Whennn was the last time Mike got to write with Brian alone in a room?

[CenturyDeprived]

If I can just comment on the "Mike being the biggest cheerleader" for anything -- Mike told me several times he envisioned the 50th being two shows -- not a tour: TWO shows for PBS culled from TWO concerts using the original band -- one at the Hollywood Bowl and the other at Wembley Arena with special guests. THAT'S what Mike wanted. But the cash from the reunion mixed with the press that would get the word "BEACH BOYS" into the average consumer's consciousness was far too good to pass up. So he didn't.

In July 2006 Mike Love and  Bruce Johnston outlined their plans to me for a televised reunion with co-founders Brian Wilson, David Marks and Al Jardine, saying, quote: "(Mike Love) "What I think is the right way to go about things, is to do a PBS special at the Hollywood Bowl with some guests and maybe one at Wembley Stadium (in London) with a couple of guests like Paul McCartney -- if he likes Pet Sounds so much and if he likes "God Only Knows" so well -- then have him sing it with us at Wembley stadium, along with Elton John singing something, so on and so forth. Maybe Eric Clapton will come out and do it for charity, do it for a really good cause and then the same thing at the Hollywood Bowl and that would be really cool." (Bruce Johnston) "That would be the great reunion."


In August 2009 Al Jardine rejected that plan outright, telling me, quote: "Of course, you don't have Carl Wilson there which would be a big minus as far as I'm concerned. There's ways to do it -- but again, that's like doing a one-off, isn't it? I wouldn't be interested in doing just a one show deal like that. If you want to create an organization that goes out and works and produces a show that's of high value, of high quality -- then you rehearse your ass off, make it the best you can, and you tour as a unit. You tour for a year. Like the Rolling Stones, they don't do one show for PBS, one show for... You do a tour. You either do it or don't do it. If it was going to be something like that it should be a worldwide tour, otherwise, no. I wouldn't be interested."

Mike Love didn't "fire" The Beach Boys as much as he QUIT them.

He QUIT.

So this obviously lends itself to the question... what possible logic would Mike Love have for doing JUST a one-off or two-off set of concerts like what he envisioned?

I can only think that he was scared from the onset that if he let it get beyond those two hypothetical shows, that it could eventually lead to a series of events which could strip him from his ability to tour as "The BBs". That, and maybe he was so afraid of the politics (and of losing control), that he didn't want to risk committing to anything further, or to even proposing anything further as a desire.

Can anyone else think of ANY OTHER logical reason why Mike would have only wanted such a minimal 2-show reunion? Bearing in mind that simply saying "that's just what he wanted" is a non-answer, equivalent to the nutritional value of eating paper.

[CenturyDeprived]

And you managed to not answer the bolded question. You related to Cam Mott by chance? I'll try again. Leaving fair or whatever out of it.

In your opinion, is it honorable that Mike decided to end The Beach Boys as a creative entity to tour with the same name on his own?

I'm still waiting for Cam to answer my question regarding if people with mental illness should possibly be talked to in different manner than people without mental illness, which I posed to him in another thread. He answered a completely different question than the one I asked. Sort of like asking someone what their favorite brand of automobile is, and they say Burger King.

[filledeplage]

As things stand means everyone involved is healthy and working. This is good. Would we rather someone had died in the middle of the C50 tour or that it was Brian who decided when it was over? ..... Even if others in the band wanted it to continue? ... As it ended might be a sour note, but it's a reality that was going to come one way or another.

Funny thing is, if it had been BRIAN who had called time on the whole thing (even if everyone else wanted to continue) the same people who tear Mike a new one for bowing out would be defending Brian's decision to the hilt.

This has been said before.

But it makes no sense, because Brian doesn't -- and never has -- toured as the Beach Boys.

It's not a small distinction. It's the entire point of the thing.

I don't think anyone would begrudge Mike if he wanted to tour and perform BB music under his own name, as Brian has. But after the C50 shows, Mike's willingness to return to the M&B format -- and bill it as the Beach Boys -- was appalling.

Wirestone - maybe I don't understand what you wrote, but each singular band performs Beach Boys' music.  It just can't be billed as "BB's," except for the Touring Band.  People would be very disappointed if Brian or Al didn't play BB music.  They expect exactly that, alongside whatever "themed" music is performed.

I'm not Wirestone, but here it is filledleplage. The thing is, if Brian was the one who broke up the reunion, he couldn't go back to his solo career and call it "The Beach Boys", so it's different.

On the other hand, you have Mike Love who didn't want to work with the true BEACH BOYS anymore, but decided he wanted to go back out on the road with only one other Beach Boy (and a replacement member at that) and ignored the call of the other members to stay together.

So simply put so you can understand it, Mike basically quit THE BEACH BOYS and in turn, got to keep touring as The Beach Boys, basically losing nothing. Whereas if Brian had pulled the plug on the reunion, he wouldn't have been able to go out there with Al, Darian and Probyn and whoever and call himself "The Beach Boys." So right there is the difference.

And just to finish, I have no fuckin' clue what your post even meant, as regarding the music that each Beach Boys-related band plays? Wirestone wasn't even talking about that. So what on earth did that reply have to do with his post?

It is BRI that sets the "terms and conditions" to be licensed to tour.  There are "conditions precedent" that must be fulfilled to tour, whether that is money, certain tour operators, or merchandise agents, or not recording as BB's, or anything else.

And, I'm (or you're) not "privy" to, if you are not a member of BRI, or the attorney or other agent/s who know and abide by the terms or conditions.  Or those who "monitor" what happens on tour to be sure that the "rules of the road" are followed.

