What did Bruce and Jack disagree over?

[filledeplage]

He was a manager and ends up in a songwriter role? Hmm.

The proof is in the pudding. The songs he co-wrote were rad. Trying to minimize how important his lyrical contributions were is a fruitless effort; you might as well minimize Mike's while you're at it.

The band's output suffered without him.  Do you dispute this?  

 
By the end of that era, things were changing all around.  It was the end of an era, and the war, which I think was a convergence of his leaving and the times changing radically to a resurgence of interest in the BB's.

But, I think Jack learned from being with them.  Sounds like Dennis had an influence on what he wrote.  

Do you think the band's output suffered without him?  

Sorry if this goes off-topic to the original topic...

FDP, you don't seem to want to answer my question directly, but I'll pose it again in that I don't think you could possibly say that Dennis quitting writing and producing music for the band (and quitting making virtually any music for that matter) didn't contribute to the band's output suffering, any more than you could say that Jack's input and influence didn't leave a pretty big gaping hole when he too ceased being involved in writing music being released by the band.

It's not a competition between Jack's and Dennis' contributions, and yes, they both stopped their musical output with The BBs for very different reasons, obviously... but in both cases, the band's output suffered. Period. It's no coincidence. Regardless of any sort of "end of an era" that you want to make this about.

Those analogies are no different with regards to a person (Jack or Dennis) bringing some much-needed progressive creativity to the table suddenly vanishing from the scene... followed directly by output by the band that was subpar by comparison. That's a fact.  

Back to the original topic, would be interesting to think about what Bruce might have brought to the table if he and Jack could have coexisted in the band past Holland.

CD - I thought I answered that maybe before you asked to HJ.  I don't think that they suffered when Jack left because the times changed in the US from wartime mode to party mode and the BB music was an integral part of that. The music scene with Saturday Night Fever hit the disco world and falsetto became big again, with The Bee Gees rocketed as well as their work with Chicago (Wishin' You Were Here.)  

[filledeplage]

Most fans would not know or care about management.  All they know is how the band sounds when they step on the stage.  They pull it all together and rise to the occasion.  The band members themselves conduct themselves professionally.  

The band is about more than live performances. The shambolic aftermath of the reunion tour was plenty of evidence to "fans" that the band had AWFUL management. The tour was evidence of 50 years of amazing music. The aftermath was evidence of not having figured out how to run a band and brand after 50 years.

The erroneous, inflammatory trending topic of "Mike Love fires Brian Wilson", with no singular, united, GROUP statement to clarify the situation was ample evidence of horrible management.

And in addition to "fan" perception, the industry saw it too. We've since heard from knowledgeable folks who talk to industry people that the band were the laughing stocks of the industry, and potential promoters with deeper pockets than Joe Thomas dropped the idea of more high profile Beach Boys gigs/tours like a hot potato.

HJ - Of course the band is more than live performances but that is was a concert-attending fan is involved with and not the everyday minutiae-speculation. 

What does the trending topic article "title" which I said was deliberately "inflammatory" have to do with anything having to do with Jack?  Or, C50?   

[Juice Brohnston]

Most fans would not know or care about management.  All they know is how the band sounds when they step on the stage.  They pull it all together and rise to the occasion.  The band members themselves conduct themselves professionally.  

The band is about more than live performances. The shambolic aftermath of the reunion tour was plenty of evidence to "fans" that the band had AWFUL management. The tour was evidence of 50 years of amazing music. The aftermath was evidence of not having figured out how to run a band and brand after 50 years.

The erroneous, inflammatory trending topic of "Mike Love fires Brian Wilson", with no singular, united, GROUP statement to clarify the situation was ample evidence of horrible management.

And in addition to "fan" perception, the industry saw it too. We've since heard from knowledgeable folks who talk to industry people that the band were the laughing stocks of the industry, and potential promoters with deeper pockets than Joe Thomas dropped the idea of more high profile Beach Boys gigs/tours like a hot potato.

Great Post

[HeyJude]

Most fans would not know or care about management.  All they know is how the band sounds when they step on the stage.  They pull it all together and rise to the occasion.  The band members themselves conduct themselves professionally.  

The band is about more than live performances. The shambolic aftermath of the reunion tour was plenty of evidence to "fans" that the band had AWFUL management. The tour was evidence of 50 years of amazing music. The aftermath was evidence of not having figured out how to run a band and brand after 50 years.

