interview with Mike book collaborator James S. Hirsch

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

[SMiLE Brian]

Billy!

[GhostyTMRS]

I also find it a little ironic that Hirsch has an attitude that he doesn't need to read Brian's book, yet Mike supporters, immediately upon publication of Mike's book, started relentlessly asking people if they had read Mike's book and suggested that if they hadn't read Mike's book, they shouldn't be commenting.

I find it quite odd that Hirsch didn't just say "no, I haven't had a chance to read Brian's book yet" and leave it at that, but instead says he doesn't need to read Brian's book. Really? Isn't he giving fans a strong reason then to not read Mike's book. As in, "Sh*t, if Hirsch doesn't need to read Brian's book after studying Brian for two years, then I certainly don't need to read Mike's book if I've been studying Mike for decades!"

I think the supposition/theory that Hirsch is afraid of what reading Brian's book might make him think about his own book about Mike or about Mike's positions/opinions is, while most certainly just a theory, certainly is not craziest theory I've heard. It seems totally plausible to me, and his "I don't need to read Brian's book" attitude is what makes me think it's plausible. It sounds a little defensive to me. And/or like he's annoyed that Brian didn't give him an interview for Mike's book.

I haven't run across any Beach Boys fans worth their salt that haven't read both books, so the whole "Mike supporters" thing I don't get or will ever get. Basically, if you're a Beach Boys fan you owe it to yourself to read them both. It seems silly not to. 
Hirsch points out in the interview that he's not really a big fan to begin with so I wouldn't expect him to read Brian's book. However, I also found it strange for him to say he knew everything about Brian because he sounds like a casual fan at best. Maybe if Brian's book had been published before he was working on Mike's he could have gotten some info from it, but it's a little late for that now. I think it's cool that he agreed to the interview, but it sure didn't sound to me like he's going to be rushing out to buy the SMiLE sessions box and join a fan forum any time soon.   

I'm so sick of the C50 talk. It should be pretty straightforward to anyone.
Either Mike dumps his band and being the boss of his own business and joins up with Brian's band... or Brian dumps his band and the comfort of being the boss to join Mike's band. These guys are in their twilight years and don't have to or want to answer to anybody. It ain't gonna happen. It made sense to do it for the 50th because that was a good PR hook (although let's not kid ourselves, that was NOT two touring acts joining together...it was M & B along with Scott and John joining Brian's band) but Mike clearly doesn't get along with Melinda so that's that....on top of all the other things I just mentioned.

[SMiLE Brian]

Mike threw it all away to quote bob Dylan.

[Don Malcolm]

If Jim Hirsch read Brian's book he would more readily understand that Brian's mental health, while much, much better than it has been in the past, is still subject to ups and downs, and that as a result he needs to have the flexibility to be reclusive. That makes perfect sense, and would explain why Brian is only intermittently socially gregarious. But, as Ray Lawlor notes in several of his posts that are scattered around these pages, Brian is hardly inaccessible. It appears that Mike wants Brian to come to him, which under the circumstances seems highly unlikely.

David Beard is completely correct that both books need to be in every dedicated fan's library. However, that doesn't mean that we will find each book to be equally satisfying, illluminating, or well-written. I hope Mark Dillon will find time to ask Jim Hirsch about how much editing was done to his manuscript after he completed his draft. And whether there was anything that he wrote that Mike decided had to be taken out...

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I hope Mark Dillon will find time to ask Jim Hirsch about how much editing was done to his manuscript after he completed his draft. And whether there was anything that he wrote that Mike decided had to be taken out...

The answer to the latter could be interesting...

[guitarfool2002]

I'm so sick of the C50 talk. It should be pretty straightforward to anyone.

This is why the comment that C50 domestically had lost money was such a jolt as I listened. I think as I did with the other points that a clarification is necessary. It doesn't appear straightforward enough if a tour which was labeled a success is now being described as having lost money.

And thanks to "Rocker" and his post with pure logic on the subject, I was able to go beyond the numbers and stats I posted from Pollstar's data on the tours from 2012 to the present and look at the basic, brass tacks of the whole thing as he did.

