Awesome New Mike Love Article!!

[AndrewHickey]

It is offensive to blanket-attack Touring Band concerts, or those who attend. Or infer that they have no information either about the era or Smile as a project.

No-one attacked anyone who attends Mike & Bruce shows, or the shows themselves.
But, for example, I think that when they played the county fair at Albert Lea, MN (pop. 18000), a few years back, they weren't playing to a particularly knowledgeable audience. I may of course be wrong, and my in-laws (who attended that show, which is why I use it as an example) may have been the only people there who are farmers in their mid-sixties who sing along to the surf and car songs when they come on the oldies stations but couldn't necessarily tell you which ones were the Beach Boys and which were Jan and Dean.
It's certainly *possible* that everyone else in the audience spent the time before the show discussing whether the vocals for I Believe In Miracles were intended to go over the Child Is Father Of The Man backing track, and that when they did Kokomo it was drowned out by people shouting "do Cabinessence -- but make sure we can hear the Truck Drivin' Man lyrics!", and that my in-laws didn't mention this when they told me about the show. But I think on the balance of probabilities the vast majority were people who wanted to hear 409 and I Get Around and Surfin' USA and Barbara Ann.
And that's only an insult if you think that elderly midwestern farmers don't deserve to be entertained too, or that there's something wrong with wanting to hear 409, or that people should have to pass a test before they're allowed to buy tickets to a show. I know some people have implied things very like that here in the past, but no-one has in this thread.
One of the things I think most admirable about Mike's band, actually, is that they will play to *any* audience, and give any audience a good time. They put on a great show last year doing sixty-plus songs at the Albert Hall with a horn section and doing Til I Die and Surf's Up, but they *also* put on a great show in 2013 when they played a really weird festival bill between The Saturdays and JLS on a "family day" and only had an hour to play the hits. At that show, most of the adults in the audience were complaining at the start that they were on at all, saying "no-one's here to see them, why don't they just bring JLS on?" -- by the end of their set, the audience were so impressed that they were the only act allowed an encore (the Saturdays, who more people were there to see, had to cut a song because the timings were so strict).
Personally, I think it does Mike's band a huge disservice to imagine that their audiences are mostly the kind of people on this board. It's *much harder* to win over a casual audience who don't know all the words to every song than it is to play only to your biggest fans.
The casual fans do make up the bulk of Mike's audiences. But that's not a negative reflection on the band, the show they put on, or the audience members.

[Cam Mott]

Cam, my expectation of getting a definitive response to an unsolicited email to a stranger's publicly listed agent asking for explanations for a 6 year-old screenplay are too low for me to make the effort to find an email address and write the email.
If anyone knows someone who knows the writer or director that would be useful. But still, one would need to ask in such a way that he doesn't feel wary, which I would think would require some conversation, not just a query out-of-the-blue.

If someone could engage the director (probably more useful than the writer) though, it might be interesting to learn the dynamics of the production.

As to the 'autobio' I don't think the content matches up, does it?

Andrew - Hampton Court - fancy.

One won't know until one tries. You might be surprised.

I'm sure all three documents ("autobio", screenplay, suit background) conceivably have multiple inaccurate non-Beach Boys sources.

[filledeplage]

Cam, my expectation of getting a definitive response to an unsolicited email to a stranger's publicly listed agent asking for explanations for a 6 year-old screenplay are too low for me to make the effort to find an email address and write the email.
If anyone knows someone who knows the writer or director that would be useful. But still, one would need to ask in such a way that he doesn't feel wary, which I would think would require some conversation, not just a query out-of-the-blue.

If someone could engage the director (probably more useful than the writer) though, it might be interesting to learn the dynamics of the production.

As to the 'autobio' I don't think the content matches up, does it?

Andrew - Hampton Court - fancy.

One won't know until one tries. You might be surprised.

I'm sure all three documents ("autobio", screenplay, suit background) conceivably have multiple inaccurate non-Beach Boys sources.

While it may not hurt to ask, let's remember there were affirmative steps taken, to strip names in the film.  It is highly unlikely that the reasons, whatever they were, have evaporated, and the "sensitivity" whether warranted or not, has remained. They operated within whatever those constraints were in 2000, and unlikely have changed. 

And, "made for TV."     

[filledeplage]

It is offensive to blanket-attack Touring Band concerts, or those who attend. Or infer that they have no information either about the era or Smile as a project.