The erroneous, inflammatory trending topic of "Mike Love fires Brian Wilson", with no singular, united, GROUP statement to clarify the situation was ample evidence of horrible management.

And in addition to "fan" perception, the industry saw it too. We've since heard from knowledgeable folks who talk to industry people that the band were the laughing stocks of the industry, and potential promoters with deeper pockets than Joe Thomas dropped the idea of more high profile Beach Boys gigs/tours like a hot potato.

HJ - Of course the band is more than live performances but that is was a concert-attending fan is involved with and not the everyday minutiae-speculation. 

What does the trending topic article "title" which I said was deliberately "inflammatory" have to do with anything having to do with Jack?  Or, C50?   

I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about, but the discussion has included talk of the band's management, and characterizations of what is good and bad.

If your only bar is "didn't allegedly/supposedly do things that may have possibly, in the right circumstances, led to legal problems", then I can imagine a bland CPA running the band's affairs would be fine too.

The aftermath of C50 reflected poorly on the band and its management, and was in the immediate aftermath a trending topic online. A lot of "casual" fans saw the (again, erroneous) trending topic of "Mike Love fires Brian Wilson." The media did a bad job in reporting that, but the cause for the demise of the reunion, and even *moreso* the lack of clarification from a unified band and manager, spoke to POOR management.

Maybe "casual" fans didn't specifically think to themselves in precise words "Wow, the band has poor management." But it wouldn't have taken an industry expert or a hardcore fan to realize all sectors of the organization, from the band to PR to management, totally f***ed up the ending of C50. Even if the band had decided to end it then and there, better management would have resulted in a better, cleaner, happier, more celebratory ending.

Any manager that lets the end of C50 happen (not *that* it ended, but the fashion in which it ended) isn't doing a good job.

This topic is germane because they have needed different types of managers at different times. I get it, Elliott Lott isn't "managing" the band in the way Rieley or Schilling did. Lott essentially runs a holding company at this stage. But maybe they could have used a Rieley (or Schilling) type in 2012 when they were actually a *band* again, and not just a holding company licensing out a name and signing off on reissues.

But frankly, even just in terms of operating as a holding company, BRI isn't doing a good job there either. Countless missed opportunities for archival projects, and an inability to cross-promote solo projects by getting everybody to play nice. If Jeff Jones can get Paul and Yoko to play nice, then someone can get Brian and Mike (and Al, etc.) to play nice.

[filledeplage]

Most fans would not know or care about management.  All they know is how the band sounds when they step on the stage.  They pull it all together and rise to the occasion.  The band members themselves conduct themselves professionally.  

The band is about more than live performances. The shambolic aftermath of the reunion tour was plenty of evidence to "fans" that the band had AWFUL management. The tour was evidence of 50 years of amazing music. The aftermath was evidence of not having figured out how to run a band and brand after 50 years.

The erroneous, inflammatory trending topic of "Mike Love fires Brian Wilson", with no singular, united, GROUP statement to clarify the situation was ample evidence of horrible management.

And in addition to "fan" perception, the industry saw it too. We've since heard from knowledgeable folks who talk to industry people that the band were the laughing stocks of the industry, and potential promoters with deeper pockets than Joe Thomas dropped the idea of more high profile Beach Boys gigs/tours like a hot potato.

HJ - Of course the band is more than live performances but that is was a concert-attending fan is involved with and not the everyday minutiae-speculation. 

What does the trending topic article "title" which I said was deliberately "inflammatory" have to do with anything having to do with Jack?  Or, C50?   

I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about, but the discussion has included talk of the band's management, and characterizations of what is good and bad.

If your only bar is "didn't allegedly/supposedly do things that may have possibly, in the right circumstances, led to legal problems", then I can imagine a bland CPA running the band's affairs would be fine too.

The aftermath of C50 reflected poorly on the band and its management, and was in the immediate aftermath a trending topic online. A lot of "casual" fans saw the (again, erroneous) trending topic of "Mike Love fires Brian Wilson." The media did a bad job in reporting that, but the cause for the demise of the reunion, and even *moreso* the lack of clarification from a unified band and manager, spoke to POOR management.

Maybe "casual" fans didn't specifically think to themselves in precise words "Wow, the band has poor management." But it wouldn't have taken an industry expert or a hardcore fan to realize all sectors of the organization, from the band to PR to management, totally f***ed up the ending of C50. Even if the band had decided to end it then and there, better management would have resulted in a better, cleaner, happier, more celebratory ending.

