and Mike make the distinction between promoter talk and group talk and make the claims that the group talk didn't happen, you're not arguing with me.

Nope, they have not made these distinctions clear whatsoever. The fact that Brian and Mike's LA Times letters in 2012 were so at odds, and that Mike's "interview" with David Beard completely contradicted what he said to Howie Edelson is evidence of that. I haven't seen anyone but you parse selective words into a "Brian and Mike agree!" argument. Even some staunch Mike Love defenders would agree the Beard and Edelson interviews are completely at odds.

Mike gave his reasons why the reunion line up didn't continue for the pre-booked 2012 shows. There were his practical/financial reasons but one of the reasons was he, Brian, and Al had agreed they wouldn't be in those shows.

Nope, not buying that failed string of logic again. Brian and Al didn’t agree to not be in shows post-C50 anymore than they have continually agreed year after year to not play in my backyard once per month. An agreement that lays out X, Y, and Z is not an agreement to NOT do something else after.

It would be fair to say nobody was under any contractual obligation to continue the C50 lineup. But it’s total crap to say Brian and Al “agreed” to not be a part of any further shows after the contract ran out. That’s like signing someone up to a one-year employment contract and then, instead of saying “you’re fired” or “we no longer need your services”, saying instead “you agreed to not be a part of this company after one year.” You can’t agree to something that hasn’t and may not happen. An agreement with an end date is an acknowledgment that anything could happen after that agreement. But Al could also catch a cold and race in the Indy 500 after the scheduled end of C50. It doesn’t mean he “agreed” to it.

So that post-C50 group discussion was something that Brian and Mike  both wagged their chin about being important but both say it didn't happen.  They should have gotten together for that group discussion that would have set in stone post-C50 things instead talking past each other and pointing fingers at each other in the press about all of the promoter talk.

Apparently the interested promoters themselves were the ones talking up the year delay to the group: “You’ve got to be careful not to get overexposed,” Love said. “There are promoters who are interested, but they’ve said, ‘Give it a rest for a year.’ “   Mike Love LA Times Sept. 27 2012

It's total BS to imply Brian and Mike both wanted to continue the reunion but the "group discussion" never happened; as if they just didn't logistically make arrangements for a little group sit-down; as if a "group discussion" would have led to more reunion shows. The evidence indicates Mike had his own shows booked before the reunion was over. You continue to ignore Mike's own words about the things he didn't like about C50. Everybody else had nothing but good things to say. It was Mike, and only Mike, saying the band was too big, too many voices completing for parts, that the songwriting setup was not optimal, downplaying the magnitude of a #3 album chart placement, and so on. One more time, all together now, Mike didn't want to continue with the reunion lineup the way things were set up. Nobody else seemed to have a problem with it.

As for promoters, we also have indications promoters were interested in immediately booking more shows. We also have anecdotal evidence that the BB's collectively became a laughing stock of the industry for ending the reunion before most of the big money was even made.

I’d like to find out what promoter suggested to Mike objectively that the reunion should immediately stop and “build up demand”, but that Mike should continue to tour under the exact same name during that “break.” Does anyone really think Mike was ready to do another reunion leg, but stopped when he was advised to “give it a rest” for a year? And if that was the case, I guess I missed the 2014 reunion tour; it must not have come to my area.

Nah, I’ve run into this a million times with people on any range of subjects. It’s a common pattern with some folks’ logic. They reach a decision, but don’t want to own the decision and/or explain the real reasons for the decision, so they search for a bunch of other plausible (and not so plausible) reasons. It’s like breaking up with someone because you simply don’t want to be with them anymore, but continually saying “no, no, it was just a timing thing, we just never discussed and fleshed out our feelings, and I’ve had some friends tell me that maybe we should just take a break for awhile”, instead of just owning it and saying “I don’t want to be with you anymore. I don’t like this, so even though you want to stay together, I’m leaving.”  

Hey Jude - this is a circular argument that looks like third generation "hearsay" that has been filtered and spun for almost three years.  It has polarized unnecessarily, many members of this board, when the  essential point is BB/BW music discussion.  It had turned reasonable people off. It has triggered uncontrolled rage, causing people to flip out, get banned, and lose interest because of the uncontrolled fighting over things over which they have absolutely no control.  Four BRI members have absolute power.  The rest are just along for the ride. 

