Al joining Mike and Bruce for Jones Beach show

[The Shift]

So Al appears culpable. But has Brian (or his WyfenManagers) also been maliciously manipulative in luring Al away from the MykenBruce show - and with what, money? The chance to play new music with Brian? The chance to perform with Matt and Jeff again?

I do believe - speculative as it is - that Al is far more motivated by the prospect of good music than Mike. That is, that for Mike it's a matter of belting out good songs for a living, while Al enjoys performing great songs and that happens to earn him a living at the same time.

Brian, I believe, plays live and continues to record because music is in his veins and he is music. But he's bein steered, and the motivations of his helmsman are politically driven - why else gather Al, Dave and Blondie together on the last tour with Jeff Beck other than to state to Mike that Brian can assemble more Beach Boys together on stage - four - than the Beach Boys?

And now this luring of Al away from Beach Boys gig has sunk Mike's shot at doing the same.

My head's all over the place just thinking about the implications, but the bottom line is that our band the good ship Beach Boys is now, well and truly, SCUTTLED.

At Westlake Audio in March 1985, I told Alan "California Calling" was a good song and sounded like "California Saga". His response ? "Yeah, but that didn't make much money did it ?" I think that $$$ is as much of a motivating factor as it is with Mike Iand Mike at least has an excuse).

That's interesting. But music must mean something to Al beyond purely $$$ or Postcards wouldn't have happened … can't imagine he bought many Palaminos off the back of that, great as it was.

Wonder if Matt might end our crude speculation with one of his rare posts, putting us straight. I know some of us have pissed him off here with ill-considered posts in the past but we all love each other really, right? Matt?

[The Shift]

…has Brian (or his WyfenManagers) also been maliciously manipulative in luring Al away from the MykenBruce show - and with what, money? The chance to play new music with Brian? The chance to perform with Matt and Jeff again?

Oops… my bad - no Jeff of course. He's on the other team now… :-/

So Al appears culpable. But has Brian (or his WyfenManagers) also been maliciously manipulative in luring Al away from the MykenBruce show - and with what, money? The chance to play new music with Brian? The chance to perform with Matt and Jeff again?

I do believe - speculative as it is - that Al is far more motivated by the prospect of good music than Mike. That is, that for Mike it's a matter of belting out good songs for a living, while Al enjoys performing great songs and that happens to earn him a living at the same time.

Brian, I believe, plays live and continues to record because music is in his veins and he is music. But he's bein steered, and the motivations of his helmsman are politically driven - why else gather Al, Dave and Blondie together on the last tour with Jeff Beck other than to state to Mike that Brian can assemble more Beach Boys together on stage - four - than the Beach Boys?

And now this luring of Al away from Beach Boys gig has sunk Mike's shot at doing the same.

My head's all over the place just thinking about the implications, but the bottom line is that our band the good ship Beach Boys is now, well and truly, SCUTTLED.

At Westlake Audio in March 1985, I told Alan "California Calling" was a good song and sounded like "California Saga". His response ? "Yeah, but that didn't make much money did it ?" I think that $$$ is as much of a motivating factor as it is with Mike (and Mike at least has an excuse).

And we ought to bear in mind that that was best part of 30 years ago, when Al was a participating member of, and financially dependent on, a band that was still creatively active.  These days I regard him (rightly or wrongly) semi-retired, as be ought to be at his age, with no financial worries, and able to pick and choose what he wants to do with his time in the basis of how much pleasure it brings rather than doing what pays the bills.

And if that means playing with Matt and Brian because be enjoys it, or because it pisses off the guy who sacked him from his band in the first place, then that's up to him.

Am I thinking too much here?

[Andrew G. Doe]

At Westlake Audio in March 1985, I told Alan "California Calling" was a good song and sounded like "California Saga". His response ? "Yeah, but that didn't make much money did it ?" I think that $$$ is as much of a motivating factor as it is with Mike (and Mike at least has an excuse).