No-one attacked anyone who attends Mike & Bruce shows, or the shows themselves.
But, for example, I think that when they played the county fair at Albert Lea, MN (pop. 18000), a few years back, they weren't playing to a particularly knowledgeable audience. I may of course be wrong, and my in-laws (who attended that show, which is why I use it as an example) may have been the only people there who are farmers in their mid-sixties who sing along to the surf and car songs when they come on the oldies stations but couldn't necessarily tell you which ones were the Beach Boys and which were Jan and Dean.
It's certainly *possible* that everyone else in the audience spent the time before the show discussing whether the vocals for I Believe In Miracles were intended to go over the Child Is Father Of The Man backing track, and that when they did Kokomo it was drowned out by people shouting "do Cabinessence -- but make sure we can hear the Truck Drivin' Man lyrics!", and that my in-laws didn't mention this when they told me about the show. But I think on the balance of probabilities the vast majority were people who wanted to hear 409 and I Get Around and Surfin' USA and Barbara Ann.
And that's only an insult if you think that elderly midwestern farmers don't deserve to be entertained too, or that there's something wrong with wanting to hear 409, or that people should have to pass a test before they're allowed to buy tickets to a show. I know some people have implied things very like that here in the past, but no-one has in this thread.
One of the things I think most admirable about Mike's band, actually, is that they will play to *any* audience, and give any audience a good time. They put on a great show last year doing sixty-plus songs at the Albert Hall with a horn section and doing Til I Die and Surf's Up, but they *also* put on a great show in 2013 when they played a really weird festival bill between The Saturdays and JLS on a "family day" and only had an hour to play the hits. At that show, most of the adults in the audience were complaining at the start that they were on at all, saying "no-one's here to see them, why don't they just bring JLS on?" -- by the end of their set, the audience were so impressed that they were the only act allowed an encore (the Saturdays, who more people were there to see, had to cut a song because the timings were so strict).
Personally, I think it does Mike's band a huge disservice to imagine that their audiences are mostly the kind of people on this board. It's *much harder* to win over a casual audience who don't know all the words to every song than it is to play only to your biggest fans.
The casual fans do make up the bulk of Mike's audiences. But that's not a negative reflection on the band, the show they put on, or the audience members.

Andrew - I get what you are saying and largely agree.  I am talking about this "constant undercurrent" with certain posters here, ready to attack any and all things Touring Band.  The shows set list varies according to crowd and venue and that is a smart move.

Always good to know "where you are" and practice "situation ethics." 

[Cam Mott]

Still, not a reason for those who are speculating to not try.

[Lee Marshall]

Mike's touring Beach Boys put on a terrific/fun show.  They've upgraded the roster since 2012 and the presentation is really well done.  It's really good 'tour' quality.  Brian's is 'studio' quality.  BOTH work...and well.

The difference?  Brian is not at war with the brand and the history.  He treats both with love and care.  He has a team which helps him to realize his musical goals.
Mike is at war with the brand and the history.   He needs serious assistance to pull his 'stuff' off.  THESE days he's getting it.  There was a time though....way back when...when the group sounded so awful that Carl left to do his solo stint.  The current unit has really picked up its 'game since spending some time with Brian and Al and THAT crew.

[KDS]

Mike's touring Beach Boys put on a terrific/fun show.  They've upgraded the roster since 2012 and the presentation is really well done.  It's really good 'tour' quality.  Brian's is 'studio' quality.  BOTH work...and well.

The difference?  Brian is not at war with the brand and the history.  He treats both with love and care.  He has a team which helps him to realize his musical goals.
Mike is at war with the brand and the history.   He needs serious assistance to pull his 'stuff' off.  THESE days he's getting it.  There was a time though....way back when...when the group sounded so awful that Carl left to do his solo stint.  The current unit has really picked up its 'game since spending some time with Brian and Al and THAT crew.

Couldn't agree more.  Mike, Bruce, Jeff, Scott, Ike, and John put on a really nice show.  In the last eight months, I've been to two Brian shows and two Mike shows.  I'd have to do the math, but between the two bands I've heard something like 80 different BB songs, five Brian Wilson solo songs, and one Mike song. 

In regards to Mike, I posted this is an another thread, but if you get a chance to see them in a theater, do it.  I saw them at a summer shed show in August and a theater show last week.  At the theater show, I saw not one bouncing beach ball in the crowd, and the crowd seemed a lot more willing to enjoy the music.  You could hear a pin drop during Their Hearts Were Full of Spring.   

