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

[leggo of my ego]

Al gets poopy now and then.

Yea at his age, but De-Pends can take care of the problem.

[startBBtoday]

Yeah, I meant that the best course of action would be doing 30 dates a year with Brian rather than 100 without him. But allowing Brian to play with The Beach Boys whenever he pleases wouldn't work at all.

Bad business practice, cutting your potential income by 70%: everyone loses.

Brian allows him to do this by letting him keep The Beach Boys name.

Like Brian has the final say ? Nope, he has a 25% say. Just so happened Mike & Carl's estate sided with him.

Bad business practice for men in their 70s with enough money to last two or three lifetimes. Most bands in their 70s don't tour at all.

Never said Brian has final say. Brian allows him to keep The Beach Boys name by being one of four votes. Figured everyone on this board knew that and that I didn't have to spell it out every time it's said. I'll never make such a brash decision again.

[HeyJude]

1 - the C50 shows were as profitable as they were because it was a special, one-off occasion. The value would be diluted by regular touring.

I think one more, or a few more legs of C50 (or more reunion gigs, whether they kept the C50 moniker or not) would have done just fine, as is evidenced by apparently additional offers to play even larger venues than they did during most if not all of those 73 dates.

Even for the five minutes Brian apparently was adamant enough about trying to continue the reunion that he authorized the LA Times letter, he wasn’t suggesting touring with the band forever. He just mentioned wanting to keep it going and do more gigs.

Yes, if the reunion tour went on year after year, it would at some point drop off in revenue, prestige, etc. But if any band member wants to invoke that as the reason for not keeping the full, willing band together, then they must be prepared to branded as a total d**k.

[leggo of my ego]

Yeah, I meant that the best course of action would be doing 30 dates a year with Brian rather than 100 without him. But allowing Brian to play with The Beach Boys whenever he pleases wouldn't work at all.

Bad business practice, cutting your potential income by 70%: everyone loses.

Brian allows him to do this by letting him keep The Beach Boys name.

Like Brian has the final say ? Nope, he has a 25% say. Just so happened Mike & Carl's estate sided with him.

Bad business practice for men in their 70s with enough money to last two or three lifetimes. Most bands in their 70s don't tour at all.

Never said Brian has final say. Brian allows him to keep The Beach Boys name by being one of four votes. Figured everyone on this board knew that and that I didn't have to spell it out every time it's said. I'll never make such a brash decision again.

Dood you missing AGC point #2 -

 2 - the voting in BRI remains the same: four votes, and given that Carl's estate will vote for what brings in an income, the best Brian & Alan can dout is tie 2-2, which isn't enough to change anything.

see Brian still isnt allowing nothing, him and Al could just make a tie and Carls heirs go for the Love Gold 100 dates a yr.

[startBBtoday]

Yeah, I meant that the best course of action would be doing 30 dates a year with Brian rather than 100 without him. But allowing Brian to play with The Beach Boys whenever he pleases wouldn't work at all.

Bad business practice, cutting your potential income by 70%: everyone loses.

Brian allows him to do this by letting him keep The Beach Boys name.

Like Brian has the final say ? Nope, he has a 25% say. Just so happened Mike & Carl's estate sided with him.

Bad business practice for men in their 70s with enough money to last two or three lifetimes. Most bands in their 70s don't tour at all.

Never said Brian has final say. Brian allows him to keep The Beach Boys name by being one of four votes. Figured everyone on this board knew that and that I didn't have to spell it out every time it's said. I'll never make such a brash decision again.

Dood you missing AGC point #2 -

 2 - the voting in BRI remains the same: four votes, and given that Carl's estate will vote for what brings in an income, the best Brian & Alan can dout is tie 2-2, which isn't enough to change anything.

see Brian still isnt allowing nothing, him and Al could just make a tie and Carls heirs go for the Love Gold 100 dates a yr.

And the larger point is that Brian continues to vote for Mike keeping the name, regardless of whether it will change anything or not. We all agree that he's fine with the status quo.

[Foster's Freeze]

the C50 shows were as profitable as they were because it was a special, one-off occasion. The value would be diluted by regular touring.

I don't see how anyone can't believe that the "value" gets more diluted every time the Mike Love Band plays a show.

by and large, only the likes of us - what, 150, 200 hard-core fans ? - actually give a flying one as to who is on stage and who should be. Everyone else goes for the music and to judge from the 3000 at HCP last week, M&B are doing just fine in that department.

