Part 2 of interview with Mike book collaborator James S. Hirsch

[HeyJude]

http://petsoundsforum.com/thread/898/2012-north-american-tour-money

I hate to link to the other place, but it seems Mr. Mott is agreeing with Mike's claims that C50 was losing money.

What a surprise.  

I'm not sure how definitive Pollstar's numbers are, but more importantly, we have no clue as to what the overhead was on the tour.

Also, wouldn't non-US shows potentially be open to higher taxation?

Bottom line, the person doing the analysis on that board has proven for nearly 20 years on the internet to *not* be objective enough to trust anything that ends with the conclusion that "Mike was right."

I highly doubt Mike was just making stuff up for his book. Clearly the overhead costs were bugging him, hence the enterprise wasn't making as much money as he would have liked. This was clear *during* the tour in a few interviews, and certainly after the tour and well before his book, he talked about what he felt was the bloat of the tour operation  ("bloat" is my word, not his).

However, "Hollywood accounting" can make anything look like it's losing money. I'm pretty sure several folks got huge cash guarantees on that tour, and it seems as though most every individual entity (promoters) or people (band members) made what they were supposed to. Mike clearly has a pattern in interviews and his book for reciting reasons for the tour ending that sidestep the idea that he quit the reunion and didn't want to play with willing bandmates. So if a certain "outlook" on the tour finances paints a negative picture, I'm not surprised he'd use that reasoning.

Further, as I've mentioned before, "50 Big Ones" was a new company, and it turned a profit five months into its run. I don't think Brian and Joe Thomas (and Al) would have been pushing for more dates, and promoters offering gigs at Madison Square Garden and other places, if the tour was known to anyone to be a huge money loser.

Also keep in mind that, to my recollection, Mike mentioned in interviews that he thought the C50 tour was playing *too large* of venues, and wanted to play smaller markets and smaller venues. So as the tour was ending, the offers coming in were for *larger* concerts which would have presumably (with the possible exception of MSG in NY, which Howie Edelson has mentioned usually breaks even at best due to costs unique to that venue) made even *more* money, including doing outdoor stadiums like Wrigley Field.

Further, if the tour had continued, they could have concentrated *a lot* on foreign markets, which even by Mike's own analysis was pulling in a profit. The band did around 50 North American dates and only around 23 dates covering Europe, Asia, Australia/New Zealand, etc. They only did *two* shows in the UK. They could have easily done another 50-100 gigs outside of the US in 2013 and made a sh*t-ton of money.

[CenturyDeprived]

http://petsoundsforum.com/thread/898/2012-north-american-tour-money

I hate to link to the other place, but it seems Mr. Mott is agreeing with Mike's claims that C50 was losing money.

What a surprise.  

I'm not sure how definitive Pollstar's numbers are, but more importantly, we have no clue as to what the overhead was on the tour.

Also, wouldn't non-US shows potentially be open to higher taxation?

Bottom line, the person doing the analysis on that board has proven for nearly 20 years on the internet to *not* be objective enough to trust anything that ends with the conclusion that "Mike was right."

I highly doubt Mike was just making stuff up for his book. Clearly the overhead costs were bugging him, hence the enterprise wasn't making as much money as he would have liked. This was clear *during* the tour in a few interviews, and certainly after the tour and well before his book, he talked about what he felt was the bloat of the tour operation  ("bloat" is my word, not his).

However, "Hollywood accounting" can make anything look like it's losing money. I'm pretty sure several folks got huge cash guarantees on that tour, and it seems as though most every individual entity (promoters) or people (band members) made what they were supposed to. Mike clearly has a pattern in interviews and his book for reciting reasons for the tour ending that sidestep the idea that he quit the reunion and didn't want to play with willing bandmates. So if a certain "outlook" on the tour finances paints a negative picture, I'm not surprised he'd use that reasoning.

Further, as I've mentioned before, "50 Big Ones" was a new company, and it turned a profit five months into its run. I don't think Brian and Joe Thomas (and Al) would have been pushing for more dates, and promoters offering gigs at Madison Square Garden and other places, if the tour was known to anyone to be a huge money loser.