Only those core BRI individuals have the power to change the status quo.  It is railing against reality.  They need two things collectively.  First, "power, " second, the "collective desire" to change things.  It is largely a function of the MYOB philosophy.  To have a contract,  one needs a "meeting of the minds" and that is the disconnect, here. That appears to be absent.  Basic contracts 101.

Stranger things have happened in BB universe.  Good things.  Have some faith and patience.  Que sera, sera... 

[HeyJude]

All I can say is that C50 is an interesting, and divisive part of the band’s history and biography. If you’re not interested in biographical details, and just listen to the music, that’s cool. There are probably folks that do just that. But if you’re participating in discussions about their biographical details, then I would assume there is some sort of interest there. So yeah, I’m not big on breaking it all back down to “it’s all about the music.” Anyone with their head screwed on even halfway straight knows that. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I continue to listen to C50 stuff, Mike Love solo records, and new and old stuff without any reservations. This board is awesome, but I’d give it up (and/or give up talking about sordid historical details of the band) before I’d give up listening to the actual music.

This is a big board full of lots of informed folks. There’s no need to stop discussing something because it’s potentially divisive. Everything is potentially divisive. “I like 15 out of the 16 tracks on Brian’s album” can turn into a divisive argument. “Sgt. Pepper is better than Smile” can turn into divisiveness.

Not only is C50 a huge, current, important part of the band’s biography (certainly more than whether this member of that slept with someone, or their sister, or whatever), it was something the *directly* impacted the band’s composition, output (or lack thereof), touring configuration, and so on. When a member just makes a d**khead comment in an interview, that doesn’t usually matter in the grand scheme of things. But when the band reunites, and then there is a big blow-up over whether they should have or could have stayed together, that’s a HUGE part of the story that HUGELY impacts the future of the band, not to mention an important thing to document for their history/biography.

So if one wants to listen to the music and not know about all of the interpersonal turmoil and politics that certainly do bleed over into the fan community, then there’s nothing stopping them. If you’re interested in anything to do with their biography, then tune into more C50 discussions. Or don’t. Ignore it if you’re not into it. Is it circular? Yes, often. So what? My personal opinion is that a few one-line acknowledgments/stipulations from a key member or two and/or the same from a small section of fans would clear A LOT of the C50 fan discussion up very quickly, but that’s just my opinion. There are a myriad of other circular arguments and discussions in fandom, including here. Stamos, blight or national treasure? Playing in metropolitan areas versus playing in the sticks. Brian, still controlled or in control? Would Mike have made Pet Sounds or Smile better or worse? Did Al quit, or was he fired, or neither? “Just enjoy the music” is not a fair or ample answer to any such questions, however circular or asked-and-answered or divisive they might be.

I’ve heard “stop discussing C50” from folks who will write pages about Hal Blaine’s jockstrap size during the first four-hour block of time during the third “Good Vibrations” tracking session. We have intense Beach Boys beard discussions here (I’ve even done some intense research in the area, narrowing down the time of Al’s beard shaving between June 17 and July 4, 1983). So a discussion about the band effing essentially BROKE UP again a few years ago is kind of a big freaking deal. I’m surprised by anyone that would not think such a thing would be hugely divisive among the band and fans.

[filledeplage]

All I can say is that C50 is an interesting, and divisive part of the band’s history and biography. If you’re not interested in biographical details, and just listen to the music, that’s cool. There are probably folks that do just that. But if you’re participating in discussions about their biographical details, then I would assume there is some sort of interest there. So yeah, I’m not big on breaking it all back down to “it’s all about the music.” Anyone with their head screwed on even halfway straight knows that. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I continue to listen to C50 stuff, Mike Love solo records, and new and old stuff without any reservations. This board is awesome, but I’d give it up (and/or give up talking about sordid historical details of the band) before I’d give up listening to the actual music.

This is a big board full of lots of informed folks. There’s no need to stop discussing something because it’s potentially divisive. Everything is potentially divisive. “I like 15 out of the 16 tracks on Brian’s album” can turn into a divisive argument. “Sgt. Pepper is better than Smile” can turn into divisiveness.