[Lee Marshall]

Unlike KDS...I am NO LONGER recommending that people go to see and hear the Beach Boys.  The things Mike continues to do to undermine the legacy suggests that he does not DESERVE to be acknowledged.

So?  Check out Brian.  He's celebrating Pet Sounds and 1966 this year.  Mike's gonna champion Good Vibrations.  THAT says a TON.

[AndrewHickey]

Mike is at war with the brand and the history.   He needs serious assistance to pull his 'stuff' off.  THESE days he's getting it.  There was a time though....way back when...when the group sounded so awful that Carl left to do his solo stint.  The current unit has really picked up its 'game since spending some time with Brian and Al and THAT crew.

It's true that the live Beach Boys -- and especially Mike's touring band -- have at times sounded horrible. But the real improvement in the touring band happened before the reunion tour. Replacing Adrian Baker with Randell Kirsch in 2004, and adding in a lot of rarer songs, was the first step, but the real big change was in 2007 when Cowsill moved to drums and Scott Totten became musical director. There've been lineup changes since then too of course (Christian replaced by Jeff, and then Randell replaced by Brian Eichenberger), and Jeff replacing Christian was definitely an improvement (there's not much in it either way between Randell and Brian E), but certainly since 2008 (the first time I saw the band after that change) they've been utterly superb.

It's not so much that touring with Brian and his band has made Mike's band up their game, but that the competition from Brian's band in the early 2000s made Mike finally get a band together whose core members *could* tour with Brian's band and not be hopelessly outclassed. If they'd tried to integrate Adrian Baker and Mike Kowalski with Brian's great band, it would have been pitiful or risible depending on one's point of view. But Scott and John slotted in perfectly, because by that time Mike's band were already strikingly good.

[Lee Marshall]

Well...ya...I have to agree with Andrew here.  Scott and John really contribute significantly...There have been other positive tweaks  since '12.       Then there are the interviews.

I can't back THAT.

[HeyJude]

It's interesting if you read back several pages in this thread to see *who* bought up, and continually brings up the "touring band" when nobody else is talking about it. There's a bunch of talk about the article, and subsequently about Mike's 2005 lawsuit, and then all of a sudden someone arbitrarily points out that they think the touring band is attacked on this board regularly. What did the touring band have to do with the objectionable (to some) nature and execution of Mike's 2005 lawsuit?

Are folks who find that lawsuit objectionable statistically more likely to also have mixed feelings about Mike's "touring band?" I guess. But it's not different from those who seem to be weirdly non-committal about criticizing ANY element of that 2005 lawsuit also being predictably a cheerleader for Mike's touring band.

What I don't get is why anyone could be so incredulous as to why some folks have negative or mixed feelings about Mike's "touring band." Especially these days when the criticisms or bad feelings have much more to do with the context and concept of Mike's band as opposed to sub-par musical quality (even detractors will usually acknowledge Mike's band *sounds* better, which is really a testament to Scott Totten and some of the other backing guys and the production's company's hiring patterns more than anything else).

I think in some cases it has to do with the state of affairs with the "band" over the last few decades that dictates that we have to call something the "touring band" to differentiate it both from other ongoing tours as well as the "corporate" band and (mostly inactive for decades) "studio band."

I think a discussion of that 2005 lawsuit is intensely interesting. But when it turns to discussion of the touring band, it quickly turns rather stale. It's the same old debate. Some folks feel Mike's band is as important as anything in the history of the band because they come to play down the street from you at the local chili cook-off. Rancid ABC TV movies and embarrassing connections to "Full House" are explained away as simply "good PR" for the band, as if any sort of media penetration is ALWAYS a good thing. (I guess the myriad of appearances by the band in the early 90s on "Hard Copy" and "A Current Affair" were good too?). The point of view of kids keeps getting brought into it for no reason whatsoever.

The whole discussion started with the RS article, where Mike Love, who runs a *wonderful* enlightening tour according to his biggest supporters, still seems utterly disenfranchised. He controls the BB name on tour, he has nobody to answer to, etc, etc. (as I've already posted previously), and he's still severely annoyed. I don't think the touring band has anything particularly to do with either the RS article (in terms of Mike's disposition in the article) or the 2005 lawsuit. But if it does, then celebrating how awesome Mike's touring band is and how everybody loves it so much, actually makes Mike look even *worse* in that RS article. What could possibly still please Mike? The thing he's most pissed off about was *fixed* 20 years ago in a lawsuit he won.

So that's my question. Whether you think it's justified or not, Mike in that RS article is still pissed off about some stuff. So my question is, what on Earth could possibly make him not pissed off anymore? I can't think of anything.

