The Smiley Smile Message Board

http://music-illuminati.com/interview-al-jardine/

Thanks for posting the link.

Some interesting comments about a possible Carl and Dennis style tour.

So...that Paul McCartney thing never happened right? ? ?

Al seems bitter

The end of the interview says a lot.

I hope the Carl and Dennis tour happens.

Does it?  It seemed to me like another person who is related to a Beach Boy is putting her nose where it doesn't belong.  Al wasn't going to talk about it until she told him to, then she continued to force the issue.  We already knew how Al feels about the situation.

Wow, Al's wife really does not like Mike Love.

Kind of my point.

Oh.  :P  From my point of view it's just the opposite.

Well she could be traveling around the world with Al on tour, not to mention all the money Al is missing out on.

I'd hate him too if I was her.

The record needs to be set straight there have been two clear sides on what happened this whole time. Al and Brian say Mike fired us and then Mike says Brian and his "people" said that Brian didn't want to tour anymore. So who's lying that's the question i want to know. The fact that David has played with Mike and Bruce and then Al and Brian makes things even more complicated, that doesn't even include Jeff jumping ship on Brian and the whole Al being advertised for that July 5th concert in NYC and then not showing up! The whole thing is one big confusing contradicting story after another.

Brian Wilson AND Paul McCartney are collaborating...in the studio...on SMiLE...on "Vegetables"...in 1967...and Al Jardine was interrupting them and rushing them...because he wanted to go to bed! And now he appears to be bragging about it? Poor Al.

Mike fires Brian, Al and Dave,  but then tries to he-hire them one by one. A couple of years later Brian fires Jeff, then gets Al to tour with him; perhaps he's just creating room for Mike. 
It's all just F,F,F in the BBs world. 

Paging Adam Marsland... paging Adam Marsland...


No-one got fired. Because no single executive member of BRI can fire another: needs a majority vote. This has been discussed and settled for over a year. Check out the LA Times, early October 2012. As for the "no more shows for Wilson" email mentioned by Ambha back in the summer... given her position, Mike's similar comment in 2013 and the lack of contradiction for either, looks very much like that's exactly what happened. Someone really needs to write that book...

The BBs need to get together in a room to get their story straight.



And while they're at it, they could knock a new album together…

Music stars really should leave their wives out of interviews imo as it doesn`t come across that well.

I also thought that Brian, Al and David have all billed themselves as original members of The Beach Boys in promotional materials recently anyway...

hence some new issues by the sound of it.

More soap opera stuff... not interested.

More soap opa stuff.... interested. :-D

I do enjoy Al interviews; with Mike and Brian you know in advance what you're going to get (Kokomo/George Harrison/writing with Cousin Brian/drugs are bad - Mike.  Rock n Roll album/God Only Knows is Macca's favourite song/one word answers - Brian) but Al will talk ...and talk.

"He’s a brilliant songwriter, and unfortunately he has brilliant lawyers. We wish him all the best, but doggonit, you know, we’d like to be Beach Boys, too. There you go."

This sums up Al's conflict on the issue. I can understand his claim. And I can totally understand Mike's position through these years as well.

A wife's instigation can be tougher to endure than the actual problem itself. Therefore my sympathy to Al, who was wrapping up the interview nicely -had all the issues addressed at as a true gentleman- and had to make room for his wife's claim.

I think you are making too big of a deal about this personally.  While both The Beatles and The Beach Boys were undoubtedly successful at the time the "Vegetables" session took place, I don't think anyone in either band was spending too much time thinking about "how will this session be looked upon by people forty plus years from now".  These guys lived in the moment and at that moment in time Mr. Jardine wanted to go home to bed.  Nothing wrong with that!  Sometimes in my opinion in evaluating these situations we have to put things into perspective as to how they would've been viewed back in 1967 (or whenever) and not how we view them today. 

I'm always surprised by the size of Al's ego. He doesn't look at being a Beach Boy as a lucky break. If anything, he thinks they're lucky he was around to suggest "Sloop John B" (which Al first showed Brian as an infant) and sing the lead to "Help Me Rhonda". And Brian really should be performing "California Saga", Al's masterpiece, more often. Brian was lucky someone found a way to reuse his "California Girls" riff. This world is so ungrateful! Didn't Paul McCartney get that it was bedtime?!

He was asked what he thought he brought to the band. Do you really expect him to say nothing?

He praised every other member of the band so not guilty.

