The Smiley Smile Message Board

http://www.desertsun.com/story/life/entertainment/music/2014/09/22/beach-boys-brian-wilson-jeffrey-foskett/16070181/

Great article here addressing some questions many had regarding Jeff's departure.  I very much enjoyed the read!  I hope all participants are feeling good about moving forward.  I am excited to see both acts again soon!  I do hope Matt Jardine gets another shot with Brian's band.  No offence intended to the fella from the Fendertones but I'd prefer Matt in the vocal blend of Brian's band.  Jeff Foskett seems to be fitting in just dandy with Mike's unit.

Nice little story. Good to get Foskett's take on his firing 

Hey nice find. Thanks.

I get that Brian could be 24/7 care on the road and Mikes group he can chill a bit. Sounds reasonable to me.

With Jeff on the inner with Mike I still hope one day he and Brian could do something as Jeff hopes for.

This is basically what I figured happened. Jeff's been doing this for quite a while. Burn out was bound to happen at some point. Nice to see that the affection for Brian is still there, and that his take is that Mike and Brian have less of a problem with each other than their "camps" do.

Interesting that Foskett is close with Jeff Beck, and that he got caught in the middle of Wilson and Beck's camps.

Not sure if the timelines add up, but Foskett's departure might help explain why the Wilson/Beck collabo dissolved.

I wonder who takes on Foskett's old role if Brian goes on tour again. That can't be an easy job, and it might be hard to convince someone already in the band to take it on if they're not used to serving it. And obviously it has to be someone who Brian trusts.

I doubted we would ever get the story behind this, but that was a great and revealing interview. I have to feel for Jeff here. It seems like he made the right decision for the sake of his own peace of mind and didn't burn any bridges in the process.

One of your lamest attempted gags yet. Stick to collecting...

Great piece. Sets a good few things straight and portrays the good Mr Foskett very well. Can't wait for his book ;)

‍

I agree. Jeff's a good guy in my book.

????

Seems very truthful and understandable to me. And I agree, Jeff took the high road on this one.

A very interesting interview and Jeff certainly comes out of it well. Seems entirely understandable that he`d take a stress free job over a stressful one.

Probably one of the more refreshingly honest interviews I've seen in years by anyone associated with the music industry.  What makes it all the more meaningful is Foskett is under the radar enough that there really wasn't a hoard of reporters kicking down his door trying to get a scoop.  He did this interview of his own volition.  Classy guy!

Interesting stuff. More info than I thought we’d ever get. It’s still a bit vague as far as what specifically was happening during the Beck tour. I would imagine a lot of off-stage stuff must have been going on (both in terms of Beck and in general), because the actual touring schedule last year wasn’t particular heavy. A few shows in July, and a little over a month of touring in September/October.

Also interesting that he mentions having to work through stuff with Mike. This would make sense in light of that interview Foskett gave in the 90’s (after leaving the touring BB’s but before joining Brian’s band) where he talked about why he departed the touring BB’s in 1990.

It’s very clear that there are pros and cons to being in either the Brian or Mike camp. If you’re willing to be a part of and enjoy the culture and style of Mike’s band, it seems to be a very streamlined, cushy gig. I think streamlined is an important way to look at it. Once you know what it is, what it entails, and who is in charge, I would imagine from a sort of HR standpoint being in Mike’s operation is more consistent and steady. In Brian’s operation, there are certain sort of conceptual, artistic, ethereal aspects that might be more enticing, but because Brian’s operation wasn’t sort of birthed from the ashes of a very streamlined system (the decades-old BB touring juggernaut) the way Mike’s was, and because there are those special circumstances surrounding Brian, and because it’s a less consistent, full touring schedule, I could see a specific sort of burn out that could take place.

He's really something, isn't he?

Interesting that people are saying Foskett handled the situation with a lot of class. I'm not saying he was classless or anything, but he did throw some unnecessary "shade" at Brian's wife and managers. He certainly didn't need to give the public more dirt on the Beck-Wilson collab. Not that him saying all that is too big of a deal. It was just a tad gossipy, is all.

Also, interesting to learn that Brian is apparently against visiting castles. You'd think he'd like visiting castles.

Not to mention that Brian isn't your typical touring artist. He needs to take meds regularly, needs people he can trust, apparently doesn't like to be alone in his suite, etc. And apparently to the extent that the person playing that role can't go out and do other things so much. I always thought that role would be filled by an assistant or something--not by the guitarist/singer in the band.

Well, the problem that always arises in situations like this is that feeding fans/readers only limited information as is the case with this article, it can either be read as simply having some class and self-control, or it can be viewed as casting a bit of "shade" and then backing away, actually leaving more questions than answers.

I don't think we got anywhere near the full story here. We got some additional data to work with.

But, while there are probably no doubt plenty of quirky and weird side bits to this story as there usually is in the BB universe, I do think that in part (perhaps large part) this may well have been the somewhat common occurrence of someone getting burned out on a job and moving to something else.

Brian:  "Al.....ALLLL.  Its time for my back rub!" ;D

I'm not saying that isn't the case but I didn't read Jeff mentioning "Brian's wife" once.

I thought he was talking about Jeff Beck's management.

Foskett complained that a bunch of stuff he shouldn't have had to do was pushed on him because of his relationship with Beck. He also mentions about how he realized he couldn't handle the whole "Brian thing" himself. You can read it how you want, but it sounds to me like he felt Brian's management was leaning on him too much.

Jeff F. has now given us his account.

I'm sure there are others.

I think he was referring to all the pressure of constantly having to be around Brian on tour, supporting him, and placing him above everything else. Which isn't a knock on Brian, because he needs that kind of attention, but doing that for 15 years has to be very stressful on Jeff.

Good thing it isn't stressful at all having to constantly be around Mike on tour, supporting him, and placing his bright yellow Sunday outfit above everything else. It'll be fun to hear the exit interview comparing and contrasting both gigs!

My guess is if history is any indication they would tend to corroborate each other.  In all honesty though as we've discussed when you get right down to it.  A whole lot of heroes and only a couple of villains in this town and most of the villains moved on to other plains long ago.

Mike (and Bruce) come across as total bad guys for the way they forced Brian, Al, and Dave out of their own band. Say all you want about "set end dates", BRI licensing terms, blah blah blah... the fact is that Brian (and Al & Dave) wanted to continue touring and recording as Beach Boys, a claim which Brian Wilson has every right in the world to, and Mike prevented it from happening. Maybe Brian wasn't technically "fired", but by his own admission he was hurt and confused and "sure felt like being fired."

Jeff's joining up with the M&B Revue in the wake of all that, after being Brian's "right-hand man" for most of the last 2 decades ...just seems to me like a really lame decision. but more power to him. he's exactly where he wants to be, and exactly where he belongs.

nothing personal, but I really do prefer Brian without any of the current "The Beach Boys"

My sources don't require me to toe the party line to stay connected

Smileholland loves Bgas' jokes. ;)

It sounds to me like Brian was leaning on him too much, not his management.  And it was interesting how even if he could have taken a less prominent role in Brian's band and with Brian himself, he said he didn't want that - to be "just one of the guys" from his previous more central role.  So the only option was to leave.

Amen! That's the one big change here. I wasn't visiting the board much for a few years, and I came back recently to see this strange, almost anti-Brian sentiment take hold. Weird...

Exactly, this place is getting odd as an anti-BW BBs board. If it continues, rename this place the Kokomo board.

They sound like Murry from An American Family when he's drunk at the "Wouldn't It Be Nice" sessions. "Beethoven? I'll show you Beethoven!"

We're all playing the world's tiniest violin for you.

Is the violin playing Pisces brothers? ;)

Because not everybody dumps on Mike, that automatically makes this an anti-BW board? The two are not mutually exclusive.

For the record, anybody who has known me for some time knows that I am a die hard Brian mark...I just have a balanced view of things.

Doesn't have a clue, does he ?  ;D

I'm actually going to Maharishi's in Iowa in a few weeks. And I like "Cool Head, Warm Heart". I'm as balanced as they come. A spade is a spade.

Don't say "spade", that's racist - say "African-American".

Hey, I'm trying to Mike Love, not make war.

But the real question is how long M&B can keep their sketchy outfit going. Brian and AL are making new music, while Mike is content to tour his solo group under the BBs name. Wouldn't it be nice for Mike to live beyond p*ssy and greed for once since he is far from being a loving cousin to BW.

A lot of people don't realize that's what the saying was actually referring to...I didn't for the longest time until my uncle set me straight pretty quick.

Brian's making new music...Al's helping. Semantics, I know, but this is going to be a BW album featuring Al, not a BW/AJ album.

Which is fine by me, because I have an extremely strong suspicion that this album is going to blow people's minds.

Exactly Billy, this work is going to be amazing. BW is going to amaze us fans here.

I always thought it was talking about playing poker.

I guess, as long as folk - real folk, that is, not the likes of us - are happy to pay to see him perform.

I could parse bossaroo's post and disagree with a few bits of terminology here and there, but I'd say I can't flat-out disagree with much of that commentary apart from preferring Brian on his own. The C50 show is far superior to a solo Brian show. In numerous ways.

Seems to me Jeffrey was maybe being taken for granted, and worn down in the process. He's a musician, not a nurse. Long may he run.

I hope this album blows minds… but I'll be happy if there's even one track that makes me smile… here usually is, and that's priceless.

The Mike and Bruce tour will only cease I would imagine when Mike Love either chooses to retire, or he is deceased. Or, if the entire organization gets their s**t together and cares enough about their legacy to end it elegantly and with some class and as one united performing unit.

Given how these guys always talk and act, I can never tell whether they care deeply about their legacy or whether they don't give a fudge about it.

Goes back much further than that. The ultimate origin is a mistranslation of the Greek word for "trough" as "shovel" by Erasmus in his Apophthegmatum opus in 1533. Plutarch's original phrase (1st century AD) was "calling a fig a fig, and a trough a trough". It transferred into the English idiom in 1542 when Nicholas Udall translated Erasmus thus in his Apophthegmes, that is to saie, prompte saiynges. First gathered by Erasmus: "Philippus aunswered, that the Macedonians wer feloes of no fyne witte in their termes but altogether grosse, clubbyshe, and rusticall, as they whiche had not the witte to calle a spade by any other name then a spade."

There y'go. Bit of learnin' for ya.

And the origin of the word "Pier"?

Other posters noticed this as well, for the record. There seemed to be an uptick in what you noticed in 2014, or perhaps more than what had happened in previous years even going back to the BW Christmas album.

The legacy is perfectly intact. Playing a few shows together now wouldn`t change anything.

And I don`t think there are many acts who get back together due to `legacy` anyway. Plenty of massive acts like Monty Python, The Police, The Shadows, The Spice Girls etc. have reunited over the past few years before inevitably parting again. It is down to money rather than legacy though.

I suppose it depends on what we're talking about when we're talking about a "legacy." The music is there, nothing will change that.

But as far as the band's story, it is littered with acrimony, lawsuits, estrangements, f-ups, missed opportunities and so on. If they had ended their career together (which obviously they still can do), that would make for a very different ending when the full story is retold. It would color every commentary about how acrimonious their history has been and how many times they missed opportunities, because it would always be tempered with them having their s**t together at the end. 

Exactly, there is a harshness on BW and a strange silence on others.

The story will end with Brian restored to some kind of health and touring and recording again. That is the happy ending. The acrimony is pretty tame compared with some bands and certainly won`t overshadow the music for future generations.

And them all retiring The Beach Boys name at the same time doesn`t seem vaguely possible really. Mike plays 100 shows a year. Brian has maybe 10 booked for this year...

Back when Brian was cutting tracks with Jeff Beck and we were getting pics of Al in the studio and then..shock of all shocks...Blondie Chaplin in the studio I don't think you could've found a more "Rah-Rah-Go-Brian!" spot on the internet than this place...

...that was followed by months of nothing

..and then we heard about Lana Del Rey, Zooey, Frank Ocean..and THAT'S when I noticed this "perceived" anti-Brian stuff, but I don't think it's anyone being anti-Brian at all. A lot of posters here either don't know those new artists or don't respect them or both, and are ticked off that the album went in that direction. No one will know much of anything until the darn thing comes out, but message boards are playgrounds for speculation.

If by liking Mike and Bruce as well as Brian, one is now considered "anti-Brian", I don't know what to say there. I've watched this stuff go on for years. Back in the 70's, the fan sentiment was that Mike and Al were the bad guys who were keeping Brian down, and now Al is a good guy or whatever. It's all nonsense.

And again, Brian is the only Beach Boy who's actually putting out new product. Of course, he'd get the lions share of comments, criticism, etc.  Nobody else is doing anything.

Not even 10 shows. I think more like four or five this year for Brian so far, with a few more scheduled.

I think a scenario for the end game would be that Mike would decide to retire, and when he reaches that point, call everyone back to finish it out together.

I'm not quite convinced the "story" will end with Brian restored, "The End." His restoration in large part also includes the story of his estrangement from the rest of the band. That isn't the ending for the *group* that much of anybody would want.

The C50 tour was their highest profile in years, probably decades, and it ended with "Mike Love fires Brian Wilson" (again, a false statement technically) as a top "trending" item on the internet. Plus, I know we're only two years out, but nearly every interview, other than the super quicky local press for Mike's band, has usually mentioned the group's acrimonious history, and specifically the clusterfudge that was the end of C50.

*During* C50, those same acrimonious aspects were mentioned, but they were always tempered with "but the group has reunited...blah, blah blah." That *could* have been the end of the group's story, whenever that would have/could have been.

They could have even written a better ending while having Mike go back to his own band. Paraphrasing how Howie Edelson put it, they could have consulted one freaking PR person who could have told them to book a few gigs at the end of 2012 to cap off the reunion, where everyone is on the same page, film the damn thing for an awesome Blu-ray and live album, and then they at least wouldn't have looked like they didn't know what the hell they were doing PR-wise after a half century in the business.

I think the anti-Brian/Mike thing has swung back and forth a few times since the early days of the interwebs in the mid-late 90's.

There was definitely a "Brian can do no wrong" attitude from some fans in the late 90's, and a lot of harshness about Mike. The harshness was not always unfounded; this was in the early days of touring without Carl and Al. There was also plenty of reason to be really into the new goings-on with Brian, finally cutting albums and doing tours.

I don't think there's necessarily less "anti-Mike" stuff on the internet these days than in past years. But there is a lot more "pro-Mike" stuff. I don't mean just being a BB fan and thinking Mike is an okay guy. There are some folks who clearly have a bias that leads them to go to extremes to defend Mike and minimize or criticize Brian in the process. This has, I feel, happened at the same time that "pro Brian" rhetoric has died down a bit. So I do see a shift in the last few years.

I've said this before, but the turning point in my mind was the aftermath of C50. Regardless of how I feel about it, as objective as I can be, there has been an odd upswing in going to extremes to defend Mike in the aftermath, along with a strong sentiment that I wouldn't call "pro Mike", but I would say VERY oddly ambivalent about the demise of the reunion of the group we love so much. That's what has astonished me. There was a lot of "so what?" from some surprising folks when C50 fell apart. That astonishes me.

Back to Foskett: I find it interesting that he's aware of the sentiments of fans about him and other BB's, especially if he's truly staying away from the internet commentary.

Heyjude, could you run the BBs for us and give us more BBs shows!!!!  ;D


Seriously, you know your sh*t about how the BBs should be run!

