gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
680597 Posts in 27600 Topics by 4068 Members - Latest Member: Dae Lims March 28, 2024, 04:16:54 PM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Mike Love book out in September  (Read 62014 times)
Andrew G. Doe
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 17767


The triumph of The Hickey Script !


View Profile WWW
« Reply #200 on: April 15, 2016, 11:18:59 PM »

Ultimately, I think that Brian and Al are just making the best of it, not necessarily touring "the way they want to".

Uh... I never mentioned Alan. I doubt he'd be happy even if you managed to reanimate Carl & Dennis especially for him. Not the epitome of a happy camper...
Logged

The four sweetest words in my vocabulary: "This poster is ignored".
mikeddonn
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 976


View Profile
« Reply #201 on: April 16, 2016, 02:07:53 AM »

Honestly, I don't see the brand taking any kind of a hit. Pet Sounds and SMiLE aren't loved any less. The Beach Boys are frequently written about with lofty language in music publications, etc. If anything, their (and Brian's) level of respect among hipsters, music lovers, critics, etc is higher than it's ever been. That certainly wasn't the case 30 years ago.

The tours these days make no dent in any of that.

Exactly!  Most of the public couldn't name the individual Beach Boys (Brian included).  They do however appreciate and love the music and will continue to do so as long as people gather for parties, barbecues and good times.  Those who are music scholars and musicians etc, know that Mike Love is out touring without Brian, Al and David but it doesn't matter because they/we know Brian is a genius and the band were about more than the early hits.  All this adds up to the legacy still being intact.  Everyone's happy (except the minority who keep banging on about it).  Grin

The 70s/80s Beach Boys probably did more harm to the brand than Mike is now.
The 'brand' of the Beach Boys is quite unique.  On the one hand the hits which people buy time after time and the 'serious' stuff which allows them to market stuff to obsessives like us!  None of what happens now will affect that.
Logged
Cam Mott
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4171


View Profile
« Reply #202 on: April 16, 2016, 04:30:01 AM »

The 70s/80s Beach Boys probably did more harm to the brand than Mike is now.
The 'brand' of the Beach Boys is quite unique.  On the one hand the hits which people buy time after time and the 'serious' stuff which allows them to market stuff to obsessives like us!  None of what happens now will affect that.

Exactly. If some of the Boys' behaviors back in that day didn't kill the image, it is bulletproof. I don't think continuing to play the everyman kind of venues that helped make their rep is a problem.
Logged

"Bring me the head of Carmen Sandiego" Lynne "The Chief" Thigpen
Jim V.
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 3038



View Profile
« Reply #203 on: April 16, 2016, 01:48:31 PM »

Ultimately, I think that Brian and Al are just making the best of it, not necessarily touring "the way they want to".

Uh... I never mentioned Alan. I doubt he'd be happy even if you managed to reanimate Carl & Dennis especially for him. Not the epitome of a happy camper...

Andrew, you know I love ya, but I've noticed here and there that you've been painting Al as a pissy little SOB lately. And I don't know, maybe he has been. From the interviews and whatnot that I've seen and read he seems pretty cool.

I just think it's interesting you've gone out of your way lately to paint Al as a grudge holding, bitter dude with posts like this...

As for a book by Alan... if he ever gets around to it - and he won't - his ability to harbour, and nurture, a grudge for decades would likely render it close to unreadable.

....but then you turn around and brush off Mike harping about songwriting credits (which were rectified years ago) and bagging on Melinda and shitting on use of possible autotune on Brian's new material (while apparently also using it himself on his Christmas tune).

Now my thing is, I like both Mike and Al (and Brian more than either). In fact, I've been waiting too many years for Mike to have the guts to release a new album (I was kidding myself to think he would actually release something this year). But regardless, if we are gonna be pointing out whose book is "unreadable" due to insane bitterness, I think Al has quite a bit of competition in The Beach Boys.
Logged
Andrew G. Doe
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 17767


The triumph of The Hickey Script !


