O.k. 'splain this to me: What keeps Al from playing with Mike whenever he wants?

[Foster's Freeze]

If Al is a full fledged "part owner" of The Beach Boys, why can't he show up with Stratocaster in hand whenever he wants to play with Mike and "The Beach Boys?"

I understand Mike has his license to use the BB's "name" but has he had to legally form another company as the legal umbrella for his cover band?  If Al is a Beach Boy and the "Beach Boys" are performing, what stops him from being in the "Beach Boys?"

Mike must have his own company, legally clear and apart from BRI.

Also, does anyone know how long the license was granted to Mike for name usage?

[DonnyL]

Because it's not the corporate entity 'The Beach Boys' playing shows, it's Mike Love (and his band of whomever he chooses) exercising his exclusive right to use the name 'The Beach Boys' to perform concerts.

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

Because it's not the corporate entity 'The Beach Boys' playing shows, it's Mike Love (and his band of whomever he chooses) exercising his exclusive right to use the name 'The Beach Boys' to perform concerts.

Yep. Mike has the right to use the name. The estate of Carl Wilson and Brian allow it because it's easy income, Al isn't happy about it but was outvoted, he wants to be in the band but for whatever reason, Mike won't have it.

[rogerlancelot]

I was under the impression it was due to security. Whenever I try to play with Mike whenever I want to, they always stop me first. Usually I'm quite content selling shrubberies in the parking lot but every now and then I get inspired to want to add banjo to "Barbara Ann" and "Fun Fun Fun".

[Nicko1234]

Because it's not the corporate entity 'The Beach Boys' playing shows, it's Mike Love (and his band of whomever he chooses) exercising his exclusive right to use the name 'The Beach Boys' to perform concerts.

Yep. Mike has the right to use the name. The estate of Carl Wilson and Brian allow it because it's easy income, Al isn't happy about it but was outvoted, he wants to be in the band but for whatever reason, Mike won't have it.

I think it`s a little more complicated than that as the court records show. Initially Carl`s estate, Brian and Al all voted for their to be non-exclusive licenses to use The Beach Boys name so Al could have toured using it as shown below:

`BRI's directors met on July 14, 1998, to discuss how the trademark should be used.   The representative of Carl Wilson's estate suggested that BRI issue non-exclusive licenses to each shareholder on the same terms and conditions as the license that was being negotiated with Love, thus giving each member an equal right to tour.   Three of the four board members, including Jardine, voted to grant each Beach Boy a non-exclusive license.   On October 1, 1998, BRI executed a non-exclusive license agreement with Love (the “Love license”).   The Love license contained clauses designed to protect the value of the trademark, requiring the licensee to preserve The Beach Boys style and to choose from a list of approved booking agencies and managers.`

Basically Al decided to tour as Beach Boys Family and Friends but initially didn`t want to pay any money and then offered 5% instead of the 17.5% that BRI were requesting. BRI subsequently voted to give Mike an exclusive license as he had agreed from the beginning to pay 20%. Lawsuits followed.

Al obviously wanted the C50 to continue but I have no idea whether he wants to play 100 dates a year with Mike and Bruce. As they couldn`t even agree one show, it will clearly never happen now anyway.

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

Because it's not the corporate entity 'The Beach Boys' playing shows, it's Mike Love (and his band of whomever he chooses) exercising his exclusive right to use the name 'The Beach Boys' to perform concerts.

Yep. Mike has the right to use the name. The estate of Carl Wilson and Brian allow it because it's easy income, Al isn't happy about it but was outvoted, he wants to be in the band but for whatever reason, Mike won't have it.

I think it`s a little more complicated than that as the court records show. Initially Carl`s estate, Brian and Al all voted for their to be non-exclusive licenses to use The Beach Boys name so Al could have toured using it as shown below:

`BRI's directors met on July 14, 1998, to discuss how the trademark should be used.   The representative of Carl Wilson's estate suggested that BRI issue non-exclusive licenses to each shareholder on the same terms and conditions as the license that was being negotiated with Love, thus giving each member an equal right to tour.   Three of the four board members, including Jardine, voted to grant each Beach Boy a non-exclusive license.   On October 1, 1998, BRI executed a non-exclusive license agreement with Love (the “Love license”).   The Love license contained clauses designed to protect the value of the trademark, requiring the licensee to preserve The Beach Boys style and to choose from a list of approved booking agencies and managers.`

Basically Al decided to tour as Beach Boys Family and Friends but initially didn`t want to pay any money and then offered 5% instead of the 17.5% that BRI were requesting. BRI subsequently voted to give Mike an exclusive license as he had agreed from the beginning to pay 20%. Lawsuits followed.