Part of me wonders if Mike would even do the C50 reunion again in hindsight, if he'd have known how things would go down in the end, and how he'd wind up being portrayed in the press. If he could press a button(s), would it be CONTROL + Z to undo C50?

Honest question.

I suppose that Mike deems it "worth it" for him to do what he had to do to get the M&B show back in action post C50, but I wonder if he wishes C50 had just never happened at all at this point. Especially after badmouthing the album in hindsight.

After all, while he might get interview questions like "when are you guys going to finally reunite", he'd never have to explain himself over and over again, or ever use the term "set end date".

That's an excellent response, and I feel compelled to add my two-cents to the C50 tour stuff. I didn't see the C50 tour as a reactivation of the group we all know and loved (especially with Al's "one final time" quote being drilled into our heads in all the promo videos) but rather as a victory lap from the surviving members of The Beach Boys. I didn't expect it to continue for years and years and frankly, I'm not upset that it didn't. This'll probably make me sound like a lunatic on this board, but I think of The Beach Boys in the past tense. As a band that took a real wallop with the death of Dennis and then a mighty deathblow with Carl's passing. Anything that's happened after that I don't consider to be genuine Beach Boys. I know Mike and Bruce tour under the name of The Beach Boys, but I do really consider that an offshoot. Brian touring is also an offshoot for me. Both camps are wonderful at what they do, but coming together again doesn't make it the genuine Beach Boys anymore IMO with both Carl and Dennis gone. So I like to keep up with what the guys are doing (hence I visit this board) but I don't have a stake in another reunion or really care that the C50 folded. I'm still surprised it happened at all! I'm glad the guys are doing what they do and I wish them all the best. It's cool when they work together here and there, but in my head The Beach Boys finished a  long long time ago.         

Jeff Foskett ladies and gentlemen, a charlatan.

Why doesn't he just come out and admit that's Brian's tour schedule being sporadic dates here and there didn't fit his needs, instead of some long winded excuse.

You took Brian for a ride Jeff, you can join the long list of chancers who have.

Shady, in all honesty, you are way off the mark here. Not trying to be harsh, and also you know I'm not exactly a fan of his voice either, but in this case you are mistaken.

The “brand issue” is about power and revenge. Period.

It’s not delusional to think that Mike Love has a different answer for whether certain members are “Beach Boys” depending on when it benefits him (e.g. reunion tour, gala event, “high profile” names needed to fill 15,000-seat major market venues, etc. . .) Arguing it is semantics.

Nobody was confusing Al Jardine, Daryl Dragon, and Owen Elliot as THE BEACH BOYS. No one. Imagine looking at that and saying, “Look, it’s The Beach Boys.” It was a d* ck move on Mike’s part (“. . . . but, but, but, Alan passed on paying the license fee, when it was still only a non-exclusive. . . . . . .” )

D* ick move. Revenge. Ugliness.

Al Jardine was deliberately sh *tcanned and publicly humiliated. It’s that same ugliness and revenge that the licensing “issue” is held over some member’s heads despite promises (which turn into reneged promises) that the “issue" won’t be an "issue" if A and B happen.

I’ve said it numerous times before: This is what happens when a band has no management.

Jeff’s interview was welcomed. I have the utmost respect for Jeff. The past 15 years could not have happened without him and I’ve told him as much. And he did it with love. Regarding his departure, I think there are very few options when your job is THAT JOB. Read Bob Green’s book and you see what the options are: Dismal. Although I thought Jeff’s interview was heartfelt (and caring for our beloved panda Brian 24/7 can’t be the easiest job for anyone — least of all a man pushing 60) those recent road dates were HARDLY backbreaking. And those recent sessions were HARDLY Western Recorders c. 1965. So, with due respect, there’s a bit of a fudge. And I gotta say it — leaving that gig for MIKE is the biggest political maneuver since the group fired Brian to get him back into detox. It’s a message. And if he’s sending that message, he should own that message. There’s enough spin from each camp, and enough support for Jeff that he should tell the ENTIRE story. I do not believe he did.

My sadness is that he won’t be around as Brian winds down and rounds third, and I think he should be. He deserves to be. It’s his victory lap, too. Regardless of his title, or paycheck, or professional stress; his exit from Brian's employ was to play the same exact music with a worse band, And people, it is. It’s not bad by any means. Totten’s creative overhaul literally saved Mike’s reputation — and Mike’s band is VERY, VERY good, better than most. But it’s absolutely less. Tang vs. fresh-squeezed. Art vs. Showbiz (I know, Mike's band is better because they come to your hometown rather than making you schlep into the city. . . .) Every time Brian’s band is supplemented with an actual additional Beach Boy the fact is underscored. It's a better car.

Brian's group without Jeff is a band wounded. Mike's with Jeff is an oldies act with a dynamite falsetto guy (and remember you almost caught the beach ball that came zooming right next to you!!!)

I might also add that there has been a strange "Brian is a manipulator" sentiment that has emerged in the last few years. That, coupled with a general ramping up of the "mental illness isn't an excuse" argument, has made for more negativity. And there is just a general imbalance between the side that typically says, "Brian was responsible for a lot but other people take a share of responsibility too" vs. "Brian was responsible for everything and therefore the failures of the 60s were entirely his fault."

None of us can really know what Jeff's motivation was. The timing of this whole thing is interesting, that's all I'm saying.

And to be honest, I don't buy his story, what can I say.

It's honestly kinda disturbing how Mike does such legal ugliness to the other band members he has known for over 50 years. It's almost like the BBs are his brand and the others aren't really BBs anymore.

Gee, did you get inside Mike's head just now and channel him for our benefit?

Brian, Carl and Dennis Wilson, the least greedy people on the planet.

What a shame they had to be surround by people motivated by money and....greed.

maybe.... :lol

I think the way things happened after Carl's death was majorly f***ed up, and I to this day feel the Beach Boys should not exist without a Wilson in the band. I know the voting members of BRI disagree with me. That said, I do have a question for you doubters...do you really think for a minute Mike wouldn't rather be playing with the full band rather than what he's currently doing? Take all of the spin from both camps and put it aside (and really, that all it is...spin). If it came down to it, I think he'd toss Bruce* off the bridge if it meant getting the full band reunited if it were possible for them to put together their differences. I think everybody in the group would ideally want to stay together. Not going to happen anytime soon, and more to the point, certain people would need to back the f*** out of things that aren't their own business in order for that to happen. I don't see that happening anytime soon, which quite frankly saddens and angers me.

*-Bruce isn't the problem (I think he only gives a sh*t about getting a paycheck), I was just saying, that's all.

I think Mike Love is absolutely happiest performing in the current incarnation of the touring Beach Boys.
There is zero bulls hit factor at work every day.   

I feel like if Brian truly wanted to be in The Beach Boys, or to tour under the Beach Boys name, then he would be able to.

Either way, neither him nor Mike care enough to talk to each other to reunite, and it's not going to happen soon. Either they tour for 50 Years of Pet Sounds or someone dies first.

Truthfully, I assumed that's why he'd left. It makes sense. If we really want to jump into unsubstantiated conjecture, it could be that Jeff is trying to adopt the new party line. Mike complained about Brian needing his own tour bus. Now Jeff is making Brian out to be a burden on the road, too (of course, he's not trying to put Brian in a negative light - just don't expect to ever tour a castle or hang out with the guys and eat breakfast if you're with him). Maybe he drank some of Mike's kool-aid.

IMHO, Mike would only want to be playing with the full living members of the BB band if that scenario was intrinsically from the ground up set up for Mike to be able to prove himself capable of writing a huge hit song with lyrics by Michael Edward Love, and to prove that the band NEEDS his lyrical contributions for this to happen. He wants the world to know this since he feels slighted by history and has a huge chip on his shoulder. I think he is hugely motivated to correct what he believes is an injustice.

I think his primary motivation (from a reunion standpoint) was pre C50 and is now to prove to the world how important HE is to the hitmaking process with Brian Wilson and The Beach Boys. I'm sure he enjoyed some of the sentimental stuff too, and I'm sure he legitimately does want to bury hatchets... but I think that this is the primary concern, and THE primary factor that, if not met, will mean that everything else is worth chucking out the window.

I happen to think it's damn sad and petty that this motivation trumps the other stuff.

That may be a bleak way of looking at things, but I have a hard time seeing it much differently.

I actually thought the reasoning was the opposite.  Brian isn't touring very much anymore and has only played sporadically for the past year.  This wasn't steady enough for Jeff and an offer opens up for him to tour on a more consistent basis.  Though maybe that is a reason too.

Jeff stood in for Gerry Beckley on an "America" tour. I think I'd be ticked off if I went to see Hall & Oates, and Daryl Hall was was replaced by Jeff !

ugh

No, I totally agree with that reason. I'm just saying that maybe he now he's also adopting the Mike party line.

I don't think Jeff is lying.  Would you rather play 10 shows a year with 74? year-old Brian and act as his caregiver, or would you rather play 100 shows a year and have a great time doing it.  Do you want to be a rock star or a nurse? 

I don't know why the continued hate for Mike's branding continues.  Brian/Melinda gave the license to Mike, he didn't steal it.

Some of you have expressed a lot of my feelings on these surrounding issues...Howie, rockandroll, GhostyTMRS (you lost me on the first reply but the second was a great one, I agree about the notion of The Beach Boys to a large degree), and whoever else I'm forgetting. And before someone chimes in and says "oh no, not THIS same discussion again", let me say the discussion(s) happens because the issues all but consume the band and its surviving members, and some fans have very strong feelings about how things have gone.

Basically, like Howie said about the "brand" issue, some of my viewpoint was shaped by a few events regarding the lawsuits, the naming, etc.

Look, these guys have been in the same company for decades, right? They've made shitloads of money, shared the good times and the bad, did things they never would have dreamed as teenagers in Hawthorne or anywhere else, right?

So Al wanted to tour as "BB's Family And Friends", and had issues paying the fees to use "Beach Boys". Like Howie alluded to, would anyone, but ANYONE confuse a tour billed as Family and Friends with some bigger version of the Beach Boys? Heck no. Again, let me restate that the *only* band member thus far who has in fact confused people with the billing of shows was Mike.

So rewind...Perhaps they could have kept it out of the courts, perhaps not. Maybe no one wanted to budge, it happens every day, they needed a mediator like the court to decide.

So decide the naming and the branding issues, and leave it at that.

If I'm wrong on this next point, please someone point me to the facts or the truth of the matter and I'll gladly and humbly mea culpa...

Why the hell did Mike sue Al for "lost revenue" or whatever it was, with the assertion that Al's mini-tour with his kids and the Wilson girls basically stole money from his pocket, and try to get a substantial sum of money from Al?

At that point, it seemed more vindictive, perhaps more personal, and it went beyond who could use the branded name Beach Boys going forward, and how could it be used. It got dirty, it was as someone said a total dick move designed to take a chunk of money from Al.

Who instigated it? There's my issue. Maybe nasty, dirty divorces are the place for those kind of revenge filings, but these guys shared how many stages and all kinds of experiences and whatnot as bandmates...make it about the *NAME*, decide that, and move along. No need to shake more money out of the deal.

Again, my 2 cents. Actually 2.5, but who's countin'.  :)

BRI owns the name and the brand, one vote could not "give" anything without a board vote. The BRI umbrella company interest through the voting board basically licensed the franchise that included the name and some specific operating rules and standards to Mike, and he pays for using and advertising with that franchise name just as McDonald's owners pay corporate to be in that franchise...with strict conditions and standards. If they're not met, the agreement can be terminated and the franchise stripped. Simple as that.

So wherever the notion came from suggesting that Brian or any one entity other than the BRI board ever "gave" the license away, it's incorrect.

Some of the posts here are talking about C50, burying hatchets, coming together, etc. Maybe a picture can be worth a thousand words, so with that...if the significance of this photo isn't immediately noticeable for anyone, look closer:

(http://sphotos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/538727_10151181512532241_1155878822_n.jpg)

If you go watch the Brian/Melinda/Larry King interview, Melinda clearly says "they decided" (meaning her and Brian) to give the brand name to Mike.  Whether Brian holds the swing vote or by some other means, they made it very clear they were the reason Mike got it, and they explained the reasons for such.


 

No Mike and Bruce? When the picture was first posted on here I immediately knew what was up.

That photo along with Mike booking dates during the very early stages of the C50 tour made me realise all was not well. Let's not go down the Mike Love road but what an unbelievable person he us. Unless we're underestimating just how vicious Brian's camp are what could possibly compel you not to attend that dinner?

The article in the OP made reference to the "Mike camp" "Brian camp" BS, Mike love is the main reason the tension exists and why as fans we're forced to choose sides.

We're not in any way forced to choose sides. We're not forced to do anything. We choose to listen to the music (old, new, studio, live), or not. We choose to go to shows, or not. We choose to sign up for message boards, or not. And we choose to treat the whole thing like a soap opera in which we're personally invested, or not. Nobody related to anyone associated with the Beach Boys, past or present, is forcing any of us to do anything.

This!

This what?

Are you referring to the dark, shrouded ghost that resides above their mirror?

Yeah, that's really bizarre.  When you're giving the audience less than what they paid for, you cancel the show.  A band is not a Broadway show, you don't bring in understudies.

The interviewer says that Jeff's entree to the band was via Mike Love who heard Jeff's own band play in 1979.  Seems to me I read somewhere Jeff - or an interviewer - talking about his knocking on Wilson's door on Bellagio in the 1970's and introducing himself when Brian himself answered the door? In any event, I can see how the grind of this particular "job" would wear a person out eventually, probably in a lot fewer years for most people than Jeff put in.

Pretty crappy of Brian to throw a big party, then not invite Mike to it after Mike let him back in the band and everything...

I don't care about legal rights to names. I do care that Jeff said ideally all the Beach Boys would be together. He is wise and has heart, & I hope his ambition comes true.

Then why didn't she say "we decided..." ? Answer - because she couldn't, because they didn't. Mike's exclusive license was awarded to him by BRI after a majority vote in favor by all executive members. Just like GF2002 said. This is not fanboy wishful thinking, this is documented fact.

Have to disagree, Howie, unless Brian is in cahoots with Mike on this. The timeline doesn't work: Brian said, in his post when the news about Jeff & Mike broke, that Jeff handed in his notice pretty much the moment the Beck tour was wrapped, October 30th. My understanding is that this is indeed the case. The call from Mike came this spring, after Christian decided to leave. Now, knowing how much Christian regarded his position with dad as purely income, if Jeff had left Brian purely for Mike, the switcheroo would have occurred back in November once Mike knew Jeff was at liberty.

Temporary silence. I think Mike's come in for the odd criticism since, oh, 1966.  :)

Wait...what?

Andrew -- I'm saying leaving as in not working for any longer and moving on to another job.
(Not as in "leaving this woman FOR the other," but rather "being with" after having left.)

Any way one cuts it, using any timeline (of which I'm subscribing to a different one than yours) taking the job with Mike has FAR more to do with very publicly showing someone disrespect than simply keepin' the summer alive!

I don't believe that there is a soul involved that will deny that this defection was conceived and executed -- by employer and employee alike -- as anything less than a deep belly wound to the other side.  

Sure,  nobody in the process of watching the gigs was confused...but the people ordering tickets when they saw the posters? Yeah, some of them were. Al had a fine band at that point but listening to bootlegs you can hear people all the time complaining that only one of the guys onstage appeared on the records...

