Mike Love in New Issue of Mojo - "I'm always blamed! It's horsesh*t!"

[Amy B.]

"When somebody in your family suffers from a mental illness, sometimes it's gone past the opportunity to have a normal relationship," he says. "I mean, there may be a feeling that, ideally, you would like to see peace in the family. And I have nothing but sympathy for Brian. But when you say 'peace,' that would presuppose everything is peaceful. Well, when somebody has chosen a path or direction in life that has led to some pretty unhappy situations, everything isn't all right."

This is why I've said before that Mike needs  to go to therapy. Obviously he has never sorted out his relationship with Brian, nor why he resents him. More than that, he isn't even sure whether to blame the mental illness or the path Brian *chose* (since mental illness is not a choice). And maybe if he dealt with that, with his resentment about Brian, Dennis, Murry, etc., he could get a grip and control his anger in interviews, and stop sabotaging his relationships with his words.

I'm a fan of Rufus Wainwright, whose relationship with his dad, Loudon Wainwright, has been rocky. He has said that in the beginning of his career he made the mistake of using interviews as therapy, or opportunities to vent his anger and frustration. But he learned that it wasn't the time or place, and that it would only fan the fire, making his relationship with his dad more difficult. He learned that sometime in his 20s. Well, Mike Love is 76 years old. It's time to get some help dealing with his anger and resentment. It's been said over and over, but the TM isn't working.

[Juice Brohnston]

But, I digress. If people want to argue for and defend Mike's multiple and sometimes changing "reasons", from Mike not wanting to risk overexposure to the tour losing money to there being a "set end date" to Mike being contractually obligated to play with his smaller band to Mike saying it came down to an email sent in early June 2012 to Mike suggesting anything that might still come out that wasn't in his book or a Mojo interview or an interview in the Kokomo Gazette...have at it.

And all of these things may have played a part in Mike's decision to pull the plug. It might have been overexposed if it carried on. There was a set end date, and maybe Mike had shows booked on that timeline. I know there were a lot of half full venues on that tour. Maybe there was an email.

I loved that tour, but I never got the feeling that it was going to go on forever. And I'll say it...I bet it is stressful touring with Brian.

More or less stressful than touring with Mike? C'mon, Juice...

What or where were the "a lot of half full venues" on that tour? It was reported as the tour was happening as exceeding expectations on sales and attendance which led to more and bigger offers coming in. The numbers are available. The official numbers after the tour wrapped would not be where they were if it were a flop that played to half-capacity venues. There would be no reason to extend it by adding almost 2 dozen more shows if it were a flop. There would not be such interest and industry buzz if the norm was the C50 shows playing to a lot of half-full venues, unless the expectations and projections were  that they'd play to 1/4 full venues and half-full venues exceeded those expectations. That's #MottLogic.

I'll ask again, specifically in reply to this even though it's repeating the same thing yet again: What was the context of this email, and what came before it in the email chain?

Juice: Do you believe all of this hinged on a lone email, that without context would seem to have appeared out of the blue and hammered the final nail in the C50 coffin rather than as a reply or a follow-up to something else, or at least within a context?

My thoughts are that Mike made a decision that 'his' Beach Boys was better for him in the long run then the reunited band, and I'm not saying his reasoning is specifically what he has claimed in interviews. I have no knowledge of the email or emails that came before it, but my point is that all these factors MAY have influenced Mike's decision that he was better off in the M&B format.

Yes (just my opinion) but I think Brian would pose some additional stressors to the tour. His back was bothering him early on. I think there was some discussion on whether or not he was going to make it through the tour (certainly was some talk about it here and on other boards, I recall) Great that he did make it, and it seemed to kickstart a more rigourous solo schedule, which is great.

A snapshot of box office data on Wikipedia shows about an 87%capcity for shows. But, for example, The Bell Centre show there is listed at being 88% sold, but the attendance was 5000 in a 20000 seat venue. I guess you can manipulate those numbers any way you want. Again, don't want to make it sound like I'm saying the tour WAS over exposed, but over time one might expect diminishing returns if it carried on.

[guitarfool2002]

One e-mail from Brian Wilson's wife expressed his unwillingness to continue touring.  Whatever led up to it, that e-mail was crystal clear.  And then at some point thereafter, Brian's desire to tour changed.  I don't get why Brian or his wife didn't go to Mike and try to work something out for more shows.  Maybe they did and it hasn't been reported.  It seems apparent that Mike and Melinda don't get along, and if Melinda's e-mail was a bluff, it was a foolish move.  Mike Love is strong willed and doesn't want to be second banana to the wife of a rock star.  And the soap opera continues.     

