Mike and Bruce Tour 2016

[CenturyDeprived]

If you really want to see it grind to a halt, Pisces Brothers followed by Cool Head after an incredible small set of rarities last summer is your winner. For whatever reason they have practically all but eliminated Cowsill's lead vocals. What does he have left? California Dreamin? I'm not sure whether that was his call or Mike's but it's a darn shame I love his voice.

I think you'll have as good a chance of having Mike retire Pisces Brothers as you will of Mike stopping to repeatedly tell the story about going to India with The Beatles. I don't think he can resist the low-hanging "respect" fruit of trying to get an interviewer to think he is cool because of a puffed-up Beatles connection.

But I hope he keeps playing Cool Head, because that's a solid song.

[RubberSoul13]

Yeah, just saw that on Mike's page...thought it was a bit misleading as well that they showed the full clip from the GMA appearance (same day as my C50 show) from 2012 with that lineup.

Anyway...saw the Coney Island setlist...am I the only one that's in a state of bewilderment that "Pisces Brothers" has stayed in the set all this time, yet "Wild Honey" lived in the set for about a year? And even worse...they've added "Summer in Paradise" to the opening set for the best several gigs? 

In all honesty, I'd rather see Summer in Paradise than Goin to the Beach. 

And I'm with you about retiring Pisces Brothers.   The two times I've seen Mike and Bruce in the last year, that song grinded the concert to a halt. 

Looking at the Coney Island set, the could have done two classics to fill those spots that I'm sure would've kept the pace going that more people would be familiar with. "Don't Back Down" could easily replace "Summer in Paradise". "Pisces Brothers" being more of a ballad (I use that loosely) could be replaced by "Kiss Me Baby", "Please Let Me Wonder" etc. songs more people know, albeit not everybody.

There are two songs that have never worked in concert of all the times I've seen any configuration of the band: Pisces Brothers & All This is That.

[nybbfan1]

Saw M&B earlier tonight in White Plains NY.  Kind of an awkward venue - more like a big high school gym than a concert hall, but the acoustics worked surprisingly well on loud, fast rockers.   Give Mike credit:  he was in great form for most of the night.  He was off-key a few times - mostly on opening notes -  but he was mostly terrific and seemed pumped up by having Stamos on stage, who played on nearly every song, splitting time between guitar and drums.  Stamos was solid and appropriate;  the opposite of his intrusive presence at the 50th show in NYC back in 2012.  Band was excellent:  Foskett killed with Darlin, great with Caroline No, and most of his falsettos.  Someone was off frequently on the harmonies, but not sure if it was Bruce or Mike.  Totten was impressive throughout and I love Cowsil's drumming, although he took off a few sets off so Stamos could take over.   Stamos sounded a bit weak on Forever, which may be b/c it was the 15th anniversary of his Dad's death, which he announced in dedicating the song.   Bruce just doesn't have the wind anyone to hold notes but he was mostly on key and made a valiant touching effort with Disney Girls.   The sax/flute guy had several stand-out solos.  Main sour note was a really strange semi-slur gay remark by Mike referring to some Stamos role.   But overall, Mike was in good humor and got the mostly "older" audience moving.   Interesting that among tributes to Carl and Dennis and George Harrison, Mike never once mentioned the name "Brian" (or Al).  I thought it was amazing he didn't once credit the guy who wrote almost all those hits he performs.  But all the promo clips made sure we know that Mike's autobio is coming out!  Makes me wonder if Brian will appear in that book. 
What is the story with Pisces Brothers?  Is there any record of George Harrison reciprocating any sort of affection or even friendship for Mike during George's life?  Why the hell isn't he writing a song about his bond with his cousins instead of George, whom I doubt he socialized with frequently.

[KDS]

Yeah, just saw that on Mike's page...thought it was a bit misleading as well that they showed the full clip from the GMA appearance (same day as my C50 show) from 2012 with that lineup.

Anyway...saw the Coney Island setlist...am I the only one that's in a state of bewilderment that "Pisces Brothers" has stayed in the set all this time, yet "Wild Honey" lived in the set for about a year? And even worse...they've added "Summer in Paradise" to the opening set for the best several gigs? 

In all honesty, I'd rather see Summer in Paradise than Goin to the Beach. 

And I'm with you about retiring Pisces Brothers.   The two times I've seen Mike and Bruce in the last year, that song grinded the concert to a halt. 

Looking at the Coney Island set, the could have done two classics to fill those spots that I'm sure would've kept the pace going that more people would be familiar with. "Don't Back Down" could easily replace "Summer in Paradise". "Pisces Brothers" being more of a ballad (I use that loosely) could be replaced by "Kiss Me Baby", "Please Let Me Wonder" etc. songs more people know, albeit not everybody.

There are two songs that have never worked in concert of all the times I've seen any configuration of the band: Pisces Brothers & All This is That.

I've seen All This is That done twice. 

The first time was at the C50 show at Merriweather Post.  I was in the lawn, and most of the crowd spent that song talking among themselves.

The next time was in February of this year in Baltimore, and the crowd was either attentively listening, or not paying attention. 