And if there was no confusion then why could `Beach Boys Family and Friends` get bookings and sell tickets whilst `Al Jardine of The Beach Boys` hasn`t been able to?

My understanding is that Brian and Carl`s estate also voted for Al to not be allowed to tour as BB F&F anyway...

Any evidence for that?

Thanks for the clarification. Howie.

I'm guessing the numbers of "confused" ticket buyers back then for Al's gigs were considerably less than those similarly confused in the latter half of 2012 by Mike's bookings concurrent with C50. But I digress, and already made that point.  :)

Look at it from Al's vantage point for just a minute: His original suit claimed he was effectively shut out of employment as a touring/performing Beach Boy, which minus legal terms meant he was basically fired from his main gig in life, then when he tried to use his decades-old, Hall-Of-Fame status as an original member of the Beach Boys to book shows, he got cut out of that, too...even though he was *not* booking himself or any band he was touring with as "The Beach Boys".

Sure, some of it is semantics. Sure, some of it came down to paying fees and whatnot...but a lot of it was vindictive and spiteful, the way it would appear.

And we wonder here why Al can sometimes have a chip on his shoulder over the whole affair/affairs?  :-D

Consider this comment could be applied accurately to a majority of songs played in a majority of setlists in any "Beach Boys" related live shows, solo or group, since the late 90's up to the present day.

In other words, a strawman/red herring/moot point to hang that critique solely on Al's shows.  :)

Which is exactly why Mike has to pay 20% to BRI surely.

Are you saying Brian and Jeff are intending to wound each other?

Howie, you may be manufacturing drama that simply isn't there in this situation.

Except perhaps that Al was the sole one representing himself as the brand without a licensee.

My understanding is that Brian abstained and did not participate in the lawsuit vs. Al. 

I would say he’s saying what many wouldn’t have the b**ls or gravitas or credibility to say. But Howie does. He’s talked to all these guys, at length. How many other people have talked to Mike Love about Joe Thomas and “50 Big Ones Productions” and floated Jerry Schilling as a name to bring back? He knows this stuff.

He has all of the “observer” knowledge that the most learned fans do, and he’s also talked to these guys and knows the inner machinations. Different sources within different “camps” may provide different pieces of information or spins, but what Howie says is both credible in terms of the source it’s coming from, and observationally it makes total sense.

I wish it was easier to actually paint a picture where the whole Brian/Jeff thing truly is 100 percent amicable with no ill will or bad feelings. If Jeff had simply left and went to pretty much any other gig, it may have been possible to view it this way. But Howie is right. Jeff joining Mike’s band is a huge political move, on the part of both Jeff and Mike, and most likely easily the most “political” move by a non-member.

It almost doesn’t matter what the original intention was. Even if Jeff was just burned out and left Brian’s band with no plans, and even if Mike simply needed a replacement member and didn’t see adding Jeff as a bit of a political coup; even in that scenario the entire progression of events is loaded with BB-style politics. But as Howie points out, some of what went down may well have been meant to send a message.

I think that’s what we’ve gotten a bit of since the demise of C50. Rather than intense lawsuits and whatnot, we’re getting weird little potshots that may or may not even amount to anything. Just as Brian adding not one, but THREE additional Beach Boys to some 2013 tour dates surely at least had the fringe benefit of sending a message (e.g. “The Beach Boys” have two Beach Boys while Brian’s “solo” tour has THREE or FOUR Beach Boys), and just as Al declining the invitation to play with Mike at Jones Beach and then announcing a gig with Brian for the same day had the fringe benefit of sending a message, Mike offering a gig to what even mainstream media articles have noted is Brian’s “right hand man” both on stage and sometimes off is also something that sends a message (or lobs a political shot, or whatever you want to call it).

Regarding Jeff’s “motives” for leaving Brian’s band, I do think just from a practical point of view that the number of potential 2014 bookings could easily have played a role. What is weird is that even though that’s a perfectly reasonable (and the least “political”) reason for leaving, Jeff doesn’t offer that as even a factor.

There is also the possibility of a plethora of grey areas. Did Mike know six months in advance that Christian was leaving his band, then called Jeff up and told him to exit Brian’s band, wait a while, and then join Mike? I doubt it. But I certainly think it’s possible that Mike knew the possibility or likelihood in advance of Christian leaving at some point in 2014, thought of Jeff, and called him up and just floated some ideas or something. Again, total conjecture. But in business, and in the music business, such things do occur. Also, while there are few BB-related bands that wouldn’t name Jeff as an obvious great addition to their band, it is interesting that there are some things that indicate Jeff wouldn’t so easily be Mike’s top pick. Mike already had a falsetto guy. Also, by Jeff’s own words from an interview in the 90’s, Jeff had issues with Mike during Jeff’s 1990 departure. Given what Jeff mentions in that 90’s interview about the circumstances of his 1990 departure, I would normally say that Mike would not rehire someone who had left under those circumstances. I find it hard to believe Mike didn’t see offering a gig to Jeff as a political move. We’ll obviously likely never know.

It really doesn`t take any balls to post something on a message board. If it did then congenital cowards like me wouldn`t be here.  ;)

Howie`s first post in this thread came across as nothing more than a rant to me and much of it had little or nothing to do with the topic at hand.

His comments about Jeff...

There seems to be some wish fulfillment there and some really need expanding upon.


If he has evidence of this against Jeff then it would be very interesting to hear it.

Nicko - 2600 posts on a Beach Boys message board and you can't put two and two together to see that Jeff Foskett joining Mike Love is both a personal and professional f***k you to Melinda Wilson?
Really? REALLY?

How obvious does this need to be?
Is that what it takes, someone needs to say THAT SENTENCE?

Here:
Jeff Foskett joining Mike Love is both a personal and professional f***k you to Melinda Wilson.

This ain't Calculus.
You want expanding? YOU expand it.

 :lol

I think I broke his brain...

So you are willing to say that but you aren`t willing to say why? A genuine question.

Howie, I think it's more a personal f*** you to people that won't visit castles. Don't get between Foskett and a good castle is the lesson we learned.

Considering he’s one of the few who post on this board who interviews these guys and talks to them, and one of the very few that is on good enough terms with all of the members and organizations that he has talked to all of them (Howie can correct me if I’m wrong, but I think at some point he’s interviewed all of them, not to mention all sorts of band associates), it ironically takes more balls to say what Howie has said. He has more potential bridges that could be burned than most of us on the board who aren’t going to lose our backstage passes if we say something negative about a member. Howie has also mentioned that some if not most of the band members will answer even potentially pointed questions in interviews. He knows what they’re willing to discuss, and gets them to talk about it. 

I have seen cases where folks who have an “in” with one or a few members are clearly less likely to criticize those particular members, for whatever reason.

So I’m impressed that he has interviewed all these guys, but isn’t afraid to say what would be characterized as potentially unflattering things about all of these guys. Check his posts out right after C50. I thought one in particular was both apt and hilarious, pointing out how the full reunited band was so much more than its constituent parts, how Mike’s band has an hour of other guys singing, Al’s scattered live dates have never gotten much past soundcheck/rehearsal status, and Brian’s shows in past years have sometimes veered into “Weekend at Bernie’s” territory. He has been candid about how Bruce can be weird in interviews (will Bruce try to impress you with being a part of BB history, or will he make fun of you for wanting to know?)

I’ve been around message boards long enough to be able to tell when someone knows their s**t or not. Howie knows his s**t, whether I agree with what he writes or not. He also has the good kind of cred and gravitas in terms of being a member of the media/rock press.

Exactly Howie, its an affront to Melinda by joining forces with somebody she isn't fond of for good reasons.

I think the idea is that it is self-evident, and it’s difficult to have a discussion with someone who won’t acknowledge that Foskett leaving Brian’s band and joining Mike’s has the outward appearance, objectively speaking, of being a political move/message, etc.

Again, just as it was pretty impossible to suggest that Brian adding Al, *and* Dave, *and* Blondie to live dates in 2013 had nothing to do with the aftermath and politics of the C50 demise, and how it’s pretty hard to not see Al ditching Mike’s Jones Beach gig and joining in for a UK Brian gig as sending a message too.

Just as with Foskett leaving Brian’s band and then joining Mike’s, it’s likely Al decided against joining Mike’s Jones Beach gig, and then decided to play a gig with Brian instead. Even if these are cases where they’re not ditching one person specifically FOR the other, the act of ditching one person and then seeking out their perceived “opposition” (or whatever you want to call it; there is no perfect term here) DEFINITELY has the *appearance* of sending a message, and it’s hard not to assume that these people know they are sending a message and likely WANT to send a message.

Come on, folks. Mike obviously volunteered to TAKE the picture, with Bruce adjusting the tripod.

Absolutely self evident. All of the essential information is here, from the demise of C50 to today.

Yep.
Sure, there are other factors (money), but to me it stands out as a real insult to the BW camp.

Of course it is fine to acknowledge that possibility...

But Howie`s posts go much further than that. The accusation that Jeff touring with Mike has, `FAR more to do with very publicly showing someone disrespect than simply keepin' the summer alive!` indicates that he believes that Jeff cares `FAR more` about revenge or point scoring that he does about living his own life. That`s a pretty insulting accusation imo.

The situation with Brian touring with former Beach Boys is obviously very different. Brian was going to be playing those venues anyway so, message or not, inviting former Beach Boys along didn`t affect his life hugely.

The idea that Jeff has agreed to tour the world and play 100 shows a year based on point scoring and `inflicting deep belly wounds` is another thing entirely. It may well be true but it surely isn`t asking too much to have somebody actually give some evidence behind the reasoning...

Nope. When Mike says "set end date", he MEANS "set end date."   :lol  He was outta there. There wasn't even time to give him a to-go bag.

Clearly, that dinner above is Brian's little-known "NO MORE LIVE DATES" dinner.  :lol He had clearly had enough. He flipped the whole table up a few seconds after the photo was taken....

It absolutely takes balls to post anything politically sensitive on a message board if your job, or access to the things you need to do your job, are at risk. Not sure what your job is, but Howie provides for his family by being a rock writer. Everybody's manager, and everybody's publicist knows everybody else's manager and publicist. The easy route is to smile and say everybody is wonderful and happy. Good vibrations all around. However, one of the reasons Howie is successful at doing what he does is that he is passionate and fearless when it comes to the things he thinks are important. I've got plenty of experience seeing my stance on a message board come back to slap me around professionally. Everything is monitored. If you have access to the inside...and the insiders know who you are...then truth telling takes balls for sure. Adding your educated opinion to your reporting takes even more.

Jon and Howie are really great guys on this board! 8)

Or it could just be Jeff wanted a change for the reasons he gave and so he was available and Mike hired him because he was available. Something like that, just face value. I don't know nuthin'.

Why did Jeff Foskett want to give Melinda Wilson a big FU?

One "Chocolate Shake Man" too many.

 :lol

Yes!

That story is going to be in H&V part 2 by Steven Gaines. ;)

I think, among the many variations being suggested here, there are several that may or may not be getting confused.

One is that Jeff leaving Brian’s band and joining Mike’s has the appearance of a big F-U. This is where I think the majority can agree. Regardless of the intentions or motives, given the current climate in the BB universe, this *specific* case has the appearance of a big F-U. Not even just a person switching bands. But this particular guy doing it, at this particular time. Brian’s “right hand man.”

Another is that it may not have been exactly calculated as if he left one guy for the other, but at least an additional motivation was to “send a message.” Jeff’s recent interview actually makes this theory more plausible. He admits he had burn out on Brian’s tour, that too much was being asked of him. So one plausible theory (and duh, it’s mostly theories folks; that’s what these discussions are about) is that not simply leaving Brian’s band, but then jumping to Mike’s band, at least has the fringe benefit (if not motivated by) sending a message to Brian’s camp. The message? We can only guess. But if he’s jumping to a band that plays largely the SAME music, with a MORE rigorous tour schedule, the message could be that “I’m not burned out on playing Beach Boys music. I’m not burned out on being the falsetto guy. I’m not burned out on being on the road all year. I’m burned out on YOU, burned out on YOUR TOUR.”

I don’t think anyone is suggesting Jeff shouldn’t take the gig. But when we’re simply guessing at motives and messages and politics, as Jon Stebbins put it, the info is all there. It’s all there to at least infer the possibility if not likelihood that this isn’t just a guy making a change and moving to a different job.

Also worth positing is that in these situations, people can give each other plausible deniability. An employer can have certain motivations in offering a job to someone without mentioning all those motivations to the potential employee. Sometimes they still both understand their motivations without stating them. Sometimes not. According to Jon Stebbins’ and David Marks’ book, just ask David Marks. He clearly didn’t fully grasp back in 1997 all of the reasons he was being asked to re-join the touring band.

That's what I would like to know. We are constantly being told (as fact) that Brian Wilson makes his own decisions, Brian Wilson does what HE wants to do, Brian Wilson doesn't do what he doesn't want to do, and that he has no handlers running his life. And now we're being told that Mike Love and Jeff Foskett pulled a "Fu-- You" TOWARD MELINDA? Why her and not Brian Wilson?

YA THINK?  Or is it more fun to add more variables to the equation and create more drama just for the sake of conversation? That happens here quite a bit. :-D

Jeff Foskett, the consummate Christian type, wouldn't lie. If, and I say IF he left little small details out in that interview, they were on purpose so as not to slander or burn bridges behind him. I'm sure he has many stories (one I heard was that Jeff was tired of fielding Melinda's incessant phone calls to follow up with him on Brian's health and status) while on the road when she wasn't there. Jeff's part time job was Caregiver. He got tired of it. Who wouldn't?

Exactly. He all but said it in the interview.

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

This is it for me. Being a kind of care giver while on the road must be tiring enough. Throw in fact he then has to sing every night would wear you down. The nail in the coffin is if the Beck organization is hitting you up for every detail as well.

I don't think everybody is adding variables to this equation for pure amusement. Rather, I suppose some are scoffing at the idea that there's no way that politics and backbiting entered into a heated BB equation such as this. I for one can't put the blinders to the degree that I would buy that there's absolutely NO "message" involved in the Foskett move.

There's a difference between noting that something is clearly at least partially a personal/political move versus actually caring that much about it. Same thing with the Blondie/Dave/Al thing last year. Were there politics involved in collecting together as many BB's as possible for that Brian tour? I have little doubt that there was. But that's okay. It was still great to see all those guys on stage together.

Similar with the Foskett thing. Inter-band politics are probably at play to some degree. I can live with that. But I'm not going to pretend it's not happening.

Well, this post really kicked my Erasmus!!   :p

Sheriff, that's not the first time I've read a post of yours and thought right on.

I know, right? Why get our undies in a bunch over something that seems so straight forward? Had a sweet gig, gig got less sweet in reality, missed out on a lot of stuff, decided he didn't want to miss out on stuff more than he wanted to keep slogging it out, made a change. (drops mic)

Melinda caught Jeff stealing Brian's wheat grass one too many times, that's all.......!

 >:D

What's worse... he was caught drinking it in a castle!

C'mon, no one else likes the castle bit? It's funny!

Brian: We've been driving for a long time. Are you sure this is the way to the steakhouse?
Jeff: Brian, I told you. We're gonna go see a castle today. Remember?
Brian: A... what? A... castle?
Jeff: Yeah, Brian, one of the most famous castles in the world. It's....
Brian: So there's no steak?
Jeff: Uh... probably not anymore.
Brian: Driver! Driver! Turn the car around! Somebody, please, turn the car around! You've got to...  she doesn't love me!
Jeff: Calm down, Brian. It's just a castle, man.
Brian: Take us to the steakhouse! I want steak.
Jeff: This the problem with you, Brian. You know I haven't visited a castle in over a decade! And oh great, now Melinda is calling me!