[KDS]

HJ,

Maybe Mike is in serious need of some sort of anger management therapy. 

I'm not a doctor, and I don't play one on TV, but it seems to me that it's he's still that bitter and angry about issues that have long since been resolved, then his meditation isn't working like it should. 

[filledeplage]

It's interesting if you read back several pages in this thread to see *who* bought up, and continually brings up the "touring band" when nobody else is talking about it. There's a bunch of talk about the article, and subsequently about Mike's 2005 lawsuit, and then all of a sudden someone arbitrarily points out that they think the touring band is attacked on this board regularly. What did the touring band have to do with the objectionable (to some) nature and execution of Mike's 2005 lawsuit?

Are folks who find that lawsuit objectionable statistically more likely to also have mixed feelings about Mike's "touring band?" I guess. But it's not different from those who seem to be weirdly non-committal about criticizing ANY element of that 2005 lawsuit also being predictably a cheerleader for Mike's touring band.

What I don't get is why anyone could be so incredulous as to why some folks have negative or mixed feelings about Mike's "touring band." Especially these days when the criticisms or bad feelings have much more to do with the context and concept of Mike's band as opposed to sub-par musical quality (even detractors will usually acknowledge Mike's band *sounds* better, which is really a testament to Scott Totten and some of the other backing guys and the production's company's hiring patterns more than anything else).

I think in some cases it has to do with the state of affairs with the "band" over the last few decades that dictates that we have to call something the "touring band" to differentiate it both from other ongoing tours as well as the "corporate" band and (mostly inactive for decades) "studio band."

I think a discussion of that 2005 lawsuit is intensely interesting. But when it turns to discussion of the touring band, it quickly turns rather stale. It's the same old debate. Some folks feel Mike's band is as important as anything in the history of the band because they come to play down the street from you at the local chili cook-off. Rancid ABC TV movies and embarrassing connections to "Full House" are explained away as simply "good PR" for the band, as if any sort of media penetration is ALWAYS a good thing. (I guess the myriad of appearances by the band in the early 90s on "Hard Copy" and "A Current Affair" were good too?). The point of view of kids keeps getting brought into it for no reason whatsoever.

The whole discussion started with the RS article, where Mike Love, who runs a *wonderful* enlightening tour according to his biggest supporters, still seems utterly disenfranchised. He controls the BB name on tour, he has nobody to answer to, etc, etc. (as I've already posted previously), and he's still severely annoyed. I don't think the touring band has anything particularly to do with either the RS article (in terms of Mike's disposition in the article) or the 2005 lawsuit. But if it does, then celebrating how awesome Mike's touring band is and how everybody loves it so much, actually makes Mike look even *worse* in that RS article. What could possibly still please Mike? The thing he's most pissed off about was *fixed* 20 years ago in a lawsuit he won.

So that's my question. Whether you think it's justified or not, Mike in that RS article is still pissed off about some stuff. So my question is, what on Earth could possibly make him not pissed off anymore? I can't think of anything.

Hey Jude - you may as well have quoted me.  I will own it.  For some time, after this "notthebeachboys"  or the fakebeachboys garbage, I have particularized the way I describe the licensed touring band.  The article has been done to death.  Mixed feelings?  "My band is better than yours."

Non committal about a 2005 suit where there was a history running straight to Murry (It was adjudged that Brian was not at fault in the 90's attribution suit where Mike's money was not returned to him.)  And, only to stir the pot. Lanham Act is unenforceable in the US.
  

If one dared calling the Touring Band - "The Beach Boys" - a firestorm of epic proportions would erupt here and you know it. Choosing words carefully obviates that.

The 2005 suit does not belong in a General Music Discussion section.  It belongs in The Sandbox.  

Rancid is your characterization. Embarrassing to whom? A group of purists? You want "a rah rah - we all hate this...all together now." ABC got some award for it.  Too bad the Brian suit was not featured on the film, where "an agent" gave Brian LSD, bragged on this board, insulted his wife, etc.  

Yes, I am a big Touring Band Supporter.  Sign me up on that list.  I am also a big Brian supporter, and and Al supporter. Put me on those lists, as well.   Amazing how one can run a blog on BB's but pick and choose some Beach Boys and not all Beach Boys.

Who cares what is "justified" and who are we to judge the reflections of a 70+ man? It is his life and not ours.  *who* - since when have asterisks replaced more appropriate punctuation?      

