Mike and Bruce ad for gig-- false advertising?

[Amy B.]

I was on the Web site for the State Theater in NJ and saw that Mike and Bruce are playing soon. There's an ad there that says "Listen to Medley." I click it, and it plays a medley of the original Beach Boys recordings.

I guess you'd have to be dense not to know that those are 60s-era recordings and not the current live band, but isn't this false advertising? Maybe I'm just getting worked up over nothing, but I clicked the link expecting to hear the band in the press photo. Here's the site:

http://www.statetheatrenj.org

[Awesoman]

I think you're getting worked up over nothing.  Mike Love currently owns the Beach Boys' name and has the right to use it.  He's officially what's left of the original band.  And the Beach Boys aren't the only oldies group currently touring with few (or none) of the original members. 

[Rocker]

I think you're getting worked up over nothing.  Mike Love currently owns the Beach Boys' name and has the right to use it.  He's officially what's left of the original band.  And the Beach Boys aren't the only oldies group currently touring with few (or none) of the original members. 

Mike has the rights to tour under the Beach Boys' name. Nothing more or less. I don't know about the medley but I wouldn't be surprised if it was "false" from a legal point of view.

[Awesoman]

I think you're getting worked up over nothing.  Mike Love currently owns the Beach Boys' name and has the right to use it.  He's officially what's left of the original band.  And the Beach Boys aren't the only oldies group currently touring with few (or none) of the original members. 

Mike has the rights to tour under the Beach Boys' name. Nothing more or less. I don't know about the medley but I wouldn't be surprised if it was "false" from a legal point of view.

The medley is just a few original Beach Boys recordings.  The same songs you'll hear if you go to a concert.  What's wrong with that?

[Rocker]

I think you're getting worked up over nothing.  Mike Love currently owns the Beach Boys' name and has the right to use it.  He's officially what's left of the original band.  And the Beach Boys aren't the only oldies group currently touring with few (or none) of the original members. 

Mike has the rights to tour under the Beach Boys' name. Nothing more or less. I don't know about the medley but I wouldn't be surprised if it was "false" from a legal point of view.

The medley is just a few original Beach Boys recordings.  The same songs you'll hear if you go to a concert.  What's wrong with that?

I don't have much of a problem, but quite frankly this isn't the band that you will hear when you go to a Mike&Bruce-show and the recordings don't represent the show. Same thing if you would play the original Beach Boys stuff to advertise a Brian-show. I think this could be wrong from a legal point of view. If it really is worth discussing is another question.

[Amy B.]

Hey, I don't mean to start a whole big thing. Like I said, people should figure out that they're gonna sound different, if only because it's been 40 years. I'd be horrified if someone took legal action against them, because it's not worth it. I was just kind of shocked when I heard it.

[the captain]

Hey, I don't mean to start a whole big thing. Like I said, people should figure out that they're gonna sound different, if only because it's been 40 years. I'd be horrified if someone took legal action against them, because it's not worth it. I was just kind of shocked when I heard it.

Normally I'd feel the same about the legal action...except considering how much Mr. Love has been more than willing to take similar actions against Brian, well, I'd probably love it if he got sued and lost.

[Awesoman]

I don't have much of a problem, but quite frankly this isn't the band that you will hear when you go to a Mike&Bruce-show and the recordings don't represent the show. Same thing if you would play the original Beach Boys stuff to advertise a Brian-show. I think this could be wrong from a legal point of view. If it really is worth discussing is another question.

Exactly why would it be a problem if you played Beach Boys music to advertise a Brian Wilson show?  Isn't that what he's going to play at a show?  It's not like they're advertising a Beach Boys show by playing Phil Collins.  Would it be wrong to advertise a Paul McCartney show by playing "Hello Goodbye"?  What would you rather they play to advertise a show?  Mike Love is allowed by law to tour under the Beach Boys' name.  No, it's not the "real Beach Boys" as far as us fans are concerned.  But Mike Love is an original member; and they're going to be playing Beach Boys music at the concert.  Whether we morally agree or not whether Mike's group is the real thing (it isn't) is not an issue; he has the rights to tour under this name and therefore it's not technically misleading to play Beach Boys music to advertise his show. 

[the captain]

Exactly why would it be a problem if you played Beach Boys music to advertise a Brian Wilson show?  Isn't that what he's going to play at a show? 