Good point and it'll be interesting to hear these vocal insiders views on Howie's comments.

I always tend to go for the simplest explanation:

Last year Jeff was burned out so he withdrew.  Being in a band and being a caregiver would more than a handful for a period months, let alone, more than a decade.

This year a spot opened up in Mike's band.

For Jeff this is attractive because it is regular and  an easier gig than his prior one.

For Mike it is attractive because Jeff is a known quantity and adds a little authenticity to the act.

When Jeff joined Mike he was a free agent so the impact of an FU would be quite limited.

Or maybe Jeff doesn't like Al or maybe he does not wish to be part of upcoming "Love You at 38" tour.

Maybe it's as simple as 'I need to you go with Brian to the store'. 'Can you go with Brian to the park and walk all 45 dogs'? 'Hey, can you go with Brian to the deli and pick up two Reubens, some knishes, and  maybe those chocolate rainbow cookies?* Oh, and get yourself something too. Here's the card.' 'f*** this, I QUIT'.

In other words, nothing malicious on either end, just one guy tired of doing everything except play music (since Brian's live workload has decreased).

*Now I made myself hungry.

Simplest explanation is usually the right one. Didn't even think about the Al thing though...

It's rarely the simplest explanation, especially when it comes to the BB's. Again, I think the point of the "F-U" is getting too convoluted, because even if one subscribes to the theory that it was intended as an F-U, I think one would also say that Jeff would have taken the gig from Mike even if everything was 100% amicable and he didn't intend even a whisper of an "F-U."

I've been trying to think of another example of something like Jeff leaving Brian's band and joining Mike's, in terms of how it *appears* regardless of the intentions. I dunno. How about if Yoko had divorced John in 1974 and then joined Wings? Meh, I dunno.  :lol

 Brian isn't touring much what with his time in the studio on a new LP.  And promoting a bio pic.   Maybe, just maybe, JF needed a steady, high paying gig, and Christian's departure made room for a sweet transition.  It's not always about the money but that can sometimes be a tipping point.  Ever left a job you had tired of when someone else was offering substantially more money?    I have.    Not without some regrets but just for a change and the prospect of more income.

Sometimes fans don't apply the same standards to artists as they do to themselves and their non-artist friends. What's normal for your neighbor or yourself (leaving a job for money, convenience, etc.) is a sell-out, or offensive, or short-sighted, or blighting a legend for an artist.

I think Jeff explained himself pretty well in the interview. What's he supposed to do? Form the Jeff Foskett Blues Band and play local bars? He wants to play, he knows Beach Boys music in and out and has been singing it for years, he spent 2012 with half of Mike & Bruce's band. It's a no-brainer. It's much easier to plug into a similar situation with less responsibility and for (presumably) similar pay so he can maintain whatever lifestyle he enjoys at his age.

Jeff is a human being.  He did what he needed to do and expresses gratitude for what he has been fortunate to be a part of.  And further more , Jeff is a Beachboy, regardless of those who think of him as a minder or side man.  why is he any different than any other BB jumping ship or changing camps?   glad he is still with the company.

This times one trillion. I used to be guilty of the same thing before getting in the fringes of the industry myself. I used to be amazed at how 'so and so is actually pretty down to earth', only to realize that the majority of musicians actually are. Not everybody is an A-Lister (hell, few actually are)...the majority of us need to put food on the table like everybody else, and have the same wants and desires as everyone else. I was hanging out with a buddy of mine recently and he was like ' I gotta cut this short...I gotta go to work in the morning', as he had an early session. Realized right then that nothing really changes...the surroundings may change, but the day-to-day realities do not.  In my 'real' job, I found my hours cut, found myself doing more work with no extra money, and finally got laid off. Jeff was doing less shows, obviously had more work that wasn't in his initial job description, and took a 'better' (for him) job. What was he supposed to do if he wanted to keep playing the same music? Do shows with Papa Do Ron Ron only? Play the bar circuit? I'm no real fan of his (vocally...I don't know him personally) but damn...what the hell's the problem? He had the same gig for 15 years, found the situation much less to his liking, and switched jobs.

For what it's worth...I found him vocally much more fitting in the C50 shows than on Brian's solo shows.

Fine. I'm not going to pretend it is happening.

Yeah, but whose view is objective?

If you're posting under a pseudonym, then no, it doesn't. Pretty much the reverse, in fact. What takes considerable testicular fortitude is to post something contentious, or potentially sensitive, using your real name, like Howie and Jon do.

As someone whose first language isn't English, may I ask if you mean IYO Howie Edelsons's view is correct?

Posting something as if it a fact and then ignoring questions by others that challenge said fact as Sherriff John Stone did by asking why a big FU to Melinda would mean what then?

That's not the point - the fact that posting something using your real name is different than hiding behind a moniker is. There's nothing wrong with using something other than your real name, but when I post something it goes from me, the person, through 'Woodstock' and on to the board. Jon and Howie post their opinions as themselves. I see a clear difference there.

While I admire Howie's passion, I cannot agree about a couple of things.

First the "branding" issue. The "branding" is everything.

And "marketplace confusion" is also everything. It might not confuse a very informed fan, but it does factor in with the general public as they do not always know whom they are going to see.

Someone mentioned the Larry King interview.  Everyone should see this.  And reread the conditions of C50.  It was "status quo ante." In legalese, it means "going back to before." And from what I've read C50 operated on its own entity terms and conditions.

In theory, Carl's estate (his kids and whomever) potentially could have stood in the shoes of any plaintiff with regard the use of the "name brand" protection, non-confusion in the marketplace, given that they would have all had theoretical equal shares.  In theory Mike protected them, Brian, Al, and himself.  He was merely the face of the "bad guy." Watering down the "brand" is a no-no.  As is confusion in the marketplace.  And, I love Al's' band as well and have seen them.

They (Carl's estate ) could also have, in theory, "paid the piper" BRI (however unlikely) in order to go out and tour.  They could have, in theory, also, hired the marketing, touring, etc. enumerated entities to go out on the road, and paid out the requisite monies to BRI.  They would have, in theory, have been working for themselves as well as BRI. Just as Mike is doing now.  Mike is only one of four.  This would have been in the instance of a "non-exclusive" license.

The Larry King interview tells the story.  It clearly shows the intent and state of mind at the time.

Jeff is a different story. He is not in BRI, as far as I know.  He was on the road for many, many years, as a "touring member" but with a certain skill set.  He was involved in C50.  He knows all the words.  But, that said, he has every right to "self-determine" the course of his life.  He was certainly a great resource to Brian.  I did notice he was walking with a limp when I saw him in July and August.  Six shows.  I don't know if that is a factor and it is not my business.  Just an observation.  He might have been making a change for his own health reasons. That isn't our business, either.

Frankly, I truly miss Christian Love.  From the get go, Carl was no gregarious front man, but just slowly becoming acclimated to performing before thousands.  And I watched Christian grow in the job, and he brings a "family vocal" chord that is genetic.  You can't hire that.  Even someone who has been "around the block" for about 30 years. 

Foskett has every right as an American citizen to work for whomever he chooses.  He benefits BRI ultimately, including Brian by doing a good job, as a musician. So, in a sense, he is still Brian's employee, since he is working for BRI, under a different umbrella.

The “brand issue” is about power and revenge. Period.

It’s not delusional to think that Mike Love has a different answer for whether certain members are “Beach Boys” depending on when it benefits him (e.g. reunion tour, gala event, “high profile” names needed to fill 15,000-seat major market venues, etc. . .) Arguing it is semantics.

Howie - with all due respect, Foskett was in the right place at the right time.  It would be difficult to assert and support an theory or argument that Jeff was disloyal to Brian, after all those years with him. 

The "brand" is neutral, but the corporate structure has a duty to protect it.  It is why the entity can exist. Mike isn't recording BB new material with his band.  He, too, has to respect the BB brand.  They have to conform to conditions set forth by BRI.  It is solely objective. 

The real answer to this whole thing is Brian's opinion of Mike.

If Brian has no issue with Mike Love then his best pal and confidante now working for Mike is a non issue. If Brian actually has issues with Mike and Bruce then it probably was a stab in the back.

That's all I hope for, that Brian wasn't hurt.

Mike was one vengeful mofo to Al in 1998 to 2005, kicking him out of the group and striping him of his right to bill himself a BB. Mike tore into Al's sense of identity.

Does that relate to Foskett touring, in the "former shoes" of Christian?

Jeff did not replace Al;  he replaced Christian.

The fact that C50 took place proves that all principals involved view the "brand" as it is presented to the public as a malleable item.

Al's departure in 1998 and the "BBFF" debacle were absolutely about power and revenge, among surely many other things. It's important to point out that Al was not quite as marginalized in the late 90's as he is now. The late 90's was about marginalizing him. The Carlin and Stebbins/Marks book get into this to some degree. "BBFF" was a bigger deal in 1999 than it seems like in retrospect perhaps. There were legal/trademark issues (which is why Al ultimately lost), but Al's band was more of a threat back then than he ever could be now, especially when it was even slightly feasible that he could obtain some sort of license. And it didn't have anything to do with people thinking his band was "THE Beach Boys." His band was getting better reviews, and frankly, was better instrumentally and vocally in every way. Again, those who see the current Love band may or may not familiar with its late 90's incarnation. Howie is right; Totten has done great things for the band. It was pretty ragged in 1998-99 (and into the early 2000's). Al's band sounded fresh. It had all the pro backline guys from the 70's, and it had YOUNG voices, and voices with the DNA ingrained into the voices. Keep in mind the Jardine and Wilson kids were a lot younger back then too.

As I recall, Al was so marginalized back in the late 90's and early 2000's that certain parties didn't even want him connected to old archival BB releases. I was told back in 2001 that certain folks were for some odd reason really pissed when Al did an internet radio show to promote the "Hawthorne, CA" release.

As Howie said, who is considered a "Beach Boy" does indeed morph to suit needs, and to suit the atmosphere of the moment. Back in 2001, and for most of the 2000's, Mike *rarely* even mentioned Al's name in interviews. I don't think this was coincidental. I know Al is kind of a low-profile, waiting-for-a-bus kind of guy, and I know that when lawsuits are pending they can't go into detail. But he rarely even uttered Al's name in interviews.


Setting aside that we haven't seen the actual contractual agreements for C50, nobody has ever argued that anybody broke any contracts or other legal agreements concerning C50. In fact, that has been one of the criticisms of Mike; that he continually asserts that there was a "set end date", etc., which evades the question of why they can't just do more shows.


One of the main pieces of evidence of why all of these guys are clueless and rudderless as far as management is that a STRONG argument can be made that Mike (and the other BB's in the 90's) have "diluted" the trademark in a much more severe way than Al ever could have booking a few dozen shows as "Beach Boys Family & Friends" in 1999.


Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but Mike's band and band members are not employed by BRI as far as I know. Mike's production company runs his entire tour and employs the musicians. He and/or his production company license the use of the "Beach Boys" trademark. THIS type of setup is one of the main reasons it all went to S**T back in the late 90's with Al, and this is outlined to some degree in the Stebbins/Marks book. Al didn't want to go with that type of setup, and through a variety of machinations, was figuratively if not literally, as Howie put it, s**tcanned.

To swipe up BW's righthand man and get him to be negative about BW is something only Mike would do. Mike has this crazy obsession of proving he is BW's equal and it has killed the real BBs because of it.

I agree completely.  He worked for Brian for over a decade, maybe he wants to do something else for another decade?  In this life we get precious few decades.

Thought that just occurred to me: that Jeff handed in his notice to Brian in late October/early November seems to be taken as read. In which case, surely there was time for negotiation and an adjustment of Jeff's salary & retainer. Maybe I'm wrong here - god knows my current form indicates such - but I can't imagine Brian just going "You're leaving the band, Jeff ?  Cool, good luck and see ya round".

F-plage: Re: Jeff — are you KIDDING ME? I don’t begrudge the guy for earning a living, and I’m a longtime fan. But I know you know the deal between the camps. There’s nothing that says “Them’s fightin’ words” more than leaving BriMel (after 15 years) and joining up with Mike (and vice versa). LITERALLY NOTHING. The whole reason why the actual Beach Boys aren’t together anymore is that those two camps are at odds. I think the world of Jeff. But let's not confuse this with Billy doing a string of dates with Al and then filling for Darian for 5 shows in Norway, okay?

I think Jeff helped bring a tremendous amount of joy to a lot of people because of what he took on. But Jeff Foskett CHOSE to take that on. He sought that out. It was Foskett who planted the seed of a Brian touring career, it was Foskett who wanted to be the guy singing those songs every night, it was Foskett who wanted to be the guy you got to before you got to BW. And I gotta say, he did it all with grace and tact. I wish him luck. I know that Mike’s shows will undoubtedly be better with him there.

As far as the “brand” being neutral. No so quick. The “brand” is not just the owners of the names — but the licensee. And in the cases I’ve been made aware of, it’s been the licensee -- not BRI -- that's gone after the promoters and bandmembers who have been billed lazily and/or incorrectly at 200-seat venues or random street fairs.

That's not about correcting or protecting anything.
That’s about power and revenge. Period.

Why would Jeff have a reason to stab Melinda? Has this been answered yet?

BTW, I am a nobody in the fan community. It makes no difference if I post under my real name or under a ridiculous monicker, like I have done for 15 years. I'm no superfan, I'm no insider. My opinions matter to me only, and I have no information to reveal. I don't care to build a reputation among the fans. I appreciate those superfans or insiders who take the trouble to post under their real names, and do so at the risk of being damned by the BB organization. Whatever the reason that prompts them to do so. What I don't get is the teasing: "I know way more than I'm posting, way more than you, I'm an insider, I'll make bold statements, but I'll keep the stories to myself. I know a lot, you do not, but I'm not telling it".

Mike has become a vicious watchdog of his warped version of the BBs brand with kicking Al out and trying to sue BW in 2004 about smile being a "BBs" project and the CD in the paper.




Yeah right Mike. ::)

Howie, you realize that Brian and Mike both get rich off of Mike touring, right?  All this animosity you are imagining is just in your head.  They have disagreements but they're business partners and have been for 50 years.  One guy (who previously worked for Mike; then Brian; then toured with both, now tours with just Mike) going back and forth like that makes both of them money.  

When Jeff sings on stage for Mike, Brian makes money.  Why in the world would Brian & co. get all up in arms about that?  They'd prefer Jeff be in the band (I assume) but if he goes to work for Mike it's not as big of a disconnect as you're presenting it to be.

I think people are under the delusion that the BRI shareholders make MILLIONS and MILLIONS off Mike Love touring as though it's a partnership.
That's not the case.

What the others get is not much considering probably how much Mike's unit makes with constant touring.

This is wrong (in my opinion, obviously). This is one of the reasons the band’s dynamic (both interpersonally and certainly business-wise) is so difficult to examine or understand.

