Mike Love Do It Again 2017 Promo FIlm

[KDS]

With The Beach Boys yeah, mostly all of the above. Do the last three decades of embarrassing antics hurt the 60s/70s music catalogue? Of course not, that music is solidified in time as some of the greatest ever made. Do the last three decades of embarrassing antics hurt the image of the band? Yes.

Rab, I somewhat agree with what you're saying.  Though, I don't agree that as many will dwell on it. 

But, I would amended this to include the last five decades of antics.   

You can write a book about the career missteps of the band. 

-Releasing Smiley Smile instead of finishing Smile
-Continuing to wear the striped shirts while touring on PS and GV
-Skipping Monterey Pop
-Leaving great songs on the cutting room floor in lieu of not so great ones throughout the 1970s
-Lack of overall quality control on studio albums post Holland
-The failed Brian's Back campaign

This is just off the top of my head.  And there are many fingers to point in many different directions. 

[rab2591]

Definitely. But the fact is that the guy currently at the helm seems to be continuing these missteps. You’re right, on it’s own the DIA ‘17 single being performed by The Beach Boys is harmless, but as a reoccurring misstep in a pattern of stumbles it just reinforces the perception of this band having lost direction, being fractious, being completely tacky post 1960s.

[guitarfool2002]

With The Beach Boys yeah, mostly all of the above. Do the last three decades of embarrassing antics hurt the 60s/70s music catalogue? Of course not, that music is solidified in time as some of the greatest ever made. Do the last three decades of embarrassing antics hurt the image of the band? Yes.

Rab, I somewhat agree with what you're saying.  Though, I don't agree that as many will dwell on it. 

But, I would amended this to include the last five decades of antics.   

You can write a book about the career missteps of the band. 

-Releasing Smiley Smile instead of finishing Smile
-Continuing to wear the striped shirts while touring on PS and GV
-Skipping Monterey Pop
-Leaving great songs on the cutting room floor in lieu of not so great ones throughout the 1970s
-Lack of overall quality control on studio albums post Holland
-The failed Brian's Back campaign

This is just off the top of my head.  And there are many fingers to point in many different directions. 

But KDS - It's pretty obvious this new single and video release from Mike whether it's being written off as inconsequential or not has generated a pretty massive if not incredible amount of negative feedback across multiple online outlets, and not just on the so-called "toxic" places of fandom like this forum. At some point the most basic tools and methods of market research would gauge the reactions and conclude something went seriously wrong to generate such a negative public response.

I guess my question is, in your own opinion as a fan what is it about this single and video release that caused such a bad response from the public? I know there are always attempts to write it off as "Mike Bashing" and blame it on the usual suspects and toxicity, but holy cow...If this release was designed to bring good vibes and generate positivity for Mike and/or his tour promotion, it laid an egg.

[HeyJude]

The difference between missteps of the past (especially the 60s/70s/80s) and now is that now, in 2017, and for the last five years if not longer, there has been a *clear* path towards resuscitating and rehabilitating the "brand."

Essentially, the formula to do it was C50. As Howie Edelson said, the Beach Boys were getting *huge* press, and *good* press, and were doing so with no presence on classic rock radio. Mike indeed went from Frankie Valli to Mick Jagger overnight. They *did* take what Mike had steered into an AARP brand and turned it into an arena rock band.

When they biffed things in the 70s and 80s, they were often at a low ebb and there wasn't a clear path that they *should* have taken instead (other than to just keep making albums and try to stay relevant).

But in 2012 or 2017, there's a clear path to accolades and good reviews and building a good rep with critics that matter. To build on the indie/nerd fan cred and all of that. And it's C50, and "Smile". It's *not* John Stamos and Full House and Mark McGrath. You can call it "snobbery" or "elitism" all you want, but that's the deal. And it's better for *everyone*, including the band and the brand and the legacy and hardcore fans and casual fans, for the band to dispense with the "Stamos/Full House" path which garners snickers and laughs and eye rolls among plenty of fans, and go for the reunion band getting rave reviews in Rolling Stone and getting a good review in the New York Times for a gig at Madison Square Garden.

Yeah, it *does* mean that you won't get to drive five minutes to see Mike's band at your local fair or get to see Ike, Totten, and Foskett sing half the leads during the show (though you'd probably still get at least Totten for another reunion tour). Yeah, it does mean the "oooh, Uncle Jessie is on this tour?" fans might be alienated when the band skips the bit where Stamos croons on stage or Mike shows old clips on the video screen, and instead you hear Brian sing "I Just Wasn't Made for These Times."

I cut the band of decades and decades ago a little bit more slick for bad decisions because there wasn't (and still isn't always in retrospect) one clear path concerning what they *should* have done to be more successful or stay more relevant, etc.

