Al Jardine says there's a BAD conflict w/Mike. Aka: The welcome back AGD thread

[Wirestone]

But, as soon as Landy leaves, Melinda enters the picture, and she is determined to facilitate a solo career - one that is now 25 years old - for Brian. So, Mike has to wait that out.

This is untrue. The first thing that happened when Brian married Melinda was that he worked with the Beach Boys again, and wrote with Mike again. At the time, she was very encouraging of his work with the group, and believed that he was a Beach Boy at heart. You can blame Don Was and Van Dyke Parks for Brian releasing solo records in '95.

Melinda (and Brian) changed their tune after Carl scuttled the 95 sessions, after Carl insulted Brian by saying he wasn't capable of touring Pet Sounds live with the group in 96, and after the relative commercial failure of Mike's Stars and Stripes project. Carl's death then helped seal the deal.

[Cyncie]

There's a slow process where you start resembling your favorite Beach Boy.

That may make this author shown on the left the biggest Mike Love fan of all:

So, which of you guys has started sporting white short shorts? And, when will pictures be available?

[Rocker]

Are YOU joking???

Apple's not rubbish.
Apple is a business and it's smart.
When you over-saturate the market ala Hendrix and The Doors you end up fringe.
Being Number One means that big things have to be done big.

Man, I wish Elvis Presley Enterprises would be as excellent as Apple and the Beatles' guys in promoting and keeping the legacy intact. What EPE is doing is just total rubbish. Embarassing, ridiculous and plain dumb trash.

You look at Beatles shirts and even them look good and have style. And than compare that to the anniversary shirts of last year's Beach Boys tour that looked like they weren't sold back in the 70s.

[SurfRiderHawaii]

If BAD promote their concets as the original Beach Boys, they are infringing on the exclusive license that Mike has, and will probably lose a lawsuit, if one is filed.  Al has a bad track record in the litigation department and ought to learn from his mistakes.  It's Brian, David and Al and leave it at that.  Focus your energies on creating some new music worth listening to and avoid conflict.

Not "The Original Beach Boys." It's like Gregg Rollie promoting himself as the Original Lead Singer of Santana. Original "Members" is the distiction. They still may need a license to even do that. Maybe BRI will be voting on just that.

[SurfRiderHawaii]

Are YOU joking???

( Hollywood Bowl/Shea/Let It Be/Complete Video Collection)

Fingers crossed. Been hoping for this forever. And one more Anthology CD. There is enough in the can for more. Like the full Decca Audition tape.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

EGAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Happy Friday everyone!

Can't WE just join together and sue the Beach Boys for attempted murder of their legacy???

Didn't CREED fans basically sue the band out of existence?

[Heysaboda]

Are YOU joking???

Apple's not rubbish.
Apple is a business and it's smart.
When you over-saturate the market ala Hendrix and The Doors you end up fringe.
Being Number One means that big things have to be done big.

Man, I wish Elvis Presley Enterprises would be as excellent as Apple and the Beatles' guys in promoting and keeping the legacy intact. What EPE is doing is just total rubbish. Embarassing, ridiculous and plain dumb trash.

You look at Beatles shirts and even them look good and have style. And than compare that to the anniversary shirts of last year's Beach Boys tour that looked like they weren't sold back in the 70s.

 

(well I assume you were being sarcastic!)

[Smile4ever]

How does Mike legally own the Beach Boys name? Can't Brian, Al, and Carl's estate legally revoke the rights? In my opinion, that should happen now. Mike Love's band should not be allowed to call themselves "The Beach Boys." Only when the group is reunited as they were last year should the name apply. This band just keeps doing everything it can to tarnish its legacy.

[Wirestone]

How does Mike legally own the Beach Boys name?

He doesn't.

Can't Brian, Al, and Carl's estate legally revoke the rights?

Perhaps. It's unclear if Mike's license to the name has an expiration date, or if it runs in perpetuity. If it's the latter, it might be very difficult to take back, unless Mike had breached the terms of his contract in one way or another.

[Smile4ever]

How does Mike legally own the Beach Boys name?

He doesn't.

Can't Brian, Al, and Carl's estate legally revoke the rights?

Perhaps. It's unclear if Mike's license to the name has an expiration date, or if it runs in perpetuity. If it's the latter, it might be very difficult to take back, unless Mike had breached the terms of his contract in one way or another.

How did Mike ever attain such a ridiculous arrangement? If there's not way for it to expire, and the other guys agreed to it at one time, that's a really dumb business move by them. You don't just let one guy hit the road with the name and basically do whatever he wants with it. The group still has a brand to protect.