[AndrewHickey]

The 2005 suit does not belong in a General Music Discussion section.  It belongs in The Sandbox.  

Nonsense. This isn't the General Music Discussion board anyway, it's the General *On Topic* Discussion board. And while I personally found much of the discussion of the 2005 suit tedious, it *absolutely* belongs on this board -- especially in the context of an article that discussed it (among other things).

 *who* - since when have asterisks replaced more appropriate punctuation?      

The use of asterisks to emphasise text has a history going back decades, and is a standard means of doing so online. And given your own... idiosyncratic... approach to punctuation and sentence structure, I wouldn't be too keen to attack HeyJude's.

[HeyJude]

Who cares what is "justified" and who are we to judge the reflections of a 70+ man? It is his life and not ours.  *who* - since when have asterisks replaced more appropriate punctuation?      

Thanks to Mr. Hickey for pointing out the past usage of the asterisk, which indeed if nothing else has a more justified use on the internet than things like, say, emoticons?

I use them for two reasons. Mainly, if one is typing on a smartphone browser, it's sometimes easier to use the asterisks than finding the tiny "italic" or "bold" button. Also, to put it bluntly, I think if everyone responded to your posts appropriately, it would be a sea of italics and bold and would probably make people appear more annoyed and adversarial than they may actually be.

Someone here in the last year or so actually threatened to report the overuse of CAPS as if that was somehow injurious to anyone here. So I try to avoid that as well.

So discussion of Mike's 2005 lawsuit goes in the "Sandbox", but your ad hominem commentary concerning punctuation is on-topic?

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

Hey, FP. #notthebeachboys is a belief held by some, and is not, as you like to say, garbage. Fans, whether you or anyone subscribes to it or not, may, last time I checked, have the "unequivocal" right to like or dislike anyone in the in whatever band they follow. Say what you will, but I and others will conduct our fandom as we see fit period. We dredge through your posts and you have to dredge through ours as that's the way it works around these parts.

[filledeplage]

Who cares what is "justified" and who are we to judge the reflections of a 70+ man? It is his life and not ours.  *who* - since when have asterisks replaced more appropriate punctuation?      

Thanks to Mr. Hickey for pointing out the past usage of the asterisk, which indeed if nothing else has a more justified use on the internet than things like, say, emoticons?

I use them for two reasons. Mainly, if one is typing on a smartphone browser, it's sometimes easier to use the asterisks than finding the tiny "italic" or "bold" button. Also, to put it bluntly, I think if everyone responded to your posts appropriately, it would be a sea of italics and bold and would probably make people appear more annoyed and adversarial than they may actually be.

Someone here in the last year or so actually threatened to report the overuse of CAPS as if that was somehow injurious to anyone here. So I try to avoid that as well.

So discussion of Mike's 2005 lawsuit goes in the "Sandbox", but your ad hominem commentary concerning punctuation is on-topic?

Hey Jude - the * was used to indicate a "who" and that is unrelated to an emoticon or icon used in the context of an exclamation point.

Smartphones do have a mind of their own, changing spelling, etc.   I get that. 

The suit is a distractor as it had a conclusion and is not an ongoing process as it is treated, as though it was in the here-and-now.  We are here for exchanging ideas and that is lost when people get bogged down in old news.  There is no reason to question why someone might feel as they do but has become an obsession.     

[HeyJude]

Non committal about a 2005 suit where there was a history running straight to Murry (It was adjudged that Brian was not at fault in the 90's attribution suit where Mike's money was not returned to him.)  And, only to stir the pot. Lanham Act is unenforceable in the US.
  

Murry nor his estate were a party to Mike's 2005 lawsuit as far as I know, and I don't believe any of the suit's charges involved Murry. Was it not a lawsuit concerning "Smile", and a freebie CD, and apparently some stuff tacked on concerning alleged BRI corporate actions/issues/malfeasance?

Everything concerning the BBs has a history running back to Murry. I don't think it was germane to any of the items in Mike's 2005 suit, and if Mike tried arguing as such (I don't believe he did), he was apparently shot down by the court.

You can remain as non-committal as you want regarding that 2005 lawsuit, and you can stretch your benefit of the doubt as far as you want. But the most objective ruling on the issue comes from the courts, who pretty much laughed (and admonished) the lawsuit out of the courtroom.

If one dared calling the Touring Band - "The Beach Boys" - a firestorm of epic proportions would erupt here and you know it. Choosing words carefully obviates that.

