Review Of "The Right Time" Single Posted On Examiner (Link)

[The Shift]

I'm relieved there was no legal challenge. What sort of mood would there have been on any continuing tour when one or two band members didn't want to be there? What a positive vibe hat would put across to the fans.

[bossaroo]

as has been pointed out: although Mike could not technically "fire" anyone, he could --and did-- prevent them from continuing to perform with the band...which Brian said felt like being fired.

I imagine if your own employer requested you to stop coming into work indefinitely, without technically terminating your position, you would be somewhat less apologetic and eagerly rising to their defense.


bottom line is this: while Brian, Al, and Dave weren't exactly "fired" they have indeed been indefinitely excluded from further touring with The Beach Boys. that is, they are being prevented from fulfilling their desired (and rightful) path of employment. even the most pitiful of mental midgets can understand why Brian himself said it felt like being fired.

and anyone who continues to argue that fact is sure to have their own mental acuity questioned.

[Ang Jones]

You suggested that we all have something to hide as though that makes it alright.

I suggested nothing. Rather I stated that we all have something to hide, in response to your implication that Mike was in some way unique in this.... and I certainly never said that makes it alight: that's you putting words - your words - into my mouth. Again.

Everyone has closets. It's just the number and size of the skeletons therein which varies.

Where did I suggest that Mike was unique in having something to hide? Far from suggesting that he was unique, I wrote this in my last post: "the fact that everyone is hiding something doesn't make hiding something correct - it depends on the reasons and what exactly they are hiding." I even went so far as to suggest that Mike might be hiding something in order to protect someone else.

I've now read the post about the email. Of course it proves nothing without all the emails that preceded it. Anything can be taken out of context.

[SMiLE Brian]

Looking through the threads by AGD, I cannot find an exact email. Instead, all I found was references to a facebook rant by Ahmba Love. This poorly worded rant was about her dad getting a "no more wilsons" email. Such a source is not a valid source for bashing BW for ending the C50 and calling out people who don't like ML's actions.

[HeyJude]

The myth that anyone fired, or could fire, anyone else... which as almost everyone here, being well versed in BRI 101, already knows is not possible. That some here actually do still believe this happened is, well... pitiful, really. As I've said, mental midgets.

I don't think I've ever seen a single person here contend that Mike Love is legally Brian Wilson's employer and severed his employment in September, 2012. Essentially, the partnership formed to do C50 simply dissolved at the end of it.

The issue is whether what occurred amounted to the same thing. As Wirestone has said in a previous post, many feel that while not legally/technically the same thing, the idea of letting a contract expire and not continuing on with a willing and able Brian Wilson, and then going back to one's exclusive license to use the same name, is not *terribly* different from firing Brian.

To reiterate, I don't think anybody apart from an occasional lazy "journalist", has contended Mike fired Brian. To continually cite "Mike didn't fire Brian" makes no sense to me. It's answering a question that nobody asked. Even Mike has used this as a response in some interviews, citing "there were erroneous reports that I fired Brian", rather than actually discussing why he didn't choose, while under no legal obligation to do so, to continue the reunion.

The "no more shows for Brian" e-mail is also irrelevant. As Wirestone mentioned, we don't know what precipitated that e-mail. But even if it was a completely out of the blue message from Brian, we know that at some point after that, before the tour was over, Brian changed his mind. Folks including David Marks have said that the plan was *always* for Mike to go back to his own tour. It also seems quite possible if not likely that Mike was already booking his own shows while the reunion tour was still happening. Those facts, coupled with the fact that Mike has never, apart from one quick mention in an interview, even mentioned the "no more shows" e-mail. This includes not mentioning the e-mail in that long letter to the LA Times. Why hasn't he mentioned that e-mail more often? I would guess because it's irrelevant. He has other reasons for not continuing. But I don't think anybody believes that Mike would have continued the reunion were it not solely for a mid-tour e-mail from Brian.