While people may not like this, it is what it is.  Until such time as BRI chooses to "reform" this, and the touring members abide by the "terms and conditions" the ball is in their court.  Not mine, and not yours, unless you are a member of BRI.

And people on this board may opine as they choose, but unless they are members/agents/attys., they only speculate about what they don't like or do like.  

Aaaaaaaand once again, you just post a bunch of stuff everybody on this thread already knows. You manage to say so little with so many words.

Anyways, do you feel that it's fair that Mike got to end The Beach Boys as a creative entity to be able to go play Sea World as "The Beach Boys" with his son and Randell Kirsch? I don't care about the legalities or what have you.

My question, bolded so there is no misunderstanding is, is it honorable that Mike decided to end The Beach Boys as a creative entity to tour with the same name on his own?

We aren't discussing "fair" - but what is "objective" by looking at, pre and post C50 goings on.  BRI decides what works for its' business model. Not me, and not you.

FYI - I like the work of both Christian and Randell very much.  (That is opinion.)

And you managed to not answer the bolded question. You related to Cam Mott by chance? I'll try again. Leaving fair or whatever out of it.

In your opinion, is it honorable that Mike decided to end The Beach Boys as a creative entity to tour with the same name on his own?

I'm still waiting for Cam to answer my question regarding how people with mental illness should be talked to which I posed to him in another thread. He answered a completely different question than the one I asked. Sort of like asking someone what their favorite brand of automobile is, and they say Burger King.

You may ask all you like.  Don't hold your breath.   

Demanding an answer is an inappropriate turn-off. 

No one "owes" an answer to anyone. 

[SMiLE Brian]

Well said Howie and CD! Mike wants to control the BBs name at all costs, reunion with actual band members and good venues be damned. For Mike Love wants to be the frontman without an actual band to front.

[CenturyDeprived]

As things stand means everyone involved is healthy and working. This is good. Would we rather someone had died in the middle of the C50 tour or that it was Brian who decided when it was over? ..... Even if others in the band wanted it to continue? ... As it ended might be a sour note, but it's a reality that was going to come one way or another.

Funny thing is, if it had been BRIAN who had called time on the whole thing (even if everyone else wanted to continue) the same people who tear Mike a new one for bowing out would be defending Brian's decision to the hilt.

This has been said before.

But it makes no sense, because Brian doesn't -- and never has -- toured as the Beach Boys.

It's not a small distinction. It's the entire point of the thing.

I don't think anyone would begrudge Mike if he wanted to tour and perform BB music under his own name, as Brian has. But after the C50 shows, Mike's willingness to return to the M&B format -- and bill it as the Beach Boys -- was appalling.

Wirestone - maybe I don't understand what you wrote, but each singular band performs Beach Boys' music.  It just can't be billed as "BB's," except for the Touring Band.  People would be very disappointed if Brian or Al didn't play BB music.  They expect exactly that, alongside whatever "themed" music is performed.

I'm not Wirestone, but here it is filledleplage. The thing is, if Brian was the one who broke up the reunion, he couldn't go back to his solo career and call it "The Beach Boys", so it's different.

On the other hand, you have Mike Love who didn't want to work with the true BEACH BOYS anymore, but decided he wanted to go back out on the road with only one other Beach Boy (and a replacement member at that) and ignored the call of the other members to stay together.

So simply put so you can understand it, Mike basically quit THE BEACH BOYS and in turn, got to keep touring as The Beach Boys, basically losing nothing. Whereas if Brian had pulled the plug on the reunion, he wouldn't have been able to go out there with Al, Darian and Probyn and whoever and call himself "The Beach Boys." So right there is the difference.

And just to finish, I have no fuckin' clue what your post even meant, as regarding the music that each Beach Boys-related band plays? Wirestone wasn't even talking about that. So what on earth did that reply have to do with his post?

It is BRI that sets the "terms and conditions" to be licensed to tour.  There are "conditions precedent" that must be fulfilled to tour, whether that is money, certain tour operators, or merchandise agents, or not recording as BB's, or anything else.

And, I'm (or you're) not "privy" to, if you are not a member of BRI, or the attorney or other agent/s who know and abide by the terms or conditions.  Or those who "monitor" what happens on tour to be sure that the "rules of the road" are followed.

While people may not like this, it is what it is.  Until such time as BRI chooses to "reform" this, and the touring members abide by the "terms and conditions" the ball is in their court.  Not mine, and not yours, unless you are a member of BRI.

And people on this board may opine as they choose, but unless they are members/agents/attys., they only speculate about what they don't like or do like.  

Aaaaaaaand once again, you just post a bunch of stuff everybody on this thread already knows. You manage to say so little with so many words.

Anyways, do you feel that it's fair that Mike got to end The Beach Boys as a creative entity to be able to go play Sea World as "The Beach Boys" with his son and Randell Kirsch? I don't care about the legalities or what have you.

My question, bolded so there is no misunderstanding is, is it honorable that Mike decided to end The Beach Boys as a creative entity to tour with the same name on his own?

We aren't discussing "fair" - but what is "objective" by looking at, pre and post C50 goings on.  BRI decides what works for its' business model. Not me, and not you.

FYI - I like the work of both Christian and Randell very much.  (That is opinion.)

And you managed to not answer the bolded question. You related to Cam Mott by chance? I'll try again. Leaving fair or whatever out of it.

In your opinion, is it honorable that Mike decided to end The Beach Boys as a creative entity to tour with the same name on his own?