No, I think you're rewriting history as it pertains to fandom. The reason Mike's band needs to be called "The Touring Band" (a label which I'm fine with and regularly use) is because of the sad state of the "Beach Boys" brand and trademark. It's not a "firestorm" that will result in calling Mike's band simply "The Beach Boys" in the midst of an internet discussion. It's utter confusion that results because of the licensing setup. Otherwise, you'd end up with weird constructions such as comparing C50 to the 2016 band by saying "I think The Beach Boys put on a great show, much better than The Beach Boys."

Further, any "firestorms" concerning use of the BB trademark for touring purposes subsided by the early 2000s. Other than a few inflammatory folks and perhaps some newbies just realizing the nature of the band's current fractured state, most old crusty, cynical fans gave up rolling their eyes at Mike's use of the BB name years ago.

To the degree calling his band the "touring band" is pejorative, that's a built-in aspect of the moniker that Mike has created by continuing to tour and dilute the trademark. He appears to be quite happy with the current state of affairs, apart from his rather general, non-specific commentary about those who he feels paint him as a villain.

Rancid is your characterization. Embarrassing to whom? A group of purists? You want "a rah rah - we all hate this...all together now." ABC got some award for it.  Too bad the Brian suit was not featured on the film, where "an agent" gave Brian LSD, bragged on this board, insulted his wife, etc.  

Of course rancid is my characterization. I wrote it! I didn't attribute it to anyone else.

Embarrassing to whom? Stamos himself, one of the producers on the project and apparently one the folks who spearheaded the whole thing, has acknowledged the unfortunate nature of the film.

Who cares what is "justified" and who are we to judge the reflections of a 70+ man? It is his life and not ours.  *who* - since when have asterisks replaced more appropriate punctuation?      

It's about discussing the band and its members. The RS article is a contemporary look at Mike and his attitudes and life. If Mike didn't think his reflections or opinions or thoughts were germane to discourse with journalists and fans, he wouldn't have given the interview in the first place and certainly wouldn't be working on autobiography. Mike has certainly passed judgment on every other member of the group at one point or another in such a way that belies the idea that everyone's life is "their own" and nobody should judge it in any way.

[filledeplage]

Hey, FP. #notthebeachboys is a belief held by some, and is not, as you like to say, garbage. Fans, whether you or anyone subscribes to it or not, may, last time I checked, have the "unequivocal" right to like or dislike anyone in the in whatever band they follow. Say what you will, but I and others will conduct our fandom as we see fit period. We dredge through your posts and you have to dredge through ours as that's the way it works around these parts.

Hey OSD - many naysayers have seen the Touring Band, and now concede how good the Touring Band is, in the face of the unending criticism. You don't happen to be one of them and I have never questioned your right to your opinion.  I know you know your BB history.  If Brian did not want the band licensed, and he had the board votes, it would not be.  

[HeyJude]

Who cares what is "justified" and who are we to judge the reflections of a 70+ man? It is his life and not ours.  *who* - since when have asterisks replaced more appropriate punctuation?      

Thanks to Mr. Hickey for pointing out the past usage of the asterisk, which indeed if nothing else has a more justified use on the internet than things like, say, emoticons?

I use them for two reasons. Mainly, if one is typing on a smartphone browser, it's sometimes easier to use the asterisks than finding the tiny "italic" or "bold" button. Also, to put it bluntly, I think if everyone responded to your posts appropriately, it would be a sea of italics and bold and would probably make people appear more annoyed and adversarial than they may actually be.

Someone here in the last year or so actually threatened to report the overuse of CAPS as if that was somehow injurious to anyone here. So I try to avoid that as well.

So discussion of Mike's 2005 lawsuit goes in the "Sandbox", but your ad hominem commentary concerning punctuation is on-topic?

Hey Jude - the * was used to indicate a "who" and that is unrelated to an emoticon or icon used in the context of an exclamation point.

Smartphones do have a mind of their own, changing spelling, etc.   I get that.  

The suit is a distractor as it had a conclusion and is not an ongoing process as it is treated, as though it was in the here-and-now.  We are here for exchanging ideas and that is lost when people get bogged down in old news.  There is no reason to question why someone might feel as they do but has become an obsession.    

The point on the asterisks is that you know very well that it's used to emphasize in place of bold/italics, etc., and bringing it up after complaining that discussion of Mike's 2005 lawsuit is off-topic is both hugely ironic and a disappointing ad hominem argument.

