Bruce on not showing Al, Brian and Dave in shows

[Eric Aniversario]

I'm not sure whether to believe Wikipedia or not (it's crowd sourced), but even if the figures are true, does anyone truly believe that Mike would willingly back out of a longer reunion if there were more money in it than doing what he does now? You can't say Mike is greedy (which most people think, and even Mike wouldn't deny he likes making good money), then say he turned down making more money if he would have stuck with the reunion. If they cite ten dates specifically where they made 5 million a date, it could be they're cherry picking certain shows. I have a hard time believing they made 5 million a gig for playing the small Beacon Theatre in NYC, for example.

I think he meant 5,000,000 during the length of the tour, not for one show.

[Smile4ever]

M&B touring small venues without B,A,D with little buzz to casual fans means that BBs name can only decrease in value since most serious music fans will view the group as Mike's nostalgia act and therefore not waste their time seeing them. Serious music fans are the "brand's" strength, not fans who only know a few songs or think Bruce is an original member.

You really don't think that M&B gigs in 2013 or 2014 will hurt the band's legacy in teh long run, do you?

Which is why everyone is out there enjoying the latest tour from the Beatles, fronted by Ringo Starr and featuring five anonymous backing musicians.

Thank you. This is why one band is viewed by the public with a universally pristine legacy that continues to earn the members tens of millions of dollars. The other is viewed as a nostalgia band joke not even on the same plane.

[HeyJude]

M&B touring small venues without B,A,D with little buzz to casual fans means that BBs name can only decrease in value since most serious music fans will view the group as Mike's nostalgia act and therefore not waste their time seeing them. Serious music fans are the "brand's" strength, not fans who only know a few songs or think Bruce is an original member.

You really don't think that M&B gigs in 2013 or 2014 will hurt the band's legacy in teh long run, do you?

Which is why everyone is out there enjoying the latest tour from the Beatles, fronted by Ringo Starr and featuring five anonymous backing musicians.

No, Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr would never approve something like that, the way Brian Wilson and Al Jardine DID with The Beach Boys.

Hasn't the best guess been that Al may have voted against Mike's exclusive license, and was in the minority? We don't know, but I don't think we can assume Al always approved Mike's exclusive license. He reaps the benefit of 25 percent of the licensing fee, as he is entitled to.

[HeyJude]

The brand being devalued ? Consider this schedule for August (fairs highlighted):

Mike & Bruce in recent years ? Nope - The Beach Boys, with Carl, in 1986.

A few things: As I mentioned in an early post, the dilution of the trademark was indeed going on many years back, and Carl and Al were active participants in it. Carl evidently at one stage realized this, but either couldn't or didn't do much about it.

The dilution has occurred, there's no question. It doesn't mean they can't still book lots of shows. But Mike himself in his oddly-reasoned comments post-C50 referenced "giving it a rest" to build up a demand. That concept is accurate, but doesn't only apply to a reunion tour. It applies to any configuration. Simply put, if the BB's had ceased touring at all after, say, Carl's death in 1998, then their 2012 reunion tour would have probably been booking arenas and stadiums rather than theaters and amphitheaters. That particular element of the equation is fine with me; I was glad to see C50 in a smaller venue. I'm always happy to see any shows in smaller venues.

But a lot of things would be different if they didn't play 100-plus shows per year, every year. They'd be playing bigger venues, charging more for tickets, Mike's voice would be in better shape, and so on. Mike has "kept the music alive", no question. But there's a medium between 100 shows per year every year and not touring for 20 years.

Also, Mike touring the same number of shows post-1998 is the not the same as 1986, because additional dilution of the trademark occurs when the tour continues with fewer members.

There is an issue of perception in the touring industry as well. Again, it doesn't keep Mike from booking plenty of shows, including small venues in small markets. I wish I could find the article from last year about the reunion tour that quoted a Pollstar concert industry analyst. But it commented on the fact that, among touring industry insiders and whatnot, Mike's tour with only two actual members and only one original was perceived in a somewhat dismissive or negative light, and the full reunion was garnering way more positive feelings and buzz in the industry, both because of the state of having five members present, and specifically the gravitas of having Brian on the tour.

[HeyJude]

Small problem with your economic model there - BRI, and the voting members, are evidently perfectly happy with the position as it stands, viz Mike & Bruce touring and paying a goodly slice off the gross to BRI and the corporate members. If the license moved to Brian et al, the income would decrease markedly, for one inarguable reason: Brian would not play something like 100 dates, year after year. The most he's played solo since 1998 has been 70-odd, and the average has been closer to 35-40. My maths never advanced much beyond the "one bean and one bean equals two beans" level but even I can see where the better deal lies. And this may come as a shock to you, but Brian doesn't tour to SRO houses all the time (any more than the C50 did, fyi).