I would think globally there are a lot more people who care about who's on stage - if this is our argument, I could go see a Surf City All-Stars show or even Papa Do Run Run since at any given time SOMEONE in those bands has been onstage or associated with the original Beach Boys.  If they sound as good as the original recordings then what's the difference?  Personally I don't think the Mike Love band sounds like the Beach Boys.  It's Mike with nameless people singing backup but that's just me and I respect what others may think.

The last time I saw Al and his band play there was a LOT of Beach Boys pedigree:

Al Jardine
Billy Hinsche
Bobby Figueroa
Ed Carter
Matt Jardine
Richie Cannata
Dean Torrence

For a fan, that seems like a killer lineup because of the association of many of these being genuine Beach Boys band members.  I guess Mike is the attraction in his show, beyond that, any cover band can play Beach Boys songs and sound good.

I simply can't see (oh wait, I can! $$$$$$$ > Legacy) why Mike kills the reputation of the band more and more and more.  

I would have no problem if he toured as Mike Love of the Beach Boys.

[HeyJude]

And the larger point is that Brian continues to vote for Mike keeping the name, regardless of whether it will change anything or not. We all agree that he's fine with the status quo.

We've had multiple sources state to their knowledge that no vote has taken place on the license since circa 1998/99. So nobody continues to vote for anyone to have the license apparently. They are choosing not to convene the board and conduct a new vote to change who has the license. A fine point to be sure, but one worth noting. In other words, if the license came up for renewal automatically every year, it could theoretically be a bit easier (logistically as well as in terms of any slightly changing opinions/preferences from year to year) for something to change. As it is now, any parties interested in changing the status quo would have to be extra proactive about it.

This all assumes that the current license can easily be revoked if the votes are there. I would assume that could happen; but we don’t know for sure. I don’t know how much foresight Brian’s camp or Carl’s estate had back then. If they knew they would NEVER want to change the status quo, maybe they did vote for something with more permanent terms (e.g. the terms of the license would have to be violated for there to even be a vote to revoke it; as opposed to simply some voting members changing their mind). But I would still guess that any legal advisor would make it such that if tomorrow Brian, Carl’s estate, and Al all agree to do something different with the license, they could. Even then maybe it would involve some business machinations, and lawsuits could potentially fly either way. Such a thing won’t happen anyway unless something really bizarre happens.

[CenturyDeprived]

Yeah, I meant that the best course of action would be doing 30 dates a year with Brian rather than 100 without him. But allowing Brian to play with The Beach Boys whenever he pleases wouldn't work at all.

Bad business practice, cutting your potential income by 70%: everyone loses.

Brian allows him to do this by letting him keep The Beach Boys name.

Like Brian has the final say ? Nope, he has a 25% say. Just so happened Mike & Carl's estate sided with him.

Bad business practice for men in their 70s with enough money to last two or three lifetimes. Most bands in their 70s don't tour at all.

Never said Brian has final say. Brian allows him to keep The Beach Boys name by being one of four votes. Figured everyone on this board knew that and that I didn't have to spell it out every time it's said. I'll never make such a brash decision again.

Dood you missing AGC point #2 -

 2 - the voting in BRI remains the same: four votes, and given that Carl's estate will vote for what brings in an income, the best Brian & Alan can dout is tie 2-2, which isn't enough to change anything.

see Brian still isnt allowing nothing, him and Al could just make a tie and Carls heirs go for the Love Gold 100 dates a yr.

And the larger point is that Brian continues to vote for Mike keeping the name, regardless of whether it will change anything or not. We all agree that he's fine with the status quo.

Do we really know Brian is "fine" with the status quo? That it doesn't still bug him somewhat? Just because somebody goes along with something, and even gets some financial benefits on the side, doesn't mean they're actually happy with it or think that it is "right".

Because Mike has made it abundantly obvious that he will sue and be relentless to get his way… Maybe Brian/Melinda simply don't want to be put through gut-wrenching legal battles that would undoubtedly ensue. I think Mike has created a "don't f*ck with me" vibe with his legal actions (especially the lawsuit during the BWPS era)... And it is crystal clear that Mike will never, ever give up his ability to tour as the band name without a huge fight. It's everything to him. I think that even if Brian and Carl's estate tried to do so (with Al in tow), Mike would be scrambling his lawyers to find out how he could stop that from happening, and he would drag it out legally for as long as he could. Does anyone really doubt that would be the case?

