Awesome New Mike Love Article!!

[filledeplage]

The movie was so inaccurate on the Pet Sounds/Smile era it was ridiculous, but then it continued . . . They showed Brian refusing to leave his bed while the other BeachBoys took over in the studio in his absence . . . The song they are recording while Brian is completely absent?  Add some Music . . . The one song on Sunflower that it is documented that Brian did produce.  Ridiculous.

Convincing Cam that this movie represented Mike's viewpoint (what other Beach Boy would have this "spin" on events?  None) is a waste of time - just ignore him and move on to discuss issues that interest us rather than argue about his Mike Love does no wrong stance.

Just think of it as loyal opposition.  

Does the screenplay text follow the book?

 I had no idea that Gaines wrote it.

You're confusing the movies. The one being discussed is "An American Family" that aired in two parts on ABC in 2000. John Stamos was an executive producer and did publicity for the movie leading up to the broadcast. Gaines had nothing to do with it.

"Summer Dreams" was on ABC in 1990 and was based on information taken from the Gaines book.

There were publicity interviews about "An American Family" in 2000 which made it clear it was an attempt to do the band justice after the 1990 movie got criticized and was not well received. Specifically, in one area, that was why the efforts were made to use the actual Beach Boys recordings and session tapes in "An American Family" instead of recreations, and they did use them for the most part - except for the Smile material, which turned into a travesty in how it was ultimately used in the film.

The attempts to rewrite or reshape the history of the band once Stamos' movie hit 1966 in the timeline looked to many fans and reviewers as bad as the fake beards and wigs from the '90 film.

GF - I pulled up one of them, the earlier one, to review it a bit earlier.  However bad it may be it did get a number of award nominations (9) and won 3 of those 8. And, purists will have a problem with almost anything, but there were good aspects.  It is on wiki.

The backdrop scenes of the earlier era were very good, and if the point was to publicize a So. Cal band, in the 60's, without remembering all the details, it served some educational purpose for someone with zero knowledge of the BB's.    

The wigs were not much better in the other movie.  The Wilsons had the greatest hair on the planet.  They could have done better.

And, I am unconvinced about these so-called timelines and who had what responsibility, when, because it looks like a big mess, where no one has their stories straight.  And, one would be hard put to get a straight story from 66-67, even comparing session dates, and concert dates especially with people bailing to take new jobs.  Especially the Spring of 67.  

[guitarfool2002]

The biggest damage was done to those fans who had zero knowledge of the BB's who watched that film because it was a rewrite of history from '66 onward, and those fans got ripped off. Or they got lied to thinking this was the real story of how, for example, Good Vibrations came to be and what role Van Dyke Parks played in Smile.

Did anybody - does anybody - accept the history of 1966 onward as shown in "American Family" to be the truth?

[CenturyDeprived]

The biggest damage was done to those fans who had zero knowledge of the BB's who watched that film because it was a rewrite of history from '66 onward, and those fans got ripped off. Or they got lied to thinking this was the real story of how, for example, Good Vibrations came to be and what role Van Dyke Parks played in Smile.

Did anybody - does anybody - accept the history of 1966 onward as shown in "American Family" to be the truth?

I'm guessing probably a good percentage of the typical audience of casual fan attendees of many M&B shows. 

[filledeplage]

The biggest damage was done to those fans who had zero knowledge of the BB's who watched that film because it was a rewrite of history from '66 onward, and those fans got ripped off. Or they got lied to thinking this was the real story of how, for example, Good Vibrations came to be and what role Van Dyke Parks played in Smile.

Did anybody - does anybody - accept the history of 1966 onward as shown in "American Family" to be the truth?

GF - Kids can't remember times tables without constant drilling.  Do you actually think anyone remembered Van Dyke's name?

They would be lucky to associate the music, remember that it was a family band, with three brothers and a crazy old man, and move on to the next show on TV.

 

[filledeplage]

The biggest damage was done to those fans who had zero knowledge of the BB's who watched that film because it was a rewrite of history from '66 onward, and those fans got ripped off. Or they got lied to thinking this was the real story of how, for example, Good Vibrations came to be and what role Van Dyke Parks played in Smile.

Did anybody - does anybody - accept the history of 1966 onward as shown in "American Family" to be the truth?

I'm guessing probably a good percentage of the typical audience of casual fan attendees of many M&B shows.  