Also, as I've stated before, if the touring wasn't profitable, they wouldn't be out there year in, year out, nor go back to the same venues repeatedly: you book an act that doesn't draw, it doesn't get booked again.

We don't know how "happy" BRI members are with the setup. Accepting and cashing the checks doesn't tell us how happy they are about it. It only tells us that they pursue the money they are entitled to as shareholders in the corporation. If you own stock in a company and disagree with something it does, it doesn't mean you reject any profit you make on the stock.

I also don't know if "goodly slice of the gross" is accurate. That is a very subjective term. Al is making much less taking his 25% of the small percentage Mike pays for the licensing fee. (It is still implied or assumed by some that each Beach Boy is getting an equal cut of Mike's gross receipts; when in reality they are getting 25% of the 10% or whatever it is that goes into BRI, and for all we know more corporate fees come out of that, so Al or Brian probably make something closer to like 2 or 3% of the gross of Mike's touring). There was a thread awhile back that broke down some of the theoretical/potential numbers as far as what the BRI shareholders make on that licensing fee. Yes, it's a huge hunk of money to most of us, especially for doing nothing but owning a stake in a trademark. But it isn't anywhere near what Mike makes actually doing the touring, and not as much as Al (or Brian) would make actually being in the touring band.

We also have no idea how many shows Brian would book if he took the BB name. I don't think that would or will happen anyway. But if they were motivated enough to take the name, I could picture them doing as many shows or even more than C50, so something approaching 100 wouldn't be completely out of the question, especially in Brian's newer touring configuration where he has others in the band doing more of the heavy lifting.

[HeyJude]

But M&B's touring outfit after C50 is just really killing the brand.

PR wise it has done more damage than, say, Mike touring in 2005 did. As Howie Edelson has said, they need an in-house Neil Aspinall type to get all the BB's on the same mutually beneficial page, whether they are together or separate.

[HeyJude]

I think Carl's estate's position in this matter is pretty clear, or they wouldn't allow Carl's image to be used in the Mike & Bruce BB shows. It seems as though Dennis' family doesn't have a problem with his image being used, either, even if they have no financial stake in the "fight."  Anyone who would criticize Carl's widow for wanting a steady income has never had a family member widowed at a relatively young age. It can be tough. Anyone want to be the person to tell the former Mrs. Carl Wilson that she should just buck up and get herself a job, so we can stop this Mike touring nonsense?

I dunno, there are a lot of assumptions and judgments going on there. All sort of people have to suck it up and go get a job. We have no idea anyway if the proceeds from Mike's tour are the main source of income for anybody in Carl's family. I doubt they are hurting for money considering the incessant touring Carl did over the years, not to mention past and future recording royalties coming in.

We don't know Carl's estate's position. Passive agreement or lack of pursuing lawsuits doesn't mean they actively or enthusiastically support anything. From what I've seen (or not seen as it were), Carl's estate has done a good job of completely avoiding publicly getting into any of the politics of any of this.

[HeyJude]

Or Carl's estate might grant the same rights to Brian if he decided to use video of Carl in his solo shows.

Exactly. Carl's estate not sending cease-and-desist orders doesn't imply any sort of enthusiastic endorsements.

[HeyJude]

M&B touring small venues without B,A,D with little buzz to casual fans means that BBs name can only decrease in value since most serious music fans will view the group as Mike's nostalgia act and therefore not waste their time seeing them. Serious music fans are the "brand's" strength, not fans who only know a few songs or think Bruce is an original member.

You really don't think that M&B gigs in 2013 or 2014 will hurt the band's legacy in teh long run, do you?

The band's legacy is too vague of a notion to really rate. But dilution of the trademark is at least theoretically a bit more measurably. They played arenas and stadiums in the late 70's and early 80's. In the Bay Area for instance, the Beach Boys used to play Concord Pavilion or the Greek Theatre and whatnot. Now Mike's band plays the Mountain Winery in Saratoga. There was a dropoff in venue size there, both before and after Mike and Bruce used the name on their own. Many factors played into all of this, but two of those factors are Mike's incessant touring and continuing to tour with fewer actual band members.

[Andrew G. Doe]

The page on wikipedia for the C50 lists 73 shows for the tour, which is a solid number of dates. Plus the sample of eleven shows with sources has the amount of money made being about 5,000,000 dollars. Do the math for the 73 dates and that is a lot of money flowing into BRI. Even after expenses, it is oblivious that the M&B makes chump change compared to the real BBs touring. So in short, the whole talk of M&B being a huge moneymaker is untrue with the facts of the C50 backing it up.