[KDS]

Saw M&B earlier tonight in White Plains NY.  Kind of an awkward venue - more like a big high school gym than a concert hall, but the acoustics worked surprisingly well on loud, fast rockers.   Give Mike credit:  he was in great form for most of the night.  He was off-key a few times - mostly on opening notes -  but he was mostly terrific and seemed pumped up by having Stamos on stage, who played on nearly every song, splitting time between guitar and drums.  Stamos was solid and appropriate;  the opposite of his intrusive presence at the 50th show in NYC back in 2012.  Band was excellent:  Foskett killed with Darlin, great with Caroline No, and most of his falsettos.  Someone was off frequently on the harmonies, but not sure if it was Bruce or Mike.  Totten was impressive throughout and I love Cowsil's drumming, although he took off a few sets off so Stamos could take over.   Stamos sounded a bit weak on Forever, which may be b/c it was the 15th anniversary of his Dad's death, which he announced in dedicating the song.   Bruce just doesn't have the wind anyone to hold notes but he was mostly on key and made a valiant touching effort with Disney Girls.   The sax/flute guy had several stand-out solos.  Main sour note was a really strange semi-slur gay remark by Mike referring to some Stamos role.   But overall, Mike was in good humor and got the mostly "older" audience moving.   Interesting that among tributes to Carl and Dennis and George Harrison, Mike never once mentioned the name "Brian" (or Al).  I thought it was amazing he didn't once credit the guy who wrote almost all those hits he performs.  But all the promo clips made sure we know that Mike's autobio is coming out!  Makes me wonder if Brian will appear in that book. 
What is the story with Pisces Brothers?  Is there any record of George Harrison reciprocating any sort of affection or even friendship for Mike during George's life?  Why the hell isn't he writing a song about his bond with his cousins instead of George, whom I doubt he socialized with frequently.

Mentioning Brian seems to depend on the day.  When I saw M&B (and David) last August, he mentioned "Cousin Brian" several times.  But this past February, he didn't once.  I think he did mention Al when he introduced All This is That.

[HeyJude]

Is there any record of George Harrison reciprocating any sort of affection or even friendship for Mike during George's life?  

Not that I've ever heard of. Other than both of them being in India in 1968, I've never heard of any connection or ongoing relationship. I think there's a photo of Mike and George in the same frame from circa 1971 or so (they both have their long early 70s beards). But there's almost no record of George ever uttering the name "Beach Boys", let alone Mike.

George mentioned the Beach Boys' name during an "Anthology" interview in describing "Paperback Writer" and it's layered vocals. That's the only time I can think of, certainly post-60s, where George even mentioned the band.

I think it's pretty well established that Paul was the main guy that was into Brian and the BBs, and even then it was pretty confined to a few albums/eras, mainly "Pet Sounds."

Paul did tell a funny story about Mike in India in 1968 in, I believe, the "authorized" Barry Miles biography. Paul mentions that Mike would go into town and buy tons and tons of batteries and stuff like that and then sell the stuff to the people at the Maharishi compound, essentially becoming a vendor.

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

Is there any record of George Harrison reciprocating any sort of affection or even friendship for Mike during George's life?  

Not that I've ever heard of. Other than both of them being in India in 1968, I've never heard of any connection or ongoing relationship. I think there's a photo of Mike and George in the same frame from circa 1971 or so (they both having their long early 70s beards). But there's almost no record of George ever uttering the name "Beach Boys", let alone Mike.

George mentioned the Beach Boys' name during an "Anthology" interview in describing "Paperback Writer" and it's layered vocals. That's the only time I can think of, certainly post-60s, where George even mentioned the band.

I think it's pretty well established that Paul was the main guy that was into Brian and the BBs, and even then it was pretty confined to a few albums/eras, mainly "Pet Sounds."

Paul did tell a funny story about Mike in India in 1968 in, I believe, the "authorized" Barry Miles biography. Paul mentions that Mike would go into town and buy tons and tons of batteries and stuff like that and then sell the stuff to the people at the Maharishi compound, essentially becoming a vendor.

That sounds highly believable and consistent with myKe luHv's abnormal behavior pattern with or without TM. If the Beatles did anything related to luHv it was probably in the form of a snarky laugh at the luHvster's expense.

[RubberSoul13]

Yeah, just saw that on Mike's page...thought it was a bit misleading as well that they showed the full clip from the GMA appearance (same day as my C50 show) from 2012 with that lineup.

Anyway...saw the Coney Island setlist...am I the only one that's in a state of bewilderment that "Pisces Brothers" has stayed in the set all this time, yet "Wild Honey" lived in the set for about a year? And even worse...they've added "Summer in Paradise" to the opening set for the best several gigs? 

In all honesty, I'd rather see Summer in Paradise than Goin to the Beach. 

And I'm with you about retiring Pisces Brothers.   The two times I've seen Mike and Bruce in the last year, that song grinded the concert to a halt. 

Looking at the Coney Island set, the could have done two classics to fill those spots that I'm sure would've kept the pace going that more people would be familiar with. "Don't Back Down" could easily replace "Summer in Paradise". "Pisces Brothers" being more of a ballad (I use that loosely) could be replaced by "Kiss Me Baby", "Please Let Me Wonder" etc. songs more people know, albeit not everybody.

There are two songs that have never worked in concert of all the times I've seen any configuration of the band: Pisces Brothers & All This is That.

I've seen All This is That done twice. 

The first time was at the C50 show at Merriweather Post.  I was in the lawn, and most of the crowd spent that song talking among themselves.

The next time was in February of this year in Baltimore, and the crowd was either attentively listening, or not paying attention. 

I was in the second row for both those shows and the reactions were exactly as you describe. I've also heard it once at the American Music Theatre, whose majority age is well over 75 and probably don't own any post Pet Sounds material.

