Jeff Foskett speaks about leaving Brian's band and joining Mike's band

[Mr. Cohen]

None of us can really know what Jeff's motivation was. The timing of this whole thing is interesting, that's all I'm saying.

And to be honest, I don't buy his story, what can I say.

Truthfully, I assumed that's why he'd left. It makes sense. If we really want to jump into unsubstantiated conjecture, it could be that Jeff is trying to adopt the new party line. Mike complained about Brian needing his own tour bus. Now Jeff is making Brian out to be a burden on the road, too (of course, he's not trying to put Brian in a negative light - just don't expect to ever tour a castle or hang out with the guys and eat breakfast if you're with him). Maybe he drank some of Mike's kool-aid.

[CenturyDeprived]

I think the way things happened after Carl's death was majorly f***ed up, and I to this day feel the Beach Boys should not exist without a Wilson in the band. I know the voting members of BRI disagree with me. That said, I do have a question for you doubters...do you really think for a minute Mike wouldn't rather be playing with the full band rather than what he's currently doing?

IMHO, Mike would only want to be playing with the full living members of the BB band if that scenario was intrinsically from the ground up set up for Mike to be able to prove himself capable of writing a huge hit song with lyrics by Michael Edward Love, and to prove that the band NEEDS his lyrical contributions for this to happen. He wants the world to know this since he feels slighted by history and has a huge chip on his shoulder. I think he is hugely motivated to correct what he believes is an injustice.

I think his primary motivation (from a reunion standpoint) was pre C50 and is now to prove to the world how important HE is to the hitmaking process with Brian Wilson and The Beach Boys. I'm sure he enjoyed some of the sentimental stuff too, and I'm sure he legitimately does want to bury hatchets... but I think that this is the primary concern, and THE primary factor that, if not met, will mean that everything else is worth chucking out the window.

I happen to think it's damn sad and petty that this motivation trumps the other stuff.

That may be a bleak way of looking at things, but I have a hard time seeing it much differently.

[Rocky Raccoon]

I actually thought the reasoning was the opposite.  Brian isn't touring very much anymore and has only played sporadically for the past year.  This wasn't steady enough for Jeff and an offer opens up for him to tour on a more consistent basis.  Though maybe that is a reason too.

[astroray]

Jeff stood in for Gerry Beckley on an "America" tour. I think I'd be ticked off if I went to see Hall & Oates, and Daryl Hall was was replaced by Jeff !

[SIP.FLAC]

Don't say "spade", that's racist - say "African-American".

ugh

[Mr. Cohen]

I actually thought the reasoning was the opposite.  Brian isn't touring very much anymore and has only played sporadically for the past year.  This wasn't steady enough for Jeff and an offer opens up for him to tour on a more consistent basis.  Though maybe that is a reason too.

No, I totally agree with that reason. I'm just saying that maybe he now he's also adopting the Mike party line.

[bachelorofbullets]

I don't think Jeff is lying.  Would you rather play 10 shows a year with 74? year-old Brian and act as his caregiver, or would you rather play 100 shows a year and have a great time doing it.  Do you want to be a rock star or a nurse? 

I don't know why the continued hate for Mike's branding continues.  Brian/Melinda gave the license to Mike, he didn't steal it.

[guitarfool2002]

Some of you have expressed a lot of my feelings on these surrounding issues...Howie, rockandroll, GhostyTMRS (you lost me on the first reply but the second was a great one, I agree about the notion of The Beach Boys to a large degree), and whoever else I'm forgetting. And before someone chimes in and says "oh no, not THIS same discussion again", let me say the discussion(s) happens because the issues all but consume the band and its surviving members, and some fans have very strong feelings about how things have gone.

Basically, like Howie said about the "brand" issue, some of my viewpoint was shaped by a few events regarding the lawsuits, the naming, etc.

Look, these guys have been in the same company for decades, right? They've made shitloads of money, shared the good times and the bad, did things they never would have dreamed as teenagers in Hawthorne or anywhere else, right?

So Al wanted to tour as "BB's Family And Friends", and had issues paying the fees to use "Beach Boys". Like Howie alluded to, would anyone, but ANYONE confuse a tour billed as Family and Friends with some bigger version of the Beach Boys? Heck no. Again, let me restate that the *only* band member thus far who has in fact confused people with the billing of shows was Mike.