Brian, either passively or actively, has allowed Mike to continue to use the BB name. There is also an antagonistic relationship between them (and between many of the members/camps). All of these guys co-exist, and sometimes even work together, despite lingering personal and business issues. The difference between them and some other bands/operations is that they let those things usually eventually turn everything to s**t. This is where those Neil Aspinall-types come into play. Remember when Yoko was all upset that Paul put “McCartney/Lennon” on his live album? It was not but a year later that they all agreed to the “Let It Be Naked” CD, and they soon were planning that epic Cirque du Soleil show where they all appeared together at the premiere and on Larry King (ironically). That’s management, and management specifically of a BRAND. Paul and Yoko have as much if not more reason to be estranged from each other as Mike and Al, yet it’s Mike and Al for whom, with some possible exceptions I’m not remembering, there exists exactly one picture together between 1998 and 2006.

But yeah, it doesn’t make a lot of sense, but I think Brian’s side agrees to let Mike use the name, and is happy to take their cut of the licensing fee (again, this cut would be 25% of the licensing fee; not of all tour proceeds), but there is still some perceived and real antagonism between the camps when it comes to everything including the touring bands. Yes, sometimes business partners work against each other, usually in subtle ways that don’t severely injure their business.

To say this is all in Howie’s head ignores nearly all of the evidence we have at our disposal. Interviews, lawsuits, injunctions, to say nothing of the demise of the C50 tour. It doesn’t mean there is nothing but antagonism going on.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that Mike and his “camp” were probably not overjoyed to see Brian scrape together FOUR Beach Boys for some 2013 tour dates. Similarly, Brian’s camp is surely not overjoyed that not only Jeff left, but that he joined Mike’s band. Just as Mike would probably have been peeved if Totten had left his band and joined Brian’s, stating that Mike’s band was stressing him out too much.

I suspect the cut of the non-touring members of BRI is not very large, and it would depend on what they get a cut of and what is considered a business expense. 

Howie - there is little doubt that Jeff had a huge role in helping to make things happen for Brian. I, as a fan, am in his debt for that, having seen "Solo Brian" any and every time I could, making up for those years when he was not on the road.  Everyone else should be as well.  Lots happened for Brian, that I was able to witness, such as Pet Sounds Live, SMiLE live, TLOS, and even the GH tours.  He had a lot of music inside him to share, as well as his own "unfinished business" choosing to go on "representing Dennis and Carl." The public roles seem to have reversed.

As far as Foskett is concerned, I take my usual "wait and see" period, as I did with Mike and Bruce, post Carl's death. And I wanted to see anyone credible as long as they were sing my favorite music.  That means Billy, Al, Dean Torrence, etc.  The question is whether they do they do it justice.

And I think of these surf music genre groups as sort of a Venn diagram where some members are "core" and some are "ancillary." Funny, because I'm terrible at Math.  There seems to be a whole sphere of musicians who drift in and out of different bands' membership or who belong and perform with more than one. And who were in Carl's Band at one time or another.

But I'm unconvinced that job or career changes are anything to read into.  It would be grossly unfair in my opinion, to confine a person to a certain job, in the absence of a covenant not to compete.  That might be difficult seeing that the Touring Band benefits BRI.  

No one on this planet should ever be wishing Brian ill.  Mike says plenty of complimentary things about Brian while on tour.  

It is beyond me that Foskett's changing jobs does that. Things are not always as they appear.  And, Brian may miss him a lot, but ultimately Foskett has to do what he feels is best for him.  We all do.  

Exactly. As I’ve often mentioned (along with a few others), there was a thread from a while back where we had some actual numbers to chew on, and each shareholder’s 25% of percentage that is paid out in licensing fee is not a HUGE sum of money, for these guys. A nice chunk of change to be sure. But far less than they would be making as equal partners touring. Considering Mike also gets back his 25% just like the other shareholders do, that means he gets that on top of whatever profit the touring band pulls in after all their overhead is paid.

The “Mike is doing them a favor” sentiment I sometimes see works both ways. BRI is doing Mike a favor by letting him use a HUGELY valuable trademark and only having to pay out a minority of his profits as a licensing fee. Who would make more money if Mike split off and toured under his own name while BRI assigned the trademark to someone else?

I'm wondering if there may be a misunderstanding of how the franchising and licensing process works in general. In some cases I won't touch on since they're already being discussed, I think there may be deliberate misunderstandings, if you will, on exactly how much holding a franchise or a license actually entitles the current holder to do or control.

I always come back to McDonald's, but use any major franchise you want. If you are a McDonald's franchisee, if you bought into the franchise and got the license from them (with strict conditions and all that), you do not "own" McDonald's, you are not the caretaker of that corporation beyond how your individual franchise is run and conforms to the brand's standards, and there are some things you cannot and do not do, that "corporate" handles instead.

So if there is a McDonald's owner in, say, Philadelphia who is miffed that some restaurant on his bock starts selling a knock-off of the Big Mac, it's not his ability to claim ownership or take legal action. That goes to the corporate legal department, corporate lawyers, and those who are in direct control and ownership of the brand, its trademarks, and its brand identity. So that franchisee in Philadelphia would not be able to claim ownership of the Big Mac, he would not be able to claim through the courts any kind of control or ownership even to the point of filing damages against the phony Big Mac seller...all of that would go through McDonald's as the owners of the brand and trademarks. The franchisee basically bought use of the name, its standards, and is part of the chain who may own his own business but not the brand in any way.

So let's clear that up: No one, not Mike, not Al, not Brian, not anyone else can control or even stake an individual claim of ownership over the name "Beach Boys" unless its in their role being voting members of the BRI board. Then, any actions that would be filed would go through the board for a vote.

If someone seems to be suggesting that they own more of the name or the brand, or suggesting one member or another is acting as the "steward" of that brand, protecting it, whatever...it seems like that's simply not the case in legal terms beyond public comments and perceptions. BRI owns-controls-protects the name, period. And decisions are made by a vote, not one member's prerogative.

Which is why I might think some previous lawsuits that would seem vindictive might have been started on the basis that the person who bought the license somehow then controls more of the "brand" identity than another, and can seek to protect it on their prerogative.

Just to sum up all of that crap...Mike does not "own" the Beach Boys, he pays to use the name. Simple franchising. Filing lawsuits as if you're controlling or protecting the brand against whatever threatens its legacy is up to the BRI board voting process, not Mike.

I believe the main cases against Al were from BRI. There may have been other lawsuits from individuals as well.

But I'm not sure your scenario is correct. One does not have to assert ownership of the trademark to sue and claim damages. If I'm paying a licensing fee to be the exclusive McDonald's franchise in an area' and someone else uses the name without a license, I can sue for damages/loss of profit. McDonald's might also sue for trademark infringement and loss of profit as well.

To my (currently questionable) knowledge, no-one credible has ever declared themselves an insider: that's like saying "I'm an expert" - if you have to tell people, chances are you're not, not to mention being very poor form, what ? As for them with an inside track "teasing"... well, that's a personal call, walking the line between imparting what posters have been asking to know and retaining that inside track by not spilling too many or too large beans. Probably easier to say nothing, but they'd likely get ripped for that too. Dilemma. I'm sure there's much, much more Howie, Jon and their ilk could tell us, as sure as I am that once they did so, their sources, connections and probably their livelihoods would evaporate like the morning dew.

Are some of us forgetting Al's actions and behaviors regarding the brand and license(s)?

Considering the history of the license, I think I would be be watchful and protective of it too. And it seems to me like the guys who set the conditions of license should be too.

No, I don’t believe anybody is.

Didn't that court paper say BRI get 20% for the license and then the members of BRI get some sort of share which is more if you tour and less if you don't tour. Something like that. If true they may not be getting rich off of just that but surely it is nothing to sneeze at.

Well I did, please remind me.

You do not own the "Big Mac", its trademark, or its design/construction/image, McDonald's does. Therefore you as the franchise owner who pays McDonald's corporation to sell the Big Mac would not be able to file a claim as "owner".

Can an individual franchise on their own accord start selling a "Turkey Patty Big Mac" at McDonalds? Hell no! Corporate would be on them as soon as they found out. You can sell the trademarked, owned items but you don't "own" them in any way to be able to change, alter, or promote them beyond what you agreed through corporate standards.

So I'd say my scenario is absolutely valid - you as the franchise owner could have corporate file the claims through their legal division, but you could not hire an independent lawyer to represent you in the case because you are no McDonalds you do not own the Big Mac, and you cannot "speak for" or represent legally the company which you pay license and franchise fees.

If it concerns your property, or suits against you personally but not the company, then you can. But anything related to the brand name, the image, the trademarks...you don't own any of it, you can't file a suit standing as the de facto "owner" of that brand as an individual franchisee...because you don't own the brand.

I hope that's right.  ;)

It was... regrettable.

In this scenario, a license-holder wouldn’t file claim “as owner.” But that doesn’t mean they can’t file *a* claim. Not being the owner of the trademark, they could not file any suits for trademark infringement. But if someone is infringing on the trademark that leads to a loss or profits for a licensee, that licensee can certainly bring a suit against whomever is infringing. The infringement would be injuring both the trademark holder and the licensee.

The only scenario where this couldn’t happen is if there is specific verbiage in the licensing agreement with McDonald’s that requires or forces only the corporation to file any lawsuits that might also impact the licensee.

I sure don't! Guy sang bland and had next to no stage presence. He sounded like Carl at times, put I'll take Foskett's stronger, projected vocals and guitar playing over Christian's any day! Plus, you never saw Christian do the entire Pet Sounds and Smile albums and so many different Beach Boys rarities/album tracks like Jeff did. In addition to some of Brian's solo material.....

Your posts from the last 15-plus years suggest you are aware of the intricacies of those cases and have formed (and have not changed) your opinions derived from your knowledge in those same 15-plus years.

There are a few folks who have developed the opinion that Al really is the ultimate bad guy in the Beach Boys saga, at least of the last 15 years or so. I think such an opinion is completely unfounded, especially to the degree it has been argued by a few folks (and I mean VERY few). While I don’t understand such an opinion, I do understand very well that if 15 years of discussing it hasn’t changed their mind, it’s not a discussion worth resurrecting.

 ;)

Here's why I miss him.  I first heard his voice on that old Hallmark CD.  Cool Head, Warm Heart and I got a chill, with what I heard which sounded like Carl. You can't fake a voice, even if you can learn to "project" as teachers learn to do.  He isn't an extrovert, and may show deference to the veterans, even though by his 40ish age, had been Beach Boys for at least 20 years.  

Ya, Foskett did perform on PS Live and others. Christian brought a presence, and youthful feel that hasn't been seen since the 60's.  I loved his lead version of Then I Kissed Her a lot, and GV lead.  His voice has a yearning quality that reminds me of Carl's. I'm not comparing him to Jeff.  

And I think he did work on "voice projection" during his hiatus in the C50 months.  That is just my opinion.  It was nice to see someone young and involved in competitive athletics.  Isn't surfing the sport that inspired some of the music?

Has anybody considered that Jeff has undergone major heart surgery--a while back, but still--and that continuing such a stressful dual role in Brian's band might simply not be worth it, health wise?

He has ? When ?

Right on cue there pal. One more preposterous statement to add to your long list.

I'll say that maybe my experiences in certain industries could be affecting my opinions here, and I'd definitely need to brush up on or research the ins-and-outs before saying much more on this! But I do think your last sentence hits on it, where it is or can be a case-by-case thing depending on what was signed, contracted, and agreed to and how legal affairs affecting the franchisee and the corporate owner of the brand are handled. That makes it hard to summarize into one standard, which is probably what i tried to do and perhaps was mistaken.

In a previous life I had a job at a financial firm who was going through a big merger with a former competitor, which affected branding, naming, marketing, heck the entire identity of both the two previous "brands" and the new brand after the merger. It came down to something like the Lennon/McCartney versus McCartney/Lennon credit debacle that was mentioned here. There were apparently some serious debates as to whose name would be first on the new official name and brand. And in the meantime there were memos, directives, all kinds of things flying around the branch offices covering everything from letterhead, to marketing materials, to advertising seminars, and memos to the switchboard operator on how to answer the phone, and it all came from the corporate legal areas. The individual branches, offices, and employees who in some cases were almost acting as much as contractors selling the brand as they were employees had no say in this, and had to wait for the corporate memos before acting on their own, and in some cases it was confusing for them not knowing how to even answer a call or brand an upcoming seminar.

My whole point originally was suggesting that no one of the Beach Boys is autonomous in any of these naming issues, despite actions that suggest otherwise, and I brought it up because it still felt like some either thought or were suggesting that Mike had more control over the name than any other member, and under the BRI license agreements, I don't believe that is or ever was the case. Mike does not own or control the name, he pays for the license just as any franchisee would, along with the conditions.

I guess what also inspired it was someone had mentioned the mid-2000's lawsuit around the CD/magazine giveaway of a Smile track that the suit claimed had some effects on the Beach Boys brand name or image, and I was trying to rationalize how something like that could even be drawn up as a valid case based on the BRI ownership details.

Again, I'll gladly and humbly stand corrected!

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTcDjXqBVmHWuzBOO510iIbQLai1jt2Zs7JTYg1cmeNrmvKnXFy_w)

Gotta respectfully disagree with you there. I find the posts that "tease" to be one of the key reasons that there is so much inane bickering on this board. If people don't want their sources to dry up then they should not jump into these conversations in the first place.

Paul J B -- you make an excellent point.

Moving forward . . .

1. What's everybody's dream tracklisting for Reverberation?

2. More fictional sketches about Brian and Jeff driving to eat food, please.

 :lol

Think you're misremembering the gastric bypass he had some ten years ago. To my knowledge he's not had heart surgery. That was Bruce.

Very fair point... but when someone (no names, no pack drill) is posting what can only be described as luminous, accelerated bollocks, it can be hard not to, ah, "correct" them.  ;D

" luminous, accelerated bollocks" is that anything like a diaphanous moiety???   8)

3. Your statements about F/U to Melinda certainly imply that Melinda calls the shots or something. Care to clarify? If that's the case it's a little interesting because others here who seem to know things contradict that premise to a fault.

The same, only left-handed and blue, not yellow.

I don’t think it implies she “calls the shots”, but rather that she is involved in the business organization in some capacity, as apparently other spouses are in some cases, either directly or indirectly.

Thanks for clearing that up. So Mike Love and Jeff Foskett directed a big FU to somebody involved in the business organization in some capacity. Got it.

One of the more, to me, disturbing things that has surfaced in this thread , unstated but certainly alluded to , is the underlying idea that Brian is not capable of touring at all without some kind of massive care giving; almost like he is an invalid ; that he requires a "caretaker".  This is not only grossly unfair but it is patently not true. To me , a "caretaker" is required when someone is physically incapable of helping themselves ; or are incapacitated.

Brian absolutely requires a "right hand man" , as he calls it , on the road, that is indisputable. Jeff has filled that role now for several years; prior to that I think Mark London did it for a tour, Bo Cheung did it for a few tours, Sharkey did it for a few tours; Jerry Weiss did it for a few years; the entire "Pet Sounds" tour and "SMiLE" tour worldwide;  and I am certain David Leaf did it for a few dates in the first year or two.  I did it for several dates early on to "pinch hit" where needed; additionally I have had the ability to meet up with Brian all over the world; Sydney, Melbourne, Tokyo, Osaka, London, Brussels, Paris , Amsterdam to name some of the places ; you get the drift.

