So according to Mike, the reason he ended the reunion...

[Juice Brohnston]

I think the reasons for the end of C50 are complex. To start with, shows were added, so it actually did go longer than originally planned. There was a lot of pressure on everybody early on. Hell, a lot of us were more than skeptical they could pull it off at the beginning.

Not a dig on Brian but he is definitely a more 'high maintenance' guy on tour, I expect. I think Mike had certain expectations, justified or not, that just started to slip away as the whole production rolled along. For Mike, he had a comparable for the first time since the M&B era. Was C50 better financially? Probably not. Less difficult logistically? No. Artistically superior? Without a doubt, but commerce before art for Dr. love.

Listen, it could have gone the other way as well. Brian's back issues could have left him in traction or something, and the tour could have come to an early end. Mike and Al went to the press with the whole 'feels like we are being fired' thing, and that would have been better, for the legacy of the band, to have been hashed out internally. Regardless, the entire excercise seems to have encouraged Brian to tour more..he's been on the road pretty much ever since.

Also, just my two cents, but I often felt like the odd man out in C50 was Bruce. Al and Brian, founding members, we're back. The Dave angle got a lot of press. Bruce was kinda just ignored (unless making his own press about Obama on TMZ) Damn even the set up of his keyboard was way off to the side of the stage. Half the footage of shows doesn't even capture him. Anyway, my point is, Bruce probably has Mike's ear about the whole tour, and who knows, he may have created significant reinforcement for Mike's thoughts about reverting back to Love License events.

[CenturyDeprived]

Not a dig on Brian but he is definitely a more 'high maintenance' guy on tour, I expect. I think Mike had certain expectations, justified or not, that just started to slip away as the whole production rolled along. For Mike, he had a comparable for the first time since the M&B era. Was C50 better financially? Probably not. Less difficult logistically? No. Artistically superior? Without a doubt, but commerce before art for Dr. love.

Listen, it could have gone the other way as well. Brian's back issues could have left him in traction or something, and the tour could have come to an early end. Mike and Al went to the press with the whole 'feels like we are being fired' thing, and that would have been better, for the legacy of the band, to have been hashed out internally.  

Mike has MANY millions of dollars. Especially since he amped up touring in major way after Carl died. Yes, I know he has a lifestyle that needs bucks to support, yet the idea that it'd be the end of the world for him if he made some less dollars in the short term is a pretty lame excuse, especially because it could absolutely have translated to bigger bucks in a longterm situation. Call the waaa-mbulance. Mike's just addicted to the road, it's a genuine (and in this case, harmful) addiction.

As I've said before, if Mike felt that he was going to achieve some sort of public respect, personal award, etc. for keeping the reunion together, I believe he'd have prioritized that above all else. If reviewers were gushing over Mike's vocals in Isn't It Time, saying that Mike is the shiznit and deserves a personal Grammy just for him, he'd have not exploded the reunion. He just felt like he was going to be second fiddle (AS IT SHOULD BE IN A SITUATION WITH BRIAN IN THE BB TOURING BAND FOR THE FIRST TIME IN DECADES), and he couldn't take it.

Mike's actions of busting up C50 and going immediately right back to the M&B band remind me of someone who is so incredibly scared of losing control. It's just so sad, and frankly ridiculous that he can't just admit that's the case. It's like someone who is going back to dating an old flame, but keeping a bunch of casual girlfriends hanging on the side in every town, just in case things don't work out.

[Juice Brohnston]

Not a dig on Brian but he is definitely a more 'high maintenance' guy on tour, I expect. I think Mike had certain expectations, justified or not, that just started to slip away as the whole production rolled along. For Mike, he had a comparable for the first time since the M&B era. Was C50 better financially? Probably not. Less difficult logistically? No. Artistically superior? Without a doubt, but commerce before art for Dr. love.

Listen, it could have gone the other way as well. Brian's back issues could have left him in traction or something, and the tour could have come to an early end. Mike and Al went to the press with the whole 'feels like we are being fired' thing, and that would have been better, for the legacy of the band, to have been hashed out internally.  

Mike has MANY millions of dollars. Especially since he amped up touring in major way after Carl died. Yes, I know he has a lifestyle that needs bucks to support, yet the idea that it'd be the end of the world for him if he made some less dollars in the short term is a pretty lame excuse, especially because it could absolutely have translated to bigger bucks in a longterm situation. Call the waaa-mbulance. Mike's just addicted to the road, it's a genuine (and in this case, harmful) addiction.

As I've said before, if Mike felt that he was going to achieve some sort of public respect, personal award, etc. for keeping the reunion together, I believe he'd have prioritized that above all else. If reviewers were gushing over Mike's vocals in Isn't It Time, saying that Mike is the shiznit and deserves a personal Grammy just for him, he'd have not exploded the reunion. He just felt like he was going to be second fiddle (AS IT SHOULD BE IN A SITUATION WITH BRIAN IN THE BB TOURING BAND FOR THE FIRST TIME IN DECADES), and he couldn't take it.

Mike's actions of busting up C50 and going immediately right back to the M&B band remind me of someone who is so incredibly scared of losing control. It's just so sad, and frankly ridiculous that he can't just admit that's the case. It's like someone who is going back to dating an old flame, but keeping a bunch of casual girlfriends hanging on the side in every town, just in case things don't work out.

But there's a difference in being scared of losing control, and coming to the realization that what he does with Bruce is just better for him on a bunch of levels. Mike isn't stupid. He would have known that the reunion would be Brian-centric. He didn't have to agree with it in the first place.

Ya, as a fan it would have been great to see what could have transpired from a longer reunion, but what we had was pretty great.

What if Mike had agreed to extend the tour with the caveat that all decisions regarding touring, recording, etc were to be made solely by he and Brian, with zero input from Mel or Jacquie?? Do you think it would have happened?

[CenturyDeprived]

Not a dig on Brian but he is definitely a more 'high maintenance' guy on tour, I expect. I think Mike had certain expectations, justified or not, that just started to slip away as the whole production rolled along. For Mike, he had a comparable for the first time since the M&B era. Was C50 better financially? Probably not. Less difficult logistically? No. Artistically superior? Without a doubt, but commerce before art for Dr. love.

Listen, it could have gone the other way as well. Brian's back issues could have left him in traction or something, and the tour could have come to an early end. Mike and Al went to the press with the whole 'feels like we are being fired' thing, and that would have been better, for the legacy of the band, to have been hashed out internally.  

Mike has MANY millions of dollars. Especially since he amped up touring in major way after Carl died. Yes, I know he has a lifestyle that needs bucks to support, yet the idea that it'd be the end of the world for him if he made some less dollars in the short term is a pretty lame excuse, especially because it could absolutely have translated to bigger bucks in a longterm situation. Call the waaa-mbulance. Mike's just addicted to the road, it's a genuine (and in this case, harmful) addiction.

As I've said before, if Mike felt that he was going to achieve some sort of public respect, personal award, etc. for keeping the reunion together, I believe he'd have prioritized that above all else. If reviewers were gushing over Mike's vocals in Isn't It Time, saying that Mike is the shiznit and deserves a personal Grammy just for him, he'd have not exploded the reunion. He just felt like he was going to be second fiddle (AS IT SHOULD BE IN A SITUATION WITH BRIAN IN THE BB TOURING BAND FOR THE FIRST TIME IN DECADES), and he couldn't take it.

Mike's actions of busting up C50 and going immediately right back to the M&B band remind me of someone who is so incredibly scared of losing control. It's just so sad, and frankly ridiculous that he can't just admit that's the case. It's like someone who is going back to dating an old flame, but keeping a bunch of casual girlfriends hanging on the side in every town, just in case things don't work out.

