Mike's continuing beef with Al

[HeyJude]

The events surrounding Al's 1998 departure are examined in my upcoming David Marks book. The process that resulted in the shuffling of the BB's lineup was in motion starting around '95 or '96...Carl's illness and death caused it all to shake down slightly differently than originally envisioned. Most people would think that everything happened as a result of Carl's illness, but actually the facts don't support that. Things were underway prior to that...with Carl still on board.

Jon, you mentioned that this subject is touched upon in your book awhile back here on the board, and I think you mentioned a bit of the details involved in it. I'll save getting into the whole story until I have a chance to read your book (I can't wait!), but I have one question about your coverage of this: Who were you able to talk to and get information from about the whole debacle? I would assume of course that David Marks offered his insights and what he knew about it, since he was right in the middle of the whole operation as it transitioned from pre to post-Carl/Al. Were you able to get Al to talk about this at all, or is talking about it still problematic for Al because of still-pending litigation? Were you able to get any other sources to offer information about it? I know David was in the middle of it all, but I would have to think that given the structure of the whole organization and him not being a member of the corporation, he still may not have been privy to everything going on.

I remember reading an interview with David Marks that he gave probably in late 1999 or 2000, not too long after he left the touring band, and in that interview he talked about the fact that one of the reasons he was added to the group was because of technicalities involving how many actual "Beach Boys" were on stage. Perhaps this had to do with a short-term situation before the licenses were handed out after Carl was gone, having to do with regulations that existed in the Mike/Al/Carl/Bruce era of the touring band, but I remember thinking later on that by 1999 or 2000, it seemed like it no longer mattered how many actual official "Beach Boys" were stage given that Mike and Bruce didn't try to replace David after he left with Al, or Blondie Chaplin or something. Today, it seems like it simply requires the license that Mike has, nothing more.

Looking forward to the book! (Any updates on a release date window?)

[Andrew G. Doe]

[I'm not referring to why Al can't tour using a Beach Boys-related name. I understand that. I'll re-phrase my question. What SPECIFICALLY happened between Mike and Al that Al is no longer touring with Mike and Bruce in The Beach Boys? Was it creative differences, did Al call Mike a name, was there a physical altercation, did Al say something derogatory in an interview? Specifically, what caused Al to leave The Beach Boys? 

Specifically, Mike did the 1998 Super Bowl with Bruce, Glen Campbell, Dean Torrence, and John Stamos. 
Al decided if he wasn't wanted for that, he didn't really wanna be around at all.  There were lots of little reasons building up to that, chief among which was Carl was no longer there to keep the peace.  Mike and Al began to be at odds shortly after "Kokomo", and I think it was kinda like a longtime marriage where the two people drift apart gradually, and it eventually gets to the point where they can't stand to be around each other.

Thanks, c-man. You wouldn't happen to know why Al wasn't at that Super Bowl performance, would you? Didn't Al know about it? I mean, I don't think it was Mike Love's job to telephone band members to let them know when the next gig is! That sounds very Syd Barrett-like, when the band simply refused to pick up Syd for the next gig - and that was the end of him as a member of Pink Floyd.

I'm really not trying to dredge up any dirt; I'm just curious to find out what was the straw that broke the camel's back. I agree with your marriage analogy. I guess it could be an accumulation of a lot of things. But when a member leaves a group like The Beach Boys, well, that's a pretty dramatic move, I think. And now it appears that Al would like back in, but can't get back in...

The Super Bowl thing, to be fair, wasn't technically speaking a BB gig: memory is hazy but the introduction was something like "America's Band featuring Mike Love, Bruce Johnston & David Marks of the Beach Boys". That said, were I Alan, I'd still be mighty pissed to see that on TV as being the first I knew about it. Fielding the phone calls must have been totally embarrassing.

I've also been told that following Carl's death, Alan thought that without his voice the band could not continue, and Mike thought otherwise.

AS for the SIP thing, Alan had been essentially dismissed from the band because he had a severe attitude problem (which may have been down to a bad bout of tinnitus): essentially, no-one could stand to be in the same room as him because of his negativity. It's interesting that in the same interview Mike noted this (Goldmine 1993, I think), he also praised his work when he did return late in the sessions.

[MBE]

In the interview I read with Mike he said Al could not let go of old affronts. Now that is exactly what Gary Usher claimed in the Wilson Project book about Al's anger with him about a loan he gave him for the Rachel and The Revolvers record. Now to be fair Al seems like a very nice man so maybe he worked out some of these issues. In 1993 Goldmine Mike said they did. Something must have went wrong again.