I'm still waiting for Cam to answer my question regarding how people with mental illness should be talked to which I posed to him in another thread. He answered a completely different question than the one I asked. Sort of like asking someone what their favorite brand of automobile is, and they say Burger King.

You may ask all you like.  Don't hold your breath.   

Demanding an answer is an inappropriate turn-off. 

No one "owes" an answer to anyone. 

Then at least people should have the cojones to say "I outright refuse to answer that question" instead of pretending that it has actually been answered with a Burger King-type response to a favorite automobile-type question.

[SMiLE Brian]

Yeah, I don't get what Indian Casinos have to do with my questions about Mike Love using the BBs name for his solo group....

[Mike's Beard]

So this obviously lends itself to the question... what possible logic would Mike Love have for doing JUST a one-off or two-off set of concerts like what he envisioned?

I can only think that he was scared from the onset that if he let it get beyond those two hypothetical shows, that it could eventually lead to a series of events which could strip him from his ability to tour as "The BBs". That, and maybe he was so afraid of the politics (and of losing control), that he didn't want to risk committing to anything further, or to even proposing anything further as a desire.

Can anyone else think of ANY OTHER logical reason why Mike would have only wanted such a minimal 2-show reunion? Bearing in mind that simply saying "that's just what he wanted" is a non-answer, equivalent to the nutritional value of eating paper.

It could be that Mike has settled into such a nice groove with his small Bruce and sidemen operation where he's his own boss that he really wondered if going back into the 'belly of the beast' would be wise. The C50 took a year out of his life which at 70+ is no small amount of time. Howie would you say that Mike had reservations about a big reunion tour?

[filledeplage]

Yeah, I don't get what Indian Casinos have to do with my questions about Mike Love using the BBs name for his solo group....

Your post disparaged the venues.  Casinos are always lumped into that equation.  Fact. 

[SMiLE Brian]

For CD!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMNry4PE93Y

[filledeplage]

As things stand means everyone involved is healthy and working. This is good. Would we rather someone had died in the middle of the C50 tour or that it was Brian who decided when it was over? ..... Even if others in the band wanted it to continue? ... As it ended might be a sour note, but it's a reality that was going to come one way or another.

Funny thing is, if it had been BRIAN who had called time on the whole thing (even if everyone else wanted to continue) the same people who tear Mike a new one for bowing out would be defending Brian's decision to the hilt.

This has been said before.

But it makes no sense, because Brian doesn't -- and never has -- toured as the Beach Boys.

It's not a small distinction. It's the entire point of the thing.

I don't think anyone would begrudge Mike if he wanted to tour and perform BB music under his own name, as Brian has. But after the C50 shows, Mike's willingness to return to the M&B format -- and bill it as the Beach Boys -- was appalling.

Wirestone - maybe I don't understand what you wrote, but each singular band performs Beach Boys' music.  It just can't be billed as "BB's," except for the Touring Band.  People would be very disappointed if Brian or Al didn't play BB music.  They expect exactly that, alongside whatever "themed" music is performed.

I'm not Wirestone, but here it is filledleplage. The thing is, if Brian was the one who broke up the reunion, he couldn't go back to his solo career and call it "The Beach Boys", so it's different.

On the other hand, you have Mike Love who didn't want to work with the true BEACH BOYS anymore, but decided he wanted to go back out on the road with only one other Beach Boy (and a replacement member at that) and ignored the call of the other members to stay together.

So simply put so you can understand it, Mike basically quit THE BEACH BOYS and in turn, got to keep touring as The Beach Boys, basically losing nothing. Whereas if Brian had pulled the plug on the reunion, he wouldn't have been able to go out there with Al, Darian and Probyn and whoever and call himself "The Beach Boys." So right there is the difference.

And just to finish, I have no fuckin' clue what your post even meant, as regarding the music that each Beach Boys-related band plays? Wirestone wasn't even talking about that. So what on earth did that reply have to do with his post?

It is BRI that sets the "terms and conditions" to be licensed to tour.  There are "conditions precedent" that must be fulfilled to tour, whether that is money, certain tour operators, or merchandise agents, or not recording as BB's, or anything else.

And, I'm (or you're) not "privy" to, if you are not a member of BRI, or the attorney or other agent/s who know and abide by the terms or conditions.  Or those who "monitor" what happens on tour to be sure that the "rules of the road" are followed.

While people may not like this, it is what it is.  Until such time as BRI chooses to "reform" this, and the touring members abide by the "terms and conditions" the ball is in their court.  Not mine, and not yours, unless you are a member of BRI.

And people on this board may opine as they choose, but unless they are members/agents/attys., they only speculate about what they don't like or do like.  

Aaaaaaaand once again, you just post a bunch of stuff everybody on this thread already knows. You manage to say so little with so many words.

Anyways, do you feel that it's fair that Mike got to end The Beach Boys as a creative entity to be able to go play Sea World as "The Beach Boys" with his son and Randell Kirsch? I don't care about the legalities or what have you.

My question, bolded so there is no misunderstanding is, is it honorable that Mike decided to end The Beach Boys as a creative entity to tour with the same name on his own?

We aren't discussing "fair" - but what is "objective" by looking at, pre and post C50 goings on.  BRI decides what works for its' business model. Not me, and not you.

FYI - I like the work of both Christian and Randell very much.  (That is opinion.)

And you managed to not answer the bolded question. You related to Cam Mott by chance? I'll try again. Leaving fair or whatever out of it.

In your opinion, is it honorable that Mike decided to end The Beach Boys as a creative entity to tour with the same name on his own?

I'm still waiting for Cam to answer my question regarding how people with mental illness should be talked to which I posed to him in another thread. He answered a completely different question than the one I asked. Sort of like asking someone what their favorite brand of automobile is, and they say Burger King.

