The Smiley Smile Message Board

1-2 hundred million dollars. Too rushed now to link it up, but it's on Bloomberg News.

Behind a paywall, but here's a link:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-18/music-mogul-buys-beach-boys-songs-calling-band-underappreciated

Here's the full article available without a subscription:

https://www.bloombergquint.com/business/music-mogul-buys-beach-boys-songs-calling-band-underappreciated (https://www.bloombergquint.com/business/music-mogul-buys-beach-boys-songs-calling-band-underappreciated)

I had previously mentioned here how Iconic had acquired some of the Beach Boys’ publishing rights (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,27459.msg668103.html#msg668103). Great to finally get some clarification on what was going down.

That was great detective work! Yes indeed.

You read hints of it here weeks ago too:  ;)
http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,26791.msg668978.html#msg668978 (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,26791.msg668978.html#msg668978)

And it's funny how relatively little interest those discussions had at the time when it was right on the money (pun intended)

Good to know that Live in 1970 set can be considered an “official release” ;D

I'm surprised it took this long for this to finally hit the news. Now that this is public knowledge, this can hopefully help to contextualize some of the the goings-on in the recent past and going forward.

While the thread "Beach Boys Bought" actually is not too far off from what has happened, a thread re-titling might be in order. Something like "Irving Azoff/Iconic Buy Majority Interest in BRI". Azoff has not, as far as I know, purchased a 100% stake. Just a majority stake.

Rolling Stone feature:

https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/features/beach-boys-rights-sale-azoff-1129316/

Maybe a dumb question, but should we view this as a good thing? Any speculation as to what it means for future releases?

One thing that is positive with the muscle behind Irving Azoff's corporations is how the marketing of the legacy can be done perhaps with more targeted efforts to put the Beach Boys in the upper echelon of legacy acts where they belong. That's pretty much what Azoff spelled out as a goal in the article.

Gotta love Al. Correctly cites the failure of the "Beach Boys Cafe" back decades ago, then by the end of the article hopes that they might do......a Beach Boys restaurant.

And with an outside firm holding a controlling interest in BRI, there will no longer be unilateral decisions to do things like the controversial bookings Mike did last year.

Mike retains the touring license, but I guarantee you that the company controlling the name/brand will ensure those types of shows don't happen anymore.

The now-minority shareholder band members no longer are needed to decide what happens with the license if serious issues arise.

I admit, when reading the Rolling Stone article and it got to the section of the band's business failures, I laughed and thought they could have added a few paragraphs to list more of those failures. "Club Kokomo"... :lol

I don't think Azoff will allow money to be lost on bad business ideas.

Yes indeed, this new arrangement is a good thing in that regard! I felt that the BRI structure outgrew (or outlived) its status and ability to maintain the brand years ago and it was almost a constant stalemate in place with the votes.

Any time a corporate interest starts excitedly talking about "the brand" it makes about 6 million cartoon alarm sounds go off in my head, but this is... intriguing? The part about the master recordings stuck out to me. Hm.

A corporation has been handling the "brand" all along. Prior to this, it was BRI itself and its shareholders, who have historically done little to help the band's legacy or branding/merchandising/social media, etc.

This isn't some monolith corporation buying a mom-and-pop outfit. This is one corporation buying a controlling interest in another, with plans to *improve* the brand so that all parties (let's remember BRI members are still minority shareholders) reap the benefits.

Now they simply have a company who knows how to do this stuff who can make *decisions* about this stuff, and can do so *without* 60 years of politics/backbiting/disgruntled feelings, etc. informing those decisions.

This is directly related to the circular firing squad episode?

Yeah, that's true. It's just difficult to know when to be optimistic in the Beach Boys world. I'm neutrally interested to see how it plays out.

My biggest concern is what it could mean for archival releases. As Howie once said here, the vault is the future. I think he's absolutely right. But it couldn't really be worse than the way it's already been handled, could it? Those 2018 releases had essentially zero promotion, the 2019 EP had artwork that looked like it was done in PowerPoint. Then again, that 'Live in 1970' thing literally includes clips from YouTube adverts.

There has been at least one failed Broadway musical hasn't there? Around 2005 I think.

From everything I've been hearing about this situation in recent months, it's a good thing. I think the appropriate folks are in place to let Iconic know (and I think they *already* knew/know) that the archives are a huge part of the future plan.

Don't let talk of t-shirts and other merchandise be discouraging. That's all part of the plan too I'm sure, but all that stuff isn't a bad thing. Beach Boys *merchandise* has been almost *non-existent* outside of stuff being sold at concerts. I just bought a Beach Boys "1983 Tour" t-shirt from Target for $12.99. That kind of stuff isn't the be-all or end-all, but it's part of getting the band out there to people under the age of 50. If they can get a "Smile" and "Pet Sounds" shirt into Hot Topic, that's not a bad thing.

Fascinating. And i'd like to think this is the beginning of a very good thing, which the FF box will hopefully be the tip of the iceberg for.

Also, this particular quote does its very best to spread out vague blame to "members", as opposed to more realistically pointing blame more at Mike for the brand's fall from Mount Rushmore. Not completely Mike's fault by any stretch, but I think he is more responsible than anyone else in the band.

"Azoff blames decades of friction and division among members of the group for their fall from rock’s Mount Rushmore."

Anyway , let's hope Irving Azoff can help rebuild the brand, maybe he can be a modern-day Jack Rieley but with greater 21st century business smarts. I'm trying to be helpful, at least this is somebody who's talking about the brand being undervalued, and Justyn alluding to the potential for the deeper material to gain more widespread recognition.

To have a team of smart people be behind a concerted effort that can only be a positive thing, one would hope. After Mike repeatedly brought the brand down to its lowest point ever during 2020, the only place to go is up.

Correct. I'm sure Iconic is in a better position to be more successful with that type of thing now if they attempted it, although I don't think anything to do specifically with Broadway shows is likely to materialize any time soon given the shutdown on Broadway. I also don't think BB music is necessarily the best fit for the type of pop/rock music adaptations seen on Broadway.

If I had to guess, the further Azoff/Iconic explored/investigated the areas that BRI *hasn't* been exploiting *at all*, their minds were probably blown.

The Beach Boys have been running almost entire off of back catalog sales of hits compilations, and touring revenue. As I've previously mentioned, merchandising has been *minimal*.

If they can get a good archival program running continuously, I also have no problem with Iconic negotiation the rights for some Beach Boys Funko Pops or whatever, too.

So, the odds of Drip Drop being released uncensored were previously 0%. Where are we at now? -5%? Jumping up to positive 2-3%?

No question that The Beach Boys are worthy of and have the assets to mount a serious image revitalization campaign but I do wonder what kind of turnaround time they're envisioning for attaining the everyman's "Mount Rushmore" level alluded to in the article. Does pop culture need more time to change attitudes for the better toward a legacy act than a newer one coming off a sophomore slump?

What kind of new merchandising approaches might this management try? A lot of acts have added a garnish to their prestige with career spanning vinyl boxed sets in recent years. While this wouldn't necessarily get their music into new ears, the existence of such a product might at least help position them upward in a way that a standalone copies of Pet Sounds or Sounds of Summer wouldn't. I'm sure this has been considered, but even when subtracting the what to do with SIP and S&S issue, that would be such a cost prohibitive project. How low could the wholesale price possibly be?

I don't know how strongly specifically vinyl reissues of albums would factor into future plans. I'm sure it's all part of the strategy, but actually vinyl album reissues is one of the few areas that already *have* been mined in recent years.

I think the Iconic plan would be far more broad and far-reaching. I'm sure they have stats on where they think they can get. They're not trying to all of a sudden make the entire globe love "MIU Album". I would think they're going to revitalize things like the band's stagnant online/social media presence, and get more merchandise out there, get more BB music into movies and TV shows and things like that. Among many other things.

A bloated boxed set of vinyl pressings of stuff we all already own is not something on my wish list, and it wouldn't seem to be part of trying to market some *new* things. That's not to say they can't get more BB vinyl into Target or Barnes & Noble if that's a thing. But I don't think that would be a big part of any strategy.

I don't get it - is it an operating premise/assumption that the Beach Boys organization hasn't been "branding" enough for the past 40-60 years? The group started as a fortuitous merger between music and branding (selling the product of "beach" and "California"), then there was a short period where it was about music, and then back to branding.  Which in a nutshell is the reason the group is - justifiably - not respected and not seen as being on the plateau with the other great 60s acts (Beatles, Stones, Who, et al)  It's been a branding operation exclusively for at least the past 40 years, with music, at most, incidental and probably irrelevant.  So is this really about nothing more than some businessmen being excited that there's still more cash to be wrung out of this thing? The prospect of CGI Beach Boys is horrifying (did I read that right?) and totally consistent with the times we live in. Sorry to be negative.  Somebody please make the case that this is about anything more than some guys going back to the ATM again.

It's all about marketing. The kind of pitch an organization like Iconic could have used may have included references to other legacy acts who haven't released a new album of note in 40 years getting reintroduced into the pop culture lexicon and becoming almost as current as so-called "modern" artists with their 100 million views in a week YouTube stats.

I'll say one band name and if you consider where this band (and brand) was 10 years ago versus where they have been in the past 2-3 years up to the present, I think the goals of what Azoff wants to bring to the process become very clear.

Queen.

Consider how greatly the band Queen's legacy and visibility has grown over the past few years, and the winning pitch to other bands could be "we'll do that for you." Apart from Queen's music, which is of course the draw and the main reason why people are still talking about them, the way Queen got back into the public's eyes and ears and has them now as one of the most popular legacy bands in terms of downloads/streams and interest overall whereas 10 years ago they weren't is a testament to some amazing marketing and placement strategies that reached and resonated with new generations of listeners.

If you start hearing original Beach Boys tracks in certain outlets, if you start seeing Pet Sounds cover T-shirts being sold at Hot Topic and being worn by 17 year olds, if you start seeing a more modernized, streamlined approach to marketing *The Beach Boys* beyond seeing blurbs for Mike's live shows in your local paper's "Weekender" section, that's a good thing.

The music is there waiting to be discovered by new audiences, and I have hopes that the Azoff group will know how to get it to them in a more skillful and less clumsy way (also avoiding silly sideline sh*t like kerfuffles over trophy hunting gigs and the like) and get new generations talking about The Beach Boys like those same audiences talk about Queen.

It's possible.

Has the Beach Boys name ever been used to sponsor or promote pro surfing events? It might not be the most popular/mainstream sport but seems like a back to basics, low hanging fruit approach for a Beach Boys youth culture outreach effort. Not sure how much their music means to the surfers of today but maybe the surfers of tomorrow? What do I know? Not suggesting they just try this and call it a day.

I’m also going to be negative here, sorry everyone. I don’t know as much as a lot of members here do, but what I do know is that Irving Azoff has too many artists already that are well-loved and he doesn’t do enough with them as it is. The only news about Journey recently is the band splitting in two - sound familiar? Don Henley and Irving Azoff refuse to put out any archival Eagles material, which would be a huge chunk of money for them. Bon Jovi hasn’t done anything of note after 2015/6 other than the reunion with Sambora at the R&RHOF. I had no problem with Mike selling some of his publishing to them, but the entire brand? That’s too risky in my opinion. Sure, the band mismanages everything as it is, so maybe a minority partner could have helped, but this is just too far in my opinion. I can’t read the RS article because of their new paywall, so does it break down the percentages of BRI now? I’m not surprised that Mike did this for the money, but I really am about Brian and Al (and a little about Justyn and Jonah).

The two positive things I will say is it would be nice to have some more merchandise and to bring back the SiriusXM channel. I appreciate some of these ideas, but I’m still very skeptical. Maybe when the guys pass away (which I don’t want to happen for a while), their children could have sold a bigger stake, but not yet IMO.

Not saying it’s related, and never really gave it a second thought until reading this thread, but many of M&B upcoming shows are down as ‘Mike Love and Bruce Johnston’s Beach Boys’. Not all, but many.

https://uinterview.com/news/the-beach-boys-announce-new-2021-concert-dates/

Ticketmaster still has The Beach Boys though.

I'm not trying to defend Azoff because to be honest he doesn't need it LOL, but the acts you mentioned in your post each have their own complexities and personality issues between band members which don't allow their situations to be painted with a broad brush and blamed on someone like Azoff.

Just to name a few quick points, there's an interview with Azoff from last year where he talks about Covid and how that already was a major disaster for the music industry as a whole but focused too on his stable of acts who make huge money on the touring circuit...namely, an act like The Eagles who Azoff helped make perhaps the biggest money legacy act on the circuit. I believe he also reps Dead & Company, HUGE ticket sales there, John Mayer, and other big live draws. All of that is still up in the air. If they don't resume touring in the summer of '21, a lot of those acts and the crews behind them are quite literally f**ked. So they're trying to find ways via streams and all of that to keep the momentum, but it's not the same and the fate of live concerts is still unknown as of today.

Journey's situation has or had at least 4 or 5 major points that kept the band's status in turmoil. Yes, Neal Schon left Azoff's management and two members are in legal disputes trying to get control over the band name. There were creative issues 20 years ago with Steve Perry and Neal over what kind of music the band was releasing and other issues, and yes - like the Beach Boys - the band was offered in 2016 a gig to play a political gig involving Neal's collaborator who had ties to Trump, and Neal didn't want to alienate half their fan base by playing the political gig...Does that sound familiar? Now Neal is with other management and doing solo albums, the other band members are probably still in courts trying to get the name, Perry is Perry and the last I heard released a solo album about a year or two ago...it's a soap opera. But their legacy recordings still make money, lots of it. Don't Stop Believing transcended its own status as an "oldie" at this point - Every generation now knows it.

The Eagles - Well, that was always a soap opera, wasn't it? Then the key founding member passed away. But the brand name and the back catalog and the tours still make HUGE amounts of money. Do they need to release Takes 29-33 of "Seven Bridges Road" to fill a void in their own plans and budgets? Do they even want to do that? I doubt it. Maybe they will if touring is canceled again in 2021.

Bon Jovi - Ultimately the management of an artist depends on that artist either creating new music or not. Otherwise it's touring and occasional appearances. Jon did a thing last year with Covid restrictions having fans contribute lyrics to a new song online, but other than that (or plans we don't know), maybe he and the other guys are just not interested in new music right now. Or ever. Their catalog sells huge amounts. Find a Karaoke night or a wedding party where everyone isn't singing along to "Living On A Prayer". It's like The Eagles, or "Don't Stop Believin" - It's money in the bank that probably doesn't need a push in marketing at this point. Is there a market for outtakes of the "Bad Medicine" studio sessions? If there is, I'm unaware.

I think - perhaps - such a plan might just work for The Beach Boys. Find a way to get their own legacy's version of "Don't Stop Believin", or "Living On A Prayer", or "Bohemian Rhapsody", or sh*t even "Piano Man" into the popular culture as of 2021, and it's money in the bank. Even with the touring soap opera dramas of the bands listed above, they're still on a higher level of visibility at this point that The Beach Boys, and I think the goal may be to elevate the BB's catalog into those spaces with a more targeted plan than maybe BRI had for the recent years.