Al obviously wanted the C50 to continue but I have no idea whether he wants to play 100 dates a year with Mike and Bruce. As they couldn`t even agree one show, it will clearly never happen now anyway.

Thanks for clarifying. It really is a shame their career ended like this. They don't have a lot of years left, and for them to take this petty squabbling to the grave is pretty ridiculous. I say Mike ought to allow Al to join in whenever he wants, and Al should stop being difficult and stick to his commitments.

[Wirestone]

Mike wouldn't even let Brian keep touring with him, so why would he let Al do it?

[John Manning]

Does the BRI licence allow Al to wear stripes pyjamas at night or does Mike have exclusive rights to the ol' stripes uniform? Does Mike exercise that right every time he goes to bed? How does he sleep at night?!

[JohnMill]

Mike wouldn't even let Brian keep touring with him, so why would he let Al do it?

No offense but that theory is highly questionable at the moment.

But yeah the general point that others have made are well taken.  Brian, Al & Dave individually or collectively JOIN Mike's outfit not the other way around.  Unfortunate too because it would be nice to see Mike Love turn up at a Brian Wilson gig once in a while and do a few songs with Brian.  

[Mikie]

Probable reasons Al isn't in the Mike & Bruce Band:

1. Al costs too much. Mike can probably pay 2 or 3 musicians for what Al costs.
2. Al whines too much. One of the reasons he was ousted from the band in '98.

[RioGrande]

Probable reasons Al isn't in the Mike & Bruce Band:

1. Al costs too much. Mike can probably pay 2 or 3 musicians for what Al costs.
2. Al whines too much. One of the reasons he was ousted from the band in '98.

This is gettin' ridiculous.

[HeyJude]

Probable reasons Al isn't in the Mike & Bruce Band:

1. Al costs too much. Mike can probably pay 2 or 3 musicians for what Al costs.
2. Al whines too much. One of the reasons he was ousted from the band in '98.

This is gettin' ridiculous.

I'm the biggest Al fan around, but he clearly gets poopy now and then, sometimes more justified than other times.

But if anyone is refusing to play with Al because he gets poopy, it's worth noting that those people in many cases have done far more pro-active things that could be taken issue with. The Stebbins/Marks books details one such case in 97/98. Al was being poopy, but he had a very clear reason for being poopy.

So yeah, stuff like the Gary Usher thing in 1986 with Al does seem pretty whiny and weird (although I think that particular episode is hilarious and if they had made "This Is Spinal Tap" after 1986 they should have poached that entire episode for their movie). And clearly something was going on in the early 90's as described by Mike in that infamous circa 1992 Goldmine interview.

But he often seems to be that way in reaction to some pretty potentially objectionable stuff. More importantly, a cranky, poopy band member doesn't seem nearly as difficult to deal with as the business/financial/personnel shark-ish attitude that may have come from some other members.

As I said before, I envision Al sort of like that cake scene with Milton from "Office Space", or that scene from "The Cable Guy" where Matthew Broderick visits his parents and the Jim Carrey character makes Broderick look like an idiot. In other words, there has been a ton of bulls**t that has taken place in the history of the BB's, and Al being whiny or getting frustrated continually at his stage monitor in the 90's and having a "bad attitude" (as if none of the other guys or any person doesn't?) doesn't seem to rank too high on that list.

Back to the 1998 situation, I don't think Al being whiny was anywhere near the main cause. If anything, sources including he Stebbins/Marks book indicate any whining was a result of what was going down, not a cause. It was the machinations surrounding the touring business that disenfranchised Al.

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

Probable reasons Al isn't in the Mike & Bruce Band:

1. Al costs too much. Mike can probably pay 2 or 3 musicians for what Al costs.
2. Al whines too much. One of the reasons he was ousted from the band in '98.