But in 2017, it's crystal clear. And Mike rejects that. He gave up rehabilitating his own image (in addition to reinvigorating a tired brand stretched thin and devalued by Mike's incessant touring and lack of interest in creating anything new), he gave up prestigious gigs at places like Madison Square Garden, so that he could go back to his own band and play bowling alleys in Anchorage. He derided Brian's original songs in 2012 because it was more "downer music", not to mention that Brian didn't want to write alone from scratch, then ditched Brian and Al and went to releasing remakes and old outtakes (let us not forget that his two previous "new" songs prior to DIA were a decade-old solo track "Pisces Brothers", and a re-recording of a nearly 40-year-old outtake in "Alone on Christmas Day"). Mike gave up building *everybody* in the band up individually and collectively, and instead went back to trashing Melinda and Brian and bringing up decades-old drug use. Mike not only doesn't seem to "get it", he's actually regressed in many ways. Remember back in 1992 when he was all hot and bothered about the songwriting lawsuit? Then he *won* the lawsuit, and then for some random reason about 20 years later started whining and complaining about the songwriting thing *again.* It seems sometimes he not only can't help himself when it comes to being negative, he maybe somehow relishes it. The only thing he can be positive about are vapid and ill-conceived items like his new single.

[KDS]

With The Beach Boys yeah, mostly all of the above. Do the last three decades of embarrassing antics hurt the 60s/70s music catalogue? Of course not, that music is solidified in time as some of the greatest ever made. Do the last three decades of embarrassing antics hurt the image of the band? Yes.

Rab, I somewhat agree with what you're saying.  Though, I don't agree that as many will dwell on it. 

But, I would amended this to include the last five decades of antics.   

You can write a book about the career missteps of the band. 

-Releasing Smiley Smile instead of finishing Smile
-Continuing to wear the striped shirts while touring on PS and GV
-Skipping Monterey Pop
-Leaving great songs on the cutting room floor in lieu of not so great ones throughout the 1970s
-Lack of overall quality control on studio albums post Holland
-The failed Brian's Back campaign

This is just off the top of my head.  And there are many fingers to point in many different directions. 

But KDS - It's pretty obvious this new single and video release from Mike whether it's being written off as inconsequential or not has generated a pretty massive if not incredible amount of negative feedback across multiple online outlets, and not just on the so-called "toxic" places of fandom like this forum. At some point the most basic tools and methods of market research would gauge the reactions and conclude something went seriously wrong to generate such a negative public response.

I guess my question is, in your own opinion as a fan what is it about this single and video release that caused such a bad response from the public? I know there are always attempts to write it off as "Mike Bashing" and blame it on the usual suspects and toxicity, but holy cow...If this release was designed to bring good vibes and generate positivity for Mike and/or his tour promotion, it laid an egg.

Frankly, I think this single is yet another example of poor management in the BB universe.  

Mike is a businessman, but I don't think he's a particularly good businessman, and seems to know little to nothing about PR.  

Who's in charge here?  Surely, this idea was brought to somebody's attention.  A third remake of the same song in five years, featuring a low level 2-3 hit wonder from the late 1990s.  Why?  What's the benefit?  Who's the target audience?  None of it makes sense, which is why I think it'll fade fast.  

I think the most obvious reason for the bad response is that, it's not good.  Maybe on some ironic, "it's so bad it's good" level, maybe.  But it's not good.  Also, it's repetitive.  A third version of the same song in five years.  Those complaints are valid.  

The third reason is anti Mike bias.  Some people are so anti Mike at this point that they refuse to acknowledge his contributions to the BB's glory years and write off the current touring band as a tribute act.  Does Mike deserve some criticism?  Of course he does.  But, some have taken valid complaints about Mike and formed opinions about the guy and his role in the band that display the same kind of revisionist history that he's often accused of.  

Do I 100% agree with Mike and Bruce (and sometimes David) touring as The Beach Boys?  Not really, and I've stated that before.  But, there's that bad management again.  It was allowed to happen.  And after almost 20 years of touring, I don't see how a rumored Inauguration performance (which didn't even happen) or a crap remake (which did happen and will be quickly forgotten) is cause to rise up and strip the b(r)and name away.  

So, the license was agreed to in 1998.  

Fast forward to 2012, and the ending of C50.  The other big incident that keeps coming up, that I'm not at all convinced we know the truth about.  Again, there's that bad management again.  Surely, somebody could've gotten Brian, Al, and Mike into a room and hashed it out.  That would've been an ideal time to amend the 1998 agreement.  If BRI (Al, Brian, and Carl's family) was going to do anything about it, that was the time (Isn't It Time, indeed).  But, the beat goes on.   We're now in our fifth summer since C50.  If a legit big tour coupled with a really good well received album that sold well wasn't enough to get BRI to say "Hey, something needs to be done about the band name!!!" then a throwaway download only remake isn't either.  