And as far as archival and studio session material - I don't think there is as much of a mystique around the creation of Bon Jovi, Eagles, or Journey albums or songs. There never has been a draw in that regard, surely nothing close to decades of studio outtake bootlegs by The Beach Boys, Beatles, Stones, Elvis, Bowie, etc. It's just a different scene with different fan bases and expectations. I don't think Eagles fans en masse would be as interested in "The Long Run" outtakes as we were with the Pet Sounds or Smile sessions.

That is a pretty major change. Let me rephrase that: a MAJOR change in protocol for billing these shows. The whole ball of wax up to now was billing these shows as simply "The Beach Boys", now that has changed.

Consider just how unrelated that really is when a major part of this deal announced publicly today involved branding and marketing the band and its name. If it truly is unrelated, the timing of it sure falls into place...

Two more names that also can be used as good examples: Elton John and Fleetwood Mac.

Great point. Fleetwood Mac got more attention and good press in the past year after a video of a random dude reacting to their music on YouTube became a viral video sensation. If not for that random guy on YouTube, the most recent public impression of that band would have been how they fired Lindsay Buckingham. And as a result of the renewed interest, thanks in large part to the attention from that video and outlets like TikTok, the band's back catalog began selling again, bigger than it had in awhile.

Thanks to TikTok viral videos alone featuring their songs, acts like Hall & Oates from previous generations are gaining new listeners who are under 18 years old.

That's something which I'm sure any plans for increasing visibility of a legacy act would include.

This is interesting to say the least.

If I were a consumer who, let's say a year ago, purchased a ticket to see "The Beach Boys" for the exact same lineup as what will now possibly be billed as "Mike Love and Bruce Johnston’s Beach Boys", I guess I'd feel a little cheated. That's assuming that anyone in that scenario would care enough, but it's sort of like Mike FINALLY revealing (grudgingly or not) that his version of the band is not (and by logic, was in reality not, for most of 1998 to present) actually "The Beach Boys".

I'm sure there has to have been recent boardroom discussion of what constitutes brand confusion, and how this M&B "BBs" branding contributed to the decay and falling from Mount Rushmore, so to speak.

I half-jokingly wonder if people who purchased tickets to see "The Beach Boys" and only got the bait-and-swtich version of "Mike Love and Bruce Johnston’s Beach Boys" will be wanting any recourse if anyone retroactively feels cheated considering that only many years later finally truth in advertising may be happening.

I mean, I know that the BRI voters collectively allowed that brand name thing to happen for so long, I do have to wonder if they regret it at this point. I do hope this leads to the devaluing to correct course, but man it's such a self-inflicted wound and I can't fault the public if they have a WTF reaction, although few fans except us nerds may care enough to have such a reaction.

Hasn't this already happened with the very well-known "God Only Knows," and in fact the entire Pet Sounds album? Within a certain demographic, regardless of age,  the album is very well-known. It's almost over-exposed and over-fetishized at this point in my opinion.

Queen had their movie, blah blah, Elton John had his movie (are these considered to be good films?) and then there was the Brian Wilson movie of 2015 with scenes attempting to recreate the Pet Sounds sessions, etc.  A lot of this marketing/reassessment/repackaging/correction-of-misconceptions has already occurred - at least with respect to Brian Wilson, who, along with the long since deceased and forgotten Dennis Wilson, is the only member of the Beach Boys worth re-examining, reassessing and "marketing" to the public for any reason other than just generating more dollars.

The "Beach Boys" is a brand that cannot, and has never been capable of being marketed to the public with a decent level of honesty.  The brand/concept cannot earn money if you tell the truth about them and what really happened. Therefore, I suspect that all this thing means is that you will see more nonsense, more falsehoods, more denial and more lies in an attempt to sell this group as happy, healthy California funsters.  If you deviate from that, you can't sell it anymore - people don't want to know, they can't accept what really happened and they're turned off.

People can criticize Mike all they want for the animal-killing shows, but that was really, in my opinion, finally some honest branding. He was being honest about what the Beach Boys brand stands for, and certain fans, and even Brian and Al couldn't accept it, it seems.  

Again, apologies for the "negativity."

That was a good read, and amazingly Mike, Brian and Al sound like they are up for another reunion. (Did I already mention Mike and Brian?)

” Most exciting to Brian is the idea of touring and possibly recording with the group he founded in his parents’ living room six decades ago. “It’d be a great trip, a big thrill,” he says. “When we went on tour for the 50th anniversary we had so much fun. It’d be such a joy to be singing with the boys again.”

and

When tours do start up again, Love says the new business arrangement will not affect his ability to tour under the Beach Boys name. “I think that that remains the same,” he says, but adds he is also open to a reunion with the other founders. “I wouldn’t rule anything out.” One thing he’s not thinking about is retirement. “I feel pretty darn good,” Love says. “I’ll be 80 years old March 15th, but I’m not like the normal 80-year- old guy, because [of what] we do on stage. It’s like youth serum or something.”

I'm sure each of the shareholders getting a nice big payday out of this was a big part of this, and the huge dropoff in touring revenue last year could have easily hastened this decision.

The stuff about VR/CGI/hologram BBs, I think that's about the (slightly morbid) fact that the members are wanting to mold what happens to this whole deal when they're gone (and/or unable to make public appearances).

As far as "branding" right now, what they're talking about is all the untapped areas. Again, licensed merchandise has been next to zip over the years. Placement in movies, TV, etc.

I think they're talking about branding in a more specific, business-focused sense rather than the branding of "beach and California", which I'd call more theming than branding over the years.

First thing they need to do is get this shirt back into the merch:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-wKLvyXYAM2joU?format=jpg&name=medium)


Best. Logo. Ever.




EDIT:


Interesting to note:

“I’m humbled and honored that they chose us,” says Azoff, who saw the band play when he was a teenager in Illinois in 1965, an experience he calls “mind-blowing.” “It all started for me there,” he says. “We understand the responsibility that they’ve assigned to us and we will not disappoint them. We’re gonna get this right.”


It's quite possible that these are the shows that were recorded and have been released as one of the copyright downloads.





And:

Love echoes the point: As he puts it, “I think we’ve been great in music, but maybe not as great as we could be in furthering our brand.”


Oh, the irony  :-D

Not sure I'd consider a release which was ripped from youtube bootlegs in such a poor manner that they didn't even bother turning an ad-blocker on being official is necessarily a good thing myself

Azoff isn't "managing" the band in the way he does those other artists.

Iconic is essentially sort of taking on the Beach Boys/BRI the way they would the estate of Elvis or Prince or something. There may yet still be some areas where the band can create *new* material, but I doubt Iconic was betting on that when they cut this deal.

I don't think we'll see *less* product, including archival releases. We'd likely see *more*, because the whole point of buying into the BBs/BRI is to monetize it and capitalize on their investment. And also, and I can't emphasize this enough (and Al specifically mentions this as well in the interview surprisingly), cutting this deal has *removed* the roadblock of stuff getting bogged down in the Brian-Mike-Al-Carl's Estate voting bottlenecks. There is now one entity making the final decisions. Backroom politics and back-scratching aren't really at play any more.

I'm sure this is why the deal *had* to be for a majority stake. Why would any company pay a ton of money for a minority stake, where they'd still be beholden to the same politics and dysfunction that have been going on for decades?

It sounds like, stunningly, the band members *like* the idea of the decisions being taken out of their hands. Either way, they got a *s**t-ton* of money to do it.

And, for what it's worth, from what I'm hearing *right now* and what I've been hearing in recent weeks and months, things are *good*, and getting better in BB land. "Feel Flows" will hopefully just be the tip of the iceberg. Amend that with a million asterisks if you want, but I'm hearing *good* things right now.

I don't think it's impossible that we could end up looking back at this and thinking that they should have cut a deal like this 10 or 20 years ago.

Yes, but it just goes to show how badly they need other people's help. Look at both Al's and Mike's suggestions of what could be done and you see how totally out of touch they are and that they are only trying to do something that somebody else has already done. No fresh ideas. That's of course nothing new but has been part of the guys' mindset since at least the 70s.

It's very true, the band members do a good job in this recent press blitz of proving why it's better to hand this stuff off to someone else.

They were being billed as "Mike Love and Bruce Johnston's Beach Boys" at least as early as the scheduled July 4, 2020  show at the Hollywood Bowl

So the Beach Boys "brand" stands for playing an event that alienates a lot of the fan base, caused negative publicity for the brand and name in the non-music press, and Brian and Al raised objections not because they are board members who had a vote with BRI who were not informed of this until it hit the press but rather because they couldn't accept it for other reasons? I'm just trying to understand what you're trying to say because on the surface it sounds like you're all but applauding Mike for doing a show that caused more negativity than it was worth, and ultimately the responsibility for that name and brand goes beyond getting a paycheck to play at a trophy hunting convention. I don't care to see the Beach Boys associated with that kind of scene at all, but that's just me speaking as a fan who wants more people to hear and love the music, not read in the press about the politics or drama. I don't think I'm alone in that view.

And that would also fall into the timeline - Summer 2020 more or less - when all of these events like the selling of the songs and the news about the box set being put on the shelf started to happen and become known. Prior to that, it was just "The Beach Boys" in billings unless it was a specific gig Mike took on his own minus Bruce or the band. Everyone can draw their own conclusions but the timing of everything seems to stand out in these cases.

They are also not being billed as that at plenty of other shows booked since July 4, 2020 - including things like the Royal Albert Hall in June.

The question then becomes why change the booking name at all, and further why do it amidst all these other issues happening in 2020 including this blockbuster deal with Azoff? It doesn't randomly change on a whim, as Mike has fought and filed many legal papers since 1998 to keep that name to book his shows. Now it changes? It can't be ignored or brushed aside, because it's a change in the entire protocol that has been fought over for 20+ years.

Truly fascinating what must have been going on behind the scenes regarding the name and billing. Talk about a can of worms.

I think that ever since the kerfuffles post-C50 in 2012 over billing of shows, we have sporadically seen venues/promoters going the extra step of mentioning in materials that the tour is Mike and Bruce. This was almost *never* mentioned prior, to my memory anyway.

As far as I know, Mike still has a license to tour as "The Beach Boys." I'd wager, even with a huge payout, it would be *very* difficult to convince Mike to cut a deal like this Iconic deal if it meant losing the ability to tour with the name. It's enough of a mind-blowing concession that he (and all of them) are ceding control to Iconic who could, theoretically, unilaterally change how the trademark (which they own a majority of) is handled. I'm not saying anything was locked in contractually for use of the name, and even if it was, Iconic would probably have some sort of out considering they paid a gazillion dollars for a trademark and would want to be able to assert control over it.

As far as I'm aware, if verbiage indicating "Mike Love and Bruce Johnston" is being added to some billings by venues or promoters, this is not an actual change to the ability to tour under specifically the name "The Beach Boys."

There may have been a time 15 or 20 years ago when changing the name to "Mike Love's Beach Boys" or something of that nature would have worked on some level. But at this stage in 2021, I can't see what the point would be in diluting the selling power of the *only* band touring using the name and generating money for the corporation. The only thing enforcing an actual name change would do would be to reduce income for everybody to some degree.

Without spilling beans about specifics you can't divulge, would you say it's fair to surmise that this whole Azoff deal being negotiated during 2020 was only an element of, and not the sole reason, for the FF set being jeopardized last year?

I tend to think that the big bucks of this deal (and what must have been a convincing pitch to all BRI members) finally convinced Mike that it would be in his best financial longterm interest to put aside his limited vision for branding of the band that could have curtailed the full vision for FF.

I also have to wonder if this whole deal would never have happened had the pandemic not forced all the parties to be able to sit around with time to think stuff over, combined with their income being jeopardized, resulting in the perfect situation to receive (and respond positively to) a smartly-worded pitch from an outsider with deep pockets - who I'm assuming sounded like they knew the best way to monetize the brand for years to come. If so, it's an amazing batch of lemonade to come out of the lemons of this awful pandemic.

I hope that Irving Azoff becomes known as the 21st century Jack Rieley for the brand, and does as much to lift up the brand as Jack did back in the day. 8)

I'll say this: The "circular firing squad" was a reference to actual members. There were roadblocks to "Feel Flows" being put up by *people*, not companies.

Thankfully, it appears a bunch of factors, including the simple passage of time, some shifts in power/leverage, and just perhaps some realization that more product is good for everybody, have dictated that "Feel Flows" is on the way to us, and more good things are in the offing.

Amen to that.

Any person of a mindset to have been offended, or alienated, by the killing-exotic-animals-for-sport show should have already been alienated by the Beach Boys long before then.  If my post appears to be callous, it's because I don't respect the Beach Boys "brand" (I respect certain Beach Boys music) and expect nothing from it except that sort of thing.   But hey, maybe Irving Azoff will come to the rescue.  (He's gotten good press locally in L.A. for rescuing beloved, long-standing deli and hamburger establishments that risked being closed) Whether an image-cleanse and long-term memory-holing process would be good or bad at this point is an open question, in my view. 

I can say that I'm pretty certain that gigs like that trophy hunting gig or the Trump fundraiser gigs will *not* be happening going forward with Iconic as majority shareholder. No company can completely flip the reputation of a brand in the eyes of *everybody*. But when it comes to stuff like those few controversial bookings from last year, I believe the Iconic setup will not allow that sort of thing to happen in the future.

Point in bold: If the idea is to find new listeners to carry the brand forward and expand it even more, the kinds of new listeners who are sustaining the catalogs of Queen, Fleetwood Mac, Hall & Oates as *new* listeners often under 21 years old, should their exposure to something new be positive, or is it ok to generate negative press by playing a stupid one-off show they really did not need to do except to make a few bucks that amounts to pocket change for Mike? I don't know how new listeners could be expected to have already been alienated by a band who they don't know.

The whole point is to say there is an established fan base in place, but they alone will not sustain this brand moving forward, and to do that we need to attract or appeal to *new* listeners and age groups. Exactly like the legacy bands I mentioned earlier.

And the way to appeal to a teenager in 2020-21 is probably not playing a trophy hunting convention gig for food money.

Let's hope that's the case moving forward.

Maybe that’s why Mike was under his own name at mar lago.

I was thinking the exact same thing.

And as evidenced by the amount of news articles that stated The Beach Boys were playing that gig, the brand confusion of "Just Mike Love" vs. "The Beach Boys" is a real thing, and damage has been done.

Hopefully this new deal will go a good ways to try and repair things, they'll have a lot of work to do.

Well judging by the very short clip I saw, that looked and sounded like nothing more than the house band playing Kokomo (badly) while Mike joined in. Even as a guest at the partyI don’t think he would have needed much persuasion to sing a tune or two.

Lost in all this is a nice little blurb in the RS article where Brian mentions (in addition to daily walks....which is a good sign re: his back) working with a vocal coach 3 times/week. That’s usually a good indicator some *current* activity is going to be taking place...

