Whennn was the last time Mike got to write with Brian alone in a room?

[HeyJude]

As things stand means everyone involved is healthy and working. This is good. Would we rather someone had died in the middle of the C50 tour or that it was Brian who decided when it was over? ..... Even if others in the band wanted it to continue? ... As it ended might be a sour note, but it's a reality that was going to come one way or another.

Funny thing is, if it had been BRIAN who had called time on the whole thing (even if everyone else wanted to continue) the same people who tear Mike a new one for bowing out would be defending Brian's decision to the hilt.

This has been said before.

But it makes no sense, because Brian doesn't -- and never has -- toured as the Beach Boys.

It's not a small distinction. It's the entire point of the thing.

I don't think anyone would begrudge Mike if he wanted to tour and perform BB music under his own name, as Brian has. But after the C50 shows, Mike's willingness to return to the M&B format -- and bill it as the Beach Boys -- was appalling.

Wirestone - maybe I don't understand what you wrote, but each singular band performs Beach Boys' music.  It just can't be billed as "BB's," except for the Touring Band.  People would be very disappointed if Brian or Al didn't play BB music.  They expect exactly that, alongside whatever "themed" music is performed.

I'm not Wirestone, but here it is filledleplage. The thing is, if Brian was the one who broke up the reunion, he couldn't go back to his solo career and call it "The Beach Boys", so it's different.

On the other hand, you have Mike Love who didn't want to work with the true BEACH BOYS anymore, but decided he wanted to go back out on the road with only one other Beach Boy (and a replacement member at that) and ignored the call of the other members to stay together.

So simply put so you can understand it, Mike basically quit THE BEACH BOYS and in turn, got to keep touring as The Beach Boys, basically losing nothing. Whereas if Brian had pulled the plug on the reunion, he wouldn't have been able to go out there with Al, Darian and Probyn and whoever and call himself "The Beach Boys." So right there is the difference.

And just to finish, I have no fuckin' clue what your post even meant, as regarding the music that each Beach Boys-related band plays? Wirestone wasn't even talking about that. So what on earth did that reply have to do with his post?

It is BRI that sets the "terms and conditions" to be licensed to tour.  There are "conditions precedent" that must be fulfilled to tour, whether that is money, certain tour operators, or merchandise agents, or not recording as BB's, or anything else.

And, I'm (or you're) not "privy" to, if you are not a member of BRI, or the attorney or other agent/s who know and abide by the terms or conditions.  Or those who "monitor" what happens on tour to be sure that the "rules of the road" are followed.

While people may not like this, it is what it is.  Until such time as BRI chooses to "reform" this, and the touring members abide by the "terms and conditions" the ball is in their court.  Not mine, and not yours, unless you are a member of BRI.

And people on this board may opine as they choose, but unless they are members/agents/attys., they only speculate about what they don't like or do like.  

Setting aside the fact that none of that really has anything to do with what’s being discussed here in these recent posts, let’s be clear: Mike is under no obligation to tour for the rest of his life as “The Beach Boys.” He CHOOSES it. He SOUGHT OUT a license to use the name to tour. BRI wasn’t begging Mike to take on the name. They didn’t have to twist his arm. He WANTED it. He still wants it, and in all fairness, he makes it pretty obvious in interviews that he wants it and relishes it.

This silly shifting of blame to BRI (which weirdly kind of implies that Mike using the name *is* objectionable, but that it’s not *his* fault) ignores that Mike chooses to tour under the name. He could stop, and just tour under his own name (and yes, I realize at any given point that such a decision was made, previous contractual obligations would need to be fulfilled first). He could use a different band name.

Blaming BRI also ignores that according to court documents, the vote to grant Mike a license was NOT unanimous. It doesn’t state who was the minority in the 3-to-1 vote, but let’s be blunt: It was probably Al.

Additionally, I and many others who aren’t always fans of Mike’s actions have said many times that Brian (and presumably Carl’s estate) are partly to blame for allowing BRI and its licensing setup to end up where it is.

But all of this would be completely irrelevant and not even at play were it not for Mike’s *decision* to elect to pursue using the name.

[filledeplage]

As things stand means everyone involved is healthy and working. This is good. Would we rather someone had died in the middle of the C50 tour or that it was Brian who decided when it was over? ..... Even if others in the band wanted it to continue? ... As it ended might be a sour note, but it's a reality that was going to come one way or another.

Funny thing is, if it had been BRIAN who had called time on the whole thing (even if everyone else wanted to continue) the same people who tear Mike a new one for bowing out would be defending Brian's decision to the hilt.

This has been said before.

But it makes no sense, because Brian doesn't -- and never has -- toured as the Beach Boys.

It's not a small distinction. It's the entire point of the thing.

I don't think anyone would begrudge Mike if he wanted to tour and perform BB music under his own name, as Brian has. But after the C50 shows, Mike's willingness to return to the M&B format -- and bill it as the Beach Boys -- was appalling.

Wirestone - maybe I don't understand what you wrote, but each singular band performs Beach Boys' music.  It just can't be billed as "BB's," except for the Touring Band.  People would be very disappointed if Brian or Al didn't play BB music.  They expect exactly that, alongside whatever "themed" music is performed.

It appears you don't understand what Wirestone wrote. His point was crystal clear. It IS about the *use* of the name. THAT is the issue. THAT issue, the issue to *choose* to use that name, has NOTHING to do with Brian or Al or anybody else. The point is that there is a *different standard*, in the opinion of many fans, that Mike has to be held to specifically because he uses the "Beach Boys" name.

I don't think anybody actually could possibly not understand or misinterpret what Wirestone wrote. The issue of using the BB name has been discussed now for literally DECADES online.

It is specifically because Mike immediately resumed use of the *exact same band name* as that used by C50 (and don't even start on the "it was billed different as an anniversary tour" stuff, it's the *exact same name*) that opened him up to most of the criticism. That issue, and that issue alone, is the reason why the BB reunion splitting up is not like almost every other band story about splitting up and everybody "doing their own thing." When bands do that, they usually go solo, or do other bands. Mike did not do this.