Possibly but the booking sites are still using the words `ex-Beach Boys` it seems...

Undoubtedly successful at the time? I think that's a bit of an understatement, John. You had two of the (arguably) greatest songwriters in the history of popular music in the studio together - in 1967 no less - recording. It's not like this was a common practice. ;)

Also, as it turned out 40, well 50 years later, I think the Beach Boys were very aware of the "special-ness"  of their dealings with The Beatles. What's that story Mike has repeated about his infamous breakfast in India? And now he's added a George connection to his repertoire. Bruce was especially proud to have played a record for John and Paul in a hotel room. And, good old Brian has his share of nods to The Beatles, from calling a special meeting to discuss being "eclipsed" by The Beatles, to Rubber Soul blowing his mind and motivating him to do Pet Sounds, to Paul McCartney's favorite song. What's Paul's favorite song again? For some reason, Al not only didn't seem to value the experience, but actually wanted to leave. I'm sorry but I can't make sense out of that. Unless he's trying to impress us...

The last thing Al needed was some stoned out British puffball wasting his time. The guy had to get up in the morning. He kept it clean, and now he can sing like a flawless robot facsimile. Have you heard Paul lately? He sounds like a grandpa.

It's sounding like, post-C50, Brian and/or Al have gotten some warnings/words from legal teams regarding the use of the "Beach Boys" name.

If you study the myriad of other cases, "use of a trademark" is a very grey, subjective area. It isn't as simple (depending on who is willing to be litigious) as either calling it "The Beach Boys" (which Brian and Al obviously never have), or simply mentioning that the guys are members of the Beach Boys. There is a huge "in between" there, and it is often parsed in legal cases down to where the "billing" and "promotion information" are, how big the font is, and so on.

Whereas Al using the "Beach Boys" name in his band's title in the late 90's (BBFF) was a clear case of using the actual trademark in the band's name, simply mentioning in promotional materials (Brian Wilson and Al Jardine, original Beach Boys members, etc.) is usually fine; it's usually hard to keep people from stating their affiliations in that fashion. Al was apparently temporarily prohibited from doing so, but that was only during the various lawsuits in the early 2000's, where courts will often take temporarily more extreme measures while a case is being argued. By 2005 I believe, Al was once again allowed to bill himsefl as a "Beach Boy."

I think what you see in this interview as far as the issue of "using the Beach Boys name" is a mixture of lack of detail, lack of detailed familiarity with the law, and some good old fashioned hyperbole.

One more time quickly concerning the "no more shows for Wilson", it's blatantly clear that's a total red herring, both from Love and anyone still holding that specious reasoning up. The fact that that is still being bandied about despite the fact that nobody is even disputing such an e-mail exists (which is more than fair considering we have no proof of the e-mail beyond the weak argument that there is a "lack of contradiction" from anyone about it) speaks to the Love-esque "Legal Technicality" argument that leaves everybody with a bad taste in their mouth.

Ironically, while I’m very much using HYPERBOLE here, an argument could be made that while Brian was not fired by Mike, perhaps Al was. That is, if the “50 Big Ones” production company run by Mike, Brian, and Joe Thomas was employing everybody else in the band (including Al) and somehow facilitating the temporary use of Love’s license to use the BB name, then whomever ended the operation being run by that production company was in one sense (though likely not in a legal sense) firing everybody in the operation by folding the whole operation.

If I’m employed by a production company, and one of the members of that company doesn’t want to continue and folds the whole thing, I would certainly feel fired, or laid off, or whatever you want to call it.

Again, this is all a stretch. But it is a bit ironic, and may speak to any bitterness Al might have.

I think the interviewer was a tad indiscreet including the last few q&as… that kinda stuff was the interview breaking down naturally as it came to a close and don't do anyone any favours.

Yeah, that was rather odd. Please let me be clear: Al should know that anything he says can be printed. I’m not sure what, if any, journalistic missteps the guy may have made. But that did seem a very odd way to end a printed interview. The benefit to nosey fans is that we get some additional info to chew on (although it clearly still leaves it open to all sorts of opposing analyses).

It’s arguably implicit in the text we can read of the interview that Al knows it will be printed (and/or wants it to), but one hopes that after the interview ended, the interviewer clarified that he would be printing the entire exchange.