That is super news indeed :)

This is amazing news for one simple reason.  ..The Beach Boys are the worst managed band in music, I have been saying it for years. Every aspect... the catalogue, branding, merch, promotion, touring.

Let's hope  a big change happens

A statement from Mike on Twitter (https://twitter.com/MikeLoveOFCL/status/1362564488197595138):

(https://i.imgur.com/jo4uPRi.png)

Edit: Mike has a more substantial post on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/OfficialMikeLove/posts/3829336307145182):

(https://i.imgur.com/ztuOdU5.png)

I'm cautiously optimistic about this news. You always have to wait and see how things truly play out of course, but there are some pretty encouraging quotes in those articles.

It's all about taxes.  Capital gains sound like they will be 39% under Biden.   Just the beginning for older performrs.

If only this had happened in 1961...

I was thinking that it's kinda sad that it's at this late date in the band's career that they (seemingly) figured out how to do things right about this stuff. Better late than never, I suppose.

It's really quite fascinating to think about the reasons for why this didn't happen sooner. I guess mismanagement/dysfunction runs deep in the roots of this band, but maybe it's because either they didn't really seek something like this out themselves, or maybe the right person and right deal just rarely came along to make an offer to them.

Jack Rieley apparently gave the band a really great pitch, and found a way to appeal to the differing factions at the time. What he said must've sounded logical and convincing. Plus, the band were probably pretty desperate to course correct at that point due to their popularity in being in free fall.

I have to think that Azoff must've figured out the way (obviously, money and deep pockets talk, but still it must've been pitched with wisdom, grace, and forethought on how to appeal to all the band members/wives, etc.) to convince them that this was the right thing to do. I mean, they only really had to cede a level of control in order to cash in, and cash in big.

I am guessing that Mike and the others saw their contemporaries selling their catalogs lately for big bucks, so maybe that laid the groundwork a bit for The BB members to think that if Bob Dylan, etc. bit on similar deals, that it would be wise to follow suit, much like corporations doing copycat moves once it seems that other corporations who have their sh*t better together have done similar moves first.

But really, maybe it ultimately was (as I mentioned before) more a matter of the desperation to have income coming in during pandemic times, to make the members (and any stubborn holdouts) realize that this is a wise route to go. Maybe they had to have their income drop off to a point where they HAD to figure out a plan B.

I also have to think that the decades of fine work of Mark and Alan, Howie and Jon, etc. paved the way for this to happen, since they all have been and continue to be trailblazers in leaning into deep exploration of ridiculously untapped creative wells of music in the band's vaults. I can't think that the work those guys have done didn't help plant the seeds for someone with BIG bucks to come along and realize how much potential there really is.

The staggering greatness and obvious undervaluing of this band has been hiding in plain sight for a LONG while now.

Does this mean The Beach Boys won't receive royalties from their album sales and streams anymore?

Dear Irving

Just a heads up. I suspect you will have some say over future interviews. So if any group member plays the ‘the Wilson’s did drugs’ card, could you give him a slap please?

Cheers 👍
Pretty Funky

Interesting. Folks are thinking about what this means for the members right now, but let's accept they likely have 5-7 years more activity at most.

Iconic can help them pull things together for one last hurrah, but the big potential is for -- ahem -- afterward. Not to be ghoulish, but the deaths of some of these guys are going to be a big deal. Remember what happened after Aretha and Prince died, and both of them were not at the apex of their careers. They had a huge amount of money coming in, and the estates ended up imploding. I think having Iconic there makes a huge amount of sense for the inevitable posthumous life of the band. There will be a _lot_ of money to be made.

It's not for nothing that Carl's kids seem to have been big movers in this. They understand the complications of running this as an estate.

Also, apparently Melinda has forgiven and forgotten, huh?

I was just about to mention this. I guess money and good ideas talk...

Never forget... Melinda likes nice things

No, they didn't sell all of Brother Records, Inc. to Azoff, only a controlling interesting, so they will still be sharing in the royalties on performances and the recordings BRI owns.  And of course there's a side issue songwriter's "mechanical" royalties in which the individual BBs have various interests.

Whether the BRI controlling interest that was sold is 50.1% or 75% or 98%, we don't know, but they flat-out state that they will be participating in any "upside" that Azoff is able to generate.  Obviously their *hope* is that with the big pay day they likely just got PLUS owning 49% (or 25% or 2% or whatever percentage they negotiated) of what Azoff is able to generate, they and their families are going to be better off than the status quo of owning 100% themselves.  

Overall, my gut feeling is that this is going to be a good thing for the BBs and their fans.  This deal effectively ends the silliness of the situation in which projects are vetoed or forced into endless delays based on decades-old personality conflicts and petty grudges. And let's face it, with the 3 principals at or near age 80 , something had to be done to ensure that business will carry on into perpetuity.  And as others have said, as a near-term benefit, this likely also ends the situation of gigs like the trophy hunter-convention being accepted without a care in the world as to whether they damage the brand.

But congrats to the principals and their families on (presumably) cashing in in a big way.  They've all earned it.   I don't know how the non-corporate wing of the BB family (i.e., Denny's kids, Dave Marks, Bruce) feel about this whole thing, but perhaps a rising tide will lift all boats and they'll all come ahead of where they were (e.g., if Denny's songwriting royalties and solo catalog do better as the general public gains awareness of the band, etc.).

Great Post, Juggler. Thank you

FWIW. To anyone wondering if the ship has sailed, a comparison.

We have new licensed stores here in NZ selling a Ed Hillary range of clothing, something he never had the chance to endorse as he passed away in 2008. He would now be over 100 if he was still alive, and his famous years were the early 50s through to the 60s.

https://www.edmundhillary.com/

I see there is a charity aspect also (Surfrider perhaps for the Beach Boys?). The big advantage with the BBs is they seem to be all behind it and are supportive, unlike Sir Ed who would probably turn in his grave if he was in one.

Was also wondering the same thing about the non corporate members David Marks and Bruce Johnston. Bruce definitely makes his money touringr. Be fascinating to get his thoughts on this if they were true and real.

If they were willing to go back to Joe Thomas in 2010/11 in order to make C50 happen, I can only imagine it was easy to work with Azoff's company with a payday that I have to assume would easily be in the tens of millions of dollars for each shareholder.

Ironically, Mike too had a quick kerfuffle with the Eagles organization in 2012 when he was called out by Eagles publicity for trying to use as an example an allegedly "overexposed" Eagles as a shield for criticisms over ending the Beach Boys reunion. The Eagles organization didn't take kindly to being accused of being "overexposed" and selling tickets for five dollars.

Exactly. I think the members seem to be relatively realistic about what happens "afterward." Also, I'd wager they want to cash in and enjoy those fruits while they can (though I honestly don't know if this deal makes them "richer" enough to significantly change their lives or allow them to do something they couldn't already do).

I have to imagine they realize that, at this stage, even if they stay somewhat active for some amount of time, they'll never again be back to Mike's band booking 175 shows per year.

I'm not convinced a huge 60th reunion project is a sure thing to happen, but a sort of smaller scale version of C50 for next year would be a way to ease back into working and touring without going back to the grind. I'm also curious if larger touring organizations right now are researching the likelihood that, once it's possible to book "regular" tours, there's going to be a *lot* of competition as everybody tries to get back on the touring circuit, and thus a BB reunion tour would have far more selling power.

Also saw mention in one of the articles that one area Iconic would explore would be documentaries.

They're running out of time to get these guys to sit down for extensive on-camera interviews, but it would be great if Iconic could push forward a "Beatles Anthology" level multi-part documentary series. I'd hope Iconic has all the good relationships and connections to sell a series like that to Netflix or HBO, and would have the deep pockets to put the money into producing it and getting all the needed music and footage clearances.

That sort of documentary project should be a main thrust of 60th festivities.

And obviously, *right now* would be a good time to get them to do interviews since they're sitting at home and not out on the road (even if Mike does some dates this year, it'll be a lighter touring year certainly).

All of this is extremely interesting - I'm tentatively positive.

An aspect of this hinted at in the articles is the 'brand' continuing after all these guys are gone - hopefully a loooong time into the future. But how would people feel about the Beach Boys touring in, say, 10-20-30-40 years from now without any original members on stage? Sort of like what has been going on for decades with the Drifters, the Glenn Miller Orchestra and similar log-gone acts. Personally, I wouldn't mind if it was pulled off in a tasteful manner but I'm sure there are many differing opinions about such a scenario.

Which wold be great (a documentary)! Just a couple of days or weeks ago I mentioned that I would love a new BBs documentary with lots of these little footage snippets that turned up during the years since EH. The Ida Blackburn stuff etc.
Also I hope for a way to release the complete "Lost concert" (including "Monster Mash") in a way that makes sense. The footage is pure gold to have, even though the guys are a little tame compared to the TAMI show.



EDIT:

And I wonder if this means that beachboyscentral.com will finally launch  :lol

If that happens, they had better not call that touring entity "the Beach Boys", but rather call it "the Beach Boys experience" or something of that nature. It would essentially be a cover band, no harm in that as long as it's not pretending to be the real thing.

With all of the trepidation and suspicion that some are showing with this deal, it's important to put it into context and note what has been happening in the music industry overall, especially with legacy artists and 60's/70's era stalwarts whose collective age group is now between 70 and 80 years old. Just consider how in the 1960's when the Beach Boys and Beatles were in their prime making hit records and changing the popular culture, previous music icons such as Count Basie and Benny Goodman were in their 60's...and considered "old" music...which means the artists we're talking about right now in the present are mostly in their 70's, and older than what was considered the old guard of music when the young artists were cranking out the hits.

The realization becomes a case of "it don't last forever", and both the core fan base who grew up with these artists will not be around to be the steady buying audience for products, and the artists themselves will not be able to tour, or record, forever into eternity, nor will they be around - it happens to all of us.

So if you take the bodies of work from these artists and look at them like commodities or stock - which is essentially what a music catalog is and has been no matter which side of the art v. commerce debate you agree with - The less visible and relevant that catalog becomes, the lower the valuation of that "stock" becomes. Basic finance and investing.

Artists overall are not involved in these deeper issues within the finances of the industry, nor are a lot of the ground-level managers. Some of them who have tried to manage these aspects of the business have lost millions in the process. They instead pay teams of lawyers, consultants, financial advisers, etc to navigate all this.

And here is where we are with the announcement of the Beach Boys deal.

There is a group now willing to cut a deal to manage and navigate these issues with the catalog and the brand name so it has *value* moving into the future. They invest and have a stake in the commodities which means they will work so that the value of their investment does not decrease. They want to build it up and turn their investment into a higher value than what they bought into, and will work to make that happen. And the artist(s) get the returns of this as well, like buying into a stock and getting the dividends when it increases in value.

It doesn't mean you'll hear the music used to sell potato chips as a general rule, or see golf balls with the artist's name on them...unless that's what the artist and estate agrees to.

But you will see a concerted team effort to build the brand image, the profile, the viability of the art itself, and the overall value of that brand in order to carry it forward and ensure it continues to be visible and make money.

That sounds like good business to me. An investor is not going to invest 7 figures into a deal and let it die on the vine. The idea is to make deals and decisions to allow it to grow.

No disrespect to BRI or those involved, but for two decades at least, it seemed like certain decisions were sitting on the trees waiting to be picked like ripe fruit, and they were allowed to fall off and rot in favor of finding a pretty leaf on the ground under the ripe fruit. There didn't seem to be a far-reaching plan to benefit and enhance one of the greatest song catalogs in American music, with a few notable exceptions. The meat-and-potatoes touring seemed to be the event which the public got the most info about, and the touring operation often seemed to be a separate entity from the name it was touring behind. Cohesiveness across the brand did not seem to be the order of the day.

Perhaps now it will be. And perhaps a company coming in to oversee the financial and marketing issues will have more at stake, wanting to increase the value of the investment, than a machine which seemed to be often set on auto-pilot rather than charting a course forward.

I hope it works.



And really, really worth noting is how this did not happen and is not happening in a vacuum. We saw it coming, with the sale of the Bob Dylan catalog perhaps being the most visible wake-up as to what was going on. When you have Dylan, Neil Young, Lindsay Buckingham, Stevie Nicks, David Crosby...and others selling their catalogs in similar deals, it isn't a case of one artist simply needing the money. It looked like plans were being set up and deals organized (along with pitches for the artists) well before the public knew what was going on, outside of the industry. How do we take the music which is now 40-50 years old, created by artists who are in their 60's-70's, and make it viable and valuable and visible to current and future generations? And how do we create a win-win deal so the artist doesn't feel like their signing away their lives and children for pennies and the financial investment can continue to grow?

It would be an interesting deep-dive to look into how the individual deals and plans were drawn up, how the pitches were made to the artists known for being uber-protective of their art, and most fascinating how all of this will play out beyond a big payout on the handshakes sealing the deal. Beyond some artists perhaps needing the money injection due to the lack of tour revenue and taxes and other expenses...I think it will be fascinating to see where this goes.

All very interesting and exciting. As for the future, I think ten more years of seeing original Beach Boys is being generous. I'd like to think that Alan and David could still hold their own on stage here and there in their late 80's...but I see no possible way at all that Mike, Brian, and Bruce could be performing by then. I say go big on the 60th Anniversary, and hang it up. Have the original guys designate a group of young guys to be the touring band, and maybe once in awhile an original member pops in on the encore to give their blessing and hum along to "Barbara Ann" every now and then.

I do wonder if this will lead to all of the lesser music that has previously been officially released (but is now out of print) to become digitally available. Like Summer in Paradise, all the obscure Radio Shack compilations, Looking Back With Love, Stars & Stripes, that kind of stuff. Plus the halfway decent Still Cruisin'.

I have assumed that these were mostly out of print due to some (Mike mainly) being embarrassed, after all, SIP was omitted from some career spanning retrospective (was this on a website? I can't recall), almost as if it was a concerted effort to put horse blinders on the public. Maybe all that stuff will become available now, should be interesting.

Also it's interesting to think of the effect this megadeal will have on the market value of BBs items such as vinyl rarities, collectables, etc. I tend to think some stuff will go up, while probably a good deal of others will go down, since surely this will make some previously unavailable items now newly more easily obtainable, be it repurposed vintage BBs clothing designs (I'd love to see the ultra rare Smiley Smile LP official sweatshirt, which was advertised back in 1967 in the BBs fanclub as I recall, be reprinted), or newly digitally available old tracks that have been hard to find for decades.

If they're smart, they'll do official reprints of all sorts of old band t-shirts that were at one point for sale. I'm sure there's a market for even stuff like the Brian Wilson "Delicious" shirt that he wore in 1979, after all there are sellers who have recreated such obscure designs and I'm sure are selling some product. I guess the cottage industry of those types of items may wither away if identical official designs are released. Or how about doing a run of psychedelic polyester shirts that are based on the identical design that Brian, say, wore in some famous photos from the Smile sessions? I might be down to buy one. Many possibilities.

This new version of BRI (what will it be called?) should take fan requests for such items in an official capacity. There's money to be made, the super fan nerds will buy cool stuff like this if it's made right and marketed right.

