New album project incorrectly described in online article.

[KittyKat]

The fact that Mike lost that lawsuit over a disc that was labeled as "the Beach Boys' Brian Wilson" would mean he's allowed to release an album under "the Beach Boys' Mike Love," so he would be permitted to mention that association in some way.  That Daily Mail Brian Wilson CD also included photos of the original Beach Boys on the cover, including Mike.  So, presumably Mike is legally allowed to include photos of the original Beach Boys on any CD cover, including pictures of Brian. Even without Brian being on the recording or Brian's permission. 

[ontor pertawst]

I hope he also releases that CD as a cheap freebie like the BW disc, because good luck selling more than a few hundred otherwise.

It's going to be great hearing about all his grand plans over the next two years. What a challenge to Brian, huh?

[mikeddonn]

This thread has made me go back and read the 'explosive' Goldmine interview.  Had to laugh when Mike says he hated Brian's '88 solo album as the lyrics were poor and the arrangements 'not commercial enough'.  Mike showed him with SIP. Not!  Or when talking about the writing credits on the surf songs, "it's well known Brian didn't surf".  But Mike did?!

I seriously doubt there will ever, ever be another Beach Boys album without Brian's involvement.  For all of the problems Brian has had over the years, including the lean times, he still gets things done in the studio.  Bruce has been mentioning "Going Private" since the 90s at least and we're still waiting.  Mike and Al have both released one solo album apiece.

The other thing is that people (including Mike) mention all the hits Brian and Mike wrote together and say get them back in the 'room' together.  They tried to recreate the magic together in the late 70s and it didn't work.  It wouldn't work now.  They are not 20 year old guys anymore and this is not the early/mid 60s.  Brian is continuing to do what a distinguished composer should be doing and that is moving forward, trying new things and hopefully enjoying himself in the process.

For the record, I also like Mike Love and want his touring group to come back to the UK!

[Matt H]

BW has an album deal with Capitol...

Actually, he doesn't, and hasn't since 2008. His last two albums were released by Disney and while NPP is indeed on Capitol, it was originally the 2nd Beach Boys album as per the 2012 contract.

I thought the 2nd album was the 50th concert CD.  That is interesting to know that Brian is fulfilling the Beach Boys contract.

Actually he is not. No Pier Pressure was done under a completely new contract with Capitol Records. It has zero to do with The Beach Boys.

Thanks for the clarification Ray!

[GhostyTMRS]

Considering this album is 2 to 3 years away at the very least, why is everyone immediately jumping the gun and assuming that Al and Brian won't be involved in some capacity?

As hardcore fans of these guys, we should all be aware that no one gave TWGMTR any chance of happening and , more importantly, relationships between these individual men are not nearly as frosty as the media reports (and perhaps secretly hopes) they are.

[kiwi surfer]

The fact that Mike lost that lawsuit over a disc that was labeled as "the Beach Boys' Brian Wilson" would mean he's allowed to release an album under "the Beach Boys' Mike Love," so he would be permitted to mention that association in some way.  That Daily Mail Brian Wilson CD also included photos of the original Beach Boys on the cover, including Mike.  So, presumably Mike is legally allowed to include photos of the original Beach Boys on any CD cover, including pictures of Brian. Even without Brian being on the recording or Brian's permission. 

Jurisdictional issues aside, in the highly unlikely event of a court case your scenario would be decided on its merits.

My guess is that if (and that's a big if) an album was to be released as The Beach Boys sans involvement from Brian and Alan then it would be all signed off in advance.

[ppk700]

I take one day off from reading this board, one day, and then this news drops. I know I don't post hardly ever, I'm a lurker, but if there really is a new Beach Boys album planned, and it's a legit release (not cover songs or re-recordings of old songs), I'm going to go run a lap around my block screaming to the world that there's a new Beach Boys album coming. Strangers will receive hugs and high-fives. I mean, this has to be too good to be true, right? Right??

 

[guitarfool2002]

The fact that Mike lost that lawsuit over a disc that was labeled as "the Beach Boys' Brian Wilson" would mean he's allowed to release an album under "the Beach Boys' Mike Love," so he would be permitted to mention that association in some way.  That Daily Mail Brian Wilson CD also included photos of the original Beach Boys on the cover, including Mike.  So, presumably Mike is legally allowed to include photos of the original Beach Boys on any CD cover, including pictures of Brian. Even without Brian being on the recording or Brian's permission. 