CD - That is a truly offensive remark and does not help anyone's cred to insult others.  What is a "typical casual fan?" You might want to explain that stereotype.  

And, I was with a bunch of them last week at the Touring Band shows, and can assure you we are all seeing Brian this summer.    

[guitarfool2002]

I didn't say kids. I said fans.

Were those fans lied to, or was the film's portrayal of 1966-67 and beyond the truth?

[filledeplage]

I didn't say kids. I said fans.

Were those fans lied to, or was the film's portrayal of 1966-67 and beyond the truth?

GF - But I said kids, because that is what I know (as well as teaching adults) - you need to see or hear things a number of times before you commit it to memory.

If people were lucky they might remember Brian, Dennis, Carl or Mike, but a minor character?  I don't think so.  That role was not that important in terms of the whole mini-series.  

And, I did not write the script.  The truth?  I can't answer that.  And if you weren't there, you cannot either; only the principals and their families can do that. As far as I am concerned most else is highly unreliable.  Everyone has a different version.  

[Chocolate Shake Man]

The problem with the VDP character was not that they changed his name. The problem was that VDP was so badly mischaracterized that the producers were forced to issue a disclaimer before the beginning of Pt. 2 and then change his name on subsequent airings.

[filledeplage]

The problem with the VDP character was not that they changed his name. The problem was that VDP was so badly mischaracterized that the producers were forced to issue a disclaimer before the beginning of Pt. 2 and then change his name on subsequent airings.

CSM - I am aware of that. We've had this discussion before.  And, while it is not perfect, if there was nothing (even not pleasing to all or inaccurate to some degree) it would be worse because no one would have attempted to give some background of the BB's.  They could have fallen into obscurity as many great bands have.  

It is too bad that this thread devolved into what has already been debated and discussed ad nauseum with regard this old made-for-TV movie.  

[Chocolate Shake Man]

The problem with the VDP character was not that they changed his name. The problem was that VDP was so badly mischaracterized that the producers were forced to issue a disclaimer before the beginning of Pt. 2 and then change his name on subsequent airings.

CSM - I am aware of that. We've had this discussion before.  And, while it is not perfect, if there was nothing (even not pleasing to all or inaccurate to some degree) it would be worse because no one would have attempted to give some background of the BB's.  They could have fallen into obscurity as many great bands have.  

I suppose it's a matter but opinion but I highly doubt the Beach Boys would have fallen into obscurity had it not been for the American Family movie of the week.

There was a much stronger A&E biography made about a year earlier which gave people a much more comprehensive and accurate look at the history of the Beach Boys.

[filledeplage]

The problem with the VDP character was not that they changed his name. The problem was that VDP was so badly mischaracterized that the producers were forced to issue a disclaimer before the beginning of Pt. 2 and then change his name on subsequent airings.

CSM - I am aware of that. We've had this discussion before.  And, while it is not perfect, if there was nothing (even not pleasing to all or inaccurate to some degree) it would be worse because no one would have attempted to give some background of the BB's.  They could have fallen into obscurity as many great bands have.  

I suppose it's a matter but opinion but I highly doubt the Beach Boys would have fallen into obscurity had it not been for the American Family movie of the week.

There was a much stronger A&E biography made about a year earlier which gave people a much more comprehensive and accurate look at the history of the Beach Boys.

CSM - I don't doubt that A & E would do a different job.  The fact remains that network TV is free and reaches everyone.  Not everyone has cable.  I am thinking of young people who are not in the 60's generation and for whom it is merely entertainment.  They know the music as part of the culture but not necessarily the snapshots of the 60's in So Cal.

[guitarfool2002]

Among many other factors, the role of Van Dyke Parks was important in that TV movie bio to telling the factual history of the band especially in 1966-67, and in that regard and many others this "American Family" film did not give its audience the truth.

We do know the truth - as did and as do those who watched it back in 2000 - enough to say the film was not truthful in the way it portrayed the history or the people it was presenting. It wasn't only not truthful, it turned into a farce.

What is even more egregious is after the film was roundly criticized and dismissed, and its credibility destroyed especially what it portrayed after 1966, some of the same information shows up in a legal document entered into a lawsuit which involved real people who stood to lose real things beyond legacies and images, and that was not Hollywood taking liberties in order to tell a story.