This is gettin' ridiculous.

I mean, granted...Mike's proved himself and he's at that point in life where he should be able to do what he wants to and not put up with someone he'd rather not see. But considering all these guys have been through, it is disappointing to me as a fan that they can't work something out. But, I don't know all that's gone down behind closed doors, of course.

[Shady]

Mike love is a rich man, but he's a rich man with a lot of bills, divorces do not come cheap.

Basically he wants to tour under the beach boys name while keeping the lions share. It's patethc but he gets away with it.

[HeyJude]

Because it's not the corporate entity 'The Beach Boys' playing shows, it's Mike Love (and his band of whomever he chooses) exercising his exclusive right to use the name 'The Beach Boys' to perform concerts.

Yep. Mike has the right to use the name. The estate of Carl Wilson and Brian allow it because it's easy income, Al isn't happy about it but was outvoted, he wants to be in the band but for whatever reason, Mike won't have it.

One of the things I've always wondered if Al worried about, especially back in the late 90's, was the sort of "status quo" factor. That is, by this stage in 2014, Mike is even less inclined to give a reason why Al isn't in the band anymore (although has he EVER been directly asked about this since 1998?). Read all the post-C50 stuff. It has become another case of invoking a reflexive rule. The current "Beach Boys" tour is that way because "that's the way it has been for 16 years." In other words, Al isn't in the band now because he hasn't been in the band since 1998. We still don't have a CLEAR precise reason he was gone in 1998. We have to get tidbits from books, and sift through court documents to get some of the story.  

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

Probable reasons Al isn't in the Mike & Bruce Band:

1. Al costs too much. Mike can probably pay 2 or 3 musicians for what Al costs.
2. Al whines too much. One of the reasons he was ousted from the band in '98.

This is gettin' ridiculous.

I'm the biggest Al fan around, but he clearly gets poopy now and then, sometimes more justified than other times.

But if anyone is refusing to play with Al because he gets poopy, it's worth noting that those people in many cases have done far more pro-active things that could be taken issue with. The Stebbins/Marks books details once such case in 97/98. Al was being poopy, but he had a very clear reason for being poopy.

So yeah, stuff like the Gary Usher thing in 1986 with Al does seem pretty whiny and weird (although I think that particular episode is hilarious and if they had made "This Is Spinal Tap" after 1986 they should have poached that entire episode for their movie). And clearly something was going on in the early 90's as described by Mike in that infamous circa 1992 Goldmine interview.

But he often seems to be that way in reaction to some pretty potentially objectionable stuff. More importantly, a cranky, poopy band member doesn't seem nearly as difficult to deal with as the business/financial/personnel shark-ish attitude that may have come from some other members.

As I said before, I envision Al sort of like that cake scene with Milton from "Office Space", or that scene from "The Cable Guy" where Matthew Broderick visits his parents and the Jim Carrey character makes Broderick look like an idiot. In other words, there has been a ton of bulls**t that has taken place in the history of the BB's, and Al being whiny or getting made continually at his stage monitor in the 90's and having a "bad attitude" (as if none of the other guys or any person doesn't?) doesn't seem to rank too high on that list.

Back to the 1998 situation, I don't think Al being whiny was anywhere near the main cause. If anything, sources including he Stebbins/Marks book indicate any whining was a result of what was going down, not a cause. It was the machinations surrounding the touring business that disenfranchised Al.

Could you clarify for the uninformed, what was said by Mike in 1992 and what is the Gary Usher incident of 1986?

[HeyJude]

Because it's not the corporate entity 'The Beach Boys' playing shows, it's Mike Love (and his band of whomever he chooses) exercising his exclusive right to use the name 'The Beach Boys' to perform concerts.

Yep. Mike has the right to use the name. The estate of Carl Wilson and Brian allow it because it's easy income, Al isn't happy about it but was outvoted, he wants to be in the band but for whatever reason, Mike won't have it.