Mike's losing that lawsuit had more elements to it than the name, and the fact that the name was not specifically "The Beach Boys" was one of the points I raised to consider in comparison to the announcement of a new Beach Boys album, if it were actually to be sold as that. There are many more issues involved in those decisions, more than would warrant listing them here, but I'd suggest anyone interested should search for both the 9th Circuit Court's decision (written opinion) on denying the appeal as well as the original filing of the lawsuit with the district court, which got thrown out.

Search under "Love v. Sanctuary Records Group".

Addressing the reply above, it would be absolutely fine - I'd think - for most fans and the law/agreement covering this stuff to use "The Beach Boys' Mike Love" on a billing, no issues at all in fact it's been said in this thread. But the reason why this discussion keeps growing was the announcement that The Beach Boys would be coming out with a new album in 2017.

I think anyone who wouldn't see how much of a minefield that would be walking into by having something like that reported in an article just doesn't understand the fan base. *Especially* where rerecorded versions of the classic recordings are mentioned in the same sentence. Let's put the cards on the table, there is a difference in so many ways between labeling something a Beach Boys album versus labeling it in some way with the clarification like "The Beach Boys' Mike Love" or "The Beach Boys' Brian Wilson".

With one you're selling it as a band project, with another you're selling it as coming from a musician who was or is a member of the band but absolutely *not* the full band. That seems pretty common-sense simple to me.

Re: The photos...that is explained again in the 9th Circuit opinion, along with the other points. But the crux of that related to your reply above was mentioned as the people who assembled that free disc being advised not to use or to get permission to use any photos featuring other band members before approving the final design of the cover. Advice which, apparently, those folks did not take and instead ran the Beach Boys photos on the cover. However, the court(s) found this to be a non-issue in the case and threw out those claims specific to the photo because the package itself was manufactured, designed, and distributed only in the UK and Europe...while Mike's claim against using the photos was centered on the damages it caused to his ticket sales and the brand's image in the USA. And the specific laws cited in the suit were not applicable to those in the UK where the disc was manufactured and distributed.

I specifically mentioned the Ebay point because that was one of the basis points for trying to show the disc had a negative effect on the US market,. But since only a handful of copies ever made it to the US and not to the general public anyway, since it was only offered with the paper in Europe while the few hundred sold in the US had no disc included, and since the only buyer from Ebay who claimed to have been confused by the packaging turned out to be associated with one of the lawyers involved, it was thrown out.

That does not suggest Mike or Al or Brian could design an album release especially a wide, general commercial release from the USA outward under their own name and use the others' image or BB's band logo marketing materials without permission or other means of agreement. In the case of the Daily Mail disc, the case had more facets to it, and one of them was it was taken to court as more of a promotional or advertising item rather than a general label release, and the country of origin did also play a part since the laws of copyright and usage were different from those in the US which the case was attempting to cite.

[D409]

I have one of the above-mentioned "Mail On Sunday Good Vibrations" cd's. Checked on ebay to see if it was a collector's item. Alas, no...only worth pennies  

[luckyoldsmile]

Maybe Mike just wants a shot at doing what Brian did in 2002.

"Classics Selected by Mike Love." He picks 19 songs, and then he and his band record (or rerecord) a track as the 20th track, and release it under the Beach Boys label. "Our Life, Our Love, Our Land" gets a release!

That could maybe cover the bases of what the story suggests, and still allow it to be a Beach Boys product?

Or maybe not.

[Lee Marshall]

This really has been enlightening... ... ...and fun[ny].  GREAT reading too.  There is one question though which really hasn't been addressed and, as such, it certainly hasn't been answered...at least not until now.

I noticed that there is a time-frame suggested...2 years???ish.  Is the delay in the recording and releasing of Summer in Pair of Dice II the result of someone's nose still being on the critical list?  And for how much longer will this be the case?

[Ray Lawlor]

Actually he is not. No Pier Pressure was done under a completely new contract with Capitol Records. It has zero to do with The Beach Boys.

That's very interesting. Can you shed any more light on the circumstances around it? For example, was the NPP solo album some sort of replacement for an obviously not-gonna-happen second Beach Boys album, but (I assume) negotiated with less favorable terms to account for the solo-versus-Beach Boys name? Or for that matter, even how that would have come up in conversation that you came to know it? ("Hey, Ray, looks like the Beach Boys contract was voided because we can't deliver a second album as a group, but I'm working on a new contract anyway. Pass the ketchup.")