 My 2 cents is that anyone who was a Beach Boy should be able to perform their music live and be able to make money from the trademark. I would have a billing that is more honest like what Al did. Mike should do something like call his band Mike Love of the Beach Boys fetauring Bruce Johnston. Neither Mike nor Al have the original group and I fail to see why how Mike's is more authentic then Jardine's or vice versa. Put simply neither should call themselves the Beach Boys, but both should be able to promote their groups using the name loosely.

[Sheriff John Stone]

In my continuing attempt to understand what happened...

A) Was there an official vote taken to dismiss Al Jardine from The Beach Boys?

B) Did Al leave the band voluntarily because he was fed up with the way things were going?

C) Did Mike throw him out, and, if he did, did one man have the authority to do that?

D) Currently, does Al want to be a part of The Beach Boys?

[Cam Mott]

In my continuing attempt to understand what happened...

A) Was there an official vote taken to dismiss Al Jardine from The Beach Boys?

B) Did Al leave the band voluntarily because he was fed up with the way things were going?

C) Did Mike throw him out, and, if he did, did one man have the authority to do that?

D) Currently, does Al want to be a part of The Beach Boys?

My understanding:

A. No. 

B. Yes. Maybe/probably but he has also said he quit touring with the BBs to concentrate on a Jardines' album and has expressed being fed up when Brian and Mike [because Brian wasn't interested] didn't sign on to his post-Carl plan to do a symphonic tour [the one Mike has said Al tried to execute anyway with Peter Cetera replacing Mike].

C. No. No.

D. Al is a part of the BBs, he is just not currently a participant in the BBs' touring.  He has shot himself in the foot in that regard [Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals link] and is at the mercy of Mike in that regard [as the current license holder] until BRI says different I imagine.

Did I mess any of that up?

[Sheriff John Stone]

D) Currently, does Al want to be a part of The Beach Boys?

My understanding:

D. Al is a part of the BBs, he is just not currently a participant in the BBs' touring.  He has shot himself in the foot in that regard [Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals link] and is at the mercy of Mike in that regard [as the current license holder] until BRI says different I imagine.

Did I mess any of that up?

No, quite clear actually. Thank you. Except for letter D...

When you say that Al is at the mercy of Mike, do you mean that Mike, and Mike alone, as the current license holder, can determine/dictate if/when Al is allowed to step on stage with The Beach Boys?

[c-man]

I think it boils down to this:  following Carl's death, neither Al nor Mike wanted to work with the other.  It had been building up for some time, and might've happened anyway for one reason or another, but following Carl's death the "corporate four" (Al, Mike, Brian, and Carl's estate) voted on a proposal to allow Mike to continue using the corporate name for touring purposes (and maybe recording, too, but I don't know about that).  Al, from what I understand, voted TO allow Mike to continue using the name...face it, it's a very profitable business, Mike is a recognizable voice & face for that corporate image, and the touring grosses minus expenses were split four ways (which is also why Brian and Carl's estate voted to allow Mike to use the name).  

Al then carried on with his own band, under the name "Beach Boys Family & Friends", which was the only way certain promotoers or venues would book his new band.  Mike saw this as a threat to his ticket sales, and set out to "destroy" Al in court.  What Al hadn't realized when giving Mike exclusive right to the billing of "The Beach Boys" was that it legally preculded him from using
the words "Beach Boys" as even a part of his new band's name.  That was the point when the sour feelings turned to bad blood.  Kind of like a divorce that starts out with two people just wanting to get away from each other, and morphing into a go-for-the-throat, nasty legal fight to the death.  Now that Al can't perform with his band using "Beach Boys" in their name at all (although he regained the legal right to refer to himself as a "Beach Boy"...which seems like a fine point, but that's the law), he's attempting to get back in the band.  

The part I don't understand is this:  if Al left voluntarily as he once claimed, and the touring money was split four-ways regardless of who was touring, how come Al's legal fight against Mike claimed he was frozen out of certain monies by being excluded from touring?  

[Cam Mott]

No, quite clear actually. Thank you. Except for letter D...

When you say that Al is at the mercy of Mike, do you mean that Mike, and Mike alone, as the current license holder, can determine/dictate if/when Al is allowed to step on stage with The Beach Boys?

This is just assumption on my part, if Mike holds the license he apparently is not beholden to include Al in his tour and vice versa if Al had met the conditions of holding a license.  I assume BRI could change that anytime at the end of a licensing period or maybe even sooner if they wished.