Any manager that lets the end of C50 happen (not *that* it ended, but the fashion in which it ended) isn't doing a good job.

This topic is germane because they have needed different types of managers at different times. I get it, Elliott Lott isn't "managing" the band in the way Rieley or Schilling did. Lott essentially runs a holding company at this stage. But maybe they could have used a Rieley (or Schilling) type in 2012 when they were actually a *band* again, and not just a holding company licensing out a name and signing off on reissues.

But frankly, even just in terms of operating as a holding company, BRI isn't doing a good job there either. Countless missed opportunities for archival projects, and an inability to cross-promote solo projects by getting everybody to play nice. If Jeff Jones can get Paul and Yoko to play nice, then someone can get Brian and Mike (and Al, etc.) to play nice.

HJ- perhaps we are on different wave lengths.  My point is that there is an "arms length" distance between the concert goer and the band.  This is 3 1/2 years post the end of C50, which I never believed to be a permanent BB reunion. 

At no point did I believe it was any more than an "event" to celebrate the 50 years.  This has nothing to do with the Jack/Bruce "whatever" - and those who love to "romanticize" the band back to the 70's and plug in a set of hypotheticals about "what if"- really - who cares? 

As far as the "Mike Fired Brian" scenario, my own kids asked me if that was true, and I told them with my legal hat on that it was not possible with the corporate setup for one member to "fire" another member.   The difference is the "feeling" that you are being fired, is 100% different, because an "impression" or "feeling" is not a fact. It, was also "inflammatory" headlines, calculated to get both internet hits and media coverage and took on a life of it's own. 

This is like telling someone they are a "bad parent" and without being the other parent drawing an inference that BRI is "not doing a good job" and unless you are involved in the inner workings instead of "he-said, she said" is pretty out of bounds in my view.  And, it is totally subjective.  It is not germane and that there is an attempt to contort it as such, I find ridiculous.  And, I was sort of trying to drop a hint that it was interesting that Jack (the promoter) was becoming a songwriter and not square in the role of band manager. 

Was Jack's role that fluid that he is working on songs, as an artist, as opposed to performing management tasks? Some other "dude" insinuated himself into the songwriting role, who was not hired for that job.  Is there an analogy?  I don't know.  What I do know is for someone to keep an elected official's stationery in his possession, (and use it) is a criminal act and I cannot justify squaring or rationalizing it away.

[guitarfool2002]

Just a quick story I picked up among all of the Hollywood and music-biz info and trivia I read through the years. Not related to Jack or anyone being discussed here directly, but symbolic of the environment in which all of these things exist, specifically showbiz in general and the agents, managers, PR people, and the like whose job it is to deal in it.

At one very prominent agency (and probably all others in similar ways), the way to get in at the ground floor was to get a job in the mailroom. It helped to have a benefactor too, as in a prominent family member or someone else who could put in a good word for you. Nepotism, in all forms...or sometimes, it was just pure bold initiative to land that gig.

In the days before email, internet, and heightened security measures, correspondence used to be made via mail and inter-office paper memos. It would go through the mailroom and be distributed accordingly.

Specific to this one agency because this was the account I read from the people involved, sometimes a clerk in the mailroom who wanted to get out of the mailroom and into the actual agent and manager business could be taken under the wing of higher-up employees, sort of shown the inside track to climb the ladder.

One of those ways to climb the ladder was shown to the young mailroom guy who wanted to become an agent rep in question as follows:

Show up hours early in the morning before most came into the office. Learn to identify the different pieces of mail that were coming in, and to whom they were being sent to. Separate the daily paperwork from invitations, official letters, personal letters, etc.

Once said "important" mail was identified, steam open the envelopes and intercept whatever was going to be delivered to the agents and managers working upstairs. Make note of the important invitations, make note of clients who were writing with their displeasure of how things were going with their career and representation, make note of any big openings or roles that may be opening up...

...and there would be the inside track for anyone with the initiative to go out and try landing those people as clients. It was the same as getting an insider stock tip, you were getting the info before anyone and therefore had the advantage if you knew what to do with it and how to proceed.

Why bring this up? This was encouraged. It was how people became agents and managers and built up a book. The whole industry has revolved around digging up and using secret info for decades.