[Iron Horse-Apples]

Can't WE just join together and sue the Beach Boys for attempted murder of their legacy???

I'm in!

[guitarfool2002]

I don't think whoever would currently have the naming rights in a situation like this could use it anyway they want. Most of these agreements come with stipulations so that you cannot have a situation where a product so substandard or even deceptive to the audience could be passed off under a well-known name. I always thought it was like buying into a restaurant franchise, where if the food quality or the experience of the restaurant itself was not living up to the standards of the brand, the franchise could be taken away from that owner.

Example, you couldn't sell your own home recipes or meals in your McDonald's location if you bought into that franchise.

It all depends on what was agreed, but I can't see something less than respectful being agreed to and signed in a legal agreement. Whatever they did sign, it was used to legally force Al to remove "Beach Boys" from the billing of his tour, so there was some merit from a contractual/legal sense to whatever was agreed whether they liked the results or not.

[Wirestone]

How does Mike legally own the Beach Boys name?

He doesn't.

Can't Brian, Al, and Carl's estate legally revoke the rights?

Perhaps. It's unclear if Mike's license to the name has an expiration date, or if it runs in perpetuity. If it's the latter, it might be very difficult to take back, unless Mike had breached the terms of his contract in one way or another.

How did Mike ever attain such a ridiculous arrangement? If there's not way for it to expire, and the other guys agreed to it at one time, that's a really dumb business move by them. You don't just let one guy hit the road with the name and basically do whatever he wants with it. The group still has a brand to protect.

It has been suggested by folks on here that to keep the license, Mike has to adhere to a pretty strict list of rules. One assumes that has to do with number of musicians, length of shows, presence of another longtime member, etc., etc. That would prevent the name from being overly misused, one would hope (and I see guitarfool beat me to it).

As for the possibility of a license with no set end date -- I don't think that anyone in 1998-1999 assumed that Brian would have a serious touring career, least of all him. Carl's vote is held by an estate. Al didn't have a realistic plan to tour with the name himself. Mike had been de facto leader of the touring group (with Carl as musical director) for decades. One can argue that the decision made sense, given the time and context.

Obviously, the times (and context) change.

[JohnMill]

Why? When you are an abused child, it is unfair to hold them to the same standards as you would for someone who wasn't. What is this fascination that some fans have with "making Brian responsible for his actions" ? Wasn't growing up as Murry's son punishment enough?

I don't really think any adult can be given a free pass based on stuff that happened 60 years ago.

Disagree 100% and unfortunately it's a debate that you and I and anyone else should they care to get involved could have until next Tuesday.  I'm not trying to say that adults in the most general shouldn't be held accountable for their actions.  Society, the laws that govern us, moral and ethical codes see very well to all that.  However, I am so tired of hearing the section of the population that espouses the "get over it" and "move on with your life" mantras towards people who have suffered physical and emotional abuse in their childhood.  It's not something you ever get over or ever truly move on from.  Some cope better than others in terms of how they carry on with their day to day adult lives but emotional trauma suffered during childhood especially early childhood has a tendency to "go through" the victim and that is why so many can't "get over" it.  It becomes an inherent part of who that individual is whether he/she likes it or not.  Now how far it tends to dominate an individual's life of course varies on a case to case basis but I have a great deal of sympathy for anyone who suffered greatly early on in life and has had their life marked by those experiences.

Free pass?  It depends what your definition of a "free pass" is or how far you extend such notions.  But a great deal of sympathy, compassion and understanding as to what happens emotionally to a person who has gone through those traumas and how those traumas can and often do shape that person's life and psyche in a way that is different from you or I?  I'd say that person is entitled to all of that if not a great deal more from the rest of us.

[guitarfool2002]

How does Mike legally own the Beach Boys name?

He doesn't.

Can't Brian, Al, and Carl's estate legally revoke the rights?

Perhaps. It's unclear if Mike's license to the name has an expiration date, or if it runs in perpetuity. If it's the latter, it might be very difficult to take back, unless Mike had breached the terms of his contract in one way or another.

How did Mike ever attain such a ridiculous arrangement? If there's not way for it to expire, and the other guys agreed to it at one time, that's a really dumb business move by them. You don't just let one guy hit the road with the name and basically do whatever he wants with it. The group still has a brand to protect.

It has been suggested by folks on here that to keep the license, Mike has to adhere to a pretty strict list of rules. One assumes that has to do with number of musicians, length of shows, presence of another longtime member, etc., etc. That would prevent the name from being overly misused, one would hope (and I see guitarfool beat me to it).