That's my rambling take on the situation.  A little long winded, but due to some commitments, I can really talk too much on here today about it.  

[HeyJude]

It has been a hallmark since at least 1998 to dismiss whatever Mike does as “not a big deal.” It’s the easiest way to dismiss a criticism. “I don’t care” isn’t the same as “not a big deal.” I think some fans either don’t care that much about the band’s legacy or how history will remember them collectively and individually, and/or find it easy to say none of the bad moves Mike makes will impact the legacy at all, because we’ll all be dead and gone and they’ll never have to prove their point.

Take for instance Mike using the BB name. There are fans who see no problem with it. He’s “keeping the music alive.” And that’s not a totally invalid argument. Of course, he does it at the exclusion of other members. But even setting that aside, there is very strong evidence of the downside to Mike using the name. He has devalued the trademark and the brand. By touring with fewer original members and touring *non-stop*, he has to play smaller venues. A major industry guy told Pollstar back in 2012 that Mike’s band’s reputation in the industry was one of a second-tier act. Now, Mike (or I should say the *Trademark*) still does well enough and sells tickets. But the reunion took it to a whole new level, and continuing it would have built up the brand and trademark value even more.

The Beach Boys should be playing arenas alone, and doing larger sheds and whatnot. Instead, Mike’s band has to do what other stretched-thin bands like Journey and Styx have to do, and they play smaller venues or have to do double or triple-bills in some cases to sell more tickets.

I think it’s frankly selfish of fans to say “Hey, if I get to see a more local show at a more intimate venue, I like that more!” There’s a bigger picture here. Of course I’d rather see the Beach Boys in a club or small theater than an arena. But I know what’s good for the brand. They should have been playing Madison Square Garden and Wrigley Field in 2013. The “vital smaller markets” thing is total crap. Sorry people, you’ll have to haul your carcass into “the city” to see them. I’ve had to do it for Brian gigs. I could make a much shorter drive and see Mike’s band at the local Winery. But instead, I’m much happier even though it’s a pain to schlepp all the way into downtown San Francisco to see Brian. Same thing on C50. I schlepped into Berkeley.

[SMiLE Brian]

I think Jude just wrote the proper Eulogy to the C50 and the BBs! Great posts! 

[HeyJude]

The other big incident that keeps coming up, that I'm not at all convinced we know the truth about.  Again, there's that bad management again.  Surely, somebody could've gotten Brian, Al, and Mike into a room and hashed it out.  That would've been an ideal time to amend the 1998 agreement.  If BRI (Al, Brian, and Carl's family) was going to do anything about it, that was the time (Isn't It Time, indeed).  But, the beat goes on.   We're now in our fifth summer since C50.  If a legit big tour coupled with a really good well received album that sold well wasn't enough to get BRI to say "Hey, something needs to be done about the band name!!!" then a throwaway download only remake isn't either.  

What info do you still need about C50? Both Brian and Mike addressed it in their books, and between those sources and various interviews, there's really very little disagreement about how the reunion functionally ended. Mike walked. Even Mike says so. Mike stated why he didn't like the reunion. I'm guessing the others might refute some of his claims, and acknowledge others, and they and other observers and fans would maybe suggest Mike should have sucked it up for the sake of the band and fans.

The conclusion in my opinion is that he hates Melinda more than he loves keeping the band reunited or being with Brian or singing with Brian and Al. If anybody else in the organization had had similar complaints, or if Al had walked at some point and stopped working with Brian, or if anybody could throw some sort of bone to agree with Mike's take on the drawbacks of C50, then I'd put more stock in it.

Mike and Melinda don't mix. Okay, fair enough. But it sounds like everybody *but Mike* was willing to suck it up for the team.

That's why Mike will continue to be remembered, rightly so in my opinion, as the villain of the demise of the C50. Even his own book doesn't really get him off the hook.

[SMiLE Brian]

His book made him look worse in my opinion, showing how emotionally immature he was about about the whole saga.

[guitarfool2002]

Quick reply to KDS - It's a staggering wake-up call, or you'd think it would be at some level within all the management, that this single and video have gotten such a negative response. I don't know how much of that any management or advisors within the BB's organization would have skin in the game since this is Mike's project. Where the band's people have a say involves the Beach Boys brand, but what about the decision from Mike's angle to even go forward with something like this? I don't think anyone as of this afternoon would argue it was a success, especially if generating some positive interest was the goal. That may be the crux of the mystery - Why was this release done in the first place and what about the negativity it seemed to have generated?

