gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
647661 Posts in 25908 Topics by 3700 Members - Latest Member: BigRed June 20, 2019, 12:14:18 AM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Some recent thoughts/theories on C50 and possible potential reunions....  (Read 2696 times)
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4792



View Profile
« Reply #25 on: May 22, 2019, 10:49:27 AM »

I think Mike just wanted to go back to the Mike & Bruce band. He more than met his obligation to the reunion band, originally set for 50 concerts, and later increased to what, 75. I can’t understand all of the complaints and theories over this. He more than met his obligations, and then he was done, he wanted out. He’s not a villain in this matter.

Jeff, I don't think anybody is a "villain" in this...

For the people who *don't* think that Mike is the "villain" with regards to C50's ending, I want to know what actions Mike (or anybody) would have had to do to in fact actually qualify as a villain in the C50 implosion. What would Mike have had to have done for those people to say "yep, I think Mike is actually the villain in how this played out"?  Surely some behavior less egregious than literal murder could qualify as villainous in this story, right?

I'm looking forward to the answer.

Granted it's surely a complex and nuanced tale, and it's not a 100% black and white situation, but ultimately the fact is that Mike edged out his decades-long bandmates behind their backs *because he could*. Same reason why Mike edged Al out of the band in 1998. Because he could. Control freaky behavior.  Mike basically changed the locks on the house behind his bandmates' back.

Doesn't mean that Mike hasn't contributed tons of great stuff to the band over the years, it doesn't make him satan. But he's in the wrong on this if we're to look at it from an ethical perspective. If Brian Wilson (and Al) wanted to be Beach Boys again, as they stated, it's really, really f*cked up for Mike to pull the rug out from under them, no matter how many excuses and how many t-shirts Mike wants to print "set end date" on.

It was pretty much Mike's most passive aggressive douchey (and ridiculously clunky) move in the history of this band (and there are many examples to choose from), and sadly it was all played out in public.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2019, 10:54:58 AM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
Rocker
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 8833


"Too dumb for New York City, too ugly for L.A."


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: May 22, 2019, 11:42:06 AM »

He then mentioned that a new Beach Boys documentary would be coming out in 2020.


So this was not the new Brian doc? That's interesting. Between Endless Harmony and today a lot of things have happened that I think would be interesting to be discussed (like the end of the reunion but also how it came to be). Also we have seen "new" footage surface like the '69 show in France and the '70 footage also from France or the Ida Blackburn footage from '64. I would love to see a new documentary with this kind of material being used. Although EH was probably as good as it gets, it was limited to fit the "Behind the music" format which it was done for IIRC. A new movie could go a different way. Last year's "The Searcher" about Elvis Presley was a very refreshing look at a subject that had more documentaries done about it then probably anybody else. So a new Beach Boys movie has potential imo for not being just a Endless Harmony revisited.
Logged

a diseased bunch of mo'fos if there ever was one… their beauty is so awesome that listening to them at their best is like being in some vast dream cathedral decorated with a thousand gleaming American pop culture icons.

- Lester Bangs on The Beach Boys


PRO SHOT BEACH BOYS CONCERTS - LIST


To sum it up, they blew it, they blew it consistently, they continue to blow it, it is tragic and this pathological problem caused The Beach Boys' greatest music to be so underrated by the general public.

- Jack Rieley
Pretty Funky
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5307


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: May 22, 2019, 11:44:30 AM »

Okay CD. I’ll put my toe in. Mike is a business man first and foremost. Does that make him a villain? Possibly in some eyes.
However businessman Mike signed up for a deal. It was marketed as such. Other joined the deal and agreed to the terms (Al: ‘We’re reuniting this one last time!’). The terms of the deal were extended. Parties completed every contractual date as required.

Then there is the emotional side. When parties, including Mike started saying early on something like ‘the past is the past, it’s all good now’, we are going forward’ I too thought this might last past 2012, but as I watched various video clips through the tour it was obvious there was no real ‘group’ onstage and they were just going through the motions. There were then stories implying there was not really a’group’ off stage as well. Wives were mentioned, Brian wasn’t signing ‘signed’ souvenir programs (a contractual breach IMO). Even the RS story in June implied the tour was like walking on a tightrope.

So personally, I suspected it was not going to last but was pleasantly surprised it got extended, and in fact caught a show in Australia after the announcement that 2012 was it. It confirmed to me that yes, it was a business deal only that I was watching on that stage. The group itself had ended years before even Carl had died, probably Dennis.

Just to add more fuel to the fire. Some might remember Al and Brian did some gigs 8-10 years ago. Without trolling through the posts for that period I do recall some UK gigs were also marketed along with US dates. Suddenly Al had to quit mid-tour to complete recording his album or a scheduling conflict I recall. Total bs IMO, however that was the official line that was pushed. So back to the business side of things. Al bails mid tour and it’s ok. Mike completes 70 plus gigs as agreed and understood by all parties and decides ‘that’s enough’ but he’s the villain.