Isn't there a moral or ethical difference between how a TV movie presents something and how something is presented to a court in a legal case? Because both the 2000 TV film and the 2005 lawsuit seem to be in agreement about Smile and events (and people) surrounding it.

[filledeplage]

Among many other factors, the role of Van Dyke Parks was important in that TV movie bio to telling the factual history of the band especially in 1966-67, and in that regard and many others this "American Family" film did not give its audience the truth.

We do know the truth - as did and as do those who watched it back in 2000 - enough to say the film was not truthful in the way it portrayed the history or the people it was presenting. It wasn't only not truthful, it turned into a farce.

What is even more egregious is after the film was roundly criticized and dismissed, and its credibility destroyed especially what it portrayed after 1966, some of the same information shows up in a legal document entered into a lawsuit which involved real people who stood to lose real things beyond legacies and images, and that was not Hollywood taking liberties in order to tell a story.

Isn't there a moral or ethical difference between how a TV movie presents something and how something is presented to a court in a legal case? Because both the 2000 TV film and the 2005 lawsuit seem to be in agreement about Smile and events (and people) surrounding it.

GF - I don't know which information that went from 2000 (which I saw when it first ran) to the 2005. But I would wonder how there is an impression that a lawyer would draft a complaint using a made-for-tv movie as a guide.   

The 2005 suit was about the Lanham Act and it's enforceability outside of the US. 

The thing got some awards whether it was criticized as good, bad, or indifferent.  Someone thought it had some merit.   

[guitarfool2002]

Among many other factors, the role of Van Dyke Parks was important in that TV movie bio to telling the factual history of the band especially in 1966-67, and in that regard and many others this "American Family" film did not give its audience the truth.

We do know the truth - as did and as do those who watched it back in 2000 - enough to say the film was not truthful in the way it portrayed the history or the people it was presenting. It wasn't only not truthful, it turned into a farce.

What is even more egregious is after the film was roundly criticized and dismissed, and its credibility destroyed especially what it portrayed after 1966, some of the same information shows up in a legal document entered into a lawsuit which involved real people who stood to lose real things beyond legacies and images, and that was not Hollywood taking liberties in order to tell a story.

Isn't there a moral or ethical difference between how a TV movie presents something and how something is presented to a court in a legal case? Because both the 2000 TV film and the 2005 lawsuit seem to be in agreement about Smile and events (and people) surrounding it.

GF - I don't know which information that went from 2000 (which I saw when it first ran) to the 2005. But I would wonder how there is an impression that a lawyer would draft a complaint using a made-for-tv movie as a guide.

The 2005 suit was about the Lanham Act and it's enforceability outside of the US. 

The thing got some awards whether it was criticized as good, bad, or indifferent.  Someone thought it had some merit.   

The issue in bold could be addressed with Cam Mott who posted this earlier:

Phillip Stillman, or one his associates, got it from Kirk Ellis' 2000 screenplay?

[filledeplage]

Among many other factors, the role of Van Dyke Parks was important in that TV movie bio to telling the factual history of the band especially in 1966-67, and in that regard and many others this "American Family" film did not give its audience the truth.

We do know the truth - as did and as do those who watched it back in 2000 - enough to say the film was not truthful in the way it portrayed the history or the people it was presenting. It wasn't only not truthful, it turned into a farce.

What is even more egregious is after the film was roundly criticized and dismissed, and its credibility destroyed especially what it portrayed after 1966, some of the same information shows up in a legal document entered into a lawsuit which involved real people who stood to lose real things beyond legacies and images, and that was not Hollywood taking liberties in order to tell a story.

Isn't there a moral or ethical difference between how a TV movie presents something and how something is presented to a court in a legal case? Because both the 2000 TV film and the 2005 lawsuit seem to be in agreement about Smile and events (and people) surrounding it.

GF - I don't know which information that went from 2000 (which I saw when it first ran) to the 2005. But I would wonder how there is an impression that a lawyer would draft a complaint using a made-for-tv movie as a guide.

The 2005 suit was about the Lanham Act and it's enforceability outside of the US. 

The thing got some awards whether it was criticized as good, bad, or indifferent.  Someone thought it had some merit.   

The issue in bold could be addressed with Cam Mott who posted this earlier:

Phillip Stillman, or one his associates, got it from Kirk Ellis' 2000 screenplay?

