New album project incorrectly described in online article.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Does anyone have access to legal documents that state that any Beach Boys album must include Brian Wilson and/or Al Jardine? I've read it here, but never saw a citation of an actual legal document. The tour agreement is a separate issue, and at one time, even Al could have used a Beach Boys related name if he had paid the license fee. Perhaps the touring Beach Boys can release an album if there is label interest or if they're willing to finance it themselves. Or if not called "The Beach Boys," they can come up with some wording that mentions the beach and work around it. It sounds like a trial balloon. Maybe Mike is throwing down a challenge to Brian and company and waiting to see what the reaction would be.

The license voted to Mike by BRI to tour as The Beach Boys is precisely that - a license to tour. He can't record as The Beach Boys, any more than Brian or Alan can.

[Mendota Heights]

He can himself The Beech Buoys.

[Andrew G. Doe]

BW has an album deal with Capitol...

Actually, he doesn't, and hasn't since 2008. His last two albums were released by Disney and while NPP is indeed on Capitol, it was originally the 2nd Beach Boys album as per the 2012 contract.

[Matt H]

BW has an album deal with Capitol...

Actually, he doesn't, and hasn't since 2008. His last two albums were released by Disney and while NPP is indeed on Capitol, it was originally the 2nd Beach Boys album as per the 2012 contract.

I thought the 2nd album was the 50th concert CD.  That is interesting to know that Brian is fulfilling the Beach Boys contract.

[ontor pertawst]

I would think having an album deal with Capitol for No Pier Pressure would count as having an album deal with Capitol. You were wrong about the Love and Mercy soundtrack so I think I'll need some more citations. You can feel free to argue semantics on that one if it'll help distract from Mr. Love's recent delusions of grandeur. Looking forward to hearing more about it!

[Andrew G. Doe]

What Love & Mercy soundtrack ? Have you seen one ? Has Capitol officially announced it yet ? Have I missed something ? What's the track listing ?

[Andrew G. Doe]

BW has an album deal with Capitol...

Actually, he doesn't, and hasn't since 2008. His last two albums were released by Disney and while NPP is indeed on Capitol, it was originally the 2nd Beach Boys album as per the 2012 contract.

I thought the 2nd album was the 50th concert CD.  That is interesting to know that Brian is fulfilling the Beach Boys contract.

The contract was for two studio albums... and technically, the (appalling) live set would be two albums by itself.

[ontor pertawst]

So are you saying that its the original contract with 50 Big Ones, BW/JT/ML and Mike Love will thus make money on No Pier Pressure and get royalties as well? Or maybe perhaps they drew up a new contract and the old deal is not in effect? Or is it some desperate distraction from the fact that Capitol wants to release an album by a Wilson not a Love, so somehow its not a real album deal? Just trying to figure out exactly what your point is.

Did your book club buddy Mike mention Capitol refusing him an album deal? I mean logically he'd go to them first with his new scheme and obviously they passed since it wasn't mentioned. You seem pretty out of the loop on Wilson stuff but your Love/Johnston credentials are impeccable. Do tell!

Now back to fantasizing about a ML solo album... Summer in Paradise 2 is THIS CLOSE. A tantalizing if terrifying thought.

[Ray Lawlor]

BW has an album deal with Capitol...

Actually, he doesn't, and hasn't since 2008. His last two albums were released by Disney and while NPP is indeed on Capitol, it was originally the 2nd Beach Boys album as per the 2012 contract.

I thought the 2nd album was the 50th concert CD.  That is interesting to know that Brian is fulfilling the Beach Boys contract.

Actually he is not. No Pier Pressure was done under a completely new contract with Capitol Records. It has zero to do with The Beach Boys.

[shelter]

First, I've never ever heard of an artist announcing a new album two whole years before it's release. Especially if it's going to be a covers or remakes album, it shouldn't have to take that long.

Second, Mike Love is in his mid 70s. That's not exactly an age at which you should just wait a few years with doing anything you want to do.

[the captain]

Actually he is not. No Pier Pressure was done under a completely new contract with Capitol Records. It has zero to do with The Beach Boys.

That's very interesting. Can you shed any more light on the circumstances around it? For example, was the NPP solo album some sort of replacement for an obviously not-gonna-happen second Beach Boys album, but (I assume) negotiated with less favorable terms to account for the solo-versus-Beach Boys name? Or for that matter, even how that would have come up in conversation that you came to know it? ("Hey, Ray, looks like the Beach Boys contract was voided because we can't deliver a second album as a group, but I'm working on a new contract anyway. Pass the ketchup.")

If you can't say anything further, that's fine as well. Your previous clarification was appreciated.

[the captain]

First, I've never ever heard of an artist announcing a new album two whole years before it's release.

Chinese Democracy?

[shelter]

First, I've never ever heard of an artist announcing a new album two whole years before it's release.

Chinese Democracy?