Don’t get me wrong. I have called out every group member and the group itself for many things over the years of posting, but I don’t have the rose tinted glasses that others have. It is only a business to most involved, nothing more. Cut out the emotion of it being ‘a group’ and it’s all pretty clear.
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8250



View Profile WWW
« Reply #28 on: May 22, 2019, 12:30:06 PM »

Okay CD. I’ll put my toe in. Mike is a business man first and foremost. Does that make him a villain? Possibly in some eyes.
However businessman Mike signed up for a deal. It was marketed as such. Other joined the deal and agreed to the terms (Al: ‘We’re reuniting this one last time!’). The terms of the deal were extended. Parties completed every contractual date as required.

Then there is the emotional side. When parties, including Mike started saying early on something like ‘the past is the past, it’s all good now’, we are going forward’ I too thought this might last past 2012, but as I watched various video clips through the tour it was obvious there was no real ‘group’ onstage and they were just going through the motions. There were then stories implying there was not really a’group’ off stage as well. Wives were mentioned, Brian wasn’t signing ‘signed’ souvenir programs (a contractual breach IMO). Even the RS story in June implied the tour was like walking on a tightrope.

So personally, I suspected it was not going to last but was pleasantly surprised it got extended, and in fact caught a show in Australia after the announcement that 2012 was it. It confirmed to me that yes, it was a business deal only that I was watching on that stage. The group itself had ended years before even Carl had died, probably Dennis.

Just to add more fuel to the fire. Some might remember Al and Brian did some gigs 8-10 years ago. Without trolling through the posts for that period I do recall some UK gigs were also marketed along with US dates. Suddenly Al had to quit mid-tour to complete recording his album or a scheduling conflict I recall. Total bs IMO, however that was the official line that was pushed. So back to the business side of things. Al bails mid tour and it’s ok. Mike completes 70 plus gigs as agreed and understood by all parties and decides ‘that’s enough’ but he’s the villain.

Don’t get me wrong. I have called out every group member and the group itself for many things over the years of posting, but I don’t have the rose tinted glasses that others have. It is only a business to most involved, nothing more. Cut out the emotion of it being ‘a group’ and it’s all pretty clear.

But again, "not breaching a contract" and "breaking up the reunited band" are two VERY different things.

As I've been saying, NOBODY has EVER suggested Mike broke any contracts. So the "he did what he was contractually obligated to do" thing is, *again*, an answer to a question nobody has asked. It shouldn't even enter the discussion, because CLEARLY the problem fans had with the end of the reunion was that it was ENDING!

Nobody claimed Mike reneged on any deals or broke any contracts. It was very much a case of simply being bummed and frustrated that he wasn't highly prioritizing keeping the band together. I think this was felt more strongly by fans because the reunion was actual ART. It wasn't just a quick novelty thing where we could say we saw them on stage together one last time. It was arguably the best shows since the '75 Beachago tour era. It was a dream come true. It was Brian's amazing band, plus a couple of Mike's best guys, plus everybody being there and not just phoning it in, but bringing the goods.

They did things NO band has ever done back in 2012. Mike did indeed go from Frankie Valli to Mick Jagger. They did indeed turn an AARP touring brand into an *arena act.* So much progress, so much success, so much past BS gotten past by the band and fans. Or so we thought. And Mike didn't want it. Working with Brian and Melinda wasn't worth it to him, again by his own words in his book. *Everybody else* got past all their bulls**t and not only did the reunion, but *enjoyed* it. But not Mike apparently, again according to his own book. Despite having more say and input into the proceedings than Al, Bruce, or David, he ended up the one feeling most disenfranchised.

A comparison to Al and the 2007 European tour (and he announced his departure *prior* to the tour starting, not mid-tour) isn't apt at all in my opinion. In that case, there was *arguably* more of a contractual (or truth-in-advertising) situation regarding Al having to cancel. If anything, the interpersonal/political reasons Al probably had for backing out were *more* justified, whereas on the contractual/advertising side it was more problematic. But as far as I recall, people could have asked for ticket refunds, and Al also did offer some sort of consolation to those who had bought tickets (I think they got a CD sampler/EP eventually from his album).
« Last Edit: May 22, 2019, 12:33:36 PM by HeyJude » Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8250



View Profile WWW
« Reply #29 on: May 22, 2019, 12:40:14 PM »

Regarding Al mentioning various potential projects at that gig, it's worth pointing out: I'm a huge fan of Al, he's the most down-to-Earth, lucid, easy going guy left in the core band, and also has an unprecedentedly amazingly intact voice.