Not to mention, if Brian really wanted to try to start a process to attempt to take the license away from Mike (not that he could do it on his own anyway), Brian would also inadvertently be screwing over his late brother's family from getting a regular paycheck. That would be collateral damage.

Bottom line – I would really doubt that Brian is happy about the current situation, especially after how the reunion ended so bitterly. I just think that it's not worth it to him to go about trying to change it. Why does a 72-year-old man who's gone through emotional hardships in his life need to put himself through any more emotionally tough stuff? Better to just not rock the boat.

Of course, I'm sure Brian and Melinda are fine with cashing the checks too. But lets not fool ourselves into just 100% assuming that Brian is actually actively "happy" about the situation as a whole. He simply let the baby have his bottle. The simple fact is that the alternative is way too emotionally and financially costly. I'll bet that the thought has crossed his mind, and I'd be shocked if he's never had even a brief conversation about it, just discussing hypotheticals at some point post 1998.

[guitarfool2002]

Maybe it's just me but if we're talking about "diluting" the brand and the special, one-off nature of the 2012 C50 tour, how does that line up with billing and promoting a 2014 Beach Boys tour as "Celebrating 50 Years Of Fun Fun Fun"?

[CenturyDeprived]

Maybe it's just me but if we're talking about "diluting" the brand and the special, one-off nature of the 2012 C50 tour, how does that line up with billing and promoting a 2014 Beach Boys tour as "Celebrating 50 Years Of Fun Fun Fun"?

Simple, it's clever marketing. The current marketing pitch is ideal for fans of the faceless version of the band, who may have in passing heard about the C50, and now they think this is part of the same continuum. The current marketing gets to piggyback on the actual proper reunion tour. And of course, it's pure hypocrisy. Not that all the principal players in this band haven't done quite a few hypocritical things, but certainly this is a pretty clear case of it IMO.

[HeyJude]

Maybe it's just me but if we're talking about "diluting" the brand and the special, one-off nature of the 2012 C50 tour, how does that line up with billing and promoting a 2014 Beach Boys tour as "Celebrating 50 Years Of Fun Fun Fun"?

Thank you. The “diluting the trademark” argument in relation to C50 is total bulls**t. They were diluting the trademark when Al and Carl were still in the band by doing so many tour dates, and they’ve done it even more in the last 16 years by continuing to do so many tour dates and with less core/original members.

More importantly as it pertains to C50, the more I read that “give it a rest” comment, the more it reads like a way to get the press off your back about curtailing more reunion shows instead of just saying you want to go back to doing everything your way.

I had a college professor that told us that one of the main reasons he pursued college instead of high school teaching was that he had more autonomy; he could just tell students to get the hell out of the classroom if he wanted to. If someone likes running their own band and doesn’t like doing anything by committee, then they should just be honest about it.

[guitarfool2002]

Maybe it's just me but if we're talking about "diluting" the brand and the special, one-off nature of the 2012 C50 tour, how does that line up with billing and promoting a 2014 Beach Boys tour as "Celebrating 50 Years Of Fun Fun Fun"?

Simple, it's clever marketing. The current marketing pitch is ideal for fans of the faceless version of the band, who may have in passing heard about the C50, and now they think this is part of the same continuum. The current marketing gets to piggyback on the actual proper reunion tour. And of course, it's pure hypocrisy. Not that all the principal players in this band haven't done quite a few hypocritical things, but certainly this is a pretty clear case of it IMO.

I need to stop using the rhetorical question in my posts.  

But yeah, I'm thinking after reading comments about not "diluting" the brand, going back to the 2012 Grammy Museum Q&A when Mike said he was advised by promoters not to risk "overexposure" or overstaying one's welcome or whatever it was to explain taking a year off from the C50 band's bookings...now in 2014 we see advertising and promotional copy prominently using the 50th vibe to promote shows...no matter what kind of a stretch it is two years after the only real 50th celebration that makes sense historically...

Can't have it both ways. Or can you depending on the definition of "you"?  

[HeyJude]

Maybe it's just me but if we're talking about "diluting" the brand and the special, one-off nature of the 2012 C50 tour, how does that line up with billing and promoting a 2014 Beach Boys tour as "Celebrating 50 Years Of Fun Fun Fun"?