Also keep in mind that, to my recollection, Mike mentioned in interviews that he thought the C50 tour was playing *too large* of venues, and wanted to play smaller markets and smaller venues. So as the tour was ending, the offers coming in were for *larger* concerts which would have presumably (with the possible exception of MSG in NY, which Howie Edelson has mentioned usually breaks even at best due to costs unique to that venue) made even *more* money, including doing outdoor stadiums like Wrigley Field.

Further, if the tour had continued, they could have concentrated *a lot* on foreign markets, which even by Mike's own analysis was pulling in a profit. The band did around 50 North American dates and only around 23 dates covering Europe, Asia, Australia/New Zealand, etc. They only did *two* shows in the UK. They could have easily done another 50-100 gigs outside of the US in 2013 and made a sh*t-ton of money.

The other thing, is that EVEN if the tour was actually losing money, and/or Mike was making less money than he would in the M&B configuration... does anyone honestly think that if Mike got to write with Brian in a room, and they cowrote a song that garnered Mike a whole bunch of acclaim, that Mike would have still killed the tour and said "tour's not making money, back to M&B"? Hell no. Anything can be made into an "excuse" if someone wants to find one.

[SMiLE Brian]

The writing with BW in a room  and tour costs are  the red herring for the lack of total control.

[HeyJude]

The other thing, is that EVEN if the tour was actually losing money, and/or Mike was making less money than he would in the M&B configuration... does anyone honestly think that if Mike got to write with Brian in a room, and they cowrote a song that garnered Mike a whole bunch of acclaim, that Mike would have still killed the tour and said "tour's not making money, back to M&B"? Hell no. Anything can be made into an "excuse" if someone wants to find one.

You raise an interesting "what if."

What if *everything else* about C50 had been exactly the same, with the one change being that Mike and Brian wrote one or several songs "from scratch", put them on the album, and one of their songs became a "Kokomo"-level hit (or something somewhat close to that)?

I'm guessing Mike would have still walked. I don't think he 100% fabricates the idea that he'd like to write alone with Brian. I think his ego craves that for several reasons (which can be expanded upon in another post I suppose). But it appears to me in my opinion that he dislikes Melinda more than he loves working with Brian, or being on stage with Brian or Al, or anything else to do with a potential reunion.

I think the reunion only could have continued if a lot of unreasonable (and maybe some reasonable) demands had been met. It sounds like Melinda would have to either divorce Brian or stay *completely away* from Brian and Mike at all times in order for Mike to feel comfortable in that "room" with Brian. Which is ridiculous of course, and indeed the other wives are involved to varying degrees, if nothing else in terms of being there in person sometimes. It sounds like the touring band would need to be cut by several members, in order to facilitate Mike actually playing *smaller* venues and markets that he wanted to.

Further, it sounds like Mike didn't think C50 was enough of a "Brian is king of the studio, Mike is king of the road" fair compromise. He still complained about lack of input on the album, and despite being the front man and gate keeper of the setlist, didn't like the live side of things either.

In the scenario where I actually see Mike wanting to continue, it would require Brian to give up far more control than I think is either objectively fair, not to mention that would yield a lesser result critically and artistically.

But really, I don't see how it could have been molded to fit what Mike wants. Even if they dumped the C50 band and used Mike's lean, scaled-back band, there would have been Brian to share profits with off the top, and additional salaries paid out to Al and Dave on a permanent basis.

I think even under the most cheapo scenario, Mike would have had to drop the idea of playing so many small markets and venues. The band would have *had* to play *some* larger venues. Then the problem becomes, once you need to justify a "bigger ticket" item at a larger venue, a cheapskate Mike/Meleco production might not cut it. The show would need to be a little bigger. Longer shows, probably at least a few more musicians, a more elaborate stage show, and so on.

I'm digressing, but I think the reunion could have continued in perpetuity and been financially successful with some compromises and refinement, which "50 Big Ones Productions" would have been able to do had it continued.

[Lonely Summer]

It seems as if, post-C50, while Mike will still lament not getting to write with Brian, he has given up actually trying to (not that he ever tried hard to going back into the previous decades). Four solid years of insulting your bandmate's wife, comparing her to arguably the biggest villain in the band's history and one of the biggest villains in the history of modern popular music (who could one argue is worse? Maybe Stan Polley with Badfinger?). Mike isn't dumb, he knows he's not moving the band closer to reconciling.