[KDS]

The other big incident that keeps coming up, that I'm not at all convinced we know the truth about.  Again, there's that bad management again.  Surely, somebody could've gotten Brian, Al, and Mike into a room and hashed it out.  That would've been an ideal time to amend the 1998 agreement.  If BRI (Al, Brian, and Carl's family) was going to do anything about it, that was the time (Isn't It Time, indeed).  But, the beat goes on.   We're now in our fifth summer since C50.  If a legit big tour coupled with a really good well received album that sold well wasn't enough to get BRI to say "Hey, something needs to be done about the band name!!!" then a throwaway download only remake isn't either.  

What info do you still need about C50. Both Brian and Mike addressed it in their books, and between those sources and various interviews, there's really very little disagreement about how the reunion functionally ended. Mike walked. Even Mike says so. Mike stated why he didn't like the reunion. I'm guessing the others might refute some of his claims, and acknowledge others, and they and other observers and fans would maybe suggest Mike should have sucked it up for the sake of the band and fans.

The conclusion in my opinion is that he hates Melinda more than he loves keeping the band reunited or being with Brian or singing with Brian and Al. If anybody else in the organization had had similar complaints, or if Al had walked at some point and stopped working with Brian, or if anybody could throw some sort of bone to agree with Mike's take on the drawbacks of C50, then I'd put more stock in it.

Mike and Melinda don't mix. Okay, fair enough. But it sounds like everybody *but Mike* was willing to suck it up for the team.

That's why Mike will continue to be remembered, rightly so in my opinion, as the villain of the demise of the C50. Even his own book doesn't really get him off the hook.

Frankly, I thought there was going to be more in the books about the ending of the reunion.  

Mike v Melinda is, I believe, an interesting an somewhat unexplored topic.  Mike has made some cryptic comments, but I always feel like there's a story he's not telling.  Did Melinda want Brian Wilson to keep touring as Brian Wilson?  That's a question that I think is rarely asked.  Is it true?  I don't know.  

[KDS]

Quick reply to KDS - It's a staggering wake-up call, or you'd think it would be at some level within all the management, that this single and video have gotten such a negative response. I don't know how much of that any management or advisors within the BB's organization would have skin in the game since this is Mike's project. Where the band's people have a say involves the Beach Boys brand, but what about the decision from Mike's angle to even go forward with something like this? I don't think anyone as of this afternoon would argue it was a success, especially if generating some positive interest was the goal. That may be the crux of the mystery - Why was this release done in the first place and what about the negativity it seemed to have generated?

Like I said, he knows little to nothing about PR. 

[CenturyDeprived]

Frankly, I thought there was going to be more in the books about the ending of the reunion.  

Mike v Melinda is, I believe, an interesting an somewhat unexplored topic.  Mike has made some cryptic comments, but I always feel like there's a story he's not telling.  Did Melinda want Brian Wilson to keep touring as Brian Wilson?  That's a question that I think is rarely asked.  Is it true?  I don't know.  

Melinda is probably one of the few people to actually call Mike out on his own BS. Let's face it: how many people in The BBs' circle have ever stood up to Mike? I mean really firmly stood up to him, in a manner that made it so that he could not simply just "get his way"? Even Brian when writing PS + Smile was pressured into saying "okay Mike, next album you can be the main cowriter". Nobody likes being told what to do, or being told that they are acting in an egotistical, inappropriate way, let alone a 70+ year old man; I get that. So Mike hates her, most likely. But I don't think there's really much more to it than that.

[guitarfool2002]

I'd like to add a few thoughts about divisiveness versus positivity. We discuss all the time things like this DIA release that seem to alienate the more invested fans and generate negative public responses.

Just consider which two events of, say, the past 15 years or so have been those which have brought both fans and general public together in celebration of this band and the music.

Without blinking an eye or thinking too hard, I'd cite both C50 and Brian's Smile tour, even more specifically the premiere run of live performances at RFH.

Fans were united in feeling good about all of that. The TWGMTR "reunion" album sold enough to go top 5 on the album charts. Brian's Smile premiere just made the Rolling Stone list of top 50 concerts of all time. Fans loved what was happening during C50, I remember personally and specifically hanging close to my computer the night of the RFH premiere Smile show to hear details coming in from fans who were there reporting back.

It felt like a community, a community sharing positive experiences.

Now consider that Mike has talked down about both of those events. He cited the Smile live shows in his 2005 lawsuit as grounds that Brian was harming the brand and the low quality of the performances was a factor. Mike talked down both C50 and the album, and we learn in the book that he almost left the tour over personal squabbles. It didn't suit his expectations, or needs, or whatever the case. The album lacked a single, it wasn't commercial enough...yet it still went top 5 and got the band back in the public eye with an air of good vibes and a welcome return to making new albums.

The contradictions in all that, of Mike's feelings and criticisms versus the positive response of the public and the hardcore fans, should be blatantly obvious. Maybe that's the issue underlying all of this.