[Cam Mott]

Al then carried on with his own band, under the name "Beach Boys Family & Friends", which was the only way certain promotoers or venues would book his new band.  Mike saw this as a threat to his ticket sales, and set out to "destroy" Al in court.  What Al hadn't realized when giving Mike exclusive right to the billing of "The Beach Boys" was that it legally preculded him from using
the words "Beach Boys" as even a part of his new band's name.  That was the point when the sour feelings turned to bad blood.  

 

Craig, I hate to keep harping on this [not really] but BRI saw it as a threat to revenue, if you read the court opinion it is clear that Mike was not in contol of the BRI vote, they took away his exclusive license, they renegotiated a sweeter deal with Al while they held Mike accountable to less profitable deal.  Al could have had the same and more advantages that BRI gave Mike if he had only abided by his agreements.

The part I don't understand is this:  if Al left voluntarily as he once claimed, and the touring money was split four-ways regardless of who was touring, how come Al's legal fight against Mike claimed he was frozen out of certain monies by being excluded from touring?  

According to the court summary, BRI had voted years before to split the touring profits with all members but with a bigger cut going to those who actually toured.  Maybe that is what it refers to. Al would have enjoyed this same premium if he had met the requirement to have a license I assume.

[AMDG]

The part I don't understand is this:  if Al left voluntarily as he once claimed, and the touring money was split four-ways regardless of who was touring, how come Al's legal fight against Mike claimed he was frozen out of certain monies by being excluded from touring? 

The touring money is not split four ways.  The license fee that the Mike/Bruce show pay BRI is split four ways.  I do not know what the percentage is (5%?).

[c-man]

The part I don't understand is this:  if Al left voluntarily as he once claimed, and the touring money was split four-ways regardless of who was touring, how come Al's legal fight against Mike claimed he was frozen out of certain monies by being excluded from touring? 

The touring money is not split four ways.  The license fee that the Mike/Bruce show pay BRI is split four ways.  I do not know what the percentage is (5%?).

That explains it then!

[Cam Mott]

The part I don't understand is this:  if Al left voluntarily as he once claimed, and the touring money was split four-ways regardless of who was touring, how come Al's legal fight against Mike claimed he was frozen out of certain monies by being excluded from touring? 

The touring money is not split four ways.  The license fee that the Mike/Bruce show pay BRI is split four ways.  I do not know what the percentage is (5%?).

The licensing fee "required a royalty of 20 percent" [5% per shareholder?] and "In 1993, the directors of BRI agreed to devote a certain percentage of the touring income to the corporation for use of the trademark and designated a larger percentage of the income to those members who actually toured."

[Jon Stebbins]

I'm sorry I can't lay the whole thing out for you here...but again the subject of Al's departure in '98 is examined in the Dave Marks book. Still waiting to get some distribution things nailed down before we announce a release date. Should be soon. I don't have any hugely shocking revelations but I do have a new perspective on the old story...its pretty basic stuff. So far none of you have hit on the fundemental reason for Al's departure, and none of you have hit on the chronology of the series of events that put it in motion. This is because there are key pieces of the story that haven't been bandied about in public. As far as the lawsuit and all of that...that is waaaay after the fact and I don't get into that at all in my book because it is irrelevant to the '97/98 lineup change and to Dave's story.

As I said before, the momentum that led to Al's departure was underway BEFORE Carl was gone from the BB's, in fact Carl and Al were not at all in sync with each other regarding Mike's determination to change up some specific fundemental BB's business matters. They ended up becoming "enstranged"...Al's quote...towards the end of Carl's life regarding all of this. I do believe they patched it up before Carl passed. But the reasons Al departed the BB's actually began back in '95 or '96. Dave was already playing occasional BB's shows back then. He was NOT brought in to replace Carl...at least not groomed or positioned to replace Carl. As it turned out in reality he did replace Carl, but that was due to circumstance not strategy. Carl's illness confused the original plan...and the adjustment was made. Al was never told why David was brought in, and didn't learn Dave's perspective on all of this until years later. But basically Mike wanted the BB's concert business set up in a certain way, Carl didn't argue, Al DID argue, Mike did it anyway, Al was frozen out. Al was very surprised that Mike was able to pull it off so smoothly...shocked in fact. The fact that Carl became ill and passed away in the middle of all of this ended up putting all of the public's focus on that and has distracted from the essence of the real story. David was kind of a pawn in the whole game, and was really introduced as a potential game piece back in '95. But his head was not in the game at all...he learned about it all, or figured it out, much later.