So rewind...Perhaps they could have kept it out of the courts, perhaps not. Maybe no one wanted to budge, it happens every day, they needed a mediator like the court to decide.

So decide the naming and the branding issues, and leave it at that.

If I'm wrong on this next point, please someone point me to the facts or the truth of the matter and I'll gladly and humbly mea culpa...

Why the hell did Mike sue Al for "lost revenue" or whatever it was, with the assertion that Al's mini-tour with his kids and the Wilson girls basically stole money from his pocket, and try to get a substantial sum of money from Al?

At that point, it seemed more vindictive, perhaps more personal, and it went beyond who could use the branded name Beach Boys going forward, and how could it be used. It got dirty, it was as someone said a total dick move designed to take a chunk of money from Al.

Who instigated it? There's my issue. Maybe nasty, dirty divorces are the place for those kind of revenge filings, but these guys shared how many stages and all kinds of experiences and whatnot as bandmates...make it about the *NAME*, decide that, and move along. No need to shake more money out of the deal.

Again, my 2 cents. Actually 2.5, but who's countin'.  

[guitarfool2002]

I don't know why the continued hate for Mike's branding continues.  Brian/Melinda gave the license to Mike, he didn't steal it.

BRI owns the name and the brand, one vote could not "give" anything without a board vote. The BRI umbrella company interest through the voting board basically licensed the franchise that included the name and some specific operating rules and standards to Mike, and he pays for using and advertising with that franchise name just as McDonald's owners pay corporate to be in that franchise...with strict conditions and standards. If they're not met, the agreement can be terminated and the franchise stripped. Simple as that.

So wherever the notion came from suggesting that Brian or any one entity other than the BRI board ever "gave" the license away, it's incorrect.

[guitarfool2002]

Some of the posts here are talking about C50, burying hatchets, coming together, etc. Maybe a picture can be worth a thousand words, so with that...if the significance of this photo isn't immediately noticeable for anyone, look closer:

[bachelorofbullets]

I don't know why the continued hate for Mike's branding continues.  Brian/Melinda gave the license to Mike, he didn't steal it.

BRI owns the name and the brand, one vote could not "give" anything without a board vote. The BRI umbrella company interest through the voting board basically licensed the franchise that included the name and some specific operating rules and standards to Mike, and he pays for using and advertising with that franchise name just as McDonald's owners pay corporate to be in that franchise...with strict conditions and standards. If they're not met, the agreement can be terminated and the franchise stripped. Simple as that.

So wherever the notion came from suggesting that Brian or any one entity other than the BRI board ever "gave" the license away, it's incorrect.

If you go watch the Brian/Melinda/Larry King interview, Melinda clearly says "they decided" (meaning her and Brian) to give the brand name to Mike.  Whether Brian holds the swing vote or by some other means, they made it very clear they were the reason Mike got it, and they explained the reasons for such.


 

[Shady]

Some of the posts here are talking about C50, burying hatchets, coming together, etc. Maybe a picture can be worth a thousand words, so with that...if the significance of this photo isn't immediately noticeable for anyone, look closer:

No Mike and Bruce? When the picture was first posted on here I immediately knew what was up.

That photo along with Mike booking dates during the very early stages of the C50 tour made me realise all was not well. Let's not go down the Mike Love road but what an unbelievable person he us. Unless we're underestimating just how vicious Brian's camp are what could possibly compel you not to attend that dinner?

The article in the OP made reference to the "Mike camp" "Brian camp" BS, Mike love is the main reason the tension exists and why as fans we're forced to choose sides.

[the captain]

... and why as fans we're forced to choose sides.

We're not in any way forced to choose sides. We're not forced to do anything. We choose to listen to the music (old, new, studio, live), or not. We choose to go to shows, or not. We choose to sign up for message boards, or not. And we choose to treat the whole thing like a soap opera in which we're personally invested, or not. Nobody related to anyone associated with the Beach Boys, past or present, is forcing any of us to do anything.

[GhostyTMRS]

... and why as fans we're forced to choose sides.