Not only is C50 a huge, current, important part of the band’s biography (certainly more than whether this member of that slept with someone, or their sister, or whatever), it was something the *directly* impacted the band’s composition, output (or lack thereof), touring configuration, and so on. When a member just makes a d**khead comment in an interview, that doesn’t usually matter in the grand scheme of things. But when the band reunites, and then there is a big blow-up over whether they should have or could have stayed together, that’s a HUGE part of the story that HUGELY impacts the future of the band, not to mention an important thing to document for their history/biography.

So if one wants to listen to the music and not know about all of the interpersonal turmoil and politics that certainly do bleed over into the fan community, then there’s nothing stopping them. If you’re interested in anything to do with their biography, then tune into more C50 discussions. Or don’t. Ignore it if you’re not into it. Is it circular? Yes, often. So what? My personal opinion is that a few one-line acknowledgments/stipulations from a key member or two and/or the same from a small section of fans would clear A LOT of the C50 fan discussion up very quickly, but that’s just my opinion. There are a myriad of other circular arguments and discussions in fandom, including here. Stamos, blight or national treasure? Playing in metropolitan areas versus playing in the sticks. Brian, still controlled or in control? Would Mike have made Pet Sounds or Smile better or worse? Did Al quit, or was he fired, or neither? “Just enjoy the music” is not a fair or ample answer to any such questions, however circular or asked-and-answered or divisive they might be.

I’ve heard “stop discussing C50” from folks who will write pages about Hal Blaine’s jockstrap size during the first four-hour block of time during the third “Good Vibrations” tracking session. We have intense Beach Boys beard discussions here (I’ve even done some intense research in the area, narrowing down the time of Al’s beard shaving between June 17 and July 4, 1983). So a discussion about the band effing essentially BROKE UP again a few years ago is kind of a big freaking deal. I’m surprised by anyone that would not think such a thing would be hugely divisive among the band and fans.

Hey Jude - of course the stuff in the 50plus years is interesting but the "break up" which didn't actually occur, because C50 was a "special event" as I understand it to be.  If BRI broke up it would be a different story. They aren't dissolved. 

The rest is largely speculation.  The peripheral story such as the Wrecking Crew is interesting but doesn't float my boat.  It relates to the whole generation of music and not just the BB's.  Some stuff I read here is laughable because it is just made up crap. Or someone's theory that they want to hitch to BW/BB wagon. 

It is not just black and white and fans who lived through the ups and downs (and I'm not old enough to have been a fan during the cars and early surf era, so I'm not going to get into the conjecture and pure speculation) but a whole dynamc and context that some could not possibly understand.  I love that young people are latching on to this music whether from having been brainwashed, as my kids were, or hearing it on an oldies station.  It assures a good future for posterity. 

You're correct about the informed people here.  There are lots.  I'm just a lowly fan.  So, when my "elders" speak, I listen.   

[HeyJude]

The reunion was theoretically open-ended, so it amounts to a break-up I think. If it makes you feel better to think of it otherwise, more power to you.

We can't define the band as simply BRI. That's the holding company that controls the trademark and other business affairs. It isn't the band as long as you consider Dave and Bruce BB's.

C50 wasn't even BRI; it was 50 Big Ones Productions. Al wasn't even a part of it.

[filledeplage]

The reunion was theoretically open-ended, so it amounts to a break-up I think. If it makes you feel better to think of it otherwise, more power to you.

"If it makes you feel better..."

What does that mean?

My "feelings" are of no consequence.

"Theoretically" is a legal fiction.  I have not seen the documents.  Have you?

[HeyJude]

Unless the documents *forbade* the lineup from *ever* playing together again, then it was open-ended. To say nothing of the comments from numerous band members, including Mike, during the tour suggesting it was certainly *possible* for it to continue.  For that matter, even if the contractual agreements stated they could *never* play together again (which I’m sure was not the case), they could easily draw up *another* agreement voiding the first one. “Theoretically” is not a legal fiction. There is no scenario by which a continuation of the reunion was impossible.  To this day, it is still possible. If they do another reunion project, I would have no problem saying they broke up again at the end of 2012 and then re-formed again in whatever year.

When people break up, do they not say “break up” anymore? “Sorry honey, this isn’t a break-up, we’re just going to go back to the status quo pre-our relationship”, or “Sweetie, I’m under no contractual obligation to continue to be in this relationship, so I’m going to go back to what I was doing before. It’s not a break-up though.”

