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

[Sheriff John Stone]

Nicko, man.

I try to be as forthcoming and honest about stuff I know as often as I can. It can’t always be as case of “Why?!” “Oh, because A, B and C.” Read AGD’s posts about passing information and the repercussions of revealing sources and all the information one knows. I don’t come here to bullish it with the gang about fantasy LP track listings and favorite facial hair eras — just as I don’t come here to pass along fake info to boast or boost my ego. This band is a fascinating example of love and hate and shifting allegiances with both rewards and swift punishments. A lot of cruelty involved to produce something so beautiful. I think I’ve been pretty open about all I can when I can. To call me out on not doing so is uncool and incorrect. You wanna find out the truth about this band? Quit posting on a message board with a pretend name and go work with and/or for them. You not only will get all of your questions answered but you'll understand why you can't explain it in detail to a massive anonymous group of people who wanna know.

I can completely understand all of that and my comments now are meant to be constructive and positive and I hope they will all be taken in the spirit they are intended.

Now in this thread you have given many very strongly worded opinions on a couple of issues and have painted things in a very black and white way. Mike and Jeff are both entirely consumed by vengeance, Scott Totten rescued Mike`s reputation (presumably because the touring band was in such a poor shape before that under Chris Farmer), Al has been forced to perform at pitiful venues in front of one man and his dog etc.

Now obviously in your profession I am sure that you come across plenty of info and of course you can`t post it all on a message board. But I personally find that these very black and white statements very difficult to accept as 100% `facts` because life is all about shades of grey. Even if they are all 99.9% true then they are still not facts...

Take the Al/BB F&F situation for example. Now your first post about that seemed to come from nowhere in this thread and was obviously very emotive. Now I should say that Al, if push comes to shove, is probably my favourite of the remaining Beach Boys. I really wanted him to be successful after 1998 and I was even one of he hardy few who joined his fan club and still have the membership card in the drawer somewhere to prove it! Now was Mike motivated partly by power and revenge? I have no doubt that he was. His feelings about Al at that time are well known.

But was it also right that Al was banned from touring using the BB F&F name? Yeah, I think undeniably it was. The judges (and appeal judges) all thought so and Al really didn`t have a leg to stand on. The fact that the other members of BRI didn`t vote to let him use the name indicates that this wasn`t solely a revenge thing. Shades of grey...

As for the Jeff/Melinda thing. I can completely believe that this could be one of Jeff`s motivations. But you have implied that revenge is by far his primary motivating factor and that he is devoting months of his year doing a job in order to stick it to her. Now this is more difficult to simply take as a `fact` and as it paints both Jeff and Melinda in a very poor light it wouldn`t really feel right to do so unquestioningly. Shades of grey again...

I hope that makes sense and, as mentioned previously, is meant with the utmost respect.

Well said, Nicko1234.

[HeyJude]

Fine print is a big matter for consumer law and that letter might actually prevent litigation.  Say a telecom advertises a "free cell phone" but has a fine print disclaimer, it is sort of deceptive.  Is it free? Many companies have lost their shirts engaging in this.  

Is it the real Beach Boys? Well, they ARE Beach Boys but it isn't a Beach Boys show.  And, so it could be construed as standard practice to make sure everyone is on the same page.  Most consumers would know that much about the actual members of the BB's but when they see "Beach Boy" in large enough print, there can be confusion in the market place.  

It shouldn't be construed as threatening.  And, if, for example, Mike was recording music with the Touring Band, and calling it The Beach Boys, he might get the same kind of letter, because The Beach Boys lineup is a distinct class of individuals that might include members of the Touring Band, but others who are not actively touring.  So, it cuts both ways.  

As I said:

But as with most legal maneuvering, those who are inclined either to be biased towards certain factions, or have a certain political/economic/legal mindset, will always say that it’s “simply” protecting the trademark, and nothing more. The spirit of the law, or any moral measurement, doesn’t enter into play.

The entities are set up "in writing" to "make money."  It is the "rough and tumble" of the Music Industry.  

It has little to do with factions.  And it isn't "maneuvering" as I see it, I think very objectively.  It is merely enumerating the rules of the road.  

This is exactly how I would argue it as well if I were Mike Love’s legal team, and how I would answer questions about these issues if I were Mike Love. I mean that seriously. I wouldn’t fault a legal team being employed for this purpose to make these arguments.