It is *this* issue that Wirestone was speaking to. The allegations that people wouldn't be criticizing Brian if Brian had chosen to end the reunion are largely irrelevant, because he would always go back to touring and recording under his own name. I personally would still be bummed and criticize Brian if he was the sole reason a reunion didn't continue. But it certainly would be far less of a kick in the nuts to fans to break up the reunion but at least have the artistic integrity to tour under one's own name as a result.

No - Hey Jude - as I understand it is "status quo ante." Going back to the previous positions, post "event." 

Very simple. No blame game. No value judgments.   

And the inability on the part of a few fans and, apparently Mike, to see that a) C50 changed things and b) going back to the “status quo” does not exempt one from looking like a d**k, is what continues to perplex many.

I think it was Howie Edelson who used the analogy of adopting a kid and then taking him back to the orphanage after a year. Telling the kid “hey, suck it up, status quo ante” doesn’t really address the underlying objectionable action.

It is perhaps inadvertently telling that the term “status quo ante” is also known as “status quo ante bellum”, which refers to “"the state existing before the war". Did Mike view C50 as some sort of “war” that needed to be ended?

Fans don't tell the band what to do.  Fans don't vote on BRI. And Howie has an industry position, so I can respect that.  But it goes into context.

Status quo ante has nothing to do with any "analogy" set forth by what someone thinks about what "someone else should do" and unless you've been a member of a small (in voting number) corp. or an attorney, who understands the domain of "business associations" such as partnerships, limited liability corporations or big corporations, etc., or some such other registered entity, only a small number of people make decisions and might "take advice" from others but make decisions on their own.  

They (BRI) get the final say.  Just sayin'.  

[HeyJude]

As things stand means everyone involved is healthy and working. This is good. Would we rather someone had died in the middle of the C50 tour or that it was Brian who decided when it was over? ..... Even if others in the band wanted it to continue? ... As it ended might be a sour note, but it's a reality that was going to come one way or another.

Funny thing is, if it had been BRIAN who had called time on the whole thing (even if everyone else wanted to continue) the same people who tear Mike a new one for bowing out would be defending Brian's decision to the hilt.

This has been said before.

But it makes no sense, because Brian doesn't -- and never has -- toured as the Beach Boys.

It's not a small distinction. It's the entire point of the thing.

I don't think anyone would begrudge Mike if he wanted to tour and perform BB music under his own name, as Brian has. But after the C50 shows, Mike's willingness to return to the M&B format -- and bill it as the Beach Boys -- was appalling.

Wirestone - maybe I don't understand what you wrote, but each singular band performs Beach Boys' music.  It just can't be billed as "BB's," except for the Touring Band.  People would be very disappointed if Brian or Al didn't play BB music.  They expect exactly that, alongside whatever "themed" music is performed.

It appears you don't understand what Wirestone wrote. His point was crystal clear. It IS about the *use* of the name. THAT is the issue. THAT issue, the issue to *choose* to use that name, has NOTHING to do with Brian or Al or anybody else. The point is that there is a *different standard*, in the opinion of many fans, that Mike has to be held to specifically because he uses the "Beach Boys" name.

I don't think anybody actually could possibly not understand or misinterpret what Wirestone wrote. The issue of using the BB name has been discussed now for literally DECADES online.

It is specifically because Mike immediately resumed use of the *exact same band name* as that used by C50 (and don't even start on the "it was billed different as an anniversary tour" stuff, it's the *exact same name*) that opened him up to most of the criticism. That issue, and that issue alone, is the reason why the BB reunion splitting up is not like almost every other band story about splitting up and everybody "doing their own thing." When bands do that, they usually go solo, or do other bands. Mike did not do this.

It is *this* issue that Wirestone was speaking to. The allegations that people wouldn't be criticizing Brian if Brian had chosen to end the reunion are largely irrelevant, because he would always go back to touring and recording under his own name. I personally would still be bummed and criticize Brian if he was the sole reason a reunion didn't continue. But it certainly would be far less of a kick in the nuts to fans to break up the reunion but at least have the artistic integrity to tour under one's own name as a result.

No - Hey Jude - as I understand it is "status quo ante." Going back to the previous positions, post "event."  

Very simple. No blame game. No value judgments.  

And the inability on the part of a few fans and, apparently Mike, to see that a) C50 changed things and b) going back to the “status quo” does not exempt one from looking like a d**k, is what continues to perplex many.

I think it was Howie Edelson who used the analogy of adopting a kid and then taking him back to the orphanage after a year. Telling the kid “hey, suck it up, status quo ante” doesn’t really address the underlying objectionable action.

It is perhaps inadvertently telling that the term “status quo ante” is also known as “status quo ante bellum”, which refers to “"the state existing before the war". Did Mike view C50 as some sort of “war” that needed to be ended?

Fans don't tell the band what to do.  Fans don't vote on BRI. And Howie has an industry position, so I can respect that.  But it goes into context.

Status quo ante has nothing to do with any "analogy" set forth by what someone thinks about what "someone else should do" and unless you've been a member of a small (in voting number) corp. or an attorney, who understands the domain of "business associations" such as partnerships, limited liability corporations or big corporations, etc., or some such other registered entity, only a small number of people make decisions and might "take advice" from others but make decisions on their own.  

They (BRI) get the final say.  Just sayin'.  

Nobody is suggesting that Mike doesn't have the legal clearing to do what he's doing. So all of this corporate-speak/legalese stuff is completely superfluous to what is being discussed here.

Fans don't dictate what BRI does. At the same time, invoking "status quo ante" doesn't prevent fans from thinking certain moves are d**k moves. More to the point, it's part of what drives those feelings. I contend that for all the "everybody is entitled to their opinion" talk, some folks can't process that some fans think that's a d**k move and justification. It immediately turns into "it doesn't matter...status quo...it is what it is....I'm sticking my fingers in my ears now.....BRI voted.... Lalalala...."

[Jim V.]

As things stand means everyone involved is healthy and working. This is good. Would we rather someone had died in the middle of the C50 tour or that it was Brian who decided when it was over? ..... Even if others in the band wanted it to continue? ... As it ended might be a sour note, but it's a reality that was going to come one way or another.