Why are you seemingly ignoring the issue of what emails or exchanges could exist which would lead up to this email as a reply or response? The focus is entirely on one lone email with no context. Without context as in before and after, it is impossible to say what could have led to it, unless you're trying to do what Mike and Doe and others have done in citing that email as the Rosetta Stone of what happened, and absolve Mike of being blamed for what happened with C50.

Again, what is the context of that email? If, of course, the email was as vital as anything else that happened.

[SMiLE Brian]

It’s a red herring...

[guitarfool2002]

But, I digress. If people want to argue for and defend Mike's multiple and sometimes changing "reasons", from Mike not wanting to risk overexposure to the tour losing money to there being a "set end date" to Mike being contractually obligated to play with his smaller band to Mike saying it came down to an email sent in early June 2012 to Mike suggesting anything that might still come out that wasn't in his book or a Mojo interview or an interview in the Kokomo Gazette...have at it.

And all of these things may have played a part in Mike's decision to pull the plug. It might have been overexposed if it carried on. There was a set end date, and maybe Mike had shows booked on that timeline. I know there were a lot of half full venues on that tour. Maybe there was an email.

I loved that tour, but I never got the feeling that it was going to go on forever. And I'll say it...I bet it is stressful touring with Brian.

More or less stressful than touring with Mike? C'mon, Juice...

What or where were the "a lot of half full venues" on that tour? It was reported as the tour was happening as exceeding expectations on sales and attendance which led to more and bigger offers coming in. The numbers are available. The official numbers after the tour wrapped would not be where they were if it were a flop that played to half-capacity venues. There would be no reason to extend it by adding almost 2 dozen more shows if it were a flop. There would not be such interest and industry buzz if the norm was the C50 shows playing to a lot of half-full venues, unless the expectations and projections were  that they'd play to 1/4 full venues and half-full venues exceeded those expectations. That's #MottLogic.

I'll ask again, specifically in reply to this even though it's repeating the same thing yet again: What was the context of this email, and what came before it in the email chain?

Juice: Do you believe all of this hinged on a lone email, that without context would seem to have appeared out of the blue and hammered the final nail in the C50 coffin rather than as a reply or a follow-up to something else, or at least within a context?

My thoughts are that Mike made a decision that 'his' Beach Boys was better for him in the long run then the reunited band, and I'm not saying his reasoning is specifically what he has claimed in interviews. I have no knowledge of the email or emails that came before it, but my point is that all these factors MAY have influenced Mike's decision that he was better off in the M&B format.

Yes (just my opinion) but I think Brian would pose some additional stressors to the tour. His back was bothering him early on. I think there was some discussion on whether or not he was going to make it through the tour (certainly was some talk about it here and on other boards, I recall) Great that he did make it, and it seemed to kickstart a more rigourous solo schedule, which is great.

A snapshot of box office data on Wikipedia shows about an 87%capcity for shows. But, for example, The Bell Centre show there is listed at being 88% sold, but the attendance was 5000 in a 20000 seat venue. I guess you can manipulate those numbers any way you want. Again, don't want to make it sound like I'm saying the tour WAS over exposed, but over time one might expect diminishing returns if it carried on.

87% or thereabouts - That was the point. Even taking that as conservatively as we can, it's hardly proof that a lot of the shows were "half full", which was what I was responding to. And the numbers are out there, published, in terms of the financial returns on that tour. It was a success.

I would also suggest that bigger, higher-profile booking agents and venues would not have been knocking on C50's door asking to book the show if it were playing to half capacity audiences.

The nature of concert seating is different than sports events too. The Beach Boys had a large video screen and a rather elaborate backline and stage design...the seats behind that stage, for one example, may not have been opened for sale if there would be no view of the band. I remember McCartney at the Vet, almost 30 years ago, and the entire sections of seats behind Macca's stage were closed off because there would be no view if people bought those seats. That took potentially thousands of seats away from the pool, so the capacity was not reached because of the sections being closed, yet both shows he did that weekend were sold out.

Same for C50 I'd imagine.

I guess the fact Mike offered numerous reasons, as I listed above, in response to direct questions about C50 or in press releases, further repeated by people around him, and they're different depending on which version of the answer you read. It doesn't add up, and it sounds like Mike is spinning off excuses yet again to deflect from the criticism he got when his decision was announced.