Again, this simplistic math is flawed - the figure you quote is quite clearly stated as the gross revenue, that is, ticket sales, bums on seats. The net which BRI would see, after taxes, venue rental, promoters and management cut, travel & accommodation for a huge crew and so on, would be significantly less than that. When you get your paycheck, is the amount that goes into your account hours worked x hourly rate ? No, not even close: deductions. Also, would that gross sustain year after year ?

Final, there's a lot of mention of the brand being diluted by Mike's touring. Who owns the rights to that brand ? Brother Records, Inc. Who decides to license out the brand to Mike & Bruce for touring ? Brother Records, Inc. Who decides BRI policy ? The voting members of BRI - Mike, Alan, Carl's estate and Brian. The brand was being diluted decades ago, by poor management: striped shirts in 1966 ? Matching white suits in 1969 ?

I'm not sure whether to believe Wikipedia or not (it's crowd sourced), but even if the figures are true, does anyone truly believe that Mike would willingly back out of a longer reunion if there were more money in it than doing what he does now? You can't say Mike is greedy (which most people think, and even Mike wouldn't deny he likes making good money), then say he turned down making more money if he would have stuck with the reunion. If they cite ten dates specifically where they made 5 million a date, it could be they're cherry picking certain shows. I have a hard time believing they made 5 million a gig for playing the small Beacon Theatre in NYC, for example.

Polite request: if you're going to debate data, actually looking at the figures provided is recommended, as you patently have not. The Wikipedia table contains eleven dates, clearly states the gross for each show and gives a figure of just under $5 million as the total for those eleven shows. The data is not crowd sourced, but derived from Billboard, as cited in the entry.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Here's something that will likely get me bitchslapped from here to eternity... many of us like to think of Brian as this experimental visionary. Truth be told, if he had stayed up front, we wouldn't think that. I think the closest comparison in reality would've been Richard Carpenter. Except Dennis, they ALL were MOR guys, very 'safe'.   We as diehards get hung up on what potentially might have been, ignoring the fact that in reality they were closer to being the Eagles than the harder edged contemporaries in the late 60s. We bitch about them playing fairs when in reality we should be very grateful that they weren't on oldies package tours. Yeah, from the 80s on they played 'tacky' venues (not my words) but at least they never reduced themselves to playing the Fabian/Shelley Fabares/Paul Anka Circuit like Gary Usher was pushing Brian to do.

[Niko]

The main reason everyone is so upset about C50 is just how good it was...I don't care about the politics behind it so much as the difference between seeing all the BB's vs M&B.

C50 was the greatest show I've ever seen, and the more time that passes, the older the BB's get. I feel a bit desperate about the whole situation, like it's now or never.

[Andrew G. Doe]

It was astonishing - the whole was immeasurably greater than the sum of the parts, and pretty much every aspect of C50 turned out better than anyone dared hope. As for "now or never", sorry but that parade's gone by: it was "then or never", and they chose then. For that, we should be eternally grateful - because it will never happen again, at that level and that pitch of excitement, anticipation and fear-tinged expectation. Chances are, it will never happen again. I can live with that, I have the golden memories of 2012.*

[* provided I never listen to the appalling live album]

[Nicko1234]

Thank you. This is why one band is viewed by the public with a universally pristine legacy that continues to earn the members tens of millions of dollars. The other is viewed as a nostalgia band joke not even on the same plane.

The Beach Boys would not be viewed on the same plane as The Beatles no matter what they had done over the past decades. There is no comparison between the two...

Plenty of bands from the 60s/70s have continued to tour with original members missing like The Who, Queen, The Temptations, The Four Tops, The Supremes etc. I doubt it affects their legacy one bit.

[Mike's Beard]

The Beach Boys have not been viewed on the same plane as The Beatles since 1967. M&B shows make zero difference to that public perception either way.

[Rocky Raccoon]

The anonymity of the individual members of thebBeachboys allows this to be possible .

I think anyone the least bit interested in the Beach Boys would at least know who Brian Wilson is and could tell he's not there.  The kind of audience Mike attracts is the same kind of audience who goes to see the current Yardbirds, Animals, Four Tops, Temptations and whatever other knockoff 60s bands are still around.  People know they're not the real deal (I think even the dumbest audience member is smart enough to realize most of the guys on stage are way too young to have been original Beach Boys), they just don't care and enjoy the music all the same.

[Pretty Funky]

Mike and Bruce are playing Christmas shows at smaller venues this week.......and the C50 line-up would be at those same smaller venues by now had the tour continued IMO.

It had a commercial use by date. Another year would have well exceeded it.