[guitarfool2002]

Quick reply to KDS - It's a staggering wake-up call, or you'd think it would be at some level within all the management, that this single and video have gotten such a negative response. I don't know how much of that any management or advisors within the BB's organization would have skin in the game since this is Mike's project. Where the band's people have a say involves the Beach Boys brand, but what about the decision from Mike's angle to even go forward with something like this? I don't think anyone as of this afternoon would argue it was a success, especially if generating some positive interest was the goal. That may be the crux of the mystery - Why was this release done in the first place and what about the negativity it seemed to have generated?

Like I said, he knows little to nothing about PR. 

Yet we have been told numerous times what a keen commercial sense Mike has and applies to his business dealings and decisions, aside from running his ventures "lean and mean". Maybe it's not such a keen sense of the commercial after all.

[CenturyDeprived]

I'd like to add a few thoughts about divisiveness versus positivity. We discuss all the time things like this DIA release that seem to alienate the more invested fans and generate negative public responses.

Just consider which two events of, say, the past 15 years or so have been those which have brought both fans and general public together in celebration of this band and the music.

Without blinking an eye or thinking too hard, I'd cite both C50 and Brian's Smile tour, even more specifically the premiere run of live performances at RFH.

Fans were united in feeling good about all of that. The TWGMTR "reunion" album sold enough to go top 5 on the album charts. Brian's Smile premiere just made the Rolling Stone list of top 50 concerts of all time. Fans loved what was happening during C50, I remember personally and specifically hanging close to my computer the night of the RFH premiere Smile show to hear details coming in from fans who were there reporting back.

It felt like a community, a community sharing positive experiences.

Now consider that Mike has talked down about both of those events. He cited the Smile live shows in his 2005 lawsuit as grounds that Brian was harming the brand and the low quality of the performances was a factor. Mike talked down both C50 and the album, and we learn in the book that he almost left the tour over personal squabbles. It didn't suit his expectations, or needs, or whatever the case. The album lacked a single, it wasn't commercial enough...yet it still went top 5 and got the band back in the public eye with an air of good vibes and a welcome return to making new albums.

The contradictions in all that, of Mike's feelings and criticisms versus the positive response of the public and the hardcore fans, should be blatantly obvious. Maybe that's the issue underlying all of this.

Mike does not want to see Brian succeed musically and critically in a big way without him. I mean, seriously. It must eat away at Mike to see Brian getting accolades for solo work, or for the vast majority of Smile/Pet Sounds material that didn't involve Mike in a cowriting capacity. Because it just feeds his insecurity. And hence, he overreacts and overcompensates in extremely toxic ways. It is very, very, very sad.

Mike's never given any kind of proper (not underhanded) compliment towards Brian's solo work, as far as I know. Ever.

The brilliant SMiLE, in Mike's recent Billboard interview for DIA '17, is disparagingly referred to as merely some sort of "tangent"...and even Pet Sounds has now become the victim of Mike's revisionist wet dreams where he has stated recently that he should have been a cowriter to make it more commercial, because of course it was clearly missing something.

And none of the sycophants around him apparently care enough to try and get Mike to gain any kind of emotionally healthy perspective on this. Just like 45's sycophants, nobody wants to be cut out of what they're betting on getting. The sad truth.

[HeyJude]

The other big incident that keeps coming up, that I'm not at all convinced we know the truth about.  Again, there's that bad management again.  Surely, somebody could've gotten Brian, Al, and Mike into a room and hashed it out.  That would've been an ideal time to amend the 1998 agreement.  If BRI (Al, Brian, and Carl's family) was going to do anything about it, that was the time (Isn't It Time, indeed).  But, the beat goes on.   We're now in our fifth summer since C50.  If a legit big tour coupled with a really good well received album that sold well wasn't enough to get BRI to say "Hey, something needs to be done about the band name!!!" then a throwaway download only remake isn't either.  

What info do you still need about C50. Both Brian and Mike addressed it in their books, and between those sources and various interviews, there's really very little disagreement about how the reunion functionally ended. Mike walked. Even Mike says so. Mike stated why he didn't like the reunion. I'm guessing the others might refute some of his claims, and acknowledge others, and they and other observers and fans would maybe suggest Mike should have sucked it up for the sake of the band and fans.

The conclusion in my opinion is that he hates Melinda more than he loves keeping the band reunited or being with Brian or singing with Brian and Al. If anybody else in the organization had had similar complaints, or if Al had walked at some point and stopped working with Brian, or if anybody could throw some sort of bone to agree with Mike's take on the drawbacks of C50, then I'd put more stock in it.

Mike and Melinda don't mix. Okay, fair enough. But it sounds like everybody *but Mike* was willing to suck it up for the team.

That's why Mike will continue to be remembered, rightly so in my opinion, as the villain of the demise of the C50. Even his own book doesn't really get him off the hook.