And I don't think Mike - and this is just opinion - wanted to be second banana on more C50 shows. Second banana not to Brian Wilson, but more second banana to the notion of a real Beach Boys band with all original surviving members sharing the stage. Mike was a band member again rather than the focus of attention, and I think that didn't sit well with him.

Plus, his word on decisions from setlists to including John Stamos in the shows was not taken as unquestionable law, and was instead challenged by those around him. He was not the boss. Again, that's just personal opinion from me...but something to consider.

[Juice Brohnston]

But, I digress. If people want to argue for and defend Mike's multiple and sometimes changing "reasons", from Mike not wanting to risk overexposure to the tour losing money to there being a "set end date" to Mike being contractually obligated to play with his smaller band to Mike saying it came down to an email sent in early June 2012 to Mike suggesting anything that might still come out that wasn't in his book or a Mojo interview or an interview in the Kokomo Gazette...have at it.

And all of these things may have played a part in Mike's decision to pull the plug. It might have been overexposed if it carried on. There was a set end date, and maybe Mike had shows booked on that timeline. I know there were a lot of half full venues on that tour. Maybe there was an email.

I loved that tour, but I never got the feeling that it was going to go on forever. And I'll say it...I bet it is stressful touring with Brian.

More or less stressful than touring with Mike? C'mon, Juice...

What or where were the "a lot of half full venues" on that tour? It was reported as the tour was happening as exceeding expectations on sales and attendance which led to more and bigger offers coming in. The numbers are available. The official numbers after the tour wrapped would not be where they were if it were a flop that played to half-capacity venues. There would be no reason to extend it by adding almost 2 dozen more shows if it were a flop. There would not be such interest and industry buzz if the norm was the C50 shows playing to a lot of half-full venues, unless the expectations and projections were  that they'd play to 1/4 full venues and half-full venues exceeded those expectations. That's #MottLogic.

I'll ask again, specifically in reply to this even though it's repeating the same thing yet again: What was the context of this email, and what came before it in the email chain?

Juice: Do you believe all of this hinged on a lone email, that without context would seem to have appeared out of the blue and hammered the final nail in the C50 coffin rather than as a reply or a follow-up to something else, or at least within a context?

My thoughts are that Mike made a decision that 'his' Beach Boys was better for him in the long run then the reunited band, and I'm not saying his reasoning is specifically what he has claimed in interviews. I have no knowledge of the email or emails that came before it, but my point is that all these factors MAY have influenced Mike's decision that he was better off in the M&B format.

Yes (just my opinion) but I think Brian would pose some additional stressors to the tour. His back was bothering him early on. I think there was some discussion on whether or not he was going to make it through the tour (certainly was some talk about it here and on other boards, I recall) Great that he did make it, and it seemed to kickstart a more rigourous solo schedule, which is great.

A snapshot of box office data on Wikipedia shows about an 87%capcity for shows. But, for example, The Bell Centre show there is listed at being 88% sold, but the attendance was 5000 in a 20000 seat venue. I guess you can manipulate those numbers any way you want. Again, don't want to make it sound like I'm saying the tour WAS over exposed, but over time one might expect diminishing returns if it carried on.

87% or thereabouts - That was the point. Even taking that as conservatively as we can, it's hardly proof that a lot of the shows were "half full", which was what I was responding to. And the numbers are out there, published, in terms of the financial returns on that tour. It was a success.

I would also suggest that bigger, higher-profile booking agents and venues would not have been knocking on C50's door asking to book the show if it were playing to half capacity audiences.

The nature of concert seating is different than sports events too. The Beach Boys had a large video screen and a rather elaborate backline and stage design...the seats behind that stage, for one example, may not have been opened for sale if there would be no view of the band. I remember McCartney at the Vet, almost 30 years ago, and the entire sections of seats behind Macca's stage were closed off because there would be no view if people bought those seats. That took potentially thousands of seats away from the pool, so the capacity was not reached because of the sections being closed, yet both shows he did that weekend were sold out.

Same for C50 I'd imagine.

I guess the fact Mike offered numerous reasons, as I listed above, in response to direct questions about C50 or in press releases, further repeated by people around him, and they're different depending on which version of the answer you read. It doesn't add up, and it sounds like Mike is spinning off excuses yet again to deflect from the criticism he got when his decision was announced.

And I don't think Mike - and this is just opinion - wanted to be second banana on more C50 shows. Second banana not to Brian Wilson, but more second banana to the notion of a real Beach Boys band with all original surviving members sharing the stage. Mike was a band member again rather than the focus of attention, and I think that didn't sit well with him.