If you can't say anything further, that's fine as well. Your previous clarification was appreciated.

NPP is not a replacement for any BB product ; there were two albums delivered under The Beach Boys Agreement ; That's Why God Made the Radio and the live record. That fulfilled the agreement. As for how I came to know about it ; Brian called me after he got the deal ; he was happy about it. As for terms , I would never ask him , but he said he was really happy with it so that is all I needed to know.

[luckyoldsmile]

2017 ... 50th anniversary of "Smiley Smile" and "Wild Honey." Mike and band could do "Mike and Bruce Reimagine Wild Smiley."

...

I think I'd have all sorts of fun with that, actually.

[guitarfool2002]

I have one of the above-mentioned "Mail On Sunday Good Vibrations" cd's. Checked on ebay to see if it was a collector's item. Alas, no...only worth pennies  

From reading over the filing and the opinions, some of the foundation for bringing the case to court was the damage it did or could have done in the US market both to Beach Boys ticket sales at the time (which the suit tried to suggest had been lower in the US due to this disc) and to the brand/name image, yet it was shown by the manufacturing and shipping numbers that only 425 copies of the Mail On Sunday publication were ever shipped to the US for sale, and none of those 425 issues sent to the US came with the CD. The CD giveaway with the issue was limited to Europe, and even then primarily the UK and Ireland. And in the opinions, it is cited several times that the laws which would have covered it in the US market didn't apply anyway to the UK's legal system which covered this release. And beyond that, there were points thrown out because of the difference in California law versus other states, and how certain claims were filed. Which suggests a CD which was neither designed for nor actually shipped to the USA for sale or distribution could not have damaged something specific to the US market or influenced American fans buying tickets or Beach Boys albums.

It was a mess, an unnecessary mess seemingly from the beginning. That CD did cost a lot of money in legal fees and court costs, despite the low collector value...

[the captain]

Actually he is not. No Pier Pressure was done under a completely new contract with Capitol Records. It has zero to do with The Beach Boys.

That's very interesting. Can you shed any more light on the circumstances around it? For example, was the NPP solo album some sort of replacement for an obviously not-gonna-happen second Beach Boys album, but (I assume) negotiated with less favorable terms to account for the solo-versus-Beach Boys name? Or for that matter, even how that would have come up in conversation that you came to know it? ("Hey, Ray, looks like the Beach Boys contract was voided because we can't deliver a second album as a group, but I'm working on a new contract anyway. Pass the ketchup.")

If you can't say anything further, that's fine as well. Your previous clarification was appreciated.

NPP is not a replacement for any BB product ; there were two albums delivered under The Beach Boys Agreement ; That's Why God Made the Radio and the live record. That fulfilled the agreement. As for how I came to know about it ; Brian called me after he got the deal ; he was happy about it. As for terms , I would never ask him , but he said he was really happy with it so that is all I needed to know.

As always, thanks.

[Ray Lawlor]

Actually he is not. No Pier Pressure was done under a completely new contract with Capitol Records. It has zero to do with The Beach Boys.

That's very interesting. Can you shed any more light on the circumstances around it? For example, was the NPP solo album some sort of replacement for an obviously not-gonna-happen second Beach Boys album, but (I assume) negotiated with less favorable terms to account for the solo-versus-Beach Boys name? Or for that matter, even how that would have come up in conversation that you came to know it? ("Hey, Ray, looks like the Beach Boys contract was voided because we can't deliver a second album as a group, but I'm working on a new contract anyway. Pass the ketchup.")

If you can't say anything further, that's fine as well. Your previous clarification was appreciated.

NPP is not a replacement for any BB product ; there were two albums delivered under The Beach Boys Agreement ; That's Why God Made the Radio and the live record. That fulfilled the agreement. As for how I came to know about it ; Brian called me after he got the deal ; he was happy about it. As for terms , I would never ask him , but he said he was really happy with it so that is all I needed to know.

As always, thanks.

you're welcome

[bgas]

Actually he is not. No Pier Pressure was done under a completely new contract with Capitol Records. It has zero to do with The Beach Boys.