But that has little to do with discussing the *possibility* or *probability* of how revenge and ugliness and politics and factions can inform and motivate legal action.

Just reading the publicly-available court documents (talking about ALL of them, not any one suit or subset of members), they often DRIP with bruised egos, pettiness, and revenge, and that’s the actual stuff they put in writing! That’s not even getting into what could possibly be rolling around in their heads, or what is discussed with legal teams behind closed doors.

Yes, I’ve seen many discussions between clients and legal counsel involving civil actions. To suggest potential (or actual) civil actions taken to protect trademarks are a totally objective process that involves no revenge or pettiness and simply involves a textbook defense of a trademark is laughable.  

One could only hope that if you were on Brian's legal team that it would be objective, fact-driven and specific.

And represent his position zealously.   That is the job of the lawyer.

It goes without saying that a lawyer has to do everything they can for their client. I’m not suggesting that a law firm hired by Mike or BRI should just say “Nah, Al’s a kindly old man. Leave him alone.”

We’re not talking about what various law firms and legal counsel should do. We’re talking about what motivates a client to direct a legal team to take any action in the first place. As I said, I’ve seen these discussions first-hand. I’ve seen well-intentioned, valid cases, and totally bats**t-insane cases right out of a movie where a client basically snags their lawyer and tells them to “go after” whomever pissed them off, and to do so completely unwarranted, with the sole purpose to hurt the person they’re going after, often with the tacit understanding that they would NOT win a case if they took it to court.

Laywers can indeed be evil geniuses. I’ve known lawyers who could sit down right now and stake a case for Ringo Starr suing Mike Love for using the Beach Boys name, and actually make it plausible. It’s even easier to BS when you’re just writing a “heart attack letter” rather than actually filing a suit.

[HeyJude]

I can’t speak for Howie, but I will say that it is starting to seem as though something *else* has been going on with clamping down on how shows are billed/advertised. Much more recently than the “BBFF” stuff from 15 years ago.

We’re seeing strong implications, based on a few Al interviews and some other reports from the last year or so, that someone is contesting or at least inquiring or warning, or something, how Brian and Al’s shows have been advertised, and perhaps other Al gigs. We really don’t have visibility to everything that might be going on behind the scenes. We really only have visibility to when actual lawsuits are filed that become public record. But if lawyers are sending letters warning against billing shows certain ways, threatening potential lawsuits, we never get to see that.

It’s sounding like Brian and Al may have been warned off from emphasizing being “Beach Boys” in advertising their shows. As we’ve discussed in the past, it’s a VERY grey area when it comes to billing and advertising shows. Neither the “Brian and Al” shows (often if not usually sold as simply “Brian Wilson” shows) nor Al’s off-shoot shows use the “Beach Boys” in their band names.

I think Howie’s point *may* have been that, in a scenario where Al Jardine plays a solo gig as “Al Jardine’s Endless Summer Band” or whatever, and in press materials it mentions that he is an original Beach Boy, and he’s playing a street fair with a few hundred people watching, and he continues to get “warning” letters just offering him the “helpful reminder” to not over-emphasize the “Beach Boys” aspect (it can sometimes get into the minutiae of the size of the lettering on posters, the number of times “original Beach Boy” is mentioned, etc.), then things like *that* would be much more identifiable as being about power and revenge than “protecting a trademark.” But as with most legal maneuvering, those who are inclined either to be biased towards certain factions, or have a certain political/economic/legal mindset, will always say that it’s “simply” protecting the trademark, and nothing more. The spirit of the law, or any moral measurement, doesn’t enter into play.

That`s entirely understandable but it is obviously a different issue from the BB F&F affair. A connected one certainly but nothing like as important.

But I think it’s much more recent potential issues regarding billing of shows that is informing Al’s (and others’) recent comments about being able to use the BB name.

[Cam Mott]

I don't know if I am following anymore but if we are talking about Al, according to court paper, Al made agreements and then broke them and operated without a license. So who was taking the low ground again?

[guitarfool2002]

I think Mike's position is pretty solid and consistent. I think it's pretty clear Mike does genuinely believe he is protecting the 'brand' -- i.e., the commercial reputation of 'The Beach Boys' being presented in a certain way (being particular about set lists, etc.). Whether we personally agree with how he presents the brand or not is another issue I'd say. But he has been given the right to make these decisions, and I think he takes them seriously.