[Cam Mott]

Isn't it proof that the legacy is independent of who is in the band, the legacy carries on regardless of how compromised the original member attendance. The BBs legacy also carries on independent of what the remaining members do or don't do.

[Sheriff John Stone]

As I mentioned in an early post, the dilution of the trademark was indeed going on many years back... 

IMO, since 1967, with Smiley Smile.

[Howie Edelson]

The reunion tour should've just wrapped this week with gigs in China after having played a South American tour and second smaller North American and European return legs.
Great memories aside it was a botched affair. Its demise being one of the dumber episodes in the saga.
2014 should've seen them moving into their first Vegas residency for a ton of money.
The reason why the reunion ended had more to do with power than money and the number of dates.

RE: The license: I have it from an impeccable authority that there has NEVER been a vote about the license since it was granted.

[lee]

As I mentioned in an early post, the dilution of the trademark was indeed going on many years back...  

IMO, since 1967, with Smiley Smile.

Jeez... really? I'd say starting with 15 Big Ones. They had a really good thing going during the Surf's Up / In Concert / Holland era. They were actually performing a large amount of current material (making them a relevant band again) that was going over well and getting good reviews.

Like others have said, I think more people like to think of the group as what could have been rather than what they were. They were touring the old hits and promoting very little of their new material when Carl and Dennis were with the group. It's a shame but it's reality.

I agree that there would be more of a demand for The Beach Boys if they all decided to tour together but only tour every 2 or 3 years. That would have worked great after Carl's passing. Now in their 70s, it's really too late in the game to be doing that. Who knows how long any of them will be touring from this point on. They've been cranking it out every year for so long that Mike & Bruce may as well just keep going as long as they can. I think it would be great and more realistic if Mike & Bruce kept it going as is but for maybe 10 - 20 shows a year, they could play some larger venues with Brian, Al, David and Blondie if he was willing. Every summer play 5 west coast, 5 mid west and 5 east coast shows that are promoted as such.

I attended two 50th anniversary shows and those are probably the only "Beach Boys" shows I will ever see. I was very happy with the Brian, Al, David and Blondie show in Florida this year and definitely would go see that line up again. I haven't seen the Mike & Bruce show because it doesn't interest me enough to go out of my way to see. If they played here in Charlotte, NC, I'd go. For me, it would come across more of "Mike Love's Endless Summer Beach Band" or something to that extent rather than The Beach Boys. I'd still enjoy it for what it is.

[CarlTheVoice]

It was astonishing - the whole was immeasurably greater than the sum of the parts, and pretty much every aspect of C50 turned out better than anyone dared hope. As for "now or never", sorry but that parade's gone by: it was "then or never", and they chose then. For that, we should be eternally grateful - because it will never happen again, at that level and that pitch of excitement, anticipation and fear-tinged expectation. Chances are, it will never happen again. I can live with that, I have the golden memories of 2012.*

[* provided I never listen to the appalling live album]

Totally agree here. If they had carried on chances are things wouldn't have been so amazing. We had some great shows and we should leave it at that. I'm in my 20s so I'm just grateful to see them in ANY form.

I've been to a Mike and Bruce show and a Brian show and in terms of entertainment, M&B were much better. Yes Brian's was musically brilliant but I had such a big smile on my face at the M&B show. I'll be getting M&B tickets for this year, no doubt.

[KittyKat]

I wonder if the existence of the "Love and Mercy" biopic has something to do with Mike not wanting to continue his relationship with Brian in a touring group or recording studio?  His tour dates next summer in the UK, already announced, may coincide with the release date of that movie (I've seen a couple of other films done at the same time announce summer '14 release dates). Maybe he got ahold of the script prior to production and he doesn't come off too well in it.

[Pretty Funky]

Oh I think enough has been written about Mike over the last 50 years that a movie script will be pretty tame. I have said before, the legal team would have gone over that script pretty well before signing it off.

[HeyJude]

The reunion tour should've just wrapped this week with gigs in China after having played a South American tour and second smaller North American and European return legs.
Great memories aside it was a botched affair. Its demise being one of the dumber episodes in the saga.
2014 should've seen them moving into their first Vegas residency for a ton of money.
The reason why the reunion ended had more to do with power than money and the number of dates.

RE: The license: I have it from an impeccable authority that there has NEVER been a vote about the license since it was granted.

Thank you. Well put.

The whole debacle will not impact their overall legacy perhaps, but in any valid biography if the band, it will indeed be one of the bigger tragic f-ups in their history, at least one of the "what if" moments.

As time has passed, I'm more able to view what did happen as  wonderful fluke. But it doesn't change how the abrupt ending was an f-up, and Al Jardine or David Marks for instance didn't have nearly as much to do with the demise as Mike Love.