Usually, when we get this sort of stuff in print (or TV/film) interviews, the interviewer offers some preface or afterword that explains why they left the extraneous wrap-up stuff in, and perhaps analyzes this a bit. So it just comes across viscerally as a bit more odd when the whole thing is otherwise presented as the typical local news fluff piece publicizing a gig. This is the sort of thing you’d normally get in an issue of Rolling Stone or something with a page of build up and analysis, setting the scene and giving the whole thing more context.

"JM: I feel that the natural place is for all of you to be together."

That's all the professor ever thinks ans says as well....

'Tis true, and that was reaffirmed for me when I saw the C50 show in 2012. Before the LA Times letters and all the commotion, I already felt that the full band was the only real way for these guys to be.

There are plenty of semantics arguments and logic and deduction that can be used to argue why the guys should be together, and why the dissolution of the reunited lineup is so sad. But ultimately, it's just a sense. "Set end date" and all of that was bulls**t, but not just because of the litany of evidence that one could use to argue that it was BS. It was BS because I saw that show. I've been as pessimistic and jaded as a fan could be. I think the dissolution of the reunion was so frustrating because in 2012 the Beach Boys, all of them, including Mike Love, proved all the skeptical, nit-picky fans wrong. They kicked ass. They should have ended their careers that way. Not giving interviews like this one Al just gave, or the ones Mike gives. To his credit, at least Al would have rather been touring with the reunited band than having to give such an interview. But it's sad either way.

These interviews come and go similar to the chances of a "Nor'Easter" storm being in the forecast during those winters when I lived in Boston. Some of them caused major issues, some of them dropped some snow and blew over.

But you still can't help but to follow them and pore over the details like in this one. A few comments/questions, even though I probably know better by now...

First, is there really some legal action taken around the recent Brian and Al shows being promoted? I'll say this, and ask: When I first saw the billing with the words "founding members..." in the billing, my first thought was "wait for the lawsuit, wait for it...". So if there are legal actions surrounding that kind of billing in the name, I'm not surprised. If there are, though, it's pretty foolish if you ask me.

Second, this stuff again with the 50th tour.

Having done just a bit of business in my decades of life, I can pretty much say with confidence that the really big business or legal affairs whether from the biggest corporations, to small businesses, to Ebay transactions, to me booking a music gig for next month do not begin and end with a single email, or text, or call, or whatever. There is context, there is history, to borrow a term from even those shows like "Judge Judy" and "People's Court", there is an "email chain" that usually tells the more complete version of events that led up to and immediately followed whatever event or action may be in question. And as far as I know, verified emails to-and-from the parties involved are and can be considered legal evidence of how things played out.

So if we are going to base something that involved literally hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps a few dozen musicians and crew, equipment/travel/operations staff and arrangements, and the like, it's not about saying whether or not an email exists...

...but to get the story I think we may want to hear, isn't it more about getting the bigger picture that surrounded this one email, and see what led up to it and what may have followed it?

It's hard to believe that a business venture and a legal situation like a major concert tour would or did come down to or even hinge its future on a single email, and not just in this case of C50 but in nearly every business venture we could think of. Maybe there really is more to the story.

I'm pretty sure Al doesn't even know why he's not in the beach boys  :lol

Concerning Brian and Al and how their shows have been billed, I don’t think any legal action has taken place. I would imagine it’s more a case of agents or managers or perhaps legal counsel sending a letter simply warning against certain things.

I also think, and this is just my guess, that unlike the legal action regarding Al back circa 1999 where he was definitely using the trademark within his band’s name, it would be a much harder case to make to go after Brian and Al’s “tour” (if we are even calling it that) for simply indicating they are original and/or founding members. The ticket always says “Brian Wilson” (in many cases Al’s name isn’t even on the ticket). Any person, unless there is a legal injunction or something, can list things like “original/founding member” as long as it’s descriptive and is true.

An example of a more grey area would be if the ticket and concert poster and Ticketmaster listing all said something like “THE BEACH BOYS’ Brian Wilson & Al Jardine.” It would still be meant to be descriptive, but would have the trademark in the “artist name” itself, and would also be construed as potentially more confusing or misleading.

But there are a million dudes out there listing “former guitarist for RATT” and whatnot. Nothing wrong with that.