I spoke to Al in depth on this subject and he was very candid. Of course I also spoke to David and Carrie as well. And I spoke with Annie and Billy Hinsche who had first hand knowledge of Carl's perspective at the time David joined the BB's lineup in '97. Al might have wished the BB's name had been retired upon Carl's passing, but as it turned out he had little say in the matter.

[Sheriff John Stone]

But the reasons Al departed the BB's actually began back in '95 or '96. Dave was already playing occasional BB's shows back then. He was NOT brought in to replace Carl...at least not groomed or positioned to replace Carl. As it turned out in reality he did replace Carl, but that was due to circumstance not strategy. Carl's illness confused the original plan...and the adjustment was made. Al was never told why David was brought in, and didn't learn Dave's perspective on all of this until years later.

Jon,
    I realize your hands are tied right now, and I'm definitely not trying to put words in your mouth, but the above highlighted statement makes it appear that David was intended to replace Al, not Carl. Again, those are my words and speculations, not yours. Can't wait for the book...

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I was about to say the same thing.

In the interview I read with Mike he said Al could not let go of old affronts. Now that is exactly what Gary Usher claimed in the Wilson Project book about Al's anger with him about a loan he gave him for the Rachel and The Revolvers record.

Yes, that IS what Usher said. Of course, at the time I didn't put much stock in it, considering Usher felt drum machines were better than real drums  and none of the Beach Boys were very good singers (double  )

[Jon Stebbins]

But the reasons Al departed the BB's actually began back in '95 or '96. Dave was already playing occasional BB's shows back then. He was NOT brought in to replace Carl...at least not groomed or positioned to replace Carl. As it turned out in reality he did replace Carl, but that was due to circumstance not strategy. Carl's illness confused the original plan...and the adjustment was made. Al was never told why David was brought in, and didn't learn Dave's perspective on all of this until years later.

Jon,
    I realize your hands are tied right now, and I'm definitely not trying to put words in your mouth, but the above highlighted statement makes it appear that David was intended to replace Al, not Carl. Again, those are my words and speculations, not yours. Can't wait for the book...

All I can say is that David thought he was going to be playing WITH Carl...not in place of him. This has been a tough one for Dave to live down because a lot of fans assumed he was taking advantage of Carl's illness by suddenly jumping into the BB's. But he might have been there earlier if not for some serious legal troubles that resulted in a court case, incarceration, and court ordered after program. By the time he was able to participate in the BB's again, Carl was sick, and Mike and Al's disagreement over BB's business was in full swing. If Carl had beaten the cancer, as many around the BB's assumed he would, and had rejoined the group, David believed he would have remained in the band alongside Carl. That's what he was hoping for.

[HeyJude]

I hope Jon doesn't mind, here's a link to a previous post of his where he quickly alluded to this, perhaps a bit more directly: http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,1249.msg31091.html#msg31091

In any event, between what I believe he's alluding to and what others have mentioned in the past, I'm pretty sure I know what Jon is talking about. Here's a clue I think I can offer: If you know how the touring BB's business is setup today (and I'm not talking about licenses, I'm talking about the actual touring production), this might give you an idea of why Al may have taken issue with things when this type of setup was proposed, back when this setup would have included Al and Carl. Such a setup makes sense in light of the band's current lineup, but if Al and Carl were involved, it would make sense for Al to question it (and Carl as well, even if Carl apparently didn't question it according to Jon). I'll leave it at that, since Jon's book will surely detail this in a direct way. If I'm totally off on this Jon, please feel free to say so.

[Jon Stebbins]

I hope Jon doesn't mind, here's a link to a previous post of his where he quickly alluded to this, perhaps a bit more directly: http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,1249.msg31091.html#msg31091

In any event, between what I believe he's alluding to and what others have mentioned in the past, I'm pretty sure I know what Jon is talking about. Here's a clue I think I can offer: If you know how the touring BB's business is setup today (and I'm not talking about licenses, I'm talking about the actual touring production), this might give you an idea of why Al may have taken issue with things when this type of setup was proposed, back when this setup would have included Al and Carl. Such a setup makes sense in light of the band's current lineup, but if Al and Carl were involved, it would make sense for Al to question it (and Carl as well, even if Carl apparently didn't question it according to Jon). I'll leave it at that, since Jon's book will surely detail this in a direct way. If I'm totally off on this Jon, please feel free to say so.