But if you go back through years of interviews, fan interactions, and so on, he occasionally says stuff that, for lack of a better way to put it, just kind of leaves you scratching your head and perhaps muttering "huh?" to yourself. I know this sounds vague, but it's just one of the quirks that go along with Al. There's no malice or agenda involved when he says this stuff. It's just Al Jardine-brand "wtf?" moments. Sometimes he just clearly blabs something (e.g. the "Smile" set debacle back in 2011), and other times he says something that maybe even isn't meant to be cryptic, but ends up being just that. Sometimes later events help to explain those cryptic comments, and other times it's forever firmly in the category of "huh?"
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4792



View Profile
« Reply #30 on: May 22, 2019, 12:40:34 PM »

Okay CD. I’ll put my toe in. Mike is a business man first and foremost. Does that make him a villain? Possibly in some eyes.
However businessman Mike signed up for a deal. It was marketed as such. Other joined the deal and agreed to the terms (Al: ‘We’re reuniting this one last time!’). The terms of the deal were extended. Parties completed every contractual date as required.


Firstly, with the implosion of C50, the untold lost amounts of money from larger tours, lost reunion albums/swag, etc, lost critical accolades for the brand/band as a whole, lost positive public/critical reevaluation of Michael Edward Love as a talented (non-hack) artist, are immeasurable.

As a purely business decision, Mike made an incredibly short-sighted move. If he wanted to (which he did/does) he could try to spin this as some sort of positive business move for larger quantity of smaller shows (and making things up in "volume"), but let's see how fast Mike would dodge an interviewer's question that delved into those examples I stated above. Those are not nothing burgers. Those are real things. It's friggin' sad.

There comes a point where saying the admittedly true statement that "Mike is a business man first and foremost" becomes a problem. I mean, we all have to draw the line somewhere. If Mike wrote song lyrics that said "I want your money, every member of the studio audience now... you all won't know the difference who's onstage and I'll take full advantage of that ignorance, now..." you'd probably say that Mike was taking the business side of everything way too far into polluting the art, and it would become unquestionably crass and gross, right?

Well Mike never wrote those exact lyrics, but his actions seem to imply that those are his thoughts. Sometimes, especially when all the parties involved are getting up there in age and it's obvious there won't be all that many more years that this can last - to somehow prioritize a misplaced business plan over what is good and right is just plain worthy of criticism.  

Mike just plain should know how much Brian has suffered throughout his life, and to just give his cousin a friggin' break and cede some control of the situation. Mike should have let Brian stay a Beach Boy again and not imploded C50 to make up (in small part) for ridiculously harassing VDP over song lyrics in '66 and being a contributing factor to that project's demise, which sadly helped usher in Brian's decades-long emotional decline. Also, to make up for the ridiculous 2005 lawsuit against Brian. Mike should have let Al stay a Beach Boy again to make up for pushing him out of the band in 1998. There are myriad reasons why Mike should have just sucked it up and kept things going.



Al bails mid tour and it’s ok. Mike completes 70 plus gigs as agreed and understood by all parties and decides ‘that’s enough’ but he’s the villain.


This is IMO an irrelevant comparison, as Al bailed - yes - but Al didn't bail and say "now I get to immediately book myself as the brand name and you don't!" to Brian. That's the chief dick move of Mike's. The brand name, and the way the band were pushing the reunion, should mean *something*. "Do it Again" became the soundtrack of the reunion, with a redone version and the reunited band singing about doing fun things again. That packed some emotional punch in context.  Then Mike went ahead and crassly remade that same song again (with Mark McGrath and Uncle Jesse) and hoped everyone's memory of the recently-redone version would just disappear.   

It's like Mike is trying to drain any emotional punch or connection that fans could possibly have from the music he creates. Feels like he is playing his fans for fools. Mike, Mark McGrath, Uncle Jesse, all dancing in front of the white bedding sheet in the hotel room. Don't forget the blacklight.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2019, 01:08:00 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
Pretty Funky
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5307


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: May 22, 2019, 12:56:02 PM »

Okay CD. I’ll put my toe in. Mike is a business man first and foremost. Does that make him a villain? Possibly in some eyes.
However businessman Mike signed up for a deal. It was marketed as such. Other joined the deal and agreed to the terms (Al: ‘We’re reuniting this one last time!’). The terms of the deal were extended. Parties completed every contractual date as required.

Then there is the emotional side. When parties, including Mike started saying early on something like ‘the past is the past, it’s all good now’, we are going forward’ I too thought this might last past 2012, but as I watched various video clips through the tour it was obvious there was no real ‘group’ onstage and they were just going through the motions. There were then stories implying there was not really a’group’ off stage as well. Wives were mentioned, Brian wasn’t signing ‘signed’ souvenir programs (a contractual breach IMO). Even the RS story in June implied the tour was like walking on a tightrope.

So personally, I suspected it was not going to last but was pleasantly surprised it got extended, and in fact caught a show in Australia after the announcement that 2012 was it. It confirmed to me that yes, it was a business deal only that I was watching on that stage. The group itself had ended years before even Carl had died, probably Dennis.