As far as the C50 stuff, it is all about context. It’s also about whether one is making a “legal” argument, versus a “moral” argument, versus a “logical” argument, and so on. Some have lamented that wishing for more reunion shows and whatnot is pointless, because it wasn’t going to happen, and therefore it’s useless to criticize those who may have brought about its demise. (Some are making what I feel is a much more specious and bizarre argument that Brian is responsible solely for the tour’s demise). But to the former point, I can only say that BB fans have lamented pointlessly many things. The BB’s career, especially from 1966 and on, is filled with countless lamentations of what could have been or should have been. I think there is a place for these largely and ultimately fruitless lamentations, especially when it concerns something that was relatively more possible and achievable (more “reunion” shows) versus something that had a million strikes against it (“Smile” coming out in 1967, etc.)

I  think, based on Al's comment, that an injunction was obtained to prevent Brian and Al, when booking and advertising concerts. from referring to the event as a Beach Boys concert, or saying anything to make people think the concert is a Beach Boys concert.  No one can stop Brian and Al from saying that they were founders of the Beach Boys and recorded records as members of the Beach Boys, because that's history.  But they cannout conduct business in a way that infringes on the business of the people that currently hold the exclusive license.  That's a $.02 legal opinion.   

I’m not sure if the court would view a petition for an injunction as frivolous in light of the fact that Brian and Al have never attempted, or expressed any desire, to book shows as “The Beach Boys.” I think you have to show some kind of cause to seek an injunction against a person or entity. You can’t simply cover all your bases by filing injunctions against people for things they might do. Then every trademark holder would file injunctions against everybody but themselves just to make sure nobody ever infringes.

I’m also thinking it would be quite possible if not extremely likely that, had an actual court granted an injunction post-2012, it would have hit the news/media, if for no other reason than it would have allowed them to stoke the flames even more regarding lawsuits and acrimony.

I’m still thinking that phone calls and perhaps letters went back and forth on these issues rather than actual court injunctions requested or granted.

I brought “Sloop John B” to the band, the iconic, legendary song “Sloop John B” – my idea. I helped Brian arrange that.

If that were Mike, he'd had added "And I never ever got a co-arranging credit!" :-D But Alas, Al's lawyers just ain't that good! ;D

Well to your first point I think again it was just around 1967 or so that pop music was just starting to get some recognition as a viable art form.  Even so neither Paul McCartney nor Brian Wilson was being publicly acknowledged by the masses (i.e. non-music fans) as two of the greatest songwriters in the history of popular music in 1967.  All of those accolades would come later on down the road.

As to your second point, I actually think it's a bit sad as to why The Beach Boys feel the need to namedrop The Beatles.  To me by this point in history The Beach Boys are legends in enough of themselves that they don't have to name drop so that they are associated with another group of legends.  What's unfortunate is that a lot of interviewers (the one who conducted this interview included) feel inclined that whenever they are interviewing one of the boys, to have to name drop The Beatles into the conversation.  To me I've always seen that as being disrespectful to the person that you are interviewing but The Beach Boys continue to engage such questions so I guess they don't mind which is all that really matters in the end.

I don't know if it's name-dropping in a negative "look at me!" kind of egotistical way (although we can ID that when it happens...), but in this case I'd say there is interest among fans to hear about a meeting at this particular time when both Paul and Brian were letting each other hear what were works-in-progress forms of songs from projects that would go on to become among the biggest legends in each musician's career that has shadowed everything they've done since, both famous and infamous depending on who you ask. Paul previewing Sgt. Pepper music, Brian working on Smile music, and the two worlds come together while Al is busy recording a vocal. I think the interest also lies in asking whether something that did not make it to the official released version(s) was heard or recorded that day, or others like it.

I think some of the Beatles backlash needs to be tempered just a bit because for fans and musicians, the interest goes pretty deep to get those glimpses into what was or what may have been going on for history's sake and for the interest of fans, and I think it goes beyond lionizing or over-hyping any given story because of who is involved. Al happened to be there that day, it's not name-dropping to me to describe what happened when there has been interest in this meeting for decades among fans of both bands and artists. Who better than someone who was actually there to ask about it?

I'd love to hear someone ask Al about "Loop De Loop":

"That song is another one right there. Geeze. So Brian was doing all these songs on his piano that would really knock you out. Incredible stuff, as good as Pet Sounds, I think. But then he'd record in his little home studio and it wouldn't sound right. They didn't sound like hit records to me, anyway.