View Profile WWW
« Reply #204 on: April 16, 2016, 02:44:24 PM »

Maybe so, maybe not... but at least I couch my posts in fairly good basic English and spell his name correctly.  Smiley
Logged

The four sweetest words in my vocabulary: "This poster is ignored".
Ang Jones
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 559



View Profile
« Reply #205 on: April 16, 2016, 02:54:14 PM »

"Just a little something I'm working on... the inside story of this august forum. I'm thinking of calling it F*ckwits & Sh*tweasels, With A Light Frosting Of Trolls."

Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Logged
The LEGENDARY OSD
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1948

luHv Estrangement Syndrome. It's a great thing!


View Profile
« Reply #206 on: April 16, 2016, 03:01:21 PM »

"Just a little something I'm working on... the inside story of this august forum. I'm thinking of calling it F*ckwits & Sh*tweasels, With A Light Frosting Of Trolls."

Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Post of the month, Ang. Good job of pointing out his hypocrisy.  w00t! w00t!
Logged

myKe luHv, the most hated, embarrassing clown the world of music has ever witnessed.
You Kane, You Commanded, You Conquered
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 467


spoons rattling


View Profile
« Reply #207 on: April 16, 2016, 06:35:29 PM »

The 70s/80s Beach Boys probably did more harm to the brand than Mike is now.
The 'brand' of the Beach Boys is quite unique.  On the one hand the hits which people buy time after time and the 'serious' stuff which allows them to market stuff to obsessives like us!  None of what happens now will affect that.

Exactly. If some of the Boys' behaviors back in that day didn't kill the image, it is bulletproof. I don't think continuing to play the everyman kind of venues that helped make their rep is a problem.

After all, Jack didn't say "To sum it up, Mike blew it, Mike blew it consistently, Mike continues
to blow it, it is tragic and this pathological problem caused The
Beach Boys' greatest music to be so underrated by the general public."
Logged

"Oh! Don't beat on those sticks!"
Andrew G. Doe
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 17767


The triumph of The Hickey Script !


View Profile WWW
« Reply #208 on: April 16, 2016, 11:14:07 PM »

"Just a little something I'm working on... the inside story of this august forum. I'm thinking of calling it F*ckwits & Sh*tweasels, With A Light Frosting Of Trolls."

Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Not judging. Just stating facts. We have all three, plus a smattering of World Champeen Fence Sitters.
Logged

The four sweetest words in my vocabulary: "This poster is ignored".
Ang Jones
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 559



View Profile
« Reply #209 on: April 17, 2016, 02:20:41 AM »

"Just a little something I'm working on... the inside story of this august forum. I'm thinking of calling it F*ckwits & Sh*tweasels, With A Light Frosting Of Trolls."

Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Not judging. Just stating facts. We have all three, plus a smattering of World Champeen Fence Sitters.

For it to be a fact we would have to have a definition of 'f*ckwits and sh*tweasels' - these words are insults without having any specific meaning. Also, the proposed title suggests that this forum consists of little other than these three categories which of course begs the question 'which one are you?'
Logged
Angua
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 46


View Profile
« Reply #210 on: April 17, 2016, 02:47:03 AM »

"Just a little something I'm working on... the inside story of this august forum. I'm thinking of calling it F*ckwits & Sh*tweasels, With A Light Frosting Of Trolls."

Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Not judging. Just stating facts. We have all three, plus a smattering of World Champeen Fence Sitters.

For someone who corrects others for mistakes you certainly like to make up your own words and spellings!  

I have seen a good many posts in this forum from learned, articulate posters who have made their feelings exceptionally clear and I'm not talking about you here Andrew.  There seems to be no category for them.

Stupid [f*ckwit]- everyone makes mistakes, even you.
Deceitful [sh*tweasle] - there is a motive to every post here and whilst some make it obvious what that motive is, not everyone does and some are working on behalf of others and are constrained to keep that quiet.
Fence sitters - although we all know which side of the fence currently meets your needs, you are curiously silent on some issues where a fight cannot be won.