And we ought to bear in mind that that was best part of 30 years ago, when Al was a participating member of, and financially dependent on, a band that was still creatively active. 

Not so - back then he had another, not-inconsiderable, income stream.

[Moz from Oz]

What was the quote by Jack Rieley ? A board member here has it as their signature. Something along the lines of The beach Boys blowing it, and how they still blow it and continually blow it. And that was how many years ago ? Amazing to think that in 2014, that quote still has meaning.

[Nicko1234]

And we ought to bear in mind that that was best part of 30 years ago, when Al was a participating member of, and financially dependent on, a band that was still creatively active.  These days I regard him (rightly or wrongly) semi-retired, as be ought to be at his age, with no financial worries, and able to pick and choose what he wants to do with his time in the basis of how much pleasure it brings rather than doing what pays the bills.

And if that means playing with Matt and Brian because be enjoys it, or because it pisses off the guy who sacked him from his band in the first place, then that's up to him.

Am I thinking too much here?

I think it`s just as much of a business for Al in many ways. Why did he lose the license to tour as BBF&F? Because he wouldn`t pay up. And when he has played solo shows since that point they have almost exclusively been greatest hits sets (the David Lynch show apart). He did release one solo album but I don`t think Al`s solo career can really be viewed as having any sustained artistic merit. He could easily have toured and recorded much more if he`s been motivated to and been willing to play small clubs (and I say this very much as an Al fan).

It`s absolutely up to Al which group he wants to play with...but once he makes a choice and announces it then he should be willing to stick to it (unless it emerges there were mitigating factors).  And as others have said, this is not the first time that he has been billed as appearing for shows and then cancelled when plenty of fans had bought tickets.

Something tells me that Mike (who for all his faults does not exactly have a bad record in terms of how many shows he has cancelled over the years) will not be too sympathetic...

[The Shift]

At Westlake Audio in March 1985, I told Alan "California Calling" was a good song and sounded like "California Saga". His response ? "Yeah, but that didn't make much money did it ?" I think that $$$ is as much of a motivating factor as it is with Mike (and Mike at least has an excuse).

And we ought to bear in mind that that was best part of 30 years ago, when Al was a participating member of, and financially dependent on, a band that was still creatively active. 

Not so - back then he had another, not-inconsiderable, income stream.

Ah, wasn't consciously aware of that. Was this horse breeding? Something he'd married into? Surely not a bit of back door dentistry?!

[AndrewHickey]

I've been avoiding posting for a year, because of all the arguments, and I'll probably avoid posting here for another year after this, but I just thought it odd that with all this talk of who's to blame, no-one had mentioned an important fact:
Al doesn't say that he's not playing Jones Beach, as such, he says "I am not touring with Mike Love and the Beach Boys this summer"
This suggests a rather plausible (and almost certainly wrong) scenario to me:
It suggests that at some point in the last few months there were moves to get Al back in the band full time, that those moves have collapsed, and that the Jones Beach show was seen by at least one side as part of the package.
It could be as simple, and with as little fault on either side, as Mike saying to Al "OK, we'll think about having you back in the band. We're doing a big show on the weekend of the Fourth, how about you come along and do that and we'll see how it goes after that?"
Al agrees, but then they can't come to a contractual agreement on the terms for him to rejoin the band, and Al sees the Jones Beach show not as a one-off show that's been announced with him, but as the start of the summer tour he was going to be involved in and now isn't.
That would fit all the (public) facts, would explain the wording of Al's statement, and would not involve anyone being deliberately petty, malicious, or stupid. Which means it's almost certainly wrong, of course, because the sensible explanation is almost always false with these people, but it's an explanation that would allow us to presume good will until the facts come out...