Plus I could see a bunch of really cool and rare Youtube material getting taken down unfortunately, so I hope people are finding ways to save and back up stuff in advance.

Without knowing all the details, I was kind of thinking the same thing about a 60th reunion being built up, and then put the originals to rest. But 2 things come to mind that may create an issue...1.0 Covid, though if it's late this year or early next maybe we are assed that, and 2.) Mike Love's touring Beach Boys. W/O really knowing the specs, can Azoff and the others now say "enough Mike, this is hw we're doing it now, going forward" and sort of pull the plug on that if its not in the best interests of the brand? I wonder.....hard for me to believe Love would go into this if that wa he case, but we should find out more in the coming months. I still think, in general, it's a good idea to preserve the brand, expand it, and sort of maybe serve as an annuity to the others and their families.

I've often thought that the last great way to reissue albums like Pet Sounds (which have been reissued a comically large amount of times) would be to release all of the discrete layers that are available. Multitrack sessions with each layer of overdubs in existence sitting in its own individual track, for fans to either "roll their own" version of songs, do remixes, or mainly just for study purposes to be able to marvel with wonder at the minutia that's been hiding buried deep in the mixes for decades.

It really feels like multitrack sessions are the unchartered territory which would finally offer fans (for a price) something truly new, it's the only way to get blood from a stone at this point for albums that have been remixed/reissued 3, 4, 5 times over. I'd definitely pay to own sessions for BBs albums. That said, I could also imagine later albums might have less flattering vocal bits, etc that the band might not want heard in isolation, but I hope they can just get over that fear in exchange for money.

I want to purchase some sweet, sweet Love You multitracks.

I've been saying the same thing about releasing multitracks officially for well over a decade lol, not just The Beach Boys. I agree it is perhaps the last viable way to offer a totally new take on songs fans have bought many times over and know intimately. Seriously, how many more times does a remixed or remastered version of a song or album need to be bought if fans already have it? They can keep the previous releases available in the back catalog, but in reality the re-release market naturally hits a brick wall at some point.

Multitracks are a different story. Remember those Sgt Pepper 4-track multis that leaked? There were little elements in those bare tracks that literally no one had heard since they were mixed down and out of the final master. Fascinating! That's the stuff that keeps interest growing in those songs.

And remember Bowie did an online contest where he released the individual multitracks of Space Oddity and had a fan mix contest or something? Bowie was ahead of the curve there, and I think others may have tried similar things, but alas nothing further seems to have come out.

Then there was a whole cottage industry in the grey markets when the video game Rock Band came out, and fans were able to extract the multitrack stems used for those games into 7 track or whatever mix-ready formats for fans at home to hear and mix. There were some revelatory Beatles multitrack remixes done from that similar scene. Again, it all put interest back into familiar archival songs. It let fans hear new things in those familiar tracks.

The only thing which might be an issue would be the delivery system for fans to actually load the tracks into a multitrack DAW or mixing app/platform. Most fans don't have a clue how to do that kind of thing...but I'm sure with a basic program like Garage Band or whatever, or even a proprietary DAW/mixer app that could be bundled with the multitracks along with user-friendly instructions how to use it, fans not as tech savvy could figure it out.

But yes, for years I've thought multitracks *could* and should be part of an archival catalog reissue program. To say they can be revelatory is an understatement.

A modular documentary series that ping-pongs between history/biography and deep musical analysis would be a way to introduce the multi-tracks to a larger audience. Hour-long segments would be about the right length, though you could expand to cover more complicated (and fraught) topics.

Hopefully someone will pitch that approach to Azoff/Iconic and they can start implementing it over the next fifteen months--if they're going to make hay while there is still sunshine tomorrow, there will have to be a 60th anniversary tour to smooth out all of what has gone down since 2012 and properly position all this high-level, multi-falutin' strategy.

The approach should look at the three major phases of the band's creative career: 62-65 and the "teen-age to young adult" hits, the 66-67 peak and creative crisis, the 67-73 "Emersonian" (to use Paul Williams' term) perseverance and rebirth of a band that was capable of firing on all cylinders during the period of greatest ferment in music history. The fourth part should look at "Nostalgia: the pit and the pendulum drawn," about the impact of the past has colored what the band and each of the individuals have done in the years since Endless Summer cast a bright shadow over their ongoing career.

If Azoff has the right team, they can do fascinating stuff that won't simply pander to the next generation of Sunkist soft drinks. Maybe if we think and wish and hope and pray...a totally knocked-out-of-the-park version of FEEL FLOWS would be great encouraging in this regard...

Thing is, this isn't just about -- or even mainly about -- fans. We've been decently well-served, all things considered. Smile finally came out, along with a bunch of other session stuff. This is about true, global marketing and appreciation for the Beach Boys as a cultural marker. Aside from a few years in the 60s, they haven't really had that ever. That means some things that might make us uncomfortable, but let's face it: The combination of the California lifestyle and the peerless music is super valuable. And it deserves to be. I hope they do think about hardcore folks as they go forward, but there aren't enough of us to make the deal what it is.

It looks like the official Beach Boys website has gotten a pretty big overhaul since this deal.

The photo collage with the alternate BB85 band photo is nice. The music section leads with a bunch of recent comps and archival releases and omits 15 Big Ones, Still Cruisin, Summer In Paradise, and Stars and Stripes. Not surpirsed by those last two but the inclusion of Instrumental Hits is surprising. Is that the only in print title that includes Punchline these days? Gonna also chime in and opine that the MadeWorn store seems pretty tacky. I never understood the appeal of paying premium prices for artificially distressed clothing. To each their own I guess. At least their not selling Beach Boys branded vape pens or bathwater...

And beachboyscentral.com is gone, but the pictures they used for that website are now on thebeachboys.com. Looks like progress!

Fortunately, I believe that people are in place that have the hardcore fans in mind, and who also understand how that can be attended do while also building the larger "brand" for the masses. People who understand that a *generally* good model to follow is the Beatles/Apple. You can get your Beatles ornaments and socks and t-shirts and beach towels, and they also do higher end things and nice big, deluxe boxed sets.

There's plenty of room to run this whole deal on many, many tracks. They can push Beach Boys oven gloves at Target, repackage the hits, and do a more tasteful PR job of highlighting the same old surf/sun tropes.

They can also continue to push the cred and reassessment of their material that things like "Feel Flows" brings.

Iconic can also bring *true synergy* to marketing the band *and* individual members (if they are willing to participate), including on social media. Yes, Brian, Al, and Mike all have social media, and there has also been this nebulous "Beach Boys" social media presence that kind of represents *the* band, but also pushes Mike's tour. Meanwhile, Mike's social media is mostly promotion for his licensed "Beach Boys." Meanwhile, in recent years, all of the solo Beatles have cross-promoted group and solo stuff, eventually even compiling solo material into a digital EP. Long story short, I've long said that Mike's Facebook and Twitter should be re-posting news about Brian's new albums, and Brian and Al should be pushing Mike's stuff, and they can all push group stuff. The licensed touring band thing still complicates this to some degree (Brian and Al, after the early-mid 2000s lawsuits, have largely taken a hands-off approach to Mike's touring band, not really mentioning it much).

I doubt Iconic can stop individuals from doing interviews or even shows under their own name, so I'm not fully prepared to say we'll never see another Mike interview where he talks about the Wilsons and drugs/alcohol for the millionth time. But I think they can certainly contain and clean up any *group* functions.

Also, I'm guessing Iconic can pump *a lot* of money into projects if they want to. Remember that one of the main reasons Joe Thomas was as successful as he was in getting C50 projects out there and running was that he was able to finance or gain financing for it. Imagine someone with even *deeper* pockets, and a majority financial stake in doing something successful, actually taking the reins.

This could be *very good*, and as I've said, from what I'm hearing, things are looking very good right now as far as what's going on and what's in the offing.

I don't think this means we'll never see another hits compilation that we as hardcore fans don't care about. And yeah, it sounds like even the members are gung-ho about eventual hologram concerts and whatnot. We may see a BB song in a dumb Adam Sandler movie trailer or something. But in the end, I think the more things are successful, the more momentum this thing can take on.

Iconic has clearly dumped a TONNNNNN of money into this; I'd wager they're motivated to get things moving.

Forgive me if this has been covered, but is anyone else concerned about the language regarding rebranding focused on “the beach boys lifestyle”? Mike and at various times everyone in the band have attempted to sell the beach boys lifestyle brand since Do It Again. Isn’t that part of the image problem that you’d want a rebrand to change? Shouldn't the focus, rather than lifestyle, be on songs? So that they can be taken seriously as artists, just like their new stable mates Eagles, Steely Dan et al.

I'll echo your sentiments as far as having found that bands I like attempting to become lifestyle brands has the effect of me taking them less seriously. This is especially the case when it comes to signature beers, like of course I'm gonna buy a Punk in Drublic tallboy at a NOFX show but did that need to exist? I'd imagine whoever's on the case can find some successful way to sell useless crap to John Doe without undercutting a new generation's motivation to to hear deep cuts, but the real question is which Beach Boy's lifestyle are they gonna promote?

I guess it depends on what is meant by "the Beach Boys lifestyle."  

If you're talking about their lifestyle in the early '60s (with the striped shirts, the hot cars and the surfboards), it could be fun.

If you're talking about their lifestyle in the mid-late '60s (with 24-hour telescope shops, mid-century modern architecture, proto-psychedelia and pop art), it could be cool.

If you're talking about their lifestyle in the '80s (with Hawaiian shirts and Kokomo), it could be cheesy.

If you're talking about their lifestyle in the mid-to-late '70s, it could be disturbing as hell. :lol

Looks like a new logo too.

Coming out of the chauffeur's quarters stoned to post my thoughts while eating junk food...

I have some concerns about this deal. As I'm sure many here can relate to, the music has meant so much to me, no matter the circumstance. Even though our life stories are completely different, I just connect so much with Brian. The amount of sh*t Brian has had to deal with; he was just this kid who would wanted to make records people liked. This young guy perpetually taken advantage of, being emotionally or physically abused, laid astray at times by people of questionable intent. All Brian wanted to do was make records with friends and all he wanted from that was enjoyment. Not money. The blurb Brian gave on the back of the All Summer Long sums it up well: "I live with my piano and I love to make records that my friends like to hear. The fellas have worked so well with me - you'd never know we were brothers and cousins. Thank you for giving me the incentive to create our records."

Money ruined The Beach Boys. Once they got initial success, the pressures put on Brian amplified and multiplied with each passing year. The deeper Brian got into the business, the industry, the drug scene, the more he began to spiral. Brian was just a Hawthorne kid who wanted to make music. He worked his ass for so long and he just wanted to make people (mostly Murry) happy. In my career, I really relate to that; working so hard and being so invested in your job, you burn out. You need to pause and make (or listen to) Friends. Every time I listen to Passing By, I just think of Brian at the keys just humming and vibing; escaping reality. I relate to that. The world has been a f***ed up place and I think Brian saw that (both in his own life and in the world) and just withdrew. One reason I'm so connected to this music and Brian are due to my own anxieties, fears, depressions, the heartache, the obsessive habits. Something tells me I'm not the only one here who feels it when hearing lines like:

"I built all my goals around you that some day my love would surround you/You'll never know what we've been through for so long I thought about it and now I just can't live without it/This beautiful image I have of you"
"It kills my soul."
"Is somebody gonna tell me why she has to hide?"
"Everything is old and nothing is new. All I ever do is think of you. Memories haunt me night and day."
"There's been songs about celebration but if you ask me, I can't see why. There's too much pain, too much pain in my heart now."

That's not even bringing in all the joyous songs that bring me sheer joy, like Hushabye or Cool, Cool Water or the last 40 seconds of Wind Chimes. but back to the point; money really ruined the guys. I believe it turned Mike into what he is today; a relentless business/brand promoter. I have always tried to be fair to Mike; I admit to reading and enjoying his autobiography. With that being said, Mike has ALWAYS been wanting a way to make a buck. I wonder how much of that dates back to his father's business going under and his parents having to move out of their mansion. Is Mike still worrying something like that will befall him? He had bankruptcy once before. Maybe Mike is just a workaholic, but if you go back to wanting to connect with your audience ($)vs Cabinessence, there's Mike. Endless Summer; that's Mike. All of the Brian's Back campaign was the Loves. Stephen the "brains," Mike the showman, Stan (and Rocky) the muscle to intimidate Brian. All the songs in Hollywood movies, Mike. Club Kokomo, Mike. I'm sure Mike was on board with Steve Levine because Levine said that's the main reason the band hired him, because of Culture Club's success, and we know who in the band is always focused on success.

But money also ruined Dennis; even though he was a spendthrift, I think it opened up many indulgences that Dennis should have been cut off from. Dennis really started to fall apart after the Brian's Back campaign/POB; that's when the money was coming in like crazy from the tours. Bruce has always been about the business. Carl seemed to accept that mindset by the 1980s; though he did mention to Levine that the BB had an entourage problem. Al seems okay with making a buck, but isn't going to be out there self-promoting like Mike. Brian is Brian.

So what are my fears about this current deal?

The Beach Boys name being a touring band decades after all the original members are deceased
Tacky merchandise/hotel chains like Margaritaville
Whitewashing/oversimplification of the history of the group
Ignoring pretty much everything past 1966
Jukebox musicals, Hollywood biopics, and chain restaurants

I'm not a Beach Boys fan because of the lifestyle. I don't want a Broadway show like Jersey Boys. One, why? Give me the original music. Two, you cannot tell the Beach Boys story without it going dark. But that won't sell, so it'll be something like: Surfin', We're big! Cousin Brian did drugs, no one listens to us anymore, Cousin Dennis did drugs and died, KOKOMO!!!! and rip Cousin Carl. A Beach Boys musical with Murry in the 1st act, Rocky Pamplin in the 2nd act, and Eugene Landy in the 3rd act. And that's just about Brian. 

I think, maybe, the guys want that push for big-name recognition one last time. They all got screwed over in their careers. It wasn't just Brian. They were unfairly judged and their talents were mocked. Their entire career has been pigeonholed as fun in the sun. We all know they didn't pick the name The Beach Boys. They cannot escape their own name and this legacy/lifestyle stuff is going to be just that. Pet Sounds t-shirts at Target and Club Kokomo brand food and drink. Overexposed, commercialized

What’s wrong with Pet Sounds shirts at Target? You can buy Abbey Road shirts at the mall. Why shouldn’t you buy a Pet Sounds shirt?

The Beach Boys name being a touring band decades after all the original members are deceased

Me: That may happen anyway even without this deal.

Tacky merchandise/hotel chains like Margaritaville

Me: Only Al suggested the restaurant thing. After earlier attempts failed, I doubt anyone would seriously consider that. Again.

Whitewashing/oversimplification of the history of the group

Me: So, you’re worried that something that has been happening for decades will happen?