Also you missed the hoodwinkers - those who lead you up the garden path on a detour from the original argument.
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10029



View Profile WWW
« Reply #211 on: April 18, 2016, 08:06:50 AM »

From what I've gathered over the years talking to many fans and scholars and students of the band, coupled with my own observations, there have been periods of time where Al could be difficult. I don't doubt that that stuff Mike talked about in that circa 1992 Goldmine interview, about Al having an attitude problem or getting hung up on things from the past, is accurate to some degree. Now, maybe Al had some legit reasons that Mike didn't and doesn't agree with (do any of us really staunchly disagree with Al being perturbed by adding cheerleaders to the stage show for instance?), and maybe in some cases Al was just being a contrarian, just being difficult where nobody else was.

I think he still has some idiosyncrasies that makes dealing with him an enterprise that becomes perhaps more complicated than it should.

But I think to make a big deal out of this in light of this band and its history is pretty silly. For a few reasons:

Apart from a few apologists that won't ever objectively say anything negative about Mike, I think most fans would agree Mike in recent years has come across as bitter about several topics. More bitter than any of the other BBs. He seems less content and more unhappy than Al or Brian does. That's how he comes across anyway.

One of the reasons this is extra ironic is because, as I've said many times, Mike, based on his own description of what *he* wants, has everything the way he wants it. Touring his way, with the people he wants, etc. He won the songwriting lawsuit.

Al has been continually and comically marginalized by all sides at one point or another. Even in Brian's band, he's humbled himself quite a bit and basically just does whatever Brian wants him to. Al's not getting a bunch of setlist picks. He's basically there to support Brian. Al has never gotten any traction touring on his own since 1999, his ideas never seem to be considered or taken seriously within BRI, or even during group interviews. Remember the Charlie Rose 2012 interview where Al suggests touring every other year? I'm not saying that was really a plausible idea. But his idea goes over like a lead balloon even in a public interview with the band. I could almost sense at least one or two of the guys stifling a "pffffttttttt."

Al and Brian had allegedly continued to be harangued about calling themselves "Beach Boys" post-2012.

In any event, I always laugh at the whispers that Al is the a-hole or the difficult one to deal with. Even if he is "difficult", it's a bit rich of an accusation coming from *that* group of guys (insert the Lester Bangs quote here), and it's comical because Al is completely marginalized and impotent both within the group dynamic and within the BRI structure.

C50? Salaried. Al got "Don Felder-ed" in that scenario. Both were "corporate" members, and both got sidelined to "salary" status for their respective reunion gigs. Yet Al seemed happier than most of the guys in the band, sang his ass off, and wanted to *continue* in that mode.

1998? Al got figuratively and effectively (if not literally) s***canned, and based on the Marks/Stebbins book *saw it coming* and didn't appear to be able to do anything about it.

1990s? Al didn't like the cheerleaders, didn't like the business machinations, and the evidence suggests he was told to sit down and shut up. In the case of the "SIP" sessions, he just wasn't called.

I'm not even getting into how much Al deserved or didn't deserve any of this stuff. Either way, he has been marginalized for literally decades and I don't buy for a second that anybody in the BB camp should object *that* heavily to Al having an "attitude problem" (assuming that's true, which I question) in light of how politically and interpersonally f-ed up the band has been and continues to be.

Considering how marginalized and humbled Al has become (whether by choice or by circumstance) in the last couple decades, he seems to be a lot more mellow and content than Mike is, even though Mike (whether by circumstance or shrewd business acumen, or both) has molded everything exactly the way he wants.

The only thing Mike can't change is the past, and he seems pretty bitter about it even after all this time, and I can't be the only person who sees the irony in that 1992 version of Mike derisively pointing out how it was Al who couldn't get over stuff.

In 2016, how often do you see Al complaining about being squeezed out in 1998, or complaining about the "Family & Friends" lawsuits?
« Last Edit: April 18, 2016, 08:12:03 AM by HeyJude » Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #212 on: April 18, 2016, 09:47:41 AM »

From what I've gathered over the years talking to many fans and scholars and students of the band, coupled with my own observations, there have been periods of time where Al could be difficult. I don't doubt that that stuff Mike talked about in that circa 1992 Goldmine interview, about Al having an attitude problem or getting hung up on things from the past, is accurate to some degree. Now, maybe Al had some legit reasons that Mike didn't and doesn't agree with (do any of us really staunchly disagree with Al being perturbed by adding cheerleaders to the stage show for instance?), and maybe in some cases Al was just being a contrarian, just being difficult where nobody else was.