You may ask all you like.  Don't hold your breath.   

Demanding an answer is an inappropriate turn-off. 

No one "owes" an answer to anyone. 

Then at least people should have the cojones to say "I outright refuse to answer that question" instead of pretending that it has actually been answered with a Burger King-type response to a favorite automobile-type question.

People should have the discretion to respond or not.  And not demand a response.  If there is no response forthcoming, that creates an inference that they are disinclined to respond.

That is their prerogative. 

[CenturyDeprived]

As things stand means everyone involved is healthy and working. This is good. Would we rather someone had died in the middle of the C50 tour or that it was Brian who decided when it was over? ..... Even if others in the band wanted it to continue? ... As it ended might be a sour note, but it's a reality that was going to come one way or another.

Funny thing is, if it had been BRIAN who had called time on the whole thing (even if everyone else wanted to continue) the same people who tear Mike a new one for bowing out would be defending Brian's decision to the hilt.

This has been said before.

But it makes no sense, because Brian doesn't -- and never has -- toured as the Beach Boys.

It's not a small distinction. It's the entire point of the thing.

I don't think anyone would begrudge Mike if he wanted to tour and perform BB music under his own name, as Brian has. But after the C50 shows, Mike's willingness to return to the M&B format -- and bill it as the Beach Boys -- was appalling.

Wirestone - maybe I don't understand what you wrote, but each singular band performs Beach Boys' music.  It just can't be billed as "BB's," except for the Touring Band.  People would be very disappointed if Brian or Al didn't play BB music.  They expect exactly that, alongside whatever "themed" music is performed.

I'm not Wirestone, but here it is filledleplage. The thing is, if Brian was the one who broke up the reunion, he couldn't go back to his solo career and call it "The Beach Boys", so it's different.

On the other hand, you have Mike Love who didn't want to work with the true BEACH BOYS anymore, but decided he wanted to go back out on the road with only one other Beach Boy (and a replacement member at that) and ignored the call of the other members to stay together.

So simply put so you can understand it, Mike basically quit THE BEACH BOYS and in turn, got to keep touring as The Beach Boys, basically losing nothing. Whereas if Brian had pulled the plug on the reunion, he wouldn't have been able to go out there with Al, Darian and Probyn and whoever and call himself "The Beach Boys." So right there is the difference.

And just to finish, I have no fuckin' clue what your post even meant, as regarding the music that each Beach Boys-related band plays? Wirestone wasn't even talking about that. So what on earth did that reply have to do with his post?

It is BRI that sets the "terms and conditions" to be licensed to tour.  There are "conditions precedent" that must be fulfilled to tour, whether that is money, certain tour operators, or merchandise agents, or not recording as BB's, or anything else.

And, I'm (or you're) not "privy" to, if you are not a member of BRI, or the attorney or other agent/s who know and abide by the terms or conditions.  Or those who "monitor" what happens on tour to be sure that the "rules of the road" are followed.

While people may not like this, it is what it is.  Until such time as BRI chooses to "reform" this, and the touring members abide by the "terms and conditions" the ball is in their court.  Not mine, and not yours, unless you are a member of BRI.

And people on this board may opine as they choose, but unless they are members/agents/attys., they only speculate about what they don't like or do like.  

Aaaaaaaand once again, you just post a bunch of stuff everybody on this thread already knows. You manage to say so little with so many words.

Anyways, do you feel that it's fair that Mike got to end The Beach Boys as a creative entity to be able to go play Sea World as "The Beach Boys" with his son and Randell Kirsch? I don't care about the legalities or what have you.

My question, bolded so there is no misunderstanding is, is it honorable that Mike decided to end The Beach Boys as a creative entity to tour with the same name on his own?

We aren't discussing "fair" - but what is "objective" by looking at, pre and post C50 goings on.  BRI decides what works for its' business model. Not me, and not you.

FYI - I like the work of both Christian and Randell very much.  (That is opinion.)

And you managed to not answer the bolded question. You related to Cam Mott by chance? I'll try again. Leaving fair or whatever out of it.

In your opinion, is it honorable that Mike decided to end The Beach Boys as a creative entity to tour with the same name on his own?

I'm still waiting for Cam to answer my question regarding how people with mental illness should be talked to which I posed to him in another thread. He answered a completely different question than the one I asked. Sort of like asking someone what their favorite brand of automobile is, and they say Burger King.

You may ask all you like.  Don't hold your breath.  

Demanding an answer is an inappropriate turn-off.  

No one "owes" an answer to anyone.  

Then at least people should have the cojones to say "I outright refuse to answer that question" instead of pretending that it has actually been answered with a Burger King-type response to a favorite automobile-type question.

People should have the discretion to respond or not.  And not demand a response.  If there is no response forthcoming, that creates an inference that they are disinclined to respond.

That is their prerogative.  

Sure, it's their prerogative. But could it be said that Mike Love's "chickensh*t" adjective directed at Mick Jagger at the Rock HOF could be equated to this case? Or totally out of line for me to equate? (But conversely, totally ok for Mike to have said in '88?)

[CenturyDeprived]

For CD!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMNry4PE93Y

 

[filledeplage]

As things stand means everyone involved is healthy and working. This is good. Would we rather someone had died in the middle of the C50 tour or that it was Brian who decided when it was over? ..... Even if others in the band wanted it to continue? ... As it ended might be a sour note, but it's a reality that was going to come one way or another.