Just to add more fuel to the fire. Some might remember Al and Brian did some gigs 8-10 years ago. Without trolling through the posts for that period I do recall some UK gigs were also marketed along with US dates. Suddenly Al had to quit mid-tour to complete recording his album or a scheduling conflict I recall. Total bs IMO, however that was the official line that was pushed. So back to the business side of things. Al bails mid tour and it’s ok. Mike completes 70 plus gigs as agreed and understood by all parties and decides ‘that’s enough’ but he’s the villain.

Don’t get me wrong. I have called out every group member and the group itself for many things over the years of posting, but I don’t have the rose tinted glasses that others have. It is only a business to most involved, nothing more. Cut out the emotion of it being ‘a group’ and it’s all pretty clear.

But again, "not breaching a contract" and "breaking up the reunited band" are two VERY different things.

As I've been saying, NOBODY has EVER suggested Mike broke any contracts. So the "he did what he was contractually obligated to do" thing is, *again*, an answer to a question nobody has asked. It shouldn't even enter the discussion, because CLEARLY the problem fans had with the end of the reunion was that it was ENDING!

Nobody claimed Mike reneged on any deals or broke any contracts. It was very much a case of simply being bummed and frustrated that he wasn't highly prioritizing keeping the band together. I think this was felt more strongly by fans because the reunion was actual ART. It wasn't just a quick novelty thing where we could say we saw them on stage together one last time. It was arguably the best shows since the '75 Beachago tour era. It was a dream come true. It was Brian's amazing band, plus a couple of Mike's best guys, plus everybody being there and not just phoning it in, but bringing the goods.

They did things NO band has ever done back in 2012. Mike did indeed go from Frankie Valli to Mick Jagger. They did indeed turn an AARP touring brand into an *arena act.* So much progress, so much success, so much past BS gotten past by the band and fans. Or so we thought. And Mike didn't want it. Working with Brian and Melinda wasn't worth it to him, again by his own words in his book. *Everybody else* got past all their bulls**t and not only did the reunion, but *enjoyed* it. But not Mike apparently, again according to his own book. Despite having more say and input into the proceedings than Al, Bruce, or David, he ended up the one feeling most disenfranchised.

A comparison to Al and the 2007 European tour (and he announced his departure *prior* to the tour starting, not mid-tour) isn't apt at all in my opinion. In that case, there was *arguably* more of a contractual (or truth-in-advertising) situation regarding Al having to cancel. If anything, the interpersonal/political reasons Al probably had for backing out were *more* justified, whereas on the contractual/advertising side it was more problematic. But as far as I recall, people could have asked for ticket refunds, and Al also did offer some sort of consolation to those who had bought tickets (I think they got a CD sampler/EP eventually from his album).

Just to clarify the mid tour comment. That was mid tour the US dates from memory. The UK tour was due to start soon after.
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8250



View Profile WWW
« Reply #32 on: May 22, 2019, 01:27:01 PM »

Just to clarify the mid tour comment. That was mid tour the US dates from memory. The UK tour was due to start soon after.

Correct, but Al actually wasn't in the band for the US "legs" in May/June of 2007. He was only scheduled for one US show in the middle of that tour, the 6/9/07 Monterey gig (presumably because it was near Al's home). All other gigs were booked and advertised as regular Brian shows without Al. He did end up appearing unannounced at one additional show, the 6/11/07 show in Saratoga, CA (this was the infamous show, which I attended, where Brian decided to just lay down on stage). Brian had recorded with Al at Al's studio in between these two shows, on June 10th.

But the other gigs in May/June (they only did six total shows in the US in May/June) were done without Al. It's certainly the case that those US dates barely constituted a tour or a "leg"; they were simply a small hand full of warm-up shows prior to the European tour.

Al not doing the European tour was certainly a relatively last-minute thing; at the June 11th Saratoga show I attended, they were selling the European tour program already, which prominently featured Al.

Worth mentioning is that, according to rumor/reports, Al allegedly did the November/December 2006, January 2007, and June 2007 gigs with Brian *unpaid.* If that was the case, I don't know if that had anything to do with Al not doing the subsequent European tour. I think that whole tentative "reunion" between the two was on shakier ground back in 06/07.

To back track, in previous lawsuit documents concerning Mike/Brian (and other parties) lawsuits, one of the background elements mentioned in the documents was Mike's lawyers claiming that, at some point, Brian had threatened to vote to take the "Beach Boys" touring license back and tour with Al Jardine. That obviously never happened, and I would guess they never had any intention of doing so; I think it was just strategic posturing. But I always wondered if Al joining in on those 06/07 Brian gigs was related to that, to send a subtle message. In any event, that fell apart pretty quickly in the midst of a myriad of issues. Al may have been paying his own way to do the gigs. Brian had his incident at the June 11th show. I think Brian may have still been uncomfortable with Al in the band at that stage, and according to reports (including the Stebbins "FAQ" book as I recall), Al was certainly troubled by the June 11th incident (even if it was overblown on the internet subsequently). But I think the timeline is that it was decided Al wasn't doing the European tour just *prior* to that June 11th show, so I don't think that incident was directly related.