Plus, his word on decisions from setlists to including John Stamos in the shows was not taken as unquestionable law, and was instead challenged by those around him. He was not the boss. Again, that's just personal opinion from me...but something to consider.

See, Guitarfool, you are getting down to the much more pertinent picture in your last 2 paragraphs. Of course this is the reason. If the tour went off without a hitch, and more money was rolling in and there were no conflicts, Mike would have still reverted back to M&B. I'm sure of it. For the reasons you speculate, and probably a few other ones as well. The emails, the booked M&B shows, the potential overexposure...all of those things are easy for Mike to point at as the reason(s), because it's surely tough for him to say 'you know, even though M&B is not the true band, I like it better because I get the glory and it actually puts more money in my pocket'. And all those things might have added to the incentive to revert back..but the main reason was M&B is Mike's kingdom.

BTW, I speculate (with zero evidence) that Bruce probably longed to get back to the M&B format, and maybe even had some influence in Mike's decision.

[marcella27]

Can someone explain to me what Mike's referring to here? What does this have to do with Carl?

As Brian’s ability to functionally lead The
Beach Boys faded, why didn’t Carl step up
and take over leadership of the band?

I think he did, to a degree, but he experienced
his own problems. There’s so much stuff that’s
salacious… we should have that conversation at
another time. Because you cannot imagine how
degenerate and depraved and disgusting the
whole thing became. It’s beyond disgusting.

I think this is the weirdest Mike Love quote I’ve ever read.  A question about Carl elicits the words “salacious, depraved, disgusting, degenerate”?  Those are some pretty fiery words.  What is he referring to when he says “the whole thing” was so disgusting?  This really boggles my mind. 

As an aside, it’s a weird question, because Carl did pretty much take over leadership of the band...certainly the musical aspects, for a time. 

[guitarfool2002]

But, I digress. If people want to argue for and defend Mike's multiple and sometimes changing "reasons", from Mike not wanting to risk overexposure to the tour losing money to there being a "set end date" to Mike being contractually obligated to play with his smaller band to Mike saying it came down to an email sent in early June 2012 to Mike suggesting anything that might still come out that wasn't in his book or a Mojo interview or an interview in the Kokomo Gazette...have at it.

And all of these things may have played a part in Mike's decision to pull the plug. It might have been overexposed if it carried on. There was a set end date, and maybe Mike had shows booked on that timeline. I know there were a lot of half full venues on that tour. Maybe there was an email.

I loved that tour, but I never got the feeling that it was going to go on forever. And I'll say it...I bet it is stressful touring with Brian.

More or less stressful than touring with Mike? C'mon, Juice...

What or where were the "a lot of half full venues" on that tour? It was reported as the tour was happening as exceeding expectations on sales and attendance which led to more and bigger offers coming in. The numbers are available. The official numbers after the tour wrapped would not be where they were if it were a flop that played to half-capacity venues. There would be no reason to extend it by adding almost 2 dozen more shows if it were a flop. There would not be such interest and industry buzz if the norm was the C50 shows playing to a lot of half-full venues, unless the expectations and projections were  that they'd play to 1/4 full venues and half-full venues exceeded those expectations. That's #MottLogic.

I'll ask again, specifically in reply to this even though it's repeating the same thing yet again: What was the context of this email, and what came before it in the email chain?

Juice: Do you believe all of this hinged on a lone email, that without context would seem to have appeared out of the blue and hammered the final nail in the C50 coffin rather than as a reply or a follow-up to something else, or at least within a context?

My thoughts are that Mike made a decision that 'his' Beach Boys was better for him in the long run then the reunited band, and I'm not saying his reasoning is specifically what he has claimed in interviews. I have no knowledge of the email or emails that came before it, but my point is that all these factors MAY have influenced Mike's decision that he was better off in the M&B format.

Yes (just my opinion) but I think Brian would pose some additional stressors to the tour. His back was bothering him early on. I think there was some discussion on whether or not he was going to make it through the tour (certainly was some talk about it here and on other boards, I recall) Great that he did make it, and it seemed to kickstart a more rigourous solo schedule, which is great.

A snapshot of box office data on Wikipedia shows about an 87%capcity for shows. But, for example, The Bell Centre show there is listed at being 88% sold, but the attendance was 5000 in a 20000 seat venue. I guess you can manipulate those numbers any way you want. Again, don't want to make it sound like I'm saying the tour WAS over exposed, but over time one might expect diminishing returns if it carried on.