Being the "right hand man" entails tons of responsibility. There are schedules to meet; radio interviews, tv interviews , newspaper interviews; there is sound check ; there is lobby call ; the normal stuff that you deal with when working with Brian.  You are not a caretaker in this role ; you are essentially a Personal Assistant. As a part of the PA's role with Brian is to ensure he takes his meds....but he is usually more on top of it than you are . You give him briefings on what the schedule is for the upcoming day; he self schedules his excercise walks and piano playing around that schedule, and you try and not run up the largest room service bill in history.  The PA travels First Class with Brian , stays in a huge suite in usually a 5 star hotel with Brian; fields all the phone calls , as he is the central point of contact. And yes; you will get several calls a day from Melinda Wilson checking in ; why the hell wouldnt you; he's her husband FFS ?  

The point is , being Brian's PA is probably not much different from being any other high profile individual's PA; with the caveat that  you are dealing with Brian's specific health issues. It is not the easiest job , but it is not like you are on a slave ship rowing like Ben Hur with an orator pounding out the cadence, for God's sake. For Jeff being the "right hand man" though, it was a whole different genre as he had to also be on stage every night ; had to make sure his voice was ok every night; on top of all of it; essentially; he had the two jobs, and handled both.  Having said that, as Howie says in one of his posts, it was the role Jeff wanted ; nobody , I believe, or in my opinion forced that role on him.

I could tell on C50,  but more prominantly on the Beck tour that something was definitely "off ", but I couldn't put my finger on it; couldn't tell if it was Brian just having a bad day here and there or if there was something else bothering him.  I can speculate all these changes were perculating back then. There were rumblings back in the C50 tour, that Christian Love was leaving or thinking of leaving the M & B band; just stuff I heard at several hotel bars; I must state that I wouldn't know Christian Love from Fletcher Christian, as I have never seen M & B's band,  so overhearing this didn't mean anything to me.

Jeff switched careers, as is his perrogative. I think he fits in great with that band; based on some of the YouTube video's I have seen ; I never really base anything on youtube clips/ IPhone clips, but I know his voice really well and based on that alone, it will add depth to their band.

 I am re-reading Howie's posts very closely, and reserving judgement now until I digest it all .  

Thank you for that post, Ray...from first hand experience, the types of duties Jeff had as Brian's PA are extremely nerve-racking and time consuming; throw that in with his musical duties and that's can be an overwhelming amount of pressure. There is a reason 99% of artists having someone to do those duties for them. It is not a negative reflection of Brian to have one, at all. And I've be more concerned if Melinda was *not* calling in several times per day.

This thread has certainly taken some unexpected turns...

Jeff seemed to be perfectly respectful towards Brian in the interview so I really don`t see how anyone can claim any negativity there.

And I have no idea what relevance Al not being able to use the BBF&F name has to Jeff`s interview. All I do know is that if one person is paying 20% for the use of a trademark and another person wants to use it for nothing by adding 3 words to the end of it then that is obviously not going to be acceptable. And it wasn`t. To any of the other members of BRI.

Thank You. People that make bold statements and then don't/won't back them up hit a sore spot with me. I don't even really care why or who Jeff wants to play with. It's the principal of the way these things always play out on here that I take issue with.

Paul J P -- I wish I could help you more. You seem to have a really hard time dotting i’s and crossing t’s. I can’t do that for you. I can tell you about facts that I’ve learned, and my perception and opinion of them. To dismiss something because you can’t understand "why" has more to do with how you're wired than the idea that I’m purposely keeping a secret from you, or trying to lie to you. I suggest maybe you start to do your own research regarding the current machinations of the group. That might ease your frustration and get you the answers you need.

Sorry, Ray, I'll take the hit for using the word "Caregiver" in this thread. This may have been a slight exaggeration. In the past, I've referred to Jeff as "Brian's right hand man" and maybe shoulda stuck with that. I've never seen "Personal Assistant" applied to Jeff, though, kinda like Diane Rovell use to be in the late 60's/early 70's. And "Personal Assistant" should also be differentiated and not confused by the duties of "Personal Care Assistant" or "Personal Care Attendant (PCA)" But if that defined what Jeff's old job use to be then so be it.

Good. That would genuinely help a lot.

Mikie; I wasnt taking a shot at you , just so you know.  I mean I didnt consider Jeff Brian's PA , but rather his "right hand man "...but when I spelled out what you have to do ....well , its a PA.  I went with Brian to see McCartney at the Hollywood Bowl; I dealt exclusively with McCartney's PA when there , to set up the backstage meet and all that stuff....and essentially thats part of the PA job. Jeff wore multiple hats .

Why doesn't Brian just have a personal assistant?

Nicko 1234 -- I wish I could help you more. You seem to have a really hard time dotting i’s and crossing t’s. I can’t do that for you. I can tell you about facts that I’ve learned, and my perception and opinion of them. To dismiss something because you can’t understand "why" has more to do with how you're wired than the idea that I’m purposely keeping a secret from you, or trying to lie to you. I suggest maybe you start to do your own research regarding the current machinations of the group. That might ease your frustration and get you the answers you need.

Most threads do! Especially when they're even remotely related to the end of the C50 or after an interview with a band member. NOTHING is taken at face value. There always has to be an underlying factor, an untruth, an alternate motive, somebody's fault, something misconstrued, details left out, or more variables added to make it a major production issue. It never fails. This board always strives to establish the root cause of an issue even though it may not be necessary. Sometimes I think there's a bunch of frustrated lawyer wanna-be's posting on this board. Is that a bad thing? You make the call.  :-D

I think he has in the past, and may have one now...in Jeff's case, to me it seems to have been the fact that Brian felt comfortable was a key point. Rather than bring in anyone else, why not use what's already there, with someone Brian feels at ease with?  That's my take on it, anyway.

Guilty as charged! Wannabe.  ;D

The reason I sometimes post as I do comes from discussions in the past where it felt like every single minute detail had to be present in certain posts or else 1. Someone would call out the minute detail that was missed, or 2. The missing of that detail would open up the door to discredit or cast doubt on the other 999 details that were just posted.

So, in some cases it is best to cover all the bases, so to speak.

Now, as far as the sidebars, some of them along with the related minute detailing of the issues here need to be presented because no matter how many times those facts or details have been listed here in the past, in some cases by some direct participants, or those close to those directly involved, or even those who know some of those directly involved, there is still either an unwillingness to accept or a total denial of, basically, the facts. And when those facts contradict long-held beliefs or opinions, there is too often not a mea culpa, a simple statement of "I didn't know that, thanks for clearing it up"...or anything of the sort.

Instead, there can too often be the case of some folks still trying to turn the chicken sh*t into chicken salad, in terms of pushing opinion after opinion that can or had already been challenged if not dismissed by the facts.

So yeah, I get wordy sometimes.  :)  I also never order chicken salad from a restaurant I've never been to.

Seconded. Or to put it another way, find me any major artist or actor or any celebrity who does not have an assistant to take care of these day to day issues like scheduling, travel, and the like, if not an entire entourage of them to do these things. Hey, wasn't there a TV show on HBO that was about this same thing, I can't remember the title... ;D

Anyone who thinks Brian having any kind of assistant is unusual somehow, take a look at how Kanye, Mariah Carey, Jay Z/Beyonce, or even Beiber travel, tour, and perform, note how many staff members they have with them for even one show or trip to the club not to mention a touring schedule, and get back to us.  ;)

Also, too, and i think I've mentioned this before, but those who think Brian is being 'controlled' should take a look at Britney Spears, who is not even allowed to open her own mail, use the phone or go online without supervision per her conservatorship. THAT is being controlled.

Chicken salad :lol

Ray, I can understand why you would feel this way. But, respectfully, I'm not sure that people view Brian as an invalid, as needing massive care, or being incapacitated. Yes, we are aware of Brian's problems, and the strides he has made in dealing with them. However, while he has made tremendous improvement, he is not cured. Some - or many, actually - might feel that Brian needs a "right hand man/woman/whatever" to keep him from doing some very adverse and harmful things to himself. That is what separates Brian and/or his "right hand men" from others...not all, but most.

If Brian doesn't/didn't have a P.A. and those duties were placed on Foskett, I can understand why he might want to give the Brian camp a FU. I imagine Jeff performed these duties out of love for Brian. If I were in his place, after 15 years I'd feel like I was being used.

Sheriff;

I must say that Brian is certainly not self destructive at this stage of the game and hasn't been for decades. He no longer smokes, eschews drugs, won't even have a beer any longer (too bad !). About the only thing that I can say he has a will power issue is with food; although he has been watching it now for several months and has dropped quite a bit of weight. As far as ever being cured ; there is no cure; there is only management and life quality improvement.    

I will say what no one thus far has said.....Thank you Jeff Foskett for all the years you gave Brian, musically and personally. My best wishes to you and your family in the years to come.

I'll second that Peter, and thank Jeff as well for all the stuff he has helped with over the years. I know there are a bunch of people who were in a pub in Sydney a few years ago that will be forever grateful.

well said Peter.   I have watched Jeff over several BW's tours and actually interacted with Jeff and watched him offer direction and support as needed.   Not to say BW needed a minder but just a trusted confidant and rock of a guy at his side as he negotiated the sometimes confusing and stressful aspects of performing and touring.   I don't think for a minute JF abandoned or bailed on BW by taking another position in the BB organization.   JF may still be the biggest BB fan of all.

Yes, Mr. Reum ftw, nice sentiment. And nice gesture from Jeff, I do remember that story.

I remember a few years ago Brian saying something about enjoying 'salmon and a cold beer' or something along those lines. Has he quit completely these days?

Glad to know he's dropped some weight; as someone who also has back troubles and fluctuating weight, I know first-hand extra girth can make the back pain much worse.

Hi Ray. Thanks again for the great post. I also used the caregiver word but I guess in an uneducated way. We fans only get to see the stage Brian and to be honest, it does look a challenge. For that reason most of us assume off-stage he is pretty much the same kind of guy. Rightfully, his down time is his own and private but I guess it can create speculation among us. Please don't mistake that for anything else but concern for the big guy. Hey if he is fine and dandy skipping castle visits (you've seen one...you've seen em all!) but at peace with himself, that's all that matters.

The parts in bold, if more fans took this into consideration there would be much less of, well...whatever you want to call the assumptions and speculations about Brian and other artists/public figures that get thrown around like confetti sometimes.

It's something that most if not all of us share, the fact that we tend to act a little differently in work or professional situations than we do while having a few beers with and old friend, or simply relaxing with family. Or, we simply enter a different mental zone when we're doing things like recording music or playing a live show than we have when we're eating breakfast at home. It's a situational thing, and what gets celebrities and athletes into trouble in the Twitter/Facebook/Instagram universe is when they start using shop talk and seem to forget it's going out to several million followers on social media.

Peter, well-put indeed -- I totally agree.

Well why don`t you then?

This is a genuine question as you haven`t mentioned any facts in this thread. You`ve made statements as if they were facts but that is not the same thing. At all.

Nice for you to comment on `how I`m wired` but I would have to be suffering from bipolar disorder to immediately believe everything posted on the board as there are so many different opinions floating around (which is only to be expected). It`s not exactly asking a lot for somebody to back up their comments with...well anything at all.

I was interested in one comment that you made in this thread that does have some seemingly factual information though:


Are you still referring to the BB F&F shows here because this begs two questions...

1, Were they really only playing 200 seat venues?
2, And if the audiences were as pitiful as you are suggesting, then surely that brand name was of no worth anyway...

Shame on BRI for not being more proactive in protecting it's brand, license, and licensee.

Nicko, man.

I try to be as forthcoming and honest about stuff I know as often as I can. It can’t always be as case of “Why?!” “Oh, because A, B and C.” Read AGD’s posts about passing information and the repercussions of revealing sources and all the information one knows. I don’t come here to bullish it with the gang about fantasy LP track listings and favorite facial hair eras — just as I don’t come here to pass along fake info to boast or boost my ego. This band is a fascinating example of love and hate and shifting allegiances with both rewards and swift punishments. A lot of cruelty involved to produce something so beautiful. I think I’ve been pretty open about all I can when I can. To call me out on not doing so is uncool and incorrect. You wanna find out the truth about this band? Quit posting on a message board with a pretend name and go work with and/or for them. You not only will get all of your questions answered but you'll understand why you can't explain it in detail to a massive anonymous group of people who wanna know.

I can’t speak for Howie, but I will say that it is starting to seem as though something *else* has been going on with clamping down on how shows are billed/advertised. Much more recently than the “BBFF” stuff from 15 years ago.

We’re seeing strong implications, based on a few Al interviews and some other reports from the last year or so, that someone is contesting or at least inquiring or warning, or something, how Brian and Al’s shows have been advertised, and perhaps other Al gigs. We really don’t have visibility to everything that might be going on behind the scenes. We really only have visibility to when actual lawsuits are filed that become public record. But if lawyers are sending letters warning against billing shows certain ways, threatening potential lawsuits, we never get to see that.

It’s sounding like Brian and Al may have been warned off from emphasizing being “Beach Boys” in advertising their shows. As we’ve discussed in the past, it’s a VERY grey area when it comes to billing and advertising shows. Neither the “Brian and Al” shows (often if not usually sold as simply “Brian Wilson” shows) nor Al’s off-shoot shows use the “Beach Boys” in their band names.

I think Howie’s point *may* have been that, in a scenario where Al Jardine plays a solo gig as “Al Jardine’s Endless Summer Band” or whatever, and in press materials it mentions that he is an original Beach Boy, and he’s playing a street fair with a few hundred people watching, and he continues to get “warning” letters just offering him the “helpful reminder” to not over-emphasize the “Beach Boys” aspect (it can sometimes get into the minutiae of the size of the lettering on posters, the number of times “original Beach Boy” is mentioned, etc.), then things like *that* would be much more identifiable as being about power and revenge than “protecting a trademark.” But as with most legal maneuvering, those who are inclined either to be biased towards certain factions, or have a certain political/economic/legal mindset, will always say that it’s “simply” protecting the trademark, and nothing more. The spirit of the law, or any moral measurement, doesn’t enter into play.

Well said, Hey Jude.

Let me restate a point I tried to make a few pages ago, which "Hey Jude" brought up again, and which may have gotten lost in my wordiness.  :-D

Going back to the "Family And Friends" ordeal: Yes, there was a bigger issue about paying the fee-slash-royalty, but at the same time it seemed to get into parsing words, dotting the I's and crossing the T's, and any manner of legal wrangling to try to shut Al out of using the notion that he in fact was and is an original Beach Boys band member in order to tour.

The notion that Al's bookings were in some way going to cause confusion among fans, if not diminish or affect the image of the "trademark" *still* sounds absurd to me over a decade later. And in retrospect, it still sounds more vindictive and more of a show of force or some perceived "power" than it seems to be a genuine legal concern or a notion of guarding the legacy.

It felt like the efforts were designed to stick it to Al and almost strip him of his status as a Beach Boy, no matter the quality of the shows or the way they were being billed. The fact that the legal ins and outs of it had Al basically having to file claims against himself as a member of BRI in order to move forward was another irony in a pathetic situation.

The whole thing did in fact feel like a power grab, still does.

Fine print is a big matter for consumer law and that letter might actually prevent litigation.  Say a telecom advertises a "free cell phone" but has a fine print disclaimer, it is sort of deceptive.  Is it free? Many companies have lost their shirts engaging in this.  

Is it the real Beach Boys? Well, they ARE Beach Boys but it isn't a Beach Boys show.  And, so it could be construed as standard practice to make sure everyone is on the same page.  Most consumers would know that much about the actual members of the BB's but when they see "Beach Boy" in large enough print, there can be confusion in the market place.  