Ignoring pretty much everything past 1966

Me: BRI never owned the pre-1970 catalog. If anything, I expect the new owners to actually start pushing the 67-73 material to TV and film producers. Music from the 60’s and 70’s is still a thing for movies, but many have strayed away from the over familiar and have started discovering the more obscure stuff from that era. This deal, I think and hope, will help with that.
Jukebox musicals, Hollywood biopics, and chain restaurants

Very thoughtful post above, Join The Human Race.   Thanks for sharing your thoughts.  I do think that a number of your fears are well-grounded. There is indeed a potential for "Club Kokomo" cheesiness. And there's no guarantee that documentaries and biopics are going to be any good.  We all remember the disastrously bad "American Family" made-for-TV movie.

The proof of the pudding will be in the eating, and it'll be interesting to see what happens.  I do think that it's useful to recognize that the status quo before this deal wasn't that great.  You mention that, for you, it's ultimately all about the original music. Period.   And I feel the same way.  But was the status quo working as well as it could with respect to the original music?  I would say no.  Not even close. If I go onto Universal Music's online store right now in February 2021, do I see what I, as a hardcore fan, think ought to be there as proper treatment of the band's musical legacy?
https://shop.udiscovermusic.com/collections/the-beach-boys

Sure, there are the obligatory Pet Sounds issues, and some greatest hits compilations, the Christmas album, and a hodge-podge of other albums issued on CD or vinyl.

But....

No Smile packages at all, no Sunflower, no Friends, no Surfer Girl, no Holland, no Love You, no career-spanning box, no Summer Days, no Summer Nights.  You get the idea.

  I mentioned in another thread about a week ago, that, based on what I'm seeing on eBay, it appears to me that most of the Smile packages (box, 2LP, 2CD) have slipped out of print.  Some of the most important, legendary recordings ever made... and they've slipped out of print?!  IMO, this is indicative that there is a lot of room for improvement with respect to doing right by the musical legacy.

Also, one other comment about Brian Wilson.  For a long time, I pretty much bought into the notion of the young BW as simply an innocent guy from Hawthorne who hoped to make  a few records that his friends liked.  But later, based on what I've read, I've come to the conclusion that the truth is more complex... a lot more complex.  Reading James Murphy's book Becoming the Beach Boys, 1961-1963, turned my head a bit.  When you have Brian, as high school student, paying visits to the manager of the Four Freshmen seeking advice on how he could duplicate the success of the Freshmen, you realize that his early ambitions were a bit broader than the standard narrative might suggest.  The popular narrative is that Murry used the boys to achieve his own long-dreamed-of success in the music business. And there's certainly some truth to that. But is it the whole story?  Reading about those very early days, it seems that possible that Brian was also using Murry a bit too...  Letting Murry be the "bad cop,"  the heavy who did the dirty work of fighting with Capitol, firing people, being confrontational, etc.

Well, surfers are usually seen as some kind of "nature guys" and the Beach Boys, assisted by Jack Rieley, also had their part of ecological awareness, of which only Al seems to have gone through with through the decades (although: Didn't Mike warn of global warming in the SIP liner notes? I haven't read them in a long time and could be wrong.). But combined with their own understanding of spiritual music (especialy from the Wilson's side) and their connection to the ocean you could definitely brand them as a group that is in harmony with the environment and cares about it. Although the car songs may not fit at first view, I guess it would be possible to take away from the racing aspect and focus on the technical sides (the motor and gear) and in some way brand them as backers for eco-friendly cars or something like that.

This is also seen in the Smile era, when Brian was very concerned with 'brand'. I don't have the quote to hand, but it concerns the formation of Brother Records, with Brian bemoaning the fact that they had up till now ignored artwork and merchandising, but it was all going to be coming together with film, music, artwork and lifestyle under this umbrella heading of 'The Beach Boys'.

In fact I was reminded of that in the Rolling Stone article about this sale, with Olivier Chastan's quote that “The Beach Boys, in a sense, are not just a band. They’re a lifestyle. They’re a consumer brand. And they’ve never really exploited that.”

That seems very similar to what Brian was saying in '67.

I understand people's concerns about the band's legacy becoming a commodity, but that is the truth of the music business. Even in that rare period in the mid to late 60's when talent and artistic statement were seemingly more valued, those attributes were still heavily tied to money, The music business is what it plainly says it is. A business. We're actually lucky to have these rare periods of l'art pour l'art  at all.

Considering how many threads descend into "won't somebody please think of the legacy", I'd say the wishes of the board have come true.

Seeing the 1972 band photo on the official site’s front page kinda speaks volumes.

Very well said, and another reason why I think this is a great deal all the way around

Absolutely. And it could have been far worse.

They could have sold to Disney.

I...kinda was afraid that was gonna happen.

If it’d have been NBC Universal, I technically would be working for the same company; I’d have pushed for a transfer and offered to help Howie and the gang out with future projects (I work dirt cheap). Ah dammit :lol

Yes indeed, and great call on the Brother Records history going back to 1967. It's a shame Brother as drawn up originally didn't happen as planned. Brian and Anderle were onto something with the Brother concept.

Worth noting that Frank Zappa perhaps better than anyone I've ever read nailed the whole scene you're mentioning from the mid-to-late 60's. It is ultimately a business, and always has been. But what Zappa nailed is how in the 60's the older guys in the suits were the ones bankrolling it at the labels, and if an artist was selling records or had the potential to sell records, the old guys didn't care what it was or how far out it was as long as they made money. A lot of great *art* was released as a result and it was less about focus groups and computer generated demographic trend charts. What ruined a lot was going into the 70's, the younger guys started wearing the suits then got involved in the business side of things at these labels, and everything changed.

There may be more to that. What we know Murry did do with his sons is drill into them - relentlessly - the kind of work ethic he thought they should have. He was doing that even in 1965 on the Rhonda session tape. Fight for success, work hard and work constantly, no loafing or coasting...imagine having a drill sergeant like mentality hammering you constantly about success and hard work when you're a kid. You're going to follow those orders.

The way it worked regarding young people looking to have a career in those days often included writing letters to various people they admired or aspired to be, especially in the entertainment business and radio/TV. I know many examples of people who became superstar-level famous writing letters to various musicians, TV hosts, radio DJ's, etc asking how they can get into the business. Some even kept the original replies, if they got one, and remembered exactly what they said.

So it's totally possible that a teenage Brian being a huge Four Freshmen fan says to his dad "I want to do what the Freshmen do". And Murry would say something like "If you want that success, you have to fight for it. If you like the Freshmen, write them a letter. Write their manager a letter. Find out how they did it and then fight to do it for yourself." And that's pretty much the mentality the post-war generation worked with when it came to trying to break into a business like making music or being a TV host when they grow up.

You did touch on another issue that Brian doesn't get enough credit for - How did a kid in 1962-63 get so much power to write, produce, arrange, and perform his own music with his band on a major label? This simply didn't happen, it wasn't done in the record business. I don't see it as much that Brian was "using" Murry as he *needed* Murry because major labels didn't have kids barely out of their teens telling them what they were going to do with their music, let alone producing and writing their own material. It was still pop music for kids, it wasn't Sinatra or Nat King Cole. Kids were not listened to or taken seriously. You needed an adult involved so the guys in suits could talk business while the kids were in the other room. You needed a trusted adult in the studio so the kids wouldn't write crayon scribble on the walls. That was the mindset.

It still blows my mind how Brian got producer credit and that freedom mixed with autonomy to allow him to cut records where he wanted and how he wanted in 1963. It just wasn't done in the industry with newer acts. People credit the Beatles with breaking down that wall of not needing to record what the A&R man told them, and being able to write and release primarily original songs. They were right, and right about Buddy Holly too in a lesser sense (not all Holly's hits were written by him), but here was young Brian Wilson doing all of that. I do credit Murry because he was a hustler and would push to get what he wanted in an old-school kind of way (schmoozing various execs and DJ's, all of that hustle...), but to navigate the business in 1962-63 as a new act they needed an adult to do a lot of that kind of work. It isn't as much a case of him being used, but someone (an adult) like Murry was needed to get in the door to do a lot of these things. Murry knew the "hard sell" and used it.

How else would a band of teenagers and guys barely out of their teens have gotten in the door at Capitol and then demanded they have control over what and how they recorded? It didn't happen in 1962.

(https://i.imgur.com/vB9B5.gif)


(Sorry, I couldn't resist)

This is reflected well in the '95 Don Was documentary, when Dave Crosby talks about Brian's respect within the early to mid 60's music business. I would never diminish the impact the Beatles had on the business side, but Brian is never given the credit he is due for the doors he broke down for the next generation of artists. His struggle for creative freedom really paved the way for the business mindset of the mid 60's to the mid 70's.

What can we take from this? A lot is written about Brian from a compositional / production viewpoint, but less about the business impact he had. Notions of creative freedom are taken for granted now, but people such as Brian had to fight for that, and it's a fight that's been going on since at least the late 18th century.

Indeed, the commodification of music is a fascinating subject. Of particular interest is the transition from the pre eminent model of music publishing, which had been dominant since Elizabethan times, to that of the marketing of recorded sound. This transition was seen in much the same apocalyptic terms as the era of downloading / streaming has had on the present. New models were needed, and the business survived. It is this idea of 'new modelling', which can be seen in these legacy / intellectual property decisions being made now.

When the copyright laws concerning recorded sound were created at the beginning of the last century, no one could have conceived of artists having 60+ years careers, hence the recent copyright law changes, (not to mention the wonderful 50 year releases we've had). This has also affected the mindset of an artists' commercial legacy.

Yes, all this music could pass into public domain, and left for posterity to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Or it could be respectfully stewarded into the future, with everyone clear on the impact and importance of this catalogue. It is worth remembering that it is not long ago that the idea of mentioning the Beach Boys in the same breathe as the Beatles would have been met with ridicule and disbelief. Post 1990's fans may not appreciate this, but it is true nonetheless.

I would rather live in a world where the catalogue of this work, and it's importance, is kept alive.

With respect to the Brother Records plan conceived by Brian Wilson and David Anderle, it would be a mistake to lump that in with mere "branding," "marketing" and "selling." It was an art-driven plan, or a creativity-driven plan; money was not the sole, or driving motivation.  The thing about art and commerce is that it's not either/or, and it's not really saying much to point out that Brian had a business mind in the  1960s, which, to his credit, he did. He made some mistakes in the '60s, but by the mid-1960s, he knew what to do and was trying to do it.  He was not the spaced-out musical dreamer (or basket case) that history seems to portray him as.  The key point is how Brian had, by the mid-1960s, come to view the relationship between art and commerce. In a nutshell, he realized that art comes first - express yourself - and then sell it.   This is in fact the only way art can survive - if your governing motivation is selling and marketing, then art gets squashed, and all you're  left with is business songs.  For the vast majority of its lifespan, the Beach Boys put commerce first, and then, at best, told themselves they could make worthwhile music that way.

Re: Brian visiting the Freshmen's manager, that's an important thing to take account of. What it shows is that he, as a young man, had drive and ambition.  This reminds you of Dylan visiting Woody Guthrie, and Frank Zappa writing letters to Edgard Varese.  Whether this sort of thing was commonplace, I don't know - I would have assumed it to be unusual behavior, indicative of a very driven person who knows what they want to do.  That's what I had assumed, but if Guitarfool has the knowledge, that's interesting and good to know.  Nevertheless, on the issue of "drive" and "ambition"...


...this father-advises-son scenario is possible, but I don't think it's to be assumed. That is, Brian could have done this on his own. If I recall, the first I heard mention of this incident was Charles Granata's Pet Sounds book, where the former Freshmen manager is quoted, and if I recall he says nothing about Murry being involved. And from what we know about Murry, he would have been there, at the office, glued to Brian, had he known about this visit.

Basically, my point is that the idea that Brian needed Murry so much because (i) Brian was a shy introvert; (ii) Murry had the "drive" that Brian didn't have; (iii) Murry (and others in the organization) had the business-mindedness that Brian didn't have... all that is sketchy, if not outright wrong.  Which is the sort of thing I was getting at earlier in the thread where I commented (or was trying to say) that that the new business deal will have no impact on the transmission of the real Beach Boy story - its significance - to the public.  There's a ton of stuff that hasn't been dealt with in sufficient detail, and it's simply impossible for a "monetizing" business organization to do anything with it, except ignore it, deny it, or downplay (suppress) it for sake of profit.  Which of course is what the Beach Boys organization had already been doing quite successfully on its own.  I would be happy to be proven wrong by Azoff/Iconic, though.

And on that - I hope interested fans and Beach Boy-watchers don't get too excited about the Beach Boys' image being improved, or being recognized as "great." People have been trying to do that on-and-off for more than half a century. Brian Wilson himself was the first to try - with the help of people like Tony Asher and Van Dyke Parks.  Shortly thereafter (or at the same time) Derek Taylor was hired to help out.   Then David Anderle. Later, Jack Rieley tried. Warner Brothers seems to have been convinced that the group could be something it wasn't.   Later, members of the press have tried: Paul Williams, Timothy White, etc. You have well-meaning stewards of the music (the tapes, etc. ) who respect the music and do their best to help, and there have been (and apparently continue to be) journalists who find themselves inside the organization, trying to transmit good music to the public, to help improve things.  Now we have Irving Azoff's company to swoop in, and finally do what heretofore could not be done. I don't see anything of that sort happening, but would be happy to be proven wrong.

Greg, the point you made about the Beatles and Beach Boys related to fans who weren't around in the 90's is something I've been writing and talking about for years. I go back to the years 1992-1994, roughly, and it was truly a Jekyll and Hyde scene, surreal if not kind of sad. I had taken that deep dive into a Beach Boys obsession, the timing was right because the PS reissue was still making waves and available, the 2-fers were in  the stores, in '93 the box set had come out with all of that glorious Smile material, etc.

Yet when I (and others I'm sure) were trying to share the pure joy of that music, you'd see the Beach Boys being represented differently than what that music would suggest. Summer In Paradise in the same bins as the Today/Summer Days 2-fer. Video of concerts with hula girls, cheerleaders, and Mike pretending to play a tenor sax next to clips of the original band kicking ass on the TAMI Show or the Sullivan appearances. The same band who did "California Girls" and "I Just Wasn't Made For These Times" doing a song originally written as a rap duet with Bart Simpson. It seemed like two different bands. In some ways it still does.

I think something was needed to make things more cohesive moving forward, and I'm hopeful this new deal is going to help in that regard. One of the reasons why The Beach Boys as a brand entity has been misunderstood and overlooked by so many is because there were too many entities out there labeled "The Beach Boys".

Dare I say it, when you say "The Beatles", it's one brand identity that everyone knows. There aren't multiple versions and variations of "The Beatles" in the marketplace, even though their image, music and sound changed drastically as a band.

Absolutely. Why is it that one has no trouble reconciling 'Please Please Me' with 'Don't Let me Down', whilst recognising the value of 'Catch a Wave' when compared to 'Surf's Up' necessitates one become an apologist?

I think that schism has been part of the Beach Boys since the beginning, despite the fact that for every 'Surfing USA', there has always been a 'Lonely Sea'. For every (A) side of Today!, there has always been a (B) side.