[CenturyDeprived]

All I can say is that C50 is an interesting, and divisive part of the band’s history and biography. If you’re not interested in biographical details, and just listen to the music, that’s cool. There are probably folks that do just that. But if you’re participating in discussions about their biographical details, then I would assume there is some sort of interest there. So yeah, I’m not big on breaking it all back down to “it’s all about the music.” Anyone with their head screwed on even halfway straight knows that. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I continue to listen to C50 stuff, Mike Love solo records, and new and old stuff without any reservations. This board is awesome, but I’d give it up (and/or give up talking about sordid historical details of the band) before I’d give up listening to the actual music.

This is a big board full of lots of informed folks. There’s no need to stop discussing something because it’s potentially divisive. Everything is potentially divisive. “I like 15 out of the 16 tracks on Brian’s album” can turn into a divisive argument. “Sgt. Pepper is better than Smile” can turn into divisiveness.

Not only is C50 a huge, current, important part of the band’s biography (certainly more than whether this member of that slept with someone, or their sister, or whatever), it was something the *directly* impacted the band’s composition, output (or lack thereof), touring configuration, and so on. When a member just makes a d**khead comment in an interview, that doesn’t usually matter in the grand scheme of things. But when the band reunites, and then there is a big blow-up over whether they should have or could have stayed together, that’s a HUGE part of the story that HUGELY impacts the future of the band, not to mention an important thing to document for their history/biography.

So if one wants to listen to the music and not know about all of the interpersonal turmoil and politics that certainly do bleed over into the fan community, then there’s nothing stopping them. If you’re interested in anything to do with their biography, then tune into more C50 discussions. Or don’t. Ignore it if you’re not into it. Is it circular? Yes, often. So what? My personal opinion is that a few one-line acknowledgments/stipulations from a key member or two and/or the same from a small section of fans would clear A LOT of the C50 fan discussion up very quickly, but that’s just my opinion. There are a myriad of other circular arguments and discussions in fandom, including here. Stamos, blight or national treasure? Playing in metropolitan areas versus playing in the sticks. Brian, still controlled or in control? Would Mike have made Pet Sounds or Smile better or worse? Did Al quit, or was he fired, or neither? “Just enjoy the music” is not a fair or ample answer to any such questions, however circular or asked-and-answered or divisive they might be.

I’ve heard “stop discussing C50” from folks who will write pages about Hal Blaine’s jockstrap size during the first four-hour block of time during the third “Good Vibrations” tracking session. We have intense Beach Boys beard discussions here (I’ve even done some intense research in the area, narrowing down the time of Al’s beard shaving between June 17 and July 4, 1983). So a discussion about the band effing essentially BROKE UP again a few years ago is kind of a big freaking deal. I’m surprised by anyone that would not think such a thing would be hugely divisive among the band and fans.

Agreed. For those who are "tired" of hearing about it, well it's just debate is all. It's mighty difficult to hear a very select group of posters (who can be counted on one hand, most likely) who refute logical statements like HeyJude's, and to not want to respond in a rational debate to to poke holes in arguments that make not much sense. It's like being a nautical scientist and hearing people from the Flat Earth society make claims - impossible to not bring continued evidence to refute. Nobody, but nobody, should be muzzled, and posters' ability to post responses to topics should never in of itself become subject for debate.

PS - LOL about the Hal Blaine jockstrap "discussion".    

[CenturyDeprived]

Unless the documents *forbade* the lineup from *ever* playing together again, then it was open-ended. To say nothing of the comments from numerous band members, including Mike, during the tour suggesting it was certainly *possible* for it to continue.  For that matter, even if the contractual agreements stated they could *never* play together again (which I’m sure was not the case), they could easily draw up *another* agreement voiding the first one. “Theoretically” is not a legal fiction. There is no scenario by which a continuation of the reunion was impossible.  To this day, it is still possible. If they do another reunion project, I would have no problem saying they broke up again at the end of 2012 and then re-formed again in whatever year.