My guess is that Mike saw C50 as the anomaly to his usual routine. Given the likelihood that post-reunion shows were booked before or during the C50 tour, it probably was wishful thinking, maybe some naivety, for Brian and Al to think the amazing reviews and additional offers would convince Mike to continue the reunion (either in place of, or after, whatever shows he had already booked). Mike didn't break any contracts, he didn't go back on any word. He simply made a decision to not do something. That's fine. But he has to own that decision. Frankly, Mike is owning that decision somewhat more than a few of his defenders are. At least Mike has stuck to some more concrete (if disagreeable to some fans) factors that he didn't like, such as the size of the touring band, not being able to play small towns and small venues, not being able to write with Brian. I think there's probably much more to the story than that, and it's not surprising that power and money aren't addressed in any of these interviews on either side. I don't agree with the circular logic/wording that has even been used by David Marks, that Mike had these other shows that he *had* to do, as if some other entity was deciding where and when Mike should play and forcing him to play the gigs, or that they couldn't replace those already-booked shows with C50 shows. Mike decides to make the bookings. But in any event, Mike has owned it a bit more than some of the defenders.

I've heard a few other theories as to alternate/additional reasons for the demise of C50, and they all sort of make sense while simultaneously not making any sense given the evidence. There are surely more unknowns in this situation than most of us are aware of. But of the knowns, Mike's own words have not placed the blame on any other band member so much as simply passively saying the situation essentially settled back into what it used to be in 2011.

[CenturyDeprived]

The myth that anyone fired, or could fire, anyone else... which as almost everyone here, being well versed in BRI 101, already knows is not possible. That some here actually do still believe this happened is, well... pitiful, really. As I've said, mental midgets.

I don't think I've ever seen a single person here contend that Mike Love is legally Brian Wilson's employer and severed his employment in September, 2012. Essentially, the partnership formed to do C50 simply dissolved at the end of it.

The issue is whether what occurred amounted to the same thing. As Wirestone has said in a previous post, many feel that while not legally/technically the same thing, the idea of letting a contract expire and not continuing on with a willing and able Brian Wilson, and then going back to one's exclusive license to use the same name, is not *terribly* different from firing Brian.

To reiterate, I don't think anybody apart from an occasional lazy "journalist", has contended Mike fired Brian. To continually cite "Mike didn't fire Brian" makes no sense to me. It's answering a question that nobody asked. Even Mike has used this as a response in some interviews, citing "there were erroneous reports that I fired Brian", rather than actually discussing why he didn't choose, while under no legal obligation to do so, to continue the reunion.

The "no more shows for Brian" e-mail is also irrelevant. As Wirestone mentioned, we don't know what precipitated that e-mail. But even if it was a completely out of the blue message from Brian, we know that at some point after that, before the tour was over, Brian changed his mind. Folks including David Marks have said that the plan was *always* for Mike to go back to his own tour. It also seems quite possible if not likely that Mike was already booking his own shows while the reunion tour was still happening. Those facts, coupled with the fact that Mike has never, apart from one quick mention in an interview, even mentioned the "no more shows" e-mail. This includes not mentioning the e-mail in that long letter to the LA Times. Why hasn't he mentioned that e-mail more often? I would guess because it's irrelevant. He has other reasons for not continuing. But I don't think anybody believes that Mike would have continued the reunion were it not solely for a mid-tour e-mail from Brian.

My guess is that Mike saw C50 as the anomaly to his usual routine. Given the likelihood that post-reunion shows were booked before or during the C50 tour, it probably was wishful thinking, maybe some naivety, for Brian and Al to think the amazing reviews and additional offers would convince Mike to continue the reunion (either in place of, or after, whatever shows he had already booked). Mike didn't break any contracts, he didn't go back on any word. He simply made a decision to not do something. That's fine. But he has to own that decision. Frankly, Mike is owning that decision somewhat more than a few of his defenders are. At least Mike has stuck to some more concrete (if disagreeable to some fans) factors that he didn't like, such as the size of the touring band, not being able to play small towns and small venues, not being able to write with Brian. I think there's probably much more to the story than that, and it's not surprising that power and money aren't addressed in any of these interviews on either side. I don't agree with the circular logic/wording that has even been used by David Marks, that Mike had these other shows that he *had* to do, as if some other entity was deciding where and when Mike should play and forcing him to play the gigs, or that they couldn't replace those already-booked shows with C50 shows. Mike decides to make the bookings. But in any event, Mike has owned it a bit more than some of the defenders.