I think he still has some idiosyncrasies that makes dealing with him an enterprise that becomes perhaps more complicated than it should.

But I think to make a big deal out of this in light of this band and its history is pretty silly. For a few reasons:

Apart from a few apologists that won't ever objectively say anything negative about Mike, I think most fans would agree Mike in recent years has come across as bitter about several topics. More bitter than any of the other BBs. He seems less content and more unhappy than Al or Brian does. That's how he comes across anyway.

One of the reasons this is extra ironic is because, as I've said many times, Mike, based on his own description of what *he* wants, has everything the way he wants it. Touring his way, with the people he wants, etc. He won the songwriting lawsuit.

Al has been continually and comically marginalized by all sides at one point or another. Even in Brian's band, he's humbled himself quite a bit and basically just does whatever Brian wants him to. Al's not getting a bunch of setlist picks. He's basically there to support Brian. Al has never gotten any traction touring on his own since 1999, his ideas never seem to be considered or taken seriously within BRI, or even during group interviews. Remember the Charlie Rose 2012 interview where Al suggests touring every other year? I'm not saying that was really a plausible idea. But his idea goes over like a lead balloon even in a public interview with the band. I could almost sense at least one or two of the guys stifling a "pffffttttttt."

Al and Brian had allegedly continued to be harangued about calling themselves "Beach Boys" post-2012.

In any event, I always laugh at the whispers that Al is the a-hole or the difficult one to deal with. Even if he is "difficult", it's a bit rich of an accusation coming from *that* group of guys (insert the Lester Bangs quote here), and it's comical because Al is completely marginalized and impotent both within the group dynamic and within the BRI structure.

C50? Salaried. Al got "Don Felder-ed" in that scenario. Both were "corporate" members, and both got sidelined to "salary" status for their respective reunion gigs. Yet Al seemed happier than most of the guys in the band, sang his ass off, and wanted to *continue* in that mode.

1998? Al got figuratively and effectively (if not literally) s***canned, and based on the Marks/Stebbins book *saw it coming* and didn't appear to be able to do anything about it.

1990s? Al didn't like the cheerleaders, didn't like the business machinations, and the evidence suggests he was told to sit down and shut up. In the case of the "SIP" sessions, he just wasn't called.

I'm not even getting into how much Al deserved or didn't deserve any of this stuff. Either way, he has been marginalized for literally decades and I don't buy for a second that anybody in the BB camp should object *that* heavily to Al having an "attitude problem" (assuming that's true, which I question) in light of how politically and interpersonally f-ed up the band has been and continues to be.

Considering how marginalized and humbled Al has become (whether by choice or by circumstance) in the last couple decades, he seems to be a lot more mellow and content than Mike is, even though Mike (whether by circumstance or shrewd business acumen, or both) has molded everything exactly the way he wants.

The only thing Mike can't change is the past, and he seems pretty bitter about it even after all this time, and I can't be the only person who sees the irony in that 1992 version of Mike derisively pointing out how it was Al who couldn't get over stuff.

In 2016, how often do you see Al complaining about being squeezed out in 1998, or complaining about the "Family & Friends" lawsuits?
Yeah.
Logged
Juice Brohnston
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 627



View Profile
« Reply #213 on: April 18, 2016, 09:55:19 AM »

Tell me more about the C50 situation? I assumed it was participation as opposed to salaried for Al being a member of BRI.
So was it salaries for David, Al and Bruce? %'s for Mike and Brian?
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #214 on: April 18, 2016, 10:12:26 AM »

The 70s/80s Beach Boys probably did more harm to the brand than Mike is now.
The 'brand' of the Beach Boys is quite unique.  On the one hand the hits which people buy time after time and the 'serious' stuff which allows them to market stuff to obsessives like us!  None of what happens now will affect that.

Exactly. If some of the Boys' behaviors back in that day didn't kill the image, it is bulletproof. I don't think continuing to play the everyman kind of venues that helped make their rep is a problem.

After all, Jack didn't say "To sum it up, Mike blew it, Mike blew it consistently, Mike continues
to blow it, it is tragic and this pathological problem caused The
Beach Boys' greatest music to be so underrated by the general public."