Funny thing is, if it had been BRIAN who had called time on the whole thing (even if everyone else wanted to continue) the same people who tear Mike a new one for bowing out would be defending Brian's decision to the hilt.

This has been said before.

But it makes no sense, because Brian doesn't -- and never has -- toured as the Beach Boys.

It's not a small distinction. It's the entire point of the thing.

I don't think anyone would begrudge Mike if he wanted to tour and perform BB music under his own name, as Brian has. But after the C50 shows, Mike's willingness to return to the M&B format -- and bill it as the Beach Boys -- was appalling.

Wirestone - maybe I don't understand what you wrote, but each singular band performs Beach Boys' music.  It just can't be billed as "BB's," except for the Touring Band.  People would be very disappointed if Brian or Al didn't play BB music.  They expect exactly that, alongside whatever "themed" music is performed.

I'm not Wirestone, but here it is filledleplage. The thing is, if Brian was the one who broke up the reunion, he couldn't go back to his solo career and call it "The Beach Boys", so it's different.

On the other hand, you have Mike Love who didn't want to work with the true BEACH BOYS anymore, but decided he wanted to go back out on the road with only one other Beach Boy (and a replacement member at that) and ignored the call of the other members to stay together.

So simply put so you can understand it, Mike basically quit THE BEACH BOYS and in turn, got to keep touring as The Beach Boys, basically losing nothing. Whereas if Brian had pulled the plug on the reunion, he wouldn't have been able to go out there with Al, Darian and Probyn and whoever and call himself "The Beach Boys." So right there is the difference.

And just to finish, I have no fuckin' clue what your post even meant, as regarding the music that each Beach Boys-related band plays? Wirestone wasn't even talking about that. So what on earth did that reply have to do with his post?

It is BRI that sets the "terms and conditions" to be licensed to tour.  There are "conditions precedent" that must be fulfilled to tour, whether that is money, certain tour operators, or merchandise agents, or not recording as BB's, or anything else.

And, I'm (or you're) not "privy" to, if you are not a member of BRI, or the attorney or other agent/s who know and abide by the terms or conditions.  Or those who "monitor" what happens on tour to be sure that the "rules of the road" are followed.

While people may not like this, it is what it is.  Until such time as BRI chooses to "reform" this, and the touring members abide by the "terms and conditions" the ball is in their court.  Not mine, and not yours, unless you are a member of BRI.

And people on this board may opine as they choose, but unless they are members/agents/attys., they only speculate about what they don't like or do like.  

Aaaaaaaand once again, you just post a bunch of stuff everybody on this thread already knows. You manage to say so little with so many words.

Anyways, do you feel that it's fair that Mike got to end The Beach Boys as a creative entity to be able to go play Sea World as "The Beach Boys" with his son and Randell Kirsch? I don't care about the legalities or what have you.

My question, bolded so there is no misunderstanding is, is it honorable that Mike decided to end The Beach Boys as a creative entity to tour with the same name on his own?

[filledeplage]

As things stand means everyone involved is healthy and working. This is good. Would we rather someone had died in the middle of the C50 tour or that it was Brian who decided when it was over? ..... Even if others in the band wanted it to continue? ... As it ended might be a sour note, but it's a reality that was going to come one way or another.

Funny thing is, if it had been BRIAN who had called time on the whole thing (even if everyone else wanted to continue) the same people who tear Mike a new one for bowing out would be defending Brian's decision to the hilt.

This has been said before.

But it makes no sense, because Brian doesn't -- and never has -- toured as the Beach Boys.

It's not a small distinction. It's the entire point of the thing.

I don't think anyone would begrudge Mike if he wanted to tour and perform BB music under his own name, as Brian has. But after the C50 shows, Mike's willingness to return to the M&B format -- and bill it as the Beach Boys -- was appalling.

Wirestone - maybe I don't understand what you wrote, but each singular band performs Beach Boys' music.  It just can't be billed as "BB's," except for the Touring Band.  People would be very disappointed if Brian or Al didn't play BB music.  They expect exactly that, alongside whatever "themed" music is performed.

I'm not Wirestone, but here it is filledleplage. The thing is, if Brian was the one who broke up the reunion, he couldn't go back to his solo career and call it "The Beach Boys", so it's different.

On the other hand, you have Mike Love who didn't want to work with the true BEACH BOYS anymore, but decided he wanted to go back out on the road with only one other Beach Boy (and a replacement member at that) and ignored the call of the other members to stay together.

So simply put so you can understand it, Mike basically quit THE BEACH BOYS and in turn, got to keep touring as The Beach Boys, basically losing nothing. Whereas if Brian had pulled the plug on the reunion, he wouldn't have been able to go out there with Al, Darian and Probyn and whoever and call himself "The Beach Boys." So right there is the difference.

And just to finish, I have no fuckin' clue what your post even meant, as regarding the music that each Beach Boys-related band plays? Wirestone wasn't even talking about that. So what on earth did that reply have to do with his post?

It is BRI that sets the "terms and conditions" to be licensed to tour.  There are "conditions precedent" that must be fulfilled to tour, whether that is money, certain tour operators, or merchandise agents, or not recording as BB's, or anything else.

And, I'm (or you're) not "privy" to, if you are not a member of BRI, or the attorney or other agent/s who know and abide by the terms or conditions.  Or those who "monitor" what happens on tour to be sure that the "rules of the road" are followed.

While people may not like this, it is what it is.  Until such time as BRI chooses to "reform" this, and the touring members abide by the "terms and conditions" the ball is in their court.  Not mine, and not yours, unless you are a member of BRI.

And people on this board may opine as they choose, but unless they are members/agents/attys., they only speculate about what they don't like or do like.  

Setting aside the fact that none of that really has anything to do with what’s being discussed here in these recent posts, let’s be clear: Mike is under no obligation to tour for the rest of his life as “The Beach Boys.” He CHOOSES it. He SOUGHT OUT a license to use the name to tour. BRI wasn’t begging Mike to take on the name. They didn’t have to twist his arm. He WANTED it. He still wants it, and in all fairness, he makes it pretty obvious in interviews that he wants it and relishes it.