But there's a difference in being scared of losing control, and coming to the realization that what he does with Bruce is just better for him on a bunch of levels. Mike isn't stupid. He would have known that the reunion would be Brian-centric. He didn't have to agree with it in the first place.

Ya, as a fan it would have been great to see what could have transpired from a longer reunion, but what we had was pretty great.

What if Mike had agreed to extend the tour with the caveat that all decisions regarding touring, recording, etc were to be made solely by he and Brian, with zero input from Mel or Jacquie?? Do you think it would have happened?

It's ridiculous to make a demand from a guy like Brian, who has been through *so* much in his life, to dictate that his wife is not part of these decisions. This isn't some Yoko Ono thing where John was a young, healthy guy, while his wife was injecting herself into the process and pissing off the other bandmates. This is completely different. Melinda is there helping play defense for Brian specifically *because* Mike has a tendency, however inadvertently, to manipulate Brian. There has never been a band member other than Mike in this band who has been clamoring for personal attention, with decades of resentment coloring their dysfunctional actions. Mike has that market cornered. And Brian, while in a much better place in his life these days, has spent years being an emotional wreck, and there is no damn way he should be made vulnerable to that happening again for any reason.

There was room for Mike to shine, and he would have continued to shine even more. It just wasn't gonna happen overnight.

Sorry, but it should be an understood thing that in terms of hierarchy, Brian comes first in The Beach Boys. Over Mike. Firstly because he was the main songwriter and creative force/bandleader (much more so than Mike, this is not debatable), and secondly because of all of the personal crap he's been through in his life for DECADES. He has endured more hardships and pain/suffering than Mike. Maybe some self-inflicted, but the bottom line is that he should be the boss, and if that includes Melinda in helping make decisions, then so be it. IMO Mike just isn't ready to feel emasculated by a woman. Maybe it has zero to do with her gender, but I think that probably just adds to it. He is unable to see that it is not 1965 anymore, before Brian had been through a conservatorship, etc.

Do I understand why Mike would have preferred the M&B arrangement? Sure, it's easy to see. He's the boss, no pesky original band members to have any input, or to take away the spotlight from him. Everything else, like the band's legacy, is collateral damage, and that's A-OK with Mike.

But I get it. Truthfully, I think Mike and Brian should not have been working together after around 1965. It's been beating a dead horse of a relationship with two diametrically opposed goals. Even though the two wrote some great songs together after that point (not a whole lot, but some), the negatives outweighed the positives. All because of ego. They deserve to be happy. I just don't think the legacy deserves to be shat on in the process.

[Juice Brohnston]

Not a dig on Brian but he is definitely a more 'high maintenance' guy on tour, I expect. I think Mike had certain expectations, justified or not, that just started to slip away as the whole production rolled along. For Mike, he had a comparable for the first time since the M&B era. Was C50 better financially? Probably not. Less difficult logistically? No. Artistically superior? Without a doubt, but commerce before art for Dr. love.

Listen, it could have gone the other way as well. Brian's back issues could have left him in traction or something, and the tour could have come to an early end. Mike and Al went to the press with the whole 'feels like we are being fired' thing, and that would have been better, for the legacy of the band, to have been hashed out internally.  

Mike has MANY millions of dollars. Especially since he amped up touring in major way after Carl died. Yes, I know he has a lifestyle that needs bucks to support, yet the idea that it'd be the end of the world for him if he made some less dollars in the short term is a pretty lame excuse, especially because it could absolutely have translated to bigger bucks in a longterm situation. Call the waaa-mbulance. Mike's just addicted to the road, it's a genuine (and in this case, harmful) addiction.

As I've said before, if Mike felt that he was going to achieve some sort of public respect, personal award, etc. for keeping the reunion together, I believe he'd have prioritized that above all else. If reviewers were gushing over Mike's vocals in Isn't It Time, saying that Mike is the shiznit and deserves a personal Grammy just for him, he'd have not exploded the reunion. He just felt like he was going to be second fiddle (AS IT SHOULD BE IN A SITUATION WITH BRIAN IN THE BB TOURING BAND FOR THE FIRST TIME IN DECADES), and he couldn't take it.

Mike's actions of busting up C50 and going immediately right back to the M&B band remind me of someone who is so incredibly scared of losing control. It's just so sad, and frankly ridiculous that he can't just admit that's the case. It's like someone who is going back to dating an old flame, but keeping a bunch of casual girlfriends hanging on the side in every town, just in case things don't work out.

But there's a difference in being scared of losing control, and coming to the realization that what he does with Bruce is just better for him on a bunch of levels. Mike isn't stupid. He would have known that the reunion would be Brian-centric. He didn't have to agree with it in the first place.

Ya, as a fan it would have been great to see what could have transpired from a longer reunion, but what we had was pretty great.

What if Mike had agreed to extend the tour with the caveat that all decisions regarding touring, recording, etc were to be made solely by he and Brian, with zero input from Mel or Jacquie?? Do you think it would have happened?

It's ridiculous to make a demand from a guy like Brian, who has been through *so* much in his life, to dictate that his wife is not part of these decisions. This isn't some Yoko Ono thing where John was a young, healthy guy, while his wife was injecting herself into the process and pissing off the other bandmates. This is completely different. Melinda is there helping play defense for Brian specifically *because* Mike has a tendency, however inadvertently, to manipulate Brian. There has never been a band member other than Mike in this band who has been clamoring for personal attention, with decades of resentment coloring their dysfunctional actions. Mike has that market cornered. And Brian, while in a much better place in his life these days, has spent years being an emotional wreck, and there is no damn way he should be made vulnerable to that happening again for any reason.

There was room for Mike to shine, and he would have continued to shine even more. It just wasn't gonna happen overnight.

Sorry, but it should be an understood thing that in terms of hierarchy, Brian comes first in The Beach Boys. Over Mike. Firstly because he was the main songwriter and creative force/bandleader (much more so than Mike, this is not debatable), and secondly because of all of the personal crap he's been through in his life for DECADES. He has endured more hardships and pain/suffering than Mike. Maybe some self-inflicted, but the bottom line is that he should be the boss, and if that includes Melinda in helping make decisions, then so be it. IMO Mike just isn't ready to feel emasculated by a woman. Maybe it has zero to do with her gender, but I think that probably just adds to it. He is unable to see that it is not 1965 anymore, before Brian had been through a conservatorship, etc.

Do I understand why Mike would have preferred the M&B arrangement? Sure, it's easy to see. He's the boss, no pesky original band members to have any input, or to take away the spotlight from him. Everything else, like the band's legacy, is collateral damage, and that's A-OK with Mike.

But I get it. Truthfully, I think Mike and Brian should not have been working together after around 1965. It's been beating a dead horse of a relationship with two diametrically opposed goals. Even though the two wrote some great songs together after that point (not a whole lot, but some), the negatives outweighed the positives. All because of ego. They deserve to be happy. I just don't think the legacy deserves to be shat on in the process.

I think your last paragraph is a good one, but it also shines a light on how this is never going to be a black and white issue where these two cousins are concerned. You say Melinda is there to defend Brian from Mike's manipulation, but in that case wouldn't it be better, as you say, that they not work together at all? Simple. But there is money involved. Lots and lots of money. And in those many years when Brian could not, or would not tour, Mike was part of the machine that kept the money rolling in. Mike still puts money in Brian's pocket.

I guess my point is that if Brian's circle wants and needs to insulate him from the manipulation of Mike, that is fine. But Mike can and will react to that and his opinion is obviously going to be shaded differently...thus I think partly the reason this bewildering retelling of past perceived transgressions.

