Why Did Al Jardine Leave the BB's?

[tpesky]

But then again, both are incredibly money-minded, so that's anyone's guess.

Who in rock and roll isn't?

[Jason]

But then again, both are incredibly money-minded, so that's anyone's guess.

Who in rock and roll isn't?

Brian Wilson. All these little birdies keep telling me.

[Carrie Marks]

It makes no sense that Bruce would be offered shares in BRI before Al unless Al just didn't want a part of the family business..

I think its pretty safe to say Al didn't turn down full partnership prior to 1973 in favor of being paid less for the same work and no real job security.

The other thing that doesn’t sit right with me about the Bruce / BRI claim (did it actually come from Bruce?) is the fact that, when David signed his settlement agreement with Capitol Records in 1971, Brian, Dennis, Carl, Mike and Al were individually and collectively known as The Beach Boys, absolved from any claims against them should David figure out the true nature of the settlement he was receiving.  No mention of Bruce Johnston.

I would think the collective “Beach Boys” would have included Bruce if, in fact, he was a partner?  I mean, Al wasn’t even a corporate member yet, and he was included in the laundry list of people David couldn’t sue for damages that occurred to him prior to 1971…so why would they leave Bruce, an alleged partner in BRI, vulnerable? 

[Eric Aniversario]

My recollection of the events as they unfolded, backed by the recollections of those close to the event, is that Al wasn't fired per se, but just chose not to carry on with Mike & Bruce (who, btw, were being billed as "America's Band featuring Mike Love of The Beach Boys" from April 9th (last show with Alan) until July 18th 1998, the day after he signed the so-called 'Love License' - the perception is that as America's band, they had trouble getting the crowds in). He stated in several interviews that without Carl, it was pointless calling themselves The Beach Boys.

This scenario would indeed appear to make the most sense...

But didn't Al sue for the right to call his post-Carl band "The Beach Boys" and didn't Al try to arrange a series of post-Carl  "Beach Boys" concerts?

No.

[RickD]

- the perception is that as America's band, they had trouble getting the crowds in).

brilliant piece of perception, that one!! I hope no one hurt their brain working that out! 

[Cam Mott]

My recollection of the events as they unfolded, backed by the recollections of those close to the event, is that Al wasn't fired per se, but just chose not to carry on with Mike & Bruce (who, btw, were being billed as "America's Band featuring Mike Love of The Beach Boys" from April 9th (last show with Alan) until July 18th 1998, the day after he signed the so-called 'Love License' - the perception is that as America's band, they had trouble getting the crowds in). He stated in several interviews that without Carl, it was pointless calling themselves The Beach Boys.

This scenario would indeed appear to make the most sense...

But didn't Al sue for the right to call his post-Carl band "The Beach Boys" and didn't Al try to arrange a series of post-Carl  "Beach Boys" concerts?

No.

No?  I'm pretty sure Al discussed the post-Carl, pre-"Love license" concerts in interview and Mike has discussed it in interview also; maybe I misunderstood. 

What did Al sue Brian, Mike and Carl's estate for then?

[Jason]

Al didn't sue Brian, Mike and Carl's estate - he sued BRI claiming breach of contract. As Andrew Doe famously put it on his website, he basically sued himself in the process.

[Cam Mott]

Al didn't sue Brian, Mike and Carl's estate - he sued BRI claiming breach of contract. As Andrew Doe famously put it on his website, he basically sued himself in the process.

Hmmm, I remember it as specifically naming Brian [and Melinda?], Mike and Carl's estate represented by a lawyer.

[Jay]

The whole Al Jardine thing has always confused me. It seems that even Al and his own son Matt can't get their story straight. Al has stated that he"quit" as a member of The Beach Boys when Carl died. Or rather, he would have quit, had he not been forced out against his will. Matt has stated that not only did Al NOT quit, but he actually wanted to change the Beach Boys setlist and start playing more less known songs.

[Surfer Joe]

A simple gap that could use filling here: Where did the Beach Boys stop, to begin with, and "America's Band" begin?  I'm going to just guess that Carl's absence invoked the one-Wilson minimum rule...? Did they need to reconstitute who the band was, legally, even while Carl was alive?

[GLarson432]

Welcome back, Joe!

[Emdeeh]

Al was still with the Beach Boys in early May 1998 for a couple of shows.

[Andrew G. Doe]

A simple gap that could use filling here: Where did the Beach Boys stop, to begin with, and "America's Band" begin?  I'm going to just guess that Carl's absence invoked the one-Wilson minimum rule...? Did they need to reconstitute who the band was, legally, even while Carl was alive?

The final gig as The Beach Boys - with Alan - was on May 9th 1998. From then on, until July 18th, they were billed as "America's Band featuring Mike Love of The Beach Boys".

The 'One Wilson' rule was revoked some years before.

[Pretty Funky]

Al was still with the Beach Boys in early May 1998 for a couple of shows.

Oh to be a fly on the wall during that period!!!

[SurfRiderHawaii]

Y'know... that's a damn good question - it's possible he means he was made a member 2nd time around then sold his share back. I'll ask him.

Let's not let this thread slip away.  Looking forward to Bruce's response as I've always been curious about this too.