It's a federal crime to open and read someone else's mail. Yet this was how some mailroom guys and budding power-brokers in the industry were shown the way in order to scoop the other agents and land clients. It was how the ladder was to be climbed within that corporate structure. Some of the mailroom letter-steamers went on to become major power brokers.

And the issue is honesty among this aspect of the entertainment business?

[Peadar 'Big Dinner' O'Driscoll]

I dunno where you guys get the energy 

[Howie Edelson]

For the record, Elliott Lott is no longer "managing" BRI (and hasn't for some time.)

[HeyJude]

For the record, Elliott Lott is no longer "managing" BRI (and hasn't for some time.)

Ah, interesting. Does he still have a position there? I guess such a position would more likely be "President" of BRI, rather than a manager for the band. In that sense, does the *band* have a manager? It seems not in the Jerry Schilling sense.

I'm trying to remember if his name has recently appeared on whatever recent BB releases (where in the past there was something along the lines of "For Brother Records - Elliott Lott."

[CenturyDeprived]

He was a manager and ends up in a songwriter role? Hmm.

The proof is in the pudding. The songs he co-wrote were rad. Trying to minimize how important his lyrical contributions were is a fruitless effort; you might as well minimize Mike's while you're at it.

The band's output suffered without him.  Do you dispute this?  

 
By the end of that era, things were changing all around.  It was the end of an era, and the war, which I think was a convergence of his leaving and the times changing radically to a resurgence of interest in the BB's.

But, I think Jack learned from being with them.  Sounds like Dennis had an influence on what he wrote.  

Do you think the band's output suffered without him?  

Sorry if this goes off-topic to the original topic...

FDP, you don't seem to want to answer my question directly, but I'll pose it again in that I don't think you could possibly say that Dennis quitting writing and producing music for the band (and quitting making virtually any music for that matter) didn't contribute to the band's output suffering, any more than you could say that Jack's input and influence didn't leave a pretty big gaping hole when he too ceased being involved in writing music being released by the band.

It's not a competition between Jack's and Dennis' contributions, and yes, they both stopped their musical output with The BBs for very different reasons, obviously... but in both cases, the band's output suffered. Period. It's no coincidence. Regardless of any sort of "end of an era" that you want to make this about.

Those analogies are no different with regards to a person (Jack or Dennis) bringing some much-needed progressive creativity to the table suddenly vanishing from the scene... followed directly by output by the band that was subpar by comparison. That's a fact.  

Back to the original topic, would be interesting to think about what Bruce might have brought to the table if he and Jack could have coexisted in the band past Holland.

CD - I thought I answered that maybe before you asked to HJ.  I don't think that they suffered when Jack left because the times changed in the US from wartime mode to party mode and the BB music was an integral part of that. The music scene with Saturday Night Fever hit the disco world and falsetto became big again, with The Bee Gees rocketed as well as their work with Chicago (Wishin' You Were Here.)  

Did the BBs suffer when Dennis ceased contributing solid original material to the band?  Can you please answer that question, FDP? And can you explain to me how that is a different scenario to when another progressive guy, Jack, ceased contributing to the band? I want to know how you could possibly think this is such a different thing.

Dennis was contributing heartfelt, progressive material to the band even during the "party mode" era you wish to widely paint the later part of the '70s to be. So too could Jack have helped the band continue to focus on progressive music (or at least to better find a balance of progressive material with some less progressive material by others).

With Jack out of the picture, it surely must not have made things *harder* for the Love agenda (which pulled heavily, almost exclusively retro post-Jack) to become stronger and stronger. I'm aware that the band's earlier material was getting more and more popular, and that guys like Carl - grudgingly or not - went along with letting the progressive side of the band take a back seat. I'm not just saying it's all Mike. I'm just saying that minus Jack, it was certainly easier for that to happen... and for the real creative decay of the band to *not coincidentally* also start taking root.

Just because the nation wasn't at war anymore, that doesn't mean that Jack's influence would by definition have meant that every single song was going to have to be some sort of wartime super-political song. He just helped the Boys push boundaries and not get mired in trying to replicate/imitate past glories. His absence was felt.

You wouldn't minimize Jack's contributions if his last name was Love.

[SMiLE Brian]

BW's good timin, California feeling, had to phone ya, and it's ok were the way to go in 1974. A good balance between the past and present.