Rocker's point should be made again: The C50 tour was reported as it not only met expectations but exceeded them. It over-performed according to the industry, and that also led to requests for more bookings. That's all in the reports from that time.

So how could a tour which was meeting and exceeding expectations now four years in retrospect be reported as losing money as all of this was unfolding and the box office receipts and sales figures were coming in? The full quote is in my post above on page 1, but it's crystal clear that the point is being made that C50 lost money domestically.

My questions as follow ups would be where is the proof of this, and is there proof of this...or did everyone reporting on it in the press and in the industry get it wrong in 2012-13? And did the success of the tour which saw a large number of sellouts and very little empty seats at the various venues across the US suggest the tour was engineered to lose money if it's now reported as having lost money, or something...It doesn't add up.

[guitarfool2002]

A point I originally left out but wanted to mention, especially if a follow up part 2 or clarification could be forthcoming.

Mr. Hirsch speaks of his research on the early 90's lawsuits, and says the following:

5:16 - 6:35
Then finally, and most important, Mike and the Beach Boys were involved in a series of lawsuits in the early 1990's...(here he describes the various lawsuits and people involved)...What I would tell anyone who wants to write about the history of the Beach Boys, that is where you start. Because you have all of these depositions, people talking under oath, and that gave me the clearest sense of what actually happened, particularly in the early days of this band and going right on through the 60's and 70's, up until to the time of those lawsuits.

Where is the 2005 lawsuit? It's been available to read for the past decade, people have read it and discussed it here and elsewhere. End result, Mike lost and continued to appeal the decision which handed him a definitive loss (with penalty), and the subsequent appeals lasting years failed as well. There were also instances of misconduct that were also addressed by the court regarding a particular witness for Mike's case and the testimony of that witness when the facts presented were called into question.

Yet the crux of that original filing revealed some of the issues under the surface, and especially since Al Jardine's relationship with Mike was discussed later in this interview, what Mike said about Al in this 2005 filing would be pertinent and more than relevant to getting a sense of what was going on between those two Beach Boys in the years leading up to and after Carl's passing. To say Mike wasn't kind to Al in that 2005 document would be an understatement. In fact why Al was even named at all in the filing remains a mystery, since he was not named as a defendant in the case yet almost as much ink was spent on the documents laying out Mike's issues with Al as on those issues with the actual named defendants.

Why is or was Mike's 2005 lawsuit ignored both in this interview and in the actual text when such insight into other band issues and dynamics was described as having come from reading the previous 90's lawsuits' documentation? For one, 2005 puts on the record Mike's feelings toward Brian, Al, and his role in the band and the band's legacy into a legal document submitted under oath just like the 90's documents. It could also be used to show what the band dynamic was after Brian had been seeing his biggest success as a solo artist after releasing Smile, and Al as well after Al lost his suit regarding the Family And Friends naming issue.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Why is or was Mike's 2005 lawsuit ignored both in this interview and in the actual text when such insight into other band issues and dynamics was described as having come from reading the previous 90's lawsuits' documentation?

Because it doesn't fit his narrative.

[CenturyDeprived]

Why is or was Mike's 2005 lawsuit ignored both in this interview and in the actual text when such insight into other band issues and dynamics was described as having come from reading the previous 90's lawsuits' documentation?

Because it doesn't fit his narrative.

+1

[Lonely Summer]

I haven't read either Mike's or Brian's books, but I did read James Hirsch's excellent Willie Mays bio a few years back - it was excellent, very detailed. If Mike's book is as good, I will have to read it.

[thorgil]

I also find it a little ironic that Hirsch has an attitude that he doesn't need to read Brian's book, yet Mike supporters, immediately upon publication of Mike's book, started relentlessly asking people if they had read Mike's book and suggested that if they hadn't read Mike's book, they shouldn't be commenting.

I find it quite odd that Hirsch didn't just say "no, I haven't had a chance to read Brian's book yet" and leave it at that, but instead says he doesn't need to read Brian's book. Really? Isn't he giving fans a strong reason then to not read Mike's book. As in, "Sh*t, if Hirsch doesn't need to read Brian's book after studying Brian for two years, then I certainly don't need to read Mike's book if I've been studying Mike for decades!"