HeyJude- forgot about that ML story with the batteries...absolutely hilarious 

[KDS]

Yeah, just saw that on Mike's page...thought it was a bit misleading as well that they showed the full clip from the GMA appearance (same day as my C50 show) from 2012 with that lineup.

Anyway...saw the Coney Island setlist...am I the only one that's in a state of bewilderment that "Pisces Brothers" has stayed in the set all this time, yet "Wild Honey" lived in the set for about a year? And even worse...they've added "Summer in Paradise" to the opening set for the best several gigs? 

In all honesty, I'd rather see Summer in Paradise than Goin to the Beach. 

And I'm with you about retiring Pisces Brothers.   The two times I've seen Mike and Bruce in the last year, that song grinded the concert to a halt. 

Looking at the Coney Island set, the could have done two classics to fill those spots that I'm sure would've kept the pace going that more people would be familiar with. "Don't Back Down" could easily replace "Summer in Paradise". "Pisces Brothers" being more of a ballad (I use that loosely) could be replaced by "Kiss Me Baby", "Please Let Me Wonder" etc. songs more people know, albeit not everybody.

There are two songs that have never worked in concert of all the times I've seen any configuration of the band: Pisces Brothers & All This is That.

I've seen All This is That done twice. 

The first time was at the C50 show at Merriweather Post.  I was in the lawn, and most of the crowd spent that song talking among themselves.

The next time was in February of this year in Baltimore, and the crowd was either attentively listening, or not paying attention. 

I was in the second row for both those shows and the reactions were exactly as you describe. I've also heard it once at the American Music Theatre, whose majority age is well over 75 and probably don't own any post Pet Sounds material.

HeyJude- forgot about that ML story with the batteries...absolutely hilarious 

I was in the 2nd row at the Lyric too.   For a good portion of the second half, the crowd seemed pretty dead.  I suspect that's why All I Wanna Do was dropped. 

They sure got up for Barbara Ann though. 

[HeyJude]

This is a very general observation that may only sometimes pertain to Mike, but I think sometimes doing “deep cuts” or other lesser-known songs is hindered by excessive pre-song explanations/stories, etc. Over the years, the Beach Boys didn’t tend to tell long stories or explanations before the big hits. They would typically knock them out one after the other. So sometimes it’s almost a semi-subconscious “tell” to the audience when a song is preceded by a long monologue. If a band just goes straight into starting the song, then the audience hasn’t already been sort of tipped off that this might be one of the “beer break” songs.

Looking at past BB shows over the years, it’s often deep cuts (“All This is That”, huge sections of the "GV Boxed Set" set in 1993), new album tracks (“this one is off of our new album….”), or unreleased (or released in a very low key fashion) songs (“Country Pie”, “Cool Head”, “Pisces Brothers”) that get the big long preamble.

Many bands, especially old fogey bands/artists that want to do new stuff but know the audience wants “the hits”, will overcompensate and “pre-apologize” for doing new stuff or deep cuts. Just shut up and play the song! That won’t make more people “know” the song, but it might not predispose them to not be interested.

[RubberSoul13]

This is a very general observation that may only sometimes pertain to Mike, but I think sometimes doing “deep cuts” or other lesser-known songs is hindered by excessive pre-song explanations/stories, etc. Over the years, the Beach Boys didn’t tend to tell long stories or explanations before the big hits. They would typically knock them out one after the other. So sometimes it’s almost a semi-subconscious “tell” to the audience when a song is preceded by a long monologue. If a band just goes straight into starting the song, then the audience hasn’t already been sort of tipped off that this might be one of the “beer break” songs.

Looking at past BB shows over the years, it’s often deep cuts (“All This is That”, huge sections of the "GV Boxed Set" set in 1993), new album tracks (“this one is off of our new album….”), or unreleased (or released in a very low key fashion) songs (“Country Pie”, “Cool Head”, “Pisces Brothers”) that get the big long preamble.

Many bands, especially old fogey bands/artists that want to do new stuff but know the audience wants “the hits”, will overcompensate and “pre-apologize” for doing new stuff or deep cuts. Just shut up and play the song! That won’t make more people “know” the song, but it might not predispose them to not be interested.

Spot on. Mike is incredibly guilty of this.

[RubberSoul13]

Well I'm quite pleased to see Mike & Bruce debuting a new "Pet Sounds" set this summer they started playing varying assortments of the following this week:

-I'm Waiting For The Day
-Here Today
-You Still Believe in Me
-Sloop John B
-Wouldn't it Be Nice
-Caroline, No
-God Only Knows

I won't listen to any clips until I see them on 7/19 with the NSO...but I really hope that someone can convince Mike to sing "That's Not Me" by then. It's really the only other song on the album I'd like to hear this album tackle...plus, how many lead vocal tracks does Mike have remaining that he hasn't EVER sang live? And this is one of the good ones! 

[filledeplage]

This is a very general observation that may only sometimes pertain to Mike, but I think sometimes doing “deep cuts” or other lesser-known songs is hindered by excessive pre-song explanations/stories, etc. Over the years, the Beach Boys didn’t tend to tell long stories or explanations before the big hits. They would typically knock them out one after the other. So sometimes it’s almost a semi-subconscious “tell” to the audience when a song is preceded by a long monologue. If a band just goes straight into starting the song, then the audience hasn’t already been sort of tipped off that this might be one of the “beer break” songs.