I think it`s a little more complicated than that as the court records show. Initially Carl`s estate, Brian and Al all voted for their to be non-exclusive licenses to use The Beach Boys name so Al could have toured using it as shown below:

`BRI's directors met on July 14, 1998, to discuss how the trademark should be used.   The representative of Carl Wilson's estate suggested that BRI issue non-exclusive licenses to each shareholder on the same terms and conditions as the license that was being negotiated with Love, thus giving each member an equal right to tour.   Three of the four board members, including Jardine, voted to grant each Beach Boy a non-exclusive license.   On October 1, 1998, BRI executed a non-exclusive license agreement with Love (the “Love license”).   The Love license contained clauses designed to protect the value of the trademark, requiring the licensee to preserve The Beach Boys style and to choose from a list of approved booking agencies and managers.`

Basically Al decided to tour as Beach Boys Family and Friends but initially didn`t want to pay any money and then offered 5% instead of the 17.5% that BRI were requesting. BRI subsequently voted to give Mike an exclusive license as he had agreed from the beginning to pay 20%. Lawsuits followed.

Al obviously wanted the C50 to continue but I have no idea whether he wants to play 100 dates a year with Mike and Bruce. As they couldn`t even agree one show, it will clearly never happen now anyway.

Perhaps the original suggestion by the estate to offer everybody a license was a noble attempt, but there's no way that would have flown had anyone else taken them up on that offer. I'm not sure they expected anyone else to attempt to secure a license other than Mike, but maybe they wanted to do due diligence and offer it to everybody.

Theoretically, if Brian and Al had accepted those original terms for non-exclusive licenses, we could have literally had three bands called "The Beach Boys" out there. There's no way that would work logistically, as evidenced by the "confusion" that occurred by Al simply touring as "Beach Boys Family & Friends" for a year (the "confusion" may have been vastly overblown, but that was a bunch of crap debated online literally 15 years ago).

Also worth noting is that one of the reasons Al may have objected to the original license proposal is that those "clauses" meant to protect the value of the trademark (evidently they never factored in how touring 100 plus shows per year with half as many original members might devalue the trademark) may have included things like no female singers and not playing songs that don't evoke the classic BB image (both of these two items were cited in articles back in 1999). In other words, Al may have broken those clauses if they existed by having Carnie and Wendy in his band and by playing "Lookin' at Tomorrow."

[Mikie]

Probable reasons Al isn't in the Mike & Bruce Band:

1. Al costs too much. Mike can probably pay 2 or 3 musicians for what Al costs.
2. Al whines too much. One of the reasons he was ousted from the band in '98.

This is gettin' ridiculous.

No it ain't. It's on the money.

[HeyJude]

Probable reasons Al isn't in the Mike & Bruce Band:

1. Al costs too much. Mike can probably pay 2 or 3 musicians for what Al costs.
2. Al whines too much. One of the reasons he was ousted from the band in '98.

This is gettin' ridiculous.

I'm the biggest Al fan around, but he clearly gets poopy now and then, sometimes more justified than other times.

But if anyone is refusing to play with Al because he gets poopy, it's worth noting that those people in many cases have done far more pro-active things that could be taken issue with. The Stebbins/Marks books details once such case in 97/98. Al was being poopy, but he had a very clear reason for being poopy.

So yeah, stuff like the Gary Usher thing in 1986 with Al does seem pretty whiny and weird (although I think that particular episode is hilarious and if they had made "This Is Spinal Tap" after 1986 they should have poached that entire episode for their movie). And clearly something was going on in the early 90's as described by Mike in that infamous circa 1992 Goldmine interview.

But he often seems to be that way in reaction to some pretty potentially objectionable stuff. More importantly, a cranky, poopy band member doesn't seem nearly as difficult to deal with as the business/financial/personnel shark-ish attitude that may have come from some other members.

As I said before, I envision Al sort of like that cake scene with Milton from "Office Space", or that scene from "The Cable Guy" where Matthew Broderick visits his parents and the Jim Carrey character makes Broderick look like an idiot. In other words, there has been a ton of bulls**t that has taken place in the history of the BB's, and Al being whiny or getting made continually at his stage monitor in the 90's and having a "bad attitude" (as if none of the other guys or any person doesn't?) doesn't seem to rank too high on that list.