GF - By now, you should know that I don't believe everything I read on this board.   

[guitarfool2002]

Among many other factors, the role of Van Dyke Parks was important in that TV movie bio to telling the factual history of the band especially in 1966-67, and in that regard and many others this "American Family" film did not give its audience the truth.

We do know the truth - as did and as do those who watched it back in 2000 - enough to say the film was not truthful in the way it portrayed the history or the people it was presenting. It wasn't only not truthful, it turned into a farce.

What is even more egregious is after the film was roundly criticized and dismissed, and its credibility destroyed especially what it portrayed after 1966, some of the same information shows up in a legal document entered into a lawsuit which involved real people who stood to lose real things beyond legacies and images, and that was not Hollywood taking liberties in order to tell a story.

Isn't there a moral or ethical difference between how a TV movie presents something and how something is presented to a court in a legal case? Because both the 2000 TV film and the 2005 lawsuit seem to be in agreement about Smile and events (and people) surrounding it.

GF - I don't know which information that went from 2000 (which I saw when it first ran) to the 2005. But I would wonder how there is an impression that a lawyer would draft a complaint using a made-for-tv movie as a guide.

The 2005 suit was about the Lanham Act and it's enforceability outside of the US. 

The thing got some awards whether it was criticized as good, bad, or indifferent.  Someone thought it had some merit.   

The issue in bold could be addressed with Cam Mott who posted this earlier:

Phillip Stillman, or one his associates, got it from Kirk Ellis' 2000 screenplay?

GF - By now, you should know that I don't believe everything I read on this board.   

That was Cam Mott in response to one of my posts that asked questions about the information in the lawsuit suggesting the information related to Smile, and about the years from 1967 onward as written in that 2005 lawsuit filing could have come from the 2000 TV movie and its writer Kirk Ellis' version of events as shown in the TV movie. I assume you disagree with Cam's theory that the lawsuit could have used Ellis' script as the source material to write the lawsuit's background of events in that filing.

Beyond my questions which can be read a few pages back, then where would we assume the information written in the 2005 lawsuit originated? How about the client/plaintiff filing the suit?

[filledeplage]

Among many other factors, the role of Van Dyke Parks was important in that TV movie bio to telling the factual history of the band especially in 1966-67, and in that regard and many others this "American Family" film did not give its audience the truth.

We do know the truth - as did and as do those who watched it back in 2000 - enough to say the film was not truthful in the way it portrayed the history or the people it was presenting. It wasn't only not truthful, it turned into a farce.

What is even more egregious is after the film was roundly criticized and dismissed, and its credibility destroyed especially what it portrayed after 1966, some of the same information shows up in a legal document entered into a lawsuit which involved real people who stood to lose real things beyond legacies and images, and that was not Hollywood taking liberties in order to tell a story.

Isn't there a moral or ethical difference between how a TV movie presents something and how something is presented to a court in a legal case? Because both the 2000 TV film and the 2005 lawsuit seem to be in agreement about Smile and events (and people) surrounding it.

GF - I don't know which information that went from 2000 (which I saw when it first ran) to the 2005. But I would wonder how there is an impression that a lawyer would draft a complaint using a made-for-tv movie as a guide.

The 2005 suit was about the Lanham Act and it's enforceability outside of the US. 

The thing got some awards whether it was criticized as good, bad, or indifferent.  Someone thought it had some merit.   

The issue in bold could be addressed with Cam Mott who posted this earlier:

Phillip Stillman, or one his associates, got it from Kirk Ellis' 2000 screenplay?

GF - By now, you should know that I don't believe everything I read on this board.   

That was Cam Mott in response to one of my posts that asked questions about the information in the lawsuit suggesting the information related to Smile, and about the years from 1967 onward as written in that 2005 lawsuit filing could have come from the 2000 TV movie and its writer Kirk Ellis' version of events as shown in the TV movie. I assume you disagree with Cam's theory that the lawsuit could have used Ellis' script as the source material to write the lawsuit's background of events in that filing.

Beyond my questions which can be read a few pages back, then where would we assume the information written in the 2005 lawsuit originated? How about the client/plaintiff filing the suit?

GF - The short answer is that the filings might be public, but  the file information is likely protected under attorney-client privilege as well as the theories of the case, and research are work product of the attorney.   The rest looks like a stretch. 