Looking at past BB shows over the years, it’s often deep cuts (“All This is That”, huge sections of the "GV Boxed Set" set in 1993), new album tracks (“this one is off of our new album….”), or unreleased (or released in a very low key fashion) songs (“Country Pie”, “Cool Head”, “Pisces Brothers”) that get the big long preamble.

Many bands, especially old fogey bands/artists that want to do new stuff but know the audience wants “the hits”, will overcompensate and “pre-apologize” for doing new stuff or deep cuts. Just shut up and play the song! That won’t make more people “know” the song, but it might not predispose them to not be interested.

Hey Jude - I think you are way off-the-mark and here is why.  There is a fine line between an "observation" and a "criticism."

The current live shows are so different from the 60's and 70's.  Those earlier years had fans who "digested whole," any new albums so they could, as you say, "knock them out - one after another." They cannot do that now, as the younger part of the audience who did not hear the music first-hand in that era for those album cuts, is still on a learning curve.  We were not.  We could hear a chord and recognize right-off-the-bat what it was.  It would not be fair to "knock them out" in that same manner with no explanation, especially for the younger fans.   Both Brian and Mike appear to appreciate that they are playing for fans who did not hear the music within a generational context.  Of course, some songs still get "knocked out" and need no introduction because they are ingrained as a part of the culture. Some do.   

It required no introduction or explanation or concept description in that time. Brian does a lot of that kind of teaching, which might appear redundant to some but not lost on newer fans who are learning the catalog.  Having seen Brian only a couple of weeks ago, I can tell you that both bands are almost alter egos of one another in terms of the teaching part of the performances.  And the Touring Band's new video is quite self-explanatory during the Pet Sounds instrumental track, in a section of stills/video, where Brian's image is superimposed on whatever event (whether Vietnam or some world-changing event's story) was being told "photographically."   

[HeyJude]

This is a very general observation that may only sometimes pertain to Mike, but I think sometimes doing “deep cuts” or other lesser-known songs is hindered by excessive pre-song explanations/stories, etc. Over the years, the Beach Boys didn’t tend to tell long stories or explanations before the big hits. They would typically knock them out one after the other. So sometimes it’s almost a semi-subconscious “tell” to the audience when a song is preceded by a long monologue. If a band just goes straight into starting the song, then the audience hasn’t already been sort of tipped off that this might be one of the “beer break” songs.

Looking at past BB shows over the years, it’s often deep cuts (“All This is That”, huge sections of the "GV Boxed Set" set in 1993), new album tracks (“this one is off of our new album….”), or unreleased (or released in a very low key fashion) songs (“Country Pie”, “Cool Head”, “Pisces Brothers”) that get the big long preamble.

Many bands, especially old fogey bands/artists that want to do new stuff but know the audience wants “the hits”, will overcompensate and “pre-apologize” for doing new stuff or deep cuts. Just shut up and play the song! That won’t make more people “know” the song, but it might not predispose them to not be interested.

Hey Jude - I think you are way off-the-mark and here is why.  There is a fine line between an "observation" and a "criticism."

I don't know what to say if an observation that you don't like or agree with amounts to criticism. And frankly, even if it *is* criticism, so what? What's wrong with criticism? Twenty years on the internet and thousands of posts and threads on this board, and someone still has to explain that criticism is okay on a discussion board?

I'm not off the mark at all; I've attended dozens and dozens of concerts over decades, and I've listened to recordings (and viewed videos) of probably hundreds of BB shows, and even more when we're talking about other bands. I've seen this phenomenon occur with the BBs and other artists/bands.

[HeyJude]

This is a very general observation that may only sometimes pertain to Mike, but I think sometimes doing “deep cuts” or other lesser-known songs is hindered by excessive pre-song explanations/stories, etc. Over the years, the Beach Boys didn’t tend to tell long stories or explanations before the big hits. They would typically knock them out one after the other. So sometimes it’s almost a semi-subconscious “tell” to the audience when a song is preceded by a long monologue. If a band just goes straight into starting the song, then the audience hasn’t already been sort of tipped off that this might be one of the “beer break” songs.

Looking at past BB shows over the years, it’s often deep cuts (“All This is That”, huge sections of the "GV Boxed Set" set in 1993), new album tracks (“this one is off of our new album….”), or unreleased (or released in a very low key fashion) songs (“Country Pie”, “Cool Head”, “Pisces Brothers”) that get the big long preamble.

Many bands, especially old fogey bands/artists that want to do new stuff but know the audience wants “the hits”, will overcompensate and “pre-apologize” for doing new stuff or deep cuts. Just shut up and play the song! That won’t make more people “know” the song, but it might not predispose them to not be interested.

Spot on. Mike is incredibly guilty of this.

And several of the guys are guilty of the "apologizing" thing. I get why they did it, and I'm sure a "bleh" response from an audience seems more intense when you're on stage and it's 15,000 people or something.

So I get why the band over the years were sort of pre-conditioned to think "new" stuff (whether actual new songs or deep cuts) won't go over well with the audience.

But I've literally heard some of the guys actually apologize to the audience. I'm not a PR expert, but I'd think any good band manager would tell a band that it doesn't speak to your confidence if you apologize for singing one of your songs, or "thanking" the audience for having the patience to sit through a new one.

[filledeplage]

This is a very general observation that may only sometimes pertain to Mike, but I think sometimes doing “deep cuts” or other lesser-known songs is hindered by excessive pre-song explanations/stories, etc. Over the years, the Beach Boys didn’t tend to tell long stories or explanations before the big hits. They would typically knock them out one after the other. So sometimes it’s almost a semi-subconscious “tell” to the audience when a song is preceded by a long monologue. If a band just goes straight into starting the song, then the audience hasn’t already been sort of tipped off that this might be one of the “beer break” songs.