See one of Mike Love's lawsuits.

[Awesoman]

Hey, I don't mean to start a whole big thing. Like I said, people should figure out that they're gonna sound different, if only because it's been 40 years. I'd be horrified if someone took legal action against them, because it's not worth it. I was just kind of shocked when I heard it.

No need to apologize for anything; nothing wrong with making this point.  I just think it's much ado about nothing.  I'd imagine most Beach Boys fans planning to attend a Mike & Bruce show are aware of the authenticity of the concert (or lackof).  Those that aren't aware probably wouldn't care either way; they just want to hear the music.  

There are lots of oldies groups out there that tour without most or any of the original band members.  The Four Tops perform with none of the original members present.  I believe Steppenwolf's lead singer John Kay performs under the band name with none of his original bandmates.  

My opinion on what constitutes as authentic in a band differs from group to group.  Personally I'd rather see the "real thing" or as close as you can make it.  However if the law recognizes a group's right to perform under a certain name I don't find it technically wrong for them to advertise it using that group's music.

[oldsurferdude]

Hey, I don't mean to start a whole big thing. Like I said, people should figure out that they're gonna sound different, if only because it's been 40 years. I'd be horrified if someone took legal action against them, because it's not worth it. I was just kind of shocked when I heard it.

No need to apologize for anything; nothing wrong with making this point.  I just think it's much ado about nothing.  I'd imagine most Beach Boys fans planning to attend a Mike & Bruce show are aware of the authenticity of the concert (or lackof).  Those that aren't aware probably wouldn't care either way; they just want to hear the music.  

There are lots of oldies groups out there that tour without most or any of the original band members.  The Four Tops perform with none of the original members present.  I believe Steppenwolf's lead singer John Kay performs under the band name with none of his original bandmates.  

My opinion on what constitutes as authentic in a band differs from group to group.  Personally I'd rather see the "real thing" or as close as you can make it.  However if the law recognizes a group's right to perform under a certain name I don't find it technically wrong for them to advertise it using that group's music.

If authentic music is being used to advertise the Mike and Bruce Tribute Show, then I'm sure it was cleared through legal channels prior to using it. As far as the "live" fare sounding anything like the recorded versions...well, that's another story-

[Rocker]

I don't have much of a problem, but quite frankly this isn't the band that you will hear when you go to a Mike&Bruce-show and the recordings don't represent the show. Same thing if you would play the original Beach Boys stuff to advertise a Brian-show. I think this could be wrong from a legal point of view. If it really is worth discussing is another question.

Exactly why would it be a problem if you played Beach Boys music to advertise a Brian Wilson show?  Isn't that what he's going to play at a show?  It's not like they're advertising a Beach Boys show by playing Phil Collins.  Would it be wrong to advertise a Paul McCartney show by playing "Hello Goodbye"?  What would you rather they play to advertise a show?  Mike Love is allowed by law to tour under the Beach Boys' name.  No, it's not the "real Beach Boys" as far as us fans are concerned.  But Mike Love is an original member; and they're going to be playing Beach Boys music at the concert.  Whether we morally agree or not whether Mike's group is the real thing (it isn't) is not an issue; he has the rights to tour under this name and therefore it's not technically misleading to play Beach Boys music to advertise his show. 

Because it would give the impression that these is the same band that people will see in concert, which it isn't. It would put the original Beach Boys on the same level as the touring Beach Boys, making it the same band for "outsiders". It's as if you use a picture from the 60s to promote Mike&Bruce. Same with Brian or Al.

Isn't that what he's going to play at a show?

Like too many times in the Beach Boys' carrer, it's not about the music, it's about the image that people get. Mike sued Brian for a similar thing.
As I said, I'm no business man but I wouldn't be surprised if this would be wrong

[Andrew G. Doe]

They've used vintage BB recordings to promote Brian's gigs in the UK since 2002. Maybe I should consider legal action because it's not his band performing them, and because the live shows didn't sound like the records ? Or just because they were using BB songs to promote a BW gig ?

They're using Beach Boys songs to sell a Beach Boys gig. I'll bet the farm that 99.57% of the folk who make the show neither know nor care that that's not the original five up there - just like 100% of this folk here could care less.

[Rocker]

They've used vintage BB recordings to promote Brian's gigs in the UK since 2002. Maybe I should consider legal action because it's not his band performing them, and because the live shows didn't sound like the records ? Or just because they were using BB songs to promote a BW gig ?