I think the supposition/theory that Hirsch is afraid of what reading Brian's book might make him think about his own book about Mike or about Mike's positions/opinions is, while most certainly just a theory, certainly is not craziest theory I've heard. It seems totally plausible to me, and his "I don't need to read Brian's book" attitude is what makes me think it's plausible. It sounds a little defensive to me. And/or like he's annoyed that Brian didn't give him an interview for Mike's book.

I haven't run across any Beach Boys fans worth their salt that haven't read both books, so the whole "Mike supporters" thing I don't get or will ever get. Basically, if you're a Beach Boys fan you owe it to yourself to read them both. It seems silly not to.  
Hirsch points out in the interview that he's not really a big fan to begin with so I wouldn't expect him to read Brian's book. However, I also found it strange for him to say he knew everything about Brian because he sounds like a casual fan at best. Maybe if Brian's book had been published before he was working on Mike's he could have gotten some info from it, but it's a little late for that now. I think it's cool that he agreed to the interview, but it sure didn't sound to me like he's going to be rushing out to buy the SMiLE sessions box and join a fan forum any time soon.    

I'm so sick of the C50 talk. It should be pretty straightforward to anyone.
Either Mike dumps his band and being the boss of his own business and joins up with Brian's band... or Brian dumps his band and the comfort of being the boss to join Mike's band. These guys are in their twilight years and don't have to or want to answer to anybody. It ain't gonna happen. It made sense to do it for the 50th because that was a good PR hook (although let's not kid ourselves, that was NOT two touring acts joining together...it was M & B along with Scott and John joining Brian's band) but Mike clearly doesn't get along with Melinda so that's that....on top of all the other things I just mentioned.

OMG everybody is so ready to put unwarranted labels on people. So I'm "not worth my salt" because I haven't read Mike's book, not do I plan to after reading the excerpts? Sheesh, forget about darn C50, I'm so sick of THAT.
Added to left signature.

[GhostyTMRS]

I'm so sick of the C50 talk. It should be pretty straightforward to anyone.

This is why the comment that C50 domestically had lost money was such a jolt as I listened. I think as I did with the other points that a clarification is necessary. It doesn't appear straightforward enough if a tour which was labeled a success is now being described as having lost money.

And thanks to "Rocker" and his post with pure logic on the subject, I was able to go beyond the numbers and stats I posted from Pollstar's data on the tours from 2012 to the present and look at the basic, brass tacks of the whole thing as he did.

Rocker's point should be made again: The C50 tour was reported as it not only met expectations but exceeded them. It over-performed according to the industry, and that also led to requests for more bookings. That's all in the reports from that time.

So how could a tour which was meeting and exceeding expectations now four years in retrospect be reported as losing money as all of this was unfolding and the box office receipts and sales figures were coming in? The full quote is in my post above on page 1, but it's crystal clear that the point is being made that C50 lost money domestically.

My questions as follow ups would be where is the proof of this, and is there proof of this...or did everyone reporting on it in the press and in the industry get it wrong in 2012-13? And did the success of the tour which saw a large number of sellouts and very little empty seats at the various venues across the US suggest the tour was engineered to lose money if it's now reported as having lost money, or something...It doesn't add up.

It doesn't add up because you're only going by the ticket grosses Pollstar supplies. Mike's gripes are about the C50's tour expenses and overhead that included claims of mismanagement right down to tour merchandise. It's not uncommon for tours to have great ticket sales but wind up losing money (just ask Pink Floyd). Not saying it's true, but it sure does happen.

That budgetary info (bus rentals, promoter fee's, etc) is the kind of info Pollstar or the average fan wouldn't have. Your best bet for getting any real information about this would be for Brian and Melinda (and presumably Joe Thomas) to openly dispute Mike's claims or enter litigation (the book's only been out for little over a month) and make the results public or maybe someone goes through every example in Mike's book alleging extravagant spending and manages to get ahold of the documents (a BRI wikileaks?).

If I had to guess we may hear some refuting Mike's claims years down the line. It doesn't seem to be a priority for any of the principles right now.