When people break up, do they not say “break up” anymore? “Sorry honey, this isn’t a break-up, we’re just going to go back to the status quo pre-our relationship”, or “Sweetie, I’m under no contractual obligation to continue to be in this relationship, so I’m going to go back to what I was doing before. It’s not a break-up though.”

What would have happened if (now this is a laugh, but bear with me)... the songs on TWGMTR with lyrics written by Mike were lauded by critics as the 2nd coming of Pet Sounds, specifically for Mike's contributions - the most moving, forward-thinking, commercial material by the band in 45 years... and there was massive public/critical desire for more Mike Love lyrics on BW songs...

Firstly, would Mike have then wanted to stop the reunion and have no more reunion activities? Would some mythic "end date" bell still ring because of some "it must stop at this particular predetermined date" ideology? No, Mike would have done everything in his power to continue the reunion in some fashion. Whether that meant semi-permanently modifying the live configuration, or not. Something would have been worked out, and he'd have been motivated to want to keep things going.

And then, what would have happened if Brian walked away and cried "Set end date!!!" "Set end date!!!"? Mike would then publicly bemoan that Brian wanted to end the reunion and Mike would probably have blamed it on Brian's mythic "handlers" who couldn't stand to see Mike finally get equal recognition to his cousin.

Bottom line is that Mike wants things the way he wants things (his right, to be sure), but he simply doesn't want to say that things ended because he could not bring himself to work under the circumstances he found himself in, both in a live setting as well as a studio setting. It was about control, and a quashed/failed desire to gain the public/critical respect he feels he deserves by being the sole co-writer on commercially successful BW/ML collaborations - but he cannot admit it. I'm sure those closest to him know this - does anyone think I'm offbase here? C'mon.  I guess Mike half admitted it by complaining about his lack of access to Brian alone in a room - but he hasn't, as far as I know, correlated that frustration to how it played a significant factor in C50 falling apart. Are we supposed to not connect the dots, bury our heads in the sand and think the two things are mutually exclusive?

Do the staunch Mike defenders *really* think that this is not about Mike's desires/needs for control? You don't have to judge him to just admit this is in all likelihood the case.

[filledeplage]

All I can say is that C50 is an interesting, and divisive part of the band’s history and biography. If you’re not interested in biographical details, and just listen to the music, that’s cool. There are probably folks that do just that. But if you’re participating in discussions about their biographical details, then I would assume there is some sort of interest there. So yeah, I’m not big on breaking it all back down to “it’s all about the music.” Anyone with their head screwed on even halfway straight knows that. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I continue to listen to C50 stuff, Mike Love solo records, and new and old stuff without any reservations. This board is awesome, but I’d give it up (and/or give up talking about sordid historical details of the band) before I’d give up listening to the actual music.

This is a big board full of lots of informed folks. There’s no need to stop discussing something because it’s potentially divisive. Everything is potentially divisive. “I like 15 out of the 16 tracks on Brian’s album” can turn into a divisive argument. “Sgt. Pepper is better than Smile” can turn into divisiveness.

Not only is C50 a huge, current, important part of the band’s biography (certainly more than whether this member of that slept with someone, or their sister, or whatever), it was something the *directly* impacted the band’s composition, output (or lack thereof), touring configuration, and so on. When a member just makes a d**khead comment in an interview, that doesn’t usually matter in the grand scheme of things. But when the band reunites, and then there is a big blow-up over whether they should have or could have stayed together, that’s a HUGE part of the story that HUGELY impacts the future of the band, not to mention an important thing to document for their history/biography.

So if one wants to listen to the music and not know about all of the interpersonal turmoil and politics that certainly do bleed over into the fan community, then there’s nothing stopping them. If you’re interested in anything to do with their biography, then tune into more C50 discussions. Or don’t. Ignore it if you’re not into it. Is it circular? Yes, often. So what? My personal opinion is that a few one-line acknowledgments/stipulations from a key member or two and/or the same from a small section of fans would clear A LOT of the C50 fan discussion up very quickly, but that’s just my opinion. There are a myriad of other circular arguments and discussions in fandom, including here. Stamos, blight or national treasure? Playing in metropolitan areas versus playing in the sticks. Brian, still controlled or in control? Would Mike have made Pet Sounds or Smile better or worse? Did Al quit, or was he fired, or neither? “Just enjoy the music” is not a fair or ample answer to any such questions, however circular or asked-and-answered or divisive they might be.