Looking at past BB shows over the years, it’s often deep cuts (“All This is That”, huge sections of the "GV Boxed Set" set in 1993), new album tracks (“this one is off of our new album….”), or unreleased (or released in a very low key fashion) songs (“Country Pie”, “Cool Head”, “Pisces Brothers”) that get the big long preamble.

Many bands, especially old fogey bands/artists that want to do new stuff but know the audience wants “the hits”, will overcompensate and “pre-apologize” for doing new stuff or deep cuts. Just shut up and play the song! That won’t make more people “know” the song, but it might not predispose them to not be interested.

Hey Jude - I think you are way off-the-mark and here is why.  There is a fine line between an "observation" and a "criticism."

I don't know what to say if an observation that you don't like or agree with amounts to criticism. And frankly, even if it *is* criticism, so what? What's wrong with criticism? Twenty years on the internet and thousands of posts and threads on this board, and someone still has to explain that criticism is okay on a discussion board?

I'm not off the mark at all; I've attended dozens and dozens of concerts over decades, and I've listened to recordings (and viewed videos) of probably hundreds of BB shows, and even more when we're talking about other bands. I've seen this phenomenon occur with the BBs and other artists/bands.

Hey Jude - if you say that it is an observation but it has a critical tone, the observation (which should be a neutral fact-based event) becomes not just an observation. Point is there was a criticism with doing an "intro" or giving the "backstory" of a song.  A live concert is a "teaching opportunity" in my book, and I have seen a couple of hundred BB/BW shows, live and have listened to many live recordings. Giving a backstory whether it is from Brian or Mike or Carl, giving a backstory to Dennis' Forever (or whatever) is the time for them to be the music professor and the audience is their class.   Otherwise there would be little interaction and communication sharing, especially for those who are new to the game. 

New stuff is on a learning curve as well, especially if they are doing stuff for the first or second time and are apologizing in advance if they flub a note or lyric, that the audience should understand if it is being played live for the first or second time.   

[HeyJude]

This is a very general observation that may only sometimes pertain to Mike, but I think sometimes doing “deep cuts” or other lesser-known songs is hindered by excessive pre-song explanations/stories, etc. Over the years, the Beach Boys didn’t tend to tell long stories or explanations before the big hits. They would typically knock them out one after the other. So sometimes it’s almost a semi-subconscious “tell” to the audience when a song is preceded by a long monologue. If a band just goes straight into starting the song, then the audience hasn’t already been sort of tipped off that this might be one of the “beer break” songs.

Looking at past BB shows over the years, it’s often deep cuts (“All This is That”, huge sections of the "GV Boxed Set" set in 1993), new album tracks (“this one is off of our new album….”), or unreleased (or released in a very low key fashion) songs (“Country Pie”, “Cool Head”, “Pisces Brothers”) that get the big long preamble.

Many bands, especially old fogey bands/artists that want to do new stuff but know the audience wants “the hits”, will overcompensate and “pre-apologize” for doing new stuff or deep cuts. Just shut up and play the song! That won’t make more people “know” the song, but it might not predispose them to not be interested.

Hey Jude - I think you are way off-the-mark and here is why.  There is a fine line between an "observation" and a "criticism."

I don't know what to say if an observation that you don't like or agree with amounts to criticism. And frankly, even if it *is* criticism, so what? What's wrong with criticism? Twenty years on the internet and thousands of posts and threads on this board, and someone still has to explain that criticism is okay on a discussion board?

I'm not off the mark at all; I've attended dozens and dozens of concerts over decades, and I've listened to recordings (and viewed videos) of probably hundreds of BB shows, and even more when we're talking about other bands. I've seen this phenomenon occur with the BBs and other artists/bands.

Hey Jude - if you say that it is an observation but it has a critical tone, the observation (which should be a neutral fact-based event) becomes not just an observation. Point is there was a criticism with doing an "intro" or giving the "backstory" of a song.  A live concert is a "teaching opportunity" in my book, and I have seen a couple of hundred BB/BW shows, live and have listened to many live recordings. Giving a backstory whether it is from Brian or Mike or Carl, giving a backstory to Dennis' Forever (or whatever) is the time for them to be the music professor and the audience is their class.   Otherwise there would be little interaction and communication sharing, especially for those who are new to the game. 

New stuff is on a learning curve as well, especially if they are doing stuff for the first or second time and are apologizing in advance if they flub a note or lyric, that the audience should understand if it is being played live for the first or second time.   

If you want to continue to be argumentative about an extremely *simple* observation, then I can't stop you. An observation doesn't stop being an observation because it can be construed as critical or negative by you.

My original post was actually from a somewhat objective point of view, a bit of advice I would offer any band when I've seen how their talking bits vis-à-vis audience reaction goes. Talking for a few minutes before "Pisces Brothers" *doesn't* help anything, in my opinion (OBVIOUSLY). A quick "this is a song I wrote in tribute to George" wouldn't make much difference. But extended talking interludes have almost always hindered rather than helped Beach Boys shows (and most other shows), regardless of which member is talking. It just so happens that Mike has of course been the most vocal member over the years as the frontman.

And I'm talking about pre-planned intros to songs and things of that nature, as opposed to impromptu bits reacting to audience members, which can *sometimes* be engaging.