I think he doesn't like Melinda (duh of course), never wanted to continue the reunion, and the way C50 played out gave him the chance to wash his hands of the whole thing *and* try to claim it's all someone else's fault.

In Badfinger fan circles, people often talk about Joey Molland's wife Kathie as the biggest villain in the band's history. Even her death a few years ago hasn't silenced the trash talkers.

I've read a good deal on Badfinger (Dan Matovina's book primarily), watched the documentaries, so I'm definitely familiar with Joey and his wife's role in the saga.

Both have definitely been villainized. Not completely without some justification, though obviously the extremes are almost always unwarranted. And yeah, since her death, you'd think people would let that part of it go.

The Badfinger story is interesting (and beyond depressing), and part of what I wish people like Mike Love would learn is some humility. If you read the laundry list of things Mike Love is disgruntled and disenfranchised about, and then read the Badfinger story, Mike's attitude seems almost laughable. Those Badfinger guys are guys that truly got screwed. Yes, they were insanely naïve and made a lot of bad decisions, but they had low points that make most any Beach Boys story pale in comparison.

The band also has a crazy songwriting/royalty setup that's unfair almost in the *opposite* way to what Mike complains about with the Beach Boys, where all four Badfinger members plus the manager collect songwriting royalties on stuff even if they had no  hand in writing it.

Good lord, imagine how bent out of shape Mike would be if to this day the royalties (and ASCAP award-type honors) for "Good Vibrations" or "California Girls" were split between Brian, Mike, Al, a still-living Murry Wilson, and the estates of Carl and Dennis.

Lol, yeah, Mike would be pulling his hair out over that! 

[DonnyL]

I think it would have been a fine idea to keep Al & Dave on board, even in Mike's trimmed-down outfit, and include Brian for select larger shows. Or at least keep an open invite to the guys for any show they want to play. I remember seeing that early 2011 Reagan tribute show that Al appeared on and thinking his presence really changed the vibe ... he gave an air of authenticity. I think having Al and/or Dave would be helpful for the "brand" and probably sell more tickets and medium to small venues. I think there are plenty of fans (such as myself) who would attend a show if Al were there, but would not otherwise.

[HeyJude]

I think the question of how it would be if Al rejoined Mike's band (and Dave rejoining for that matter) is difficult to answer. I'm inclined to say it wouldn't yield much. I don't think Al or Dave would sing many leads, and the ones Al would sing would be the standards.

In Brian's band, Al gets his standard couple of leads, plus a few Mike leads, and sometimes also adds in other bits. I think he also just fits Brian's band better at this stage.

From Mike's point of view, I don't think having Al and/or Dave back full time would sell a *ton* more tickets. I don't think Mike would ever be inclined to add them back fulltime anyway. Clearly he likes having Dave do little runs of shows with him. He may well have done the same with Al had the Jones Beach 2014 debacle not occurred.

I think, had the reunion taken an organized, *temporary* pause while Mike did some additional dates prior to reconvening in say six months or a year or something, and had Mike maintained a respectful posture towards Brian and Al and the reunited band, I probably would have entertained seeing the Mike and Bruce band, especially with Al added in (and Dave too certainly). But I have little interest in seeing Al join Mike's band permanently to simply take over a few leads like "Rhonda" and "Come Go With Me", etc.

Separately, the idea of having Brian at "select" shows I don't think would make any sense. He doesn't have a stamina issue. He has done more solo shows in 2016 than he did C50 shows in 2012, *and* Brian is pulling a lot more weight at his shows this year than he did during C50. If Brian was unable or unwilling to do all shows, then "select" shows might make sense. But not having Brian there at all shows because Mike thinks the cost is too high is not something I think makes any sense.

In September 2012, Brian wanted to be a fulltime Beach Boy again, and Mike walked. That's the story. 

[Pretty Funky]

I think it would have been a fine idea to keep Al & Dave on board, even in Mike's trimmed-down outfit, and include Brian for select larger shows. Or at least keep an open invite to the guys for any show they want to play. I remember seeing that early 2011 Reagan tribute show that Al appeared on and thinking his presence really changed the vibe ... he gave an air of authenticity. I think having Al and/or Dave would be helpful for the "brand" and probably sell more tickets and medium to small venues. I think there are plenty of fans (such as myself) who would attend a show if Al were there, but would not otherwise.