[CenturyDeprived]

Not a dig on Brian but he is definitely a more 'high maintenance' guy on tour, I expect. I think Mike had certain expectations, justified or not, that just started to slip away as the whole production rolled along. For Mike, he had a comparable for the first time since the M&B era. Was C50 better financially? Probably not. Less difficult logistically? No. Artistically superior? Without a doubt, but commerce before art for Dr. love.

Listen, it could have gone the other way as well. Brian's back issues could have left him in traction or something, and the tour could have come to an early end. Mike and Al went to the press with the whole 'feels like we are being fired' thing, and that would have been better, for the legacy of the band, to have been hashed out internally.  

Mike has MANY millions of dollars. Especially since he amped up touring in major way after Carl died. Yes, I know he has a lifestyle that needs bucks to support, yet the idea that it'd be the end of the world for him if he made some less dollars in the short term is a pretty lame excuse, especially because it could absolutely have translated to bigger bucks in a longterm situation. Call the waaa-mbulance. Mike's just addicted to the road, it's a genuine (and in this case, harmful) addiction.

As I've said before, if Mike felt that he was going to achieve some sort of public respect, personal award, etc. for keeping the reunion together, I believe he'd have prioritized that above all else. If reviewers were gushing over Mike's vocals in Isn't It Time, saying that Mike is the shiznit and deserves a personal Grammy just for him, he'd have not exploded the reunion. He just felt like he was going to be second fiddle (AS IT SHOULD BE IN A SITUATION WITH BRIAN IN THE BB TOURING BAND FOR THE FIRST TIME IN DECADES), and he couldn't take it.

Mike's actions of busting up C50 and going immediately right back to the M&B band remind me of someone who is so incredibly scared of losing control. It's just so sad, and frankly ridiculous that he can't just admit that's the case. It's like someone who is going back to dating an old flame, but keeping a bunch of casual girlfriends hanging on the side in every town, just in case things don't work out.

But there's a difference in being scared of losing control, and coming to the realization that what he does with Bruce is just better for him on a bunch of levels. Mike isn't stupid. He would have known that the reunion would be Brian-centric. He didn't have to agree with it in the first place.

Ya, as a fan it would have been great to see what could have transpired from a longer reunion, but what we had was pretty great.

What if Mike had agreed to extend the tour with the caveat that all decisions regarding touring, recording, etc were to be made solely by he and Brian, with zero input from Mel or Jacquie?? Do you think it would have happened?

It's ridiculous to make a demand from a guy like Brian, who has been through *so* much in his life, to dictate that his wife is not part of these decisions. This isn't some Yoko Ono thing where John was a young, healthy guy, while his wife was injecting herself into the process and pissing off the other bandmates. This is completely different. Melinda is there helping play defense for Brian specifically *because* Mike has a tendency, however inadvertently, to manipulate Brian. There has never been a band member other than Mike in this band who has been clamoring for personal attention, with decades of resentment coloring their dysfunctional actions. Mike has that market cornered. And Brian, while in a much better place in his life these days, has spent years being an emotional wreck, and there is no damn way he should be made vulnerable to that happening again for any reason.

There was room for Mike to shine, and he would have continued to shine even more. It just wasn't gonna happen overnight.

Sorry, but it should be an understood thing that in terms of hierarchy, Brian comes first in The Beach Boys. Over Mike. Firstly because he was the main songwriter and creative force/bandleader (much more so than Mike, this is not debatable), and secondly because of all of the personal crap he's been through in his life for DECADES. He has endured more hardships and pain/suffering than Mike. Maybe some self-inflicted, but the bottom line is that he should be the boss, and if that includes Melinda in helping make decisions, then so be it. IMO Mike just isn't ready to feel emasculated by a woman. Maybe it has zero to do with her gender, but I think that probably just adds to it. He is unable to see that it is not 1965 anymore, before Brian had been through a conservatorship, etc.

Do I understand why Mike would have preferred the M&B arrangement? Sure, it's easy to see. He's the boss, no pesky original band members to have any input, or to take away the spotlight from him. Everything else, like the band's legacy, is collateral damage, and that's A-OK with Mike.

But I get it. Truthfully, I think Mike and Brian should not have been working together after around 1965. It's been beating a dead horse of a relationship with two diametrically opposed goals. Even though the two wrote some great songs together after that point (not a whole lot, but some), the negatives outweighed the positives. All because of ego. They deserve to be happy. I just don't think the legacy deserves to be shat on in the process.

I think your last paragraph is a good one, but it also shines a light on how this is never going to be a black and white issue where these two cousins are concerned. You say Melinda is there to defend Brian from Mike's manipulation, but in that case wouldn't it be better, as you say, that they not work together at all? Simple. But there is money involved. Lots and lots of money. And in those many years when Brian could not, or would not tour, Mike was part of the machine that kept the money rolling in. Mike still puts money in Brian's pocket.

I guess my point is that if Brian's circle wants and needs to insulate him from the manipulation of Mike, that is fine. But Mike can and will react to that and his opinion is obviously going to be shaded differently...thus I think partly the reason this bewildering retelling of past perceived transgressions.

I should add that I think they shouldn't be working together UNLESS Mike realizes that he needs to be subservient to Brian's needs, and that they are not creative equals, nor do they have the same amount of needs at their current ages.  If Mike could finally see the light, and "get it", then by all means they should work together again if they both wanted it to happen. That of course would mean not doing classless things like publicly miming gunshot blasts to the head when talking about Brian's most sensitive new material. IMO, it all comes down to a lack of really getting what Brian has been through, and how that should mean *something*.

Somehow Al "gets it". There is a case study of someone in the band, an original member, understanding that Brian Wilson deserves to be the boss, and that he should step back, get over himself (not that Al actually needs to get over himself!), and let things simply unfold. Why not Mike? Again: ego, and thinking that he is the victim and that he deserves this, deserves that, etc, Brian's personal history or place in the band be damned.  Mike's had a taste of being in control, and doesn't want to let it go. Even if he could still be 2nd in control, and yield significantly more control than 3 other members of the C50 band. That still wasn't good enough. He just had to be #1. It's really pretty simple; it's human, but it's very stupid in context. The chip on Mike's shoulder is too big, and it has consumed him, and consumed his better judgment. And it's always black and white with Mike: his plight is entirely seen as not his own fault; the world "owes him", and Brian "owes him".

While Mike's diminished reputation (which he blames on everyone but himself) is indeed partly not Mike's own fault, and is in fact partly the fault of circumstance, Murry, and Brian's inaction... nevertheless, Mike has made things so, so, so, so, so, so much worse for himself with his own actions. Like approximately a million times worse.

I should add that I don't *really* think that Mike's reputation would be all that different if he'd had those credits all along. He'd still be trying to pump them up as much as possible, which would turn people off (nobody likes a show-off), and people would largely still say that the genius is in Brian's harmonies/production/voices, and not Mike Love's lyrics. Then he'd have to find some other reason/person to blame, like focusing his anger on a belated campaign against a dead guy, Derek Taylor.

[Juice Brohnston]

Not a dig on Brian but he is definitely a more 'high maintenance' guy on tour, I expect. I think Mike had certain expectations, justified or not, that just started to slip away as the whole production rolled along. For Mike, he had a comparable for the first time since the M&B era. Was C50 better financially? Probably not. Less difficult logistically? No. Artistically superior? Without a doubt, but commerce before art for Dr. love.

Listen, it could have gone the other way as well. Brian's back issues could have left him in traction or something, and the tour could have come to an early end. Mike and Al went to the press with the whole 'feels like we are being fired' thing, and that would have been better, for the legacy of the band, to have been hashed out internally.  