[STE]

I've been avoiding posting for a year, because of all the arguments, and I'll probably avoid posting here for another year after this, but I just thought it odd that with all this talk of who's to blame, no-one had mentioned an important fact:
Al doesn't say that he's not playing Jones Beach, as such, he says "I am not touring with Mike Love and the Beach Boys this summer"
This suggests a rather plausible (and almost certainly wrong) scenario to me:
It suggests that at some point in the last few months there were moves to get Al back in the band full time, that those moves have collapsed, and that the Jones Beach show was seen by at least one side as part of the package.
It could be as simple, and with as little fault on either side, as Mike saying to Al "OK, we'll think about having you back in the band. We're doing a big show on the weekend of the Fourth, how about you come along and do that and we'll see how it goes after that?"
Al agrees, but then they can't come to a contractual agreement on the terms for him to rejoin the band, and Al sees the Jones Beach show not as a one-off show that's been announced with him, but as the start of the summer tour he was going to be involved in and now isn't.
That would fit all the (public) facts, would explain the wording of Al's statement, and would not involve anyone being deliberately petty, malicious, or stupid. Which means it's almost certainly wrong, of course, because the sensible explanation is almost always false with these people, but it's an explanation that would allow us to presume good will until the facts come out...

Don't leave Andrew, we need some common sense around here!

[Nicko1234]

I've been avoiding posting for a year, because of all the arguments, and I'll probably avoid posting here for another year after this, but I just thought it odd that with all this talk of who's to blame, no-one had mentioned an important fact:
Al doesn't say that he's not playing Jones Beach, as such, he says "I am not touring with Mike Love and the Beach Boys this summer"
This suggests a rather plausible (and almost certainly wrong) scenario to me:
It suggests that at some point in the last few months there were moves to get Al back in the band full time, that those moves have collapsed, and that the Jones Beach show was seen by at least one side as part of the package.
It could be as simple, and with as little fault on either side, as Mike saying to Al "OK, we'll think about having you back in the band. We're doing a big show on the weekend of the Fourth, how about you come along and do that and we'll see how it goes after that?"
Al agrees, but then they can't come to a contractual agreement on the terms for him to rejoin the band, and Al sees the Jones Beach show not as a one-off show that's been announced with him, but as the start of the summer tour he was going to be involved in and now isn't.
That would fit all the (public) facts, would explain the wording of Al's statement, and would not involve anyone being deliberately petty, malicious, or stupid. Which means it's almost certainly wrong, of course, because the sensible explanation is almost always false with these people, but it's an explanation that would allow us to presume good will until the facts come out...

Good to see you back posting on the board and this is certainly possible.

Right from the start though this has been billed as a one-off with Al and David though so he has had 6 weeks in which to make some sort of announcement or decision. Time will tell I guess.

[ToneBender631]

My guess is that there was a verbal "Okay, Mike, that sounds fun." and a few weeks later they got down to the money/role/future shows discussion, Al didn't like what Mike was offering and Mike said, "Okay Al, take it or leave it.", to which Al left it. For what it's worth, Al has already offered a statement (albeit not an apology), as has David, while Mike hasn't even touched upon it.

Overall, I think the concerns about lawsuits are a bit overblown. There are three names on the bill and I'm sure Live Nation will be offering refunds to the likely very small group of people that request them. Additionally, the optics of another lawsuit wouldn't play to Mike's benefit in any way shape or form in the public eye...It'd be the same story about Mike kicking Brian, Al and David out of the band. The show isn't even 40% sold (with the upper deck closed), and yet the C50 just about sold out the venue 2 years ago (having already played about 5 or 6 NY/NJ area shows).  If Mike sued Al for breach of contract and cited any impact to ticket sales it would play right into Al and Brian's argument, wouldn't it? How would all of those details look in print?

[urbanite]

The Beach Boys are playing a lawn show tonight, about a 15 minute drive from my house.  I was going to bring my kids to the show, but all this drama has made me lose interest in the concert.  Man these guys are dysfunctional.