And as easy as that is to simplify as a battle between Mike's positivity and Brian's melancholy, (read commercialism vs art), I think that schism cam be traced to Brian alone. He entered wholeheartedly into the commercialism of 'The Beach Boys', whilst always needing an outlet for his more esoteric work. Feel free to correct me, but I think Brian alone created the schizoid nature of 'The Beach Boys', which can be directly traced back to his strict upbringing telling him  to 'succeed' in direct conflict with his intellectual and emotional need to 'create'.

It's easy to forget that under the 'Beach Boys' label, the whole mythology of 'California Cool' was created. Then Brian spent the years from '65 onwards trying to escape his own creation.

Any attempt to embrace the legacy of 'The Beach Boys' needs to embrace the entire catalogue, and reconcile it into one powerful body of work like 'The Beatles'. I think this is something Brian never succeeded in doing due to his own inner narratives.

The new merch looks good

Looking at the new website - wondering why 15 Big Ones might have been skipped over in this section.
There's a few later things missing too.
??

We're on the same page, but I do disagree with some of those points. The Beatles were a true team of 4, along with their other inner circle outside and inside the studio. There was no one who could tell them "you cannot do that" after 1963. And they all basically vowed to not repeat themselves on every subsequent effort, and try new things in songwriting and sound. They changed after 1963 from album to album. When those elements above ceased to be the order of the day, and individual efforts started to become more important to those individuals than the band, they were done.

Brian specifically was told by his father and other band members "you cannot do this, you'll alienate our fans" on *Good Vibrations*, of all songs. One of the greatest singles of all time, done by a band with a successful track record, and that "inner circle" of his brothers, cousin, and father were doubting it.

Did anyone tell Lennon "you can't do" Tomorrow Never Knows or Strawberry Fields? No - They worked to make it happen. Did anyone tell McCartney "you can't do" a single that lasts over 7 minutes? No - They changed the record-cutting process to enable that single to come out as recorded on 45rpm. Did anyone tell Harrison "you can't do" Indian music with Indian musicians featured on a pop record? No. It came out and influenced others to go outside Western music for inspiration.

Those are just some examples where some groundbreaking music and unorthodox sounds could easily have been shot down or vetoed, by the band and management, no one did that to The Beatles.

One of the keys to understanding Brian Wilson is he seeks out and all but needs people around him to support what he's doing, in 60's lingo to "get on his trip" and be supportive. A lot of that came from the house he grew up in where he was always being told he needed to be better, his work wasn't good enough, etc. And when he's putting records on the top-40 charts barely out of his teens, his dad is there hectoring him and hassling him over production, singing, writing, the whole deal. Then a few years later his bandmates start doing similar things. He did indeed want to go further in his music - he inspired The Beatles to do that and other things in their own career, like drop out of regular touring to make the studio recordings and songs that much more complex and better - but there were nagging voices telling him you can't do that.

I know some will argue that didn't happen, and The Beach Boys were all peace, love, and big hugs all around, but it simply wasn't the case. Just as early as a few weeks ago Steve Levine and Brian found common ground with each other discussing the hassles they had to deal with as producers, in Brian's case telling Steve about the resistance he was met with on Pet Sounds from his bandmates. If some want to whitewash that part of the history off the books, they can try but that's what happened and those are the facts.

Finding a way to have Catch A Wave and "I Just Wasn't Made For These Times" has been difficult, but not impossible. I once had a songwriting class with a professor who was a major early Beatles and Beach Boys fan. One class, he walked in and went right to the upright piano, then started banging out the intro to "Catch A Wave", singing along and the people in the class who didn't know the song were amazed. He then broke down the chords, how Brian changed keys, and explained just how far-out doing such a change on a *surf* record really was in 1963-64. It was fascinating and fun, and those people in the class got an appreciation for just how good Brian's music really was, even beyond the stalwarts like God Only Knows. This was in the early 90's.

So it can be done, it's just a tall order to change perceptions.

What I think can't be done is to put utter crap that this band released up on the same shelf as their best work. Play someone "Summer Of Love" and gauge the reaction...and then put that next to the classics. It's almost impossible to square that up, it isn't like playing a surf hit from '63 next to 'Til I Die or something, and I think attempts to square up the dreck with the good stuff will be laughable if not harmful to the overall plan. It would be like introducing the music of Brian Wilson to someone by playing "Smart Girls". It's ridiculous and does not represent the man's music overall. You can't try to force it into the same bag without coming off as trying to sell the Brooklyn Bridge.

And again I think one of the key issues in making a cohesive brand identity is to limit how many different entities are either labeled or sold as "The Beach Boys" no matter what licenses are available. It doesn't make sense to cause the confusion where people watching a PBS holiday concert see Mike Love and Mark McGrath performing at a Beach Boys concert, billed as The Beach Boys, doing a Beach Boys classic from 1968, and it's a Mike Love solo project being promoted. That is not the way to market a cohesive brand when people are hearing a Beach Boys classic at a show billed as The Beach Boys but it isn't a Beach Boys project. Hell, even one of the articles I just saw and clicked on this past week was news about the Beach Boys, and the lead photo on the story page was Mark McGrath and John Stamos at one of Mike's drive-in gigs or something - not a Beach Boy in sight!

That can't happen if cohesiveness is the goal.

At some point, I think it would be a very good thing if your points above were echoed in some sort of official documentary by some music historians, or perhaps even by members of the band themselves. Not some homemade fan documentary, but something on the level of the Duplass brothers. Maybe some sort of reassessment of the band and a more honest take on their career will come about as a result either directly or indirectly of this new deal.

There needs to be a bit of a reckoning of coming to terms with not only the different sides of the band, but  admitting that some of the output was objectively awful. And getting into the deeps schisms of identity. I think it's a good first step that Irving Azoff spoke about the brand falling from the heights of Mount Rushmore, because that does actually admit that they fell from grace - and that is a completely accurate statement and a tragic one. The reasons are complex but I hope there can be some honesty in approaching those reasons without whitewashing, even if it means some members don't wind up looking all that great in the process. In fact, it's objectively necessary for that to be the case in order for there to be any honesty in the story.

Somebody earlier in this thread mentioned how the band/brand has never really been truly honest and that there's always been historical whitewashing of stuff in order to appease the egos of certain members of the band, in my view namely Mike. I hope that at some point there can be a proper in-depth documentary that talks real talk about some of the mistakes that the band has made over the years, and how ego and greed got in the way of art.

I know the goal of this type of massive monetary deal is not to "bring honesty" to the brand, but it's to monetize the brand. But I think somewhere along the line a balance can be struck, although I'm not sure if any of that is going to be in the lifetimes of the members of the band. It may be quite a long while before any real, objective documentary or book gets into the nitty-gritty of these issues that befell the band at the cost of not only great music, but at the cost of the mental health and physical health of the band members.

I think for fans to realize and understand the complexity of this band, and in order to grasp the full story and gain a greater appreciation for the great music that they made, an examination of why they took as many wrong turns as they took is just as important from a historical perspective. There's plenty of brand damage to be undone and to be unraveled.

The one thought that keeps crossing my mind, is why couldn't this have happened one year earlier before Mike inflicted so much damage on the brand in the year 2020? It's almost like they had to fall to this level of unprecedented dysfunction with the trophy hunting show and all of the Trump garbage in order to get them to realize how this was jeopardizing the brand. Or maybe the timing was just coincidental.

It's just pretty funny how most everybody, including myself, is happy at the idea that harebrained ideas like those shows probably won't continue to happen going forward under the brand name, yet for this restriction to happen mere months after a bunch of that awful negative stuff really makes me wish the timing could've been different. I still think that Mike crapped in the soup with regards to a potential forthcoming 60th anniversary reunion with his antics in 2020,  but that said I am trying to remain remain hopeful that this giant deal will effectively amount to damage control so that such things don't get any worse. And I am very excited for what this might bring with regards to future vault releases, first and foremost.

Side note...  I was just reading a piece about how Azoff is building a new $250 million arena on I-10 near Palm Springs.
https://www.desertsun.com/story/life/entertainment/music/2021/02/20/music-mogul-irving-azoff-return-live-music-california-desert/4515241001/

Set for opening in late 2022, he's promising "a big opening month" perhaps including the Eagles playing for 3 nights.
Hmmm... just wondering... perhaps a similar stint for the reunited BBs at Azoff's new digs? 

Did anyone tell Ringo "you can't write a song about an octopus!"? No... Well... actually, yes, somebody probably did tell him that.

That's fine, and normally I would welcome any debate, especially with a seasoned text smith such as yourself!

However in this case I must concede that it was a lack of clarity in my argument which was to blame.

You are absolutely right that the early to mid period Beatles presented a united front, and was a supportive unit which relied on a healthy competitive dynamic to push them to ever greater heights.. You are also right that when this was no longer the case, they dissolved. This decision not only ties their story into a neat bundle, but also spares us any possible (probable?) decline in the quality and relevance of their work.

From there, your argument that any defence in favour of the Beach Boys work involve us not only having to reconcile 'Catch a Wave' with  'Surf's Up', but to reconcile  'Summer in Paradise' with 'All Summer Long'. I hadn't considered this in my post and you are right that it makes unifying this catalogue nearly impossible without careful curation or, failing that, a large dose of cognitive dissonance. However, my initial point that the early Beach Boys' work is not as highly valued as the early Beatles work is, I feel not only true, but also unfair, (though I am aware some may disagree with this).

Moving back to the support structure of the respective bands, I at no point meant to imply that the internal dynamic of The Beach Boys was, as you say peace, love, and big hugs. Anyone arguing this would be disregarding years of testimony and evidence to the contrary. I think what I take umbrage to is this narrative, which incidentally stems directly from Mike in the Endless Harmony doc, that Love supplied the positive (read extrovert) aspect and Brian the melancholic (read introvert). Such a simple, black and white narrative is similar to the one that states that Lennon wrote the rockers, and McCartney the ballads. Both positions are not only demonstrably untrue, but are also damaging and pernicious when it comes to discussing legacy. Consider that Mike often strawmans us by conflating positivity with  commercial success, and melancholy with commercial failure. Anyone who accuses pre-Smile Brian of not understanding what makes a commercial hit is simply wrong, but this fallacy allows Mike to become the architect of their success.

I much prefer the nuanced position that the introverted and the extroverted side of the Beach Boys, this fascinating yin yan which pervades all of their best work' stems predominantly from Brian's character. Brian. as the ultimate arbiter of what went on the classic period LPs, expresses this inner argument time and time again. That this inner battle resulted from his damaged upbringing and his complicated relationship with his bandmates is of course pertinent, but it only takes us so far in explaining the music.

And it is music, rather than lyrics which best demonstrates this 'light and dark' aspect to his work. Pet Sounds, a work which Mike, regardless of his many arguments in favour of, would probably describe as introspective. Lyrically his argument would hold water. However, the almost painful emotion expressed in the backing track of 'Don't Talk'  is counterbalanced by the absolute joy of life that in the track for 'Wouldn't it be Nice?' That this interaction between mood often happens within a single song, take the track for 'I'm Waiting for the Day', or 'Good Vibrations', is one of the things that gives this music its power. It is not just a case of major key vs minor key, or up-tempo vs slow. This light and dark is built into the composition and arrangements in a masterful way. I'm sure someone like Joshilyn Hoisington could explain how Brian does this far better than me!

Apologies for the waffle, which is probably no clearer than my preceding post. My main point is that this yin yan nature of the Beach Boys is far more pronounced than in other bands. Partly it is their strong, early branding in conflict with their later attempts to distance themselves from it (before returning to it). Partly it is conflict within and around the band. Mostly however, I feel it comes from Brian himself, who expertly built his inner conflicts into the fabric of his work, at the compositional level. In this regard I don't think it's any mistake that he's sometimes referred to as 'the Mozart of pop'

All of this brings us full circle to the recent Beatles/Beach Boys thread. What follows is a bit weird and too telescoped in nature, but bear with me: aside from their unity, the Beatles had another advantage in conquering America and the world--they were not Americans. The mystique was part of the appeal, and it was deployed and developed perfectly (and put into overdrive with the success of A HARD DAY's NIGHT). From 64-66, they essentially recycled rock'n'roll and took it into several different directions, all while sounding reasonably homogeneous. They blended their work in an eclectic way.

Brian and the Beach Boys were schizoid virtually from the start--the yang and the yin pulled Brian in several directions at once, and he grew through absorbing, emulating and transcending others--first Spector, then the Beatles (in their RUBBER SOUL incarnation). PET SOUNDS bridged the "schizoid" element in their work, but only music insiders understood what was underneath the hits and how it had led to such a synthesis. The performance of singles off the LP signalled a holding pattern; the band was split in its response to such a direction; the record label added to the "schizoid" issue by releasing a greatest hits LP a few short weeks later. Synthesizing pretty much everything he'd developed since the beginning of the band's career, Brian conjured up--"Good Vibrations"--a song that had all the "yang" and "yin" of the group distilled in one stunning mosaic--which created a moment where they were ahead of everyone in where(ever) pop was rushing off to in 66-67.

Where it went off to--of course, and alas--did not include the Beach Boys, and ~90% of that audience would not really have included SMiLE as a trendsetter, even had it preceded SGT PEPPER to release.  No one except maybe Van Dyke Parks could follow SMiLE into the studio (well, the 19-year old Michael Lloyd took a stab at it on that Smoke LP of his, but his was mostly songwriting form, not production). The band hit a commercial dead end, but blossomed into a Beatles-like entity for those years--which also had strife and change as the rock world went through its most frenetic period--all of this happening while it mostly ignored what was happening with the BBs until Jack Rieley hit upon selling the SMiLE myth. This was a  masterstroke that backfired, because they never made good on the promise and the entire incident sent Brian over a cliff for 3-4 years (and led to the two Landy administrations). The schizoid nature was suspended in midair when ENDLESS SUMMER brought them back to major prominence, but it became more exacerbated by the 76-77 period, followed by Carl and Dennis running out of steam creatively, and Mike's takeover of the business side, which eventually pushed Brian back under the waves in 80-82 (leading to Landy II). The consultants who've spent the last 30 years propping up the group while it found itself incapable of making another LP for 20 years have done the best they could to exercise damage control over what Mike has done to the overall legacy of the group, but the other members allowed him to retain too much power and autonomy.

Getting back to Azoff: the big problem in the RS article is the use of the word "lifestyle." It leaves us hanging as to how they can reconcile the cheesy elaboration of that idea that has been Mike's trademark with the exploratory music of Brian, and the work that the band did in forging a parallel identity in 67-73. If this new approach does not honor/acknowledge the other Wilson brothers, then it will be just another hollow sham.

Several of us have talked about how all this can be gotten across to a wider audience via a documentary--or multiple documentaries. How can those build and go beyond what has already been done to build the legacy? Will Azoff etal throw a sufficient amount of $$ at such an effort and use the established brain trust (Mark, Alan, Howie) etc. to take this further? Will they be allowed and encouraged to synthesize from the earlier materials and incorporate them into something that goes that full distance? My guess is that Alan is the guy who could synthesize that, if they let him take a crack at it. Of course, we are still waiting to see what Brett Wilson has done with Brian--but the need for a birds-eye overview that captures the whole story of all the major players (and the key "fringe" folks, some of whom are often/occasionally seen in these parts) is greater than ever, and it needs to be put into the works now, since none of the principals are getting any younger.