We're not in any way forced to choose sides. We're not forced to do anything. We choose to listen to the music (old, new, studio, live), or not. We choose to go to shows, or not. We choose to sign up for message boards, or not. And we choose to treat the whole thing like a soap opera in which we're personally invested, or not. Nobody related to anyone associated with the Beach Boys, past or present, is forcing any of us to do anything.

This!

[Mikie]

This what?

[alf wiedersehen]

if the significance of this photo isn't immediately noticeable for anyone, look closer:

Are you referring to the dark, shrouded ghost that resides above their mirror?

[Rocky Raccoon]

Jeff stood in for Gerry Beckley on an "America" tour. I think I'd be ticked off if I went to see Hall & Oates, and Daryl Hall was was replaced by Jeff !

Yeah, that's really bizarre.  When you're giving the audience less than what they paid for, you cancel the show.  A band is not a Broadway show, you don't bring in understudies.

[NHC]

The interviewer says that Jeff's entree to the band was via Mike Love who heard Jeff's own band play in 1979.  Seems to me I read somewhere Jeff - or an interviewer - talking about his knocking on Wilson's door on Bellagio in the 1970's and introducing himself when Brian himself answered the door? In any event, I can see how the grind of this particular "job" would wear a person out eventually, probably in a lot fewer years for most people than Jeff put in.

[Ron]

Some of the posts here are talking about C50, burying hatchets, coming together, etc. Maybe a picture can be worth a thousand words, so with that...if the significance of this photo isn't immediately noticeable for anyone, look closer:

Pretty crappy of Brian to throw a big party, then not invite Mike to it after Mike let him back in the band and everything...

[the professor]

I don't care about legal rights to names. I do care that Jeff said ideally all the Beach Boys would be together. He is wise and has heart, & I hope his ambition comes true.

[Andrew G. Doe]

If you go watch the Brian/Melinda/Larry King interview, Melinda clearly says "they decided" (meaning her and Brian) to give the brand name to Mike.  Whether Brian holds the swing vote or by some other means, they made it very clear they were the reason Mike got it, and they explained the reasons for such.

Then why didn't she say "we decided..." ? Answer - because she couldn't, because they didn't. Mike's exclusive license was awarded to him by BRI after a majority vote in favor by all executive members. Just like GF2002 said. This is not fanboy wishful thinking, this is documented fact.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Although I thought Jeff’s interview was heartfelt (and caring for our beloved panda Brian 24/7 can’t be the easiest job for anyone — least of all a man pushing 60) those recent road dates were HARDLY backbreaking. And those recent sessions were HARDLY Western Recorders c. 1965. So, with due respect, there’s a bit of a fudge. And I gotta say it — leaving that gig for MIKE is the biggest political maneuver since the group fired Brian to get him back into detox.

Have to disagree, Howie, unless Brian is in cahoots with Mike on this. The timeline doesn't work: Brian said, in his post when the news about Jeff & Mike broke, that Jeff handed in his notice pretty much the moment the Beck tour was wrapped, October 30th. My understanding is that this is indeed the case. The call from Mike came this spring, after Christian decided to leave. Now, knowing how much Christian regarded his position with dad as purely income, if Jeff had left Brian purely for Mike, the switcheroo would have occurred back in November once Mike knew Jeff was at liberty.

[Andrew G. Doe]

My sources don't require me to toe the party line to stay connected/

Amen! That's the one big change here. I wasn't visiting the board much for a few years, and I came back recently to see this strange, almost anti-Brian sentiment take hold. Weird...

Other posters noticed this as well, for the record. There seemed to be an uptick in what you noticed in 2014, or perhaps more than what had happened in previous years even going back to the BW Christmas album.

Exactly, there is a harshness on BW and a strange silence on others.

Temporary silence. I think Mike's come in for the odd criticism since, oh, 1966. 

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Now, knowing how much Christian regarded his position with dad as purely income,

Wait...what?

[Howie Edelson]

Andrew -- I'm saying leaving as in not working for any longer and moving on to another job.
(Not as in "leaving this woman FOR the other," but rather "being with" after having left.)

Any way one cuts it, using any timeline (of which I'm subscribing to a different one than yours) taking the job with Mike has FAR more to do with very publicly showing someone disrespect than simply keepin' the summer alive!

I don't believe that there is a soul involved that will deny that this defection was conceived and executed -- by employer and employee alike -- as anything less than a deep belly wound to the other side.