[Sheriff John Stone]

In response to Andrew Hickey's speculation that there might've been negotiations in the last few months to have Al rejoin the band full-time, and in response to ToneBender631's post in another thread about how it might feel for somebody like Al and Brian to not be part of the "final act"....

I mentioned it a few weeks ago that I thought it was perfect timing for Al to rejoin the band when Christian Love recently left. I'm still wondering if Al also thought it was perfect timing, maybe expected to rejoin the band, and was/is bitterly disappointed when Jeff Foskett got the job.

I'm probably wrong, not because of the number of gigs that Mike & Bruce play, but probably because Mike has a gut instinct that he (Mike) and Al can't co-exist in a band full-time anymore.

[ToneBender631]

In response to Andrew Hickey's speculation that there might've been negotiations in the last few months to have Al rejoin the band full-time, and in response to ToneBender631's post in another thread about how it might feel for somebody like Al and Brian to not be part of the "final act"....

I mentioned it a few weeks ago that I thought it was perfect timing for Al to rejoin the band when Christian Love recently left. I'm still wondering if Al also thought it was perfect timing, maybe expected to rejoin the band, and was/is bitterly disappointed when Jeff Foskett got the job.

I'm probably wrong, not because of the number of gigs that Mike & Bruce play, but probably because Mike has a gut instinct that he (Mike) and Al can't co-exist in a band full-time anymore.

I wonder who would have the power in the band if Al rejoined? Mike has the license to tour with the name, and as such is the guy who makes all the decisions in the current incarnation. If another member of BRI is part of the group, do they then have equal say as a BRI member, or does it work as "You're a paid employee of Mike Love's band which is licensing the BB name"? Or does it immediately shift to "Mike and Al are licensing the name, with equal royalties and say on the daily business of the touring band, while paying out to BRI"?

Also, thinking about all of this makes it really sad that neither Bruce nor Dennis' estate still has a vote (ideally one but not both) in BRI as I would imagine that an odd number of voters would make it much easier to get business done as a group...

[Sheriff John Stone]

In response to Andrew Hickey's speculation that there might've been negotiations in the last few months to have Al rejoin the band full-time, and in response to ToneBender631's post in another thread about how it might feel for somebody like Al and Brian to not be part of the "final act"....

I mentioned it a few weeks ago that I thought it was perfect timing for Al to rejoin the band when Christian Love recently left. I'm still wondering if Al also thought it was perfect timing, maybe expected to rejoin the band, and was/is bitterly disappointed when Jeff Foskett got the job.

I'm probably wrong, not because of the number of gigs that Mike & Bruce play, but probably because Mike has a gut instinct that he (Mike) and Al can't co-exist in a band full-time anymore.

I wonder who would have the power in the band if Al rejoined? Mike has the license to tour with the name, and as such is the guy who makes all the decisions in the current incarnation. If another member of BRI is part of the group, do they then have equal say as a BRI member, or does it work as "You're a paid employee of Mike Love's band which is licensing the BB name? Or does it immediately shift to "Mike and Al are licensing the name, with equal royalties and say on the daily business of the touring band, while paying out to BRI"?

I really don't know. I wish we knew more about the license. But again, Mike knows Al well, and the last thing Mike needs is conflict in his band. Can we now all agree that it would be just a matter of time before Mike and Al are disagreeing about, um, something.

[Nicko1234]

I wonder who would have the power in the band if Al rejoined? Mike has the license to tour with the name, and as such is the guy who makes all the decisions in the current incarnation. If another member of BRI is part of the group, do they then have equal say as a BRI member, or does it work as "You're a paid employee of Mike Love's band which is licensing the BB name"? Or does it immediately shift to "Mike and Al are licensing the name, with equal royalties and say on the daily business of the touring band, while paying out to BRI"?

Also, thinking about all of this makes it really sad that neither Bruce nor Dennis' estate still has a vote (ideally one but not both) in BRI as I would imagine that an odd number of voters would make it much easier to get business done as a group...