This silly shifting of blame to BRI (which weirdly kind of implies that Mike using the name *is* objectionable, but that it’s not *his* fault) ignores that Mike chooses to tour under the name. He could stop, and just tour under his own name (and yes, I realize at any given point that such a decision was made, previous contractual obligations would need to be fulfilled first). He could use a different band name.

Blaming BRI also ignores that according to court documents, the vote to grant Mike a license was NOT unanimous. It doesn’t state who was the minority in the 3-to-1 vote, but let’s be blunt: It was probably Al.

Additionally, I and many others who aren’t always fans of Mike’s actions have said many times that Brian (and presumably Carl’s estate) are partly to blame for allowing BRI and its licensing setup to end up where it is.

But all of this would be completely irrelevant and not even at play were it not for Mike’s *decision* to elect to pursue using the name.

Hey Jude - you discuss court documents.  You haven't posted them.  It is doubtful that you have BRI meeting minutes.  
And the corporation voting must have been set up by "majority" and not "unanimous" at the outset.  

So, even if there is a dissenting vote, it doesn't matter.  Those are the rules of the corporation.  If the corporation is set up to call for unanimous voting, that is a different story.  It is not unlike a "unanimous" jury decision as opposed to a "5/6" or some other predetermined decision.  

You don't like the outcome of that vote.  Only that very small group can change the terms.  No outside "campaign" changes that.

[filledeplage]

As things stand means everyone involved is healthy and working. This is good. Would we rather someone had died in the middle of the C50 tour or that it was Brian who decided when it was over? ..... Even if others in the band wanted it to continue? ... As it ended might be a sour note, but it's a reality that was going to come one way or another.

Funny thing is, if it had been BRIAN who had called time on the whole thing (even if everyone else wanted to continue) the same people who tear Mike a new one for bowing out would be defending Brian's decision to the hilt.

This has been said before.

But it makes no sense, because Brian doesn't -- and never has -- toured as the Beach Boys.

It's not a small distinction. It's the entire point of the thing.

I don't think anyone would begrudge Mike if he wanted to tour and perform BB music under his own name, as Brian has. But after the C50 shows, Mike's willingness to return to the M&B format -- and bill it as the Beach Boys -- was appalling.

Wirestone - maybe I don't understand what you wrote, but each singular band performs Beach Boys' music.  It just can't be billed as "BB's," except for the Touring Band.  People would be very disappointed if Brian or Al didn't play BB music.  They expect exactly that, alongside whatever "themed" music is performed.

I'm not Wirestone, but here it is filledleplage. The thing is, if Brian was the one who broke up the reunion, he couldn't go back to his solo career and call it "The Beach Boys", so it's different.

On the other hand, you have Mike Love who didn't want to work with the true BEACH BOYS anymore, but decided he wanted to go back out on the road with only one other Beach Boy (and a replacement member at that) and ignored the call of the other members to stay together.

So simply put so you can understand it, Mike basically quit THE BEACH BOYS and in turn, got to keep touring as The Beach Boys, basically losing nothing. Whereas if Brian had pulled the plug on the reunion, he wouldn't have been able to go out there with Al, Darian and Probyn and whoever and call himself "The Beach Boys." So right there is the difference.

And just to finish, I have no fuckin' clue what your post even meant, as regarding the music that each Beach Boys-related band plays? Wirestone wasn't even talking about that. So what on earth did that reply have to do with his post?

It is BRI that sets the "terms and conditions" to be licensed to tour.  There are "conditions precedent" that must be fulfilled to tour, whether that is money, certain tour operators, or merchandise agents, or not recording as BB's, or anything else.

And, I'm (or you're) not "privy" to, if you are not a member of BRI, or the attorney or other agent/s who know and abide by the terms or conditions.  Or those who "monitor" what happens on tour to be sure that the "rules of the road" are followed.

While people may not like this, it is what it is.  Until such time as BRI chooses to "reform" this, and the touring members abide by the "terms and conditions" the ball is in their court.  Not mine, and not yours, unless you are a member of BRI.

And people on this board may opine as they choose, but unless they are members/agents/attys., they only speculate about what they don't like or do like.  

Aaaaaaaand once again, you just post a bunch of stuff everybody on this thread already knows. You manage to say so little with so many words.

Anyways, do you feel that it's fair that Mike got to end The Beach Boys as a creative entity to be able to go play Sea World as "The Beach Boys" with his son and Randell Kirsch? I don't care about the legalities or what have you.

My question, bolded so there is no misunderstanding is, is it honorable that Mike decided to end The Beach Boys as a creative entity to tour with the same name on his own?

We aren't discussing "fair" - but what is "objective" by looking at, pre and post C50 goings on.  BRI decides what works for its' business model. Not me, and not you.

FYI - I like the work of both Christian and Randell very much.  (That is opinion.)

[HeyJude]

Hey Jude - you discuss court documents.  You haven't posted them.  It is doubtful that you have BRI meeting minutes.  
And the corporation voting must have been set up by "majority" and not "unanimous" at the outset.  

So, even if there is a dissenting vote, it doesn't matter.  Those are the rules of the corporation.  If the corporation is set up to call for unanimous voting, that is a different story.  It is not unlike a "unanimous" jury decision as opposed to a "5/6" or some other predetermined decision.  

You don't like the outcome of that vote.  Only that very small group can change the terms.  No outside "campaign" changes that.

As for court documents, that stuff can be googled or searched on this forum. Even Cam will acknowledge that the documents said it was a 3-to-1 vote. My only point was that those who lump Al in as being to blame for the current licensing set-up might want to keep in mind that, in all likelihood, he at least *tried* to keep it from happening.

As to the rest, as someone else said, you’re saying stuff NOBODY disagrees with. Does anybody here think the minority vote in a 3-to-1 corporate vote should get their way?