I’ve heard “stop discussing C50” from folks who will write pages about Hal Blaine’s jockstrap size during the first four-hour block of time during the third “Good Vibrations” tracking session. We have intense Beach Boys beard discussions here (I’ve even done some intense research in the area, narrowing down the time of Al’s beard shaving between June 17 and July 4, 1983). So a discussion about the band effing essentially BROKE UP again a few years ago is kind of a big freaking deal. I’m surprised by anyone that would not think such a thing would be hugely divisive among the band and fans.

Agreed. For those who are "tired" of hearing about it, well it's just debate is all. It's mighty difficult to hear a very select group of posters (who can be counted on one hand, most likely) who refute logical statements like HeyJude's, and to not want to respond in a rational debate to to poke holes in arguments that make not much sense. Nobody, but nobody, should be muzzled, and posters' ability to post responses to topics should never in of itself become subject for debate.
PS - LOL about the Hal Blaine jockstrap "discussion".    
[\quote]
Seriously Century Deprived, with all due respect, without a "meeting of the minds" (a legal term of art) and there retrospectively seems to have been terms that were or couldn't be, resolved, and pre-existing contractual commitments to BRI (yes the Touring Band) this discussion is just "blowing smoke."  

If there are terms that parties are not in agreement about, things fall apart.  I have no clue about what "the documents" forbidding whatever...people sit down and "reduce to writing" terms and conditions.  That binds the parties, absent "modification of the terms." It isn't "theoretical." That's "illusory." (Another legal term of art.) But, I'm not taking Hey Jude's word for it.

And I would never speculate that it would be impossible for the group to reunite.  Anything is possible.  I like surprises and would never rule that out.

What you might construe to be "logical" statements, is problematic, as they are unsupported by proof, as I find it. Those documents are likely with their lawyers.  That is where they belong, because they are the "business" of those people.  What you find "logical" is fine; but I find it "speculative."

No one is suggesting "muzzling" here.  

[Andrew G. Doe]

Do the staunch Mike defenders *really* think that this is not about Mike's desires/needs for control? You don't have to judge him to just admit this is in all likelihood the case.

Wouldn't call myself a "staunch" defender of anyone in the band... but no, it isn't, in both instances above. Of course, that's just my semi-informed opinion and as recent events have illustrated, apparently I'm not supposed to have one of those, much less express it lest it prove divisive or be seen as finding fault where none exists.

[CenturyDeprived]

Do the staunch Mike defenders *really* think that this is not about Mike's desires/needs for control? You don't have to judge him to just admit this is in all likelihood the case.

Wouldn't call myself a "staunch" defender of anyone in the band... but no, it isn't, in both instances above. Of course, that's just my semi-informed opinion and as recent events have illustrated, apparently I'm not supposed to have one of those, much less express it lest it prove divisive or be seen as finding fault where none exists.

Well, if one defines Mike's desires for "control" to be controlling the songwriting process and who gets to (and who doesn't get to) be a songwriting contributor to an album's worth of songs, then I think it's fair to say that a desire to control that part of things must be part of the equation. Mike himself has publicly said how much the lack of the "room" bugged him (yet somehow not correlating that issue to why he won't work with Brian anymore, as though the two issues have nothing to do with each other). Plus he probably doesn't want the guy with the mullet to get so many songwriting credits either.

I see that as a control issue, do you?

I should add that one could also, if they desire, see Brian's need for steering the songwriting process the way he wants it to go as a desire for "control" as well. I simply think that Brian has earned that right far more so than his cousin has.

[RubberSoul13]

I don't know the backstage politics...but if everyone just "got along", I don't see why The Beach Boys can't just tour as a singular entity with Mike Love, Bruce Johnston, Al Jardine, and David Marks at every concert. They could maintain the current touring demand and probably get slightly nicer venues than some of the ones they get now. Then, bring Brian Wilson out every summer so it's not overly demanding to his needs. Let him have his own tour bus...he can pay for it.

Then that summer lineup could pursue the Wrigley Field and Madison Square Garden offers in the peak BB concert season, while the others "keep the summer alive" (as it were) in the frigid months. I'm sure there's less than good vibrations between Mike and Al right now, but aside from that...I don't see any kinks in this plan.