Mike has MANY millions of dollars. Especially since he amped up touring in major way after Carl died. Yes, I know he has a lifestyle that needs bucks to support, yet the idea that it'd be the end of the world for him if he made some less dollars in the short term is a pretty lame excuse, especially because it could absolutely have translated to bigger bucks in a longterm situation. Call the waaa-mbulance. Mike's just addicted to the road, it's a genuine (and in this case, harmful) addiction.

As I've said before, if Mike felt that he was going to achieve some sort of public respect, personal award, etc. for keeping the reunion together, I believe he'd have prioritized that above all else. If reviewers were gushing over Mike's vocals in Isn't It Time, saying that Mike is the shiznit and deserves a personal Grammy just for him, he'd have not exploded the reunion. He just felt like he was going to be second fiddle (AS IT SHOULD BE IN A SITUATION WITH BRIAN IN THE BB TOURING BAND FOR THE FIRST TIME IN DECADES), and he couldn't take it.

Mike's actions of busting up C50 and going immediately right back to the M&B band remind me of someone who is so incredibly scared of losing control. It's just so sad, and frankly ridiculous that he can't just admit that's the case. It's like someone who is going back to dating an old flame, but keeping a bunch of casual girlfriends hanging on the side in every town, just in case things don't work out.

But there's a difference in being scared of losing control, and coming to the realization that what he does with Bruce is just better for him on a bunch of levels. Mike isn't stupid. He would have known that the reunion would be Brian-centric. He didn't have to agree with it in the first place.

Ya, as a fan it would have been great to see what could have transpired from a longer reunion, but what we had was pretty great.

What if Mike had agreed to extend the tour with the caveat that all decisions regarding touring, recording, etc were to be made solely by he and Brian, with zero input from Mel or Jacquie?? Do you think it would have happened?

It's ridiculous to make a demand from a guy like Brian, who has been through *so* much in his life, to dictate that his wife is not part of these decisions. This isn't some Yoko Ono thing where John was a young, healthy guy, while his wife was injecting herself into the process and pissing off the other bandmates. This is completely different. Melinda is there helping play defense for Brian specifically *because* Mike has a tendency, however inadvertently, to manipulate Brian. There has never been a band member other than Mike in this band who has been clamoring for personal attention, with decades of resentment coloring their dysfunctional actions. Mike has that market cornered. And Brian, while in a much better place in his life these days, has spent years being an emotional wreck, and there is no damn way he should be made vulnerable to that happening again for any reason.

There was room for Mike to shine, and he would have continued to shine even more. It just wasn't gonna happen overnight.

Sorry, but it should be an understood thing that in terms of hierarchy, Brian comes first in The Beach Boys. Over Mike. Firstly because he was the main songwriter and creative force/bandleader (much more so than Mike, this is not debatable), and secondly because of all of the personal crap he's been through in his life for DECADES. He has endured more hardships and pain/suffering than Mike. Maybe some self-inflicted, but the bottom line is that he should be the boss, and if that includes Melinda in helping make decisions, then so be it. IMO Mike just isn't ready to feel emasculated by a woman. Maybe it has zero to do with her gender, but I think that probably just adds to it. He is unable to see that it is not 1965 anymore, before Brian had been through a conservatorship, etc.

Do I understand why Mike would have preferred the M&B arrangement? Sure, it's easy to see. He's the boss, no pesky original band members to have any input, or to take away the spotlight from him. Everything else, like the band's legacy, is collateral damage, and that's A-OK with Mike.

But I get it. Truthfully, I think Mike and Brian should not have been working together after around 1965. It's been beating a dead horse of a relationship with two diametrically opposed goals. Even though the two wrote some great songs together after that point (not a whole lot, but some), the negatives outweighed the positives. All because of ego. They deserve to be happy. I just don't think the legacy deserves to be shat on in the process.

I think your last paragraph is a good one, but it also shines a light on how this is never going to be a black and white issue where these two cousins are concerned. You say Melinda is there to defend Brian from Mike's manipulation, but in that case wouldn't it be better, as you say, that they not work together at all? Simple. But there is money involved. Lots and lots of money. And in those many years when Brian could not, or would not tour, Mike was part of the machine that kept the money rolling in. Mike still puts money in Brian's pocket.

I guess my point is that if Brian's circle wants and needs to insulate him from the manipulation of Mike, that is fine. But Mike can and will react to that and his opinion is obviously going to be shaded differently...thus I think partly the reason this bewildering retelling of past perceived transgressions.

I should add that I think they shouldn't be working together UNLESS Mike realizes that he needs to be subservient to Brian's needs, and that they are not creative equals, nor do they have the same amount of needs at their current ages.  If Mike could finally see the light, and "get it", then by all means they should work together again if they both wanted it to happen. That of course would mean not doing classless things like publicly miming gunshot blasts to the head when talking about Brian's most sensitive new material. IMO, it all comes down to a lack of really getting what Brian has been through, and how that should mean *something*.

Somehow Al "gets it". There is a case study of someone in the band, an original member, understanding that Brian Wilson deserves to be the boss, and that he should step back, get over himself (not that Al actually needs to get over himself!), and let things simply unfold. Why not Mike? Again: ego, and thinking that he is the victim and that he deserves this, deserves that, etc, Brian's personal history or place in the band be damned.  Mike's had a taste of being in control, and doesn't want to let it go. It's really pretty simple; it's human, but it's very stupid in context. The chip on Mike's shoulder is too big, and it has consumed him, and consumed his better judgment. And it's always black and white with Mike: his plight is entirely seen as not his own fault; the world "owes him", and Brian "owes him".

While Mike's diminished reputation (which he blames on everyone but himself) is indeed partly not Mike's own fault, and is in fact partly the fault of circumstance, Murry, and Brian's inaction... nevertheless, Mike has made things so, so, so, so, so, so much worse for himself with his own actions. Like approximately a million times worse.

I should add that I don't *really* think that Mike's reputation would be all that different if he'd had those credits all along. He'd still be trying to pump them up as much as possible, which would turn people off (nobody likes a show-off), and people would largely still say that the genius is in Brian's harmonies/production/voices, and not Mike Love's lyrics. Then he'd have to find some other reason/person to blame, like focusing his anger on a belated campaign against a dead guy, Derek Taylor.

Mike will continue to praise Brian for his strengths, while being sure to chime in on what he contributed to the mix. No, he isn't going to get into a relationship where he is taking total direction from Brian's camp.

Al, with all due respect, isn't a comparable, because Al needs Brian. He just doesn't have the infrastructure to do it on his own. That's not to say he couldn't, if he had the band trademark behind him, but he doesn't. (BTW I have more of an issue with Al not being in the BB lineup than even Brian. I think Al should be able to tour in any 'official Beach Boys band with full participation. And his presence would make an impact..Mike's license still puzzles the sh*t out of me)

And we see Mikes rep taking a beating because we are immersed in the storyline. But it doesn't seem to impact the box office, and for the majority of people heading out to watch the shows, it's probably of no consequence.

[Heywood]

Mike doesn't  put money in Brians pocket. Brian earns money from the entity known as The Beach Boys  playing his music.
"The Beach Boys" is what makes the money. It belongs to them all. Take the name away and see how much money Mike would make touring. Mike obviously knows this, he agreed to the deal.

[Juice Brohnston]

Mike doesn't  put money in Brians pocket. Brian earns money from the entity known as The Beach Boys  playing his music.
"The Beach Boys" is what makes the money. It belongs to them all. Take the name away and see how much money Mike would make touring. Mike obviously knows this, he agreed to the deal.