They're using Beach Boys songs to sell a Beach Boys gig. I'll bet the farm that 99.57% of the folk who make the show neither know nor care that that's not the original five up there - just like 100% of this folk here could care less.

You're talking about a moral kind of thing but the question was about the legal part. And let me say it yet once again, I don't know about all that legal stuff and I don't claim to, I just said that it wouldn't surprise me if a lawyer would find something wrong with this, something that  I could understand. But I don't think this is something very worth of discussing, so that's it from my side....

[matt-zeus]

To get very pedantic about it though, the original wrecking crew musicians didn't play live for the Beach Boys so even if you went to see the Beach Boys in the 60s playing live, instrumentally it was different to the records, and from 65 onwards one of them wasn't even there!

[Jon Stebbins]

To get very pedantic about it though, the original wrecking crew musicians didn't play live for the Beach Boys so even if you went to see the Beach Boys in the 60s playing live, instrumentally it was different to the records, and from 65 onwards one of them wasn't even there!

Again...sigh...the Wrecking Crew thing is waaaaay overblown. The BB's played on plenty of the hits and classic LP tracks...nearly all of them until 1965...and yes Wrecking Crew played on SOME hits but far, far  less than the majority. This is the sadly neglected fact. However....Al Jardine didn't play guitar on any of those early hits about surfing and cars that was all David Marks and Carl, so if you went to see them in '64 you'd see at least one guy (Al) playing guitar parts he didn't play on the original records. And as far as Brian goes, he was already missing tours in '63, so if you went then you might have seen Al subbing for Brian...playing bass and singing Brian's parts from the records, while Dave Marks played the guitar parts he'd recorded but that Al would be playing live for the next few decades once David left. In 62/63 you might also have seen and heard David singing the harmony lines that Dennis had put on the recordings because that was what happened at the concerts. Factor all this in before you start slinging theories and judgments about all of this. It started right at the beginning.

[Awesoman]

They've used vintage BB recordings to promote Brian's gigs in the UK since 2002. Maybe I should consider legal action because it's not his band performing them, and because the live shows didn't sound like the records ? Or just because they were using BB songs to promote a BW gig ?

They're using Beach Boys songs to sell a Beach Boys gig. I'll bet the farm that 99.57% of the folk who make the show neither know nor care that that's not the original five up there - just like 100% of this folk here could care less.

You're talking about a moral kind of thing but the question was about the legal part. And let me say it yet once again, I don't know about all that legal stuff and I don't claim to, I just said that it wouldn't surprise me if a lawyer would find something wrong with this, something that  I could understand. But I don't think this is something very worth of discussing, so that's it from my side....

Legally speaking, a lawyer could find something wrong with anything and try to make a case out of it.  But a lawyer would be hard-pressed to win a case against a legally recognized band that is being promoted with songs that they will be playing at the show. 

[matt-zeus]

To get very pedantic about it though, the original wrecking crew musicians didn't play live for the Beach Boys so even if you went to see the Beach Boys in the 60s playing live, instrumentally it was different to the records, and from 65 onwards one of them wasn't even there!

Again...sigh...the Wrecking Crew thing is waaaaay overblown. The BB's played on plenty of the hits and classic LP tracks...nearly all of them until 1965...and yes Wrecking Crew played on SOME hits but far, far  less than the majority. This is the sadly neglected fact. However....Al Jardine didn't play guitar on any of those early hits about surfing and cars that was all David Marks and Carl, so if you went to see them in '64 you'd see at least one guy (Al) playing guitar parts he didn't play on the original records. And as far as Brian goes, he was already missing tours in '63, so if you went then you might have seen Al subbing for Brian...playing bass and singing Brian's parts from the records, while Dave Marks played the guitar parts he'd recorded but that Al would be playing live for the next few decades once David left. In 62/63 you might also have seen and heard David singing the harmony lines that Dennis had put on the recordings because that was what happened at the concerts. Factor all this in before you start slinging theories and judgments about all of this. It started right at the beginning.

That was basically what I was trying to say

[Magic Transistor Radio]

I think that Brian, Al, Dave, reps of Carl and Dennis should all sue Mike for using their voices in promoting his current band!

[Surfer Joe]

Where's Dr. Tim when we need him?