One of those songs Brian played for us on his piano was 'Loop De Loop', or maybe he called it 'Sailing', or 'Loop Song' - I don't remember, actually. It was a fun little tune. I knew no one else was going to do a better recording, so I booked the big studios myself. Western, Sunset, and maybe some others I can't remember. We did a great big production, all kinds of sound effects that I spent a lot of time getting right. Wouldn't you know it, though, they wouldn't release the darn thing. They just wouldn't.

I thought that was a big missed opportunity."

That was perfect.

After AL reads this, he'll remember, and recite it in a future interview( otherwise he won't remember squat)

What is the old show biz saying?  No such thing as bad publicity or something like that?    I start with the assumption that all of the Beachboys are aware of and in agreement with their trademark and financial arrangements.  sounds like someone or some people want to have their cake and eat it too.

Aware? One would hope and assume. In agreement? Doubtful. I don't think all their votes have come down unanimously. The very few votes we're privy to via various publicly-available court rulings were not all unanimous.

But yes, I'm sure in many setups like the one they have, there are times when a board member votes one way, then continues to complain about things that may have come about because of the way they voted.

One of the odd comments to me is Al saying, "Well, Mr. Love has imposed an injunction that prohibits either of us, but mostly me. We’re kind of a threat because we do look like The Beach Boys".

The fact that he says "mostly me" maybe indicates that Al is referring to things from 15 years ago as much as he is referring to thiings now.

Not odd at all. Al has history of using the name, not Brian or Dave.

Um, yeah, don't quite know what to say!  It's, um, a genius idea?

Jeff's finally giving an interview on the split between he and Brian

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

Him. Between him and Brian.



Quote author=baseball95 link=topic=18286.msg476253#msg476253 date=1411441431]
Jeff's finally giving an interview on the split between he and Brian

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

I can't understand why no-one's ever thought of this before.

Oh... wait...

In all fairness, that "history" consists of pretty much one calendar year (1999) if we're talking about actually using the BB trademark in a band title (BBFF).

All of Al, Dave, and Brian have used variations on "original/founding member of the Beach Boys" in promotional materials.

Al's recent comments may be partly informed by all of the stuff that went down over a decade ago, because for a time, unlike Brian or Dave, Al was apparently prohibited from even advertising himself as a "Beach Boy." As I've mentioned before, that apparently was over and done with by 2005 when he seemed to be happy he was once again allowed to say he is a "Beach Boy." But I can imagine, perhaps even more than the "BBFF" name debacle, that period of time where he was not allowed to state what was factually true, that he was a "Beach Boy", might have been even more grating, even if it was a sort of lingering temporary effect of the various lawsuits.

If, recently, there have been some overtures about warnings for how Brian and Al advertise themselves, this may be what has irked him as of late.

It's hard to figure out what Al means because the corporation voted to give the license to Mike. Al had his shot and mucked it up. They presumably voted to not muddy up their own decision by also protecting the use of brand name.

If they want to change that then do it and quit whining about it. Jeez.

It seems likely Al is the minority vote (both figuratively and literally) in some of these instances, so I don't think he can do much else but whine. It seems he and Brian can vote differently from each other but still work together. Too bad that doesn't work in every permutation and combination of band members.

I don't think it's possible to fully figure out what exactly Al is referring to in this interview. Between his lack of ability or willingness to speak "legalese", and the fact that some of the things he's talking about could refer to either the more distant past (over a decade ago), or the last couple years, or both, I'm not sure we can fully decipher what he's talking about.

In that sense, the interview wasn't particularly fruitful. If you're going to go all out and get into a "hey, go ahead and publish my comments!" mood, you might as well blab everything outside of what will land you into a lawsuit. But it follows the pattern of all of the BB's (and sometimes their associates) of commenting on something and only raising more questions than answers.

As a fan, I have to say that I think the guys are incredibly short sighted. They're not going to live forever, they're not going to be able to play forever, and they are wasting time not being united. It's just foolish. Brian finally gets back into wanting to be a Beach Boy, committed to the band, and they let it end? The whole thing was just the ultimate Beach Boys fail, something the excel at. They really do blow it better than anyone.

It's a shame.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I remember (and I could be wrong), Al never billed himself or his band as "The Beach Boys", it was clearly "The Beach Boys Family And Friends". Short on memory and time at this moment, there may have been more sub-titles to that billing as well depending on the venue.

Now, was it worth going to court over this name? Obviously the court sided against Al, we know that and don't have to re-try the case. But seriously, I'll ask again, point blank: What was the likelihood of a fan buying a ticket to that and having the "confusion" element over which band was performing become an issue?

