Beach Boys on the road even after all the original Beach Boys are gone. ML-Yup!

[kirkmc- banned on the run]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/05/02/greene.beach.boys.summer/
 

[Andrew G. Doe]

And your point would be ?

There's a Glen Miller Orchestra out there that tours regularly (300 dates a year !): it has the backing of Miller's estate (since 1956) and I'm pretty sure it has none of the originals present. Certainly not Glenn.

[The Shift]

I'm practising my Moonwalk ready for when the vacancy for the position of Michael Jackson is advertised!

[BillA]

I always thought that it was short sighted of ML to go after Al's BBF&F.  A band containing offspring that toured for with a Beach Boy(s) for an extended period of time would have a certain level of legitimacy for use of the Beach Boys name.

I have no clue as to how they would all feel about it but you could put together a band that had a core of off spring from each of Beach Boys with two having actually performed as Beach Boys.

To me it would be interesting.

[PongHit]

The 'no Wilsons, no BBoys' people accepted this many years ago.

And let's face it: from a sonic/quality-of-voice POV, replacing Mike with a sound-a-like would be an improvement.  Same with Brian's band.

[kirkmc- banned on the run]

Wow...Well I guess were all Beach Boys then aren't we? Oh dear... And Brian's the one who took drugs? In Love's world words just don't mean anything? BEach Boys? Could be anybody?!! BRian, Carl, Dennis, Al? Nope...Could be the Country Bear Jamboree for all he cares... There are no bounds to Love's lunacy and complete lack of character. Enjoy.,

[Jason]

Man...the way you talk, you sound like you were in Titicut Follies.

[Fun Is In]

After a brief initial shock at the concept, I thought: this is good in one sense. The music of Brian Wilson should be performed live "forever". 

How the performers should label themselves sure is open to varying opinion, though if they are licensed by BRI, the "are" the Beach Boys aren't they? 

[Alex]

And your point would be ?

There's a Glen Miller Orchestra out there that tours regularly (300 dates a year !): it has the backing of Miller's estate (since 1956) and I'm pretty sure it has none of the originals present. Certainly not Glenn.

And speaking of the Glen Miller Orchestra, they're playing a show at my old high school in a couple weeks from now.

[Alex]

After a brief initial shock at the concept, I thought: this is good in one sense. The music of Brian Wilson should be performed live "forever". 

How the performers should label themselves sure is open to varying opinion, though if they are licensed by BRI, the "are" the Beach Boys aren't they? 

These days the Drifters are nothing more than a franchise run by the daughter of the original group's manager.

[Foster's Freeze]

They might have trouble with the "Truth In Music" bill:

http://www.vocalhalloffame.com/truth.htm

http://www.vocalhalloffame.com/SB0929P1218.pdf

[kirkmc- banned on the run]

Isn't it scary that someone "ANYONE" could rent a name a parade around a such...?

[Awesoman]

It's most likely that the "Beach Boys" name will continue after Mike Love (and Bruce Johnston, for that matter) stop touring.  Can't say I'm a fan of this but I think it is inevitable.  The Beach Boys are an "oldies" group and as long as people pay money to see them, the band will be around long after all the original members are gone. 

[Reggie Dunbar]

Doubtful if anyone outside the cognescenti would notice, with the product thats been trotted
out for denizens of county fairs and casinos the past two decades. Still, shudder.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Isn't it scary that someone "ANYONE" could rent a name a parade around a such...?

Not 'anyone' - dude named Jardine couldn't.

[absinthe_boy]

And your point would be ?

There's a Glen Miller Orchestra out there that tours regularly (300 dates a year !): it has the backing of Miller's estate (since 1956) and I'm pretty sure it has none of the originals present. Certainly not Glenn.

If I am reading correctly, there are in existance more than one Glenn Miller Orchestras...including one specifically for the UK and one for Europe...presumably one for the USA too?

I remember seeing a 'Glenn Miller Orchestra' on British TV in the mid 80's and it was claimed then that some band members had played with Miller 40+ years previously.

As for the Beach Boys....legally BRI owns the name and could licence lookalikes/soundalikes once the original Boys are unable to perform. I know Rick Wakemen has stated that he believes there will be a Yes long after all the 'original' members are dead and buried just like there's a Pittsburgh Philharmonic Orchestra. As long as the 24 year olds singing 'I Get Around' in 2050 aren't presented as having anything to do with the original recording then there's not much wrong with it.

[Mike's Beard]

There must be a difference between an officially sanctioned tribute band and passing yourself off as the actual band? When does a band stop being a band? You must have at least one founding member still in the line up to be able to continue to call yourself a particular group with any credibility I'd have thought (The Byrds, The Fall, The Cure, Fleetwood Mac as some examples).