87% or thereabouts - That was the point. Even taking that as conservatively as we can, it's hardly proof that a lot of the shows were "half full", which was what I was responding to. And the numbers are out there, published, in terms of the financial returns on that tour. It was a success.

I would also suggest that bigger, higher-profile booking agents and venues would not have been knocking on C50's door asking to book the show if it were playing to half capacity audiences.

The nature of concert seating is different than sports events too. The Beach Boys had a large video screen and a rather elaborate backline and stage design...the seats behind that stage, for one example, may not have been opened for sale if there would be no view of the band. I remember McCartney at the Vet, almost 30 years ago, and the entire sections of seats behind Macca's stage were closed off because there would be no view if people bought those seats. That took potentially thousands of seats away from the pool, so the capacity was not reached because of the sections being closed, yet both shows he did that weekend were sold out.

Same for C50 I'd imagine.

I guess the fact Mike offered numerous reasons, as I listed above, in response to direct questions about C50 or in press releases, further repeated by people around him, and they're different depending on which version of the answer you read. It doesn't add up, and it sounds like Mike is spinning off excuses yet again to deflect from the criticism he got when his decision was announced.

And I don't think Mike - and this is just opinion - wanted to be second banana on more C50 shows. Second banana not to Brian Wilson, but more second banana to the notion of a real Beach Boys band with all original surviving members sharing the stage. Mike was a band member again rather than the focus of attention, and I think that didn't sit well with him.

Plus, his word on decisions from setlists to including John Stamos in the shows was not taken as unquestionable law, and was instead challenged by those around him. He was not the boss. Again, that's just personal opinion from me...but something to consider.

See, Guitarfool, you are getting down to the much more pertinent picture in your last 2 paragraphs. Of course this is the reason. If the tour went off without a hitch, and more money was rolling in and there were no conflicts, Mike would have still reverted back to M&B. I'm sure of it. For the reasons you speculate, and probably a few other ones as well. The emails, the booked M&B shows, the potential overexposure...all of those things are easy for Mike to point at as the reason(s), because it's surely tough for him to say 'you know, even though M&B is not the true band, I like it better because I get the glory and it actually puts more money in my pocket'. And all those things might have added to the incentive to revert back..but the main reason was M&B is Mike's kingdom.

BTW, I speculate (with zero evidence) that Bruce probably longed to get back to the M&B format, and maybe even had some influence in Mike's decision.

Bingo, we agree. This is why it has been so maddening, so frustrating in fact, to have to suffer through any number of excuses, red herrings, illogical defenses, filibusters, deflections, and outright bullshit about his decisions regarding C50. Now it just happens to be a lone email...last year his co-author said it was because the C50 tour was losing money...

That's the maddening part. The bullshitting and covering up insults our intelligence, but I doubt Mike has the hardcore fanbase in mind when he's spinning these tales.

And in retrospect, how blatantly foolish and ironic is it for a guy to cite not wanting to risk overexposure by touring C50 too much, way back in that very first announcement...

...when the same guy brags constantly about doing close to 200 live shows a year.

[RangeRoverA1]

The nature of concert seating is different than sports events too. The Beach Boys had a large video screen and a rather elaborate backline and stage design...the seats behind that stage, for one example, may not have been opened for sale if there would be no view of the band. I remember McCartney at the Vet, almost 30 years ago, and the entire sections of seats behind Macca's stage were closed off because there would be no view if people bought those seats. That took potentially thousands of seats away from the pool, so the capacity was not reached because of the sections being closed, yet both shows he did that weekend were sold out.

Interesting, didn't look at it this way. It makes difference indeed.

[Lee Marshall]

I have posted this here at S S dot net ad infinitum.  It has not...as far as I've been able to scan been added here in THIS thread/this go-round.  Love explained WHY he does what he does...and why he did what he did.  For his own 'nourishment and revenge'.  HIS words.  NOT mine.  And, ultimately... ... ...it's THAT simple.  "Nourishment and revenge".  and he twists us all up like a bunch of pretzels EVERY time he goes back for another 'helping'.  Look around.  Ta Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!! I'm sure he would call this "winning".

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I think if he had been honest about why c50 ended from the beginning, and just admitted he wanted to be the main guy in charge he wouldn't be getting so much crap.  I personally wouldn't have liked it but I could at least respected it, and I think others would feel the same way.