[GhostyTMRS]

I also find it a little ironic that Hirsch has an attitude that he doesn't need to read Brian's book, yet Mike supporters, immediately upon publication of Mike's book, started relentlessly asking people if they had read Mike's book and suggested that if they hadn't read Mike's book, they shouldn't be commenting.

I find it quite odd that Hirsch didn't just say "no, I haven't had a chance to read Brian's book yet" and leave it at that, but instead says he doesn't need to read Brian's book. Really? Isn't he giving fans a strong reason then to not read Mike's book. As in, "Sh*t, if Hirsch doesn't need to read Brian's book after studying Brian for two years, then I certainly don't need to read Mike's book if I've been studying Mike for decades!"

I think the supposition/theory that Hirsch is afraid of what reading Brian's book might make him think about his own book about Mike or about Mike's positions/opinions is, while most certainly just a theory, certainly is not craziest theory I've heard. It seems totally plausible to me, and his "I don't need to read Brian's book" attitude is what makes me think it's plausible. It sounds a little defensive to me. And/or like he's annoyed that Brian didn't give him an interview for Mike's book.

I haven't run across any Beach Boys fans worth their salt that haven't read both books, so the whole "Mike supporters" thing I don't get or will ever get. Basically, if you're a Beach Boys fan you owe it to yourself to read them both. It seems silly not to.  
Hirsch points out in the interview that he's not really a big fan to begin with so I wouldn't expect him to read Brian's book. However, I also found it strange for him to say he knew everything about Brian because he sounds like a casual fan at best. Maybe if Brian's book had been published before he was working on Mike's he could have gotten some info from it, but it's a little late for that now. I think it's cool that he agreed to the interview, but it sure didn't sound to me like he's going to be rushing out to buy the SMiLE sessions box and join a fan forum any time soon.    

I'm so sick of the C50 talk. It should be pretty straightforward to anyone.
Either Mike dumps his band and being the boss of his own business and joins up with Brian's band... or Brian dumps his band and the comfort of being the boss to join Mike's band. These guys are in their twilight years and don't have to or want to answer to anybody. It ain't gonna happen. It made sense to do it for the 50th because that was a good PR hook (although let's not kid ourselves, that was NOT two touring acts joining together...it was M & B along with Scott and John joining Brian's band) but Mike clearly doesn't get along with Melinda so that's that....on top of all the other things I just mentioned.

OMG everybody is so ready to put unwarranted labels on people. So I'm "not worth my salt" because I haven't read Mike's book, not do I plan to after reading the excerpts? Sheesh, forget about darn C50, I'm so sick of THAT.
Added to left signature.

Spare me the fake outrage. I have no idea who you are and have no opinion about you one way or the other...but if you're asking me if I think someone like GF who's read both Mike and Brian's books is more knowledgable than someone who hasn't then the answer is obviously yes.   

[thorgil]

Oh, I got a fast answer, ty for that.
Fake? It's as real as they come. I have exactly the same right to call myself a BB fan as you, even if I don't read ML's book.
You not knowing who I am * has no bearing on this matter. I don't know who 99% of the people here are, and don't care. I care only about what they post here.

* However, if you really want to know, I am the main villain in the excellent "Watership Down" novel by Richard Adams. Here, I masqueraded as "Thorgil" for a while.

[GhostyTMRS]

Oh, I got a fast answer, ty for that.
Fake? It's as real as they come. I have exactly the same right to call myself a BB fan as you, even if I don't read ML's book.
You not knowing who I am * has no bearing on this matter. I don't know who 99% of the people here are, and don't care. I care only about what they post here.

* However, if you really want to know, I am the main villain in the excellent "Watership Down" novel by Richard Adams. Here, I masqueraded as "Thorgil" for a while.

lol Then I DO know who you are. Thorgil is a name I recognize. I take it back! Ha!

[HeyJude]

Regarding asking Hirsch what was cut out of the book (at the behest of either he or Mike), I would guess that answer wouldn't be forthcoming in that in many cases things are cut out due to legal issues (or rather, the risk of potential legal issues).