That's an album that took a long time to get released, but I don't recall they ever actually announced that it would take them at least two more years.

[wantsomecorn]

First, I've never ever heard of an artist announcing a new album two whole years before it's release.

Chinese Democracy?

Nah, Chinese Democracy was made by a band whose only remaining original member was a frontman, as well as a keyboard player that had joined up slightly later, while still being on several of their most iconic songs, but otherwise supplemented by a number of musicians who, talented as they may be, had no connection with the lineup that made the band famous.

[Jim V.]

BW has an album deal with Capitol...

Actually, he doesn't, and hasn't since 2008. His last two albums were released by Disney and while NPP is indeed on Capitol, it was originally the 2nd Beach Boys album as per the 2012 contract.

Okay, even without the fact that Ray has debunked this, doesn't the fact that Capitol was accepting a Brian Wilson album in place of a Beach Boys album enough to say that, yeah, it basically IS Brian's deal. I mean, let's not kid ourselves, I don't think there's a soul at Capitol/Universal/whoever that would accept a Mike Love solo album or David Marks' The Circle Continues in place of a new Beach Boys album. So if anything, saying it's not Brian's deal sounds like nothing but sour grapes to me.

[the captain]

First, I've never ever heard of an artist announcing a new album two whole years before it's release.

Chinese Democracy?

That's an album that took a long time to get released, but I don't recall they ever actually announced that it would take them at least two more years.

Not to derail the thread (further, after this), but while no firm date was announced, I think Axl made pretty clear on a few occasions that it was coming, but not anytime soon. So it's similar--though not identical--in that way.

With respect to wantsomecorn's response, I don't know that the lineup of the band is relevant. If there were a new Beach Boys album to be released in 2017, for example, would it affect the two-years-early announcement whether it was the current touring band versus the TWGMTR lineup versus some Mike-Blondie-Ricky bizarro world lineup? I don't think so. The point is, an artist or band saying, "in two years, we're releasing an album."

Sorry for that little detour, everyone. I mean, not especially sorry, as it didn't really cause any harm (unless you got dizzy scrolling past, fell, hit your head, and died, in which case I shouldn't have to apologize to you anyway because, well, you're dead). But, you know...

[guitarfool2002]

We're taking a line in "Full Access" magazine out of Florida at face value, that's OK for discussion purposes but at what point does the notion that a lone member of the Beach Boys - whether Mike, Al, or Brian - would consider releasing his own project as "The Beach Boys" become as ridiculous in theory as it is in actual chances of this happening? Do we chalk this up to a misstatement by that Full Access reporter who wrote the story? I almost think it has to be, because quite frankly who among the fans on this board would accept a "Beach Boys" official album release with only one member on board, no matter who that member is?

If it's a legal balloon being floated, I'd suggest they find a balloon that isn't pockmarked with dozens of gaping holes before they even try to pump helium into it to launch.

There are some legal and financial issues to prevent this kind of thing from happening which I'm sure would kick in immediately if a band member officially announces such a project (which is why I can't see it happening in reality), but beyond that there has to be a difference between a hypothetical and a reality which is nothing more than a fool's errand from the beginning.

Would Capitol, who as of the present day releases everything "official" under the Beach Boys name allow an individual band member to break off on his own and release a Beach Boys album on an independent or self-financed label when Capitol controls the releases of the bulk of the band's catalog including those "classics" which may be re-recorded? I doubt it. Would the voting members of BRI agree across the board to allow a band member to release his own Beach Boys album of new recordings without approval? Definitely doubt it. Would Capitol at this point release a new Beach Boys album with only one band member while the others would still be active yet not involved at all on the new album? Again, I doubt it.

And beyond those issues, consider how likely it would be for either Ringo or Paul to decide to release a new Beatles album. Beyond the impossibility of even considering that, if a news release were to mention that, it would be laughed off the face of the Earth, basically, by most Beatles fans and beyond that would damage the reputation almost beyond repair of whichever "Beatle" made the announcement. Again, hypothetically since such a thing would never come from Ringo or Paul because they know the deal with the name and how fans think of that name.

With legalities of doing such a thing with the Beach Boys name and official releases of new albums, I'd suggest looking up the details on the case "Love v. Sanctuary Records Group", which ended up getting dismissed first by the district court where it was filed, and then by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California whose decision is available to read online, as is the original filing of the suit.