[Moon Dawg]

  So, Bruce's "Ten Years' Harmony" (later "Endless Harmony") would have been his contribution to Carl and the Passions - So Tough?  Somewhere on side 2, I'd imagine.

[Moon Dawg]

BW's good timin, California feeling, had to phone ya, and it's ok were the way to go in 1974. A good balance between the past and present.

 Totally. Add Dennis tunes like "River Song" and you've got a natural progression from the more political Rieley era.

[SMiLE Brian]

Put barnyard blues and a couple other DW songs from that era and you got the BBs comeback album that was sorely needed. Unfortunately the BBs comeback happened right when BW was at his lowest ebb.

[Gerry]

Jack Love. Sounds like a porn actor

[CenturyDeprived]

BW's good timin, California feeling, had to phone ya, and it's ok were the way to go in 1974. A good balance between the past and present.

 Totally. Add Dennis tunes like "River Song" and you've got a natural progression from the more political Rieley era.

If Jack was still with the band, I have a strong hunch that some more Denny songs like "River Song" would have been released as BB tunes, and albums like MIU would never have happened. Same goes for 15BO. Even if some more retro stuff like Good Timin' would have been released, I think there'd have been more of a balance with the progressive stuff not being basically banished.

Who knows how the POB album would have been affected; maybe Jack would have been someone who would have supported and helped organize Denny's plans for a solo tour (such a person was sorely needed at the time).

What was Denny and Jack's relationship like?

[Rob Dean]

For the record, Elliott Lott is no longer "managing" BRI (and hasn't for some time.)

I have heard that his brother Parking has taken over 

[SurferDownUnder]

Jack Love. Sounds like a porn actor

Where is the name Jack Love coming from? 

[Cabinessenceking]

Most fans would not know or care about management.  All they know is how the band sounds when they step on the stage.  They pull it all together and rise to the occasion.  The band members themselves conduct themselves professionally.  

The band is about more than live performances. The shambolic aftermath of the reunion tour was plenty of evidence to "fans" that the band had AWFUL management. The tour was evidence of 50 years of amazing music. The aftermath was evidence of not having figured out how to run a band and brand after 50 years.

The erroneous, inflammatory trending topic of "Mike Love fires Brian Wilson", with no singular, united, GROUP statement to clarify the situation was ample evidence of horrible management.

And in addition to "fan" perception, the industry saw it too. We've since heard from knowledgeable folks who talk to industry people that the band were the laughing stocks of the industry, and potential promoters with deeper pockets than Joe Thomas dropped the idea of more high profile Beach Boys gigs/tours like a hot potato.

Great Post

This is really all that needs to be said. No effective management to handle any internal squabbles, nobody to look out for Mike's loose mouth. The result was a PR disaster. So uneccessary, so unprofessional.

[filledeplage]

He was a manager and ends up in a songwriter role? Hmm.

The proof is in the pudding. The songs he co-wrote were rad. Trying to minimize how important his lyrical contributions were is a fruitless effort; you might as well minimize Mike's while you're at it.

The band's output suffered without him.  Do you dispute this?  

 
By the end of that era, things were changing all around.  It was the end of an era, and the war, which I think was a convergence of his leaving and the times changing radically to a resurgence of interest in the BB's.

But, I think Jack learned from being with them.  Sounds like Dennis had an influence on what he wrote.  

Do you think the band's output suffered without him?  

Sorry if this goes off-topic to the original topic...

FDP, you don't seem to want to answer my question directly, but I'll pose it again in that I don't think you could possibly say that Dennis quitting writing and producing music for the band (and quitting making virtually any music for that matter) didn't contribute to the band's output suffering, any more than you could say that Jack's input and influence didn't leave a pretty big gaping hole when he too ceased being involved in writing music being released by the band.

It's not a competition between Jack's and Dennis' contributions, and yes, they both stopped their musical output with The BBs for very different reasons, obviously... but in both cases, the band's output suffered. Period. It's no coincidence. Regardless of any sort of "end of an era" that you want to make this about.

Those analogies are no different with regards to a person (Jack or Dennis) bringing some much-needed progressive creativity to the table suddenly vanishing from the scene... followed directly by output by the band that was subpar by comparison. That's a fact.  

Back to the original topic, would be interesting to think about what Bruce might have brought to the table if he and Jack could have coexisted in the band past Holland.