Frankly, I thought there was going to be more in the books about the ending of the reunion.  

Mike v Melinda is, I believe, an interesting an somewhat unexplored topic.  Mike has made some cryptic comments, but I always feel like there's a story he's not telling.  Did Melinda want Brian Wilson to keep touring as Brian Wilson?  That's a question that I think is rarely asked.  Is it true?  I don't know.  

As in, you think Melinda wanted Brian to tour as "Brian Wilson" instead of with the Beach Boys in 2012/2013? I think the opposite is actually true, and clearly so.

I don't think there's anything particularly murky about Brian and Melinda's attitude towards Brian doing solo stuff. In the late 90s, Brian clearly had NO interest in doing anything with "The Beach Boys" once Carl was gone. So he just left Mike to his own devices. Al was kinda left out in the cold, but Brian was on to his own thing.

I think they wanted to build Brian's solo career based on both not wanting to work with Mike's "Beach Boys", and to continue to build up and capitalize on the indie cred he was getting due to the uptick in interest in PS and Smile and all of that. I think by 2012 both Brian and Melinda were open to going back to the BBs. At first, just to try it out. By the end of it, Brian was happy being a Beach Boy for the first time in eons. Mike is the one who put the kibosh on that.

There was and is really no way to unring the bell that is Mike's grasp on the BB name. The BRI members who voted to give Mike the license in 1999 (meaning Carl's estate and presumably Brian, but not Al who most likely voted against it) are responsible for creating that problem. But in 2012 or 2017, what people keep missing is that it's no longer as simple as "BRI could vote to take the license away today." As has been explained numerous times, even if all three other BRI member convened today to strip Mike of the name, it could easily get tied up in litigation for the rest of their lives. Not wanting to kick that hornet's nest is probably a big part of why Brian and Al are stuck letting Mike use the name. They could challenge it, but they'd just pay out hundreds of thousands if not millions to lawyers to make it happen, and they'd all probably be dead by the time it was resolved.

I guess if Brian and Al really want to pay lawyers a few million to hopefully allow for Carnie Wilson and Matt Jardine to get the license in 2027, then they could do that. That *might* work.

[KDS]

The other big incident that keeps coming up, that I'm not at all convinced we know the truth about.  Again, there's that bad management again.  Surely, somebody could've gotten Brian, Al, and Mike into a room and hashed it out.  That would've been an ideal time to amend the 1998 agreement.  If BRI (Al, Brian, and Carl's family) was going to do anything about it, that was the time (Isn't It Time, indeed).  But, the beat goes on.   We're now in our fifth summer since C50.  If a legit big tour coupled with a really good well received album that sold well wasn't enough to get BRI to say "Hey, something needs to be done about the band name!!!" then a throwaway download only remake isn't either.  

What info do you still need about C50. Both Brian and Mike addressed it in their books, and between those sources and various interviews, there's really very little disagreement about how the reunion functionally ended. Mike walked. Even Mike says so. Mike stated why he didn't like the reunion. I'm guessing the others might refute some of his claims, and acknowledge others, and they and other observers and fans would maybe suggest Mike should have sucked it up for the sake of the band and fans.

The conclusion in my opinion is that he hates Melinda more than he loves keeping the band reunited or being with Brian or singing with Brian and Al. If anybody else in the organization had had similar complaints, or if Al had walked at some point and stopped working with Brian, or if anybody could throw some sort of bone to agree with Mike's take on the drawbacks of C50, then I'd put more stock in it.

Mike and Melinda don't mix. Okay, fair enough. But it sounds like everybody *but Mike* was willing to suck it up for the team.

That's why Mike will continue to be remembered, rightly so in my opinion, as the villain of the demise of the C50. Even his own book doesn't really get him off the hook.

Frankly, I thought there was going to be more in the books about the ending of the reunion.  

Mike v Melinda is, I believe, an interesting an somewhat unexplored topic.  Mike has made some cryptic comments, but I always feel like there's a story he's not telling.  Did Melinda want Brian Wilson to keep touring as Brian Wilson?  That's a question that I think is rarely asked.  Is it true?  I don't know.  

As in, you think Melinda wanted Brian to tour as "Brian Wilson" instead of with the Beach Boys in 2012/2013? I think the opposite is actually true, and clearly so.

It's a theory that I can't agree or disagree with due to lack of facts.  I just think it's possible. 

[HeyJude]

It's a theory that I can't agree or disagree with due to lack of facts.  I just think it's possible. 

That's pretty specious reasoning in my opinion. I could say that Mike wanted to marry Melinda during the 2012 tour, and we don't really have any facts that prove or disprove that either.