Yep it's The Beach Boys, but millions earned from say, Sounds of Summer, and millions earned from a licensed band touring do differ, in that the latter has to have a human form out performing to earn the revenue. In the current set up, that is Mike, so Mike earns both 'from' and 'for' the Beach Boys, including Brian.

[CenturyDeprived]

Mike will continue to praise Brian for his strengths, while being sure to chime in on what he contributed to the mix. No, he isn't going to get into a relationship where he is taking total direction from Brian's camp.

Al, with all due respect, isn't a comparable, because Al needs Brian. He just doesn't have the infrastructure to do it on his own. That's not to say he couldn't, if he had the band trademark behind him, but he doesn't. (BTW I have more of an issue with Al not being in the BB lineup than even Brian. I think Al should be able to tour in any 'official Beach Boys band with full participation. And his presence would make an impact..Mike's license still puzzles the sh*t out of me)

And we see Mikes rep taking a beating because we are immersed in the storyline. But it doesn't seem to impact the box office, and for the majority of people heading out to watch the shows, it's probably of no consequence.

I don't really think that Al, even if he was able to have some massive amount of political power, would have a problem deferring to Brian. He really seems to "get" it. IMO. Contributing lyrics for a number of hit songs with Brian + Kokomo did something to Mike. It made him feel entitled. I know one could say the same for Brian, but there is really no comparison. Brian writes Pet Sounds when Mike is out of the picture. Mike writes Looking Back With Love + Kokomo. They are not creative equals. And one has lived a much harder existence and should get special treatment.

Plus... if anyone in the band is entitled to having their own way, it's Brian... especially after the stubborn bad attitude crap he put up with from Mike during Smile, which had an indirect lasting effect on Brian's life. I don't for a moment think that Melinda believes differently. Again, Mike doesn't get that. To me, Mike should be bending over backwards deferring to Brian as a way to make up for his crappy jealous actions decades ago. It's on him. There, I said it. This band isn't supposed to be a democracy, or an equal biarchy. Sorry Mike. The power grab that Mike helped himself to in Carl's absence warped his mindset. I'm sure the crediting issue did not help Mike's psyche either. But that doesn't excuse him from having a destructive complex that harms those around him.

Mike DOES, I repeat DOES deserve respect, but that said, he should have found it in himself to cede control to Brian and deal with having been #2 out of the 5 BBs in C50. Still way more control than 3/5 of the operation! A sober Denny would have put Mike in his place about the whole thing if he were still around.

[Emily]

Of all the Mike issues, ending the tour is the one I have the least problem with. If he doesn't want to continue to tour, for any reason, he shouldn't have to continue to tour.
It seems like there was some trouble with diplomacy in the ending of it, but I think that was sort of inevitable.

And Billy, much as I love you, might I suggest you rethink the comment on Mike's Beard on the previous page?

[HeyJude]

I think the issue with Mike choosing to not continue the reunion is that on the face of it, it is indeed simply a case of “hey, if you don’t wanna do it, nobody should force you.” Nobody would want an unwilling, under-duress Mike on a tour.

But there are two issues tangential to his rejection of the reunion lineup that are problematic on a larger scale.

More on the semantics side is how he did and continues to characterize it. He can’t just say that he chose to reject a ready and willing Brian (and Al). If he’d be honest about it, and if he had not gone with the “set end date” mantra (which means *nothing* when the issue is *not continuing* the reunion; nobody denies the scheduled dates were all fulfilled), and if he had forgone the LAME excuses like needing to give it a rest and build up demand (total bulls**t for numerous reasons) and the reunion not being “economically feasible” (based on what criteria? It seemed to do just fine in 2012), and needing to hit smaller markets (sorry folks, they hit 73 spots on the globe in 2012, could have hit more new spots on further legs, and yeah, maybe some fans will just have to haul their carcass out to a more metropolitan area instead of being able to drive ten minutes to their local county fair), then maybe he’d have more credibility on the issue in the eyes of many fans. I would have respected the brevity of a “I’d rather tour on my own without the other guys” statement. I’d rather hear him say his stripped-down, more inexpensive tour with less original members hitting small markets is *more important* in his mind than actually *keeping the band together.*

Most importantly, rejecting the reunion tells fans and everyone else what’s more important; what Mike’s priorities are. This is one of those bigger “legacy” issues. No fan who knows the band’s story would not be well aware that all of the members, including Mike for sure, would have to put up with some politics, would have to make sacrifices to make a reunion work, and to keep the *full band* together.

What we learned in the aftermath of 2012 is that the *band*, meaning the full extant membership and keeping it together, is NOT important to Mike. Within the musical realm (meaning outside of bigger life and life and death issues), keeping the full band together is NOT a top priority to Mike. He’s not willing to make the sacrifices long-term to keep it going. He essentially, in my mind, QUIT the band in 2012 to go back to the thing he was doing before. His dislike/disagreements with Melinda are more important than being with Brian and being with the full band. Let’s assume Melinda feels roughly the same towards Mike as he does towards her, and let’s *even* assume she does “control” things (a perilous assumption, but let’s use it for the sake of argument). She was clearly then able to get past all of that stuff and make a reunion continue to work. Mike’s dislike of people and/or elements of the reunion, and his preference for doing his own thing but keeping the BB name to tour with, was so powerful that he was willing to reject a ready and willing Brian Wilson. He was willing to let the *story* of the band include the part where he takes his ball and goes home. He let the narrative be another f**k-up on the Beach Boys’ record. A reminder to the media and rock press and fans that the BBs will always f**k it up eventually. It not only tainted Mike’s reputation and the band’s, it hurt the band and brand’s value. As Howie Edelson has mentioned, tour promoters and the like, with bigger bucks and credentials than Joe Thomas, were watching C50 to see if it was something worth putting MORE money and promotion into. Then the whole thing fell apart before the reunion even ended, and the Beach Boys and their organizations looked like total amateurs, laughable considering their HALF CENTURY in the industry.

[Jim V.]

I think the issue with Mike choosing to not continue the reunion is that on the face of it, it is indeed simply a case of “hey, if you don’t wanna do it, nobody should force you.” Nobody would want an unwilling, under-duress Mike on a tour.

But there are two issues tangential to his rejection of the reunion lineup that are problematic on a larger scale.

More on the semantics side is how he did and continues to characterize it. He can’t just say that he chose to reject a ready and willing Brian (and Al). If he’d be honest about it, and if he had not gone with the “set end date” mantra (which means *nothing* when the issue is *not continuing* the reunion; nobody denies the scheduled dates were all fulfilled), and if he had forgone the LAME excuses like needing to give it a rest and build up demand (total bulls**t for numerous reasons) and the reunion not being “economically feasible” (based on what criteria? It seemed to do just fine in 2012), and needing to hit smaller markets (sorry folks, they hit 73 spots on the globe in 2012, could have hit more new spots on further legs, and yeah, maybe some fans will just have to haul their carcass out to a more metropolitan area instead of being able to drive ten minutes to their local county fair), then maybe he’d have more credibility on the issue in the eyes of many fans. I would have respected the brevity of a “I’d rather tour on my own without the other guys” statement. I’d rather hear him say his stripped-down, more inexpensive tour with less original members hitting small markets is *more important* in his mind than actually *keeping the band together.*

Most importantly, rejecting the reunion tells fans and everyone else what’s more important; what Mike’s priorities are. This is one of those bigger “legacy” issues. No fan who knows the band’s story would not be well aware that all of the members, including Mike for sure, would have to put up with some politics, would have to make sacrifices to make a reunion work, and to keep the *full band* together.