Going back to what I wrote earlier, Mike may think he has been given the "right" or even the power to make these decisions by paying for the license to tour with the name, but from what I think we know of the license agreements, he does not. It's a BRI decision. Mike calls the shots within his own band, regarding day to day affairs and other matters, but when it comes to the brand itself, it's a BRI ownership and therefore a BRI call on the bigger issues.

An issue for me and perhaps others is that Mike may sometimes come off as trying to be the standard-bearer or the steward of the "Beach Boys" brand or legacy, with not much of a legal basis for being able to claim such a role if one even exists. Because, again quite simply, he owns no more of that name than Brian, Al, or the surviving Wilson families who have a board vote. Therefore, he can make no more of a major decision or impact on that brand or the legacy, in a legal or business sense, than any of those other parties who sit on the board.

He has say over his band which tours as the Beach Boys. To suggest that carries over into power to make decisions over who can do what within the Beach Boys organization is simply wrong, as he is no more or less a member of the BRI decision-making board than anyone else on that board.

[guitarfool2002]

The power comes from the vote on the BRI board, which in some cases one vote could have *huge* implications for the direction of the band's legacy/name and individual band members on that board.

That's the power. Personal lawsuits and legal wranglings aside, of course.

[Cam Mott]

I think Mike's position is pretty solid and consistent. I think it's pretty clear Mike does genuinely believe he is protecting the 'brand' -- i.e., the commercial reputation of 'The Beach Boys' being presented in a certain way (being particular about set lists, etc.). Whether we personally agree with how he presents the brand or not is another issue I'd say. But he has been given the right to make these decisions, and I think he takes them seriously.

Going back to what I wrote earlier, Mike may think he has been given the "right" or even the power to make these decisions by paying for the license to tour with the name, but from what I think we know of the license agreements, he does not. It's a BRI decision. Mike calls the shots within his own band, regarding day to day affairs and other matters, but when it comes to the brand itself, it's a BRI ownership and therefore a BRI call on the bigger issues.

An issue for me and perhaps others is that Mike may sometimes come off as trying to be the standard-bearer or the steward of the "Beach Boys" brand or legacy, with not much of a legal basis for being able to claim such a role if one even exists. Because, again quite simply, he owns no more of that name than Brian, Al, or the surviving Wilson families who have a board vote. Therefore, he can make no more of a major decision or impact on that brand or the legacy, in a legal or business sense, than any of those other parties who sit on the board.

He has say over his band which tours as the Beach Boys. To suggest that carries over into power to make decisions over who can do what within the Beach Boys organization is simply wrong, as he is no more or less a member of the BRI decision-making board than anyone else on that board.

Who suggested it was any other way? It seems to me all of them are very well aware of BRI's power, they all gave it those powers.

[HeyJude]

I don't know if I am following anymore but if we are talking about Al, according to court paper, Al made agreements and then broke them and operated without a license. So who was taking the low ground again?

I think the BBFF issue was simply raised at some point as a potential example of motivations behind legal actions.

But no, we're not talking about any of that so much as potential recent actions or potential action concerning how Brian and/or Al have recently billed shows.

That you think Al was the villain in 1999 doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what may be going on now.

[Cam Mott]

I don't know if I am following anymore but if we are talking about Al, according to court paper, Al made agreements and then broke them and operated without a license. So who was taking the low ground again?

I think the BBFF issue was simply raised at some point as a potential example of motivations behind legal actions.

But no, we're not talking about any of that so much as potential recent actions or potential action concerning how Brian and/or Al have recently billed shows.

That you think Al was the villain in 1999 doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what may be going on now.

What legal actions are there currently then?

[HeyJude]

I don't know if I am following anymore but if we are talking about Al, according to court paper, Al made agreements and then broke them and operated without a license. So who was taking the low ground again?

I think the BBFF issue was simply raised at some point as a potential example of motivations behind legal actions.

But no, we're not talking about any of that so much as potential recent actions or potential action concerning how Brian and/or Al have recently billed shows.

That you think Al was the villain in 1999 doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what may be going on now.

What legal actions are there currently then?

By legal action (or potential legal action), I mean anything as seemingly innocuous as a letter or phone call from legal counsel warning against something or offering a “friendly reminder.” Al’s recent comments about being “under suspicion” about using the BB name in some form do not, I believe, refer to the BBFF debacle from 15 years ago.