Funny thing is, if it had been BRIAN who had called time on the whole thing (even if everyone else wanted to continue) the same people who tear Mike a new one for bowing out would be defending Brian's decision to the hilt.

This has been said before.

But it makes no sense, because Brian doesn't -- and never has -- toured as the Beach Boys.

It's not a small distinction. It's the entire point of the thing.

I don't think anyone would begrudge Mike if he wanted to tour and perform BB music under his own name, as Brian has. But after the C50 shows, Mike's willingness to return to the M&B format -- and bill it as the Beach Boys -- was appalling.

Wirestone - maybe I don't understand what you wrote, but each singular band performs Beach Boys' music.  It just can't be billed as "BB's," except for the Touring Band.  People would be very disappointed if Brian or Al didn't play BB music.  They expect exactly that, alongside whatever "themed" music is performed.

I'm not Wirestone, but here it is filledleplage. The thing is, if Brian was the one who broke up the reunion, he couldn't go back to his solo career and call it "The Beach Boys", so it's different.

On the other hand, you have Mike Love who didn't want to work with the true BEACH BOYS anymore, but decided he wanted to go back out on the road with only one other Beach Boy (and a replacement member at that) and ignored the call of the other members to stay together.

So simply put so you can understand it, Mike basically quit THE BEACH BOYS and in turn, got to keep touring as The Beach Boys, basically losing nothing. Whereas if Brian had pulled the plug on the reunion, he wouldn't have been able to go out there with Al, Darian and Probyn and whoever and call himself "The Beach Boys." So right there is the difference.

And just to finish, I have no fuckin' clue what your post even meant, as regarding the music that each Beach Boys-related band plays? Wirestone wasn't even talking about that. So what on earth did that reply have to do with his post?

It is BRI that sets the "terms and conditions" to be licensed to tour.  There are "conditions precedent" that must be fulfilled to tour, whether that is money, certain tour operators, or merchandise agents, or not recording as BB's, or anything else.

And, I'm (or you're) not "privy" to, if you are not a member of BRI, or the attorney or other agent/s who know and abide by the terms or conditions.  Or those who "monitor" what happens on tour to be sure that the "rules of the road" are followed.

While people may not like this, it is what it is.  Until such time as BRI chooses to "reform" this, and the touring members abide by the "terms and conditions" the ball is in their court.  Not mine, and not yours, unless you are a member of BRI.

And people on this board may opine as they choose, but unless they are members/agents/attys., they only speculate about what they don't like or do like.  

Aaaaaaaand once again, you just post a bunch of stuff everybody on this thread already knows. You manage to say so little with so many words.

Anyways, do you feel that it's fair that Mike got to end The Beach Boys as a creative entity to be able to go play Sea World as "The Beach Boys" with his son and Randell Kirsch? I don't care about the legalities or what have you.

My question, bolded so there is no misunderstanding is, is it honorable that Mike decided to end The Beach Boys as a creative entity to tour with the same name on his own?

We aren't discussing "fair" - but what is "objective" by looking at, pre and post C50 goings on.  BRI decides what works for its' business model. Not me, and not you.

FYI - I like the work of both Christian and Randell very much.  (That is opinion.)

And you managed to not answer the bolded question. You related to Cam Mott by chance? I'll try again. Leaving fair or whatever out of it.

In your opinion, is it honorable that Mike decided to end The Beach Boys as a creative entity to tour with the same name on his own?

I'm still waiting for Cam to answer my question regarding how people with mental illness should be talked to which I posed to him in another thread. He answered a completely different question than the one I asked. Sort of like asking someone what their favorite brand of automobile is, and they say Burger King.

You may ask all you like.  Don't hold your breath.  

Demanding an answer is an inappropriate turn-off.  

No one "owes" an answer to anyone.  

Then at least people should have the cojones to say "I outright refuse to answer that question" instead of pretending that it has actually been answered with a Burger King-type response to a favorite automobile-type question.

People should have the discretion to respond or not.  And not demand a response.  If there is no response forthcoming, that creates an inference that they are disinclined to respond.

That is their prerogative.  

Sure, it's their prerogative. But could it be said that Mike Love's "chickensh*t" adjective directed at Mick Jagger at the Rock HOF could be equated to this case? Or totally out of line for me to equate? (But conversely, totally ok for Mike to have said in '88?)

A digression from the topic...

[Mike's Beard]

Anyone not wishing to answer a certain question, I am posting this for your convenience for future use.

[filledeplage]

Anyone not wishing to answer a certain question, I am posting this for your convenience for future use.

 

 

 

[Robbie Mac]

If I can just comment on the "Mike being the biggest cheerleader" for anything -- Mike told me several times he envisioned the 50th being two shows -- not a tour: TWO shows for PBS culled from TWO concerts using the original band -- one at the Hollywood Bowl and the other at Wembley Arena with special guests. THAT'S what Mike wanted. But the cash from the reunion mixed with the press that would get the word "BEACH BOYS" into the average consumer's consciousness was far too good to pass up. So he didn't.

In July 2006 Mike Love and  Bruce Johnston outlined their plans to me for a televised reunion with co-founders Brian Wilson, David Marks and Al Jardine, saying, quote: "(Mike Love) "What I think is the right way to go about things, is to do a PBS special at the Hollywood Bowl with some guests and maybe one at Wembley Stadium (in London) with a couple of guests like Paul McCartney -- if he likes Pet Sounds so much and if he likes "God Only Knows" so well -- then have him sing it with us at Wembley stadium, along with Elton John singing something, so on and so forth. Maybe Eric Clapton will come out and do it for charity, do it for a really good cause and then the same thing at the Hollywood Bowl and that would be really cool." (Bruce Johnston) "That would be the great reunion."