As for the 2005 suit, I simply disagree. It certainly has the potential to be beat to death as a topic, just as any topic can. But the 2005 lawsuit is, in my opinion, a lesser-discussed and lesser-analyzed chapter in the BB legal saga. Further, I feel that suit actually is an excellent companion source to the RS article. As I believe guitarfool and others have pointed out, the verbiage used in that 2005 lawsuit directly informs a lot of the things Mike has complained about in interviews such as the RS piece, and potentially in his role as some sort of "advisor" on the 2000 TV miniseries.

As "law", the 2005 case isn't actually terribly interesting. It was indeed a "borderline frivolous" case. It's not difficult to see why the courts shot it down.

The 2005 lawsuit is interesting as in insight into the interpersonal and business relationships and attitudes of Mike vis-à-vis Brian and Al, especially the "background" sections; those sections are littered with contempt and ill feelings.  

[filledeplage]

The 2005 suit does not belong in a General Music Discussion section.  It belongs in The Sandbox.  

Nonsense. This isn't the General Music Discussion board anyway, it's the General *On Topic* Discussion board. And while I personally found much of the discussion of the 2005 suit tedious, it *absolutely* belongs on this board -- especially in the context of an article that discussed it (among other things).

 *who* - since when have asterisks replaced more appropriate punctuation?      

The use of asterisks to emphasise text has a history going back decades, and is a standard means of doing so online. And given your own... idiosyncratic... approach to punctuation and sentence structure, I wouldn't be too keen to attack HeyJude's.

Andrew -  I have never seen asterisks used in grammar for that purpose.  Looking at an older MLA (Modern Language Association guide; it is silent as to asterisks and not used as "idiosyncratic."  That is a borrowed term.  And, petty.  

If you have some cite for it's use, it would be appreciated. I have seen it used in the context of footnotes or instant messaging.

From wiki. "The asterisk or little star...Computer scientists and mathematicians vocalize it as a start (as for example in the A8 search algorithm or C* -algebra). When toning down expletives, asterisks are often used to replace letters.  (examples are given)   Computer language uses it as a wildcat character.  In linguistics, an asterisk is placed before a word or phrase to indicate that it is not used, or are no records of it being used..."
                                                                                                                                                                        

[HeyJude]

 If Brian did not want the band licensed, and he had the board votes, it would not be.  

I think that probably oversimplifies the situation. First, it kind of minimizes the plight of any single BRI corporate member who doesn’t want Mike to have a license but doesn’t have the votes to stop it. It also ignores all of the backscratching (or avoiding backstabbing or further lawsuits) involved in keeping the status quo with the license.

Further, we actually have a bit of more detailed insight into this issue via the 2005 lawsuit. It appears that it was alleged that Brian said he was considering touring with Al either with the “Beach Boys” license, and/or voting to essentially “retire” the name. My interpretation of that allegation in conjunction with Mike filing his lawsuit, and this is just my interpretation/opinion, is that such a “threat” scared Mike enough to try to quash it and claim such a move was some sort of corporate malfeasance in relation to BRI. While it appears these allegations came to naught, I’m sure Brian and Al weigh accordingly the ramifications (and not only simply the loss of their 25% cut of the licensing fee) of attempting to vote to remove the license from Mike.

It would likely be tied up in courts for the rest of some if not most of the members’ lives.  

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

Hey, FP. #notthebeachboys is a belief held by some, and is not, as you like to say, garbage. Fans, whether you or anyone subscribes to it or not, may, last time I checked, have the "unequivocal" right to like or dislike anyone in the in whatever band they follow. Say what you will, but I and others will conduct our fandom as we see fit period. We dredge through your posts and you have to dredge through ours as that's the way it works around these parts.

Hey OSD - many naysayers have seen the Touring Band, and now concede how good the Touring Band is, in the face of the unending criticism. You don't happen to be one of them and I have never questioned your right to your opinion.  I know you know your BB history.  If Brian did not want the band licensed, and he had the board votes, it would not be.  

Brian just didn't want to be dragged through the muck of a frivolous myKe luHv lawsuit so he agreed, but he did not acquiesce for monetary reasons. License schmlicense, it's regarded by most in the know as #notthebeachboys and always will.

[HeyJude]

The 2005 suit does not belong in a General Music Discussion section.  It belongs in The Sandbox.  

Nonsense. This isn't the General Music Discussion board anyway, it's the General *On Topic* Discussion board. And while I personally found much of the discussion of the 2005 suit tedious, it *absolutely* belongs on this board -- especially in the context of an article that discussed it (among other things).

 *who* - since when have asterisks replaced more appropriate punctuation?      