All of that stuff sidesteps the *obviously* wholly SUBJECTIVE, moral, ethical issues being discussed here, in addition to issues involving brand recognition, trademark value (and devaluing), and so on. We’re talking about how people FEEL about Mike ending the reunion and continuing to use the name. If you don’t want to participate in such subjective discussions, that’s fine. But the continued rhetoric regarding legal technicalities that nobody disagrees with and aren’t germane to the subjective discussion at hand should be ignored.

[Jim V.]

As things stand means everyone involved is healthy and working. This is good. Would we rather someone had died in the middle of the C50 tour or that it was Brian who decided when it was over? ..... Even if others in the band wanted it to continue? ... As it ended might be a sour note, but it's a reality that was going to come one way or another.

Funny thing is, if it had been BRIAN who had called time on the whole thing (even if everyone else wanted to continue) the same people who tear Mike a new one for bowing out would be defending Brian's decision to the hilt.

This has been said before.

But it makes no sense, because Brian doesn't -- and never has -- toured as the Beach Boys.

It's not a small distinction. It's the entire point of the thing.

I don't think anyone would begrudge Mike if he wanted to tour and perform BB music under his own name, as Brian has. But after the C50 shows, Mike's willingness to return to the M&B format -- and bill it as the Beach Boys -- was appalling.

Wirestone - maybe I don't understand what you wrote, but each singular band performs Beach Boys' music.  It just can't be billed as "BB's," except for the Touring Band.  People would be very disappointed if Brian or Al didn't play BB music.  They expect exactly that, alongside whatever "themed" music is performed.

I'm not Wirestone, but here it is filledleplage. The thing is, if Brian was the one who broke up the reunion, he couldn't go back to his solo career and call it "The Beach Boys", so it's different.

On the other hand, you have Mike Love who didn't want to work with the true BEACH BOYS anymore, but decided he wanted to go back out on the road with only one other Beach Boy (and a replacement member at that) and ignored the call of the other members to stay together.

So simply put so you can understand it, Mike basically quit THE BEACH BOYS and in turn, got to keep touring as The Beach Boys, basically losing nothing. Whereas if Brian had pulled the plug on the reunion, he wouldn't have been able to go out there with Al, Darian and Probyn and whoever and call himself "The Beach Boys." So right there is the difference.

And just to finish, I have no fuckin' clue what your post even meant, as regarding the music that each Beach Boys-related band plays? Wirestone wasn't even talking about that. So what on earth did that reply have to do with his post?

It is BRI that sets the "terms and conditions" to be licensed to tour.  There are "conditions precedent" that must be fulfilled to tour, whether that is money, certain tour operators, or merchandise agents, or not recording as BB's, or anything else.

And, I'm (or you're) not "privy" to, if you are not a member of BRI, or the attorney or other agent/s who know and abide by the terms or conditions.  Or those who "monitor" what happens on tour to be sure that the "rules of the road" are followed.

While people may not like this, it is what it is.  Until such time as BRI chooses to "reform" this, and the touring members abide by the "terms and conditions" the ball is in their court.  Not mine, and not yours, unless you are a member of BRI.

And people on this board may opine as they choose, but unless they are members/agents/attys., they only speculate about what they don't like or do like.  

Aaaaaaaand once again, you just post a bunch of stuff everybody on this thread already knows. You manage to say so little with so many words.

Anyways, do you feel that it's fair that Mike got to end The Beach Boys as a creative entity to be able to go play Sea World as "The Beach Boys" with his son and Randell Kirsch? I don't care about the legalities or what have you.

My question, bolded so there is no misunderstanding is, is it honorable that Mike decided to end The Beach Boys as a creative entity to tour with the same name on his own?

We aren't discussing "fair" - but what is "objective" by looking at, pre and post C50 goings on.  BRI decides what works for its' business model. Not me, and not you.

FYI - I like the work of both Christian and Randell very much.  (That is opinion.)

And you managed to not answer the bolded question. You related to Cam Mott by chance? I'll try again. Leaving fair or whatever out of it.

In your opinion, is it honorable that Mike decided to end The Beach Boys as a creative entity to tour with the same name on his own?

[Mike's Beard]

Anyways, do you feel that it's fair that Mike got to end The Beach Boys as a creative entity to be able to go play Sea World as "The Beach Boys" with his son and Randell Kirsch? I don't care about the legalities or what have you.

My question, bolded so there is no misunderstanding is, is it honorable that Mike decided to end The Beach Boys as a creative entity to tour with the same name on his own?

While you hold your breath for an answer can I ask "Did Mike taking a walk when he did really drive a steak through the heart of The BBs as a creative entity?" If an offer for a follow up to TWGMTR was floated could Brian have said to Mike "Me and Al with Dave and Blondie are going to make another Beach Boys record. We'd like you and Bruce to be a part of it but make no mistake it's going to happen with or without you". Unless there's a small print somewhere stating that the name 'the Beach Boys' cannot be used for recording purposes without the participation of Mike Love, there would be nothing he could do to stop it from happening. Could it be that Brian just doesn't consider it 'The Beach Boys' without Mike?

[HeyJude]

We aren't discussing "fair" - but what is "objective" by looking at, pre and post C50 goings on.  BRI decides what works for its' business model. Not me, and not you.

FYI - I like the work of both Christian and Randell very much.  (That is opinion.)

There’s the root of the disconnect. This discussion is NOT about anything objective. Mike uses the name, and has the legal right to. There’s no objective discussion beyond that. It’s about how fans feel, how they perceive Mike’s use of the name. You continue to use as arguments things that everybody has stipulated to.  BRI decides what works for its business model? Who DOESN’T think that?

People are saying “I think Mike is open to fan criticism for using the name, especially after the reunion tour”, and your response is “BRI decides what works for its business model.” Not only does that ignore the discussion, it comes across as cold and legalistic and sharkish. That’s all fine, but then it’s only going to make it worse in the eyes of many if you seem utterly incredulous as to why people feel that way about such a cold, non-response.  

[HeyJude]

Anyways, do you feel that it's fair that Mike got to end The Beach Boys as a creative entity to be able to go play Sea World as "The Beach Boys" with his son and Randell Kirsch? I don't care about the legalities or what have you.