Ironically, again, the confusion that led to cancelled dates, mistaken bookings and promotional photos, and other related issues happened when Mike, the license holder who had the major issue with Al's use of the name due to potential "confusion" over booking these bands, was the one who may have caused more confusion for fans, venues, and local promoters when his organization was booking shows as the Beach Boys while the 50th tour was still traveling and playing. So fans, and agents, and venues - including people whose daily business it is to book bands - were not sure which Beach Boys they were going to get.

I don't know if ironic is the term, but it was an odd twist to say the least considering what happened with the "Family And Friends" debacle.

And at some point I think people would prefer to see things handled out of the court system, for a number of reasons.

My 2 cents.

More than one court found Al guilty of something.

Confusion over the brand happened when Al did not hold a license, the post C50 confusion happened while Mike did hold the license. Maybe not comparable.

Let's just be clear in case there is anyone out there not particular familiar with that situation. All of the court actions took place in civil court, not criminal court. I don't believe "guilty" is ever used as a ruling in civil lawsuits.

Al never called his band "The Beach Boys" and never expressed a desire to do so. His band title was, for most of 1999, "Beach Boys Family & Friends." It was ultimately found that it infringed on the "Beach Boys" trademark by virtue of having the trademark within the band's title.

How much confusion was there in 1999? I think the stronger case was made that it simply infringed on the trademark. There were some citations of specific gigs where people were "confused", but I would guess that didn't weigh as heavily in the cases as the simple fact that it the name used the trademark.

There were other issues where, strangely, even the court was not willing to say with certainty whether Al had a valid license in 1999. But it ultimately didn't matter, because once Mike had an exclusive license, it was a done deal.

And yes, there was a bit of noticeable irony when a couple of post-C50 shows were advertised with pictures of the full reunion band. This was indeed one of the "confusion" issues that BRI mentioned concerning Al's shows. It's funny, there were a few fans who immediately pointed out (certainly correctly I would think) that it was not Mike's doing that led to the C50 photos being used, but rather confused and disorganized promoters. But when this happened to Al in 1999, no such leniency was shown from a few fans.

I believe the court made it clear Al wrote his own license, signed it but no one else did, and began using the brand without a license.

The issue was using the brand without a license, Mike had a license post C50.

These two discussions are overlapping (a lot of it my fault), but let me borrow from the other and ask more simply:

The case could have been argued on the basis of the naming rights and fees to advertise with that name. How and why did it need to go into trying to seek "lost revenue" from Al, and how did that fall on Mike instead of BRI...meaning BRI could claim the unpaid fees, but what was the purpose of trying to seek "damages" and estimated lost revenue from Al, payable to Mike?

If I'm wrong on the basis of that open question, please correct. But I don't think the background is wrong...Mike tried to collect lost revenue and damages.

Was there more than one suit? The one I'm thinking of also went to court of appeals I think and I'm pretty sure was BRI vs Al.

A quick search brings up this story about Al's countersuit : http://www.mtv.com/news/1444977/beach-boy-jardine-splashes-former-bandmates-with-4-million-suit/

Digging a little deeper:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/love-v-jardine-headed-trial-129230 (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/love-v-jardine-headed-trial-129230)

The Beach Boys used to sing about endless summers. These days, at least two of them seem to be caught up in endless litigation.

The latest round came Tuesday when a judge rejected Beach Boys' singer Mike Love's motion to rule in his favor in Love's lawsuit against former bandmate Al Jardine. Instead, Superior Court Judge James R. Dunn ruled there was sufficient evidence for the matter to go to trial.

Dunn didn't immediately set a trial date, but Jardine's lawyer, Lawrence Noble, said he told attorneys for both sides to get in touch with him by the end of February to let him know the status of the dispute.

"The judge will then decide on a trial date, or if there should be mediation or additional motions," Noble said Wednesday. "Hopefully, this case will go away and Al Jardine can focus on making his music for his fans and not fending off this litigation."

Love's attorney, Phil Stillman, did not return a call for comment.

The Love-Jardine legal battle dates to 2001, when Jardine filed a $4 million action against Love and the Beach Boys' Brother Records Inc., alleging Love excluded him from concerts that year. The complaint was eventually dismissed and Love sued Jardine in 2003.