I think it is run like many businesses today. Take an airline. Cut the service to the bone and providing the flights are full and the fare is covering the costs plus a percentage as profit, why change? The pre tour blurb in each city makes no secret that Mike is the sole original. Even when Bruce had a few months off with his heart scare it was business as usual. Like an airline the only time to react is if seats are going unsold. That is not happening.

[guitarfool2002]

Forget the "brand", is there a benefit to Al (and his son Matt) if he joined Mike's touring band? Never mind the fact he's been killing it with Brian for the past few years, the tour will be going into 2017, and the recent tour keeps going and selling out the venues.

I don't see a benefit at all in changing what is successful, in this case for Brian and Al at this point in time. And Mike got what he wanted back in 2012 - Brian does what he does, he has Al and Blondie with him. Mike is doing what he said he wanted to do, touring constantly with his band and Bruce. I don't understand why there are always these calls to change things when the ship was boarding in 2012 and choices were made whether to jump on board or not.

[guitarfool2002]

In September 2012, Brian wanted to be a fulltime Beach Boy again, and Mike walked. That's the story. 

Well put.

Regarding costs: Look at the ticket sales and return numbers for C50 domestic shows in 2012, all 11 weeks of them. They grossed 1.3 million on average each week C50 toured the US, multiplied by 11 weeks. If that kind of result lost money, then someone needs to show that the tour was designed to fail and lose money before it even started, considering it did better than expected. And the logic and numbers which are there do not support such a statement.

More proof needed beyond Mike and Jim Hirsch saying it lost money domestically.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Forget the "brand", is there a benefit to Al (and his son Matt) if he joined Mike's touring band? Never mind the fact he's been killing it with Brian for the past few years, the tour will be going into 2017, and the recent tour keeps going and selling out the venues.

I don't see a benefit at all in changing what is successful, in this case for Brian and Al at this point in time. And Mike got what he wanted back in 2012 - Brian does what he does, he has Al and Blondie with him. Mike is doing what he said he wanted to do, touring constantly with his band and Bruce. I don't understand why there are always these calls to change things when the ship was boarding in 2012 and choices were made whether to jump on board or not.

Agreed....things are perfect the way they are right now.

[DonnyL]

Forget the "brand", is there a benefit to Al (and his son Matt) if he joined Mike's touring band? Never mind the fact he's been killing it with Brian for the past few years, the tour will be going into 2017, and the recent tour keeps going and selling out the venues.

I don't see a benefit at all in changing what is successful, in this case for Brian and Al at this point in time. And Mike got what he wanted back in 2012 - Brian does what he does, he has Al and Blondie with him. Mike is doing what he said he wanted to do, touring constantly with his band and Bruce. I don't understand why there are always these calls to change things when the ship was boarding in 2012 and choices were made whether to jump on board or not.

My scenario above is based on the concept of the original Beach Boys continuing in some re-united form ... or rather, having continued their 2012 reunion instead of splintering again.

In this scenario, some sort of compromise is reached in which Mike still continues with his "Beach Boys" license but keeps an open invite to the original remaining members to join, whenever they want to and are available to. Brian may or may not want to participate in all shows, so they could theoretically include Brian in the group for special larger shows. And of course, I'd prefer to see some arrangement worked out in which Brian's and Mike's band members are both included (like C50).

The scenario (which may or may not be logistically or 'politically' feasible) is not an ideal fantasy, but rather something that might have played out had all of the original members been able to come to a compromise.

I don't know if there is a benefit to Al and/or Matt in that scenario. I'm just saying it would nice/appropriate of Mike to extend some kind of open invite for all original members to participate in they want to. And yes, he may have to pay them more than the other sidemen, but he could potentially sell more seats/book larger venues/charge more for tickets, since it would be the "real" Beach Boys instead of something resembling a tribute act.

As far as the "brand" goes, I care about "The Beach Boys" as an entity and would like to see the group more appropriately represented as a live act if they are going to tour.

In my opinion, The Beach Boys as a whole when performing together are a more impressive and magical act that Brian/Al/Blondie or Mike/Bruce. Clearly, there are political divisions at play in this setup as it doesn't really make sense that each group doesn't want anything to do with one another. I don't see the current situation as ideal as a fan ... the members may prefer it this way, but I suspect it has more to do with not being able to come to business/personal compromises within each camp as opposed to some ideal situation that benefits everyone.