*Obviously*, we don’t have more information to chew on just yet. But I don’t think it needs to keep coming back to the BBFF discussion; I don’t believe it has anything to do with what Al was talking about in that interview.

[guitarfool2002]

I think Mike's position is pretty solid and consistent. I think it's pretty clear Mike does genuinely believe he is protecting the 'brand' -- i.e., the commercial reputation of 'The Beach Boys' being presented in a certain way (being particular about set lists, etc.). Whether we personally agree with how he presents the brand or not is another issue I'd say. But he has been given the right to make these decisions, and I think he takes them seriously.

Going back to what I wrote earlier, Mike may think he has been given the "right" or even the power to make these decisions by paying for the license to tour with the name, but from what I think we know of the license agreements, he does not. It's a BRI decision. Mike calls the shots within his own band, regarding day to day affairs and other matters, but when it comes to the brand itself, it's a BRI ownership and therefore a BRI call on the bigger issues.

An issue for me and perhaps others is that Mike may sometimes come off as trying to be the standard-bearer or the steward of the "Beach Boys" brand or legacy, with not much of a legal basis for being able to claim such a role if one even exists. Because, again quite simply, he owns no more of that name than Brian, Al, or the surviving Wilson families who have a board vote. Therefore, he can make no more of a major decision or impact on that brand or the legacy, in a legal or business sense, than any of those other parties who sit on the board.

He has say over his band which tours as the Beach Boys. To suggest that carries over into power to make decisions over who can do what within the Beach Boys organization is simply wrong, as he is no more or less a member of the BRI decision-making board than anyone else on that board.

Who suggested it was any other way? It seems to me all of them are very well aware of BRI's power, they all gave it those powers.

I responded to Donny's post that suggested Mike believes he is protecting and carrying the legacy of the brand, which I agree he comes off that way sometimes in interviews and whatnot.

But what I challenged directly is the notion that he was given the power to take on that role, which as I outlined he was not. That power is still held by BRI as a board, not by any one individual, and the real power exists where one board member can vote a certain way which could have a major effect on the direction of both the band, the name, and individual members and their activities.

To suggest Mike was given power over the "brand" or legacy beyond calling the shots on day to day issues within his band because he pays the license fee to use the brand name on tour doesn't seem to be accurate, that's all.

[DonnyL]

I think Mike's position is pretty solid and consistent. I think it's pretty clear Mike does genuinely believe he is protecting the 'brand' -- i.e., the commercial reputation of 'The Beach Boys' being presented in a certain way (being particular about set lists, etc.). Whether we personally agree with how he presents the brand or not is another issue I'd say. But he has been given the right to make these decisions, and I think he takes them seriously.

Going back to what I wrote earlier, Mike may think he has been given the "right" or even the power to make these decisions by paying for the license to tour with the name, but from what I think we know of the license agreements, he does not. It's a BRI decision. Mike calls the shots within his own band, regarding day to day affairs and other matters, but when it comes to the brand itself, it's a BRI ownership and therefore a BRI call on the bigger issues.

An issue for me and perhaps others is that Mike may sometimes come off as trying to be the standard-bearer or the steward of the "Beach Boys" brand or legacy, with not much of a legal basis for being able to claim such a role if one even exists. Because, again quite simply, he owns no more of that name than Brian, Al, or the surviving Wilson families who have a board vote. Therefore, he can make no more of a major decision or impact on that brand or the legacy, in a legal or business sense, than any of those other parties who sit on the board.

He has say over his band which tours as the Beach Boys. To suggest that carries over into power to make decisions over who can do what within the Beach Boys organization is simply wrong, as he is no more or less a member of the BRI decision-making board than anyone else on that board.

Right ... I mean, 'he has been given the right' in the sense of he has been given the authority to perform concerts as 'The Beach Boys', and make set lists, decide where to play shows, etc., etc. My basic point being that I think he does genuinely feel a responsibility toward the 'brand' ... I mean, we may not think John Stamos helps the group's reputation, but in Mike's eyes, he probably thinks it does. I'm talking strictly about the concerts, not recordings or other types of affairs.

[urbanite]

Was Mike Love the band member that hatched the idea of going on tour with the Maharish in the late 1960's or early 1970's?

[DonnyL]

To suggest Mike was given power over the "brand" or legacy beyond calling the shots on day to day issues within his band because he pays the license fee to use the brand name on tour doesn't seem to be accurate, that's all.