Contrary to the previous post, the kink clearly isn`t simply about 2012. The fact that this didn`t happen between 1998 and 2011 is evidence of that.

One kink is that it wouldn`t make business sense for the 4 of them to go out together compared with the current touring. The increase in ticket sales would be negligible.

Another is that I`ve never heard Al say that he would like to join the current touring band to do 100 shows a year.

And to go back to the C50 touring style would require a lot more than just an extra tour bus. Somehow I can`t see Brian agreeing to pay for all of his musicians` expenses out of his own pocket and nor should he...

No doubt! This idea would have been exceptionally more useful in 1998 than 2015.

I must say, I don't really know WHAT Alan and Brian want...

And to be clear, I wasn't suggesting a C50 touring style. I was suggesting a band the size of M&B with the addition of Brian Wilson for the summertime. The addition of Brian Wilson (one man) shouldn't equate to a dozen musicians doing the work for him.

[Mendota Heights]

No doubt! This idea would have been exceptionally more useful in 1998 than 2015.

I must say, I don't really know WHAT Alan and Brian want...

And to be clear, I wasn't suggesting a C50 touring style. I was suggesting a band the size of M&B with the addition of Brian Wilson for the summertime. The addition of Brian Wilson (one man) shouldn't equate to a dozen musicians doing the work for him.

Brian playing with Mike's musicians? Have you compared Brian's band (Al, Blondie, Ricky, Sahanaja, Bennett et c) with Mike's band lately?

[CenturyDeprived]

I don't know the backstage politics...but if everyone just "got along", I don't see why The Beach Boys can't just tour as a singular entity with Mike Love, Bruce Johnston, Al Jardine, and David Marks at every concert. They could maintain the current touring demand and probably get slightly nicer venues than some of the ones they get now. Then, bring Brian Wilson out every summer so it's not overly demanding to his needs. Let him have his own tour bus...he can pay for it.

Then that summer lineup could pursue the Wrigley Field and Madison Square Garden offers in the peak BB concert season, while the others "keep the summer alive" (as it were) in the frigid months. I'm sure there's less than good vibrations between Mike and Al right now, but aside from that...I don't see any kinks in this plan.

Contrary to the previous post, the kink clearly isn`t simply about 2012. The fact that this didn`t happen between 1998 and 2011 is evidence of that.

One kink is that it wouldn`t make business sense for the 4 of them to go out together compared with the current touring. The increase in ticket sales would be negligible.

Another is that I`ve never heard Al say that he would like to join the current touring band to do 100 shows a year.

And to go back to the C50 touring style would require a lot more than just an extra tour bus. Somehow I can`t see Brian agreeing to pay for all of his musicians` expenses out of his own pocket and nor should he...

I must say, I don't really know WHAT Alan and Brian want...
 

I'd think Brian and Al have wanted a proper group discussion, all together in a "room" (get it?), and not any Mike conniving going on behind their backs regarding booking more shows and such.  I'm waiting for someone to say there wasn't any conniving going on... but clearly, Mike didn't first go to Brian and Al, and talk about how things were going during the reunion shows and discuss how future M&B shows might play out in relation to C50.

Mike clearly went ahead and took actions, preemptively jumping the gun (even if he believed he had every "legal" right to do so, and even if he believed that he had justification due to some talks that may have occurred months earlier) without any additional discussion with his mates. Just because he (Mike) *could* do that and get away with it, doesn't make it right to do so, in the context of the reunion, and particularly in the context of his cousin being involved, a person with a history of emotional issues who could be effected adversely. That, as has been the case for decades, seems to be a non-issue for Mike if one looks at his actions. The decent thing to do would have been to have a group discussion, and show that he cares about Brian and Al's feelings and desires, especially considering how fragile a reunion between these guys was, and what a rare opportunity they had gotten by pulling it off.