In August 2009 Al Jardine rejected that plan outright, telling me, quote: "Of course, you don't have Carl Wilson there which would be a big minus as far as I'm concerned. There's ways to do it -- but again, that's like doing a one-off, isn't it? I wouldn't be interested in doing just a one show deal like that. If you want to create an organization that goes out and works and produces a show that's of high value, of high quality -- then you rehearse your ass off, make it the best you can, and you tour as a unit. You tour for a year. Like the Rolling Stones, they don't do one show for PBS, one show for... You do a tour. You either do it or don't do it. If it was going to be something like that it should be a worldwide tour, otherwise, no. I wouldn't be interested."

Mike Love didn't "fire" The Beach Boys as much as he QUIT them.

He QUIT.

So this obviously lends itself to the question... what possible logic would Mike Love have for doing JUST a one-off or two-off set of concerts like what he envisioned?

I can only think that he was scared from the onset that if he let it get beyond those two hypothetical shows, that it could eventually lead to a series of events which could strip him from his ability to tour as "The BBs". That, and maybe he was so afraid of the politics (and of losing control), that he didn't want to risk committing to anything further, or to even proposing anything further as a desire.

Can anyone else think of ANY OTHER logical reason why Mike would have only wanted such a minimal 2-show reunion? Bearing in mind that simply saying "that's just what he wanted" is a non-answer, equivalent to the nutritional value of eating paper.

My uninformed opinion is maybe he was worried that a tour with the surviving members "done right" would take the shine off of the Mike and Bruce shows which are his bread and butter.

[Jim V.]

As things stand means everyone involved is healthy and working. This is good. Would we rather someone had died in the middle of the C50 tour or that it was Brian who decided when it was over? ..... Even if others in the band wanted it to continue? ... As it ended might be a sour note, but it's a reality that was going to come one way or another.

Funny thing is, if it had been BRIAN who had called time on the whole thing (even if everyone else wanted to continue) the same people who tear Mike a new one for bowing out would be defending Brian's decision to the hilt.

This has been said before.

But it makes no sense, because Brian doesn't -- and never has -- toured as the Beach Boys.

It's not a small distinction. It's the entire point of the thing.

I don't think anyone would begrudge Mike if he wanted to tour and perform BB music under his own name, as Brian has. But after the C50 shows, Mike's willingness to return to the M&B format -- and bill it as the Beach Boys -- was appalling.

Wirestone - maybe I don't understand what you wrote, but each singular band performs Beach Boys' music.  It just can't be billed as "BB's," except for the Touring Band.  People would be very disappointed if Brian or Al didn't play BB music.  They expect exactly that, alongside whatever "themed" music is performed.

I'm not Wirestone, but here it is filledleplage. The thing is, if Brian was the one who broke up the reunion, he couldn't go back to his solo career and call it "The Beach Boys", so it's different.

On the other hand, you have Mike Love who didn't want to work with the true BEACH BOYS anymore, but decided he wanted to go back out on the road with only one other Beach Boy (and a replacement member at that) and ignored the call of the other members to stay together.

So simply put so you can understand it, Mike basically quit THE BEACH BOYS and in turn, got to keep touring as The Beach Boys, basically losing nothing. Whereas if Brian had pulled the plug on the reunion, he wouldn't have been able to go out there with Al, Darian and Probyn and whoever and call himself "The Beach Boys." So right there is the difference.

And just to finish, I have no fuckin' clue what your post even meant, as regarding the music that each Beach Boys-related band plays? Wirestone wasn't even talking about that. So what on earth did that reply have to do with his post?

It is BRI that sets the "terms and conditions" to be licensed to tour.  There are "conditions precedent" that must be fulfilled to tour, whether that is money, certain tour operators, or merchandise agents, or not recording as BB's, or anything else.

And, I'm (or you're) not "privy" to, if you are not a member of BRI, or the attorney or other agent/s who know and abide by the terms or conditions.  Or those who "monitor" what happens on tour to be sure that the "rules of the road" are followed.

While people may not like this, it is what it is.  Until such time as BRI chooses to "reform" this, and the touring members abide by the "terms and conditions" the ball is in their court.  Not mine, and not yours, unless you are a member of BRI.

And people on this board may opine as they choose, but unless they are members/agents/attys., they only speculate about what they don't like or do like.  

Aaaaaaaand once again, you just post a bunch of stuff everybody on this thread already knows. You manage to say so little with so many words.

Anyways, do you feel that it's fair that Mike got to end The Beach Boys as a creative entity to be able to go play Sea World as "The Beach Boys" with his son and Randell Kirsch? I don't care about the legalities or what have you.

My question, bolded so there is no misunderstanding is, is it honorable that Mike decided to end The Beach Boys as a creative entity to tour with the same name on his own?

We aren't discussing "fair" - but what is "objective" by looking at, pre and post C50 goings on.  BRI decides what works for its' business model. Not me, and not you.

FYI - I like the work of both Christian and Randell very much.  (That is opinion.)

And you managed to not answer the bolded question. You related to Cam Mott by chance? I'll try again. Leaving fair or whatever out of it.

In your opinion, is it honorable that Mike decided to end The Beach Boys as a creative entity to tour with the same name on his own?

I'm still waiting for Cam to answer my question regarding how people with mental illness should be talked to which I posed to him in another thread. He answered a completely different question than the one I asked. Sort of like asking someone what their favorite brand of automobile is, and they say Burger King.

You may ask all you like.  Don't hold your breath.  

Demanding an answer is an inappropriate turn-off.  