As for the possibility of a license with no set end date -- I don't think that anyone in 1998-1999 assumed that Brian would have a serious touring career, least of all him. Carl's vote is held by an estate. Al didn't have a realistic plan to tour with the name himself. Mike had been de facto leader of the touring group (with Carl as musical director) for decades. One can argue that the decision made sense, given the time and context.

Obviously, the times (and context) change.

To add to Wirestone's comments, realizing the legal details are far beyond my knowledge, it will be interesting to see if the present times and context could have any effect on that old agreement. There was a time when releasing anything cohesive and archival under the "Smile" name was a fantasy, then look what happened.

Will the fact that you now have an actual Beach Boys tour and album on the record with all surviving members on board rather than factions (which could set a new precedent for what constitutes using the name Beach Boys on a project) affect in any way how that name is used in the future? I'm talking strictly in terms of what was previously agreed to and what the context was at that time versus what they were revised to include when they all got together as The Beach Boys.

The legal mumbo-jumbo alone behind these issues and agreements must be a massive stack of documents and revisions. 

[Wirestone]

I think it does people with mental illness and past trauma a disservice to somehow claim they're not responsible for their actions. Too many people absolve Brian of a proactive role in his life and career, and it leads to problematic narratives of exploitation. Now, I'm sure that Brian has been taken advantage of at various points -- and it's difficult to look at what he did in the late 70s and much of the 80s without taking his real and serious problems into account.

But he has been stable and under quality treatment for some 20 years now. And I've also read enough and heard enough to believe that he's not a child, and that he has his own creative and personal agenda. And we should give him the credit as an artist and a person to judge what he does in those terms. If he tricked and exploited Mike for this new project, that's just what he did (and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised). Brian has always been a person who used others  -- and then ignored or discarded them when they didn't suit his purposes.

[Wirestone]

Will the fact that you now have an actual Beach Boys tour and album on the record with all surviving members on board rather than factions (which could set a new precedent for what constitutes using the name Beach Boys on a project) affect in any way how that name is used in the future? I'm talking strictly in terms of what was previously agreed to and what the context was at that time versus what they were revised to include when they all got together as The Beach Boys.

This is one of the big reasons that Mike pulled the plug on the C50 when he did, IMO. A semi-permanent reunion of the five principals would have diluted the value of his license, and possibly ultimately made it harder for him to defend it in a legal context. And if he got wind of any efforts to change the BRI status quo, I'm sure he sprang into action. Also, note the words he's using in interviews now -- things like betrayal and untrustworthy. You don't say stuff like that about writing credits. You do about you livelihood as a bandleader.

[JohnMill]

I think it does people with mental illness and past trauma a disservice to somehow claim they're not responsible for their actions. Too many people absolve Brian of a proactive role in his life and career, and it leads to problematic narratives of exploitation. Now, I'm sure that Brian has been taken advantage of at various points -- and it's difficult to look at what he did in the late 70s and much of the 80s without taking his real and serious problems into account.

But he has been stable and under quality treatment for some 20 years now. And I've also read enough and heard enough to believe that he's not a child, and that he has his own creative and personal agenda. And we should give him the credit as an artist and a person to judge what he does in those terms. If he tricked and exploited Mike for this new project, that's just what he did (and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised). Brian has always been a person who used others  -- and then ignored or discarded them when they didn't suit his purposes.

I think everything needs to be taken in moderation.  Those Beach Boys fans who believe that Brian Wilson is merely a puppet on a string for others to with what they please are obviously wrong but to make a blanket statement and say that Brian Wilson is the driving force behind all decisions that pertain to him and the professional side of his career well maybe there is a possibly the the people who don't buy into that logic aren't necessarily wrong either.

I don't view Brian Wilson as being the cunning type of individual to go into a project whether it be the C50 or whatever with an agenda that will only serve his purposes or needs.  I just don't see there being this huge conspiracy in place last year which ultimately resulted in Mike Love dropping out of the band and putting and end to the C50.  I think that is a bit too "Oliver Stone" for my liking and probably based in some type of revisionist history in an effort not to necessarily cast anyone associated with The Beach Boys (in this case Mike Love) as a villain.

But I don't think we really need to look for a villain or a victim here.  I think at the end of the day these are just people with different philosophies on how they want to do business.  Brian Wilson obviously has a business model that works very well for him and according to Mike Love something within the scope of that business model rubbed him the wrong way.  Mike Love also has a successful business model which he had the option of returning to rather than acquiescing to Brian Wilson's business model and that is where we essentially are today.  

[guitarfool2002]

Let me rephrase it for a question, if anyone is versed in the law and legal issues around this it would be great to hear your take:

Would there be any grounds for a party involved with "The Beach Boys" as an entity to attempt to terminate the current agreement on the use of the Beach Boys name and identity based on the fact that a tour, album, and merchandise have been sold while that name represented a band with Love, Wilson, Jardine, Marks, and Johnston on stage and participating in making the album?