Simple, it's clever marketing. The current marketing pitch is ideal for fans of the faceless version of the band, who may have in passing heard about the C50, and now they think this is part of the same continuum. The current marketing gets to piggyback on the actual proper reunion tour. And of course, it's pure hypocrisy. Not that all the principal players in this band haven't done quite a few hypocritical things, but certainly this is a pretty clear case of it IMO.

It did seem a bit odd (and I can’t say it was bad marketing) that Rolling Stone did an article on a big “summer tour” from the Beach Boys, kind of ignoring that they haven’t NOT done a summer tour perhaps ever. (I dunno if every year since 1962 included a full-blown “summer tour”, but it’s certainly not something they’ve skipped in a few decades).

It’s funny, because 2012 proved that it does make it difficult to do a big hyped full reunion and then have it literally butt up against a Mike/Bruce tour. But it also proved that the transition between the two can be made. It’s too bad they couldn’t have just blasted a headline this summer “Brian Wilson, Al Jardine, and David Marks joining up with Mike Love and Bruce Johnston for a Summer Tour to reprise their critically acclaimed 2012 tour. The lineup will play together from May XX to August XX.”

I dunno, perhaps I should do like others have suggested and just pretend 2012 was the band’s finale. Kind of like really digging a movie and just ignoring the crappy sequels that came after and pretending it ended with the first one.

[startBBtoday]

Yeah, I meant that the best course of action would be doing 30 dates a year with Brian rather than 100 without him. But allowing Brian to play with The Beach Boys whenever he pleases wouldn't work at all.

Bad business practice, cutting your potential income by 70%: everyone loses.

Brian allows him to do this by letting him keep The Beach Boys name.

Like Brian has the final say ? Nope, he has a 25% say. Just so happened Mike & Carl's estate sided with him.

Bad business practice for men in their 70s with enough money to last two or three lifetimes. Most bands in their 70s don't tour at all.

Never said Brian has final say. Brian allows him to keep The Beach Boys name by being one of four votes. Figured everyone on this board knew that and that I didn't have to spell it out every time it's said. I'll never make such a brash decision again.

Dood you missing AGC point #2 -

 2 - the voting in BRI remains the same: four votes, and given that Carl's estate will vote for what brings in an income, the best Brian & Alan can dout is tie 2-2, which isn't enough to change anything.

see Brian still isnt allowing nothing, him and Al could just make a tie and Carls heirs go for the Love Gold 100 dates a yr.

And the larger point is that Brian continues to vote for Mike keeping the name, regardless of whether it will change anything or not. We all agree that he's fine with the status quo.

Do we really know Brian is "fine" with the status quo? That it doesn't still bug him somewhat? Just because somebody goes along with something, and even gets some financial benefits on the side, doesn't mean they're actually happy with it or think that it is "right".

Because Mike has made it abundantly obvious that he will sue and be relentless to get his way… Maybe Brian/Melinda simply don't want to be put through gut-wrenching legal battles that would undoubtedly ensue. I think Mike has created a "don't f*ck with me" vibe with his legal actions (especially the lawsuit during the BWPS era)... And it is crystal clear that Mike will never, ever give up his ability to tour as the band name without a huge fight. It's everything to him. I think that even if Brian and Carl's estate tried to do so (with Al in tow), Mike would be scrambling his lawyers to find out how he could stop that from happening, and he would drag it out legally for as long as he could. Does anyone really doubt that would be the case?

Not to mention, if Brian really wanted to try to start a process to attempt to take the license away from Mike (not that he could do it on his own anyway), Brian would also inadvertently be screwing over his late brother's family from getting a regular paycheck. That would be collateral damage.

Bottom line – I would really doubt that Brian is happy about the current situation, especially after how the reunion ended so bitterly. I just think that it's not worth it to him to go about trying to change it. Why does a 72-year-old man who's gone through emotional hardships in his life need to put himself through any more emotionally tough stuff? Better to just not rock the boat.

Of course, I'm sure Brian and Melinda are fine with cashing the checks too. But lets not fool ourselves into just 100% assuming that Brian is actually actively "happy" about the situation as a whole. He simply let the baby have his bottle. The simple fact is that the alternative is way too emotionally and financially costly. I'll bet that the thought has crossed his mind, and I'd be shocked if he's never had even a brief conversation about it, just discussing hypotheticals at some point post 1998.

