Mike Love - Unleash the Love - Due November 17 - w/ 2nd Disc of BB Remakes

[marcusb]

I have no idea how BRI works, or how the deal with the use of the BB name works, but is it possible that BRI is OK with using the BB logo on this release and that Brian, Al and the estates of Dennis/Carl will get money for the use of it?

[HeyJude]

I have no idea how BRI works, or how the deal with the use of the BB name works, but is it possible that BRI is OK with using the BB logo on this release and that Brian, Al and the estates of Dennis/Carl will get money for the use of it?

As to the latter, I highly, highly doubt that BRI is getting a piece of Mike's solo album.

To be clear, there's no problem with Mike using the BB *name* on the sticker. As Al and Brian have done (though ironically sometimes with some pushback), any of the members can say they are Beach Boys, or former Beach Boys, or co-founding members of the Beach Boys, etc.

It's the use of the actual logo that would be potentially an issue, as it's a BRI-owned trademark. But as with all such things, BRI would have to take action. So, much like I would imagine Brian and Al were mulling over options in the aftermath of C50 regarding Mike's license but ultimately did nothing, it may well be that while some BRI members aren't a fan of Mike of using the BB logo on a sticker for his new solo album, they may not take any legal action due to any number of reasons (e.g. "it's not worth the hassle/cost").

I would hope that the other BRI members, rather than launching a suit, would just shoot off an e-mail or phone call to Mike or his representatives and/or the record label and kindly and politely ask them to remove the sticker. It would be an easy fix. And warranted, considering not only is he using the BRI-owned logo, but is using the logo in conjunction with a disc full of "Beach Boys Songs", making the whole thing even murkier.

Outside of any of these scenarios, it's not impossible that they all have some sort of legal agreement among BRI members that they can use the BB logo to promote their solo stuff. I *very highly* doubt this considering Brian and Al (individually and collectively) have been harangued in recent years simply for saying they are members of the Beach Boys in promotional materials for live shows, without using any logos, etc.

[HeyJude]

BRI won’t sue because this will not generate enough revenue to warrant a suit.

BRI not perusing this won't be particularly because they won't see revenue. It would most likely not be pursued because it will *cost* them money. Non-revenue versus cost is a fine point to be sure, but I think the point in enforcing stuff like this is often to prevent it from happening in the future, and/or being escalated. Every lawsuit isn't necessarily specifically or directly a *revenue-generating* lawsuit.

The idea being, what if Mike puts the BB logo right on the front cover of his next CD? He might say "BRI didn't do anything when I used the logo last time."

As I also mentioned in another post, BRI could at least attempt a simple *ask* of Mike and his label rather than suing. They could easily remove stickers from manufactured copies (assuming they've already been manufactured).

(I'm also very aware that we don't actually know for sure that the pic of the sticker is actually what the final product will look like.)

[guitarfool2002]

Just on that topic, take an informal poll of which 5 Beach Boys songs are their most well-known as of 2017, or 10 songs for that matter, and calculate on how many of those was Mike either the "lead vocalist" versus part of a shared lead between Mike-Brian and later Carl and Al and the group blend, and on how many of those Mike was "chief lyricist" versus collabs with Brian, Christian, Usher, Asher, Parks...et al especially on the 60's "classic" era hits.

The fact that this nonsense keeps getting published and shared just boggles the mind, and it's just as frustrating to see those who will stoop to any depths of eschewing common knowledge to defend this crap, and things like Mike producing the Endless Summer comp. What a messed up scene all of this can really be.

No takers? 

Put this into the Mike h8 thread as another example of the facts being stubborn and getting in the way of a good PR shill based on something less than the facts (i.e. 'truth'). It takes a few shakes of a lambs tail to disprove and debunk most of this crap that gets spewed in the name of either shilling for Mike's latest ventures or "setting the record straight". But it's a fun exercise.

[Love Thang]

This guy is a true piece of garbage. After listening to bits of this musical queef, I cast serious doubt on his contribution to any of the BB songs.

