New Mike Love Article/Interview from Yahoo/The West Australian

[the professor]

yes, if they needed a "rest," they have had it and should be back out there already. . . . .No clear answers, just division.

[GoogaMooga]

Wouldn't they need a new BB album to tour with? A new tour would have to offer something special, like C50 did.

[Marty Castillo]

It's all the other BS that just makes it less palatable. He says it was "always the plan" to go back to his tour. If that's the case, then what does the "promoters say give it a rest" argument have to do with anything? That's not even getting into the reports that they *were* offered more big gigs, and that promoters and people with more money than Joe Thomas were watching the C50 tour and seeing how it went with the idea of even bigger and better offers for more tours/projects. Nothing set it stone obviously, but I don't buy that huge swaths of "industry people" were telling Mike the reunion should break up to "build up demand." And again, any promoter who is telling Mike the truth would tell him that "giving it a rest" doesn't entail immediately continuing to tour under the same name and continuing to dilute the trademark's power.

Mike's "give it a rest" story sounds to me like one industry guy at a cocktail party off-handedly mentioned that big bands shouldn't "overexpose" themselves, and should try to build up demand by not constantly touring.

As I've often said, I think Mike made a decision to go back to his own thing, and then, as many people will do, has cultivated a list of technically-possible reasons he ended it. It's like a speech class where you're given a position, and then you have to come up with a list of argument points. Does anybody really think Mike ended the reunion because some promoter told him they should take a year or two off to build up demand? And if that were the case, then why hasn't he entertained going back to it, now that we're coming up on the FOURTH year of touring after the reunion ended.

I agree, the "give it a rest" argument holds no water if you go back out and tour under the same name. Their is no built up demand if the "Beach Boys" are doing 170+ shows a year, whether Brian, Al and Dave are playing those shows or not.

I'm sure that it comes down to dollars and cents for Mike. I would be shocked if Mike's income wasn't bigger in 2013, 2014 and 2015, compared to 2012. Should that matter this stage in life? Maybe, maybe not. I'm sure that including additional personalities/entourages created a scenario where everything on stage may have looked great, but behind the scenes could have been very stressful.

I would love to see another reunion, but I can't complain considering I saw Brian and Al twice this year and Mike and Bruce once. I'm hoping 2016 brings more of the same, as a reunion looks complete unlikely next year.

[HeyJude]

Wouldn't they need a new BB album to tour with? A new tour would have to offer something special, like C50 did.

I would say no, and no.

The TWGMTR album was solid, surprisingly strong all things considered. But I think the tour was the more impressive feat and the highest quality result from the whole project. And certainly, it did, would have, and still would net them far more money.

That a 2013 tour would have had to offer “something special” sounds, to me, like an extension of some of Mike’s arguments. I just fundamentally disagree, as did some actual tour promoters apparently.

“Due to overwhelming success, the Beach Boys’ 2012 reunion tour will undertake an encore tour performance throughout 2013!” That would have sold a ton of tickets. They could have taken it to international territories that they didn’t hit in 2012. Repeat, perhaps shorter, runs through North American and Europe. They only did TWO shows in the UK, they easily could have done more stuff there.

There was also the idea of doing a hugely lucrative Las Vegas residency. We know some possible reasons Mike would have never gone for something like that. But it was another possibility.

Lots of possibilities for how the reunion could have continued one more year, or in perpetuity. Just because Mike (and the other guys when they were in the band) diluted the trademark by touring incessantly every year and, when it comes to Mike, touring with few original or core members, it doesn’t mean a “reunion” lineup has to have some huge milestone to tout every time they do a tour.

And if they wanted to wrap the whole tour up in some sort of “special” context, there’s a million ways to do that. A good manager and PR firm could knock that out easily. There’s a “50th Anniversary” of something to do with the band built into the entire decade of the 2010s. 2013? 50 years of “Surfin’ USA!” 2014? 50 years of “Fun Fun Fun” (didn’t Mike actually use that one?). And so on….

[Cam Mott]

I guess I'm not the only one with a small bunker, Ontor.

Sounds like there are many in their own small bunkers cracking their code of still being able to blame Mike Love for it.

[HeyJude]

Mike Love essentially took the blame (though he obviously feels justified) in this interview, acknowledging Brian and Al wanted to continue. Not sure why it's so hard to accept that. Mike's words acknowledge that his decision to go back to the status quo was the mechanism that prevented Brian and Al from continuing the reunion with Mike.

[Cam Mott]

Mike Love essentially took the blame (though he obviously feels justified) in this interview, acknowledging Brian and Al wanted to continue. Not sure why it's so hard to accept that. Mike's words acknowledge that his decision to go back to the status quo was the mechanism that prevented Brian and Al from continuing the reunion with Mike.

That may be the way it cracks in your bunker but maybe not mine.

[Gerry]

In all honesty though, I don't think Brian should ever be left alone in a room with Mike.

[Cam Mott]

In all honesty though, I don't think Brian should ever be left alone in a room with Mike.

How about a small bunker?

[Emily]

In all honesty though, I don't think Brian should ever be left alone in a room with Mike.

How about a small bunker?

[D409]

At least the interview comes with an up-to-date photo of the touring BB's - quite a good one too...

[Micha]

Mike Love essentially took the blame (though he obviously feels justified) in this interview, acknowledging Brian and Al wanted to continue. Not sure why it's so hard to accept that. Mike's words acknowledge that his decision to go back to the status quo was the mechanism that prevented Brian and Al from continuing the reunion with Mike.

That may be the way it cracks in your bunker but maybe not mine.

Mike obviously didn't like the way he was treated by Brian's camp, whatever way that was and no matter whether he felt justifiably so or not, and Mike went back to a work mode he is more comfortable with. That is a both regrettable and comprehensible way to act, and more or less the same what Brian does.