Yeah you got it right, thanks HJ...the train of this thread is on the right track now.

[Cam Mott]

I spoke to Al in depth on this subject and he was very candid. Of course I also spoke to David and Carrie as well. And I spoke with Annie and Billy Hinsche who had first hand knowledge of Carl's perspective at the time David joined the BB's lineup in '97. Al might have wished the BB's name had been retired upon Carl's passing, but as it turned out he had little say in the matter.

Jon, what did Mike and Brian say about it?

[Jon Stebbins]

I've talked to Brian at least a a dozen times in my life since first meeting him in '79 but never have scored an "official" interview with him. I've been turned down by his management several times. I get the feeling his management may not dig my writing style. I doubt Brian would care much about this particular subject anyway...do you?? I've also talked to Mike five or six times through the years and first met him in '79 as well. I did talk to Mike a couple of times this summer...and interviewed him once very briefly, though we didn't touch on any post sixties stuff...just the old times. He recently gave me his cell phone number through David...which I thought was a nice thing. He and Dave seem to have a pretty solid friendship.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I've talked to Brian at least a a dozen times in my life since first meeting him in '79 but never have scored an "official" interview with him. I've been turned down by his management several times. I get the feeling his management may not dig my writing style.

Trust me...you DON'T want to deal with Brian's management anyway.

Besides, *I* dig your writing style! 

[Cam Mott]

I've talked to Brian at least a a dozen times in my life since first meeting him in '79 but never have scored an "official" interview with him. I've been turned down by his management several times. I get the feeling his management may not dig my writing style. I doubt Brian would care much about this particular subject anyway...do you?? I've also talked to Mike five or six times through the years and first met him in '79 as well. I did talk to Mike a couple of times this summer...and interviewed him once very briefly, though we didn't touch on any post sixties stuff...just the old times. He recently gave me his cell phone number through David...which I thought was a nice thing. He and Dave seem to have a pretty solid friendship.

Jon,

I hope Brian's people change their mind. I think he does care, he seems to have cared who carried forward the BB name.

Sounds like a great opportunity to give David's friend Mike a voice.  Imo it's always good to let people talk, when you can, rather than just talk about or let people talk about them.

[Pretty Funky]

This may have been covered but I am wondering why Al became a liability in the early 90s within the band? I read somewhere he wanted to freshen up the touring act, with or with-out Love. I can see how this could upset Mike and cause a falling out between them but given Carls history of leaving the band for a new challenge in 81, I would have thought a fresh approach mid 90s would have appealed.

[HeyJude]

This may have been covered but I am wondering why Al became a liability in the early 90s within the band? I read somewhere he wanted to freshen up the touring act, with or with-out Love. I can see how this could upset Mike and cause a falling out between them but given Carls history of leaving the band for a new challenge in 81, I would have thought a fresh approach mid 90s would have appealed.

I asked Peter Ames Carlin about this in another thread, because he mentions in his book that there was attempt to oust Al from the band as early as 1990, which, assuming the year is accurate, would seem to predate even the "Summer in Paradise" sessions where Al didn't participate for much of the sessions. Peter didn't really elaborate much on what this 1990 incident entailed, other than to suggest in the book Carl stopped it from happening. He mentioned in the book thread that he heard this from several sources as well as various documents. Perhaps I'll ask in that thread if Peter can provide any more details.

As for members desiring a "fresh approach", I think the problem with the BB's was that different members spoke up or at least expressed a distate with the current state of affairs and suggested changes all at different times.

For instance, Carl left in 1981, and supposedly some of his conditions for rejoining in mid-1982 included the band rehearsing more, and not booking any more casino shows. But within a few years, as I recall, they were playing casinos again, and I think most of us agree that the quality of the live band varied a great deal between 1982 and 1998. So it appears Carl, like most people, felt differently about these things at different times, and at certain times he decided not to put up a fight.

When there were things going on in the band that many fans would perceive as something Carl would be against, sometimes maybe he wasn't against those things and therefore didn't fight it, while at other times maybe he was against something but didn't have the energy or willingness to contest it. I'm only using Carl as one example, there are surely other examples with other band members.

[Andrew G. Doe]

There's the famous, but unfortunatetly undated, late 80s/early 90s story of Alan repeatedly looking at his watch during a show (hmmmmm... sounds familiar) and finally unstrapping his guitar mid-song and departing the stage. Whe asked by someone backstage what he was doing, heading for the exit he replied "got a plane to catch".