[Needleinthehay]

"How do we know the email actually exists?"

Because if it didn't, the other camp would have said so publicly or through their surrogates.

The email actually was:

"Brians back is hurting, going to take him to the Dr, but please make sure you dont take this email as....no more shows for Wilson! Definitely, do NOT mean....no more shows for Wilson!
-Melinda"

Actually the email was:
"Listen, Brian has been watching too much TV backstage before the C50 concerts so let's get rid of the tvs so there will be no more shows for Wilson!"

[Hickory Violet Part IV]

No, it was about the strip clubs Mike was dragging Brian to each night.

[Pretty Funky]

 Brian’s back was playing up in 2012 and perhaps Mike had bought him some inserts.

Email actually was ‘No more Scholls for Wilson.’


.....I’ll see myself out. 

[KDS]

"How do we know the email actually exists?"

Because if it didn't, the other camp would have said so publicly or through their surrogates.

shhhhhhh....you're ruining the narrative.

[HeyJude]

Regarding attendance, the C50 tour *was* hurt by the over-touring Mike had been doing over the years.

Had Mike hung it up in 1998 and toured solo after that, the C50 tour could well have been playing and filling arenas and stadiums.

So to the degree the BB name could have been overexposed leading up to C50 (and thus keeping every show from a hardcore sellout), that was due to Mike's use of the name doing 150 gigs per year, every year.

Also, promoters wouldn't have been offering LARGER shows (e.g. Madison Square Garden) if there was any indication that, on the whole, the reunion wasn't selling well.

If things had moved forward with the reunion going into 2013, all that stuff could have been dialed in. They could have adjusted ticket prices to maximize sellouts and profit, etc.

Keep in mind that C50 had a very different financial setup to a typical "Mike/Bruce" tour. For instance, what if Brian and Mike were given a large up-front advance? That huge lump sum would have to be paid off before the tour "turned a profit." Note that Mike doesn't get into *that* part of the C50 set up in his book.

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

Brian’s back was playing up in 2012 and perhaps Mike had bought him some inserts.

Email actually was ‘No more Scholls for Wilson.’


.....I’ll see myself out. 

[HeyJude]

"How do we know the email actually exists?"

Because if it didn't, the other camp would have said so publicly or through their surrogates.

shhhhhhh....you're ruining the narrative.

Questioning the nature of this cryptic, one-line e-mail, which strangely wasn't mentioned in Mike's *lengthy* letter to the LA Times in 2012, is not to further a "narrative."

I don't question that such an e-mail exists. I also think Mike clearly had plenty of beefs (though the main one was apparently not liking Melinda) that led him to not want to continue the reunion. But I also think that any fan or observer who actually thinks this e-mail had *anything* actually to do with Mike quitting the reunion simply doesn't know enough about the ins and outs of the reunion and its aftermath.

As silly as it sounds to call this e-mail a "red herring", it actually is being presented that way by Mike. He brings it up to imply it impacted his decision-making process, but then has gone on *at length* in numerous interviews describing a litany of *other* complaints about the reunion. I guess he's trying to frame the e-mail as the straw the broke the camel's back or something, but he actually even undercuts that *highly specious* logic in this most recent interview by stunningly admitting that he believes Melinda and Brian *wanted* Mike to come back to them about doing more shows.

Let's be clear. Brian could have sent an e-mail saying "The reunion is awesome. Let's never break up again and keep the reunion going forever!" and Mike could have balked and he (Mike) wouldn't be breaking any agreements or contracts. The "e-mail" is a misdirection because it's a (pretty limp) attempt at putting the onus on Melinda and Brian for more shows not taking place. But Mike undercuts this by admitting he made no overtures to try to make more shows happen, and goes to great lengths to list off in interviews and his book seemingly countless reasons why he would have quit anyway.

Let us also remember that BEFORE the reunion tour even started, Bruce was online telling everyone (gleefully unfortunately) that the reunion was definitely NOT going to continue past a certain date.

Go back and read the board during C50. Word broke *in mid June*, less than two months into the tour, that Mike was pursuing his own Mike/Bruce shows in South America.

This "e-mail" had nothing to do with any of that. Does anyone really think that, had that e-mail not been sent but everything else was the same, that Mike would have continued with the reunion?

[Cabinessenceking]

Mike Love is the Donald Trump of the entertainment world. Even has the same supporters!

[KDS]

"How do we know the email actually exists?"

Because if it didn't, the other camp would have said so publicly or through their surrogates.

shhhhhhh....you're ruining the narrative.