Regarding reading both books, I'm of a very mixed mind on that. I think, long-term, it makes sense for any huge fan or scholar to read both. I think the loaded "have you read the book yet?" stuff, which was coming from a couple of Mike supporters online seemingly the moment the book was released, is excessive. We're still at the stage where the books have only been out for a few weeks and days respectively. It's feasible someone wants to read both at this stage and hasn't found the time yet.

I also think the need or requirement to have read the books depends on what the discussion is. Having read Mike's book (I haven't yet been able to sit down to do Brian's book; I kind of want to do that one all at once rather than piecemeal, which is why I haven't done it yet not having found that time), I can't say that one would need to have read Mike's book to be conversant in general on the band or Mike. There are no game-changing things in Mike's book. I think if the discussion topic is Mike's book itself, then having read it might be a requirement (though if we're only picking apart one excerpt that is available to all, that can be done without having read the whole thing).

I think after a year or more, the excuses among scholars of the band for having not read the books become a lot more shaky. By that point, one could save up for the book if they need to, they will have easy access to check it out at a library or have easy access to a cheap used copy, and so on.

I had to hold my nose and read Mike's book. There is some raw information in the book that is no doubt useful, especially concerning his earliest days. There are some moments where Mike's book disappointingly just comes across as a re-write of Steven Gaines, other times where new information is presented but doesn't seem to pass the smell test to me, some passages where things we know about are completely ignored (the 2005 lawsuit, etc.), and so on.

[HeyJude]

A point I originally left out but wanted to mention, especially if a follow up part 2 or clarification could be forthcoming.

Mr. Hirsch speaks of his research on the early 90's lawsuits, and says the following:

5:16 - 6:35
Then finally, and most important, Mike and the Beach Boys were involved in a series of lawsuits in the early 1990's...(here he describes the various lawsuits and people involved)...What I would tell anyone who wants to write about the history of the Beach Boys, that is where you start. Because you have all of these depositions, people talking under oath, and that gave me the clearest sense of what actually happened, particularly in the early days of this band and going right on through the 60's and 70's, up until to the time of those lawsuits.

Where is the 2005 lawsuit? It's been available to read for the past decade, people have read it and discussed it here and elsewhere. End result, Mike lost and continued to appeal the decision which handed him a definitive loss (with penalty), and the subsequent appeals lasting years failed as well. There were also instances of misconduct that were also addressed by the court regarding a particular witness for Mike's case and the testimony of that witness when the facts presented were called into question.

Yet the crux of that original filing revealed some of the issues under the surface, and especially since Al Jardine's relationship with Mike was discussed later in this interview, what Mike said about Al in this 2005 filing would be pertinent and more than relevant to getting a sense of what was going on between those two Beach Boys in the years leading up to and after Carl's passing. To say Mike wasn't kind to Al in that 2005 document would be an understatement. In fact why Al was even named at all in the filing remains a mystery, since he was not named as a defendant in the case yet almost as much ink was spent on the documents laying out Mike's issues with Al as on those issues with the actual named defendants.

Why is or was Mike's 2005 lawsuit ignored both in this interview and in the actual text when such insight into other band issues and dynamics was described as having come from reading the previous 90's lawsuits' documentation? For one, 2005 puts on the record Mike's feelings toward Brian, Al, and his role in the band and the band's legacy into a legal document submitted under oath just like the 90's documents. It could also be used to show what the band dynamic was after Brian had been seeing his biggest success as a solo artist after releasing Smile, and Al as well after Al lost his suit regarding the Family And Friends naming issue.

I suppose in a weird way it makes sense that from Mike's point of view (and let's be honest, Hirsch's POV is Mike's POV, for several reasons) that the early 90s songwriting lawsuit should be the "starting point" for learning about the band, because Mike seems to place such strong emphasis on his songwriting credits being withheld. He talks about it in every interview.

Perhaps because Hirsch wasn't a fan before he did the book (and perhaps, tellingly, isn't so much of a big fan even now), he doesn't realize how telling it is for him to suggest the 90s songwriting lawsuit is like the lynchpin of the entire BB saga.