I don't think it's a nebulous ethical question- I think it's a simple and legitimate legal question that Amy raises.  Do Mike (and his promoters) have the right to use old Beach Boys recordings to promote the act? 

I'm no lawyer, but my guess would be that he does or he doesn't.

If it's not spelled out specifically in the agreement, I would guess he doesn't. I also wonder if anyone else had to sign off- Capitol, publishers, etc.  I would certainly guess (more seriously) that he does have that right specifically granted.

As to the ethics of the matter, I don't see any problem, but I would also wonder if there's an ethical difference in using vintage recordings to promote something new and using vintage pictures to promote something new, which- as we all know- did lead to a recent legal action- albeit a quickly-dismissed one. In either case the likelihood  that  anyone would actually be mislead was remote.

[Dr. Tim]

Well, since you ask, there's another variable:  who put the song on the webpage?  The BB touring company, or the theatre?  Or some local ad agency?  Mike and Bruce may have nothing to do with it.  It's News On Sunday in reverse.

Bottom line: this is  the kind of thing where there's really only a foul if somebody calls one.   It's not unique here, there are any number of oldies acts containing a few or a couple original members (i.e. Steppenwolf) who would probably do the same thing.  The better practice would be to get clearance to use the old songs as part of the licensing agreement to use the name.   It's not unheard of, and there are fights elsewhere over who gets to do it - remember there's how many touring versions of the "Drifters" out there?  All with over-litigated, court-ordered limitations on the name and in what context it can be used by each "group". 

From a moral point of view using soundbites from the Big Hits is slightly fraudulent and if we were going to be sticklers a more appropriate sampling  would come from one of the better Mike & Bruce live shows, say.   I'd be very surprised if anyone like Al were to really make a stink about it though -- to what end?  Bruised ego aside he still gets a piece of the action via his share in BRI, yes?

[Surfer Joe]

Always great to see you here, Dr. Tim- but we should sue you for having a post count of only 43. 

I honestly don't think the public is misled by the use of the old recordings, because anyone who actually knows enough to recognize that they're hearing Brian, Dennis, Carl and Al or David probably also knows that those guys will not be at the County Fair Poultry Pavilion on Friday night right after Harley the Diving Pig.

On the other hand, as good as the new band can sound, that might actually make a better commercial.

Again, I would bet that the right to use the recordings is spelled out, just because BRI seems to be on top of that sort of thing, usually.

In the mid-eighties I went to see a line-up of the Byrds (promoted with old recordings) just to see who would be there.  It turned out to be the two Clarkes , Blondie Chaplin (they did "Sail On, Sailor") and a couple of Flying Burritos.  For the following week they advertised "Bill Haley And The Comets".  Out of curiosity, I asked the manager that afternoon if Bill Haley (who was dead throughout that year) would be performing.

Manager: "Bill Haley And The Comets" will be here.

Surfer Joe: Including Bill Haley?

Manager: The band "Bill Haley And The Comets" will be here.

Surfer Joe: And will Bill Haley himself be performing?

Manager: (From here on out, avoiding eye contact) You will see the band "Bill Haley And The Comets".

Surfer Joe: Will I see Bill Haley himself, the original performer?

Manager: You will see  "Bill Haley And The Comets".

Surfer Joe: Bill Haley, physically present in this room?

Manager: "Bill Haley And The Comets".

Surfer Joe: I wonder if you're aware that Bill Haley is currently dead.

Manager: The band "Bill Haley And The Comets" will be here.

Surfer Joe: "Bill Haley" being  more of a concept rather than, say, actually Bill Haley?

Manager:  (relentlessly) The band "Bill Haley And The Comets" will be here.

I always sort of admire a guy who absolutely refuses to quit trying to mislead you when the jig couldn't possibly be more up.

[the captain]

That is a great story.

[Surfer Joe]

Thanks, Luther!  Surprised someone took the time to read it.

I think I ended up telling the guy that if Bill Haley appeared on that stage the following week, he would instantly replace P.T.Barnum and Florenz Ziegfeld as the greatest impresario in recorded history.

May have failed to mention: the show was being promoted with a great big picture of Bill Haley.

[matt-zeus]

Blimey! He must have taken manager lessons off Colonel Tom!

I always wondered about the 80s Byrds, I mean Gene Clark was there so that must have been cool in itself, I wonder what songs they must have done? Sad though that Gene had to go down that route.