No one "owes" an answer to anyone.  

Then at least people should have the cojones to say "I outright refuse to answer that question" instead of pretending that it has actually been answered with a Burger King-type response to a favorite automobile-type question.

People should have the discretion to respond or not.  And not demand a response.  If there is no response forthcoming, that creates an inference that they are disinclined to respond.

That is their prerogative.  

Sure, it's their prerogative. But could it be said that Mike Love's "chickensh*t" adjective directed at Mick Jagger at the Rock HOF could be equated to this case? Or totally out of line for me to equate? (But conversely, totally ok for Mike to have said in '88?)

A digression from the topic...

Nearly everything you post is "a digression from the topic." The rest of us could be talking about how John Stamos' recording of "Forever" would horrendous, and you'd butt in saying "yeah, but the kids in my class love him and he introduced the BB to them." Which means  dick to any of us, and adds zip-a-dee-doo-dah to our discussions.

So.....give us a break.

[CenturyDeprived]

Anyone not wishing to answer a certain question, I am posting this for your convenience for future use.

Strangely, you seem to be siding against Mike...

[Douchepool]

I want you to get up and jam.

[CenturyDeprived]

If I can just comment on the "Mike being the biggest cheerleader" for anything -- Mike told me several times he envisioned the 50th being two shows -- not a tour: TWO shows for PBS culled from TWO concerts using the original band -- one at the Hollywood Bowl and the other at Wembley Arena with special guests. THAT'S what Mike wanted. But the cash from the reunion mixed with the press that would get the word "BEACH BOYS" into the average consumer's consciousness was far too good to pass up. So he didn't.

In July 2006 Mike Love and  Bruce Johnston outlined their plans to me for a televised reunion with co-founders Brian Wilson, David Marks and Al Jardine, saying, quote: "(Mike Love) "What I think is the right way to go about things, is to do a PBS special at the Hollywood Bowl with some guests and maybe one at Wembley Stadium (in London) with a couple of guests like Paul McCartney -- if he likes Pet Sounds so much and if he likes "God Only Knows" so well -- then have him sing it with us at Wembley stadium, along with Elton John singing something, so on and so forth. Maybe Eric Clapton will come out and do it for charity, do it for a really good cause and then the same thing at the Hollywood Bowl and that would be really cool." (Bruce Johnston) "That would be the great reunion."


In August 2009 Al Jardine rejected that plan outright, telling me, quote: "Of course, you don't have Carl Wilson there which would be a big minus as far as I'm concerned. There's ways to do it -- but again, that's like doing a one-off, isn't it? I wouldn't be interested in doing just a one show deal like that. If you want to create an organization that goes out and works and produces a show that's of high value, of high quality -- then you rehearse your ass off, make it the best you can, and you tour as a unit. You tour for a year. Like the Rolling Stones, they don't do one show for PBS, one show for... You do a tour. You either do it or don't do it. If it was going to be something like that it should be a worldwide tour, otherwise, no. I wouldn't be interested."

Mike Love didn't "fire" The Beach Boys as much as he QUIT them.

He QUIT.

So this obviously lends itself to the question... what possible logic would Mike Love have for doing JUST a one-off or two-off set of concerts like what he envisioned?

I can only think that he was scared from the onset that if he let it get beyond those two hypothetical shows, that it could eventually lead to a series of events which could strip him from his ability to tour as "The BBs". That, and maybe he was so afraid of the politics (and of losing control), that he didn't want to risk committing to anything further, or to even proposing anything further as a desire.

Can anyone else think of ANY OTHER logical reason why Mike would have only wanted such a minimal 2-show reunion? Bearing in mind that simply saying "that's just what he wanted" is a non-answer, equivalent to the nutritional value of eating paper.

My uninformed opinion is maybe he was worried that a tour with the surviving members "done right" would take the shine off of the Mike and Bruce shows which are his bread and butter.

Although I guess it does lend credence to the thought that the set end date thing was Mike's desire from the very 2006 rooftop origins of the idea of C50. Two shows... then the set end date has arrived!

[CenturyDeprived]

Anyone not wishing to answer a certain question, I am posting this for your convenience for future use.

Honestly though, why would someone want to refuse to answer a question in the middle of a back-and-forth messageboard discussion? It's not an answer to say "they just don't want to answer". Again - that has the nutritional value of eating paper. You know there's a reason. Because they have determined that there's no way they can answer the question without saying something that reflects poorly on a person they are trying to defend. They know there's some logic in the question they are being posed, but they feel the bigger-picture motive of strict defense of the topic at hand is to be prioritized, so no backing down, just avoiding the question. Right? At least let's agree on that. We can agree that it's someone's "right" to do that, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking there's another reason for why. That's more or less what's happening here, and you know it. Same thing that happens in politics.

Am I off base in saying this?

[filledeplage]

As things stand means everyone involved is healthy and working. This is good. Would we rather someone had died in the middle of the C50 tour or that it was Brian who decided when it was over? ..... Even if others in the band wanted it to continue? ... As it ended might be a sour note, but it's a reality that was going to come one way or another.

Funny thing is, if it had been BRIAN who had called time on the whole thing (even if everyone else wanted to continue) the same people who tear Mike a new one for bowing out would be defending Brian's decision to the hilt.

This has been said before.

But it makes no sense, because Brian doesn't -- and never has -- toured as the Beach Boys.

It's not a small distinction. It's the entire point of the thing.

I don't think anyone would begrudge Mike if he wanted to tour and perform BB music under his own name, as Brian has. But after the C50 shows, Mike's willingness to return to the M&B format -- and bill it as the Beach Boys -- was appalling.