My favorite of the "solo" groups was actually Al's Family and Friends Group circa early 2000s. I saw them around 2002 and the band were fantastic ... I felt like I was seeing the '70s live band because all the original backing dudes were there (Ed Carter, Bobby Figueroa, etc).

[Lonely Summer]

What we are talking about here is not much different than the way it was in the 80's/90's. Brian showed up occasionally, you never knew when it would be, although in retrospect Landy seems to mainly want him there for the big shows like DC July 4th. Dennis missed a lot of shows before his death; Carl was absent while he did his solo tours; even Al and Mike missed a few shows for various reasons. I always found it odd that they could get away with this. Can you imagine going to a Kinks show in the 80's and Ray Davies not being there? Or Dave missing a few shows cause he was off in the mountains meditating?

[guitarfool2002]

What we are talking about here is not much different than the way it was in the 80's/90's. Brian showed up occasionally, you never knew when it would be, although in retrospect Landy seems to mainly want him there for the big shows like DC July 4th. Dennis missed a lot of shows before his death; Carl was absent while he did his solo tours; even Al and Mike missed a few shows for various reasons. I always found it odd that they could get away with this. Can you imagine going to a Kinks show in the 80's and Ray Davies not being there? Or Dave missing a few shows cause he was off in the mountains meditating?

There is a pretty scathing LA Times article/review from this late 80's period, post-Kokomo when the band was on tour, and the setup was to bring Brian out to do a "mini-set" at the piano, then go back into the shadows to allow the band to take the stage. And it didn't work, plus the LA Times article made other suggestions as well because the whole thing felt wrong. Whether it was due to Landy, or if the band just didn't want Brian to do this, or whatever the case, it didn't work.

Putting that debacle from the past aside, I remember well the phrase "causing confusion in the marketplace" being bandied about especially by Mike regarding Al's bookings, Brian's activities, etc...yet imagine what confusion it would cause if there were a randomness to who would actually be on stage under the banner "The Beach Boys". There are already more than a few venues and newspapers who cannot seem to get the right promo photos to use to bill Mike's BB shows, and sometimes the C50 photos still pop up 4 years later despite the fact Brian hasn't shared a stage with Mike since 2012.

My bottom line is again why change what has been successful for Brian and Al as of November 2016 extending into 2017? There is no reason at all, and back in 2012 the choices were made that led to what is happening today. Mike got what he wanted out of the deal...all the talk about wanting more or wanting something different after the fact is puzzling to say the least.

[HeyJude]

The idea in the present day of Brian only making guest appearances with a "Beach Boys" touring band is just not feasible or likely for many reasons. But certainly "confusion" for ticket buyers would be one of those issues.

I suppose they could *not* sell the tour as any different from the way it is now, and if Brian showed up, it would just be a random "bonus." But what a silly way to sell Brian's participation, and what a lack of respect it would show on top of that.

Ideally from a fan perspective, what should have happened as C50 wound down and Mike was making it clear he was balking, would be for BRI to revisit the license, get a new *group* manager, get Mike back to the negotiating table, and set up something where "The Beach Boys" would from that point on be the "reunion five", and leave room for Mike to book a few months of his own solo shows, which would have to be billed differently.

I think that the sentiment that there's no need for Brian to be back with the reunited BBs is true in terms of being realistic and the logistics of it. It just doesn't work.

But I do think those five, ideally with a great backing band, are something different together than *any* of the various partial combos. C50 *was* better than Brian/Al in 2016. I don't really push for another reunion anymore because it's not just realistic, and Brian and Al are putting on the *best* BB-related show going right now.

But as a fan, ideally what I'd like to see is another C50 tour with the same lineup, only with Foskett dropped and Matt Jardine put in place. That band could do some Vegas residencies, do six or so months of touring per year, and then Mike could take his lean sideband out for numerous months per year. I would maybe even be okay in that scenario with BRI letting him call it "Mike Love's Beach Boys" or something.