Or could it be suggested in pure legal terms that once the brand name is used to represent that entity featuring all surviving members associated with that brand name, the definition of that brand name then becomes that version of the branded product rather than something other than that lineup of original members?

I'm not taking sides or provoking anything here, just interested if there would be any legal issues this might spark in the future.


EDIT: Wirestone beat me to the punch on the reply, but I guess the question is whether someone can legally challenge how a person using the brand name is actually working as that name in light of the brand recently being reinvented by additions of original members.

[JohnMill]

Let me rephrase it for a question, if anyone is versed in the law and legal issues around this it would be great to hear your take:

Would there be any grounds for a party involved with "The Beach Boys" as an entity to attempt to terminate the current agreement on the use of the Beach Boys name and identity based on the fact that a tour, album, and merchandise have been sold while that name represented a band with Love, Wilson, Jardine, Marks, and Johnston on stage and participating in making the album?

Or could it be suggested in pure legal terms that once the brand name is used to represent that entity featuring all surviving members associated with that brand name, the definition of that brand name then becomes that version of the branded product rather than something other than that lineup of original members?

I'm not taking sides or provoking anything here, just interested if there would be any legal issues this might spark in the future.

I don't know the legal ramifications as I'm obviously not privy to that knowledge.  But even as a mere observer and using my own subjective viewpoint, I get the feeling that something significant happened in regards to the brand after the C50 collapsed last year.  It seemed that this agreement that had been working so well essentially since Carl Wilson's passing, well now there seems to be a fly in that ointment.  It could be something as simple as someone realizing that the Beach Boys brand can still draw a significant crowd in 2012 and going forward those individuals interested want to maximize that potential going forward.  Obviously that type of thinking would be of great concern to the incumbent (in this case Mike Love) who is drawing healthy crowds of his own by his use of the brand name.  

In that could very lie the conflict which may have been brewing as far back as last October, who knows?  So I'm not sure if it's incorrect for any of us to assume at this point that in regards to these matters that the temperature in the room has changed?  

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Watching the available footage for BAD gigs, I hate to say it, but Brian doesn't look at all happy or into it or thrilled to be there..... I know people behind the scenes who say the opposite, but based upon my own two eyes, it's just uncomfortable to watch. Sure, he has stage-fright, but I can't help thinking: just let the man stay home if he wants to ...... Brian being out there just seems to be for the benefit of a whole lot of people who aren't Brian.

I know this is an ages-old argument by this point, but still...... It's just nausea inducing watching this saga play out and I'm starting to hate everyone involved..... everyone..... except Dave.

[drbeachboy]

Will the fact that you now have an actual Beach Boys tour and album on the record with all surviving members on board rather than factions (which could set a new precedent for what constitutes using the name Beach Boys on a project) affect in any way how that name is used in the future? I'm talking strictly in terms of what was previously agreed to and what the context was at that time versus what they were revised to include when they all got together as The Beach Boys.

This is one of the big reasons that Mike pulled the plug on the C50 when he did, IMO. A semi-permanent reunion of the five principals would have diluted the value of his license, and possibly ultimately made it harder for him to defend it in a legal context. And if he got wind of any efforts to change the BRI status quo, I'm sure he sprang into action. Also, note the words he's using in interviews now -- things like betrayal and untrustworthy. You don't say stuff like that about writing credits. You do about you livelihood as a bandleader.

Well said, and I believe right on the money.

[drbeachboy]

Watching the available footage for BAD gigs, I hate to say it, but Brian doesn't look at all happy or into it or thrilled to be there..... I know people behind the scenes who say the opposite, but based upon my own two eyes, it's just uncomfortable to watch. Sure, he has stage-fright, but I can't help thinking: just let the man stay home if he wants to ...... Brian being out there just seems to be for the benefit of a whole lot of people who aren't Brian.

Brian never looks comfortable on stage whether he enjoys it or not. I've even been to shows where he starts out like a zombie, loosens up later, then goes right back to looking zoned out. There is no way that he has toured this long and hates it. It could just be the meds, but he's a trooper, I'll give him that.

[Justin]

Brian looked miserable during the first C50 shows but no one could have predicted how well he improved half way through the tour and then in London....

[tpesky]

A couple of things...the post where we become our favorite BB is hilarious.  Someone must walk around randomly adjusting things in front of them constantly, wearing shorts, and clapping.

Second,  what happens when there is a 2-2 tie on a BRI vote? I have always wondered this. This is something that one would think is very possible in the near future.