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

The biggest damage was done to those fans who had zero knowledge of the BB's who watched that film because it was a rewrite of history from '66 onward, and those fans got ripped off. Or they got lied to thinking this was the real story of how, for example, Good Vibrations came to be and what role Van Dyke Parks played in Smile.

Did anybody - does anybody - accept the history of 1966 onward as shown in "American Family" to be the truth?

I'm guessing probably a good percentage of the typical audience of casual fan attendees of many M&B shows. 

 

[CenturyDeprived]

The biggest damage was done to those fans who had zero knowledge of the BB's who watched that film because it was a rewrite of history from '66 onward, and those fans got ripped off. Or they got lied to thinking this was the real story of how, for example, Good Vibrations came to be and what role Van Dyke Parks played in Smile.

Did anybody - does anybody - accept the history of 1966 onward as shown in "American Family" to be the truth?

I'm guessing probably a good percentage of the typical audience of casual fan attendees of many M&B shows.  

CD - That is a truly offensive remark and does not help anyone's cred to insult others.  What is a "typical casual fan?" You might want to explain that stereotype.  

And, I was with a bunch of them last week at the Touring Band shows, and can assure you we are all seeing Brian this summer.    

Firstly, it's not an insult to any of the casual fans, because some people are simply only fans of the popular music and the limited information/misinformation which they have been exposed to. A typical casual fan may not know any of the original band members by name. And I'm not sure why any of those fans has to be blamed, because if a network television movie was their history lesson and nothing more, who could blame them for coming away with an improper impression of that era? I also certainly didn't say, nor did I mean that everybody who attends M&B shows doesn't know the whole story, because there are certainly a sizeable portion of well-educated and well-informed fans who are also attendees.

I would also think that a smaller chunk of people who attend Brian solo shows may also have that impression, because misinformation is hard to eradicate. Tough to put the toothpaste back into the tube.

Now... Do I think Mike would truly be irked that *some* of the audience attendees might have a generalized, blanket "parasites" impression of Brian's SMiLE-era friends, specifically due to what they saw in that film? I can't say I would think that he would be terribly upset about it. Do you think he would? What would motivate him being upset about that impression that *some* of the film's viewers/the band's fans surely have?

[AndrewHickey]

The biggest damage was done to those fans who had zero knowledge of the BB's who watched that film because it was a rewrite of history from '66 onward, and those fans got ripped off. Or they got lied to thinking this was the real story of how, for example, Good Vibrations came to be and what role Van Dyke Parks played in Smile.

Did anybody - does anybody - accept the history of 1966 onward as shown in "American Family" to be the truth?

I'm guessing probably a good percentage of the typical audience of casual fan attendees of many M&B shows.  

CD - That is a truly offensive remark and does not help anyone's cred to insult others.  What is a "typical casual fan?" You might want to explain that stereotype.  

It's not offensive at all. Most of the people -- not all, but most -- who go to Mike & Bruce shows know very little about the band. At *at least* the last six shows I've been to, I've had someone ask me (because I tend to wear band T-shirts and baseball cap at the gigs, so I'm obviously a non-casual fan) how many original members there are in the band and which ones they are. At Hampton Court, in fact, I had a member of staff ask me that, because so many people -- people with tickets -- had been asking her.
I've also overheard a lot of conversations at those shows where someone (usually a man) shows off his "knowledge" to someone else (usually a woman) and gets everything completely wrong.
In my experience, most of the people who go to Mike & Bruce shows are people who have a hits compilation and maybe (in the case of the ones around my age) a copy of Pet Sounds. If they know anything about the band as people, it's (probably in these words) "Brian Wilson went mad and doesn't tour with them any more, and I think one of them died".
None of that's a judgement on those people. Most of the audience for *anything* even vaguely popular is made up of people who quite like the thing in question but don't know much about it.

[Cam Mott]

Instead of continuing with insinuating questions, why doesn't someone ask someone who might know something like the film's scriptwriter or director or Mike's attorney or even Mike?

Speaking of published inaccurate history with supposed Beach Boy participation in line with this insinuatey, speculative "inquiry": some of the inaccurate info used by the scriptwriter and for the TBB:AAF script and the attorneys for the failed Lantham suit background could conceivably have come from the previously published "autobio" WIBN.