I don't know, Brian and Melinda seem to be pretty content with using the Brian Wilson brand over The Beach Boys brand. There's a reason Brian keeps releasing solo albums over Beach Boys albums, and I don't think it's entirely because of Mike's relentlessness to get his way.

[HeyJude]

Maybe it's just me but if we're talking about "diluting" the brand and the special, one-off nature of the 2012 C50 tour, how does that line up with billing and promoting a 2014 Beach Boys tour as "Celebrating 50 Years Of Fun Fun Fun"?

Simple, it's clever marketing. The current marketing pitch is ideal for fans of the faceless version of the band, who may have in passing heard about the C50, and now they think this is part of the same continuum. The current marketing gets to piggyback on the actual proper reunion tour. And of course, it's pure hypocrisy. Not that all the principal players in this band haven't done quite a few hypocritical things, but certainly this is a pretty clear case of it IMO.

I need to stop using the rhetorical question in my posts.  

But yeah, I'm thinking after reading comments about not "diluting" the brand, going back to the 2012 Grammy Museum Q&A when Mike said he was advised by promoters not to risk "overexposure" or overstaying one's welcome or whatever it was to explain taking a year off from the C50 band's bookings...now in 2014 we see advertising and promotional copy prominently using the 50th vibe to promote shows...no matter what kind of a stretch it is two years after the only real 50th celebration that makes sense historically...

Can't have it both ways. Or can you depending on the definition of "you"?  

It is funny that Mike continued to wear the “Beach Boys 50” cap throughout 2013 (and maybe 2014? Not sure…). Obviously, he can wear any hat he wants to (perhaps he’ll go back to the “Home Improvement” cap since it’s all about 90’s nostalgia these days).

[Sheriff John Stone]

Of course, I'm sure Brian and Melinda are fine with cashing the checks too.

Ecstatic maybe?

[CenturyDeprived]

Yeah, I meant that the best course of action would be doing 30 dates a year with Brian rather than 100 without him. But allowing Brian to play with The Beach Boys whenever he pleases wouldn't work at all.

Bad business practice, cutting your potential income by 70%: everyone loses.

Brian allows him to do this by letting him keep The Beach Boys name.

Like Brian has the final say ? Nope, he has a 25% say. Just so happened Mike & Carl's estate sided with him.

Bad business practice for men in their 70s with enough money to last two or three lifetimes. Most bands in their 70s don't tour at all.

Never said Brian has final say. Brian allows him to keep The Beach Boys name by being one of four votes. Figured everyone on this board knew that and that I didn't have to spell it out every time it's said. I'll never make such a brash decision again.

Dood you missing AGC point #2 -

 2 - the voting in BRI remains the same: four votes, and given that Carl's estate will vote for what brings in an income, the best Brian & Alan can dout is tie 2-2, which isn't enough to change anything.

see Brian still isnt allowing nothing, him and Al could just make a tie and Carls heirs go for the Love Gold 100 dates a yr.

And the larger point is that Brian continues to vote for Mike keeping the name, regardless of whether it will change anything or not. We all agree that he's fine with the status quo.

Do we really know Brian is "fine" with the status quo? That it doesn't still bug him somewhat? Just because somebody goes along with something, and even gets some financial benefits on the side, doesn't mean they're actually happy with it or think that it is "right".

Because Mike has made it abundantly obvious that he will sue and be relentless to get his way… Maybe Brian/Melinda simply don't want to be put through gut-wrenching legal battles that would undoubtedly ensue. I think Mike has created a "don't f*ck with me" vibe with his legal actions (especially the lawsuit during the BWPS era)... And it is crystal clear that Mike will never, ever give up his ability to tour as the band name without a huge fight. It's everything to him. I think that even if Brian and Carl's estate tried to do so (with Al in tow), Mike would be scrambling his lawyers to find out how he could stop that from happening, and he would drag it out legally for as long as he could. Does anyone really doubt that would be the case?

Not to mention, if Brian really wanted to try to start a process to attempt to take the license away from Mike (not that he could do it on his own anyway), Brian would also inadvertently be screwing over his late brother's family from getting a regular paycheck. That would be collateral damage.

Bottom line – I would really doubt that Brian is happy about the current situation, especially after how the reunion ended so bitterly. I just think that it's not worth it to him to go about trying to change it. Why does a 72-year-old man who's gone through emotional hardships in his life need to put himself through any more emotionally tough stuff? Better to just not rock the boat.