Wirestone - maybe I don't understand what you wrote, but each singular band performs Beach Boys' music.  It just can't be billed as "BB's," except for the Touring Band.  People would be very disappointed if Brian or Al didn't play BB music.  They expect exactly that, alongside whatever "themed" music is performed.

I'm not Wirestone, but here it is filledleplage. The thing is, if Brian was the one who broke up the reunion, he couldn't go back to his solo career and call it "The Beach Boys", so it's different.

On the other hand, you have Mike Love who didn't want to work with the true BEACH BOYS anymore, but decided he wanted to go back out on the road with only one other Beach Boy (and a replacement member at that) and ignored the call of the other members to stay together.

So simply put so you can understand it, Mike basically quit THE BEACH BOYS and in turn, got to keep touring as The Beach Boys, basically losing nothing. Whereas if Brian had pulled the plug on the reunion, he wouldn't have been able to go out there with Al, Darian and Probyn and whoever and call himself "The Beach Boys." So right there is the difference.

And just to finish, I have no fuckin' clue what your post even meant, as regarding the music that each Beach Boys-related band plays? Wirestone wasn't even talking about that. So what on earth did that reply have to do with his post?

It is BRI that sets the "terms and conditions" to be licensed to tour.  There are "conditions precedent" that must be fulfilled to tour, whether that is money, certain tour operators, or merchandise agents, or not recording as BB's, or anything else.

And, I'm (or you're) not "privy" to, if you are not a member of BRI, or the attorney or other agent/s who know and abide by the terms or conditions.  Or those who "monitor" what happens on tour to be sure that the "rules of the road" are followed.

While people may not like this, it is what it is.  Until such time as BRI chooses to "reform" this, and the touring members abide by the "terms and conditions" the ball is in their court.  Not mine, and not yours, unless you are a member of BRI.

And people on this board may opine as they choose, but unless they are members/agents/attys., they only speculate about what they don't like or do like.  

Aaaaaaaand once again, you just post a bunch of stuff everybody on this thread already knows. You manage to say so little with so many words.

Anyways, do you feel that it's fair that Mike got to end The Beach Boys as a creative entity to be able to go play Sea World as "The Beach Boys" with his son and Randell Kirsch? I don't care about the legalities or what have you.

My question, bolded so there is no misunderstanding is, is it honorable that Mike decided to end The Beach Boys as a creative entity to tour with the same name on his own?

We aren't discussing "fair" - but what is "objective" by looking at, pre and post C50 goings on.  BRI decides what works for its' business model. Not me, and not you.

FYI - I like the work of both Christian and Randell very much.  (That is opinion.)

And you managed to not answer the bolded question. You related to Cam Mott by chance? I'll try again. Leaving fair or whatever out of it.

In your opinion, is it honorable that Mike decided to end The Beach Boys as a creative entity to tour with the same name on his own?

I'm still waiting for Cam to answer my question regarding how people with mental illness should be talked to which I posed to him in another thread. He answered a completely different question than the one I asked. Sort of like asking someone what their favorite brand of automobile is, and they say Burger King.

You may ask all you like.  Don't hold your breath.  

Demanding an answer is an inappropriate turn-off.  

No one "owes" an answer to anyone.  

Then at least people should have the cojones to say "I outright refuse to answer that question" instead of pretending that it has actually been answered with a Burger King-type response to a favorite automobile-type question.

People should have the discretion to respond or not.  And not demand a response.  If there is no response forthcoming, that creates an inference that they are disinclined to respond.

That is their prerogative.  

Sure, it's their prerogative. But could it be said that Mike Love's "chickensh*t" adjective directed at Mick Jagger at the Rock HOF could be equated to this case? Or totally out of line for me to equate? (But conversely, totally ok for Mike to have said in '88?)

A digression from the topic...

Nearly everything you post is "a digression from the topic." The rest of us could be talking about how John Stamos' recording of "Forever" would horrendous, and you'd butt in saying "yeah, but the kids in my class love him and he introduced the BB to them." Which means  dick to any of us, and adds zip-a-dee-doo-dah to our discussions.

So.....give us a break.

Stamos is not unimportant to the late 80's/90's resurgence.  Brian is on several shows.  As well as other series that Stamos invited them on.  And, Baywatch...and that would be equally bad?  Stamos wasn't on that, that I recall.  It got them back into the terrain again.

And ya, it got young kids involved...I stand by that. And a new generation got to know Dennis' work via Stamos, so that would be objectionable, why?

"The rest of us" - is this forum a private fraternity, or a "tolerant open forum?" "Any of us?" So you speak for everyone? That is doubtful.  

The Beach Boys entity includes both Brian and Mike, a fact you may not like.  It is easy for me, (and even others perhaps) speaking for myself, because I can easily support all the members.

[Cam Mott]

So Mike and Brian went along with Al's idea.

[Jim V.]

Anyone not wishing to answer a certain question, I am posting this for your convenience for future use.

Strangely, you seem to be siding against Mike...

Oh man, you (or somebody) should remove the other boys from the photo and just have Mike and his scary, icy-cold scowl. It is so weird how such negativity emanates from the self-proclaimed Mr. Positivity.

[CenturyDeprived]

Anyone not wishing to answer a certain question, I am posting this for your convenience for future use.

Strangely, you seem to be siding against Mike...

Oh man, you (or somebody) should remove the other boys from the photo and just have Mike and his scary, icy-cold scowl. It is so weird how such negativity emanates from the self-proclaimed Mr. Positivity.

I included the other boys specifically because of the look on Carl's face!