It shouldn't be construed as threatening.  And, if, for example, Mike was recording music with the Touring Band, and calling it The Beach Boys, he might get the same kind of letter, because The Beach Boys lineup is a distinct class of individuals that might include members of the Touring Band, but others who are not actively touring.  So, it cuts both ways.  

I'd like to know where the 200 seat venues are so I can go.   :lol

And, thanks to Ray Lawlor for his excellent job description.  Makes perfect sense for a "detail" person to be with any entertainer to free them up for what they do best!

As I said:

But as with most legal maneuvering, those who are inclined either to be biased towards certain factions, or have a certain political/economic/legal mindset, will always say that it’s “simply” protecting the trademark, and nothing more. The spirit of the law, or any moral measurement, doesn’t enter into play.

The entities are set up "in writing" to "make money."  It is the "rough and tumble" of the Music Industry. 

It has little to do with factions.  And it isn't "maneuvering" as I see it, I think very objectively.  It is merely enumerating the rules of the road. 

The issue of releasing a Beach Boys album in all this is related, but at the same time it's something of a red herring too, because - unless I'm wrong - one of the conditions that I think both labels who would release such an album and fans who would buy such an album is that Brian Wilson be involved in making that record. For what I believe has been the case for nearly every recording contract the Boys have had with a major label going back to the Warner/Reprise negotiations around 1970, Brian's involvement has been a condition of those contracts. I think the only album where that wasn't a requirement and where Brian specifically was not involved in recording the new songs was Summer In Paradise, and that is still one of the biggest stiffs in the band's history.

TWGMTR would not have come out on Capitol without Brian, so adding in a scenario of a "Beach Boys" album project without him involved, even forgetting about all of the legal issues behind doing so, is a scenario that likely wouldn't happen perhaps even if it could.

And, just opinion here, if the legal maneuvers could somehow open the door for a "Beach Boys" album that deliberately or obviously does not include Brian's contributions, the fans would more than likely reject it out of hand.

This is exactly how I would argue it as well if I were Mike Love’s legal team, and how I would answer questions about these issues if I were Mike Love. I mean that seriously. I wouldn’t fault a legal team being employed for this purpose to make these arguments.

But that has little to do with discussing the *possibility* or *probability* of how revenge and ugliness and politics and factions can inform and motivate legal action.

Just reading the publicly-available court documents (talking about ALL of them, not any one suit or subset of members), they often DRIP with bruised egos, pettiness, and revenge, and that’s the actual stuff they put in writing! That’s not even getting into what could possibly be rolling around in their heads, or what is discussed with legal teams behind closed doors.

Yes, I’ve seen many discussions between clients and legal counsel involving civil actions. To suggest potential (or actual) civil actions taken to protect trademarks are a totally objective process that involves no revenge or pettiness and simply involves a textbook defense of a trademark is laughable.  

One could only hope that if you were on Brian's legal team that it would be objective, fact-driven and specific.

And represent his position zealously.   That is the job of the lawyer.

I can completely understand all of that and my comments now are meant to be constructive and positive and I hope they will all be taken in the spirit they are intended.

Now in this thread you have given many very strongly worded opinions on a couple of issues and have painted things in a very black and white way. Mike and Jeff are both entirely consumed by vengeance, Scott Totten rescued Mike`s reputation (presumably because the touring band was in such a poor shape before that under Chris Farmer), Al has been forced to perform at pitiful venues in front of one man and his dog etc.

Now obviously in your profession I am sure that you come across plenty of info and of course you can`t post it all on a message board. But I personally find that these very black and white statements very difficult to accept as 100% `facts` because life is all about shades of grey. Even if they are all 99.9% true then they are still not facts...

Take the Al/BB F&F situation for example. Now your first post about that seemed to come from nowhere in this thread and was obviously very emotive. Now I should say that Al, if push comes to shove, is probably my favourite of the remaining Beach Boys. I really wanted him to be successful after 1998 and I was even one of he hardy few who joined his fan club and still have the membership card in the drawer somewhere to prove it! Now was Mike motivated partly by power and revenge? I have no doubt that he was. His feelings about Al at that time are well known.

But was it also right that Al was banned from touring using the BB F&F name? Yeah, I think undeniably it was. The judges (and appeal judges) all thought so and Al really didn`t have a leg to stand on. The fact that the other members of BRI didn`t vote to let him use the name indicates that this wasn`t solely a revenge thing. Shades of grey...

As for the Jeff/Melinda thing. I can completely believe that this could be one of Jeff`s motivations. But you have implied that revenge is by far his primary motivating factor and that he is devoting months of his year doing a job in order to stick it to her. Now this is more difficult to simply take as a `fact` and as it paints both Jeff and Melinda in a very poor light it wouldn`t really feel right to do so unquestioningly. Shades of grey again...

I hope that makes sense and, as mentioned previously, is meant with the utmost respect.

That`s entirely understandable but it is obviously a different issue from the BB F&F affair. A connected one certainly but nothing like as important.

Possibly but I doubt whether most people are that black or white about things.

I am sure there are plenty of people who can say:

`Al not being able to tour as BB F&F wasn`t only about power and revenge`.

Who can also say:

`Power and revenge were involved to some extent`.

I think we could all benefit from taking a step back and trying to see this situation from all angles.

I think Mike's position is pretty solid and consistent. I think it's pretty clear Mike does genuinely believe he is protecting the 'brand' -- i.e., the commercial reputation of 'The Beach Boys' being presented in a certain way (being particular about set lists, etc.). Whether we personally agree with how he presents the brand or not is another issue I'd say. But he has been given the right to make these decisions, and I think he takes them seriously.

There are laws regarding 'public confusion'. I saw an Al show around 2002, and it was essentially being billed as 'The Beach Boys' for all intents and purposes. Yes, that wasn't the 'official' moniker, but people tend to get these things muddied up pretty easily. I don't think it's out of line for Mike's or the group's legal team to try to put a stop to it. It would be pretty easy to see how this could affect bookings and revenues if 'The Beach Boys' came to town just after some other variation of 'The Beach Boys' had just played.

Let's face it, there are two 'Beach Boys': The Sunkist commercial, fun-in-the-sun Beach-Ball version, and the 'Pet Sounds'/serious art version. Mike represents the former, and Brian represents the latter. Unfortunately, Al is generally only a supporting player in either version (in the public's view ... in my mind, he's the group's secret weapan, and absolutely essential to their authentic sound). Mike's version is way more popular and recognizable, no matter how many smart and hip people name check 'Pet Sounds' and call it the best record of all time. I think Mike has come a long way in appreciating the artistic version in his presentation. C50 brought it all together in a beautiful way.

There's no denying that Al got shafted after Carl died, and 'The Beach Boys' as a brand took a huge hit. But I think we're being one-dimensional to say that it's Mike's fault and there weren't interpersonal dynamics that lead to the situation becoming what it was.

I would love nothing more than the group to reunite and get back together. And, I think they will at some point. I don't think things are as tense between the actual members as people make them out to be. Mike has invited both David and Al to play shows with 'The Beach Boys'. Who knows if Brian has been invited?

Maybe it is indeed in Mike's nature to control his environment. I don't doubt it at all. Lots of people are like that (I've mentioned the Enneagram before, and I believe Mike is a type 8 ... it goes a long way in understanding where people are coming from ... their motivations and fears). That doesn't mean that he's not willing to compromise and work something out with the others ... I mean, C50 came together in the first place, and that seemed so unlikely based on the 'conventional wisdom' of the time.

Based on everything I've read, it seems like Mike is concerned about Brian and cares about him ... and this factored into whatever decisions he's made with regarding to ending C50. I don't think Mike is going to sling too much $hit in the media. There are probably many other things he could say that would make his position stronger, but he's holding it back. I think it's silly of us to paint this picture as a black & white good guy/bad guy thing. Surely, there are egos involved ... and sure, it's probably much easier for Mike to go back to what he's always done. But that doesn't mean that ego is the only reason or even the chief reason.

Well said, Nicko1234.

It goes without saying that a lawyer has to do everything they can for their client. I’m not suggesting that a law firm hired by Mike or BRI should just say “Nah, Al’s a kindly old man. Leave him alone.”

We’re not talking about what various law firms and legal counsel should do. We’re talking about what motivates a client to direct a legal team to take any action in the first place. As I said, I’ve seen these discussions first-hand. I’ve seen well-intentioned, valid cases, and totally bats**t-insane cases right out of a movie where a client basically snags their lawyer and tells them to “go after” whomever pissed them off, and to do so completely unwarranted, with the sole purpose to hurt the person they’re going after, often with the tacit understanding that they would NOT win a case if they took it to court.

Laywers can indeed be evil geniuses. I’ve known lawyers who could sit down right now and stake a case for Ringo Starr suing Mike Love for using the Beach Boys name, and actually make it plausible. It’s even easier to BS when you’re just writing a “heart attack letter” rather than actually filing a suit.

But I think it’s much more recent potential issues regarding billing of shows that is informing Al’s (and others’) recent comments about being able to use the BB name.

I don't know if I am following anymore but if we are talking about Al, according to court paper, Al made agreements and then broke them and operated without a license. So who was taking the low ground again?

Going back to what I wrote earlier, Mike may think he has been given the "right" or even the power to make these decisions by paying for the license to tour with the name, but from what I think we know of the license agreements, he does not. It's a BRI decision. Mike calls the shots within his own band, regarding day to day affairs and other matters, but when it comes to the brand itself, it's a BRI ownership and therefore a BRI call on the bigger issues.

An issue for me and perhaps others is that Mike may sometimes come off as trying to be the standard-bearer or the steward of the "Beach Boys" brand or legacy, with not much of a legal basis for being able to claim such a role if one even exists. Because, again quite simply, he owns no more of that name than Brian, Al, or the surviving Wilson families who have a board vote. Therefore, he can make no more of a major decision or impact on that brand or the legacy, in a legal or business sense, than any of those other parties who sit on the board.

He has say over his band which tours as the Beach Boys. To suggest that carries over into power to make decisions over who can do what within the Beach Boys organization is simply wrong, as he is no more or less a member of the BRI decision-making board than anyone else on that board.

The power comes from the vote on the BRI board, which in some cases one vote could have *huge* implications for the direction of the band's legacy/name and individual band members on that board.

That's the power. Personal lawsuits and legal wranglings aside, of course.

Who suggested it was any other way? It seems to me all of them are very well aware of BRI's power, they all gave it those powers.

I think the BBFF issue was simply raised at some point as a potential example of motivations behind legal actions.

But no, we're not talking about any of that so much as potential recent actions or potential action concerning how Brian and/or Al have recently billed shows.

That you think Al was the villain in 1999 doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what may be going on now.

What legal actions are there currently then?

By legal action (or potential legal action), I mean anything as seemingly innocuous as a letter or phone call from legal counsel warning against something or offering a “friendly reminder.” Al’s recent comments about being “under suspicion” about using the BB name in some form do not, I believe, refer to the BBFF debacle from 15 years ago.

*Obviously*, we don’t have more information to chew on just yet. But I don’t think it needs to keep coming back to the BBFF discussion; I don’t believe it has anything to do with what Al was talking about in that interview.

I responded to Donny's post that suggested Mike believes he is protecting and carrying the legacy of the brand, which I agree he comes off that way sometimes in interviews and whatnot.

But what I challenged directly is the notion that he was given the power to take on that role, which as I outlined he was not. That power is still held by BRI as a board, not by any one individual, and the real power exists where one board member can vote a certain way which could have a major effect on the direction of both the band, the name, and individual members and their activities.

To suggest Mike was given power over the "brand" or legacy beyond calling the shots on day to day issues within his band because he pays the license fee to use the brand name on tour doesn't seem to be accurate, that's all.

Right ... I mean, 'he has been given the right' in the sense of he has been given the authority to perform concerts as 'The Beach Boys', and make set lists, decide where to play shows, etc., etc. My basic point being that I think he does genuinely feel a responsibility toward the 'brand' ... I mean, we may not think John Stamos helps the group's reputation, but in Mike's eyes, he probably thinks it does. I'm talking strictly about the concerts, not recordings or other types of affairs.

Was Mike Love the band member that hatched the idea of going on tour with the Maharish in the late 1960's or early 1970's?

I guess I think that Mike sort of was given this 'right' in some ways ... not legally per se, but it may have been implied in a sense. I would venture to say that Carl's estate and Brian felt that Mike could best represent 'The Beach Boys' as a brand in concert. Maybe Al even felt this way for a moment in time.

In any case, my point was that I think Mike genuinely believes he is protecting the brand and the legacy.

Obviously, the events in 1998 that lead to Mike taking over the touring group are out of date for today's situation. And you could certainly make an argument that Mike is being selfish and opportunistic to continue with this arrangement when the option for a more legit Beach Boys group is on the table. But I suspect it's not that simple ... maybe Mike is concerned that Brian doesn't really want to tour, and maybe Al is hard to work with. I don't know, and I don't think many of us do. That's why I think it's important to at least think about alternate scenarios.

Donny: I agree, it comes down to the live shows and related activities. At the same time, I believe there exists an even larger decision-making "power" through BRI over those same issues, which I think was a factor when the original agreements were drawn up. I believe a board vote could effectively strip the "license" from whomever is holding it if it is found that something as basic as the content of the setlists or their presentation is not representing the brand in a positive way. I could be wrong.

I think one thing to consider might be the possible politics involved in all of this. If BRI is a corporate board that relies on votes to make the big decisions (and the little ones)...if we could assume without knowing directly that BRI is structured and run like most corporate boards, business structures small or large, and even political structures like the House or Senate, before a vote there are any number of power grabs, deals, promises, etc. The "I'll give you this if you vote for this" kind of scenarios that involve what is basically offering a vote in exchange for something in return.

And most of that is pretty much a case of throwing power in someone's favor or against them by way of a yes or no vote. That's where the politicking and insider deals lead into the power of a single vote, yes or no.

The contrived or scripted alliances of a TV show like "Survivor" or "Big Brother" played with real money and people's futures, in other words.  :)  Vote with me, I'll have your back.

Evil comes in many shapes, sizes and occupations.  And the legal profession has it's share of evil geniuses.

That said, there are safeguards such as Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civl Procedure, and I'll paraphrase.  You can find it on law.cornell.edu
Rule 11(b)
An attorney signing a pleading, written motion or other paper - whether by signing, filing, submitting or later advocating it - an attorney or other unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
...
And sanctions under (c) in general.  If after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that has violated the rule or is responsible for the violation...

In other words claims are supposed to be fact-driven and not filed for improper purposes.  

Will some lawyers file frivolous and bad faith claims? Ya, and at their own peril.  

As our moderator GF2002 notes, the voting members of BRI appear to run the show.  

There's also the very real possibility that money wins at the end of the day. Brian, Al, and Carl's family make money when Mike tours. Mike tours a lot more and plays larger venues than Brian or Al alone ... or even Brian, Al and David together. An argument could be made that any conflicting tours or shows occurring in the same region cut into BRI's profits from Mike's shows. Mike might even make more money for BRI than the C50 tour did. Since the Beach Boys are a corporate entity, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if they behaved like one!

I can only assume they behave like one too!  :lol

And with that consider all of the in-fighting, backroom deals, power grabs, backstabbing, and politics in general that go into that structure.

All this came from a group of guys singing in a garage In 1961. :-\

Yeah, that depresses the sh*t out of me.