If they want to have something even remotely worthwhile to build into a 60th anniversary, they've got 14-16 months to pull it all together. Let's hope that FEEL FLOWS is the first salvo in all that...and that there is a plan more coherent and fully actionable than any of the piecemeal, schizoid approaches that have followed in the wake of Jack Rieley's departure. Jack had a number of issues but he was the only person in that position with a big-picture approach that accommodated both art and commerce--and that's what is needed at this point to make this outpouring of cash be more than a corporate variant of the old "two-step side-step"...

I think you *gotta* give this whole Iconic situation a wait-and-see.

As I've been alluding to, folks I'm hearing from are saying good things. People who would not be shy about calling it like it is if this was an ominous sign or some sort of s**t-show are saying good things right now.

This is *not* in any way a situation where they're going to delete everything but "Kokomo" and "Greatest Hits", and churn out "Still Cruisin'" mug cozies. This is a company with people who know how to do this thing, who are also reaching out to folks to help them who have the BB fans (including hardcore fans) in mind. They want to maximize their investment, which means *more* product of all kinds. And those fearing this is going to devolve into the simple Mike-style "surf/sand/cars" mentality/angle, I'm here to tell you that having a non-member in charge of making these decisions will ensure that we'll no longer have to deal with the mindset that thought the "Summer in Paradise" project was the *perfect* direction to take the Beach Boys.

This doesn't mean every product and project will be aimed at hardcore fans, or that we'll like every one of those projects or products. But with more *stuff * happening and coming out, I think ultimately things look good as far as us having more things coming out that we like, and seeing image/PR moves for the band/brand that are a step-up from things like the awful ending of C50 or Mike's controversial gigs last year.

All this makes sense to me. We've all seen the brand run into the ground and watched the same painful mistakes get made year after year. I think it's well worth the risk.

One of the things that is different with The Beach Boys that almost all other major bands is that the most talented and creative member is not the most dominant personality. You go through all the other major bands of the 1960s--The Beatles (Lennon and McCartney), The Who (Townshend), Led Zeppelin (Plant and Page), etc--and, for the most part, the person(s) who creates the music is usually the strongest personality. You rarely see a band where the guy who writes the songs and sings at least half of them is probably the most passive members (for many reasons, obviously, in the Brian's case.) Think how odd it is that Brian has to tour under his own name, but Mike gets the tour as The Beach Boys. It would be like Roger Daltrey touring as The Who with Townshend relegated to being a solo artist, or Robert Plant touring as Led Zeppelin without Jimmy Paige and John Paul Jones. In your typical rock band set-up, Brian would have always been in control of the direction and branding of The Beach Boys, and Mike would have little to no say. However, with the BB's, it has been screwed up for a long time, with Mike often acting like he is the creative force behind the band, as well as periods when Carl was in charge. If you ask yourself, who is the central mover behind the group, you get different answers depending on what time period you are discussing. You had Brian up to 1966/67, kind of a shared dynamic after that, followed by Carl being in control, followed by various iterations of Carl and Mike running things. That is why you have never had a clear direction for the band, because there have been different people with different agendas and visions running the band at different times.

The point in bold: I hope some more serious vetting takes place because there have been some issues in the past regarding the truthfulness and honesty (yeah, I just went there...) of some of those who have been consulted in the past for projects. And also some of the stuff that doesn't get made public that went on regarding some of the supposedly trusted few is in one simple word: shitty.

As always, hoping for the best.   

Maybe we’ll finally get Record Store Day vinyl releases of Lei’d in Hawaii and Adult Child.

Bring. It!!!  :lol

Greg, you make some great points here, very much worth noting! You call it the yin and the yang, I call it the Jekyll and Hyde - but it's basically the same concept and one which runs through the band's career. Sometimes it creates poignant musical moments, which you describe, and sadly more often it has created a head-scratching "WTF?" moment among fans who follow the band on a deeper level than buying greatest hits collections.

Your examples are very well chosen - It isn't just the composition of those songs. After all, who ever declared however many years ago that a minor chord sounded "sad"? It's all perception, and some of those perceptions from a musicology angle are ones I would really like to trace the origins of. Some of it is simply how a listener feels when hearing a certain group of notes, and how a composer plays on those expected perceptions to create a mood in the composition. But no doubt, Brian knew how to write these feelings into his songs.

I think even more of a key to how Brian delivered these "feels" in his music was the *sound* and *texture* he created in his productions and arrangements. The way he could use one specific instrument to literally jump out of the mix and grab the listeners was uncanny in some cases, whether it was a familiar instrument like a guitar, his ultimate fastball in the form of the BB's voices in harmony, or something exotic like Paul Tanner's theremin on "I Just Wasn't Made For These Times" or cousin Maureen's harp on "Catch A Wave" or those accordions on "Wouldn't It Be Nice". They're so incongruous as sounds on a pop record that they literally demand attention and set a mood.

One of the ultimate yin/yang or Jekyll/Hyde moments I like to reference is the entirety of the song "Don't Worry Baby". So here is a song which wasn't originally a marquee release but one which appealed to those fans of the "introspective" side of things and one which became iconic and influential among a whole host of songwriters, indie/alternative musicians, and a concert staple up to the present day.

When you look at Don't Worry Baby at face value...it's about a drag race! Cars, racing, etc. Does anyone really hear it as a "car song"? It's packaged in such a sweet and melancholy *sound* as a production and record, it has lyrics which could be face-value about a car race or deeper introspection about a guy doubting himself but taking support and comfort in someone who loves him and is with him during his trials...Hot damn, you can paint it as a Brian Wilson personal self-reflection or apply any of your own feelings into the lyrics, and the fact it's about racing cars gets quickly forgotten. Having a falsetto lead - and not that Frankie Valli "swagger" falsetto lead but a true longing and reaching type of vocal quality - only enhances the conflict between the lyrical message on the surface and what listeners perceive when they hear the song in full form. If it were not a falsetto lead, and let's say Mike sang it or even Dennis sang it, I thing the dual perception yin/yang nature of it would be lost and it would be a song about a guy who's nervous before a drag race.

I think that's where the genius comes in - Playing on dual meanings and knowing what sounds to use to convey that. Although I will say, in terms of composition, the way Brian modulates just before the chorus, perhaps a nod to Be My Baby, combined with his use of the "Brian Wilson Chord" A/B as the V chord versus a regular B to create a more open sound gives the composition some different nuances than a normal I/IV/V chord structure.


So taking all of that as just one example, the early Beach Boys are, yes I agree, underrated and unheralded compared to later works. I'm seeing the same thing happen with early Beatles - I love that stuff from 63-64 to the core, to me it's some of the best pop songwriting of all time, yet the newer generations gravitate to the 67-70 material. I guess it's like politics in the USA, right? Going back to those Capitol compilations, there's the early "Red" Beatles and there's the later "Blue" Beatles lol. I did both...unfortunately that's not seeming to be the case as much these days. The Beatles are being defined by The White Album and Abbey Road and some true classics are being left behind or not highlighted as much.

And there's where a similar scene comes in with The Beach Boys. The music holds up - That is, the better examples of it. But when we need to somehow try to square up a track like "Summer Of Love" or that "Surfin" remake with even "Surfin USA" or "Lonely Sea" or "409", there is no *magic* in those later tracks. No rush of hearing Gary Usher's Chevy revving up, no rush of Carl's Dick Dale tremolo-picked guitar stylings on the fade-out, no Brian Wilson longing falsetto in those sustained notes...the later material sounds like a sheet of hard plastic where the classic material sounds like a warm blanket.

I honestly don't know how this disparity will be squared up, or if it's even worth trying. Jekyll and Hyde couldn't be more different with this band and its output.

I think you could say that "yin" and "yang" eventually morphed into "Jekyll" and "Hyde," and Brian did not consistently pursue more ambitious projects after SMiLE, preferring to find a "middle way" when he was not being medicated by Landy or occasionally pushed to go further by someone like Lenny Waronker. (To his immense credit, he faced down SMilLE, even if we didn't get something all that close to what it would've been in 1967.)

When he could use the voices of the band as both a musical instrument and a compositional benchmark, the sky was the limit. But such moments became more and more fleeting. As off-beat and wonderfully quirky as LOVE YOU is, there's really only a smidge of "yin" hanging on in it. Given all that went down, we are lucky to have the fifty-years-on follow up to "Lonely Sea" in the form of a "Summer's Gone." How much more of that is there that we haven't heard (the "iife suite," etc.), and can Azoff et al do justice to that while also selling a "California" theme to a nation where an increasing number of residents look cross-eyed at all the "wackos" on the West Coast?

Unfortunately, my Beach Boys fan Instagram page (formerly @thebeachboys66 on ig) was taken down by Instagram at the behest of Iconic Artists Group.  Was knocking on 6,000 followers too with endless ties to BB family members and family friends along the way.

I'm still super pumped though as to what the future holds with this arrangement for the band!

Were you given a reason why your page was taken down, like copyright claims on photos or anything like that? If it is a copyright issue, you can expect some of the YouTube channels to be removed too, since YouTube has gotten ridiculous over the past year with copyright strikes.

Sorry to hear about your page! It's hard to build followers only to see it removed like this.

Oh, this doesn't bode well for other fan-run sites. I'm sorry to hear this. I followed your Instagram page and enjoyed your posts.

So... David Crosby just sold to Azoff/Iconic too.   Apparently somewhat less comprehensive deal than with the BBs but more or less the same concept.

Crosby announced he was in the process of selling back in early December, in his case he said it was due specifically to Covid restrictions taking away his income from touring and the paltry if not insulting (my own 2 cents there) revenue he and other writers receive from online music services. I guess the deal was just finalized this week, which is why the headlines appeared.

This from December:

https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/david-crosby-selling-his-song-catalog-its-my-only-option-streaming-stole-my-record-money/ (https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/david-crosby-selling-his-song-catalog-its-my-only-option-streaming-stole-my-record-money/)

Leading up to the shutdown, Crosby had been touring with an excellent band, and the live performances I heard from them on the radio and elsewhere were great. Crosby was in good voice.

One of the other reasons being offered as to why all of these artists are selling now involves some impending federal tax increases, and selling these catalogs now could save these artists millions versus waiting until the taxes are enacted. Smart move in a financial sense. And a great pitch to make to the artists too.

wrote about tax  changes coming  (almost 40%) . some wrote me and  (well)  I feel sorry for these artists having to give up what is flesh and blood creations. 

Thanks, guys!  Thank you for the support too.  The only explanation from Instagram I received was an automated message that said, “At the request of Iconic Artists Group and other interested parties, your Instagram account is permanently disabled.”

It's ashame.  I always made it a point to never use personal pronouns or pretend to be The Beach Boys.  It was a blast being able to have a vehicle to spread the boys' music and info to so many.  Lots of positivity came out of that account!

Just saw that a recent birthday post for Mike Love on the Wrecking Crew FB page devolved into a mess of profanity, arguments, and general bad vibes in the comments section to the point it got taken down by the admins, who posted a follow-up explanation. I did not see the original post which got removed, just the follow up discussions.

I found it interesting because part of the new IAG deal involves marketing, and presumably trying to reshape or rebrand the band and its image to continue marketing them and the music into the future and giving them a better public image, making them more visible (and marketable) moving forward. It made me wonder how this issue on display at the Wrecking Crew FB page will be addressed, if at all, regarding the negative opinions floating around the internet for several decades now. Some attempts to change those opinions have failed in the past, mostly because it seemed the tactic was to try denigrating or even attacking Brian Wilson in order to boost up Mike's profile and resume, and some involved what looked like deliberate attempts to overstate Mike's credits. A lot of those were squarely the fault of those people who tried to do those things, perhaps not realizing that knocking someone's legacy or trying to smear them outright in order to boost another really does not work with most of the general public outside of the political arena.

It will be an interesting task at hand if that element even gets addressed, and what steps may be taken to lessen it in the future, but I can't see how it would not be on the table in terms of a global marketing and rebranding plan worth millions when there seems to be an elephant in the room.

Guessing that IAG is betting that time will take care of the problem.   Ultimately, the main legacy is the music. The music is the beginning and the end, and it stands on its own.  IMO, the secondary legacy is the band's close association with the California mythology (beaches, sunshine, palm trees and car-culture).  Though perhaps the Golden State has lost some of its luster for multiple reasons, I have to believe that BBs' mythical California will have enduring appeal.  These primary and secondary legacies are solid and need no rehabilitation.

 I'd say that the band's tertiary legacy is their story (the Wilsons and the Loves... and the Jardines to some extent; their rise from Hawthorne obscurity to the pinnacle of popular music; and Brian's genius and triumphs and travails and further triumphs.  Some of the public find the story fascinating while others don't care, have never cared or eventually won't care.  For those who care, the story is  appealing because it's a human one. But the story is complicated and messy and occasionally ugly. And, yes, some aspects of the BBs' story are off-putting to a large segment of the population.  I personally think the RnR Hall of Fame speech in the late '80s was the starting point of Mike gaining a reputation among the general public as "the jerk Beach Boy."  Not saying that ML's conduct was much different 10 or 20 years earlier, but I think that's a point when it became "a thing." And then with the countless lawsuits, you had disc jockeys and people in the music press saying, "Whoa, there he goes again."  And now finally there was the trophy hunting gig, etc, and the perception that generated a new round of animosity.  So, yes, aspects of this tertiary legacy are challenging and need rehabilitation and curation.  Can it be done?

At minimum, I'd like to think (hope) that with IAG now calling the shots and the BRI principals now receding to the position of minority shareholders all on the same side, that the days of intra-band lawsuits are over and done with once and for all.  After ML launched his umpteenth lawsuit against Brian or Al or both, I can't remember which, one of the British publications opined that the Beach Boys were becoming almost as well known for their writs as their hits.  That must stop and I suspect will stop.   As for controversial gigs, I would certainly hope that IAG is mindful of that and is keeping them on a short leash.  As for overall "jerkiness," well, again,  I'm guessing that IAG figures that it's a problem that will time out sooner or later.

I think just about the only way to reverse the damage and make any sort of change in peoples' minds (to minimize that so many such BBs threads, especially anything directly about Mike, descend into ugly arguments - not just here, but on the web in general), would be if there was some sort of real public heart-to-heart between Mike and Brian, where Mike straight up apologizes for a bunch of stuff, talks about being hurt, talks about his own culpability in all sorts of stuff, etc.

It seemed like that Rolling Stone article "The Ballad of Mike Love" from 2016 was a half-baked *attempt* at something like that, maybe for PR purposes, maybe just because Mike is pissed at Mike's own reputation and wishes things were better, and thought this would be a step in that direction. I give Mike a little credit for a few things in that article, but overall it could/should have been much better, but obviously he was only willing to open up and let his guard down a little bit.