The use of asterisks to emphasise text has a history going back decades, and is a standard means of doing so online. And given your own... idiosyncratic... approach to punctuation and sentence structure, I wouldn't be too keen to attack HeyJude's.

Andrew -  I have never seen asterisks used in grammar for that purpose.  Looking at an older MLA (Modern Language Association guide; it is silent as to asterisks and not used as "idiosyncratic."  That is a borrowed term.  And, petty.  

If you have some cite for it's use, it would be appreciated. I have seen it used in the context of footnotes or instant messaging.

From wiki. "The asterisk or little star...Computer scientists and mathematicians vocalize it as a start (as for example in the A8 search algorithm or C* -algebra). When toning down expletives, asterisks are often used to replace letters.  (examples are given)   Computer language uses it as a wildcat character.  In linguistics, an asterisk is placed before a word or phrase to indicate that it is not used, or are no records of it being used..."
                                                                                                                                                                        

Seriously, could you take this to the sandbox?

OBVIOUSLY, use of asterisks for the purpose of EMPHASIS is a more recent internet-related usage. I would say you might understandably not be familiar with this, but you do regularly post on the internet and also use emoticons which are, I'm guessing without pulling my copy out, not an approved tool mentioned in the MLA handbook either.

From wiki:

Asterisks can be used in textual media to represent *emphasis* when bold or italic text is not available (e.g., Twitter, text messaging).

Considering you apparently looked at this same wiki article, and also read by simple, clear explanation for usage of asterisks, I maintain again that this is all simply a silly ad hominem argument.

[filledeplage]

Who cares what is "justified" and who are we to judge the reflections of a 70+ man? It is his life and not ours.  *who* - since when have asterisks replaced more appropriate punctuation?      

Thanks to Mr. Hickey for pointing out the past usage of the asterisk, which indeed if nothing else has a more justified use on the internet than things like, say, emoticons?

I use them for two reasons. Mainly, if one is typing on a smartphone browser, it's sometimes easier to use the asterisks than finding the tiny "italic" or "bold" button. Also, to put it bluntly, I think if everyone responded to your posts appropriately, it would be a sea of italics and bold and would probably make people appear more annoyed and adversarial than they may actually be.

Someone here in the last year or so actually threatened to report the overuse of CAPS as if that was somehow injurious to anyone here. So I try to avoid that as well.

So discussion of Mike's 2005 lawsuit goes in the "Sandbox", but your ad hominem commentary concerning punctuation is on-topic?

Hey Jude - the * was used to indicate a "who" and that is unrelated to an emoticon or icon used in the context of an exclamation point.

Smartphones do have a mind of their own, changing spelling, etc.   I get that.  

The suit is a distractor as it had a conclusion and is not an ongoing process as it is treated, as though it was in the here-and-now.  We are here for exchanging ideas and that is lost when people get bogged down in old news.  There is no reason to question why someone might feel as they do but has become an obsession.    

The point on the asterisks is that you know very well that it's used to emphasize in place of bold/italics, etc., and bringing it up after complaining that discussion of Mike's 2005 lawsuit is off-topic is both hugely ironic and a disappointing ad hominem argument.

As for the 2005 suit, I simply disagree. It certainly has the potential to be beat to death as a topic, just as any topic can. But the 2005 lawsuit is, in my opinion, a lesser-discussed and lesser-analyzed chapter in the BB legal saga. Further, I feel that suit actually is an excellent companion source to the RS article. As I believe guitarfool and others have pointed out, the verbiage used in that 2005 lawsuit directly informs a lot of the things Mike has complained about in interviews such as the RS piece, and potentially in his role as some sort of "advisor" on the 2000 TV miniseries.

As "law", the 2005 case isn't actually terribly interesting. It was indeed a "borderline frivolous" case. It's not difficult to see why the courts shot it down.

The 2005 lawsuit is interesting as in insight into the interpersonal and business relationships and attitudes of Mike vis-à-vis Brian and Al, especially the "background" sections; those sections are littered with contempt and ill feelings.  

Hey Jude - earlier I pointed out that in pursuing this to find the screenwriter, which you are entitled to do, it may be a brick wall because of whatever happened to cause character names to become amended.  I would love to see that year (66-67) or so accurately (without time window conflicts) reported.  So far, some of these authors have conflicting information.  And, there is still a veil over that Spring of '67 window for the TIKH tour.    

The court shot it down because they had NO jurisdiction in the UK.  The rest becomes moot.