Watch out Billy, your daughter could turn into a music diva. ;D

There is no way that Brian and Al make anywhere near the amount of money from Mike's touring that they made doing ht C50 shows. It's easy to imagine, however, that Mike made somewhat less or the same.

Think of it this way. Some back-of-the-envelope calculations forthcoming, and these are conjured-from-thin-air numbers. Let's imagine that Mike plays 100 shows a year and nets, let's say, $70,000 for each show after expenses. (We know from the recent article that a BB show costs around $100,000) That's $7 million in touring net profits each year. If he then pays BRI a set percentage of those profits, say 15 percent, that's a bit over $1 million paid out each year. That's then split four ways for the BRI shareholders, which would mean that Brian, Al, Carl's estate, and Mike receive a quarter-million apiece.

Given the size of these guy's bank accounts overall, I can't imagine that modern-day Al or Brian are motivated by financial concerns in letting Mike continue to tour. In 1998, though, a solo-oriented Brian may well have felt that Mike would do the best job of keeping the Beach Boys brand going.

:lol She kind of already is

Here's the thing of it though...If they were billed as "Mike Love and Bruce Johnston of the Beach Boys" they'd play far smaller venues, and probably have more trouble booking shows. Conversely, if BAD were able to tour as the BBs, they could play larger shows and would certainly see better ticket sales than they do as "BAD". We definitively know that as the full lineup they'd have no problem playing much larger venues, which goes to a bigger point: Does anyone question that C50 likely did far more for album sales, DVD sales, and merch sales than Mike's BBs do? So, while Mike's tour may be more profitable as a touring entity, C50 probably made BRI significantly more money.

Think even bigger picture...Instead of talking about the recent reissues, we've got interviews talking about Wilson drug problems, legalities of how people can bill themselves and the general fallout of C50. Shouldn't "50 years of Fun, Fun, Fun" coincide with some larger promotion from BRI? Special digital releases? 7" reissues? Wouldn't it be great if the band did full album performances of the new albums getting the vinyl reissue treatment currently? These guys leave so much money on the table, let alone opportunity for artistic expression...

Clay; I think you are pretty damn close to right on the money with those figures; the notion that Brian and Al are sitting home getting rich (more rich)  off Mike's touring revenues is ridiculous. Now , for me , it would be a grand slam , but I have written , arranged and produced exactly zero records.

I disagree where Mike made somewhat less or the same as his normal touring year. It is my opinion, and its just an opinion, I think, based on logic, that Mike made more , while working way less, and in that process, helped elevate the trademark " The Beach Boys" to a status it had not seen for years. You had larger venues, significantly higher ticket prices , VIP packages, swag, an Executive Producer credit for TWGMTR; how could he not have made more  ? The higher cost of a larger band ?  I doubt it.

just a question or two about BRI, for anyone that has the knowledge; 

 The $$ comes in from Mike's touring. Is there any other $$ that goes to BRI directly from other sources? 

  Someone has to handle the $$ that comes in, so I presume there is at least some staff, other than the four owner/members?  Who are they, how much are they paid, and do they perform any other duties besides splitting/sending the payments? 

  I'm guessing that BRI pays for the work that Alan/Mark/whomever  perform as deals with their vaults and unreleased music, so that this is also an expense coming out of the touring royalties? 

I don't have any specifics, but I'm sure there are plenty of overhead costs and other streams of revenue.

Licensed merchandise brings in something I'm sure. Licensing out recording masters that they own (most post-1969 stuff). There are surely other streams of revenue, although I would guess far less than other bands like the Beatles whose merchandising along is a huge juggernaut.

There are also plenty of costs. Paying lawyers, accountants, agents, managers, etc.

We don't know how the profits are paid out to the shareholders. But as I've mentioned before, I would guess it's not as simple as Mike's tour pays BRI the licensing fee, and then they immediately split that four ways and cut checks to each of them. I would imagine all of that income gets funneled into BRI and then they have all of the overhead costs, then all their income, and they would have some method to redistribute that income in whatever way the corporation has set up.

So yeah, we don't know how much Brian or Al or any shareholders make from the licensed tour, and we don't know how much of that licensing fee ends up getting to them, or when or how they get that money.

Hi Ray, I'd say the difference is that the absence of the smattering of corporate or private gigs lessened his income for 2012. Those shows can often result in bigger pay days than even the prestigious public venues, and I don't think the C50 BB's played a single one. I think Mike's BB's have played quite a few since returning to the prior system. Correct me if you have info that refutes my assumption.

Mike sounds like quite the mercenary when it comes to touring.

What's not been mentioned is the revenue generated from Mike's sales of high end cutlery for the discerning single man, that he sells out of the back of the tour bus.

All the cutlery profits are plowed back into furniture.

I think it`s been shown that the calculations are very different. Mike pays 20% for example (not 15%). And he doesn`t pay that percentage on the profits according to all sources.

I`m not sure that Mike worked `way less` in 2012 as well. Fewer gigs (though not that many fewer) but a heck of a lot more promotional stuff and TV work than he would normally do.

I'm guessing they also get somewhere between a 60-70 percent markup on food and beverages sold at Club Kokomo.  ;D

No matter how anyone tries to slice it, the amount of attention, prestige, and good press that followed the band up to September 2012 was the best and the most attention I'd argue they had received as a band in many years. I'm curious how that translated into back-catalog sales of their old albums, whether through downloads or even hard-copy discs and albums. Add in souvenirs, a slice of the concessions at those large venues, the extra money through the VIP and meet/greet packages, and a general level of wider interest in the band itself as a major touring act than had been the case up to 2012.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't C50 deemed one of the most successful tours of 2012, or at least placed higher than many expected in the end of year totals for revenue and sales?

If they were not successful, and not in demand, there would not have been calls to extend the tour even more than they did and add some large and well-known venues to that extension. Shame it didn't happen.

You also can't put a price on good publicity and great reviews, all of that translates into more areas of revenue as interest builds among new and old fans. And the new album did pretty well too no matter what Mike thought of it in retrospect, it cracked the top 5.

I'd say as a whole, 2012 via C50 was the best year financially and in terms of prestige and praise (and respect) that this band had seen in many years.

It's of course impossible to know and difficult to even guess when it comes to these finances.

We don't even know, for instance, what the profit structure was on C50. The backing band were salary surely. Probably Bruce and Dave as well. Brian and Mike (and Joe Thomas) were the "50 Big Ones Productions" running the tour. But then what about Al? Was he salaried, or did he get a cut, since he is the only other member who is a BRI shareholder? If he did get a cut, was an equal cut to Brian and Mike? Who knows?

What we can guess at is that C50 may not have yielded Mike personally a substantially larger amount of money to make all of the other hassles (not having full autonomy, working with largely a different band, having to share the spotlight, etc.) worth it.

I would guess that while the "150 to 175 shows per year" figure occasionally thrown out in the past is off, Mike could easily normally be doing well over 100 shows per year including those corporate shows Jon Stebbins mentioned. And he's right; those shows can sometimes have a much larger payout. It's probably why over the years he would sometimes use his offshoot "California Beach Band/Endless Summer Beach Band" bands for corporate gigs. Perhaps those shows would have a smaller guarantee because it's not "The Beach Boys", but it would pay out more considering no money would be paid out to BRI (or Bruce or other BB's usually).

Also keep in mind that if we're looking at the calendar year of 2012, Mike did supplement C50 with at least some of his own gigs later in the year.

Yeh, it really was like a dream come true. I really hope they can get it together and reunite again somehow. 2012 was a magical year.

While the finances are hard to determine, there's NO QUESTION that the group, ALL of the group, was getting the best (and positive) press and reviews, especially for the live show, that they had received in ages.

As I've said before, ironically it was Mike who was getting by far the biggest uptick in positive feelings and reviews from both the press and the normally jaded, cynical fans. I still wonder if he knows how many cynical fans had they heart warmed by the idea that Mike went for the reunion. SO MUCH negative crap from the past from fans was swept away in light of seeing the guys all together again. Especially when it was apparent they weren't just limping on stage so the fans could say they saw all the guys on one stage, but that they were doing the BEST shows they had done since the 70's. *Without* Carl, who was/is nearly indispensable, they still pulled that off.

I have to believe Mike knows at least to some degree how many fans he re-won by doing the tour. I almost sometimes hope he *doesn't/didn't* realize it, because if he does, then it would then seem like he just doesn't care.  

back to Jeff for a moment.....

I believe Jeff is nearly approaching 60 himself....... maybe he is cutting back on 'Brian' duties and trying

to ease his own life by the 'less is more' situation... Brian may be a demanding task, but hey? when hasn't he been???

but for none of that, good or bad, why would we be here talking about him in the first place....

there may be the financial stuff also between Jeff and BriMel, who knows......

but no way on earth, does Jeff NOT like, let alone Love Brian Wilson! He is a fan!

Watch any interview with Jeff about Brian...... and you can see the honesty of this man who loves Brian.

Maybe we can see a little of each of us in him when he speaks of Brian......

oh, except, he got to be there with him....

the only difference.

Maybe its time out for some 'Jeff'..

RickB

I don't think anyone would question that Jeff loves Brian. He wouldn't have been there all those years otherwise.

Whether the "grind" got to him, it's tough to say. Obviously impossible to know. Based on the info we have and his recent interview, it seems *stress* with all the Brian PA-type stuff more than actual fatigue or the "grind" of touring/the music business may have gotten to him.

I mean, he's touring far more rigorously with Mike's band now than he probably ever has with Brian, certainly more than last year, where they did maybe 30 or so shows total?

He's almost surely already done more shows this year since he joined Mike in May than he did all of last year with Brian.

I often think most of these guys don't fully understand how magical it was for fans.

The only one of them who has spoken with a tone at all similar to how I felt as a fan is Al. He still talks about having the full band together as if it's the natural way things should be. No doubt that has to do with the fact that he has been more on the "outside" for much of the last 15 years.

I doubt whether many acts think that much about what the fans want really. In terms of demand for tickets and albums, yes. But not in terms of doing stuff because they want to make the fans happy.

Frankly, I don't think that Mike has much appreciation for a decent chunk of Beach Boys fans, because it's that very chunk of fans that has major issue with him. The hardcore Brian fans, mainly. And who can blame him, there are lots of blind haters who he would probably like to give the middle finger to. It's that age-old Beach Boys "fan divide"... there's the group of people who mainly like the early stuff (who he probably bonds with/appreciates most, I'm guessing), and the people who dig deeper into the wilderness era and beyond.

While I'm sure Mike (and the whole band) is glad to cash checks from money earned from any and all BB fans, I'd say that it makes sense that Mike, as a band member who feels that a certain element in the fanbase very specifically doesn't like him, would probably not be interested in keeping those fans happy, especially if it means making any kind of concessions to what he's accustomed to. Mike wants what he feels like is best for Mike, no matter what type of spin is put on it. I suppose one could argue that Brian wants what he feels like is best for Brian too, but I think that Brian has a much better grasp of the big picture.

And while I'm sure Mike appreciated a taste of the goodwill he began to have during C50, the interest of control was clearly of paramount importance comparatively. It's sad because it really was just a taste, and maybe he didn't realize how much goodwill it would've been (IMO)... if the reunion and good vibes between the bandmembers had continued, without turning to ugly sh*t the way it did, I think the goodwill towards Mike would have just continued to build year by year, and his reputation would have slowly continued being repaired bit by bit.

I'd wager that if Mike could snap a finger and have anything in this world (beyond the mega bucks he already has), he'd want (in this order): control of all things BBs/personal respect from his contemporaries in the rock world and media/personal goodwill from the large swath of BB fans who have issue with him.

The fact that Brian Wilson gradually over the course of the C50 tour really started to feel as though he "wanted to be a Beach Boy again" was a magical thing to have happened (and of course it had to happen gradually as the tour progressed; there was a lot of water under the bridge, and who'd have known how it would have turned out at the onset).

As fans, I think we have an appreciation for what a big deal that "Brian wants to be a Beach Boy again" concept was; that this was a rare moment that should be savored, appreciated and run with to the utmost extent of what those guys could have done together in 2012 and beyond.  I think Al appreciated it most because he been more on the outside, as you've mentioned. The man saw things in perspective.  I do wonder how much of a care Mike gave over the concept. I'm sure he cared some, but not enough.

Hi Jon;

Just got in and saw your post.

I don't have any info about any corporate or private gigs that Mike played pre C50 , during C50 or post C50. I was alluding to the 70 plus gigs that comprise C50 ; not taking any corporate or private gigs into account. 

Elliott Lott is the President of BRI and has been for about 25 years. Before that he had other positions in the BB organization.

As someone whose first language isn't English, may I ask if you mean IYO Howie Edelsons's view is correct? Which seems to be, if I get it correctly, that Jeff joined Mike's band to annoy Melinda? If I got it all wrong, I apologize.

I like to get paid for the work I do, too. Never thought that was a problem for anybody.

I agree. We talk a lot about how other people could or should sacrifice, but in our own lives most of us do all we can financially. The guy making $30k tries to make $35k; the guy at $300k goes for $350k; and the guy at $3 million goes for $3.5 million. Right or wrong, that's real. Whether someone "needs it" is irrelevant.

He most certainly doesn't care.  Mike sees the C50 tour almost as charity!  He did that for US, the fans, not for himself... which is why he's in no big hurry to do it again.  Even if he made more money on the tour, he had to take more of a backseat than he's comfortable with.  Bruce has told stories about how cheap Mike is on the road, etc. and i'm sure the way the tour was operated drove him up the wall.  He's just more content doing his smaller version of the BB's that he controls everything, then he is when a part of a much larger setup with Brian and everybody involved. 

it's always been ironic to me that people don't realize that Mike stepped way out of his comfort zone to do the C50 tour, the only reason he did that was out of love for Brian, and for the fans.  I'm dead serious about that, too. 

He got that out of his system, and now he's back to his standard default ways of doing what's comfortable for him. 

Keep in mind, as ridiculous as it may sound, that Jeff likely also loves Mike Love!  He's a superfan, he's known Mike for years, maybe he wants to work with Mike for awhile?  Jeff strikes me as a very honest, agreeable guy.  Ultimately, he also strikes me as a guy who likes touring and performing... which Brian isn't doing as much anymore.  Joining up with Mike is a good way to do what he loves and be part of the Beach Boys 'thing', and get to work a lot. 

Here's something to consider. Some of us kind of neglect all the crap that Brian and Al were directing toward Mike and his licensed band for like over a decade prior. Right or is it just me? Brian might want to be a Beach Boy again, then he would never be a Beach Boy again, his band is superior to Mike's band. Everyone remembers the Al/license incident right? Then their "Mike fired us" fiasco. Am I remembering it all wrong.

I get some of us want it to be all tidily on Mike but come on...

This might be in the wrong thread, I'm losing track.

In real life, there is no just good, just bad, heroes and villains. Only shades of grey. (referring to the Monkees' song.)

If only we all lived in the Mike is right universe, eh?

The Mike's not always wrong universe would also be acceptable, eh.

Bud Light, sweet as nectar, scattered as far as the eye can see...

We're already in that universe, as Mike is only wrong when it's referring to the Beach Boys....   

Got it.

And Your Dream Comes True

It's not just a place, it's a state of mind. We can all go there if we think happy thoughts.

(http://rlv.zcache.com/i_love_kokomo_indiana_postcard-r3d0788ed7c91417594bbf1a413eff501_vgbaq_8byvr_324.jpg)