No, Jack didn't say that. If Jack said that, with his comments focused on one guy, I imagine he'd probably have subjected himself to being at risk of retaliation in some fashion. I'm sure Jack felt that others in the band also went along with some hare-brained decisions, and it was in his best interest to be less than specific in his comments. However, I'd be quite surprised if Jack didn't feel that Mike was the biggest cheerleader/heaviest influence leading to those hare-brained decisions.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2016, 10:21:04 AM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #215 on: April 18, 2016, 10:12:46 AM »

From what I've gathered over the years talking to many fans and scholars and students of the band, coupled with my own observations, there have been periods of time where Al could be difficult. I don't doubt that that stuff Mike talked about in that circa 1992 Goldmine interview, about Al having an attitude problem or getting hung up on things from the past, is accurate to some degree. Now, maybe Al had some legit reasons that Mike didn't and doesn't agree with (do any of us really staunchly disagree with Al being perturbed by adding cheerleaders to the stage show for instance?), and maybe in some cases Al was just being a contrarian, just being difficult where nobody else was.

I think he still has some idiosyncrasies that makes dealing with him an enterprise that becomes perhaps more complicated than it should.

But I think to make a big deal out of this in light of this band and its history is pretty silly. For a few reasons:

Apart from a few apologists that won't ever objectively say anything negative about Mike, I think most fans would agree Mike in recent years has come across as bitter about several topics. More bitter than any of the other BBs. He seems less content and more unhappy than Al or Brian does. That's how he comes across anyway.

One of the reasons this is extra ironic is because, as I've said many times, Mike, based on his own description of what *he* wants, has everything the way he wants it. Touring his way, with the people he wants, etc. He won the songwriting lawsuit.

Al has been continually and comically marginalized by all sides at one point or another. Even in Brian's band, he's humbled himself quite a bit and basically just does whatever Brian wants him to. Al's not getting a bunch of setlist picks. He's basically there to support Brian. Al has never gotten any traction touring on his own since 1999, his ideas never seem to be considered or taken seriously within BRI, or even during group interviews. Remember the Charlie Rose 2012 interview where Al suggests touring every other year? I'm not saying that was really a plausible idea. But his idea goes over like a lead balloon even in a public interview with the band. I could almost sense at least one or two of the guys stifling a "pffffttttttt."

Al and Brian had allegedly continued to be harangued about calling themselves "Beach Boys" post-2012.

In any event, I always laugh at the whispers that Al is the a-hole or the difficult one to deal with. Even if he is "difficult", it's a bit rich of an accusation coming from *that* group of guys (insert the Lester Bangs quote here), and it's comical because Al is completely marginalized and impotent both within the group dynamic and within the BRI structure.

C50? Salaried. Al got "Don Felder-ed" in that scenario. Both were "corporate" members, and both got sidelined to "salary" status for their respective reunion gigs. Yet Al seemed happier than most of the guys in the band, sang his ass off, and wanted to *continue* in that mode.

1998? Al got figuratively and effectively (if not literally) s***canned, and based on the Marks/Stebbins book *saw it coming* and didn't appear to be able to do anything about it.

1990s? Al didn't like the cheerleaders, didn't like the business machinations, and the evidence suggests he was told to sit down and shut up. In the case of the "SIP" sessions, he just wasn't called.

I'm not even getting into how much Al deserved or didn't deserve any of this stuff. Either way, he has been marginalized for literally decades and I don't buy for a second that anybody in the BB camp should object *that* heavily to Al having an "attitude problem" (assuming that's true, which I question) in light of how politically and interpersonally f-ed up the band has been and continues to be.

Considering how marginalized and humbled Al has become (whether by choice or by circumstance) in the last couple decades, he seems to be a lot more mellow and content than Mike is, even though Mike (whether by circumstance or shrewd business acumen, or both) has molded everything exactly the way he wants.

The only thing Mike can't change is the past, and he seems pretty bitter about it even after all this time, and I can't be the only person who sees the irony in that 1992 version of Mike derisively pointing out how it was Al who couldn't get over stuff.

In 2016, how often do you see Al complaining about being squeezed out in 1998, or complaining about the "Family & Friends" lawsuits?
Yeah.