Many would argue that live concerts as a general point are not "teaching opportunities" beyond playing the music itself (outside of actual musical seminars, etc.), and the Beach Boys individually and collectively have NEVER used their shows as a teaching opportunity for the most part outside of playing the music. They have rarely offered anything substantive to say at shows. Carl dedicating a song to Dennis, or to the audience, etc., those sorts of things are fine and welcomed and take mere seconds. But typically, when it gets into the minute-plus stage of uninterrupted talking, it's often lame (lame jokes, the "we're old" stuff, or lame singalong bits going back to stuff like "Country Pie" etc.) and has sometimes consisted of apologizing or making excuses for the song they're about to play, or that they've just played. Mike I would argue has even undercut the validity of lyrics to songs on stage, making fun of the lyrics of "Heroes and Villains" during the '93 boxed set tour (and I'm sure others will say his "we're still trying to figure out what the song was about" comment is just a little joke).

The spoken word interludes during shows serve a variety of purposes, and my original point was simply that the type of person that goes to a concert will often find that a somewhat "slow" or "tedious" experience of a slower, unknown song that cuts the momentum of a setlist is only *further* enhanced by a long prefacing story.

[tpesky]

This is a very general observation that may only sometimes pertain to Mike, but I think sometimes doing “deep cuts” or other lesser-known songs is hindered by excessive pre-song explanations/stories, etc. Over the years, the Beach Boys didn’t tend to tell long stories or explanations before the big hits. They would typically knock them out one after the other. So sometimes it’s almost a semi-subconscious “tell” to the audience when a song is preceded by a long monologue. If a band just goes straight into starting the song, then the audience hasn’t already been sort of tipped off that this might be one of the “beer break” songs.

Looking at past BB shows over the years, it’s often deep cuts (“All This is That”, huge sections of the "GV Boxed Set" set in 1993), new album tracks (“this one is off of our new album….”), or unreleased (or released in a very low key fashion) songs (“Country Pie”, “Cool Head”, “Pisces Brothers”) that get the big long preamble.

Many bands, especially old fogey bands/artists that want to do new stuff but know the audience wants “the hits”, will overcompensate and “pre-apologize” for doing new stuff or deep cuts. Just shut up and play the song! That won’t make more people “know” the song, but it might not predispose them to not be interested.

Hey Jude - I think you are way off-the-mark and here is why.  There is a fine line between an "observation" and a "criticism."

I don't know what to say if an observation that you don't like or agree with amounts to criticism. And frankly, even if it *is* criticism, so what? What's wrong with criticism? Twenty years on the internet and thousands of posts and threads on this board, and someone still has to explain that criticism is okay on a discussion board?

I'm not off the mark at all; I've attended dozens and dozens of concerts over decades, and I've listened to recordings (and viewed videos) of probably hundreds of BB shows, and even more when we're talking about other bands. I've seen this phenomenon occur with the BBs and other artists/bands.

Hey Jude - if you say that it is an observation but it has a critical tone, the observation (which should be a neutral fact-based event) becomes not just an observation. Point is there was a criticism with doing an "intro" or giving the "backstory" of a song.  A live concert is a "teaching opportunity" in my book, and I have seen a couple of hundred BB/BW shows, live and have listened to many live recordings. Giving a backstory whether it is from Brian or Mike or Carl, giving a backstory to Dennis' Forever (or whatever) is the time for them to be the music professor and the audience is their class.   Otherwise there would be little interaction and communication sharing, especially for those who are new to the game. 

New stuff is on a learning curve as well, especially if they are doing stuff for the first or second time and are apologizing in advance if they flub a note or lyric, that the audience should understand if it is being played live for the first or second time.   

If you want to continue to be argumentative about an extremely *simple* observation, then I can't stop you. An observation doesn't stop being an observation because it can be construed as critical or negative by you.

My original post was actually from a somewhat objective point of view, a bit of advice I would offer any band when I've seen how their talking bits vis-à-vis audience reaction goes. Talking for a few minutes before "Pisces Brothers" *doesn't* help anything, in my opinion (OBVIOUSLY). A quick "this is a song I wrote in tribute to George" wouldn't make much difference. But extended talking interludes have almost always hindered rather than helped Beach Boys shows (and most other shows), regardless of which member is talking. It just so happens that Mike has of course been the most vocal member over the years as the frontman.

And I'm talking about pre-planned intros to songs and things of that nature, as opposed to impromptu bits reacting to audience members, which can *sometimes* be engaging.

Many would argue that live concerts as a general point are not "teaching opportunities" beyond playing the music itself (outside of actual musical seminars, etc.), and the Beach Boys individually and collectively have NEVER used their shows as a teaching opportunity for the most part outside of playing the music. They have rarely offered anything substantive to say at shows. Carl dedicating a song to Dennis, or to the audience, etc., those sorts of things are fine and welcomed and take mere seconds. But typically, when it gets into the minute-plus stage of uninterrupted talking, it's often lame (lame jokes, the "we're old" stuff, or lame singalong bits going back to stuff like "Country Pie" etc.) and has sometimes consisted of apologizing or making excuses for the song they're about to play, or that they've just played. Mike I would argue has even undercut the validity of lyrics to songs on stage, making fun of the lyrics of "Heroes and Villains" during the '93 boxed set tour (and I'm sure others will say his "we're still trying to figure out what the song was about" comment is just a little joke).