[rab2591]

After listening to bits of this musical queef

[HeyJude]

Article on Mike (among others) from The Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2017/oct/11/from-mick-jagger-to-mike-love-all-hail-the-money-grabbing-men-of-rock

I think the premise of the article, as it pertains to Mike, is pretty much totally wrong, and it seems to come from the author's lack of deep familiarity with the history of Mike and the BBs. To suggest a band "needs" someone who is a "money grabber", when that "someone" often squeezes others out of the band, is absolutely asinine. Ask Al Jardine how well *that* worked out for him. When prominent members of bands are "money grabbers", they often if not usually are doing so *for themselves*, not the band or brand.

Anyway, that's not the main point I wanted to hone on in. As it pertains to Mike's upcoming album, this article is interesting because it highlights that the "lack of excitement" concerning the album on social media turned to "open mockery."

I'm not sure why this guy writing the article thinks it's primarily Mike being a "money grabber" that has led to this mockery, as opposed to the myriad of his words and deeds (and his past scant solo efforts and BB efforts helmed by him). Not to mention the album's title, and artwork, and guest list, and tracklisting......

But I just found it interesting, as I've largely stayed way from "social media" opinions on Mike's new album, that the lack of enthusiasm for Mike's album is evident even to more mainstream, non-hardcore fandom.

[Hickory Violet Part IV]

But I did quite like the line "Mike Love, naturally, is the ultimate Mike Love and he is widely despised for it"

[SMiLE Brian]

This is as close Heyjude will get angry!

But seriously, this is a wacky article that ranks with Iain Lee's.

[CenturyDeprived]

Article on Mike (among others) from The Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2017/oct/11/from-mick-jagger-to-mike-love-all-hail-the-money-grabbing-men-of-rock

I think the premise of the article, as it pertains to Mike, is pretty much totally wrong, and it seems to come from the author's lack of deep familiarity with the history of Mike and the BBs. To suggest a band "needs" someone who is a "money grabber", when that "someone" often squeezes others out of the band, is absolutely asinine. Ask Al Jardine how well *that* worked out for him. When prominent members of bands are "money grabbers", they often if not usually are doing so *for themselves*, not the band or brand.

Anyway, that's not the main point I wanted to hone on in. As it pertains to Mike's upcoming album, this article is interesting because it highlights that the "lack of excitement" concerning the album on social media turned to "open mockery."

I'm not sure why this guy writing the article thinks it's primarily Mike being a "money grabber" that has led to this mockery, as opposed to the myriad of his words and deeds (and his past scant solo efforts and BB efforts helmed by him). Not to mention the album's title, and artwork, and guest list, and tracklisting......

But I just found it interesting, as I've largely stayed way from "social media" opinions on Mike's new album, that the lack of enthusiasm for Mike's album is evident even to more mainstream, non-hardcore fandom.

That article, to me, reads like a semi-transparent puff peace organized by Mike's publicist, to try and gently nudge the needle in Mike's favor, by comparing him to Roger Waters, etc. (with a few not-so-nice things said about Mike in order to throw the reader off the track of what/who I think is behind the article in actuality, IMHO).

The one big difference between Mike and the guys the article seeks to compare him to (the businessmen of the various bands) is that those bands, by and large, didn't suffer creatively due to their businessmens' wishes nearly in the way that this band did/does. The idea of a band member being business-minded isn't necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. Whether or not Mike verbatim said the formula comment is besides the point; it's obvious it was implied by Mike's actions, even if he denies it.

[SMiLE Brian]

Mike is like the used car salesmen of classic rock bands....

[Lonely Summer]

I don't get why people are opposed to an album of re-records. That's basically what we expect the guys to do every time they're on stage - relive past glories. Might as well have an album of the current band playing the songs they play every night.

[mikeyj]

Does anyone else think it strange that on the record label website on the page for Unleash the Love it has the following quote:

"Trio unveil "organic and perfect and fantastic" rendition of 1968 Beach Boys single" - Rolling Stone

And yet when you go to the original source the "organic and perfect and fantastic" quote is from Mike himself...