My question, bolded so there is no misunderstanding is, is it honorable that Mike decided to end The Beach Boys as a creative entity to tour with the same name on his own?

While you hold your breath for an answer can I ask "Did Mike taking a walk when he did really drive a steak through the heart of The BBs as a creative entity?" If an offer for a follow up to TWGMTR was floated could Brian have said to Mike "Me and Al with Dave and Blondie are going to make another Beach Boys record. We'd like you and Bruce to be a part of it but make no mistake it's going to happen with or without you". Unless there's a small print somewhere stating that the name 'the Beach Boys' cannot be used for recording purposes without the participation of Mike Love, there would be nothing he could do to stop it from happening. Could it be that Brian just doesn't consider it 'The Beach Boys' without Mike?

I would tend to think, based on my gut feeling and the available evidence, that Brian would NOT do anything as the “Beach Boys” without Mike, at least so long as Mike is alive.

Recording as the BB’s (or, more specifically, using the BB name on a new album) would require BRI approval. It would literally be down to Carl’s estate as best as I can tell. In the theoretical scenario you describe, we can presume Brian and Al would vote yes and Mike would vote no. Carl’s estate could abstain or vote with Brian and Al to allow it to happen (3-1 or 2-1), or vote with Mike and make it a tie, which I can only guess would mean it wouldn’t happen.

It’s to Brian’s credit that he appears to have made no moves post-2012 to try to wrestle any use of the BB name. How much of that has to do with a lack of desire to do so and how much has to do with the knowledge that such moves would result in YEARS of courtroom action, we of course don’t know.  

[SMiLE Brian]

Great point jude, its like the fallback for the emotional ending of the C50 is just reciting the cold legal facts of the BRI touring arrangements.


Like that makes a difference......

[filledeplage]

We aren't discussing "fair" - but what is "objective" by looking at, pre and post C50 goings on.  BRI decides what works for its' business model. Not me, and not you.

FYI - I like the work of both Christian and Randell very much.  (That is opinion.)

There’s the root of the disconnect. This discussion is NOT about anything objective. Mike uses the name, and has the legal right to. There’s no objective discussion beyond that. It’s about how fans feel, how they perceive Mike’s use of the name. You continue to use as arguments things that everybody has stipulated to.  BRI decides what works for its business model? Who DOESN’T think that?

People are saying “I think Mike is open to fan criticism for using the name, especially after the reunion tour”, and your response is “BRI decides what works for its business model.” Not only does that ignore the discussion, it comes across as cold and legalistic and sharkish. That’s all fine, but then it’s only going to make it worse in the eyes of many if you seem utterly incredulous as to why people feel that way about such a cold, non-response.  

Fans wanted SMiLE released in 1967.  (Including me!)  We know how that went.  The power and control of BRI were "vested" in a small number of people.

And I deal with facts, and reality.  I don't get caught up in speculation.  It is pointless.  

Passion should not cloud objectivity and reason; it is a slippery slope.  I merely live and let live, enjoy the work, and expect a pleasant surprise.  

It, so far has worked for me.  SMiLE and C50! And, I call that "jackpot."  

[Jim V.]

Anyways, do you feel that it's fair that Mike got to end The Beach Boys as a creative entity to be able to go play Sea World as "The Beach Boys" with his son and Randell Kirsch? I don't care about the legalities or what have you.

My question, bolded so there is no misunderstanding is, is it honorable that Mike decided to end The Beach Boys as a creative entity to tour with the same name on his own?

While you hold your breath for an answer can I ask "Did Mike taking a walk when he did really drive a steak through the heart of The BBs as a creative entity?" If an offer for a follow up to TWGMTR was floated could Brian have said to Mike "Me and Al with Dave and Blondie are going to make another Beach Boys record. We'd like you and Bruce to be a part of it but make no mistake it's going to happen with or without you". Unless there's a small print somewhere stating that the name 'the Beach Boys' cannot be used for recording purposes without the participation of Mike Love, there would be nothing he could do to stop it from happening. Could it be that Brian just doesn't consider it 'The Beach Boys' without Mike?

That's honestly is a great question. I think it would be interesting if Brian did that, and it would be interesting to know if it could possibly be done (even though I doubt it ever would). I'd also say that yeah, Brian probably wouldn't consider it The Beach Boys without Mike.

[filledeplage]

Great point jude, its like the fallback for the emotional ending of the C50 is just reciting the cold legal facts of the BRI touring arrangements.

Like that makes a difference......

News flash! "Cold legal facts" are what govern countries, businesses, order of civilizations, and get changed or modified as "reasonable" people decide, even whether the lovely new princess in England, has "succession" rights! Laws were changed to allow for that change.  Now Charlotte Elizabeth Diana has succession rights!

Until a small group changes the "rules of the road" the "status quo" remains...

[Mike's Beard]

I would tend to think, based on my gut feeling and the available evidence, that Brian would NOT do anything as the “Beach Boys” without Mike, at least so long as Mike is alive.

Recording as the BB’s (or, more specifically, using the BB name on a new album) would require BRI approval. It would literally be down to Carl’s estate as best as I can tell. In the theoretical scenario you describe, we can presume Brian and Al would vote yes and Mike would vote no. Carl’s estate could abstain or vote with Brian and Al to allow it to happen (3-1 or 2-1), or vote with Mike and make it a tie, which I can only guess would mean it wouldn’t happen.

It’s to Brian’s credit that he appears to have made no moves post-2012 to try to wrestle any use of the BB name. How much of that has to do with a lack of desire to do so and how much has to do with the knowledge that such moves would result in YEARS of courtroom action, we of course don’t know.  

I think a third reason could be if Brian went out with the name 'Beach Boys' on the banner, he would be facing crowds wanting Hits!Hits!Hits! Performing to Mike's target demographic, would they be receptive to his new material and backlog of solo work or would they be too busy shouting for Surfin' Safari and Little Honda?

[Bruces Shorts]

As things stand means everyone involved is healthy and working. This is good. Would we rather someone had died in the middle of the C50 tour or that it was Brian who decided when it was over? ..... Even if others in the band wanted it to continue? ... As it ended might be a sour note, but it's a reality that was going to come one way or another.