I guess I think that Mike sort of was given this 'right' in some ways ... not legally per se, but it may have been implied in a sense. I would venture to say that Carl's estate and Brian felt that Mike could best represent 'The Beach Boys' as a brand in concert. Maybe Al even felt this way for a moment in time.

In any case, my point was that I think Mike genuinely believes he is protecting the brand and the legacy.

Obviously, the events in 1998 that lead to Mike taking over the touring group are out of date for today's situation. And you could certainly make an argument that Mike is being selfish and opportunistic to continue with this arrangement when the option for a more legit Beach Boys group is on the table. But I suspect it's not that simple ... maybe Mike is concerned that Brian doesn't really want to tour, and maybe Al is hard to work with. I don't know, and I don't think many of us do. That's why I think it's important to at least think about alternate scenarios.

[guitarfool2002]

Donny: I agree, it comes down to the live shows and related activities. At the same time, I believe there exists an even larger decision-making "power" through BRI over those same issues, which I think was a factor when the original agreements were drawn up. I believe a board vote could effectively strip the "license" from whomever is holding it if it is found that something as basic as the content of the setlists or their presentation is not representing the brand in a positive way. I could be wrong.

I think one thing to consider might be the possible politics involved in all of this. If BRI is a corporate board that relies on votes to make the big decisions (and the little ones)...if we could assume without knowing directly that BRI is structured and run like most corporate boards, business structures small or large, and even political structures like the House or Senate, before a vote there are any number of power grabs, deals, promises, etc. The "I'll give you this if you vote for this" kind of scenarios that involve what is basically offering a vote in exchange for something in return.

And most of that is pretty much a case of throwing power in someone's favor or against them by way of a yes or no vote. That's where the politicking and insider deals lead into the power of a single vote, yes or no.

The contrived or scripted alliances of a TV show like "Survivor" or "Big Brother" played with real money and people's futures, in other words.    Vote with me, I'll have your back.

[filledeplage]

Fine print is a big matter for consumer law and that letter might actually prevent litigation.  Say a telecom advertises a "free cell phone" but has a fine print disclaimer, it is sort of deceptive.  Is it free? Many companies have lost their shirts engaging in this.  
Is it the real Beach Boys? Well, they ARE Beach Boys but it isn't a Beach Boys show.  And, so it could be construed as standard practice to make sure everyone is on the same page.  Most consumers would know that much about the actual members of the BB's but when they see "Beach Boy" in large enough print, there can be confusion in the market place.  

It shouldn't be construed as threatening.  And, if, for example, Mike was recording music with the Touring Band, and calling it The Beach Boys, he might get the same kind of letter, because The Beach Boys lineup is a distinct class of individuals that might include members of the Touring Band, but others who are not actively touring.  So, it cuts both ways.  

As I said:
But as with most legal maneuvering, those who are inclined either to be biased towards certain factions, or have a certain political/economic/legal mindset, will always say that it’s “simply” protecting the trademark, and nothing more. The spirit of the law, or any moral measurement, doesn’t enter into play.

The entities are set up "in writing" to "make money."  It is the "rough and tumble" of the Music Industry.  

It has little to do with factions.  And it isn't "maneuvering" as I see it, I think very objectively.  It is merely enumerating the rules of the road.  

This is exactly how I would argue it as well if I were Mike Love’s legal team, and how I would answer questions about these issues if I were Mike Love. I mean that seriously. I wouldn’t fault a legal team being employed for this purpose to make these arguments.

But that has little to do with discussing the *possibility* or *probability* of how revenge and ugliness and politics and factions can inform and motivate legal action.

Just reading the publicly-available court documents (talking about ALL of them, not any one suit or subset of members), they often DRIP with bruised egos, pettiness, and revenge, and that’s the actual stuff they put in writing! That’s not even getting into what could possibly be rolling around in their heads, or what is discussed with legal teams behind closed doors.

Yes, I’ve seen many discussions between clients and legal counsel involving civil actions. To suggest potential (or actual) civil actions taken to protect trademarks are a totally objective process that involves no revenge or pettiness and simply involves a textbook defense of a trademark is laughable.  

One could only hope that if you were on Brian's legal team that it would be objective, fact-driven and specific.

And represent his position zealously.   That is the job of the lawyer.

It goes without saying that a lawyer has to do everything they can for their client. I’m not suggesting that a law firm hired by Mike or BRI should just say “Nah, Al’s a kindly old man. Leave him alone.”