What we learned in the aftermath of 2012 is that the *band*, meaning the full extant membership and keeping it together, is NOT important to Mike. Within the musical realm (meaning outside of bigger life and life and death issues), keeping the full band together is NOT a top priority to Mike. He’s not willing to make the sacrifices long-term to keep it going. He essentially, in my mind, QUIT the band in 2012 to go back to the thing he was doing before. His dislike/disagreements with Melinda are more important than being with Brian and being with the full band. Let’s assume Melinda feels roughly the same towards Mike as he does towards her, and let’s *even* assume she does “control” things (a perilous assumption, but let’s use it for the sake of argument). She was clearly then able to get past all of that stuff and make a reunion continue to work. Mike’s dislike of people and/or elements of the reunion, and his preference for doing his own thing but keeping the BB name to tour with, was so powerful that he was willing to reject a ready and willing Brian Wilson. He was willing to let the *story* of the band include the part where he takes his ball and goes home. He let the narrative be another f**k-up on the Beach Boys’ record. A reminder to the media and rock press and fans that the BBs will always f**k it up eventually. It not only tainted Mike’s reputation and the band’s, it hurt the band and brand’s value. As Howie Edelson has mentioned, tour promoters and the like, with bigger bucks and credentials than Joe Thomas, were watching C50 to see if it was something worth putting MORE money and promotion into. Then the whole thing fell apart before the reunion even ended, and the Beach Boys and their organizations looked like total amateurs, laughable considering their HALF CENTURY in the industry.

What a post. You are one of the best posters in the BB fan community.

[Emily]

I think the issue with Mike choosing to not continue the reunion is that on the face of it, it is indeed simply a case of “hey, if you don’t wanna do it, nobody should force you.” Nobody would want an unwilling, under-duress Mike on a tour.

But there are two issues tangential to his rejection of the reunion lineup that are problematic on a larger scale.

More on the semantics side is how he did and continues to characterize it. He can’t just say that he chose to reject a ready and willing Brian (and Al). If he’d be honest about it, and if he had not gone with the “set end date” mantra (which means *nothing* when the issue is *not continuing* the reunion; nobody denies the scheduled dates were all fulfilled), and if he had forgone the LAME excuses like needing to give it a rest and build up demand (total bulls**t for numerous reasons) and the reunion not being “economically feasible” (based on what criteria? It seemed to do just fine in 2012), and needing to hit smaller markets (sorry folks, they hit 73 spots on the globe in 2012, could have hit more new spots on further legs, and yeah, maybe some fans will just have to haul their carcass out to a more metropolitan area instead of being able to drive ten minutes to their local county fair), then maybe he’d have more credibility on the issue in the eyes of many fans. I would have respected the brevity of a “I’d rather tour on my own without the other guys” statement. I’d rather hear him say his stripped-down, more inexpensive tour with less original members hitting small markets is *more important* in his mind than actually *keeping the band together.*

Most importantly, rejecting the reunion tells fans and everyone else what’s more important; what Mike’s priorities are. This is one of those bigger “legacy” issues. No fan who knows the band’s story would not be well aware that all of the members, including Mike for sure, would have to put up with some politics, would have to make sacrifices to make a reunion work, and to keep the *full band* together.

What we learned in the aftermath of 2012 is that the *band*, meaning the full extant membership and keeping it together, is NOT important to Mike. Within the musical realm (meaning outside of bigger life and life and death issues), keeping the full band together is NOT a top priority to Mike. He’s not willing to make the sacrifices long-term to keep it going. He essentially, in my mind, QUIT the band in 2012 to go back to the thing he was doing before. His dislike/disagreements with Melinda are more important than being with Brian and being with the full band. Let’s assume Melinda feels roughly the same towards Mike as he does towards her, and let’s *even* assume she does “control” things (a perilous assumption, but let’s use it for the sake of argument). She was clearly then able to get past all of that stuff and make a reunion continue to work. Mike’s dislike of people and/or elements of the reunion, and his preference for doing his own thing but keeping the BB name to tour with, was so powerful that he was willing to reject a ready and willing Brian Wilson. He was willing to let the *story* of the band include the part where he takes his ball and goes home. He let the narrative be another f**k-up on the Beach Boys’ record. A reminder to the media and rock press and fans that the BBs will always f**k it up eventually. It not only tainted Mike’s reputation and the band’s, it hurt the band and brand’s value. As Howie Edelson has mentioned, tour promoters and the like, with bigger bucks and credentials than Joe Thomas, were watching C50 to see if it was something worth putting MORE money and promotion into. Then the whole thing fell apart before the reunion even ended, and the Beach Boys and their organizations looked like total amateurs, laughable considering their HALF CENTURY in the industry.

I agree up to the part in red above, though I'm not sure that I think there's anything wrong with ML prioritizing his other band or whatever else in his life over the band (caveat: I realized that opens the whole other dimension of the naming. I agree that taking the name with him kind of destroys my thesis here. But I'm proceeding anyway) . I don't think it was the decision to stop touring that led to the perception of a f*ck up. It was a f*ck up because the way that decision was managed was f*cked up.

If you start with the premise that it's reasonable that someone should be able to stop touring when they want, assuming they've completed all agreed-upon dates, then there's no problem with that decision.  I don't remember all the details, but I think there was some element of surprise for BW and AJ? Maybe there was a public communication before they knew the final decision? Something like that. I recall that my impression was that the problem, the thing that made it a f*ck up in the Beach Boys' story, was the public communications. Had they managed the end of the tour among each other without the public messaging, it would've been not a f*ck up. It would've been an excellent final run around the bases.
 I think the proper professional procedure would have been for ML to let them know, behind closed doors, that he didn't want to continue to tour. Then, behind closed doors, they would have negotiated whether BW and AJ could carry on the tour with the name, and if so for how long. And money and all that. And if anyone was angry or hurt, that too would be expressed privately. Then there would've been a press release that sounded like the decision was unanimous and friendly, even if it wasn't, and they would've carried on as negotiated.
Now, I know these are musicians and professional messaging and PR are not their fortes. I'm not saying that that's what's really EXPECTED to happen, but if that's the most reasonable way to proceed, then the failure is not in ML not continuing to tour but in the way the decision was handled.
I think.
So, my initial post was a little too blasé - nothing to see here - there was a problem: really bad PR management. I'm fuzzy on the sequence of events and may go to an old thread and read them, but my impression is that it started with ML kind of blind-siding BW and AJ with the decision and from there, the discussion that should've taken in private before the fact, took place in public after the fact.

[HeyJude]

I think the issue with Mike choosing to not continue the reunion is that on the face of it, it is indeed simply a case of “hey, if you don’t wanna do it, nobody should force you.” Nobody would want an unwilling, under-duress Mike on a tour.

But there are two issues tangential to his rejection of the reunion lineup that are problematic on a larger scale.

More on the semantics side is how he did and continues to characterize it. He can’t just say that he chose to reject a ready and willing Brian (and Al). If he’d be honest about it, and if he had not gone with the “set end date” mantra (which means *nothing* when the issue is *not continuing* the reunion; nobody denies the scheduled dates were all fulfilled), and if he had forgone the LAME excuses like needing to give it a rest and build up demand (total bulls**t for numerous reasons) and the reunion not being “economically feasible” (based on what criteria? It seemed to do just fine in 2012), and needing to hit smaller markets (sorry folks, they hit 73 spots on the globe in 2012, could have hit more new spots on further legs, and yeah, maybe some fans will just have to haul their carcass out to a more metropolitan area instead of being able to drive ten minutes to their local county fair), then maybe he’d have more credibility on the issue in the eyes of many fans. I would have respected the brevity of a “I’d rather tour on my own without the other guys” statement. I’d rather hear him say his stripped-down, more inexpensive tour with less original members hitting small markets is *more important* in his mind than actually *keeping the band together.*

Most importantly, rejecting the reunion tells fans and everyone else what’s more important; what Mike’s priorities are. This is one of those bigger “legacy” issues. No fan who knows the band’s story would not be well aware that all of the members, including Mike for sure, would have to put up with some politics, would have to make sacrifices to make a reunion work, and to keep the *full band* together.