Back to the 1998 situation, I don't think Al being whiny was anywhere near the main cause. If anything, sources including he Stebbins/Marks book indicate any whining was a result of what was going down, not a cause. It was the machinations surrounding the touring business that disenfranchised Al.

Could you clarify for the uninformed, what was said by Mike in 1992 and what is the Gary Usher incident of 1986?

Here's the 1992 interview: http://troun.tripod.com/mikelove.html

My favorite part of that interview has nothing to do with Al. When asked about Brian's '88 solo album, here's a quick excerpt:

Did you like his first solo album?

No.

You didn't like it?

f*** no.

As for the Gary Usher 1986 situation, you'd have to pick up the McParland book on the Usher sessions. There's a 2013 edition out that compiles everything neatly. (There's a review of it on the Beach Boys Opinion Page blog, linked below). Long story short, Al felt he was owed a little bit of money from some deal involving he and Brian and Gary Usher from literally over 20 years earlier. But the way the conversation is scripted in the book is hilarious, whether it's precisely accurate or not. But it basically amounted to Al being hung up on this thing for 20-plus years. Again, maybe Al does that sometimes, but it's far from a huge sin. It's just an issue like many we all work through in life.

[HeyJude]

Mike wouldn't even let Brian keep touring with him, so why would he let Al do it?

No offense but that theory is highly questionable at the moment.

Whether you want to parse whether they are "letting" each other tour with each other, it's clear Mike doesn't want to tour with the other guys based on the evidence at hand. If you're referring to the "Brian e-mail" situation, I think even if that's 100% accurate, it doesn't speak at all to Mike's willingness to tour with the other guys, and certainly doesn't speak to the clear preference he has for touring on his own and doing everything his way.

[southbay]

If my memory serves, Jardine loaned Usher $500 and Usher never repaid him (which Usher didn't deny). When they met up in Hawaii in 1986 for the taping of the 25 years together special, Al mentioned something about the $500 and Usher was incredulous that "this guy (and I'm paraphrasing here) who must have made many sh*tloads of money over his lifetime, still wanted his $500 back. "

*Now, to be honest, if I loaned somebody $500 in 1966 money and they never bothered to try paying me back--I just might mention it the next time I saw him. Doesn't matter how much $ I'm worth. Maybe that's just me and Al Jardine.

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

Thanks, HeyJude and southbay, for clarifying. That interview was very interesting. I think it's too late now, but Mike really couldve benefitted from some improved "people skills." No, that's not a dig at him, just an objective observation.

I think Gary Usher comes off worse from that exchange. Just because someone has a lot of money, that's no excuse to take advantage of them and not pay it back. $500 is a good chunk of change, especially in 1966 dollars. I'd have asked for it back. The difference between me and Al is I wouldn't have waited 20 years. But screw Gary for acting like he's entitled to it just because Al has more money than him, and for trying to paint Al in a bad light over it. If it were $50, maybe he'd have a point.

[JohnMill]

Mike wouldn't even let Brian keep touring with him, so why would he let Al do it?

No offense but that theory is highly questionable at the moment.

Whether you want to parse whether they are "letting" each other tour with each other, it's clear Mike doesn't want to tour with the other guys based on the evidence at hand.

I don't happen to believe that to be the case.

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

Mike wouldn't even let Brian keep touring with him, so why would he let Al do it?

No offense but that theory is highly questionable at the moment.

Whether you want to parse whether they are "letting" each other tour with each other, it's clear Mike doesn't want to tour with the other guys based on the evidence at hand.

I don't happen to believe that to be the case.

Agreed. I think Mike would tour/record with Brian in a heartbeat. Brian's name sells tickets. Brian writes great material. Al however, (as far as Mike is concerned, apparently) is more trouble than he's worth.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I think Gary Usher comes off worse from that exchange. Just because someone has a lot of money, that's no excuse to take advantage of them and not pay it back. $500 is a good chunk of change, especially in 1966 dollars. I'd have asked for it back. The difference between me and Al is I wouldn't have waited 20 years. But screw Gary for acting like he's entitled to it just because Al has more money than him, and for trying to paint Al in a bad light over it. If it were $50, maybe he'd have a point

Glad I'm not the only one who feels that way.  There are a few things about the book that make me roll my eyes (due to Usher, not Stephen McParland)