We’re not talking about what various law firms and legal counsel should do. We’re talking about what motivates a client to direct a legal team to take any action in the first place. As I said, I’ve seen these discussions first-hand. I’ve seen well-intentioned, valid cases, and totally bats**t-insane cases right out of a movie where a client basically snags their lawyer and tells them to “go after” whomever pissed them off, and to do so completely unwarranted, with the sole purpose to hurt the person they’re going after, often with the tacit understanding that they would NOT win a case if they took it to court.

Laywers can indeed be evil geniuses. I’ve known lawyers who could sit down right now and stake a case for Ringo Starr suing Mike Love for using the Beach Boys name, and actually make it plausible. It’s even easier to BS when you’re just writing a “heart attack letter” rather than actually filing a suit.

Evil comes in many shapes, sizes and occupations.  And the legal profession has it's share of evil geniuses.

That said, there are safeguards such as Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civl Procedure, and I'll paraphrase.  You can find it on law.cornell.edu
Rule 11(b)
An attorney signing a pleading, written motion or other paper - whether by signing, filing, submitting or later advocating it - an attorney or other unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
...
And sanctions under (c) in general.  If after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that has violated the rule or is responsible for the violation...

In other words claims are supposed to be fact-driven and not filed for improper purposes.  

Will some lawyers file frivolous and bad faith claims? Ya, and at their own peril.  

As our moderator GF2002 notes, the voting members of BRI appear to run the show.  

[DonnyL]

Donny: I agree, it comes down to the live shows and related activities. At the same time, I believe there exists an even larger decision-making "power" through BRI over those same issues, which I think was a factor when the original agreements were drawn up. I believe a board vote could effectively strip the "license" from whomever is holding it if it is found that something as basic as the content of the setlists or their presentation is not representing the brand in a positive way. I could be wrong.

I think one thing to consider might be the possible politics involved in all of this. If BRI is a corporate board that relies on votes to make the big decisions (and the little ones)...if we could assume without knowing directly that BRI is structured and run like most corporate boards, business structures small or large, and even political structures like the House or Senate, before a vote there are any number of power grabs, deals, promises, etc. The "I'll give you this if you vote for this" kind of scenarios that involve what is basically offering a vote in exchange for something in return.

And most of that is pretty much a case of throwing power in someone's favor or against them by way of a yes or no vote. That's where the politicking and insider deals lead into the power of a single vote, yes or no.

The contrived or scripted alliances of a TV show like "Survivor" or "Big Brother" played with real money and people's futures, in other words.    Vote with me, I'll have your back.

There's also the very real possibility that money wins at the end of the day. Brian, Al, and Carl's family make money when Mike tours. Mike tours a lot more and plays larger venues than Brian or Al alone ... or even Brian, Al and David together. An argument could be made that any conflicting tours or shows occurring in the same region cut into BRI's profits from Mike's shows. Mike might even make more money for BRI than the C50 tour did. Since the Beach Boys are a corporate entity, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if they behaved like one!

[guitarfool2002]

I can only assume they behave like one too! 

And with that consider all of the in-fighting, backroom deals, power grabs, backstabbing, and politics in general that go into that structure.

[SMiLE Brian]

All this came from a group of guys singing in a garage In 1961.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

All this came from a group of guys singing in a garage In 1961.

Yeah, that depresses the sh*t out of me.

[SMiLE Brian]

Watch out Billy, your daughter could turn into a music diva.

[Wirestone]

There is no way that Brian and Al make anywhere near the amount of money from Mike's touring that they made doing ht C50 shows. It's easy to imagine, however, that Mike made somewhat less or the same.

Think of it this way. Some back-of-the-envelope calculations forthcoming, and these are conjured-from-thin-air numbers. Let's imagine that Mike plays 100 shows a year and nets, let's say, $70,000 for each show after expenses. (We know from the recent article that a BB show costs around $100,000) That's $7 million in touring net profits each year. If he then pays BRI a set percentage of those profits, say 15 percent, that's a bit over $1 million paid out each year. That's then split four ways for the BRI shareholders, which would mean that Brian, Al, Carl's estate, and Mike receive a quarter-million apiece.

Given the size of these guy's bank accounts overall, I can't imagine that modern-day Al or Brian are motivated by financial concerns in letting Mike continue to tour. In 1998, though, a solo-oriented Brian may well have felt that Mike would do the best job of keeping the Beach Boys brand going.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Watch out Billy, your daughter could turn into a music diva.