Questioning the nature of this cryptic, one-line e-mail, which strangely wasn't mentioned in Mike's *lengthy* letter to the LA Times in 2012, is not to further a "narrative."

I don't question that such an e-mail exists. I also think Mike clearly had plenty of beefs (though the main one was apparently not liking Melinda) that led him to not want to continue the reunion. But I also think that any fan or observer who actually thinks this e-mail had *anything* actually to do with Mike quitting the reunion simply doesn't know enough about the ins and outs of the reunion and its aftermath.

As silly as it sounds to call this e-mail a "red herring", it actually is being presented that way by Mike. He brings it up to imply it impacted his decision-making process, but then has gone on *at length* in numerous interviews describing a litany of *other* complaints about the reunion. I guess he's trying to frame the e-mail as the straw the broke the camel's back or something, but he actually even undercuts that *highly specious* logic in this most recent interview by stunningly admitting that he believes Melinda and Brian *wanted* Mike to come back to them about doing more shows.

Let's be clear. Brian could have sent an e-mail saying "The reunion is awesome. Let's never break up again and keep the reunion going forever!" and Mike could have balked and he (Mike) wouldn't be breaking any agreements or contracts. The "e-mail" is a misdirection because it's a (pretty limp) attempt at putting the onus on Melinda and Brian for more shows not taking place. But Mike undercuts this by admitting he made no overtures to try to make more shows happen, and goes to great lengths to list off in interviews and his book seemingly countless reasons why he would have quit anyway.

Let us also remember that BEFORE the reunion tour even started, Bruce was online telling everyone (gleefully unfortunately) that the reunion was definitely NOT going to continue past a certain date.

Go back and read the board during C50. Word broke *in mid June*, less than two months into the tour, that Mike was pursuing his own Mike/Bruce shows in South America.

This "e-mail" had nothing to do with any of that. Does anyone really think that, had that e-mail not been sent but everything else was the same, that Mike would have continued with the reunion?

I honestly don't think it's possible to know.   They could've done limited runs of "Reunion" Beach Boys concerts while Mike and Bruce did their thing. 

I just think it's far too simplistic to say that it's all on Mike. 

[HeyJude]

"How do we know the email actually exists?"

Because if it didn't, the other camp would have said so publicly or through their surrogates.

I have no reason to doubt the e-mail exists. But Melinda or Brian not responding to Mike's statements wouldn't prove that in any way.

Indeed, take a look at Brian's post-C50 comments concerning the reunion. Other than his letter to the LA Times in 2012 and I suppose to some degree his book, has Brian really ever directly responded to *any* of Mike's comments? Unlike Mike, Brian has strayed from talking s**t on Mike.

Brian has typically offered quick, at worst slightly terse responses concerning C50. He doesn't do multiple paragraphs on it like Mike does, spelling out a laundry list of wrongs perpetrated against him.

I thought Brian's LA Times letter in 2012 was effective and to the point. It was a case of "Of course Mike didn't fire me. But of course it feels like being fired" and "By the end of the tour we wanted to do more reunion shows and had more offers and Mike didn't, and this bummed us out."

Also worth remembering, and something I think is likely truly incorrect about the typical "narrative" about C50, is the idea that Mike was all for a year-long reunion and then only soured on it after a bunch of wrongs were perpetrated against him. But if you go back to interviews in the several years leading up to C50, Mike envisioned *not* a new album and full tour, but *two* reunion concerts. I think a pertinent question continues to be, what if Mike didn't really want to do the full C50 tour and album project, but someone came up with a big cash advance that he couldn't say no to?

[HeyJude]

I honestly don't think it's possible to know.   They could've done limited runs of "Reunion" Beach Boys concerts while Mike and Bruce did their thing.  

I just think it's far too simplistic to say that it's all on Mike.  

Mixing reunion shows in with Mike/Bruce shows would never have worked, unless Mike toured under a different name.

Ideally, they would have kept the "Beach Boys" name only for reunion gigs, and then Mike could still do plenty of other gigs including the lucrative corporate and private gigs, under the "California Beach Band" name or something along those lines.

As far as it all being "on Mike", it depends on what we're talking about. If we're talking about the reason we didn't, in the immediate, get more reunion shows later in 2012 and/or in 2013, then yes, that's absolutely on Mike. Brian and Al (and thus Dave) clearly were amped up and ready to do another album and more tour dates. *Nobody*, including Mike, has contradicted *that* aspect of the narrative. Mike surely has a list of reasons he didn't want to keep going, but it was *his* decision. He chose to quit the band, necessitating it break up, and then to go back to his own band with the licensed name.