On a somewhat separate but related note, it would take a seeming lack of empathy and understanding of Brian's situation in the final days and early aftermath of the Landy saga to suggest that Brian's testimony in that early 90s songwriting lawsuit would be any huge insight into Brian or his place in the band. It has been well established, even by Mike himself, that Brian had a legal team at the time that wasn't necessarily doing Brian any favors.

As for the 2005 lawsuit, I wouldn't be surprised if Hirsch didn't even know a great deal about it. If someone could ask him about *that* lawsuit, and ask him to explain or admit both the inflammatory and insulting language in its background section and the fact that Mike was laughed out of the courtroom and his legal team admonished at multiple points, that would be interesting.

[thorgil]

Oh, I got a fast answer, ty for that.
Fake? It's as real as they come. I have exactly the same right to call myself a BB fan as you, even if I don't read ML's book.
You not knowing who I am * has no bearing on this matter. I don't know who 99% of the people here are, and don't care. I care only about what they post here.

* However, if you really want to know, I am the main villain in the excellent "Watership Down" novel by Richard Adams. Here, I masqueraded as "Thorgil" for a while.

lol Then I DO know who you are. Thorgil is a name I recognize. I take it back! Ha!

Ok, then I'll "grant" a leave of absence to the the worthy General and "generally" relent.

[guitarfool2002]

I'm so sick of the C50 talk. It should be pretty straightforward to anyone.

This is why the comment that C50 domestically had lost money was such a jolt as I listened. I think as I did with the other points that a clarification is necessary. It doesn't appear straightforward enough if a tour which was labeled a success is now being described as having lost money.

And thanks to "Rocker" and his post with pure logic on the subject, I was able to go beyond the numbers and stats I posted from Pollstar's data on the tours from 2012 to the present and look at the basic, brass tacks of the whole thing as he did.

Rocker's point should be made again: The C50 tour was reported as it not only met expectations but exceeded them. It over-performed according to the industry, and that also led to requests for more bookings. That's all in the reports from that time.

So how could a tour which was meeting and exceeding expectations now four years in retrospect be reported as losing money as all of this was unfolding and the box office receipts and sales figures were coming in? The full quote is in my post above on page 1, but it's crystal clear that the point is being made that C50 lost money domestically.

My questions as follow ups would be where is the proof of this, and is there proof of this...or did everyone reporting on it in the press and in the industry get it wrong in 2012-13? And did the success of the tour which saw a large number of sellouts and very little empty seats at the various venues across the US suggest the tour was engineered to lose money if it's now reported as having lost money, or something...It doesn't add up.

It doesn't add up because you're only going by the ticket grosses Pollstar supplies. Mike's gripes are about the C50's tour expenses and overhead that included claims of mismanagement right down to tour merchandise. It's not uncommon for tours to have great ticket sales but wind up losing money (just ask Pink Floyd). Not saying it's true, but it sure does happen.

That budgetary info (bus rentals, promoter fee's, etc) is the kind of info Pollstar or the average fan wouldn't have. Your best bet for getting any real information about this would be for Brian and Melinda (and presumably Joe Thomas) to openly dispute Mike's claims or enter litigation (the book's only been out for little over a month) and make the results public or maybe someone goes through every example in Mike's book alleging extravagant spending and manages to get ahold of the documents (a BRI wikileaks?).

If I had to guess we may hear some refuting Mike's claims years down the line. It doesn't seem to be a priority for any of the principles right now.

This is what Jim Hirsch said in the interview, I'm going on this quote and the conversation surrounding it about C50:

27:32
The reality of the 50th anniversary tour was that it lost money on the domestic side, because the band was so big, the costs were too high, given the revenue that these concerts were generating. And the concern that Mike had going forward was that well, if we start not just losing money ourselves, but if our promoters are losing money, if the venues are losing money, then we're going to jeopardize the brand. And so those economic factors were very much a part of their concern

The specific mention of the promoters losing money, of the venues losing money...if the tour was outperforming, and they were selling out the venues and making money for the promoters in the process, Mike was worried hypothetically about that not happening and jeopardizing the brand?

Consider Pollstar yet again - The "brand" in 2013 didn't even make the Top 200 list with their tour revenue the year after C50. Yet if the average number of shows played applied to 2013, they were playing around 100 shows that year as they have each year up to the present. C50 was 50 domestic shows that brought in 15 million gross.