Of course, I'm sure Brian and Melinda are fine with cashing the checks too. But lets not fool ourselves into just 100% assuming that Brian is actually actively "happy" about the situation as a whole. He simply let the baby have his bottle. The simple fact is that the alternative is way too emotionally and financially costly. I'll bet that the thought has crossed his mind, and I'd be shocked if he's never had even a brief conversation about it, just discussing hypotheticals at some point post 1998.

I don't know, Brian and Melinda seem to be pretty content with using the Brian Wilson brand over The Beach Boys brand. There's a reason Brian keeps releasing solo albums over Beach Boys albums, and I don't think it's entirely because of Mike's relentlessness to get his way.

I agree - Brian has indeed intentionally tried to carve out a niche as a solo artist away form the brand name of the BBs. And I highly doubt that Brian has any urge whatsoever to go out as "The BBs" unless it's with all the members, and on good terms. I'm not saying Brian at any point wants to "be the Beach Boys" these days. But I am saying (especially in the wake of the post C50 "firing", or during the bitterness around the lawsuit circa BWPS-era) that if at any point it crossed his mind that Mike touring as "The BBs" was in any way questionable or worthy of reconsideration (even if out of spite), I'm sure that Brian has deemed it quite simply "not worth it" (on a number of levels) to go about doing anything about it.

[CenturyDeprived]

Maybe it's just me but if we're talking about "diluting" the brand and the special, one-off nature of the 2012 C50 tour, how does that line up with billing and promoting a 2014 Beach Boys tour as "Celebrating 50 Years Of Fun Fun Fun"?

Simple, it's clever marketing. The current marketing pitch is ideal for fans of the faceless version of the band, who may have in passing heard about the C50, and now they think this is part of the same continuum. The current marketing gets to piggyback on the actual proper reunion tour. And of course, it's pure hypocrisy. Not that all the principal players in this band haven't done quite a few hypocritical things, but certainly this is a pretty clear case of it IMO.

I need to stop using the rhetorical question in my posts.  

But yeah, I'm thinking after reading comments about not "diluting" the brand, going back to the 2012 Grammy Museum Q&A when Mike said he was advised by promoters not to risk "overexposure" or overstaying one's welcome or whatever it was to explain taking a year off from the C50 band's bookings...now in 2014 we see advertising and promotional copy prominently using the 50th vibe to promote shows...no matter what kind of a stretch it is two years after the only real 50th celebration that makes sense historically...

Can't have it both ways. Or can you depending on the definition of "you"?  

For Mike Love to use to term "overexposure" (in a negative context) is absurdity to the highest degree. It's only used when to suit his own agenda. Overexposure for bands and touring is a real issue, of course, but it's either always an issue on some level, or it's never an issue. Like you said - can't have it both ways.

[Sheriff John Stone]

I am saying (especially in the wake of the post C50 "firing", or during the bitterness around the lawsuit circa BWPS-era) that if at any point it crossed his mind that Mike touring as "The BBs" was in any way questionable or worthy of reconsideration (even if out of spite), I'm sure that Brian has deemed it quite simply "not worth it" (on a number of levels) to go about doing anything about it.

And, in actuality, Brian wouldn't even have to lift a finger or utter a single syllable. Everything would be handled through the attorneys. The only way that Brian and hiswifeand managers would deem it "not worth it" is if they view "worth" as a noun.

[CenturyDeprived]

Of course, I'm sure Brian and Melinda are fine with cashing the checks too.

Ecstatic maybe?

I'll assume there was more than a hint of sarcasm there, Sheriff

I don't think it's a matter of anyone being "ecstatic". I think that Brian (and Melinda) feel that Brian rightly deserves to get a chunk of change for the current "BB" tours, which see Mike benefiting from Brian's (and Mike's own, not to mention the other Boys') hard work so many years ago. I do wonder if Murry hadn't sold the catalog when he did, and if 2014 Brian would have a much (maybe double?) larger bank account, would the Mike & Bruce BB tour money checks be enough of a carrot for Brian to still not want to rock the boat? Maybe, maybe not. Pretty much all of the BB members have done moves that could be construed as money grubbing from the start, and money usually wins out in the end.

[HeyJude]

Of course, I'm sure Brian and Melinda are fine with cashing the checks too.

Ecstatic maybe?