The spoken word interludes during shows serve a variety of purposes, and my original point was simply that the type of person that goes to a concert will often find that a somewhat "slow" or "tedious" experience of a slower, unknown song that cuts the momentum of a setlist is only *further* enhanced by a long prefacing story.

You could talk for a few hours and it wouldn't help that song....sorry I couldn't resist

[filledeplage]

This is a very general observation that may only sometimes pertain to Mike, but I think sometimes doing “deep cuts” or other lesser-known songs is hindered by excessive pre-song explanations/stories, etc. Over the years, the Beach Boys didn’t tend to tell long stories or explanations before the big hits. They would typically knock them out one after the other. So sometimes it’s almost a semi-subconscious “tell” to the audience when a song is preceded by a long monologue. If a band just goes straight into starting the song, then the audience hasn’t already been sort of tipped off that this might be one of the “beer break” songs.

Looking at past BB shows over the years, it’s often deep cuts (“All This is That”, huge sections of the "GV Boxed Set" set in 1993), new album tracks (“this one is off of our new album….”), or unreleased (or released in a very low key fashion) songs (“Country Pie”, “Cool Head”, “Pisces Brothers”) that get the big long preamble.

Many bands, especially old fogey bands/artists that want to do new stuff but know the audience wants “the hits”, will overcompensate and “pre-apologize” for doing new stuff or deep cuts. Just shut up and play the song! That won’t make more people “know” the song, but it might not predispose them to not be interested.

Hey Jude - I think you are way off-the-mark and here is why.  There is a fine line between an "observation" and a "criticism."

I don't know what to say if an observation that you don't like or agree with amounts to criticism. And frankly, even if it *is* criticism, so what? What's wrong with criticism? Twenty years on the internet and thousands of posts and threads on this board, and someone still has to explain that criticism is okay on a discussion board?

I'm not off the mark at all; I've attended dozens and dozens of concerts over decades, and I've listened to recordings (and viewed videos) of probably hundreds of BB shows, and even more when we're talking about other bands. I've seen this phenomenon occur with the BBs and other artists/bands.

Hey Jude - if you say that it is an observation but it has a critical tone, the observation (which should be a neutral fact-based event) becomes not just an observation. Point is there was a criticism with doing an "intro" or giving the "backstory" of a song.  A live concert is a "teaching opportunity" in my book, and I have seen a couple of hundred BB/BW shows, live and have listened to many live recordings. Giving a backstory whether it is from Brian or Mike or Carl, giving a backstory to Dennis' Forever (or whatever) is the time for them to be the music professor and the audience is their class.   Otherwise there would be little interaction and communication sharing, especially for those who are new to the game.  

New stuff is on a learning curve as well, especially if they are doing stuff for the first or second time and are apologizing in advance if they flub a note or lyric, that the audience should understand if it is being played live for the first or second time.  

If you want to continue to be argumentative about an extremely *simple* observation, then I can't stop you. An observation doesn't stop being an observation because it can be construed as critical or negative by you.

My original post was actually from a somewhat objective point of view, a bit of advice I would offer any band when I've seen how their talking bits vis-à-vis audience reaction goes. Talking for a few minutes before "Pisces Brothers" *doesn't* help anything, in my opinion (OBVIOUSLY). A quick "this is a song I wrote in tribute to George" wouldn't make much difference. But extended talking interludes have almost always hindered rather than helped Beach Boys shows (and most other shows), regardless of which member is talking. It just so happens that Mike has of course been the most vocal member over the years as the frontman.

And I'm talking about pre-planned intros to songs and things of that nature, as opposed to impromptu bits reacting to audience members, which can *sometimes* be engaging.

Many would argue that live concerts as a general point are not "teaching opportunities" beyond playing the music itself (outside of actual musical seminars, etc.), and the Beach Boys individually and collectively have NEVER used their shows as a teaching opportunity for the most part outside of playing the music. They have rarely offered anything substantive to say at shows. Carl dedicating a song to Dennis, or to the audience, etc., those sorts of things are fine and welcomed and take mere seconds. But typically, when it gets into the minute-plus stage of uninterrupted talking, it's often lame (lame jokes, the "we're old" stuff, or lame singalong bits going back to stuff like "Country Pie" etc.) and has sometimes consisted of apologizing or making excuses for the song they're about to play, or that they've just played. Mike I would argue has even undercut the validity of lyrics to songs on stage, making fun of the lyrics of "Heroes and Villains" during the '93 boxed set tour (and I'm sure others will say his "we're still trying to figure out what the song was about" comment is just a little joke).

The spoken word interludes during shows serve a variety of purposes, and my original point was simply that the type of person that goes to a concert will often find that a somewhat "slow" or "tedious" experience of a slower, unknown song that cuts the momentum of a setlist is only *further* enhanced by a long prefacing story.

When a Beach Boy writes a tribute to a Beatle, and performs it at a BB concert, it does beg a back story.  As contemporaries in the music business in the same remote region with The Maharishi, it is not insignificant. Even if there was no "close relationship"- the nexus is first, a birthday within the same astrological sign, spent away from home, and second, some shared commonality in that small but high-profile group in India at that time.  It is like camp.  You often make friends in camp that, in that moment are close but when camp is over, you go back to your old friends but fondly retain that snapshot of that window of time.  

The audience does need an explanation.  And, as well with the Summer in Paradise "scarf/shawl" as an awareness-raising moment to encourage social responsibility for the environment, and in particular the ability for underdeveloped regions to have drinking water that is clean.  