Nevertheless, I think Brian and Al have formed a much better, tighter, warmer bond post-2012.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2019, 01:35:26 PM by HeyJude » Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
Pretty Funky
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5307


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: May 22, 2019, 01:58:22 PM »

Obviously. And thanks for the reminder on the US dates not being official Brian/Al gigs as such. The worse thing is they are 12 years ago, not the 8-10 I guessed. The years are starting to roll by too quickly now.  Shocked
Logged
Pretty Funky
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5307


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: May 22, 2019, 02:16:33 PM »

Okay CD. I’ll put my toe in. Mike is a business man first and foremost. Does that make him a villain? Possibly in some eyes.
However businessman Mike signed up for a deal. It was marketed as such. Other joined the deal and agreed to the terms (Al: ‘We’re reuniting this one last time!’). The terms of the deal were extended. Parties completed every contractual date as required.


Firstly, with the implosion of C50, the untold lost amounts of money from larger tours, lost reunion albums/swag, etc, lost critical accolades for the brand/band as a whole, lost positive public/critical reevaluation of Michael Edward Love as a talented (non-hack) artist, are immeasurable.

As a purely business decision, Mike made an incredibly short-sighted move. If he wanted to (which he did/does) he could try to spin this as some sort of positive business move for larger quantity of smaller shows (and making things up in "volume"), but let's see how fast Mike would dodge an interviewer's question that delved into those examples I stated above. Those are not nothing burgers. Those are real things. It's friggin' sad.

There comes a point where saying the admittedly true statement that "Mike is a business man first and foremost" becomes a problem. I mean, we all have to draw the line somewhere. If Mike wrote song lyrics that said "I want your money, every member of the studio audience now... you all won't know the difference who's onstage and I'll take full advantage of that ignorance, now..." you'd probably say that Mike was taking the business side of everything way too far into polluting the art, and it would become unquestionably crass and gross, right?

Well Mike never wrote those exact lyrics, but his actions seem to imply that those are his thoughts. Sometimes, especially when all the parties involved are getting up there in age and it's obvious there won't be all that many more years that this can last - to somehow prioritize a misplaced business plan over what is good and right is just plain worthy of criticism.  

Mike just plain should know how much Brian has suffered throughout his life, and to just give his cousin a friggin' break and cede some control of the situation. Mike should have let Brian stay a Beach Boy again and not imploded C50 to make up (in small part) for ridiculously harassing VDP over song lyrics in '66 and being a contributing factor to that project's demise, which sadly helped usher in Brian's decades-long emotional decline. Also, to make up for the ridiculous 2005 lawsuit against Brian. Mike should have let Al stay a Beach Boy again to make up for pushing him out of the band in 1998. There are myriad reasons why Mike should have just sucked it up and kept things going.



Al bails mid tour and it’s ok. Mike completes 70 plus gigs as agreed and understood by all parties and decides ‘that’s enough’ but he’s the villain.


This is IMO an irrelevant comparison, as Al bailed - yes - but Al didn't bail and say "now I get to immediately book myself as the brand name and you don't!" to Brian. That's the chief dick move of Mike's. The brand name, and the way the band were pushing the reunion, should mean *something*. "Do it Again" became the soundtrack of the reunion, with a redone version and the reunited band singing about doing fun things again. That packed some emotional punch in context.  Then Mike went ahead and crassly remade that same song again (with Mark McGrath and Uncle Jesse) and hoped everyone's memory of the recently-redone version would just disappear.   

It's like Mike is trying to drain any emotional punch or connection that fans could possibly have from the music he creates. Feels like he is playing his fans for fools. Mike, Mark McGrath, Uncle Jesse, all dancing in front of the white bedding sheet in the hotel room. Don't forget the blacklight.

All good points, but I come back to Mike being a businessman first and foremost. His priority as an ‘artist’ ( and I use that word loosely) is waaaaay down the list, right down with his loyalty to his former band mates.

I once heard a major CEO say a particular aspect of the business wasn’t making any money. The truth was by utilising the assets in other markets they could make more money, meaning more money for the shareholders. So market 1 might return 5%, but moving resources to market 2 returned 15% with possibly less marketing.
The C50 in this case was market 1. The M&B is market 2. Unfortunately for all concerned emotions went out the window for business and obviously personal reasons. Very sad but brutally honest. Legacy be damned!
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4792



View Profile
« Reply #35 on: May 22, 2019, 02:24:25 PM »

Okay CD. I’ll put my toe in. Mike is a business man first and foremost. Does that make him a villain? Possibly in some eyes.
However businessman Mike signed up for a deal. It was marketed as such. Other joined the deal and agreed to the terms (Al: ‘We’re reuniting this one last time!’). The terms of the deal were extended. Parties completed every contractual date as required.