What we learned in the aftermath of 2012 is that the *band*, meaning the full extant membership and keeping it together, is NOT important to Mike. Within the musical realm (meaning outside of bigger life and life and death issues), keeping the full band together is NOT a top priority to Mike. He’s not willing to make the sacrifices long-term to keep it going. He essentially, in my mind, QUIT the band in 2012 to go back to the thing he was doing before. His dislike/disagreements with Melinda are more important than being with Brian and being with the full band. Let’s assume Melinda feels roughly the same towards Mike as he does towards her, and let’s *even* assume she does “control” things (a perilous assumption, but let’s use it for the sake of argument). She was clearly then able to get past all of that stuff and make a reunion continue to work. Mike’s dislike of people and/or elements of the reunion, and his preference for doing his own thing but keeping the BB name to tour with, was so powerful that he was willing to reject a ready and willing Brian Wilson. He was willing to let the *story* of the band include the part where he takes his ball and goes home. He let the narrative be another f**k-up on the Beach Boys’ record. A reminder to the media and rock press and fans that the BBs will always f**k it up eventually. It not only tainted Mike’s reputation and the band’s, it hurt the band and brand’s value. As Howie Edelson has mentioned, tour promoters and the like, with bigger bucks and credentials than Joe Thomas, were watching C50 to see if it was something worth putting MORE money and promotion into. Then the whole thing fell apart before the reunion even ended, and the Beach Boys and their organizations looked like total amateurs, laughable considering their HALF CENTURY in the industry.

I agree up to the part in red above, though I'm not sure that I think there's anything wrong with ML prioritizing his other band or whatever else in his life over the band (caveat: I realized that opens the whole other dimension of the naming. I agree that taking the name with him kind of destroys my thesis here. But I'm proceeding anyway) . I don't think it was the decision to stop touring that led to the perception of a f*ck up. It was a f*ck up because the way that decision was managed was f*cked up.

If you start with the premise that it's reasonable that someone should be able to stop touring when they want, assuming they've completed all agreed-upon dates, then there's no problem with that decision.  I don't remember all the details, but I think there was some element of surprise for BW and AJ? Maybe there was a public communication before they knew the final decision? Something like that. I recall that my impression was that the problem, the thing that made it a f*ck up in the Beach Boys' story, was the public communications. Had they managed the end of the tour among each other without the public messaging, it would've been not a f*ck up. It would've been an excellent final run around the bases.
 I think the proper professional procedure would have been for ML to let them know, behind closed doors, that he didn't want to continue to tour. Then, behind closed doors, they would have negotiated whether BW and AJ could carry on the tour with the name, and if so for how long. And money and all that. And if anyone was angry or hurt, that too would be expressed privately. Then there would've been a press release that sounded like the decision was unanimous and friendly, even if it wasn't, and they would've carried on as negotiated.
Now, I know these are musicians and professional messaging and PR are not their fortes. I'm not saying that that's what's really EXPECTED to happen, but if that's the most reasonable way to proceed, then the failure is not in ML not continuing to tour but in the way the decision was handled.
I think.
So, my initial post was a little too blasé - nothing to see here - there was a problem: really bad PR management. I'm fuzzy on the sequence of events and may go to an old thread and read them, but my impression is that it started with ML kind of blind-siding BW and AJ with the decision and from there, the discussion that should've taken in private before the fact, took place in public after the fact.

Yeah, I think there's definitely a few different prongs to this issue.

From an objective point of view, it was HORRIBLE management (or non-management) and HORRIBLE PR. Even if you had no interest in the BBs, and objective observer familiar with the music and tour industries and PR would tell you the end of the tour was a clusterf**k.

Also from an objective point of view, Mike's actions will forever cast him as the villain in the story. And to the degree historical reporting on the facts of the case are accurate, that aspect of being painted as the villain will be totally 100% justified.

Separately from that, there is a larger, more subjective issue about the band's meaning and legacy and all of that immeasurable warm and fuzzy stuff. I personally feel the end of C50 was a very big tell. A very big bluff was called, and Mike lost. We learned his decades of pining in countless interviews to work with Brian were bulls**t, we learned his disdain for Melinda appears to outweigh his ability to work past that stuff to work with Brian and keep the band together, we learned that Mike cares less about the band and more about his own deal, and more about his own vision of the band and brand. If 2012 gave us pause regarding the idea that Mike feels a "Beach Boys" without the still-living and able Brian and Al is totally justified, we learned after the tour that that is indeed how he feels. If we take him on his words, then playing small venues and small towns is *more* important than maintaining the actual members of the band. It's a little like Paul cutting John, George, and Ringo in 1969 to cut down on costs and because Yoko was a pain in the ass.

[Emily]

Agreed.
Though over the course of my life, I've softened on Yoko.

[Ang Jones]

I never wanted a reunion so I'm not bothered that it ended. What bothers me is the way it ended and the apparent lack of truth about the situation afterwards. It showed that the idea of a reunited Beach Boys was illusory which disappointed many and gave credence to the stories of  bad feeling between certain band members.  The Beach Boys had toured successfully and got their record to a respectable position in the charts but once again, problems between members had meant it was unsustainable. Of course it had only ever been intended as a finite thing, though of course no-one could have anticipated in advance whether it would work or not. Had it ended with a polite joint announcement that would have been fine. But yet another clumsy mess and letters to the LA Times from Mike and Brian. It should have ended triumphantly. THAT'S what protecting the legacy means.

[urbanite]

I'd like to hear from the other side on why the fax was sent to Mike that said "No more tours" or words to that effect.

[SMiLE Brian]

Maybe Mike sent crazy demands beforehand...

[filledeplage]

I never wanted a reunion so I'm not bothered that it ended. What bothers me is the way it ended and the apparent lack of truth about the situation afterwards. It showed that the idea of a reunited Beach Boys was illusory which disappointed many and gave credence to the stories of  bad feeling between certain band members.  The Beach Boys had toured successfully and got their record to a respectable position in the charts but once again, problems between members had meant it was unsustainable. Of course it had only ever been intended as a finite thing, though of course no-one could have anticipated in advance whether it would work or not. Had it ended with a polite joint announcement that would have been fine. But yet another clumsy mess and letters to the LA Times from Mike and Brian. It should have ended triumphantly. THAT'S what protecting the legacy means.

Ang - the C50 tour for me, was both a surprise and not a surprise - only in the long continuum of their careers.  I think a real "reunion" would have meant going back to the drawing board at Brother, and figure out how to go forward with a work model for themselves while at least 3 members have had their own working bands.  

If that was a possiblity it should have maybe happened apart from the tour, maybe in the middle someplace.   There were separate bands working in different business models of operation.  Al's band had people who were working in different bands. That is a lot to consider when people have livelihoods and families to consider.  I think that would have been really selfish to leave those musicians in limbo.  This would have taken some planning. But, C50 was magnificent.          

First, I remember that Brian's solo career was an orchestration of Landy, who, as we know carved out an unethical relationship with Brian's music.  Second, what I keep separate is the calamity of Carl's death and the dilemma of how and whether to go forward to keep the music alive.  Going back to that 1998 place (and maybe before)  Landy was undermining Brian's involvement with the band.  And, after he was wrested free, Brian wanted to do the solo thing.  Had Carl been alive, and he had recovered from that calamity, I think Brian would have been back in the band had he wanted.  