That Mike's list of "reasons" for not wanting to keep going range, in my opinion, from red herring/not a real reason, to specious, to silly, to firmly in the neighborhood of "hey, we're all making sacrifices to make this happen", only further undercuts Mike when he does offer those lists of reasons.

[KDS]

I honestly don't think it's possible to know.   They could've done limited runs of "Reunion" Beach Boys concerts while Mike and Bruce did their thing.  

I just think it's far too simplistic to say that it's all on Mike.  

Mixing reunion shows in with Mike/Bruce shows would never have worked, unless Mike toured under a different name.

Ideally, they would have kept the "Beach Boys" name only for reunion gigs, and then Mike could still do plenty of other gigs including the lucrative corporate and private gigs, under the "California Beach Band" name or something along those lines.

As far as it all being "on Mike", it depends on what we're talking about. If we're talking about the reason we didn't, in the immediate, get more reunion shows later in 2012 and/or in 2013, then yes, that's absolutely on Mike. Brian and Al (and thus Dave) clearly were amped up and ready to do another album and more tour dates. *Nobody*, including Mike, has contradicted *that* aspect of the narrative. Mike surely has a list of reasons he didn't want to keep going, but it was *his* decision. He chose to quit the band, necessitating it break up, and then to go back to his own band with the licensed name.

That Mike's list of "reasons" for not wanting to keep going range, in my opinion, from red herring/not a real reason, to specious, to silly, to firmly in the neighborhood of "hey, we're all making sacrifices to make this happen", only further undercuts Mike when he does offer those lists of reasons.

We'll have to agree to disagree there. 

I think there are plenty of factors at play with C50, some of which we'll likely never know.   So, I honestly can't think one can say 100% that it was on Mike, or on Melinda, or on whoever. 

[HeyJude]

We'll have to agree to disagree there.  

I think there are plenty of factors at play with C50, some of which we'll likely never know.   So, I honestly can't think one can say 100% that it was on Mike, or on Melinda, or on whoever.  

Hey, feel what you feel. But you're disagreeing with Mike, who himself acknowledges it was *his* decision to go back to his own band. He has never denied that A) It was his decision and B) That Brian and Al at the tour's end wanted to keep going.

Brian had another bag full of songs, a number of songs already prepped during the TWGMTR sessions, and Brian and Al were ready to do another album. Meanwhile, more offers for reunion shows were coming in. Mike's response was to walk, and do so by taking part in an *awful* series of PR moves (including his compassionless "announcement" that he was going back to his own band) culminating in the incorrect-but-totally-Mike's-fault headlines suggesting he had fired Brian, Al, and Dave.

As many will recall, one early Mike move in trying to shift focus/blame in the aftermath of C50 was to continually point out "I didn't fire anyone!", even though none of the band members ever said so. He was more concerned with complaining about lazy journalists (whose laziness was prompted by Mike's "announcement").

[KDS]

We'll have to agree to disagree there.  

I think there are plenty of factors at play with C50, some of which we'll likely never know.   So, I honestly can't think one can say 100% that it was on Mike, or on Melinda, or on whoever.  

Hey, feel what you feel. But you're disagreeing with Mike, who himself acknowledges it was *his* decision to go back to his own band. He has never denied that A) It was his decision and B) That Brian and Al at the tour's end wanted to keep going.

Brian had another bag full of songs, a number of songs already prepped during the TWGMTR sessions, and Brian and Al were ready to do another album. Meanwhile, more offers for reunion shows were coming in. Mike's response was to walk, and do so by taking part in an *awful* series of PR moves (including his compassionless "announcement" that he was going back to his own band) culminating in the incorrect-but-totally-Mike's-fault headlines suggesting he had fired Brian, Al, and Dave.

As many will recall, one early Mike move in trying to shift focus/blame in the aftermath of C50 was to continually point out "I didn't fire anyone!", even though none of the band members ever said so. He was more concerned with complaining about lazy journalists (whose laziness was prompted by Mike's "announcement").

True, he did say that.  But, I think there are other factors that went into the motivations.  Every time he speaks of C50, I always get the feeling that he's holding back something.   More details on the email from Melinda?  More conflicts than we're aware of?  Managers / wives / musical directors.  Who knows? 

And, do you really think another thread like this is better for the board that a year by year Beatles v Beach Boys poll?