Funny thing is, if it had been BRIAN who had called time on the whole thing (even if everyone else wanted to continue) the same people who tear Mike a new one for bowing out would be defending Brian's decision to the hilt.

Perhaps, but we should admit it would have stung a lot less, since Brian wouldn't have immediately gone out with just David Marks to tour the Seaworlds and Nutty Jerry's of the universe as "The Beach Boys" .....

But if we're upset mainly for the fact that it ended at all: well, no matter how it ended, we'd still be where we are now.

Keep going Pinder, someday you will convince somebody.....

whatever you're goin on about, please stop.

I'm the reincarnation of no one, and this is not a sequel to Brian's favorite movie: Seconds.

I also went to bat for Brian in my last post, so try and be agreeable when you can.

[SMiLE Brian]

Great point jude, its like the fallback for the emotional ending of the C50 is just reciting the cold legal facts of the BRI touring arrangements.

Like that makes a difference......

News flash! "Cold legal facts" are what govern countries, businesses, order of civilizations, and get changed or modified as "reasonable" people decide, even whether the lovely new princess in England, has "succession" rights! Laws were changed to allow for that change.  Now Charlotte Elizabeth Diana has succession rights!

Until a small group changes the "rules of the road" the "status quo" remains...

The BBs aren't some cold government machine, they are a band where their founder was driven out due to his power hungry and egotistical cousin. All because he is a sad and insecure man with the emotional maturity of a 18 year old.

[filledeplage]

As things stand means everyone involved is healthy and working. This is good. Would we rather someone had died in the middle of the C50 tour or that it was Brian who decided when it was over? ..... Even if others in the band wanted it to continue? ... As it ended might be a sour note, but it's a reality that was going to come one way or another.

Funny thing is, if it had been BRIAN who had called time on the whole thing (even if everyone else wanted to continue) the same people who tear Mike a new one for bowing out would be defending Brian's decision to the hilt.

This has been said before.

But it makes no sense, because Brian doesn't -- and never has -- toured as the Beach Boys.

It's not a small distinction. It's the entire point of the thing.

I don't think anyone would begrudge Mike if he wanted to tour and perform BB music under his own name, as Brian has. But after the C50 shows, Mike's willingness to return to the M&B format -- and bill it as the Beach Boys -- was appalling.

Wirestone - maybe I don't understand what you wrote, but each singular band performs Beach Boys' music.  It just can't be billed as "BB's," except for the Touring Band.  People would be very disappointed if Brian or Al didn't play BB music.  They expect exactly that, alongside whatever "themed" music is performed.

I'm not Wirestone, but here it is filledleplage. The thing is, if Brian was the one who broke up the reunion, he couldn't go back to his solo career and call it "The Beach Boys", so it's different.

On the other hand, you have Mike Love who didn't want to work with the true BEACH BOYS anymore, but decided he wanted to go back out on the road with only one other Beach Boy (and a replacement member at that) and ignored the call of the other members to stay together.

So simply put so you can understand it, Mike basically quit THE BEACH BOYS and in turn, got to keep touring as The Beach Boys, basically losing nothing. Whereas if Brian had pulled the plug on the reunion, he wouldn't have been able to go out there with Al, Darian and Probyn and whoever and call himself "The Beach Boys." So right there is the difference.

And just to finish, I have no fuckin' clue what your post even meant, as regarding the music that each Beach Boys-related band plays? Wirestone wasn't even talking about that. So what on earth did that reply have to do with his post?

It is BRI that sets the "terms and conditions" to be licensed to tour.  There are "conditions precedent" that must be fulfilled to tour, whether that is money, certain tour operators, or merchandise agents, or not recording as BB's, or anything else.

And, I'm (or you're) not "privy" to, if you are not a member of BRI, or the attorney or other agent/s who know and abide by the terms or conditions.  Or those who "monitor" what happens on tour to be sure that the "rules of the road" are followed.

While people may not like this, it is what it is.  Until such time as BRI chooses to "reform" this, and the touring members abide by the "terms and conditions" the ball is in their court.  Not mine, and not yours, unless you are a member of BRI.

And people on this board may opine as they choose, but unless they are members/agents/attys., they only speculate about what they don't like or do like.  

Aaaaaaaand once again, you just post a bunch of stuff everybody on this thread already knows. You manage to say so little with so many words.

Anyways, do you feel that it's fair that Mike got to end The Beach Boys as a creative entity to be able to go play Sea World as "The Beach Boys" with his son and Randell Kirsch? I don't care about the legalities or what have you.

My question, bolded so there is no misunderstanding is, is it honorable that Mike decided to end The Beach Boys as a creative entity to tour with the same name on his own?

We aren't discussing "fair" - but what is "objective" by looking at, pre and post C50 goings on.  BRI decides what works for its' business model. Not me, and not you.

FYI - I like the work of both Christian and Randell very much.  (That is opinion.)

And you managed to not answer the bolded question. You related to Cam Mott by chance? I'll try again. Leaving fair or whatever out of it.

In your opinion, is it honorable that Mike decided to end The Beach Boys as a creative entity to tour with the same name on his own?

My opinion is of no consequence. One agreement apparently self-terminated or perhaps, "expired."

The "default" arrangement was apparently triggered by that "event."

And, what is the purpose of the very hostile and inappropriate "related to Cam Mott?" remark...(I am not acquainted with Mr. Mott.) and that would be nun-ya (as in your business) - you don't like his position? That is his right.  

You may not like it but, I deal in fact, not a "perception of fairness." I'm not in BRI.

[CenturyDeprived]

Did Mike view C50 as some sort of “war” that needed to be ended?

I wonder what the reasoning was that Mike wanted to even do C50. Wasn't he the guy who was the biggest cheerleader for it? Who from a few years before it happened, started dropping hints about some big 50th Celebration? And I don't think he was just thinking the M&B 50th year Celebration either, because really, what special thing is there with that? I think he really wanted the real deal, but only on his terms.