[guitarfool2002]

Just my own opinion, I think the C50 worked because it was billed as the 50th Anniversary of something tangible. Since C50, there have been tours and activities billed by Mike's Beach Boys tours as the 50th of Fun Fun Fun, the 50th of All Summer Long, the 50th of Summer Days, now the 50th of Good Vibrations. It begs the question what will 2017's "50th" commemorate? Mike in his book didn't seem to dig Smiley Smile all that much, I can't see the validity of Mike doing a Smile commemoration in light of everything...Heroes? Wild Honey? Who knows. Again it gets into the muddy waters of Mike doing this under his name, Brian and/or Al doing it under their own names (which they are), or promoting things as "Beach Boys" events. Looking at the past four years, the Beach Boys touring behind various 50th commemorations after C50 seems like a stretch after there was so much hubbub over ending C50 as a fixed thing in time rather than extending it.

But I guess the point is that the celebration that brought all of the band members together under the Beach Boys billing was C50. I remember parts of Mike's interviews from the fall of 2012 where the statement was clearly made about running the risk of watering down the event that was C50 by extending it any further, which can translate into we had a Beach Boys 50th celebration, now we go back to the way it was and the way Mike wanted to move forward with his own plans. Again the circle going around to where Mike got what he wanted, yet there are still calls to "extend" C50 in some form as of late 2016? It doesn't make sense. And Mike's tours have used Beach Boys 50th commemorations every year since 2012.

[HeyJude]

It's all moot now I suppose. I've never found a marketing angle (meaning an actual "name" for the tour and an anniversary or even to hand it on) as a particularly strong reason to either do or not do a tour.

Obviously, they couldn't have called it "50th Anniversary Tour" forever. I think they could have retained the title for an additional series of legs in 2013, much in the same way that Brian is doing more PS shows in 2017.

They could have just kept the C50 name, they could have called it "The 50th Anniversary Encore Tour", or whatever.

And really, the same could be done for subsequent tours; various anniversary names or some other angle (like McCartney does naming his tour seemingly meaningless names like "One to One Tour", etc.). Promoters were ready and willing; I haven't heard any tour promoters suggest C50 was "watering" anything down. If anything, I recall a tour industry guy telling Pollstar in 2012 that Mike's tour had been diluting the BB name for years in the minds of promoters, and it was the full reunited lineup (and let's be honest, mainly Brian being in the Beach Boys) that got top dog tour people and promoters interested in higher profile gigs and venues.

Certainly, if the full reunion went for years and years, alternate marketing angles would be needed. But certainly other bands have reconstituted/reunited and lasted for longer than one year.

The 50th Anniversary was certainly a marketing angle to "hook" some of the band members into doing it in the first place. After that, I think the idea in part was that they could have come to the realization that artistically, critically, and commercially *keeping* the reunion together going forward could have been a great move.

Howie Edelson mentioned in the past that the reunion could have easily booked a Vegas residency. Minimal effort, maximum dollars. That particular scenario would obvious stink for people who can't travel to Las Vegas.

I think a reunion happening today is totally unfeasible, not particularly enticing given some of the prevalent attitude, and is mostly a moot issue. But from an objective standpoint of a fan, or industry analyst, or good manager or PR person, it's not as if having more reunion tours or keeping the reunion together makes no sense. From *those* points of view that don't factor logistics and personalities into it, nothing makes *more* sense.

[CenturyDeprived]

Just my own opinion, I think the C50 worked because it was billed as the 50th Anniversary of something tangible. Since C50, there have been tours and activities billed by Mike's Beach Boys tours as the 50th of Fun Fun Fun, the 50th of All Summer Long, the 50th of Summer Days, now the 50th of Good Vibrations. It begs the question what will 2017's "50th" commemorate? Mike in his book didn't seem to dig Smiley Smile all that much, I can't see the validity of Mike doing a Smile commemoration in light of everything...Heroes? Wild Honey? Who knows.  

I could possibly see it being billed as a 55th anniversary of the group's 1st album, and for 2018, either a 50th anniversary of Do It Again, or a 30th anniversary of Kokomo. Not even kidding.

[HeyJude]

I could possibly see it being billed as a 55th anniversary of the group's 1st album, and for 2018, either a 50th anniversary of Do It Again, or a 30th anniversary of Kokomo. Not even kidding.

Tour names and invented/manufactured "themes" or "angles" to promote tours would *not* have been difficult. They have people and agencies that do that stuff. They didn't need to keep "anniversary" or "reunion" in every actual tour title. They could just put in the main marketing materials.