Firstly, with the implosion of C50, the untold lost amounts of money from larger tours, lost reunion albums/swag, etc, lost critical accolades for the brand/band as a whole, lost positive public/critical reevaluation of Michael Edward Love as a talented (non-hack) artist, are immeasurable.

As a purely business decision, Mike made an incredibly short-sighted move. If he wanted to (which he did/does) he could try to spin this as some sort of positive business move for larger quantity of smaller shows (and making things up in "volume"), but let's see how fast Mike would dodge an interviewer's question that delved into those examples I stated above. Those are not nothing burgers. Those are real things. It's friggin' sad.

There comes a point where saying the admittedly true statement that "Mike is a business man first and foremost" becomes a problem. I mean, we all have to draw the line somewhere. If Mike wrote song lyrics that said "I want your money, every member of the studio audience now... you all won't know the difference who's onstage and I'll take full advantage of that ignorance, now..." you'd probably say that Mike was taking the business side of everything way too far into polluting the art, and it would become unquestionably crass and gross, right?

Well Mike never wrote those exact lyrics, but his actions seem to imply that those are his thoughts. Sometimes, especially when all the parties involved are getting up there in age and it's obvious there won't be all that many more years that this can last - to somehow prioritize a misplaced business plan over what is good and right is just plain worthy of criticism.  

Mike just plain should know how much Brian has suffered throughout his life, and to just give his cousin a friggin' break and cede some control of the situation. Mike should have let Brian stay a Beach Boy again and not imploded C50 to make up (in small part) for ridiculously harassing VDP over song lyrics in '66 and being a contributing factor to that project's demise, which sadly helped usher in Brian's decades-long emotional decline. Also, to make up for the ridiculous 2005 lawsuit against Brian. Mike should have let Al stay a Beach Boy again to make up for pushing him out of the band in 1998. There are myriad reasons why Mike should have just sucked it up and kept things going.



Al bails mid tour and it’s ok. Mike completes 70 plus gigs as agreed and understood by all parties and decides ‘that’s enough’ but he’s the villain.


This is IMO an irrelevant comparison, as Al bailed - yes - but Al didn't bail and say "now I get to immediately book myself as the brand name and you don't!" to Brian. That's the chief dick move of Mike's. The brand name, and the way the band were pushing the reunion, should mean *something*. "Do it Again" became the soundtrack of the reunion, with a redone version and the reunited band singing about doing fun things again. That packed some emotional punch in context.  Then Mike went ahead and crassly remade that same song again (with Mark McGrath and Uncle Jesse) and hoped everyone's memory of the recently-redone version would just disappear.  

It's like Mike is trying to drain any emotional punch or connection that fans could possibly have from the music he creates. Feels like he is playing his fans for fools. Mike, Mark McGrath, Uncle Jesse, all dancing in front of the white bedding sheet in the hotel room. Don't forget the blacklight.

All good points, but I come back to Mike being a businessman first and foremost. His priority as an ‘artist’ ( and I use that word loosely) is waaaaay down the list, right down with his loyalty to his former band mates.
 

Yep, nailed it. Sad indeed.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2019, 02:29:46 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8587


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #36 on: May 22, 2019, 02:58:11 PM »

The contradiction becomes when we hear Mike is "all business" regarding his actions around C50 and the Beach Boys, yet his decades long history of remaking and doing soundalikes of BB classics should be seen as strictly for "fun".

So it's either all business or all fun with Mike? The soundalikes are not all business like the other activities?
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
Steven
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 15



View Profile
« Reply #37 on: May 22, 2019, 03:46:57 PM »

The contradiction becomes when we hear Mike is "all business" regarding his actions around C50 and the Beach Boys, yet his decades long history of remaking and doing soundalikes of BB classics should be seen as strictly for "fun".

So it's either all business or all fun with Mike? The soundalikes are not all business like the other activities?

 Fun is Mike's business and business is his fun.  Smiley
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4792



View Profile
« Reply #38 on: May 22, 2019, 03:53:40 PM »

The contradiction becomes when we hear Mike is "all business" regarding his actions around C50 and the Beach Boys, yet his decades long history of remaking and doing soundalikes of BB classics should be seen as strictly for "fun".

So it's either all business or all fun with Mike? The soundalikes are not all business like the other activities?

 Fun is Mike's business and business is his fun.  Smiley

To that end, I think Mike should henceforth change the lyrics to "Fun, Fun, Fun" with "Business, Business, Business" for all future live performances, and all future multiple re-re-re-recordings.
Logged
The LEGENDARY OSD
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1725

luHv Estrangement Syndrome. It's a great thing!