CD - I thought I answered that maybe before you asked to HJ.  I don't think that they suffered when Jack left because the times changed in the US from wartime mode to party mode and the BB music was an integral part of that. The music scene with Saturday Night Fever hit the disco world and falsetto became big again, with The Bee Gees rocketed as well as their work with Chicago (Wishin' You Were Here.)  

Did the BBs suffer when Dennis ceased contributing solid original material to the band?  Can you please answer that question, FDP? And can you explain to me how that is a different scenario to when another progressive guy, Jack, ceased contributing to the band? I want to know how you could possibly think this is such a different thing.

Dennis was contributing heartfelt, progressive material to the band even during the "party mode" era you wish to widely paint the later part of the '70s to be. So too could Jack have helped the band continue to focus on progressive music (or at least to better find a balance of progressive material with some less progressive material by others).

With Jack out of the picture, it surely must not have made things *harder* for the Love agenda (which pulled heavily, almost exclusively retro post-Jack) to become stronger and stronger. I'm aware that the band's earlier material was getting more and more popular, and that guys like Carl - grudgingly or not - went along with letting the progressive side of the band take a back seat. I'm not just saying it's all Mike. I'm just saying that minus Jack, it was certainly easier for that to happen... and for the real creative decay of the band to *not coincidentally* also start taking root.

Just because the nation wasn't at war anymore, that doesn't mean that Jack's influence would by definition have meant that every single song was going to have to be some sort of wartime super-political song. He just helped the Boys push boundaries and not get mired in trying to replicate/imitate past glories. His absence was felt.

You wouldn't minimize Jack's contributions if his last name was Love.

CD - The last sentence sums up where you were going. Mike is a band member and Jack was not.  And the "leading questions" where you were looking to box me into a yes/no answer.  There is no relationship between the two issues.  Some of Dennis stuff...one, from Dennis, written with Mike (Only With You) probably one of the best ever written in my opinion.  How is this leading to a Mike bash?  How did Jack end up as a writer? I think of So Tough and Holland as one body of work.  Holland did not do that well in the States, not unlike Pet Sounds but grew into a classic.  ST was #50 and Holland was at #36.  Both got good fm coverage as kids were ripping out am radios of their rides and putting in am/fm for the choice of better music.  

What was Dennis' relationship with Jack?  That is not the question in the thread. POB is a classic.  That merits it's own thread.  And while I look at my vinyl - Dennis has a nice note of appreciation for Bruce.      

The nation was not at war and there was a sense of relief, and gone, the need to create dirge-like war protest songs.  Jack was part of that era, no matter how you look at it.  GF's cool post is not lost on me where many people do start out in the mailroom.  I get that.  I am talking about "blurred lines" with job descriptions.  And one in particular who crossed over in a very destructive way over time. Jack was supposed to manage, not insinuate himself in the creative process.

  

[Howie Edelson]

Re: Beach Boys management.

Things recently came so very, very, very, very close to being set right -- to be spectacular. To be major.
And it was blown.

I hate to be so vague, because I hate when others do the same -- but it was almost all set right.

So close.
I did my best.

[filledeplage]

Re: Beach Boys management.

Things recently came so very, very, very, very close to being set right -- to be spectacular. To be major.
And it was blown.

I hate to be so vague, because I hate when others do the same -- but it was almost all set right.

So close.
I did my best.

Howie - it is fine to be vague and not vague at the same time.  Discretion is the better part of valor. 

The disconnect with the tour is that some people, even fans, were convinced, or convinced themselves, that C50 was a permanent reunion. 

And, I never got the impression that it was more than an "event."  So, I did not come away disappointed.  It was a magnificent experience.  With luck, and very clear terms, with all involved, maybe it could happen again.   

[HeyJude]

Re: Beach Boys management.

Things recently came so very, very, very, very close to being set right -- to be spectacular. To be major.
And it was blown.

I hate to be so vague, because I hate when others do the same -- but it was almost all set right.

So close.
I did my best.

Howie - it is fine to be vague and not vague at the same time.  Discretion is the better part of valor.  

The disconnect with the tour is that some people, even fans, were convinced, or convinced themselves, that C50 was a permanent reunion.  

And, I never got the impression that it was more than an "event."  So, I did not come away disappointed.  It was a magnificent experience.  With luck, and very clear terms, with all involved, maybe it could happen again.  

I would assume that any recent goings-on regarding management would have been about far more than just touring, and would be about far more than anything to do with getting any reunion together.