But, when things splintered, with Carl's death it might have been better for Brian to do the solo thing and work on his own business model which he did build out beautifully.  It takes courage to rebuild.  

But, I think no one can be accused of not doing his best professionally.  I think that fans are looking at what a "legacy" is in a fan's eyes and not from what the track record is.  I think it is the fan wish-list.  

Last night I read the preview of Brian's book from some link - didn't know it was up for a couple of months.  It felt as though Brian was casually sitting in the same room unfolding (as though he was writing a song) his story...am looking forward to reading it when it is fully released.  

And, I would like to see them sit around King Arthur's table and figure this out. For themselves; one way or the other. Not just because the fans want it.  

The separation (and their respective struggles) have made them all grow in enormous ways, whether it was forming and performing as different bands, or recording with new artists, or whatever.  I'm not worried about a legacy.  All people have to do is walk in a store, turn on the TV, radio, or anyplace you would hear their music and that is their legacy.  There is real triumph in their survivorship and whatever business model they want to use, and keeping the music going.    

[CenturyDeprived]

I never wanted a reunion so I'm not bothered that it ended. What bothers me is the way it ended and the apparent lack of truth about the situation afterwards. It showed that the idea of a reunited Beach Boys was illusory which disappointed many and gave credence to the stories of  bad feeling between certain band members.  The Beach Boys had toured successfully and got their record to a respectable position in the charts but once again, problems between members had meant it was unsustainable. Of course it had only ever been intended as a finite thing, though of course no-one could have anticipated in advance whether it would work or not. Had it ended with a polite joint announcement that would have been fine. But yet another clumsy mess and letters to the LA Times from Mike and Brian. It should have ended triumphantly. THAT'S what protecting the legacy means.

Ang - the C50 tour for me, was both a surprise and not a surprise - only in the long continuum of their careers.  I think a real "reunion" would have meant going back to the drawing board at Brother, and figure out how to go forward with a work model for themselves while at least 3 members have had their own working bands.  

If that was a possiblity it should have maybe happened apart from the tour, maybe in the middle someplace.   There were separate bands working in different business models of operation.  Al's band had people who were working in different bands. That is a lot to consider when people have livelihoods and families to consider.  I think that would have been really selfish to leave those musicians in limbo.  This would have taken some planning. But, C50 was magnificent.          

First, I remember that Brian's solo career was an orchestration of Landy, who, as we know carved out an unethical relationship with Brian's music.  Second, what I keep separate is the calamity of Carl's death and the dilemma of how and whether to go forward to keep the music alive.  Going back to that 1998 place (and maybe before)  Landy was undermining Brian's involvement with the band.  And, after he was wrested free, Brian wanted to do the solo thing.  Had Carl been alive, and he had recovered from that calamity, I think Brian would have been back in the band had he wanted.  

But, when things splintered, with Carl's death it might have been better for Brian to do the solo thing and work on his own business model which he did build out beautifully.  It takes courage to rebuild.  

But, I think no one can be accused of not doing his best professionally.  I think that fans are looking at what a "legacy" is in a fan's eyes and not from what the track record is.  I think it is the fan wish-list.  

Last night I read the preview of Brian's book from some link - didn't know it was up for a couple of months.  It felt as though Brian was casually sitting in the same room unfolding (as though he was writing a song) his story...am looking forward to reading it when it is fully released.  

And, I would like to see them sit around King Arthur's table and figure this out. For themselves; one way or the other. Not just because the fans want it.  

The separation (and their respective struggles) have made them all grow in enormous ways, whether it was forming and performing as different bands, or recording with new artists, or whatever.  I'm not worried about a legacy.  All people have to do is walk in a store, turn on the TV, radio, or anyplace you would hear their music and that is their legacy.  There is real triumph in their survivorship and whatever business model they want to use, and keeping the music going.    

If Mike actually publicly stated "Brian and Al? Who the hell needs 'em", you'd probably actually defend it.

[SMiLE Brian]

Exactly, plus some "lecture" of Mike always being the touring band while BW and Al haven't. Even though the reason is that Mike thinks he is the only Beach Boy.

[filledeplage]

I never wanted a reunion so I'm not bothered that it ended. What bothers me is the way it ended and the apparent lack of truth about the situation afterwards. It showed that the idea of a reunited Beach Boys was illusory which disappointed many and gave credence to the stories of  bad feeling between certain band members.  The Beach Boys had toured successfully and got their record to a respectable position in the charts but once again, problems between members had meant it was unsustainable. Of course it had only ever been intended as a finite thing, though of course no-one could have anticipated in advance whether it would work or not. Had it ended with a polite joint announcement that would have been fine. But yet another clumsy mess and letters to the LA Times from Mike and Brian. It should have ended triumphantly. THAT'S what protecting the legacy means.

Ang - the C50 tour for me, was both a surprise and not a surprise - only in the long continuum of their careers.  I think a real "reunion" would have meant going back to the drawing board at Brother, and figure out how to go forward with a work model for themselves while at least 3 members have had their own working bands.  

If that was a possiblity it should have maybe happened apart from the tour, maybe in the middle someplace.   There were separate bands working in different business models of operation.  Al's band had people who were working in different bands. That is a lot to consider when people have livelihoods and families to consider.  I think that would have been really selfish to leave those musicians in limbo.  This would have taken some planning. But, C50 was magnificent.          

First, I remember that Brian's solo career was an orchestration of Landy, who, as we know carved out an unethical relationship with Brian's music.  Second, what I keep separate is the calamity of Carl's death and the dilemma of how and whether to go forward to keep the music alive.  Going back to that 1998 place (and maybe before)  Landy was undermining Brian's involvement with the band.  And, after he was wrested free, Brian wanted to do the solo thing.  Had Carl been alive, and he had recovered from that calamity, I think Brian would have been back in the band had he wanted.  

But, when things splintered, with Carl's death it might have been better for Brian to do the solo thing and work on his own business model which he did build out beautifully.  It takes courage to rebuild.  

But, I think no one can be accused of not doing his best professionally.  I think that fans are looking at what a "legacy" is in a fan's eyes and not from what the track record is.  I think it is the fan wish-list.  

Last night I read the preview of Brian's book from some link - didn't know it was up for a couple of months.  It felt as though Brian was casually sitting in the same room unfolding (as though he was writing a song) his story...am looking forward to reading it when it is fully released.  

And, I would like to see them sit around King Arthur's table and figure this out. For themselves; one way or the other. Not just because the fans want it.  

The separation (and their respective struggles) have made them all grow in enormous ways, whether it was forming and performing as different bands, or recording with new artists, or whatever.  I'm not worried about a legacy.  All people have to do is walk in a store, turn on the TV, radio, or anyplace you would hear their music and that is their legacy.  There is real triumph in their survivorship and whatever business model they want to use, and keeping the music going.    

If Mike actually publicly stated "Brian and Al? Who the hell needs 'em", you'd probably actually defend it.

CD - those are my sentiments.  Am I not entitled to them?  Is this not an open forum? It is how I look at the situation.   

[CenturyDeprived]

Exactly, plus some "lecture" of Mike always being the touring band while BW and Al haven't. Even though the reason is that Mike thinks he is the only Beach Boy.

Or let's say a given legendary band (not necessarily this one) ends a reunion was because it was harder for a certain member to maintain a groupie den type situation backstage? Would that be an ok reason to implode a reunion? Or might that be a silly reason? I just want to understand the logic of if every possible reason is excusable. At some point, anyone who pretends to be a logical person must say there must be a line drawn... somewhere.

[SMiLE Brian]

The beacon shows and banning of Stamos was huge to pissing Mike off since Stamos is the bait for the groupie den!