That's very interesting. Can you shed any more light on the circumstances around it? For example, was the NPP solo album some sort of replacement for an obviously not-gonna-happen second Beach Boys album, but (I assume) negotiated with less favorable terms to account for the solo-versus-Beach Boys name? Or for that matter, even how that would have come up in conversation that you came to know it? ("Hey, Ray, looks like the Beach Boys contract was voided because we can't deliver a second album as a group, but I'm working on a new contract anyway. Pass the ketchup.")

If you can't say anything further, that's fine as well. Your previous clarification was appreciated.

NPP is not a replacement for any BB product ; there were two albums delivered under The Beach Boys Agreement ; That's Why God Made the Radio and the live record. That fulfilled the agreement. As for how I came to know about it ; Brian called me after he got the deal ; he was happy about it. As for terms , I would never ask him , but he said he was really happy with it so that is all I needed to know.

OH, to be such a friend that Brian calls to talk! What a lovely thing

[Wirestone]

It may be that the BB contract included a clause that gave the label the option for another Beach Boys studio disc, or a BW solo record, with terms for either one to be negotiated later in a followup deal. So that would mean the original contract was fulfilled, but Brian was still obligated to give the label a chance to release his next record. These things are complicated, and there can be multiple ways to interpret them.

On the other hand, Capitol could have just been pleased with the performance of TWGMTR and decided to sign Brian on his own once it was clear the BBs weren't going to follow it up. That's equally as plausible given the short-term nature of the record biz these days ...

[MyDrKnowsItKeepsMeCalm]

"New renditions of older songs"

What does this mean; new renditions of other artists songs (covers) or new renditions of older Beach Boys songs?

Presenting Mike Love's new rendition of Our Prayer -- now with more accessible lyrics.

[runnersdialzero]

"New renditions of older songs"

What does this mean; new renditions of other artists songs (covers) or new renditions of older Beach Boys songs?

Presenting Mike Love's new rendition of Our Prayer -- now with more accessible lyrics.

"SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURF ON THE BEEEEEEEACH
BUUUUSHY BLONDE HAIRDOOOOO-OOOOOO..."

[the professor]

Dear Ray, are you in any position to comment on the likelihood that this idea, as Mike has set it out there, could turn into a real BB album, with all 5 together again?  If you happen to know or suspect strongly that such a thing will not happen, I would like to be put out of my misery and stop hoping.  If you are in no position to comment or to opine, than I understand, but this thread is desperate for clarity (beyond my naive hope and the cynical dismissal of other voices). Legal tussles would be set aside if they simply did a new BB album like Radio, with a new Capital contract and with a willing and loving spirit of unity. Thank you Ray,

The Professor
PS: this is not a PM; I am posting it for all to hear but address Ray for obvious reasons.

Actually he is not. No Pier Pressure was done under a completely new contract with Capitol Records. It has zero to do with The Beach Boys.

That's very interesting. Can you shed any more light on the circumstances around it? For example, was the NPP solo album some sort of replacement for an obviously not-gonna-happen second Beach Boys album, but (I assume) negotiated with less favorable terms to account for the solo-versus-Beach Boys name? Or for that matter, even how that would have come up in conversation that you came to know it? ("Hey, Ray, looks like the Beach Boys contract was voided because we can't deliver a second album as a group, but I'm working on a new contract anyway. Pass the ketchup.")

If you can't say anything further, that's fine as well. Your previous clarification was appreciated.

NPP is not a replacement for any BB product ; there were two albums delivered under The Beach Boys Agreement ; That's Why God Made the Radio and the live record. That fulfilled the agreement. As for how I came to know about it ; Brian called me after he got the deal ; he was happy about it. As for terms , I would never ask him , but he said he was really happy with it so that is all I needed to know.

As always, thanks.

you're welcome

[joshferrell]

come on guys it's obviously going to be Stars and Stripes vol2 

[Pretty Funky]

Sounds like more of a Nascar deal.

http://www.amazon.com/Bruce-Johnston-David-Salute-Nascar/dp/B000BUVKG2

[Alan Smith]

Sounds like more of a Nascar deal.

http://www.amazon.com/Bruce-Johnston-David-Salute-Nascar/dp/B000BUVKG2

Has David signed up?

[Pretty Funky]

More the fact its rerecording of old BB songs if that is the case. Who really needs them?

I'm dubious. I get all my non-official Beach Boys announcements from another source. Until Al Jardine spills the beans its a non-starter!