She kind of already is

[ToneBender631]

Donny: I agree, it comes down to the live shows and related activities. At the same time, I believe there exists an even larger decision-making "power" through BRI over those same issues, which I think was a factor when the original agreements were drawn up. I believe a board vote could effectively strip the "license" from whomever is holding it if it is found that something as basic as the content of the setlists or their presentation is not representing the brand in a positive way. I could be wrong.

I think one thing to consider might be the possible politics involved in all of this. If BRI is a corporate board that relies on votes to make the big decisions (and the little ones)...if we could assume without knowing directly that BRI is structured and run like most corporate boards, business structures small or large, and even political structures like the House or Senate, before a vote there are any number of power grabs, deals, promises, etc. The "I'll give you this if you vote for this" kind of scenarios that involve what is basically offering a vote in exchange for something in return.

And most of that is pretty much a case of throwing power in someone's favor or against them by way of a yes or no vote. That's where the politicking and insider deals lead into the power of a single vote, yes or no.

The contrived or scripted alliances of a TV show like "Survivor" or "Big Brother" played with real money and people's futures, in other words.    Vote with me, I'll have your back.

There's also the very real possibility that money wins at the end of the day. Brian, Al, and Carl's family make money when Mike tours. Mike tours a lot more and plays larger venues than Brian or Al alone ... or even Brian, Al and David together. An argument could be made that any conflicting tours or shows occurring in the same region cut into BRI's profits from Mike's shows. Mike might even make more money for BRI than the C50 tour did. Since the Beach Boys are a corporate entity, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if they behaved like one!

Here's the thing of it though...If they were billed as "Mike Love and Bruce Johnston of the Beach Boys" they'd play far smaller venues, and probably have more trouble booking shows. Conversely, if BAD were able to tour as the BBs, they could play larger shows and would certainly see better ticket sales than they do as "BAD". We definitively know that as the full lineup they'd have no problem playing much larger venues, which goes to a bigger point: Does anyone question that C50 likely did far more for album sales, DVD sales, and merch sales than Mike's BBs do? So, while Mike's tour may be more profitable as a touring entity, C50 probably made BRI significantly more money.

Think even bigger picture...Instead of talking about the recent reissues, we've got interviews talking about Wilson drug problems, legalities of how people can bill themselves and the general fallout of C50. Shouldn't "50 years of Fun, Fun, Fun" coincide with some larger promotion from BRI? Special digital releases? 7" reissues? Wouldn't it be great if the band did full album performances of the new albums getting the vinyl reissue treatment currently? These guys leave so much money on the table, let alone opportunity for artistic expression...

[Ray Lawlor]

There is no way that Brian and Al make anywhere near the amount of money from Mike's touring that they made doing ht C50 shows. It's easy to imagine, however, that Mike made somewhat less or the same.

Think of it this way. Some back-of-the-envelope calculations forthcoming, and these are conjured-from-thin-air numbers. Let's imagine that Mike plays 100 shows a year and nets, let's say, $70,000 for each show after expenses. (We know from the recent article that a BB show costs around $100,000) That's $7 million in touring net profits each year. If he then pays BRI a set percentage of those profits, say 15 percent, that's a bit over $1 million paid out each year. That's then split four ways for the BRI shareholders, which would mean that Brian, Al, Carl's estate, and Mike receive a quarter-million apiece.

Given the size of these guy's bank accounts overall, I can't imagine that modern-day Al or Brian are motivated by financial concerns in letting Mike continue to tour. In 1998, though, a solo-oriented Brian may well have felt that Mike would do the best job of keeping the Beach Boys brand going.

Clay; I think you are pretty damn close to right on the money with those figures; the notion that Brian and Al are sitting home getting rich (more rich)  off Mike's touring revenues is ridiculous. Now , for me , it would be a grand slam , but I have written , arranged and produced exactly zero records.

I disagree where Mike made somewhat less or the same as his normal touring year. It is my opinion, and its just an opinion, I think, based on logic, that Mike made more , while working way less, and in that process, helped elevate the trademark " The Beach Boys" to a status it had not seen for years. You had larger venues, significantly higher ticket prices , VIP packages, swag, an Executive Producer credit for TWGMTR; how could he not have made more  ? The higher cost of a larger band ?  I doubt it.