[the captain]

There must be a difference between an officially sanctioned tribute band and passing yourself off as the actual band? When does a band stop being a band?

That depends on what you want a band to be. If it is essential to you that the people on stage wrote the music or made the original recordings, then it's somewhere in the territory of needing one or more originals. But if to you a band is the group that plays the songs on stage, brings the vibe, and (as is important in these things) happens to be the one with the legal right to be the band, well, then that's the band. Bands mean a lot of things to a lot of people, and there isn't one experience of "band" that is correct. It doesn't matter if 50 years from now, there is a band that can be The Beach Boys. Neither does it matter if there isn't. It never ceases to amaze me how worked up people get about this sort of thing. As long as you don't own the name and aren't losing money on such a thing, it's really none of your business. You've still got the recordings you love and whatever memories of earlier versions you cherish.

[Mike's Beard]

There must be a difference between an officially sanctioned tribute band and passing yourself off as the actual band? When does a band stop being a band?

That depends on what you want a band to be. If it is essential to you that the people on stage wrote the music or made the original recordings, then it's somewhere in the territory of needing one or more originals. But if to you a band is the group that plays the songs on stage, brings the vibe, and (as is important in these things) happens to be the one with the legal right to be the band, well, then that's the band. Bands mean a lot of things to a lot of people, and there isn't one experience of "band" that is correct. It doesn't matter if 50 years from now, there is a band that can be The Beach Boys. Neither does it matter if there isn't. It never ceases to amaze me how worked up people get about this sort of thing. As long as you don't own the name and aren't losing money on such a thing, it's really none of your business. You've still got the recordings you love and whatever memories of earlier versions you cherish.

Hmmmmmm. Interesting stance. Your post in part seems to describe a textbook definition of a 'covers/tribute' band. I will agree with you that good music is good music no matter who's playing it. Still I have a friend who is off to see Green Day very shortly and if she was to turn up to find no Billy Joe, Mike or Tre but 3 other guys in their place I'm sure she'd quite rightly feel PO'd.

[the captain]

It does in part describe exactly that. But if they own the legal rights to be that band, they are (like it or not) that band in the legal sense. Now, that obviously leaves a lot of people unsatisfied, which is also fine. But music is more than the composer or original performers, too. And it is possible to separate composer, recorded performer(s), and live performer(s), too. My only point is that there are as many ways to approach music as there are people, which is why it's really not worth getting hung up over.

[Pretty Funky]

Could the surviving Beatles please stand and take a bow. Even their so called reunion, 2 songs, was a marketing master stroke.  Pure class IMO right down to the latest game.

[shelter]

And your point would be ?

There's a Glen Miller Orchestra out there that tours regularly (300 dates a year !): it has the backing of Miller's estate (since 1956) and I'm pretty sure it has none of the originals present. Certainly not Glenn.

The Four Freshmen are still touring... None of the current members were even born yet when the original group was at it's height.

[Jason]

I'd hate to see all the Napalm Death fans arguing on their forums - that band hasn't had an original member in their lineup since 1987!

[Andrew G. Doe]

There must be a difference between an officially sanctioned tribute band and passing yourself off as the actual band? When does a band stop being a band?

That depends on what you want a band to be. If it is essential to you that the people on stage wrote the music or made the original recordings, then it's somewhere in the territory of needing one or more originals. But if to you a band is the group that plays the songs on stage, brings the vibe, and (as is important in these things) happens to be the one with the legal right to be the band, well, then that's the band. Bands mean a lot of things to a lot of people, and there isn't one experience of "band" that is correct. It doesn't matter if 50 years from now, there is a band that can be The Beach Boys. Neither does it matter if there isn't. It never ceases to amaze me how worked up people get about this sort of thing. As long as you don't own the name and aren't losing money on such a thing, it's really none of your business. You've still got the recordings you love and whatever memories of earlier versions you cherish.

Hmmmmmm. Interesting stance. Your post in part seems to describe a textbook definition of a 'covers/tribute' band. I will agree with you that good music is good music no matter who's playing it. Still I have a friend who is off to see Green Day very shortly and if she was to turn up to find no Billy Joe, Mike or Tre but 3 other guys in their place I'm sure she'd quite rightly feel PO'd.

Sure she would: so would I, but we're talking about 10, 20 years down the line here, when none of the originals is in the band (or indeed, probably still alive).

[Mike's Beard]

Don't get me wrong, I think it is a wonderful idea that there will be an officially sanctioned group flying the flag and continuing to spread the music of the BB's once Mike can no longer do so. I just think it would be delusional to point at said group and say "THAT'S The Beach Boys".