I think there's zero evidence Melinda wanted Brian to leave the BBs in 2012. The fact that Brian participated in a 73-date tour with the band, produced and wrote their album, had plans to write and produce another, and wanted to book gigs at Wrigley Field and Madison Square Garden would all tend to undercut this weird claim.

The only thing this claim could possibly do is absolve Mike of the blame for ending C50, which seems pretty convenient. Even *Mike* doesn't refute that Brian wanted to continue the reunion and he (Mike) didn't.

Further, why would Brian and Melinda continue to work with David Marks and Al Jardine on tour in 2013 if she wanted to separate Brian from the band and go back to being "solo."

Not to mention, Brian doing solo stuff and being in the BBs wouldn't have been mutually exclusive anyway.

So I'm calling bulls**t on this "theory." Meanwhile, what if Mike secretly was upset about TWGMTR because he *actually* wanted to write with Joe Thomas, not Brian? What if it was David Marks that secretly was behind the autotune? What if Mike was the one who actually didn't want Ambha to sing "Sail on Sailor" and was secretly hoping Melinda would successfully get that dropped from that setlist? I can make up all sorts of fun stuff.

[KDS]

It's a theory that I can't agree or disagree with due to lack of facts.  I just think it's possible. 

That's pretty specious reasoning in my opinion. I could say that Mike wanted to marry Melinda during the 2012 tour, and we don't really have any facts that prove or disprove that either.

I think there's zero evidence Melinda wanted Brian to leave the BBs in 2012. The fact that Brian participated in a 73-date tour with the band, produced and wrote their album, had plans to write and produce another, and wanted to book gigs at Wrigley Field and Madison Square Garden would all tend to undercut this weird claim.

The only thing this claim could possibly do is absolve Mike of the blame for ending C50, which seems pretty convenient. Even *Mike* doesn't refute that Brian wanted to continue the reunion and he (Mike) didn't.

Further, why would Brian and Melinda continue to work with David Marks and Al Jardine on tour in 2013 if she wanted to separate Brian from the band and go back to being "solo."

Not to mention, Brian doing solo stuff and being in the BBs wouldn't have been mutually exclusive anyway.

So I'm calling bulls**t on this "theory." Meanwhile, what if Mike secretly was upset about TWGMTR because he *actually* wanted to write with Joe Thomas, not Brian? What if it was David Marks that secretly was behind the autotune? What if Mike was the one who actually didn't want Ambha to sing "Sail on Sailor" and was secretly hoping Melinda would successfully get that dropped from that setlist? I can make up all sorts of fun stuff.

I never said it was my theory. 

[HeyJude]

It's a theory that I can't agree or disagree with due to lack of facts.  I just think it's possible.  

That's pretty specious reasoning in my opinion. I could say that Mike wanted to marry Melinda during the 2012 tour, and we don't really have any facts that prove or disprove that either.

I think there's zero evidence Melinda wanted Brian to leave the BBs in 2012. The fact that Brian participated in a 73-date tour with the band, produced and wrote their album, had plans to write and produce another, and wanted to book gigs at Wrigley Field and Madison Square Garden would all tend to undercut this weird claim.

The only thing this claim could possibly do is absolve Mike of the blame for ending C50, which seems pretty convenient. Even *Mike* doesn't refute that Brian wanted to continue the reunion and he (Mike) didn't.

Further, why would Brian and Melinda continue to work with David Marks and Al Jardine on tour in 2013 if she wanted to separate Brian from the band and go back to being "solo."

Not to mention, Brian doing solo stuff and being in the BBs wouldn't have been mutually exclusive anyway.

So I'm calling bulls**t on this "theory." Meanwhile, what if Mike secretly was upset about TWGMTR because he *actually* wanted to write with Joe Thomas, not Brian? What if it was David Marks that secretly was behind the autotune? What if Mike was the one who actually didn't want Ambha to sing "Sail on Sailor" and was secretly hoping Melinda would successfully get that dropped from that setlist? I can make up all sorts of fun stuff.

I never said it was my theory.  

But you're forwarding it, only to keep it at arm's length by saying you can't confirm or disprove.

I can also forward a theory that Ed Carter broke up the reunion, and I can say it's not *my* theory, and I can say I don't know whether it's true or not.

Whether it was intended or not, it's kind of a classic tactic to advance a theory/accusation, etc. by throwing it out there but saying it's someone else's "theory" and that it can't be proved or disproved.

What's more perplexing in this case is that the *existence* of the C50 reunion disproves the theory outright. By all accounts including insiders, the reunion *happened* in large part due to Melinda and Jackie Love. I'm not sure where a theory fits in that posits Melinda didn't want Brian to do the reunion.

What's even more intriguing is that there is *much stronger* circumstantial evidence in my opinion that it was *Mike* that never particularly wanted to do the reunion but maybe only did it for a big fat advance, and even then couldn't stomach it longer than the one album and tour.