You don't like Mike and that is apparent.  It would not matter what he did, it would be wrong in some manner.  It is not up to fans to decide how a song is intro'd especially when they are responsible for the genesis of the song.  What appears long-winded or tedious, to one, may be received by another to be instructive.  What 20 year old knows who the Maharishi is, and that the whole band was photographed multiple times in his company, including Brian, and started a tour with him. The Maharishi was a snapshot in that window of their career.  And, that 20 year old BB fan should know the backstory as it is somewhat essential to understand that body of work associated with his influence.  

[SMiLE Brian]

Mike is educating the audience on what happens when you drive out two founding members of the band and the chance to set things right in 2012.

[nybbfan1]

This is a very general observation that may only sometimes pertain to Mike, but I think sometimes doing “deep cuts” or other lesser-known songs is hindered by excessive pre-song explanations/stories, etc. Over the years, the Beach Boys didn’t tend to tell long stories or explanations before the big hits. They would typically knock them out one after the other. So sometimes it’s almost a semi-subconscious “tell” to the audience when a song is preceded by a long monologue. If a band just goes straight into starting the song, then the audience hasn’t already been sort of tipped off that this might be one of the “beer break” songs.

Looking at past BB shows over the years, it’s often deep cuts (“All This is That”, huge sections of the "GV Boxed Set" set in 1993), new album tracks (“this one is off of our new album….”), or unreleased (or released in a very low key fashion) songs (“Country Pie”, “Cool Head”, “Pisces Brothers”) that get the big long preamble.

Many bands, especially old fogey bands/artists that want to do new stuff but know the audience wants “the hits”, will overcompensate and “pre-apologize” for doing new stuff or deep cuts. Just shut up and play the song! That won’t make more people “know” the song, but it might not predispose them to not be interested.

Hey Jude - I think you are way off-the-mark and here is why.  There is a fine line between an "observation" and a "criticism."

The current live shows are so different from the 60's and 70's.  Those earlier years had fans who "digested whole," any new albums so they could, as you say, "knock them out - one after another." They cannot do that now, as the younger part of the audience who did not hear the music first-hand in that era for those album cuts, is still on a learning curve.  We were not.  We could hear a chord and recognize right-off-the-bat what it was.  It would not be fair to "knock them out" in that same manner with no explanation, especially for the younger fans.   Both Brian and Mike appear to appreciate that they are playing for fans who did not hear the music within a generational context.  Of course, some songs still get "knocked out" and need no introduction because they are ingrained as a part of the culture. Some do.   

It required no introduction or explanation or concept description in that time. Brian does a lot of that kind of teaching, which might appear redundant to some but not lost on newer fans who are learning the catalog.  Having seen Brian only a couple of weeks ago, I can tell you that both bands are almost alter egos of one another in terms of the teaching part of the performances.  And the Touring Band's new video is quite self-explanatory during the Pet Sounds instrumental track, in a section of stills/video, where Brian's image is superimposed on whatever event (whether Vietnam or some world-changing event's story) was being told "photographically."   

At the show I went to last week in New York, there were basically no "younger fans."  Granted it was a weeknight, indoor show and even the cheapest seats were $82.  I took my 12 year old daughter to her first rock concert and she was pointing out how old the crowd was.  There were a handful of children there, but really no one else below 60.  Heck, I  felt young by comparison.    This would have been the perfect opportunity to play some deep cuts, but the set list played it very safe.  Maybe a lot of that was because this was a Stamos show.   The only surprise to me was Summertime Blues in the encore.    They did put on a great show and the audience responded really well.

[CenturyDeprived]

You don't like Mike and that is apparent.  It would not matter what he did, it would be wrong in some manner.  It is not up to fans to decide how a song is intro'd especially when they are responsible for the genesis of the song.  What appears long-winded or tedious, to one, may be received by another to be instructive.  What 20 year old knows who the Maharishi is, and that the whole band was photographed multiple times in his company, including Brian, and started a tour with him. The Maharishi was a snapshot in that window of their career.  And, that 20 year old BB fan should know the backstory as it is somewhat essential to understand that body of work associated with his influence.  

This isn't about who HeyJude likes or dislikes.

I was just at The Hollywood Bowl to see Brian performing last night. It was filled with wall-to-wall Brian fans. People who love and adore his work, and the guy in general. Especially including the group of friends who I attended with. And one of them - a huge Brian fan - after Brian gave somewhat of a long spoken intro to a song, said something to the effect that these long-winded introductions should be cut down a bit, and disrupt the flow of the show.

To me, sometimes spoken intros work, sometimes they don't. Point is, whether they work or not doesn't *necessarily* BY DEFINITION have anything to do with which Beach Boy does/says it, or how much that Beach Boy is liked/disliked by the person making their opinion known. HeyJude isn't wrong to feel what he feels, just as my friend isn't wrong either.

People are allowed to be critical of BB members. Geez.

[SMiLE Brian]

Not  in kokodopia!

[RubberSoul13]

Interesting note about the age and the setlist...I find that when the crowd is older, they play less in general. Both shows I've seen in Lancaster they played to almost only over 65 crowds and they cut a ton of the uptempo things from the set, and have never really dug DEEP.

I think the time to dig deep, is when younger fans come out on their own since they seem to be the ones taking the time to discover the deep cuts and actually know what band members they're seeing...but maybe I'm a bit biased...

[RubberSoul13]

According to the setlist website, they played Pisces Brothers AND Cool Head, Warm Heart back to back last night...God help them