I've heard a few other theories as to alternate/additional reasons for the demise of C50, and they all sort of make sense while simultaneously not making any sense given the evidence. There are surely more unknowns in this situation than most of us are aware of. But of the knowns, Mike's own words have not placed the blame on any other band member so much as simply passively saying the situation essentially settled back into what it used to be in 2011.

The only band member who would have had the balls to state that the actions amounted to a desperate power grab would have been Dennis. He wouldn't have shied away to have told it like it was/is.  Brian and Al don't strike me as vindictive enough to put it like that publicly, but I would be very surprised if they *didn't* feel that way. For Mike to have publicly have had to endure the endless (and what will likely continue to be in perpetuity) media/fan backlash which came along with his actions, Mike must have really, really, really, so, so, so badly wanted to retain that power. Like really, achingly bad. No cost was too great, was it? IMO, after liquor/drugs, this addiction to power/control is sadly the 2nd most toxic affliction in the band's history. I know these are hard words to swallow, but it's the truth.

[Cam Mott]

Brian didn't tour with the band for decades. Al and David left the band. The touring band has been less than the whole band for most of their career because of one member or another (usually Brian) for some reason or another. It's just the way it is.

[Jim V.]

Hey Andrew, without breaking into the standard talking points or tying yourself into a pretzel trying to find some intellectual consistency on the topic, I'd like to ask a few things.

-In your opinion, do you believe that if it was up to Brian Wilson and Alan Jardine in September 2012, would the reunion of The Beach Boys have continued?

-Do you believe that the one line from an email, saying something like "no more shows for the Wilsons" meant that Brian was totally done with any further activity with The Beach Boys as an ongoing concern? Or perhaps, do you think it just meant that the tour was over after the UK, and that the door was open to later live work either later in the year or in 2013?

-Do you think, regardless of any legal situations, that it is smart for Mike Love and supporting member Bruce Johnston to tour as The Beach Boys after 2012?

[Andrew G. Doe]

Hey Andrew, without breaking into the standard talking points or tying yourself into a pretzel trying to find some intellectual consistency on the topic, I'd like to ask a few things.

-In your opinion, do you believe that if it was up to Brian Wilson and Alan Jardine in September 2012, would the reunion of The Beach Boys have continued?

Very likely, given that it was their expressed wish at the time.

-Do you believe that the one line from an email, saying something like "no more shows for the Wilsons" meant that Brian was totally done with any further activity with The Beach Boys as an ongoing concern? Or perhaps, do you think it just meant that the tour was over after the UK, and that the door was open to later live work either later in the year or in 2013?

Maybe it's not just one line. Maybe that's the whole email. Who knows ? Whatever, I'd say it means what it says: no more shows. Does it say "I'm done with The Beach Boys", or "no shows, no albums, no nothing, bye" ? Nope. It's very specific.

-Do you think, regardless of any legal situations, that it is smart for Mike Love and supporting member Bruce Johnston to tour as The Beach Boys after 2012?

The members of BRI seem happy enough with it. Personally, if it keeps the music alive and the musical integrity isn't compromised (and it isn't - I saw the band in 1991, with Carl, and they were embarrassingly poor), I have no problem. I'd rather have the best possible iteration of the band touring, that is the 2012 line-up, but for various reasons, that's looking highly unlikely to happen again. So, cherish what happened. Is it "smart", or preferable, for a substantial slice of the posters here ?  Of course not. Is it "smart" in the eyes of the punters ?  They don't care, they're not as invested, or as obsessed about it, as we are (how could they be - they're normal !): they go for a couple of hours of great music.

[Andrew G. Doe]

I've heard a few other theories as to alternate/additional reasons for the demise of C50, and they all sort of make sense while simultaneously not making any sense given the evidence. There are surely more unknowns in this situation than most of us are aware of.