2013 - "50th Anniversary - The Encore Tour"
2014 - "The All Summer Long Reunion Celebration"
2015 - "Summer and Days and Summer Nights with the Full, Original Beach Boys including Brian Wilson"
2016 - "The Beach Boys Pet Sounds 50th Anniversary Reunion Tour" - See The Beach Boys with Brian Wilson perform "Pet Sounds' for the first time ever!

And so on.

Again, I'm not pining for this anymore. But it could have easily happened in terms of marketing and promoters and all of that.

[DonnyL]

"OVER 50 Years of Fun Fun Fun, Good Vibrations and Surfin' USA!!!"

[HeyJude]

Additionally, with good momentum and good management, they could have even done things that didn't just sound like a "greatest hits" live show.

A good manager, in say 2017, could have pitched a "Smile" tour to Mike. Think about it. Nine or ten months of regular touring, and then a cred-earning "Smile" tour somewhere during the year for a month or two. Much like C50 got a lot of fans off Mike's back, Mike doing a "Smile" tour in 2017 with the Beach Boys (think something like the GV box tour in 1993, but obviously more focused) would have undone a *ton* of all the "Smile" bulls**t attached to Mike that *clearly* does bother him.

The "Smile" narrative could have ended with "Mike came to peace with it and even sang the whole album live on stage with the band."

Again, all moot what-ifs at this point, but an interesting scenario to ponder.

[CenturyDeprived]

Additionally, with good momentum and good management, they could have even done things that didn't just sound like a "greatest hits" live show.

A good manager, in say 2017, could have pitched a "Smile" tour to Mike. Think about it. Nine or ten months of regular touring, and then a cred-earning "Smile" tour somewhere during the year for a month or two. Much like C50 got a lot of fans off Mike's back, Mike doing a "Smile" tour in 2017 with the Beach Boys (think something like the GV box tour in 1993, but obviously more focused) would have undone a *ton* of all the "Smile" bulls**t attached to Mike that *clearly* does bother him.

The "Smile" narrative could have ended with "Mike came to peace with it and even sang the whole album live on stage with the band."

Again, all moot what-ifs at this point, but an interesting scenario to ponder.

How great that could have been. As it actually stood, I seem to recall reading how performing Our Prayer during C50 was like pulling teeth to get to happen.

[HeyJude]

How great that could have been. As it actually stood, I seem to recall reading how performing Our Prayer during C50 was like pulling teeth to get to happen.

Yeah, I'm not sure how real or how apocryphal stories of Mike being hesitant about any song selections are. I've heard he wasn't big on doing "Our Prayer."

The couple examples I've heard of them doing it on C50 sounded a little wobbly. It probably could have used more rehearsal time perhaps. Of course, such a case could be used to either support dropping it, or support continuing to do it more to perfect it.

There are also stories of Mike not wanting to do "Surf's Up" on C50. I know Scott Totten posted here specifically mentioning that Mike never refused to do it, and Totten simply suggested running through it during a soundcheck in Europe. But I've also heard other stories suggesting at *other* times Mike didn't want to do it. So who knows? I doubt Totten or most any of the band members were always there behind the scenes to see what principal members refused or didn't refuse to do.

I've also heard theories that Mike nixed the "cantina" part of H&V, resulting in the weird C50 version that was basically the "Smiley Smile" version (which was already weird to Mike, as he was still doing and still to this day does the 70s/80s arrangement of the song on the rare instances he does it with his band) with the "under arrest" bit added.

All of these stories of Mike nixing or refusing stuff are just theories/stories/opinions as far as I know. I don't think there are any published official stories on any of this.

But my crazy hypothetical where the BBs had stayed reunited and did a "Smile" tour would be a case where Mike would be sold on the concept ahead of time, so by the time everyone agreed to do it, it would obviously be implicit precisely which songs would be included in that set.

I've always wondered how much politics and potential subversion was involved in doing "Summer's Gone" to close the last two shows on the tour. Did Brian already know continuing was a lost cause, and demand doing the song regardless of whether Mike wanted to? Mike didn't seem too hot on the song in the Rolling Stone piece on the reunion. I wonder if Brian said "we're doing it", and Mike could either be on stage or not. I'm probably assuming too much vitriol, I don't know. I can't imagine Mike was enthusiastic about *not* closing the show with something like "Fun Fun Fun", but perhaps he grudgingly (or ambivalently) went along with it.