If Al were to rejoin (obviously hypothetical now) then it would be up to Mike to agree to the details. He obviously wouldn`t agree to give Al an equal share so Al would be a paid employee essentially, albeit with the complication of his being a % receiving member of BRI thrown into the mix.

I don`t think having another member of BRI would have helped things much. Since Mike was given the exclusive right to tour in a 3 to 1 vote there doesn`t seem to have been any real talk of that changing other than on here.  

[ToneBender631]

I wonder who would have the power in the band if Al rejoined? Mike has the license to tour with the name, and as such is the guy who makes all the decisions in the current incarnation. If another member of BRI is part of the group, do they then have equal say as a BRI member, or does it work as "You're a paid employee of Mike Love's band which is licensing the BB name"? Or does it immediately shift to "Mike and Al are licensing the name, with equal royalties and say on the daily business of the touring band, while paying out to BRI"?

Also, thinking about all of this makes it really sad that neither Bruce nor Dennis' estate still has a vote (ideally one but not both) in BRI as I would imagine that an odd number of voters would make it much easier to get business done as a group...

If Al were to rejoin (obviously hypothetical now) then it would be up to Mike to agree to the details. He obviously wouldn`t agree to give Al an equal share so Al would be a paid employee essentially, albeit with the complication of his being a % receiving member of BRI thrown into the mix.

I don`t think having another member of BRI would have helped things much. Since Mike was given the exclusive right to tour in a 3 to 1 vote there doesn`t seem to have been any real talk of that changing other than on here.  

I think that vote would go a little differently 15 years later but I just mean in general business discussions that require a vote, not just this one! :-)

[KittyKat]

Perhaps inviting Al to Jones Beach was a way to fill 15,000 seats. The Beach Boys usually play venues of less than 5,000 (more like 2,000-3,000, tops), except for festivals and fairs. It didn't appear that having Al did much in the way of improving ticket sales, going by the number of empty seats in the venue, so far.

[Wirestone]

The issue with the name is that even if Brian backed Al, the parties would still be deadlocked, and it seems unlikely that Carl's estate would give up a predictable revenue stream.

I suspect that Al is not cool with semi-retirement, and that it hurts like hell for him not to be in the band he helped create. It's easy for folks online to say he should play small clubs under his own name, but why should he give up the band when he was there for decades?

Clearly Al thought there was an opening to going back with Mike -- but I think to Al it wasn't about being with Mike. It was about making the group "The Beach Boys" again, in the fullest way possible. (That's after it became clear that the BAD tour wasn't going to mount any legal challenge for the name -- and after Brian being somewhat blah about the whole affair.) When it became clear that wasn't in the cards, I don't think Al had much motivation to do a one-off show.

[KittyKat]

Funny how Al was once so widely reviled as "a guy waiting for a bus," as Dennis put it, and now fans think he's so key in making the Beach Boys.

[MarcellaHasDirtyFeet]

Murry set the tone-- if you ain't a Wilson, you'd at least better be a Love. No one else really counts. It's sad.

But some of yous guys are taking this waaaay too personally. The Beach Boys were put on this earth to break our hearts nearly as much as they lift us up. Hope refunds are available for those that deserve 'em.

[Nicko1234]

The issue with the name is that even if Brian backed Al, the parties would still be deadlocked, and it seems unlikely that Carl's estate would give up a predictable revenue stream.

I suspect that Al is not cool with semi-retirement, and that it hurts like hell for him not to be in the band he helped create. It's easy for folks online to say he should play small clubs under his own name, but why should he give up the band when he was there for decades?

Clearly Al thought there was an opening to going back with Mike -- but I think to Al it wasn't about being with Mike. It was about making the group "The Beach Boys" again, in the fullest way possible. (That's after it became clear that the BAD tour wasn't going to mount any legal challenge for the name -- and after Brian being somewhat blah about the whole affair.) When it became clear that wasn't in the cards, I don't think Al had much motivation to do a one-off show.