Simply the best, most concise and unarguable summary I've seen. Brilliant. As Debbie said, we simply don't know. It's like trying to do a 1000 jigsaw with 839 of the pieces missing, and about as fulfilling.

But still, we try. 

[Jim V.]

Hey Andrew, without breaking into the standard talking points or tying yourself into a pretzel trying to find some intellectual consistency on the topic, I'd like to ask a few things.

-In your opinion, do you believe that if it was up to Brian Wilson and Alan Jardine in September 2012, would the reunion of The Beach Boys have continued?

Very likely, given that it was their expressed wish at the time.

OK, so if we take this to it's logical conclusion, wouldn't that mean that the fact that the reunion ended fall on the shoulders of Mike Love then? If the two other main players wanted to continue and one didn't, why is it being argued whether or not it was Mike Love who tanked it? If, as you admit, Brian and Al wanted to keep going, how could they be also cited for being as culpable as Mike?

-Do you believe that the one line from an email, saying something like "no more shows for the Wilsons" meant that Brian was totally done with any further activity with The Beach Boys as an ongoing concern? Or perhaps, do you think it just meant that the tour was over after the UK, and that the door was open to later live work either later in the year or in 2013?

Maybe it's not just one line. Maybe that's the whole email. Who knows ? Whatever, I'd say it means what it says: no more shows. Does it say "I'm done with The Beach Boys", or "no shows, no albums, no nothing, bye" ? Nope. It's very specific.

Well, if it was specific as to "no more shows" why has it been used by you and others to show that, "HEY BRIAN ACTUALLY ENDED THE REUNION! HE DIDN'T WANNA DO MORE SHOWS! THAT MEANS HE WAS DONE WITH THE BEACH BOYS!" while this was obviously not the case as you admitted above. Therefore, I don't understand what the email has to do with anything. It is neither here nor there when one considers whether The Beach Boys should have continued as a true functional group instead of reverting to basically just being a brand name which benefits on potential customers lack of knowledge about the current lineup of the group.

[Jim V.]

Also while you seem to be in a somewhat honest mood again Andrew, do you think that if Mike Love didn't have The Beach Boys name in his back pocket in 2012, he would've continued on with Brian and Al?

I have a pretty great feeling that he woulda been a-ok with continuing on if the only other option was touring as something like the "Endless Summer Maharishi Beach Band featuring Bob Sled & the Toboggans."

[The Shift]

My assumptions: they all signed up to the pre-nup's 50 show clause. They all signed-up for the 23 show extension. So in a way any prolonging ofthe tour was (legally) doomed from the start.

When the extension expired, maybe Mike pointed out that he had had shows booked since before C50 hit the road and suggested that the behemoth be toned down to something more lithe, tours KE and affordable. Brian maybe stated his preference for the bigger band, Mike refused. So Brian emails to say "no Wilson involvement in that scenario" and BANG - the end is writ.

[Fire Wind]

My take:  If Mike called time on it, so what?  It's not the end of the world.  Clearly, he had issues with how it was going down.  If things aren't to his liking, what should he have done, just sucked it up and carried on?

The questions I would ask are how were those concerns dealt with by Brian and his team?  If they were to do another reunion album, how would it work?  Same as before, with Mike feeling like he's being kept at arm's length?  Kinda awkward, no?  I recall reading here that Al wanted to get one of his songs on the album and was just kinda brushed off by Brian.  Doesn't sound like an ideal working scenario.  How long would you put up with it for?

[Cam Mott]

I bet if it is addressed at all by Brian and Mike that they both have legitimate reasons for their points of view which just did not happen to line up this time.

[Mike's Beard]

Also while you seem to be in a somewhat honestly mood again Andrew, do you think that if Mike Love didn't have The Beach Boys name in his back pocket in 2012, he would've continued on with Brian and Al?

I have a pretty great feeling that he woulda been a-ok with continuing on if the only other option was touring as something like the "Endless Summer Maharishi Beach Band featuring Bob Sled & the Toboggans."

Me too. Which makes Mike like every other human being on the face of the planet - he doesn't do something he's not that keen on doing if he doesn't have to.