As Wirestone has also commented on in the recent past, there were some discussions here a year or two (or more) back with some potential actual numbers to chew on which indicated that the 25% cut of the licensing fee (which is itself only a relatively small percentage of touring proceeds) is not nearly as large of an amount as some of us would have guessed.

Make no mistake, for most “common folk”, it’s a huge chunk of money. It’s especially a nice chunk of money to just collect without having to do anything. But I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the guys, especially Brian, make more money off of their royalties from the old hits than they do from that source.

As someone else alluded to, Brian has never offered an enthusiastic endorsement of Mike’s band particularly. It’s the path of least resistance, with the fringe benefit of bringing some money in.

We also don’t know exactly how the licensing fees that are paid to their corporation are distributed, because that’s a lot of nuts and bolts financial/business stuff. It may, and I stress may, not be as simple as a big hunk of money getting paid to A, and then four equal checks immediately cut to B, C, D, and E. The money may end up tied up in the corporation for some period of time, depending on how they have all of that set up. I’m sure it funnels down to them at some point, but we don’t know how all of that works.

[CenturyDeprived]

I am saying (especially in the wake of the post C50 "firing", or during the bitterness around the lawsuit circa BWPS-era) that if at any point it crossed his mind that Mike touring as "The BBs" was in any way questionable or worthy of reconsideration (even if out of spite), I'm sure that Brian has deemed it quite simply "not worth it" (on a number of levels) to go about doing anything about it.

And, in actuality, Brian wouldn't even have to lift a finger or utter a single syllable. Everything would be handled through the attorneys. The only way that Brian and hiswifeand managers would deem it "not worth it" is if they view "worth" as a noun.

Yeah, it would be handled with attorneys. But I think the mere thought of money-draining legal battles going on for potentially a long while is just something that Brian (not to mention most people) would want to avoid at all costs. It would be awful. 

Yes, to some degree, I'd imagine that Brian feels that Mike has "earned" the ability to tour as the BBs. It seems almost like a divorce settlement to me. Mike got the band name (which he was the biggest consistent cheerleader of, compared to all other band members). So that probably factors into the equation too.

I'm just saying that there are enough disincentives (emotional, financial - both personal and to his late brother's family, a history of lawsuits from Mike) that factor into the status quo remaining unchanged. Let's just not pretend that Brian thinks that the brand name being used like it is currently is simply a wonderful thing. As Hey Jude just stated, it seems the main factors are that it's the path of least resistance, with the fringe benefit of bringing some money in.

[Foster's Freeze]

Thank you. The “diluting the trademark” argument in relation to C50 is total bulls**t. They were diluting the trademark when Al and Carl were still in the band by doing so many tour dates, and they’ve done it even more in the last 16 years by continuing to do so many tour dates and with less core/original members.

Truth, truth, truth.

[Sheriff John Stone]

No, I really meant it, and not just with Brian and Melinda, but also Carl's Estate. Who would NOT be ecstatic to receive a direct deposit of thousands and thousands of dollars into their checking account - FOR DOING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING - regardless of your financial status or tax bracket.

This topic (the license) comes up frequently, and that's fine. In some ways it's interesting. It would be a lot more interesting if we knew more about the terms of the license. But, in my opinion, we can go around and around, and blame this guy and that guy, but it all comes back to the same conclusion. This license was negotiated, continues to stay in effect, and will continue to stay in effect for one basic reason - $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

I ask a question. If Brian Wilson and Al Jardine and Carl Wilson's Estate did NOT get a check for every M & B show performed, do you think this license would still be effect? Doesn't that answer all questions? And, I might as well get myself in trouble again. Who is Carl Wilson's estate? Gina (Dean Martin's daughter) Wilson and Carl's two sons? I wonder how strong they feel about the issue? I wonder if they think about how their father would feel about the situation? Are they hurting for money? Just asking...

[guitarfool2002]

It doesn't make sense to answer questions and opinions about using the band's name and decisions made around that fact by saying "they all agreed to it" with the BRI corporate votes, and then raise the issue of who is getting checks "for doing absolutely nothing" when that was part of the same group agreement. If I'm also detecting a little questioning of the check distribution agreement itself, again mentioning those who are getting paid for doing absolutely nothing, then it also must be challenging the system of brand ownership in general and getting compensated for something a person had a hand in creating and developing, therefore copyrighting and owning that brand name and identity and everything created under that brand, whenever that brand is used to sell something for profit.