To me it seems we might already know that the Boys didn't have any meaningful input or control of TBB:AAF by their unflattering portrayals and their complaints about the product or Mike over the Lantham suit as he complained in appeal to the court about his attorney's litigation strategy.

So I insinuate, I mean suggest, that the source of inaccurate and even libelous or slanderous histories done in the name of the Beach Boys is actually someone other than the Beach Boys. 

[Cam Mott]

Instead of continuing with insinuating questions, why doesn't someone ask someone who might know something: like the film's scriptwriter or director or Mike's attorney or even Mike?

Speaking of published inaccurate history with supposed Beach Boy participation in line with this insinuatey, speculative "inquiry": some of the inaccurate info used by the scriptwriter for the TBB:AAF script and by the attorneys for the failed Lantham suit background could conceivably have come from the previously published "autobio" WIBN.

To me it seems we might already know that the Boys didn't have any meaningful input or control of TBB:AAF by their unflattering portrayals and their complaints about the product or Mike over the Lantham suit as he complained in appeal to the court about his attorney's litigation strategy.

So I insinuate, I mean suggest, that the source of inaccurate and even libelous or slanderous histories done in the name of the Beach Boys is actually someone or something other than the Beach Boys.

[Emily]

Cam, my expectation of getting a definitive response to an unsolicited email to a stranger's publicly listed agent asking for explanations for a 6 year-old screenplay are too low for me to make the effort to find an email address and write the email.
If anyone knows someone who knows the writer or director that would be useful. But still, one would need to ask in such a way that he doesn't feel wary, which I would think would require some conversation, not just a query out-of-the-blue.

If someone could engage the director (probably more useful than the writer) though, it might be interesting to learn the dynamics of the production.

As to the 'autobio' I don't think the content matches up, does it?

Andrew - Hampton Court - fancy.

[filledeplage]

The biggest damage was done to those fans who had zero knowledge of the BB's who watched that film because it was a rewrite of history from '66 onward, and those fans got ripped off. Or they got lied to thinking this was the real story of how, for example, Good Vibrations came to be and what role Van Dyke Parks played in Smile.

Did anybody - does anybody - accept the history of 1966 onward as shown in "American Family" to be the truth?

I'm guessing probably a good percentage of the typical audience of casual fan attendees of many M&B shows.  

CD - That is a truly offensive remark and does not help anyone's cred to insult others.  What is a "typical casual fan?" You might want to explain that stereotype.  

And, I was with a bunch of them last week at the Touring Band shows, and can assure you we are all seeing Brian this summer.    

Firstly, it's not an insult to any of the casual fans, because some people are simply only fans of the popular music and the limited information/misinformation which they have been exposed to. A typical casual fan may not know any of the original band members by name. And I'm not sure why any of those fans has to be blamed, because if a network television movie was their history lesson and nothing more, who could blame them for coming away with an improper impression of that era? I also certainly didn't say, nor did I mean that everybody who attends M&B shows doesn't know the whole story, because there are certainly a sizeable portion of well-educated and well-informed fans who are also attendees.

I would also think that a smaller chunk of people who attend Brian solo shows may also have that impression, because misinformation is hard to eradicate. Tough to put the toothpaste back into the tube.

Now... Do I think Mike would truly be irked that *some* of the audience attendees might have a generalized, blanket "parasites" impression of Brian's SMiLE-era friends, specifically due to what they saw in that film? I can't say I would think that he would be terribly upset about it. Do you think he would? What would motivate him being upset about that impression that *some* of the film's viewers/the band's fans surely have?

CD - that remark was planted squarely in the middle of this discussion likening the 2005 suit to the movie, as though the lawyers copied the script to draft for court.  And, few here, criticize the teen mags (rags) full of sexism as against Carol Kaye (who played on much of this music and is held in high regard by Brian) but rise to attack this film. 

It is offensive to blanket-attack Touring Band concerts, or those who attend. Or infer that they have no information either about the era or Smile as a project.
Many are "crossovers" who attend both.  If you saw the Touring Band  and Brian in a similar location you would see the same faces, seeing both contexts.  It presupposes "nothing came before" Smile and "nothing came after" Smile, and it is a window that has "stood still" in the continuum.   

[SMiLE Brian]

Don't forget the "happy" ending of American family is the endless touring of oldies after endless summer. That is definitely Mike's view point of the era.