I think Mike wanted to try and end some sort of "war" in his mind, but mostly, I think Mike wanted to reclaim his "throne" so to speak, of being a wanted, needed, essential, can't-do-it-without-him type of true artistic writing partner to Brian. He wanted everyone to view him that way. I can understand the desire. I would be very surprised if he didn't spend a lot of time - decades even -stewing, either privately in his mind, or in chatting with his wife, about feeling under-appreciated by the public. You can see it bursting out of him when he talks about being Mr. Positivity on the Endless Harmony DVD. He's got a pent up complex about it. Feeling that history has misjudged him, and he has absolutely no idea why that would be the case (other than blaming Brian and/or Brian's people), so it's obviously some big conspiracy against Mike.

I too do think that Mike sadly gets misjudged, and that his contributions often unfortunately go underappreciated, and it sucks... but there are many reasons for that, not the least of which is his deep sense of entitlement to either being treated/thought of in a certain way, by both his bandmates and the public.  No idea at all why the industry doesn't show respect for him. Could it be because people do not like to see artists being that way, in a pent up manner that slips out very often? Show me another artist who behaves like that and I'll show you another crowd of haters who want to diminish that other artists' contributions for the very same or similar reasons. Is there a single example of an artist who has ever successfully gotten more respect/more of what they truly desire, by behaving like that?  

I think Phil Spector probably felt/feels the same way (not comparing Mike to Phil, either in talent or in insanity; both have very different types/levels of both talent and insanity). It's all very sad, very very infuriating, and I cannot fathom that there couldn't have been a better way for Mike to have acted which would have gotten him closer, little by little, to the place in history which he covets. Is there someone, not a yes-man, who could ever help him see the light? I guess when Mike's the type who, when in a band group therapy session, hires a psychologist on his payroll (total J.R. Ewing move), he's not willing to face the music about his own actions.

[Mike's Beard]

whatever you're goin on about, please stop.

I'm the reincarnation of no one, and this is not a sequel to Brian's favorite movie: Seconds.

I also went to bat for Brian in my last post, so try and be agreeable when you can.

I thought his favourite movie was Norbit?  

[filledeplage]

Great point jude, its like the fallback for the emotional ending of the C50 is just reciting the cold legal facts of the BRI touring arrangements.

Like that makes a difference......

News flash! "Cold legal facts" are what govern countries, businesses, order of civilizations, and get changed or modified as "reasonable" people decide, even whether the lovely new princess in England, has "succession" rights! Laws were changed to allow for that change.  Now Charlotte Elizabeth Diana has succession rights!

Until a small group changes the "rules of the road" the "status quo" remains...

The BBs aren't some cold government machine, they are a band where their founder was driven out due to his power hungry and egotistical cousin. All because he is a sad and insecure man with the emotional maturity of a 18 year old.

Governments are make up of "people" who are elected and who represent "other people."

BRI is an "entity" set up as a business for a "business purpose."

And here we go with the "ego" comments.  And "sad" and "insecure" remarks.  Brian impresses me as a hard-working man who absolutely "knows his vision" for music.  

Check out a valid source. Dennis - in the Fornatale interview. That is someone who knew his bro, worked with his bro, and could make a fair and informed opinion of his bro.  

[SMiLE Brian]

Brian knows his vision for sure, he was ready with two albums for the C50 band to record in the studio. Until Mike killed the reunion so he could be in charge of his touring band cover band at seaworld, bowling alleys, and other bad venues. Just so Mike could be the boss and be the center of attention again like before the C50. All these actions reek of a sad and insecure ego beyond belief from a guy who would be a used car salesmen without BW.

[Howie Edelson]

If I can just comment on the "Mike being the biggest cheerleader" for anything -- Mike told me several times he envisioned the 50th being two shows -- not a tour: TWO shows for PBS culled from TWO concerts using the original band -- one at the Hollywood Bowl and the other at Wembley Arena with special guests. THAT'S what Mike wanted. But the cash from the reunion mixed with the press that would get the word "BEACH BOYS" into the average consumer's consciousness was far too good to pass up. So he didn't.

In July 2006 Mike Love and  Bruce Johnston outlined their plans to me for a televised reunion with co-founders Brian Wilson, David Marks and Al Jardine, saying, quote: "(Mike Love) "What I think is the right way to go about things, is to do a PBS special at the Hollywood Bowl with some guests and maybe one at Wembley Stadium (in London) with a couple of guests like Paul McCartney -- if he likes Pet Sounds so much and if he likes "God Only Knows" so well -- then have him sing it with us at Wembley stadium, along with Elton John singing something, so on and so forth. Maybe Eric Clapton will come out and do it for charity, do it for a really good cause and then the same thing at the Hollywood Bowl and that would be really cool." (Bruce Johnston) "That would be the great reunion."


In August 2009 Al Jardine rejected that plan outright, telling me, quote: "Of course, you don't have Carl Wilson there which would be a big minus as far as I'm concerned. There's ways to do it -- but again, that's like doing a one-off, isn't it? I wouldn't be interested in doing just a one show deal like that. If you want to create an organization that goes out and works and produces a show that's of high value, of high quality -- then you rehearse your ass off, make it the best you can, and you tour as a unit. You tour for a year. Like the Rolling Stones, they don't do one show for PBS, one show for... You do a tour. You either do it or don't do it. If it was going to be something like that it should be a worldwide tour, otherwise, no. I wouldn't be interested."

Mike Love didn't "fire" The Beach Boys as much as he QUIT them.

He QUIT.

[filledeplage]

Brian knows his vision for sure, he was ready with two albums for the C50 band to record in the studio. Until Mike killed the reunion so he could be in charge of his touring band cover band at seaworld, bowling alleys, and other bad venues. Just so Mike could be the boss and be the center of attention again like before the C50. All these actions reek of a sad and insecure ego beyond belief from a guy who would be a used car salesmen without BW.

The venue really means nothing to me. I've learned that some venues (such as the Indian casinos) provide a structure for community survival, and a means out of poverty, and sustainability, and I respect the fact that they support these venues.  But for reading the casino literature, I would not know the relationship between the entertainers and the support for Native nation communities.

Dennis' perspective is the one to believe.  Dennis was candid.