[Jim V.]

If a legit big tour coupled with a really good well received album that sold well wasn't enough to get BRI to say "Hey, something needs to be done about the band name!!!" then a throwaway download only remake isn't either.

I don't agree with you a lot KDS, but that right there really did say it. If Brian and/or Al wanted to press the issue 2012 probably woulda been the best time, especially as Mike's back really was to wall as far as public opinion at the end of that tour with the way he handled it. As the years have went on, part of me suspects Brian doesn't really mind anymore, and though Al isn't happy about The Beach Boys status, he's happy to be touring with Brian, Blondie and his son.

[KDS]

If a legit big tour coupled with a really good well received album that sold well wasn't enough to get BRI to say "Hey, something needs to be done about the band name!!!" then a throwaway download only remake isn't either.

I don't agree with you a lot KDS, but that right there really did say it. If Brian and/or Al wanted to press the issue 2012 probably woulda been the best time, especially as Mike's back really was to wall as far as public opinion at the end of that tour with the way he handled it. As the years have went on, part of me suspects Brian doesn't really mind anymore, and though Al isn't happy about The Beach Boys status, he's happy to be touring with Brian, Blondie and his son.

In fact, if I were Brian and Al, before even agreeing to return for C50, Id have said, if after these summer shows, we go back to business as usual, the name needs to be changed to "Mike Love's Beach Boys."

[guitarfool2002]

I'd like to add a few thoughts about divisiveness versus positivity. We discuss all the time things like this DIA release that seem to alienate the more invested fans and generate negative public responses.

Just consider which two events of, say, the past 15 years or so have been those which have brought both fans and general public together in celebration of this band and the music.

Without blinking an eye or thinking too hard, I'd cite both C50 and Brian's Smile tour, even more specifically the premiere run of live performances at RFH.

Fans were united in feeling good about all of that. The TWGMTR "reunion" album sold enough to go top 5 on the album charts. Brian's Smile premiere just made the Rolling Stone list of top 50 concerts of all time. Fans loved what was happening during C50, I remember personally and specifically hanging close to my computer the night of the RFH premiere Smile show to hear details coming in from fans who were there reporting back.

It felt like a community, a community sharing positive experiences.

Now consider that Mike has talked down about both of those events. He cited the Smile live shows in his 2005 lawsuit as grounds that Brian was harming the brand and the low quality of the performances was a factor. Mike talked down both C50 and the album, and we learn in the book that he almost left the tour over personal squabbles. It didn't suit his expectations, or needs, or whatever the case. The album lacked a single, it wasn't commercial enough...yet it still went top 5 and got the band back in the public eye with an air of good vibes and a welcome return to making new albums.

The contradictions in all that, of Mike's feelings and criticisms versus the positive response of the public and the hardcore fans, should be blatantly obvious. Maybe that's the issue underlying all of this.

Mike does not want to see Brian succeed musically and critically in a big way without him. I mean, seriously. It must eat away at Mike to see Brian getting accolades for solo work, or for the vast majority of Smile/Pet Sounds material that didn't involve Mike in a cowriting capacity. Because it just feeds his insecurity. And hence, he overreacts and overcompensates in extremely toxic ways. It is very, very, very sad.

Mike's never given any kind of proper (not underhanded) compliment towards Brian's solo work, as far as I know. Ever.

The brilliant SMiLE, in Mike's recent Billboard interview for DIA '17, is disparagingly referred to as merely some sort of "tangent"...and even Pet Sounds has now become the victim of Mike's revisionist wet dreams where he has stated recently that he should have been a cowriter to make it more commercial, because of course it was clearly missing something.

And none of the sycophants around him apparently care enough to try and get Mike to gain any kind of emotionally healthy perspective on this. Just like 45's sycophants, nobody wants to be cut out of what they're betting on getting. The sad truth.

It is amazing to me to see it laid out as concrete examples where both the public and the press/media/critics/etc can heap praise on the same events or releases that Mike publicly criticizes. And beyond that, he falls back on the same dodge tactic he's been using for almost 30 years - "I haven't seen it", "I haven't heard it", "I haven't read it", etc. It's worse than giving an honest opinion even if it's negative, at least to me, especially when I doubt many believe Mike has not taken 3 minutes to listen to a single by his former bandmates so he could at least be aware of what's happening within the business organization.

It is probably most revealing to see how all the praise and the sales numbers and the good vibes coming from fans and the media is for the very same things Mike speaks of critically. The 2005 lawsuit was the nadir, easily, and it all came back in recent months with Rolling Stone listing the Smile premiere on their top 50 of all time list after Mike tried to cite how bad it was in a court document.

Unreal.

[SMiLE Brian]

Mike has really pushed the BBs fans' willingness to forgive to the limit.....