There has to be more information provided to back up that statement and reasoning that C50 lost money domestically. Having to rent more Fender Twins and slow sales at the T-shirt stand wouldn't account for an 11 week tour that grossed 15 mil running in the red.

[GhostyTMRS]

There has to be more information provided to back up that statement and reasoning that C50 lost money domestically. Having to rent more Fender Twins and slow sales at the T-shirt stand wouldn't account for an 11 week tour that grossed 15 mil running in the red.

There are plenty of reasons/information mentioned in the book, practically a long laundry list of them. Whether or not they're accurate is anyone's guess and they're also kind of vague but they're there in black and white. If someone wanted to go through all of them one by one....well, I'm sure it's doable but it would probably be a lengthy project (talking to promoters/vendors all over the country, crew members, etc.) with very little of anything as a payoff at the end. Maybe someday someone will write a book about the reunion tour itself, or more likely, write a long chapter about it in a new book about the group.

[guitarfool2002]

There has to be more information provided to back up that statement and reasoning that C50 lost money domestically. Having to rent more Fender Twins and slow sales at the T-shirt stand wouldn't account for an 11 week tour that grossed 15 mil running in the red.

There are plenty of reasons/information mentioned in the book, practically a long laundry list of them. Whether or not they're accurate is anyone's guess and they're also kind of vague but they're there in black and white. If someone wanted to go through all of them one by one....well, I'm sure it's doable but it would probably be a lengthy project (talking to promoters/vendors all over the country, crew members, etc.) with very little of anything as a payoff at the end. Maybe someday someone will write a book about the reunion tour itself, or more likely, write a long chapter about it in a new book about the group.

Right, but I'm commenting specifically on the statements made by Mr. Hirsch in this interview, that C50 lost money domestically. After reading what Rocker said, it could be as basic as asking how is it possible for a tour that both met then exceeded expectations to end up running in the red. The reasoning in the book and in the interview above would be easier to accept if the tour itself was playing to venues with 25% or more empty seats and unsold tickets, but on nearly every stop of C50 it was either a sellout or close to a sellout, at worst it was averaging at least above 90% in both sales and actual people in the seats for these shows.

It goes to Rocker's point that unless the tour was somehow set up to run over budget and in the red, the results both in sales/attendance for each show and the gross revenue after all the domestic shows were tallied up do not show a tour that ran a deficit. I don't know how various backers and interests would agree to invest in a tour plan that would see it outperforming yet still losing money and damaging the brand. And promoters would not be asking for more bookings and dates if the tour had been tanking and under-performing, and the opposite was true. There had to be a prospectus of sorts presented before the contracts were signed - Assuming projected sales and profits and the like. Would people have signed on to a tour which would be running in debt even though it was selling out the venues and outperforming the initial expectations as it unfolded?

[GhostyTMRS]

Well, I think the quote was (and I don't have it in front of me) that "budgets were ignored".

[Don Malcolm]

Personally, I think Mike wasn't concerned about the C50 $$, even though it may well have been less than what had been hoped for--rather, I think his worry was that if the C50 tour continued on for too long with greater success and acclaim, it would jeopardize his ability to go out in his M&B incarnation and keep that operation viable.

[guitarfool2002]

Well, I think the quote was (and I don't have it in front of me) that "budgets were ignored".

That's getting into the book, but I'd ask: Ignored to the point of erasing the roughly 1.3 million gross ticket revenue the tour was taking in each week of that tour in the US? 50 US cities, 53 shows, 11 weeks: 15 million gross. This comes back to the statement made in the interview, how the tour lost money domestically. Going over budget is one thing, but to the tune of erasing those numbers? And going back to my original reaction, where is the proof of this to back up such a statement?

Back to Rocker's point, it does not agree with the logic of setting up a tour if a tour actually does better than expected, sells out venues, and has promoters asking for more shows to be added, yet runs under a deficit to the point of jeopardizing the brand and causing concern that promoters and venues would lose money.

If promoters and venues were worried about losing money, they wouldn't be calling for more bookings as they were.