[Alex]

My recollection of the events as they unfolded, backed by the recollections of those close to the event, is that Al wasn't fired per se, but just chose not to carry on with Mike & Bruce (who, btw, were being billed as "America's Band featuring Mike Love of The Beach Boys" from April 9th (last show with Alan) until July 18th 1998, the day after he signed the so-called 'Love License' - the perception is that as America's band, they had trouble getting the crowds in). He stated in several interviews that without Carl, it was pointless calling themselves The Beach Boys.

This scenario would indeed appear to make the most sense...

But didn't Al sue for the right to call his post-Carl band "The Beach Boys" and didn't Al try to arrange a series of post-Carl  "Beach Boys" concerts?

Sure it wasn't "The Beach Boys Friends and Family"?

[Sciencefriction]

The only thing I can think of is, maybe Al felt at the end of the day he stood a better chance going solo?  He pretty much is the only one left with a "good" voice.  Also, it seems like he's done fairly well for himself, he hasn't been struggling the last ten years has he?  I really don't why he would leave the Beach Boys.  It's never seemed like he was that worried about there being no Wilson's in the band.  Was he?

[Cam Mott]

My recollection of the events as they unfolded, backed by the recollections of those close to the event, is that Al wasn't fired per se, but just chose not to carry on with Mike & Bruce (who, btw, were being billed as "America's Band featuring Mike Love of The Beach Boys" from April 9th (last show with Alan) until July 18th 1998, the day after he signed the so-called 'Love License' - the perception is that as America's band, they had trouble getting the crowds in). He stated in several interviews that without Carl, it was pointless calling themselves The Beach Boys.

This scenario would indeed appear to make the most sense...

But didn't Al sue for the right to call his post-Carl band "The Beach Boys" and didn't Al try to arrange a series of post-Carl  "Beach Boys" concerts?

Sure it wasn't "The Beach Boys Friends and Family"?

Pretty sure Al helped craft the contract for he, Brian and Mike to have individual licenses to call their respective post-Carl bands The Beach Boys. The addition of Family and Friends was a distinction without a difference apparently according to the courts.

[Eric Aniversario]

My recollection of the events as they unfolded, backed by the recollections of those close to the event, is that Al wasn't fired per se, but just chose not to carry on with Mike & Bruce (who, btw, were being billed as "America's Band featuring Mike Love of The Beach Boys" from April 9th (last show with Alan) until July 18th 1998, the day after he signed the so-called 'Love License' - the perception is that as America's band, they had trouble getting the crowds in). He stated in several interviews that without Carl, it was pointless calling themselves The Beach Boys.

This scenario would indeed appear to make the most sense...

But didn't Al sue for the right to call his post-Carl band "The Beach Boys" and didn't Al try to arrange a series of post-Carl  "Beach Boys" concerts?

Sure it wasn't "The Beach Boys Friends and Family"?

Pretty sure Al helped craft the contract for he, Brian and Mike to have individual licenses to call their respective post-Carl bands The Beach Boys. The addition of Family and Friends was a distinction without a difference apparently according to the courts.

"Distinction without a difference according to the courts" doesn't change the fact that he wanted to call his band "Beach Boys Family & Friends", not "The Beach Boys".  That is why I replied "no" to your original question earlier in the thread.  It upsets me when people who seem to have something against Al try to twist things around into something they never were.

[Smilin Ed H]

You must be used to this by now.

[Eric Aniversario]

You must be used to this by now.

Accustomed to it, yes, but it still rankles my nerves.

[Cam Mott]

My recollection of the events as they unfolded, backed by the recollections of those close to the event, is that Al wasn't fired per se, but just chose not to carry on with Mike & Bruce (who, btw, were being billed as "America's Band featuring Mike Love of The Beach Boys" from April 9th (last show with Alan) until July 18th 1998, the day after he signed the so-called 'Love License' - the perception is that as America's band, they had trouble getting the crowds in). He stated in several interviews that without Carl, it was pointless calling themselves The Beach Boys.

This scenario would indeed appear to make the most sense...

But didn't Al sue for the right to call his post-Carl band "The Beach Boys" and didn't Al try to arrange a series of post-Carl  "Beach Boys" concerts?

Sure it wasn't "The Beach Boys Friends and Family"?

Pretty sure Al helped craft the contract for he, Brian and Mike to have individual licenses to call their respective post-Carl bands The Beach Boys. The addition of Family and Friends was a distinction without a difference apparently according to the courts.

"Distinction without a difference according to the courts" doesn't change the fact that he wanted to call his band "Beach Boys Family & Friends", not "The Beach Boys".  That is why I replied "no" to your original question earlier in the thread.  It upsets me when people who seem to have something against Al try to twist things around into something they never were.

It could be I don't understand or there is more to the story.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0157095p.pdf

Or maybe we disagree on who is twisting what and how.

Peace.

[urbanite]

I read the court's decision and Al does not come off very well.

[Surfer Joe]

Welcome back, Joe!

Thanks, GLarson!  It's been a rough year with some awful family stuff, but I lived though it- if you call this livin'.  Sorry to revive such an old thread for a personal thing but I really wanted to respond to such a gracious post.