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: May 22, 2019, 07:02:53 PM »

The contradiction becomes when we hear Mike is "all business" regarding his actions around C50 and the Beach Boys, yet his decades long history of remaking and doing soundalikes of BB classics should be seen as strictly for "fun".

So it's either all business or all fun with Mike? The soundalikes are not all business like the other activities?

 Fun is Mike's business and business is his fun.  Smiley

To that end, I think Mike should henceforth change the lyrics to "Fun, Fun, Fun" with "Business, Business, Business" for all future live performances, and all future multiple re-re-re-recordings.


 Pirate High Five Rock! Angry Happy Dance Love Bow w00t! w00t! w00t! Thumbs Up
Logged

myKe luHv, the most hated, embarrassing clown the world of music has ever witnessed.
Pretty Funky
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5307


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: May 22, 2019, 07:48:10 PM »

The contradiction becomes when we hear Mike is "all business" regarding his actions around C50 and the Beach Boys, yet his decades long history of remaking and doing soundalikes of BB classics should be seen as strictly for "fun".

So it's either all business or all fun with Mike? The soundalikes are not all business like the other activities?

Ya know, in a warped way I think it is his way of rewriting musical history. ‘Remove the original backing voices and production yet I can still sound the same.’ Strange I know, but it kinda makes sense.
Logged
♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇
The Dr. of Wilsonomics
Global Moderator
*****
Online Online

Gender: Male
Posts: 10691


🍦🍦My daughter and I -23 Dec 2018 ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #41 on: May 22, 2019, 07:48:45 PM »

And we’ll have business business business til Sea World takes the reunion away
Logged

RIP Alexa Lestage (8 May 1995- 10 June 2018) .

https://www.gofundme.com/help-support-the-jurkowlaniecs

Quote
Lady:”Sir why you are drowning my son!!! “
Guy:“Maa’m, the ad clearly reads...SEA horse rides for a dollar “
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4792



View Profile
« Reply #42 on: May 23, 2019, 12:37:23 AM »

And we’ll have business business business til Sea World takes the reunion away

 LOL
Logged
jeffh
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 336


View Profile
« Reply #43 on: May 23, 2019, 05:10:17 AM »

Imagine if you will, what if it had been Brian who had pulled the plug on C50 ? Would there have been hundreds of posts of ill will and acrimony ? I think not.  While I'm not a huge Love fan, I do believe that a double standard exists. Had Brian ended the tour, there would mostly be excuses as to why he couldn't continue, most people would have "understood" his actions.
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8250



View Profile WWW
« Reply #44 on: May 23, 2019, 06:52:37 AM »

Imagine if you will, what if it had been Brian who had pulled the plug on C50 ? Would there have been hundreds of posts of ill will and acrimony ? I think not.  While I'm not a huge Love fan, I do believe that a double standard exists. Had Brian ended the tour, there would mostly be excuses as to why he couldn't continue, most people would have "understood" his actions.

Check out all the old threads. This precise argument has been made numerous times, and I don't think it's really germane to the actual discussion of what actually happened. I mean, what if Bruce Johnston had burned all the Smile tapes? We can come up with a million ideas for what members *could have* done.

That being said, as I've answered many times, I would have been equally bummed and disappointed in any member of the band who nixed more reunion activity in the face of all the other members wanting to continue. My level of disappointment would also depend on the reasoning given for ending the reunion. I'd respect a full, honest explanation even in the midst of my disappointment.

Mike made the disagreeable decision, and also went about it in a way that, in my opinion, doesn't fully explain his reasoning. I think the reasoning is there buried in the midst of the litany of things he's brought up. And to the degree he has offered reasons, I think some of them are believable (if still disappointing), while many others make no sense.

But yeah, I get the point trying to be made here. The contention is that everybody is harder on Mike. I would argue that it's still his actions that are precipitating the reactions from fans. But also, yes, I do think Mike gets less of a benefit of the doubt when he does something that seems disagreeable to many fans. But there's a reason for that: His past actions/words/deeds. Brian and Al and some others have earned a TON more benefit of the doubt than Mike has. That all being said, I still take each event as it occurs, and I have no interest in blaming Mike for something that isn't his fault.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2019, 12:43:07 PM by HeyJude » Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8587


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #45 on: May 23, 2019, 07:53:26 AM »

Forget hypotheticals and "what if's"...Maybe more slack would have been cut for Mike in terms of fan opinions if his "reasons" or excuses for walking away had been more consistent or even less in number than they turned out to be. From Fall 2012 when that first announcement hit the press, up to the publication of his book, and up to the present, fans have had to sift through multiple reasons to explain Mike's decisions. And some of them contradicted Mike's subsequent actions, while others just seem to come and go at random depending on who answers.