[Dudd]

Lol. Only from Mike Love.

[rab2591]

I can’t think of too many other artists who would stoop to that level.

[marcusb]

As to the latter, I highly, highly doubt that BRI is getting a piece of Mike's solo album.

I don't mean they'll get a piece of the album, but rather, maybe Mike/the record label paid a fee to BRI for the use of the logo and this is all legitimate.

[HeyJude]

As to the latter, I highly, highly doubt that BRI is getting a piece of Mike's solo album.

I don't mean they'll get a piece of the album, but rather, maybe Mike/the record label paid a fee to BRI for the use of the logo and this is all legitimate.

Anything of course is possible, but again, I highly doubt it. I think, however unfortunately "hands off" Brian and Carl's estate have been over the years concerning Mike's license to use the name to tour, a *clear line* has always been drawn between using the name to tour and using the name in any way in relation to recorded albums/releases.

If they start "selling" the use of the logo/name for some sort of limited purpose, it just opens the door to more confusion and more needless capitalization on the band's trademark. Considering both Brian and Al have been the targets of lawsuits concerning various uses of the names and logos and trademarks and all of that, I highly doubt they'd just sign off on taking a cash payout to let Mike throw the BB logo on his solo CD. And again, it would also set a bad precedent.

I think it's more likely Mike and his label just *did it* rather than actually going through the BRI corporation and negotiating a fee. My total guess is they'd just bank on the other BRI members not seeing it as worth the headache to pursue this.

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

Mike is like the used car salesmen of classic rock bands....

  Now there's a fitting subject for a myKe luHv article seeing that he's a clown and a huckster. Yeah, that's the ticket, the luHvster's a huckster!

[SMiLE Brian]

Now OSD is a rapper!

[Pretty Funky]

Mike is like the used car salesmen of classic rock bands....

Actually, the same writer hit the nail on the head reviewing the C50 IMO.

‘It doesn't really matter that four of them look as if they are on their way to the golf club, while Love – in an extraordinary silver and black paisley tuxedo and Beach Boys baseball cap – looks like he is off to a strip club:’

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2012/sep/30/beach-boys-review

[HeyJude]

It's even more bizarre that a writer who wrote about and seemingly *understands* the BB naming/license situation and understood the downside to how C50 ended, could then advocate that the band as a whole needed the "money grabbing" aspect of Mike's personality. That aspect of Mike seems to be one of the driving forces behind Al's 1998 ouster and the demise of the reunion in 2012.

[Pretty Funky]

https://mobile.twitter.com/MikeLoveOFCL/status/922556377897283584

25 clips in 25 days from Mikes new album.

OSD and Add Some in 3...2...1.. Kaboom! 😤

[Wirestone]

https://mobile.twitter.com/MikeLoveOFCL/status/922556377897283584

25 clips in 25 days from Mikes new album.

OSD and Add Some in 3...2...1.. Kaboom! 😤

He's writing notes about the creation of each song. George Takei voice: "Oh my."

[JK]

I don't get why people are opposed to an album of re-records. That's basically what we expect the guys to do every time they're on stage - relive past glories. Might as well have an album of the current band playing the songs they play every night.

Exactly! If the Beach Boys record nothing else ever again, collectively or individually, the picture will still be complete. This was the missing piece of the puzzle.

[HeyJude]

Wait, so the picture was complete, yet an additional album of cover versions is also a missing piece of the puzzle? Even though Mike has already released multiple albums of re-recorded BB songs?

Geez people, this isn't rocket science. It all but the most unique of circumstances, re-recording cover versions of your own stuff is generally less well-regarded because it lacks creativity and seems like a cash grab. Even the good ones that sound spot-on like Jeff Lynne's ELO re-recordings from a few years ago, an album that I love, I'll also admit was a total crash grab and devoid of any creativity.

Any artist bundling an entire disc of re-recorded greatest hits with their first album of new material in 36 years is going to come across as a case of not having faith in their *new* stuff, and/or going for a cash grab, and/or not being able to find a label that would put their new stuff out on its own.