Well now that the brand name sale has taken place, and there's an actual team of business people who are trying to figure out how to monetize the brand, possibly this could lead to Mike (and Brian) making some sort of other overture to mend fences even more, if only to appease the suits who now own the brand. I don't envy those suits, they are surely keenly aware of the fact that the brand they just bought has a huge fracture in it, namely the Mike/Brian issue and how deeply disliked Mike is by many fans. Many other fans don't care who Mike is, what he did, etc, but still I'm sure the business interests involved with the brand *wish* this issue was no longer an issue. Why would stockholders in the brand *want* to see every Youtube video/FB comments section descend into ugliness? I'm sure it's the last thing they want, but it's the reality. How much this hurts the profit potential of the brand is of course another question that I unironically am sure they have charts for determining.

While I do think at this point this is next to impossible to happen between Mike and Brian, I did recently see an example of two stubborn celebrities, one very powerful and wealthy, and one whose star had fallen, mend fences in a very public way - on the unscripted documentary show, The Fresh Prince of Bel Air reunion on HBO Max, Will Smith and Janet Hubert who have publicly feuded for nearly 30 years, and who repeatedly sh*t-talked each other in the press very much, actually sat down and had a long talk, with many tears. Again, I think it's a minuscule chance, but I think it would be very healing if Mike and Brian did something like that. Not just would it be good for the brand, but it would first and foremost be good for them as human beings. But only if it were totally sincere and didn't feel "produced" -  The Fresh Prince of Bel Air segment was amazingly very, very real feeling and just felt like 2 people who had a TON of water under the bridge, but they seemed to mend fences and admit where they both f*cked up.

I wish someone could convince Mike and Brian to do something like that, but while I won't hold my breath, I still think there's any number of possibilities that this type of fence mending could happen which would make some of the negativity subside. And it can't just be a simple reunion of a few gigs without addressing this specific relationship fracture for the reunion to carry any weight in repairing Mike's reputation, which again, if sincere, I can't think of many people who wouldn't want to see those 2 guys actually apologize for stuff and hug it out.

I'm also aware that Brian probably isn't keen on sitting down and talking about deep feelings on camera, so yeah I'm not sure how this would work, but I remain truly convinced that Mike really could redeem his reputation *somewhat* if he publicly talked about mistakes he's made, and asked for forgiveness, something of that nature. In some fashion, but in a high profile way. No, Mike doesn't have to do it, neither did Janet Hubert/Will Smith. Nobody *has* to do this stuff, but while they are living on this earth they *can*, and it can be a beautiful thing if done with sincerity.

Side note: Yet another big artist (Linda Ronstadt) sold her catalog to Azoff:

https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/news/linda-ronstadt-irving-azoff-catalog-1144437/

Really remarkable how this is all playing out.

Great thoughts. An event like that feels like something highly unlikely to happen, but man. It would give the brand such a shot in the arm, and a rare burst of *positive* publicity after years of confusion and negativity.

I think the best (and yet most unlikely) to put the focus on the great work each BB has done. That of course includes Mike's great vocals and hooklines (and imo to a lesser extent his better lyrics). A documentary or a book has to talk about the personal stuff of course, but when it comes to PR I guess you can focus on the musical part.

And in Linda's case, she's not selling songs or publishing because she's known as an interpreter and not a songwriter. So they're buying her image, her celebrity, her persona as the brand? I don't know how one would quantify such things.

It's the actual recordings isn't it? - that is, the copyright in them.

I don't believe so, because Linda herself doesn't technically "own" any of the commodity that is those hit songs she had through the years because she didn't write them. Unless there is some new legal technicality that just set a precedent, the copyright is originally owned by those who wrote the song and the publishing is owned by whoever signed the ownership papers in the process of publishing the song. The only compensation a performer gets is whatever percentage of sales they signed for in a contract and therefore however many records or uses of the performance generates income is how much they receive as a royalty.

The copyright itself doesn't generate income on its own, as it's just a protection so the original creators can claim ownership and no one else can blatantly copy it or plagiarize it then call it their own. Some very strange things have been copyrighted, but if a singer or interpreter of songs like Linda has a hit record with a song someone else wrote, that singer has no claim to the copyright, and the revenue from that particular hit record isn't going to the performer or interpreter of that song in terms of ownership but rather the writers and publishers get that income through other outlets like BMI/ASCAP, Harry Fox, SESAC, whatever else.

So I'm a little confused too as to what they're exactly "buying" in terms of Linda Rondstadt's catalog or legacy, and what they'll be selling beyond her old hit records. She makes money depending on whatever percentage she signed in a contract depending on sales of her records as a performer, but each of those songs also has a writer and a publisher who would technically get more of a percentage on the sales and use of those hit records.

And unless new contracts addressed this aspect, where does that leave those writers and publishers of Linda's biggest hits whose income would be just as affected by a new marketing and ownership deal if not more so than Linda herself?

That's what also confused some people about the David Crosby deal - That was for David's own song catalog and songs he contributed to as a writer, while all those massive hits he performed on but didn't write were not part of the deal. So you have David Crosby singing on a song written by, say, Stephen Stills that was massively popular but David's involvement as a performer doesn't come with the Azoff deal because he had no writing or publishing involvement in the song...yet was an integral performer on the song. So those massive Byrds and CSN&Y hits are not part of David Crosby's deal, but Linda Ronstadt's performances of other writers' and publishers' songs is the crux of her deal?

No, I don't get it, lol. I don't know what they're buying from Linda or what she is selling them other than her image and persona, because she has no ownership or creative claim to stake in those hits she became known for through the years.

Technically, Linda R. does have some songwriting credits. Not sure if any of those songs were hits per se, but a few of them were on hit albums.

Obviously, though, Linda's main "cut" is as a recording artist, not as a songwriter/publisher.

As I understand it, the bulk of Linda's recorded catalog is owned by Universal Music (Capitol) and Warner Music (Asylum/Elektra).  Those labels pay her mechanical royalties (per CD/LP/whatever unit sold) & performance royalties (whenever her recordings are played on radio, etc.), plus synchro (for use of her recordings in commercials, etc.). Those royalties would be governed by contract between Linda R. and the labels.

I'm certainly not privy to the terms of Linda's deal with Iconic, but it's possible that she has assigned her interest in her deals with Universal and Warner to Iconic.  Why would she do that?  Well, there's likely cash up front.   Not sure if Linda's deal is like the BBs' wherein they didn't sell completely but rather are retaining a stake in the potential upside, but that could come into play as well.    The idea (hope) is that getting, say, 49% of what Azoff can generate is going to be more than the 100% of what they can generate without his help.

Paul Simon just closed the deal to sell his catalog to Sony: https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/news/paul-simon-catalog-sale-sony-music-publishing-1149800/ (https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/news/paul-simon-catalog-sale-sony-music-publishing-1149800/)

That catalog sale is a blockbuster...in recent years I've noticed an increased interest (and presence) in Paul's music, especially Simon & Garfunkel, among younger fans.

It seems like the new version of the old record label "bidding war" is these investment/management groups trying to woo songwriters into selling their catalog. There are even other players in the game besides the Azoff group and Sony who are the big ones making the headlines.

Of course I still don't understand what is being bought or sold in the Linda Rondstadt deal since she didn't write the majority of songs she had hits with, but anyway  ;D

It seems like Rondstadt is essentially selling her own likeness rights/royalties, etc. The new rights holder essentially *becomes* Rondstadt for the purposes of signing off on things, collecting royalties, etc. I would guess in some of these deals the seller still retains some small percentage stake to ensure continued income, etc.

But I think the Rondstadt deal is the equivalent to what her estate would do if she were deceased; they're just doing it while she's still alive. In that way, it's similar to a portion of the BB deal.

I think that you've nailed it.

Right, and asking again what I did on the previous page, how does one quantify such a thing as image/likeness or persona? That's where it gets kind of weird to be honest. With the other deals, BB's, Simon, Dylan, etc, you have a marketable commodity in the catalog of proven hit songs which can be bought and sold, and also projected as to earning potential in the future. But sh*t, how much is the *notion* of an artist actually worth and how can it be valued? And will that artist have veto power so he or she doesn't end up as a classic image of themself on a poster selling Whoppers for Burger King?

Of course there is a lot of inside baseball and reams of legal documents the public can never see with these deals, but if more artists are selling in the way Linda sold, I can't fathom how a valuation would be made on someone's likeness.

And in Linda's case, I believe her biggest hits were written by other writers, so is there a provision in the contract and deal where those writers have a say in how the song is used too?

Again, I'm envisioning a hypothetical where the chorus of Linda's hit "You're No Good" gets used in a political ad to bash an opponent - right? - and someone in the ownership chain of that song who isn't included in Linda's deal says they don't want their song used in that way. I'm sure there are provisions, but still worth considering.

Azoff and Co are very busy sending cease and desists to various Beach Boys fan communities across the Internet for copyright infringement

Careful what you post here folks.. they are watching

Except the one that ostensibly went out to the Beach Boys Discord board was, in fact, an April Fools' hoax...

The problem is that the BB's history of litigiousness and, well, "discord" is so well established that just about any rumor of this type is going to be accepted at face value.

Just found out that was a joke...

They did get my YouTube channel suspended today.. but brother records are bad for that too

I think the Burger King Whopper example is probably exactly it. I would tend to think of it as an artist being a “brand” at this point. Maybe we’ll see Linda Rondstadt headbands at Target ?

In this age where making money in music is not much about music anymore, these icons are probably projected to be the biggest moneymakers of all. The music industry is getting weird. Artists can’t tour, they haven’t been able to sell physical media in large numbers for awhile now. If you look at The Beatles or Lennon, their teams have been doing this stuff for a long time. Yellow Submarine toys, etc ...

Already got some good ideas.

• A bean-bag chair themed around mid-70s Brian.
• Al Jardine circa 1972 novelty beard.
• Pet Sounds branded pianoguitar
• Given that it's legal now in a good few states, Mrs O'Leary's Cow branded Cannabis.
• A plain beige MIU branded floormat for practising TM

Frankly the fact that I haven't been hired yet astounds me

Given the state of some smokers I know, I think a better brand name would be Vegetables

👍   

👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏. Bravo!

I found this T-Shirt at a Target store near Pittsburgh, PA. It was in the young men's section along with the Beatles and Stones.

It's also available on the Target website.

Yes, I got one! Interesting 1983 being the year Dennis passed.

Very generic. Maybe someone knows it this is an authentic copy of the 1983 tour shirt? I would have preferred a "Help me Rhonda" T shirt or anything from the 1970's. Anyway, hopefully we'll see more merchandise in the future. The back inside reads copyright Brother Records 2021.

https://www.target.com/p/men-s-the-beach-boys-short-sleeve-crewneck-t-shirt-white/-/A-80825114?preselect=80740296#lnk=sametab

Well, a good start anyway. I've never seen a Beach Boys shirt in Target or Walmart. If you're out and about stop in and buy the shirt. The only way we'll see more is if the fans buy the product. 100% cotton and only $12.99.

I don't know if this was posted elsewhere on the board.

So I see that this tour shirt can be found around the internet. Available at a wide variety of sellers and prices. It's just nice to walk in to a Target and see a Beach Boys shirt available with the other Rock icons T-shirts.

I thought the surfer image was a bit "generic" but the more I see it the more I like it. 1983 was the last time they were all together. I like to think of it as a tribute to Dennis. Hopefully we'll see more like this in the brick and mortar stores.

A few months ago I found the same 1983 Beach Boys tour shirt at a Target store in Valdosta, Georgia. The last vestige of Dennis, as well as the color scheme and 1983 coincidentally being the year of my birth, made it an essential purchase. You can't beat the price, either. Appreciate your post, SloopJohnnyB.

I for one can't bear to buy or wear anything with this modern logo, which was just starting to appear at around that time. Just too slick for me and too much association with ML's hats. When was the first use of that font, around the time of Knebworth '80?

It is great that they're selling any BB clothing at the brick and mortar stores, and '83 was a long time ago. Maybe I'll make an exception in this case.

I think that logo was first seen on the 15 Big Ones album cover.

"I think that logo was first seen on the 15 Big Ones album cover."

Correct. The logo was designed by Dean Torrence and first appeared on the 15 Big Ones LP and 1976 tour program.

As others have pointed out, the logo started with Torrence's design for the "15 Big Ones" album in 1976.

I don't know how much I love the logo, but it *is* their logo, it's the only recognizable one, and in my mind it pre-dates having to see Mike's mug underneath it via a baseball cap, so I can't not have some sort of soft spot for it.  It's the closest they have to the drop-T Beatles logo or the Rolling Stones tongue thing or the The Who's target-looking logo, etc.

I think that Capitol's "THE BEACH BOYS"  lettering from the Smile cover would be better suited as their de facto logo.   It has been used elsewhere occasionally, e.g. on the Good Vibrations/H&V 78 that came out for Record Store Day a decade ago.  Its haphazard style has the mid-60s, California beach-culture vibe that is more associated with the group's heyday than the 15 Big Ones logo's sort of '50s Happy Days-retro that was popular in the '70s but actually harkens to an era that pre-dates the Beach Boys' glory days.

quote author=jeremylr link=topic=27587.msg671466#msg671466 date=1619576653]
A few months ago I found the same 1983 Beach Boys tour shirt at a Target store in Valdosta, Georgia. The last vestige of Dennis, as well as the color scheme and 1983 coincidentally being the year of my birth, made it an essential purchase. You can't beat the price, either. Appreciate your post, SloopJohnnyB.
[/quote]

Thanks!

This tour shirt was also licensed out to high end stores like Norstroms

https://www.nordstrom.com/s/daydreamer-beach-boys-1983-tour-rolled-weekend-graphic-tee/5716380?origin=keywordsearch-personalizedsort&breadcrumb=Home%2FAll%20Results&color=680

Serious money for this one:

https://www.nordstrom.com/s/madeworn-beach-boys-last-horizon-unisex-graphic-tee/5623205?origin=keywordsearch-personalizedsort&breadcrumb=Home%2FAll%20Results&color=950

Nice description.  :-D :

DETAILS & CARE
'America's band' brings fun, fun, fun to a vintage-inspired concert T-shirt that's cut, sewn and distressed by hand in the USA for a truly one-of-a-kind piece. Don't worry, baby, this T-shirt is perfect for surfer dudes, California girls and anyone wanting to add some music to their day.

I thought the surfer was generic but I like Dean's logo. Born in '62 I was introduced to the Beach Boys through the Endless Summer/Spirit of America LP's. I began buying the Warner Brothers two-fers lp's which introduced me to albums like Wild Honey. 15 Big Ones came out and yes, that's where the logo started.  It wasn't used on the other late 70's lps. It showed up again on the "Keepin' the Summer Alive" album cover in 1980.

Besides "Appeal to the Great Spirit" , Dean's logo works well. Reminds me of the mid-late 1970's and early 1980's when they were all still together. As stated above,  it is their logo.

I hope we see more merchandise.

Dean's logo definetly is the de-facto logo.