Anyone care to make a list of these reasons? Just a few paraphrased to start, from Mike and his more ardent supporters..."I don't want to risk overexposure by touring too much and end up like the Eagles". "Set end date". "Tour was losing money". "Was advised to give it a rest". "Melinda Wilson attaching Autotune devices to the mics". "Melinda Wilson disrespecting my family". "the No More Wilsons email". "Had to book shows because I had my own band to support". "Fulfilled my contractual obligations". "I wasn't allowed to write with Brian in a room". "Previous commitments". "Likes to run a 'lean-n-mean' touring operation". "Didn't happen like I was promised it would". "Fans can continue to see the Beach Boys as they've been touring for the past "x" years"

Meanwhile the majority of fans I think would agree that getting all surviving members from the 60's together in some capacity and getting original music and a group reunion tour out of them was one of the best things that has happened to this band and its fanbase since the original run in the 1960's. Yet Mike seems to be one of the only voices of negativity in the whole deal.

Maybe that's why he doesn't get the same amount of slack as others. For someone who pointed out how much of a team player he was going back to his days on a high school track team, Mike came off as the least "team" oriented of the group in these matters. And there seems to be a bag full of reasons that is available to reach in and pull one out randomly on demand.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
NateRuvin
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 756


"I had to prove that I could make it alone"...


View Profile
« Reply #46 on: May 23, 2019, 09:00:19 AM »

I've also been wondering how much of an opinion Bruce held about all of this. He seemed to be enjoying the reunion as much as anyone else. I can't think of any indication that he didn't enjoy himself, other than him and Mike not attending the celebratory dinner. Did Bruce have a desire for things to return to the way they were, or did he continue with Mike after C50 simply out of convenience?

Does/did Bruce make more money in the M&B touring outfit? That would certainly be a motivation to return to the old way of doing things. But I can't really imagine Bruce is very worried about finances, having written his famous hit. You could argue there is more of a spotlight on him at the M&B shows considering he is one of two real Beach Boys, but I don't think his role in the band was diminished legacy-wise. It maybe was on stage, with other band members taking keyboard or vocal parts he would normally play, but having the original members together, in a weird way, actually solidified all of their legacies, and probably would have continued to do so. Like the whole thing with Mike going from Frankie Valli to Mick Jagger. The guys were getting the respect they deserved. Bruce was given Disney Girls and Wendy, just like the standard before C50. He probably has always had the option to play as much or as little keyboard as he wants since the 90's, so I can't imagine C50 was that different. He's usually clapping anyway, but I'll save that for another thread.

Could Bruce have made a stand against Mike, and really let Mike tour as "The Beach Boys" with no other Beach Boys but himself? If this happened, lets say Bruce wanted to stay with Brian, would Mike have seeked out a more permanent residence from David Marks or Dean Torrence? Or would he really have tried to sell himself as "The Beach Boys" while all of the other members continued in a band that couldn't use the name. I know it's just a hypothetical, but it's food for thought
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8250



View Profile WWW
« Reply #47 on: May 23, 2019, 09:07:02 AM »

Bruce obviously has demonstrated that he follows whatever Mike does/decides.

As far as C50, he was posting BEFORE the reunion tour started on the BB Britain board, and as many have characterized it, he seemed almost *gleeful* in stating that come the end date of the tour, there would be *no more* reunion shows. Whether he was just stating the facts of the matter, or instead was also reinforcing his own preference, we can't say for sure. He certainly didn't seem bummed at the prospect of not being able to do more reunion shows. He did indeed seem weirdly kind of gleeful about the prospect.

But it's worth noting that Bruce Johnston was pretty much the only person in the organization that was saying, before the tour even started, that it definitively would not be continuing past its end date in 2012. Everybody else seemed to go to lengths to keep things ambiguous.

Bruce hasn't commented a great deal on the reunion since it ended. I recall an interview, probably during the tour?, where he seemed to be indicating Brian's guys couldn't keep up with the touring pace, kind of implying in my opinion that he was used to more rigorous work on the road. I remember thinking how ridiculous this was considering he was probably doing the *least* heavy lifting on stage of anybody in the band (backing or main members), including Brian.
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8250



View Profile WWW
« Reply #48 on: May 23, 2019, 09:08:29 AM »

Bruce is a weird dude (to put it politely). Remember a few years before C50 when he said he *wouldn't* appear on stage if the band reunited? That he would instead watch from the audience? Wtf?

Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
Tony S
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 476


View Profile
« Reply #49 on: May 24, 2019, 03:38:37 AM »

Saying Bruce is a strange dude is really an understatement. Because he certainly is. The reason he wants to stay in the Mike and Bruce band is because he does nothing in that band but clap hands and very very little on stage. And gets paid handsomely I'm sure. That's why he kisses Mike's butt all the time. It's his boss and it's a high-paying gig that he can be easily replaced at.
Logged
gfx
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.235 seconds with 21 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!