The case centered around a free CD mailer that was included with copies of the Sunday Mail, primarily in the UK and Ireland, which was called "Good Vibrations - Ten Surfin' Classics by The Beach Boys' Brian Wilson" and which featured recordings and video of Brian Wilson and his band performing the songs. Once again, the entire case and the appeals were dismissed and thrown out of court - appeals which lasted at least up to 2010 for a variety of reasons, but consider that the original filing of the suit was based on claims of the damage such a release did for ticket sales and reputation/image of the Beach Boys brand in the US and their current touring group as of 2004. And the case centered around trying to suggest a CD with "Good Vibrations" in the title and on the disc distributed only in Europe had a detrimental effect on ticket sales for Beach Boys shows in the US, had a detrimental effect on the band's name and the image connected to that brand name, and had caused confusion among at least one fan who bought the disc on the secondary market on Ebay expecting an "official" Beach Boys release. (that last point was humorously thrown out of court entirely when it was discovered the "buyer" on Ebay was a close associate of one of the lawyers filing the lawsuit seeking the damages. But anyway...that's one of a few interesting points to get mentioned in the published dismissals of the various claims in that lawsuit and the appeals by the 9th Circuit.)

All of that over a CD that wasn't even labeled as a "Beach Boys" release...do we think the band member who filed that suit and basically got the filing ripped apart by both the district and the 9th Circuit courts as they dismissed it would try to release a new Beach Boys album in the US or in Europe in light of everything that has happened in the past? And the free disc in question wasn't even marketed or offered as a Beach Boys release. If such a release were put out, taking Capitol out of it for the moment even though they may be one of the bigger factors involved, the same claims used against that UK free disc could be turned around and used against an album actually marketed as a "Beach Boys" product, and in this case it would not get caught up in UK-versus-US laws but instead could hinge on someone using a copyrighted name to sell something which they are not allowed to sell under that specific name without specific agreements and conditions.

Just food for thought.

And just as a PS...in that 9th Circuit opinion published online, there is this line which should clear up if necessary any of the lingering questions regarding this point from previous board debates and discussions (in bold):

IV

The district court correctly dismissed Love's Lanham Act claims. Under the circumstances presented here, we conclude that the Lanham Act cannot be applied extraterritorially to encompass acts committed in Great Britain.

As we have noted, Love has the limited exclusive right to use The Beach Boys trademark in live performances. Love has alleged that the use of the mark “The Beach Boys” on and to promote Good Vibrations, in conjunction with the inclusion of video recordings of live performances on the disc, infringed upon and diluted his interests in the trademark, and competed with his live band unfairly. Sanctuary argues that because the creation, promotion, and distribution of Good Vibrations all occurred in Europe, the Lanham Act does not apply in this case. We agree with Sanctuary.

[mikeddonn]

'Masterpiece' anyone?!

[ontor pertawst]

I vote "Masterpiece." Or "Blossom World" to go with his book. Maybe it'll pull in fans of "Blossom" by accident!

[Pretty Funky]

This is just the kind of 'Mike Fires Brian' story that gets headlines on music related sites nowadays. If so, expect some clarification from Mike pronto.

[the captain]

'Masterpiece' anyone?!

Thank you, thank you. You're too kind.

Oh wait, you probably meant ... ah, never mind.

[CenturyDeprived]

And the case centered around trying to suggest a CD with "Good Vibrations" in the title and on the disc distributed only in Europe had a detrimental effect on ticket sales for Beach Boys shows in the US, had a detrimental effect on the band's name and the image connected to that brand name, and had caused confusion among at least one fan who bought the disc on the secondary market on Ebay expecting an "official" Beach Boys release. (that last point was humorously thrown out of court entirely when it was discovered the "buyer" on Ebay was a close associate of one of the lawyers filing the lawsuit seeking the damages.  

This is so unbelievably embarrassing a straw-grab, it's almost impossible to believe that a lawyer did that. But I guess it happened. Just so blatantly false and unethical to do in an actual legal case like this. Am I to think that it's impossible that this idea (of having a fake ebay user create a smoke-and-mirrors story like this) that Mike would have known that his legal team was doing this? I'm waiting for a few posters to suggest that there's no way on Earth that Mike would have had his legal team concoct such a ruse.

While I'd *like* to think that Mike would have been blissfully unaware, I'd find it reaching to think that lawyers would just decide to do this scheme on their own, unbeknownst to their deep-pocketed, powerful client. Logic would make me think Mike knew in some capacity. Thoughts?

[CenturyDeprived]

Or "Blossom World" to go with his book. Maybe it'll pull in fans of "Blossom" by accident!

Michael Whoah! The Boat Ashore

[CenturyDeprived]

I'm gonna guess, just guess, that maybe it's gonna be a new Mike solo album, featuring Bruce, David, and the current "BB" backing band. And perhaps that got misconstrued as a "BB" album, even though it would be all the same people in the touring group. I dunno.

[the captain]

While I'd *like* to think that Mike would have been blissfully unaware, I'd find it reaching to think that lawyers would just decide to do this scheme on their own, unbeknownst to their deep-pocketed, powerful client. Logic would make me think Mike knew in some capacity. Thoughts?

With absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of Mike's intentions on this or anything else, ever, I would say that in my experience*, attorneys are pretty resourceful in seeking and finding ways to succeed ... especially with respect to deep-pocketed clients (and thus bigger paydays).


*Just under 20 years in a legal industry, with lawyers, of which I am not one.