As for C50, I think it's revisionism to suggest much of anyone was "convinced" the reunion was permanent. In fact, the most common thought and commentary I saw before and during C50 involved it very much being an open question as what would happen in the future, and that was tinged with plenty of pessimism and skepticism from fans who know well how disorganized and unfortunate the BBs sometimes run their affairs.

Hoping for the reunion to continue for another touring season or two, or even hoping they might keep the reunion together as some sort of "main attraction" while keeping their sidebands going, was nothing more than that: A hope.

The actual celebration of the 50th anniversary was obviously a fixed, one-time "event" (although a band could easily "continue" a 50th anniversary tour into the following year; nobody would be bugging them that they would need to change it to "Beach Boys 51", and indeed Brian Wilson had done "40th Anniversary" Pet Sounds dates in 2007 and may well do 50th dates in 2017). But based on pretty much everybody's words and expressed thoughts, the future of the band was open-ended.

Nobody was saying before or during the tour, up until Mike's press release in September, that the reunion was definitively and fully ending with the final UK date in September. Except Bruce, sort of; and his comments as the tour began indeed should have been perhaps more closely heeded. Nobody would so emphatically tell fans that the last gig with all five members was going to be on such-and-such date, unless they had a reason to say so and at least had the appearance of not being bummed in the slightest about the prospect.

[filledeplage]

Re: Beach Boys management.

Things recently came so very, very, very, very close to being set right -- to be spectacular. To be major.
And it was blown.

I hate to be so vague, because I hate when others do the same -- but it was almost all set right.

So close.
I did my best.

Howie - it is fine to be vague and not vague at the same time.  Discretion is the better part of valor.  

The disconnect with the tour is that some people, even fans, were convinced, or convinced themselves, that C50 was a permanent reunion.  

And, I never got the impression that it was more than an "event."  So, I did not come away disappointed.  It was a magnificent experience.  With luck, and very clear terms, with all involved, maybe it could happen again.  

I would assume that any recent goings-on regarding management would have been about far more than just touring, and would be about far more than anything to do with getting any reunion together.

As for C50, I think it's revisionism to suggest much of anyone was "convinced" the reunion was permanent. In fact, the most common thought and commentary I saw before and during C50 involved it very much being an open question as what would happen in the future, and that was tinged with plenty of pessimism and skepticism from fans who know well how disorganized and unfortunate the BBs sometimes run their affairs.

Hoping for the reunion to continue for another touring season or two, or even hoping they might keep the reunion together as some sort of "main attraction" while keeping their sidebands going, was nothing more than that: A hope.

The actual celebration of the 50th anniversary was obviously a fixed, one-time "event" (although a band could easily "continue" a 50th anniversary tour into the following year; nobody would be bugging them that they would need to change it to "Beach Boys 51", and indeed Brian Wilson had done "40th Anniversary" Pet Sounds dates in 2007 and may well do 50th dates in 2017). But based on pretty much everybody's words and expressed thoughts, the future of the band was open-ended.

Nobody was saying before or during the tour, up until Mike's press release in September, that the reunion was definitively and fully ending with the final UK date in September. Except Bruce, sort of; and his comments as the tour began indeed should have been perhaps more closely heeded. Nobody would so emphatically tell fans that the last gig with all five members was going to be on such-and-such date, unless they had a reason to say so and at least had the appearance of not being bummed in the slightest about the prospect.

HJ - Before and during C50, numerous interviews were conducted by the band, or contained within the band, about the nature of C50.  It is not revisionism.  And it was not "pretty much everybody's words." Those interviews are still on youtube.  

A mini-industry was created (or was partially in place) that fed off the tour. Did it benefit all involved?  Of course.  Are/were they unhappy that the tour ended?  Of course.  

The actual decisions come from the wishes of the individual band members, perhaps, after some preliminary negotiations occur.  It is a small (in number) member group. And the year can always be looked at in numerous ways.  Pet Sounds was released towards the end of fiscal year 1966 which ends in June.  Academic years start in September and run through June/August.  There are any number of ways of looking at things.  When you operate pretty much autonomously you can set your own schedule.  Pet Sounds was still in the racks in 1967, which technically, was within the first half of the fiscal year.  

This thread is about Jack and Bruce. And only they knew/know what went down. And, frankly, my dear...

[Emily]

Whose fiscal year? What fiscal year are you talking about and how does it and Pet Sounds connect to the topic?