Yeah x 2.
Logged
barsone
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Gender: Male
Posts: 136


View Profile
« Reply #216 on: April 18, 2016, 10:33:08 AM »

Tell me more about the C50 situation? I assumed it was participation as opposed to salaried for Al being a member of BRI.
So was it salaries for David, Al and Bruce? %'s for Mike and Brian?
Great question.....and the answer will say a lot about the BB's/BRI organizational "status and structure" from 1962 to C50.  Had Al been marginalized long before the 90's by the group ?  Thinking back, hasn't it been posted previously over the years here, that when Al returned to the band after the Dental school/David Marks situation, he wasn't a principal and did not receive that status until Bruce's time off from the band in the 70's ?
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10029



View Profile WWW
« Reply #217 on: April 18, 2016, 11:01:42 AM »

The C50 setup was simply a one-shot deal done through a production company formed around Joe Thomas, Brian, and Mike. "50 Big Ones Productions." It wasn't a BRI-run operation.

I don't think there's anything *extra* nefarious about Al not being a part of that. It's more a symptom of Al's place or "rank" in the whole BB orb. The pecking order in many ways tends to run Brian-Mike-Al-Bruce-Dave. Even all of the C50 posters had the names in *that* order. Foskett introduced the BBs on stage in *that* order.

I'm not even suggesting Al should have or could have been a part of "50 Big Ones Productions." Just objectively, he being a BRI shareholder but *not* being a "shareholder" so to speak in that production company is something I can say some folks *would* take issue with. And to my knowledge, he has never publicly expressed being upset about it.

And Al or anyone familiar with other even vaguely comparable band situations would look to something like the Felder/Eagles/Hell Freezes Over scenario and wonder if Al could slip through the cracks in a similar fashion. Al had already been squeezed out in 1998. If I were Al and 2012 rolled around and I was once again simply made an employee in the tour, I might worry that *if* the thing continued (obviously a MOOT point now), it would be easy to be phased out. Again.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2016, 11:04:55 AM by HeyJude » Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #218 on: April 18, 2016, 11:06:22 AM »

He seems to have been fairly accepting of a status that would cause most people to bristle.
Logged
KDS
Guest
« Reply #219 on: April 18, 2016, 11:08:19 AM »

Al Jardine - the Richard Wright of The Beach Boys.
Logged
Juice Brohnston
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 627



View Profile
« Reply #220 on: April 18, 2016, 11:38:12 AM »

The C50 setup was simply a one-shot deal done through a production company formed around Joe Thomas, Brian, and Mike. "50 Big Ones Productions." It wasn't a BRI-run operation.

I don't think there's anything *extra* nefarious about Al not being a part of that. It's more a symptom of Al's place or "rank" in the whole BB orb. The pecking order in many ways tends to run Brian-Mike-Al-Bruce-Dave. Even all of the C50 posters had the names in *that* order. Foskett introduced the BBs on stage in *that* order.

I'm not even suggesting Al should have or could have been a part of "50 Big Ones Productions." Just objectively, he being a BRI shareholder but *not* being a "shareholder" so to speak in that production company is something I can say some folks *would* take issue with. And to my knowledge, he has never publicly expressed being upset about it.

And Al or anyone familiar with other even vaguely comparable band situations would look to something like the Felder/Eagles/Hell Freezes Over scenario and wonder if Al could slip through the cracks in a similar fashion. Al had already been squeezed out in 1998. If I were Al and 2012 rolled around and I was once again simply made an employee in the tour, I might worry that *if* the thing continued (obviously a MOOT point now), it would be easy to be phased out. Again.
Thanks for the info. Of course, being a salaried member isn't necessarily a bad thing. Depends on the salary! Al knows how to count, so when the offer came in, I assume he could do a quick calculation on what a tour of that scale might net, and what his fair share should be. The production company/ promoters take the risk. However the 'Felder Squeeze' could have altered that landscape as you say. The leverage of Al, Dave and Bruce, I assume, was in the fact that their participation legitimized a true 'reunion'
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10029



View Profile WWW
« Reply #221 on: April 18, 2016, 12:43:55 PM »

The C50 setup was simply a one-shot deal done through a production company formed around Joe Thomas, Brian, and Mike. "50 Big Ones Productions." It wasn't a BRI-run operation.