Dunn threw out part of Love's suit last September but allowed him to continue to seek $2 million in court costs and $1 million in earnings he says Jardine wrongly was paid for using the Beach Boys' name.

Love maintains only he has the legal right to perform under the name, and federal courts ruled in 2003 that Jardine must stop using Beach Boys in the title of his other bands. He had been performing under such names as Beach Boys Family & Friends and Al Jardine of the Beach Boys, but now calls his group Al Jardine's Endless Summer Band.

The Beach Boys were founded in 1961 by brothers Brian, Carl and Dennis Wilson, their cousin Love and Brian Wilson's friend Jardine.

Dennis Wilson died in 1983 and Carl Wilson died in 1998.

So I guess, so far, BRI sued Al, Al sued BRI, and Mike sued Al? What was the outcome of these suits?

As Alan was, technically, suing himself - twice - he won. And, er, lost.

Welcome to the whacky world of The Beach Boys.

Did he use a different lawyer to represent him as a plaintiff AND a defendant?

Such a bunch of odd, odd people in that band...

No, it's not an original idea but I give Al credit for wanting to shine some light on an era that the touring BBs don't acknowledge. If Al could tour with Blondie (or have him show up on some dates) and play heavily towards the early to mid 70's material, that would make for a great show. It would be nice to go to a show and not know exactly what you are going to hear.

Say what you will about Al but if I had to choose one living Beach Boy to see it would be Al (preferably backed up by Brian's band).

Another thought: There is talk in the Foskett interview thread about whether Jeff's move is motivated to give an fu to Brian's organization.  Couldn't the set up of the Mike/Bruce show be seen as an even bigger fu to Al since the sole purpose of the structure appears to be to keep him out?

And there would be maybe, as someone very recently said to me in a vaguely similar BB-related discussion, you, me and the nine other guys who care about this stuff in the audience.

An audience member who might not be familiar with material could still enjoy the show.

This is why us BB fans don't need a Rutles-style documentary on our favorite group; the real story is hilarious as it is.

Or just be plain bored.

I just don't think quality of a Beach Boys related show has to do with whether or not lots of well known hits are being played.

This interview with Al only serves to remind the world what an absolute clusterfuck of wasted time and squandered opportunities the last 20 years of Beach Boys' history is. They've spent more time in court with one another or being insulated from one another by a gaggle of managers, handlers and attorneys than they've spent onstage or in the studio... and what has it gotten them? Nothing. It's just sad, you know? What is is certainly amazing and nothing to be sneezed at, but... looking at what might have been... :(

More like  thirty five years.

I'll see your thirty five and raise you fifty three.

I agree. I've seen live shows where a band has performed only a handful of their hits and they were fantastic shows. I think only playing "greatest hits" is lazy and could possibly prevent fans from going to see them because they saw the same exact show a year or two prior. Now as AGD said, it may only be 10 people that want deeper cuts but why not do something for those 10 people who know there's more to your career than some surf and car hits.

Is 99% of the generic audience going to know Goin' To The Beach, Ballad of Ole' Betsy or Pisces Brothers?
Is 99% of the generic audience going to leave disappointed because they didn't hear California Dreamin', Why Do Fools Fall In Love or Rock & Roll Music? I highly doubt it. I could be wrong but I doubt it.

Cutting out those six songs and perform songs like All I Wanna Do, Deirdre, Here Today, Friends, California Saga (On My Way...) and maybe rotate Please Let Me Wonder* and The Warmth Of The Sun*. Little changes like that make the set so much more interesting and of those 7 songs, 4 of them are on 50 Big Ones. Who knows, they may turn the casual listener to something more by performing some fantastic songs they may not have heard before.

*I know they've performed these songs here and there but make them concert staples. By the way, bring back Wild Honey!

Sorry to go off topic but I do feel like Mike and Bruce could put together a better representation of The Beach Boys music that everyone could enjoy. Al's "Carl and Dennis" show isn't original but at least he tries to acknowledge all periods of The Beach Boys music and do something for those 9 or 10 people who are more than the casual fan.

Point being, the notion - not that it'll ever fly - seems to be to perform exclusively the songs of Carl & Dennis. No hits.

During C50, I remember how Al introduced Heroes and Villains: “Okay, we’re going to do something from our new album Smile.”

LOL

Remember that as far back as the early 70s, there was backlash whenever they played the 'non-classic' material. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Indeed. I think Daryl Dragon has said that even in the late 60s that fans would walk out when the played non-hits.