This is all possible but it was clear when the Jones Beach show was announced that it was a one off. Not sure why it would take Al 48 days to realize that.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Unless Al just feeds off chaos, I don't know why he doesn't just put together a band and play clubs as himself. He has a fantastic, youthful voice and plenty of his own and Beach Boys material, and folk stuff to draw from. Mike couldn't do that! Brian can't do anything but be THE GREAT BRAIN WILSON (even if he wanted to) and cart around a steam-ship full of "his people" ..... Only Al and Dave could just plug in and let it rip. Why does he want to mess around with Mike or Brian when he has the goods all on his own? Why bother with any "Beach Type" thing at this point? He certainly doesn't need the money.

Then again, I'm not a Beach Boy and can't fathom it would be an easy thing to just let go.

[Pretty Funky]

It wouldn't surprise me if Mike ponied up for a 'Coach' ticket to NY instead of 'First' for Al so he bailed. Could be that simple.

[JohnMill]

Unless Al just feeds off chaos, I don't know why he doesn't just put together a band and play clubs as himself. He has a fantastic, youthful voice and plenty of his own and Beach Boys material, and folk stuff to draw from. Mike couldn't do that! Brian can't do anything but be THE GREAT BRAIN WILSON (even if he wanted to) and cart around a steam-ship full of "his people" ..... Only Al and Dave could just plug in and let it rip. Why does he want to mess around with Mike or Brian when he has the goods all on his own? Why bother with any "Beach Type" thing at this point? He certainly doesn't need the money.

Then again, I'm not a Beach Boy and can't fathom it would be an easy thing to just let go.

You answered your own question.  Brian Wilson draws audiences on the fact that he is Brian Wilson, principle songwriter of one of the greatest music catalogs in existence.  Mike Love draws audiences due to the fact that he owns the license to the name "The Beach Boys" and the fact that he has built up quite a reputation of his own for delivering enjoyable performances year in and year out. 

Al Jardine obviously has the right to do whatever he wants to with his career but like anyone else it has to be a worthwhile venture financially speaking for him to embrace said venture full time.  So using what Wilson and Love are able to draw independent of one another as a barometer, maybe Jardine feels that he's better off aligning himself with one of the two existing touring outfits instead of striking out on his own and trying to compete full time? 

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Unless Al just feeds off chaos, I don't know why he doesn't just put together a band and play clubs as himself. He has a fantastic, youthful voice and plenty of his own and Beach Boys material, and folk stuff to draw from. Mike couldn't do that! Brian can't do anything but be THE GREAT BRAIN WILSON (even if he wanted to) and cart around a steam-ship full of "his people" ..... Only Al and Dave could just plug in and let it rip. Why does he want to mess around with Mike or Brian when he has the goods all on his own? Why bother with any "Beach Type" thing at this point? He certainly doesn't need the money.

Then again, I'm not a Beach Boy and can't fathom it would be an easy thing to just let go.

You answered your own question.  Brian Wilson draws audiences on the fact that he is Brian Wilson, principle songwriter of one of the greatest music catalogs in existence.  Mike Love draws audiences due to the fact that he owns the license to the name "The Beach Boys" and the fact that he has built up quite a reputation of his own for delivering enjoyable performances year in and year out. 

Al Jardine obviously has the right to do whatever he wants to with his career but like anyone else it has to be a worthwhile venture financially speaking for him to embrace said venture full time.  So using what Wilson and Love are able to draw independent of one another as a barometer, maybe Jardine feels that he's better off aligning himself with one of the two existing touring outfits instead of striking out on his own and trying to compete full time? 

You're absolutely right.....

I guess it's the "trying to compete" part that I wish wasn't a reality.

Al could easily just be his own guy.

Like, I said: he doesn't need the money ....... Lots of us on this board don't have two pennies to pinch together but manage to play clubs etc and enjoy it.