I don't think there's anything *extra* nefarious about Al not being a part of that. It's more a symptom of Al's place or "rank" in the whole BB orb. The pecking order in many ways tends to run Brian-Mike-Al-Bruce-Dave. Even all of the C50 posters had the names in *that* order. Foskett introduced the BBs on stage in *that* order.

I'm not even suggesting Al should have or could have been a part of "50 Big Ones Productions." Just objectively, he being a BRI shareholder but *not* being a "shareholder" so to speak in that production company is something I can say some folks *would* take issue with. And to my knowledge, he has never publicly expressed being upset about it.

And Al or anyone familiar with other even vaguely comparable band situations would look to something like the Felder/Eagles/Hell Freezes Over scenario and wonder if Al could slip through the cracks in a similar fashion. Al had already been squeezed out in 1998. If I were Al and 2012 rolled around and I was once again simply made an employee in the tour, I might worry that *if* the thing continued (obviously a MOOT point now), it would be easy to be phased out. Again.
Thanks for the info. Of course, being a salaried member isn't necessarily a bad thing. Depends on the salary! Al knows how to count, so when the offer came in, I assume he could do a quick calculation on what a tour of that scale might net, and what his fair share should be. The production company/ promoters take the risk. However the 'Felder Squeeze' could have altered that landscape as you say. The leverage of Al, Dave and Bruce, I assume, was in the fact that their participation legitimized a true 'reunion'

I think, as with most cases, Al had very little leverage. My *guess* is that he wasn't offered a choice. It was either sign on as a salaried player on the tour, or no invitation. It's true, being part of the "production company" would involve certain responsibilities. But I've always sensed that Joe Thomas kind of pulled all of that together from his end. He was the one who had the cash and/or found the cash, and got the deals done. Then, I would guess his next goal would be to get Brian and Mike on board with the project and with each other. I would imagine that would be where "50 Big Ones Productions" was the way to go.

Bruce and Dave have always been salaried as far as the touring band is concerned in the later era, and Dave is usually agreeable and Bruce goes where Mike goes.

The one guy falling smack dab in the middle would be Al. Marginalized, and image-wise (however unfairly or fairly) the "Ringo" of the group to borrow the phrase from the recent Rolling Stone article on Mike, but still a BRI shareholder. But he would really just fall into the same category as he has since 1998. The minority vote (potentially) at BRI. Another company running the tour, and employing most of the members. Instead of Mike's "Meleco" or whatever it's called, it was "50 Big Ones Productions." The only leverage Al would really have is that his joining would avoid all of the PR and news articles always having that little asterisk about "not all of the original surviving members" joining. Other reunions have survived such things, both in scenarios where that holdout wants to be there and those where they don't, and everything in between.

Al always seemed more *enthusiastic* about the idea of *everybody* being together again and out on tour. He was going on about this back in 2005 during the one time I met him. Unprompted (I didn't bring up reunions or anything), he talked about having recently seen the Eagles (extra irony!!!!) and wanting the BB's to all reunite.

I think Al's enthusiasm about the reunion trumped caring too much about the level of pay or number of setlist selections or number of songs on the album that he got. Indeed, he spoke more than once I believe right before and/or during the C50 tour about "asking Mike" to add specific songs to the setlist, didn't appear to get anything that screamed "Al picked that song!" into the setlist other than "California Saga", got ZERO songs of his own on the new album, and so on. Jason Fine in Rolling Stone depicts Brian literally walking out of the room to avoid having to work on Al's "Waves of Love"; meanwhile telling Mike how much he likes "Daybreak Over the Ocean." Yet, Al still seemed most enthusiastic, to the point of being naïve about the reunion's future. It's no coincidence he seemed most bummed when the reunion didn't continue.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2016, 01:56:12 PM by HeyJude » Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
bachelorofbullets
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


View Profile
« Reply #222 on: April 18, 2016, 12:45:15 PM »

He seems to have been fairly accepting of a status that would cause most people to bristle.