Of course, Mike was doubtlessly already butt-hurt himself, probably because he most likely didn't get "asked" if the songwriting setup for TWGMTR was ok with him; it was probably more or less forced upon him, and he had to take what he could get. Maybe he viewed that as conniving; I view it as a necessity, because Mike was going to be way too demanding, and Brian's way of working these days is a fragile thing (as is any brilliant songwriter's method of what works for them - especially someone with emotional problems)... that songwriting setup couldn't and shouldn't withstand too much boat-rocking. So I think Mike probably did his conniving as a way of treating his mates the same way he feels he was treated. (Or at least how he felt he was treated by Brian's team; Al seems to be collateral damage that Mike could absolutely care less about). It's unfortunate and it sucks, and it's ultimately because Mike just won't accept his latter-day place as being better utilized as a vocalist at Brian's whim, as opposed to a true collaborator that he soooo wants to be, when the vast majority of his lyrical ideas have not been up to par for 40+ years.
 

[RubberSoul13]

No doubt! This idea would have been exceptionally more useful in 1998 than 2015.

I must say, I don't really know WHAT Alan and Brian want...

And to be clear, I wasn't suggesting a C50 touring style. I was suggesting a band the size of M&B with the addition of Brian Wilson for the summertime. The addition of Brian Wilson (one man) shouldn't equate to a dozen musicians doing the work for him.

Brian playing with Mike's musicians? Have you compared Brian's band (Al, Blondie, Ricky, Sahanaja, Bennett et c) with Mike's band lately?

Yes actually I have my dear Douche of Earl...and I strongly believe that for the majority of The Beach Boys musical catalog, Mike and Bruce's band do a better job.

Surfin' USA needs to be played by a tight five piece band...not an orchestra of a dozen. That being said, Sloop John B sounds lightyears better with Brian's band.

But, the majority of a crowd-pleasing setlist should probably be focused on the early rock and roll songs. Do a winter theatre tour with Brian...idk!

I'm just on here brain-storming and discussing, not making life-changing decisions. Because all it boils down to is money...from BOTH parties. It's all about the dough.

I've got my own dough to worry about...see ya later...

[HeyJude]

The thing isn’t rocket science. Mike has never said he was dying to do more reunion stuff. Period. Early on, he used vary passive language to indicate that it was possible. “There is talk”, “I’m not opposed” etc. But he was never jumping up and saying “This is awesome! I want to keep it going.” There’s no stories of Mike desperately trying to get Brian and Al back to the table to work on future plans. Rather, he has gone on record with numerous complaints about the reunion (complaints no other band members have lodged), and offered passive “nothing was ever set it stone” language to try to get people to stop saying he’s the reason the reunion ended.

During the tour, he used the “we’ll see what happens” line of defense to get reporters off his jock about future plans. After the tour, he has used a laundry list of reasons (the “small markets” stuff from the LA Times letter, the “set end date” mantra, the aforementioned “nothing was ever set in stone” stuff) to get reporters to stop saying he broke the band up.

On the other hand, we have Brian and Al who both in the immediate aftermath expressed a pretty strong desire to continue. Did Brian and Al chase Mike down and desperately try to talk him into continuing? I was going to say no, but then I remembered this quote from Al from the Grammy Museum thing in September 2012,  a quote which wasn’t mentioned often afterwards (from WCSX Radio’s website):

Jardine told us at last night's opening of the Good Vibrations: 50 Years of The Beach Boys exhibit at L.A.'s Grammy Museum that he'd just spoken to Love a few minutes earlier: "I said I really do feel you need to rethink it, because there's so many opportunities left for us, and I'd really appreciate talking to you about it -- and he was agreeable to that."

Al certainly seemed to want to sit down and have a discussion. Mike told David Beard these discussions never took place. In that story, Mike wasn’t approaching Al to discuss it; Al was approaching Mike. Whatever happened, it appears such a conversation never took place. Whose fault is that? I dunno, but one of those two guys was already booking non-reunion shows, and later rattled off a list of stuff he didn’t like about the reunion. Who seemed to have less or more interest and enthusiasm about having such discussions?

Every little detail of what happened on C50 is not clear (and believe me, there are some 100% conflicting stories out there). But it’s difficult to take away from all of the available evidence that Mike had nothing to do with the demise, or that he was only equally responsible as they all were for simply not “working something out.”  

[MarcellaHasDirtyFeet]

Every year M&B go on tour, and every year the thread about the tour becomes the Exact. Same. Slog.

What is there left to discuss? Who the hell is going to be convinced?

[SMiLE Brian]

Is this better than BW's band? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iuBSWYoSPj4&spfreload=10