I'd say!  The whole "he can't get over anything" rumor was based on one incident with Gary Usher in the mid 80's.  If you read The Wilson Project, it was obvious that Al did not like Usher one bit.

There then was Mike trying to fire Al from the touring band (before Carl's death) and replace him with Dave Marks, which never materialized. Dave Marks even confirmed this in his book.

Al has plenty to be sore about.
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10029



View Profile WWW
« Reply #223 on: April 18, 2016, 12:54:15 PM »

He seems to have been fairly accepting of a status that would cause most people to bristle.

I'd say!  The whole "he can't get over anything" rumor was based on one incident with Gary Usher in the mid 80's.  If you read The Wilson Project, it was obvious that Al did not like Usher one bit.

There then was Mike trying to fire Al from the touring band (before Carl's death) and replace him with Dave Marks, which never materialized. Dave Marks even confirmed this in his book.

Al has plenty to be sore about.

I don't doubt Al could well have been a pain to be around during certain eras of the band's history. I've only heard rumblings and vague allusions to it, but some have brought up that he had a bout with tinnitus around that early 90s "SIP" era, and that may have contributed as well.

But his being poopy now and then is really just an anecdote, a curio, compared to all of the other machinations that have gone on around him. To suggest things like the aftermath of C50 or the 1998 unraveling of the band happened at the hand of Al is comical; stuff *happened* to him in those cases, and in most cases the indications are that he was tragically and comically unable to do anything about it.

The Gary Usher story from 1986 I think is more hilarious than anything else. Usher's own telling of the story turns into "Spinal Tap" levels of absurdity.

I don't doubt that Al might have been like that about some other stuff, getting hung up on the past. I just laugh at the idea that Al being that way was of any huge consequence in the midst of decades of band members turning up to gigs drunk and high, numerous lawsuits and business moves, the Manson stuff, the Landy stuff, and the list goes on and on. I'm not blaming anybody for any of these things specifically, but again, see the famous Lester Bangs quote (even if Bangs meant it in a totally different context). Al Jardine being weirdly stuck on getting the wrong sandwich order on the 1985 tour one time and then sulking about it for ten years doesn't even fall on the radar compared to all the crazy stuff this band has endured (and caused).
« Last Edit: April 18, 2016, 12:55:18 PM by HeyJude » Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #224 on: April 18, 2016, 01:00:40 PM »



I think Al's enthusiasm about the reunion trumped caring too much about the level of pay or number of setlist selections or number of songs on the album that he got. Indeed, he spoke more than once I believe right before and/or during the C50 tour about "asking Mike" to add specific songs to the setlist, didn't appear to get anything that screamed "Al picked that song!" into the setlist other than "California Saga", got ZERO songs of his own on the new album, and so on. Jason Fine in Rolling Stone depicts Brian literally walking out of the room to avoid having to work on Al's "Waves of Love"; meanwhile telling Mike how much he likes "Daybreak Over the Ocean." Yet, he seemed most enthusiastic, to the point of being naïve about the reunion's future. It's no coincidence he seemed most bummed when the reunion didn't continue.

If "Waves of Love" had been written by Mike, I think it would had a better chance at getting onto the album, as well as had Brian showing more enthusiasm for it. Mike made no secret of how many demands Mike had of getting more, more, more Mike  involvement on the reunion album, and of course any Al song being included would have just been another opportunity for Mike to claim Mike was creatively marginalized compared to what he'd been promised (beyond what Mike was already unhappy and complaining about in the album's creation).

Daybreak is ok, nothing special, and of the two, I like Waves quite a bit better myself. I think Brian knows if peace and calm is to be kept, how important it is to Mike for Mike to be patted on the back and shown enthusiasm for his (Mike's) own work... and that Al historically can just be relatively brushed aside without much resultant fallout. I think that Brian knowing those factors probably played into Brian's outward reaction to those songs.

Let's put it this way... if Mike presented an already completed song (Daybreak) to Brian, and Brian just brushed it aside the way Brian did to Waves, what kind of flak would Brian have received from Mike? I imagine quite a bit more emotional flak and passive-aggressiveness than Brian endured from brushing Al's song aside.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2016, 01:18:38 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
gfx
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.509 seconds with 21 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!